GENTILISM: 
 
 RELIGION 
 
 PREVIOUS TO 
 
 CHRISTIANITY. 
 
 BY 
 
 REV. AUG. J. THEBAUD. S. J. 
 
 ' 
 
 NEW YORK: 
 D. & J. SADLIER & COMPANY, 
 
 81 BARCLAY STREET. 
 1876.
 
 ENTERED according to Act of Congress, in the year 1875, by 
 
 D. & J. SADLIEB & COMPANY, 
 In the Office of the Librarian of Congress, at Washington. 
 
 EDWARD O. JENKINS, 
 
 PRINTER A.\D STERKOTYPER, 
 
 A) North WUllmrn Street. N. V.
 
 CONTENTS. 
 
 PAGE 
 
 PREFACE, - v.-xv. 
 
 CHAP. * 
 
 I. Introductory remarks on the Earth, its position and 
 configuration as proofs of design (I.); on the uni- 
 formity of nations in primitive times (II.); n the 
 obstacles they met against the preservation of their 
 traditions (III.), 1 
 
 II. The supposed Barbarism of primitive man, 60 
 
 III. Aboriginal religion obscured or destroyed by pantheism 
 
 or polytheism in Hindostan 106 
 
 IV. The primeval religion, and its decline, in Central Asia 
 
 and Africa 177 
 
 SECTION I. Central Asia Ibid 
 
 SECTION II. Africa Egypt and Ethiopia, 202 
 
 V. Religion in Pelasgic Greece 272 
 
 VI. Introduction of Idolatry in Heroic Greece 312 
 
 VII. Hellenic Philosophy as a channel of Tradition 363 
 
 VIII. The Greek and Latin Poets as guardians of truth 393 
 
 IX. Supplementary, on the primitive religion in \Vestern 
 Asia: Chaldaea, Phoenicia, Syria, and Arabia; on 
 the superiority and influence of Hebrew Monothe- 
 ism ; on what is known of the religion of Turanian 
 Races , 436 
 
 APPENDIX 1 489 
 
 APPENDIX II 503 
 
 INDEX.. 513
 
 PREFACE. 
 
 THE great question between the friends of revealed religion 
 and its opponents has always been, more or less, a question of 
 origin. - For it is the special character of our Holy Scriptures 
 that every thing in them is precise, and asserted in clear terms. 
 In the boldest flights of poetry our inspired prophets never 
 contradict for an instant the positive statements of our sacred 
 annalists and historians. In this the authors of the Bible differ 
 essentially from all other ancient writers on cosmogony and 
 the origin of mankind. Hence, in conformity with their 
 narrative, man cannot be supposed to have appeared on earth 
 millions of years ago ; and thus is found an occasion of attack. 
 
 The chronology of Holy Writ is, it is true, to a certain de- 
 gree, elastic. The Church has never adopted any system on 
 the subject ; and her children are free to place the first appear- 
 ance of man in creation, at any period they choose consistent 
 with any one of the various authorized versions of Scripture ; 
 and if there is any question fairly raised between reverent and 
 orthodox exegetists on the sacred text, any one is at liberty to 
 adopt the system which refers to a higher antiquity the moment 
 of inception in the history of man. It is, morever, understood 
 by all that what precedes this solemn moment remains in Holy 
 Writ without real chronology, and, consistently with orthodoxy, 
 any length of time can be assigned to the formation of the 
 globe itself and to the successive creative acts related in the 
 first twenty-five verses of the first chapter of Genesis. 
 
 But it is clear that the period which has elapsed since the ap- 
 pearance of man cannot be of an indefinite duration. Conse- 
 
 (v)
 
 VI PKEFACE. 
 
 quently the opponents of revelation have always tried to give 
 him an antiquity which cannot be reconciled with the state- 
 ments of the Bihle. Already in the time of Origen the third 
 century of our era Celsus " produced from history, other than 
 that of the divine record, those passages which bear upon the 
 claims to great antiquity put forth by many nations, as the 
 Athenians, and Egyptians, and Arcadians, and Phrygians, who 
 assert that certain individuals have existed among them who 
 sprang from the earth, and who adduce proofs of these asser- 
 tions ; and he said that : ' The Jews, leading a grovelling life 
 in some corner of Palestine, and being a wholly uneducated 
 people, not having heard that these matters had been committed 
 Jto verse long before by Hesiod and innumerable other inspired 
 men, wove together some most incredible and insipid stories, 
 etc.' " (Adversus Celsum, Lib. IY., cap. xxxvi.) Edition of 
 Anter.Nicene Fathers. 
 
 From the time of Celsus down to our own, therefore, this 
 has been a standing objection against the revealed Word of God. 
 And all know the extraordinary efforts made last century to 
 prove by the records of India, Egypt, Greece, and many other 
 ancient nations, that man must claim an antiquity of hundreds 
 of thousands of years. But all those labors of erudition and 
 criticism have been reduced to naught, in our days, by the al- 
 most precise dates assigned by modern critics to the real origin 
 of all nations. There are only a few Egyptologists who dare 
 yet to believe in some of those fabulous stories.* The fact is, 
 
 * Among recent writers on the subject, Sir John Lubbock, in his " Pre- 
 historic Times," is one of the most notorious. In his disappointing 
 chapter on the " antiquity of man " disappointing, because treating 
 chiefly of the " antiquity of the globe " according to geologists he states 
 several facts to which he gives a meaning of his own, when many others 
 could as well be suggested. The chief one regards the excavations made 
 near the base of the huge statue of Rameses II., at Memphis. It seems 
 that Mr. Horntr found a "piece of pottery" at the depth of thirty-nino 
 feet, and Sir John Lubbock forthwith concludes that man existed in
 
 PEEFACE. VU 
 
 that neither in the numerous most ancient records of Ilindo- 
 stan, nor on the monuments of Egypt, nor anywhere else, can 
 there be found any positive proof of such extraordinary an- 
 tiquity, for the simple reason that all Southern and Eastern 
 nations paid no regard whatever to chronology ; and nothing, 
 either in their writings or on their monuments, can indicate 
 positively the succession of time. All that modern antiquarians 
 have to do is to establish a relative antiquity among them, 
 without being able to assign a starting-point. Thus the wise 
 among modern scientists have altogether abandoned the idea of 
 looking into those records for what cannot be found there. The 
 truth is, as we have already observed: The Bible is the only 
 book of real antiquity which is precise, and deals in positive 
 assertions. And this circumstance, whilst it affords, in fact, a 
 great presumption in favor of its truth, supplies enemies with 
 a strong motive for assailing it. 
 
 The proceedings, therefore, of those who wish to distinguish 
 themselves by endeavoring to place revelation in antagonism to 
 science, have taken an altogether new direction. They have, 
 we may say, abandoned history and the study of the oldest ex- 
 isting monuments, which are, in fact, in open opposition to their 
 theories, and they think they will find in natural science the 
 antagonism they are in search of. Hence the celebrated theory 
 of " evolution." They imagine they can prove, not only for 
 other organized beings which might be granted them but 
 even for man, what seems to be the fact for inorganic matter, 
 chiefly for the frame-work of our globe : a gradual develop- 
 
 Egypt 13,000 years ago. But suppose that, before erecting such an im- 
 mense colossus, the Egyptians dug down forty feet, to find a sure founda- 
 tion below the alluvium builders of astronomical observatories go some 
 times as deep to secure their telescopes against exterior motion in such 
 case can we not suggest that some unlucky workman may have let fall 
 there a "piece of pottery," the innocent cause of so many speculations? 
 Should this suggestion not be admissible in the present case, many others 
 can be offered.
 
 Vlll PREFACE. 
 
 ment ; in this case an evolution from aerial vapor to tlie solid 
 and diversified crust of our dwelling. But we are sure they 
 cannot do so for man. 
 
 First, Science is not yet on their side altogether, with re- 
 spect to the origin and essential nature of species; and the 
 number of men learned in natural history who have not been 
 convinced by all the facts accumulated by their chief leader, 
 Mr. Darwin, is yet a stumbling-block to the universal acceptance 
 of the system. We have no fear that further discoveries wi 1 
 demonstrate the soundness of their views. We think, on the 
 contrary, that as Lamark, who first broached the theory on a 
 large scale, remained finally without almost any followers, so 
 likewise those who now have revived his enterprise, will see 
 behind them a scanty number of fervent disciples, when the 
 ardor always natural to a new system shall have cooled. 
 
 "We must, however, leave the discussion of the subject to 
 special writers, who have made these studies the object of their 
 life. Some have already appeared worthy of respect. Others 
 will follow, to bring on the usual triumph of truth. 
 
 Meanwhile, in our opinion, the historical treatment of the 
 subject ought not to be discarded. It ought, on the contrary, 
 to be more insisted upon than ever ; for human history cannot 
 contradict natural science, and what it obliges us to accept, has 
 to be accepted. It is true, the gentlemen who give to man a 
 really fabulous antiquity altogether unacceptable to Christians, 
 imagine they can place themselves in a position of safety with 
 respect to the direct testimony of history, by the assertion that 
 man could not have annals nor monuments when he was yet 
 unconscious. For, in their opinion, the natural passage by evo- 
 lution of the ancestors of man from the original " protoplasm " 
 to the state of a well-developed "ape," must have required 
 millions of years of complete unconsciousness ; and how many 
 ages more must have been necessary for a " Simian anthropoid " 
 to acquire the art of sharpening flint into an arrow, and a stick
 
 PREFACE. IX 
 
 of hard wd into a spear, not to mention the farther greater 
 progress supposed by the invention of a covering of leaves for 
 their nudity ? During all this time, of course, the ancestors of 
 man were absolutely "unconscious^' And, finally, the com- 
 menceme.nt of " records," rude at first and of the simples* 
 kind first proof of real " consciousness " supposes another 
 long series of years. This we find substantially in an article 
 of- the North American Review, for October, 1S73. The con- 
 clusion is that historical times, the only ones which we can dis- 
 cuss, have been preceded by long, long ages which give alto-*, 
 gether the lie to the Bible of Jews and Christians. 
 
 This, of course, supposes that the whole system of evolution 
 has been proved without fear of contradiction. This will 
 scarcely be maintained by even the most fervent " scientists." 
 And, what is more, we will venture to assert that such a dem- 
 onstration never will be forthcoming. But we will not insist 
 on this. Our purport is very different we say : We assert, 
 that if things had taken place as the evolutionists assure us they 
 have, the first records of mankind would be those of rude people 
 just emerging from barbarism. In poy| of art and culture, in 
 point of ideas and language, chiefly in point of religion, we 
 should find in their social state the most rude elements of a "child- 
 ish" and " growing " soul ; we should be able to trace the steps by 
 which, from the first notions of a coarse religious system, they 
 would have arrived at the point of inventing God and aH Sis 
 attributes. This would have been in the sense of evolutionists 
 a mere subjective theory perfectly independent of any objective 
 Divine Essence, and having nothing in common with th% cer- 
 tain belief that the reason of man can know God and demon- 
 strate to himself Hi a existence. They assert it has been so, and 
 that historical man began everywhere by being a barbarian. 
 Here we join issue with them, and one of the great purports 
 of this volume will be, to establish solidly the fact, that man 
 appeared first in a state of civilization, possessed of noble ideas
 
 X PREFACE. 
 
 as to his own origin, the Creator, One Supreme G^, ruling the 
 universe, etc. We intend to prove historically that he invented 
 none of the great religious and moral truths by the process 
 mentioned above; but that these came to him from heaven. 
 We will endeavor to show the first men everywhere, monothe- 
 ists, generally pure in their morals, dignified in their bearing, 
 and cultivated in their intellect. Should this be well and 
 firmly established, the whole monstrous system of man's evolu- 
 tion falls to the ground. Still "more will this be the case if it 
 'be proved, besides, that the supposed " continuous progress," 
 w which is the main-stay of their theory, is a dream, a non-entity ; 
 that on the contrary man everywhere progressed in the wrong 
 direction, going from monotheism to pantheism, from this to 
 idolatry, and from this last to " individualism " in religion ; that 
 this seems to be the law which has governed mankind until the 
 Redeemer happened to bring back man to truth, and to found 
 at last a true and strict religious society, not confined to one 
 nation like Judaism, but universal. 
 
 Progress is a fine and catching word, but its greatest admirers 
 are themselves bound to confess that, historically, it has been 
 distinguished by many an overthrow ; the edifice in process of 
 Construction has often crumbled into ruins, and the savage 
 Goth has spurned with his foot the graciously-moulded Grecian 
 Vtatue, the last and perfect expression of art. No sensible man 
 can admit a " continuous progress " in history. Yet is it of the 
 nature of evolution to be " continuous," since history cannot 
 contradict natural science. If evolution is once interrupted, it 
 ceases entirely to be, and must start afresh. But we intend to 
 go much farther than this, and to prove our previous assertion : 
 that nations, after having reached a certain point, always " pro- 
 gress backward," and lose gradually the steps in advance they 
 had made. This at least seems to be the historical law for the 
 times anterior to Christianity. 
 
 As we treat chiefly the religious question, this will appear
 
 PREFACE. XI 
 
 very distinctly, we hope, in these pages, and independently of 
 the antagonism sensible men always feel for system-mongers. 
 The matter we treat of has a peculiar interest of its own, which 
 of itself is calculated to attract the serious attention of the 
 reader. 
 
 There is an obvious want even in the actual forward state of 
 historical studies of a simple, easily understood, concrete view 
 of the origin of the false religions >rhich have afflicted man- 
 kind. Many notions on the subject are afloat, but they are 
 vague, shifting, and unsatisfactory. A thorough investigation 
 of this question, it is true, would require immense develop- 
 ments ; and we intend to devote to it only a few pages. But 
 at least a comprehensive compendium will not be worthless, if 
 it is clear and firmly grounded. 
 
 Gentilism, in fact, has remained until our days in a state of 
 hopeless confusion ; and the author of " Gentile and Jew " has 
 not in the least rendered the subject clearer. We have not 
 the presumption to lay claim to more erudition than is con- 
 tained in the above-mentioned work, nor even to as much. But 
 we complain that the reader rises from its perusal not one whit 
 more enlightened on the subject of the origin and growth of 
 the whole delusion than when he commenced it. Now we 
 think that something at least can be said on a subject at once 
 so instructive and so interesting. And it is time to say it. 
 For this, we will call to our help what we know of antiques ; 
 and by its aid {&>ne endeavor to explain the enigma of the 
 origin of error. On our way we may investigate some celebrated 
 myths on which we think a flood of light has been thrown by 
 late investigations. The greater number of them, however, 
 are quite without any such illumination, and thus we leave them 
 in their obscurity. 
 
 The valuable discoveries lately made in the antiquities of In- 
 dia, Bactriana, Egypt, and Greece, render possible such a short 
 work as we undertake. It would have been little more than
 
 Xll PEEFACE. 
 
 theoretical some fifty years ago. By these discoveries the range 
 of Geutilism has been greatly extended. Formerly, scarcely 
 anything was understood by the word but what came to us from 
 Greece and Borne. Now the whole Gentile world, chiefly the 
 central part of it, Hindostan and Egypt, has to be included ; 
 and as in this study each part helps the whole, the actual 
 knowledge we have of India and Central Asia throws a flood 
 of light on the mythology of Egypt and Greece. Many things, 
 in fact, which could not be known to the Greeks of the age of 
 Pericles, which were perfectly unknown to the Romans, which 
 were scarcely and dimly seen fifty years ago, are now clear and 
 palpable ; and the sure derivation of truth and error from the 
 east and north towards the west and the south must be now con- 
 sidered as a fact above possible contradiction. 
 
 When the antiquities of Europe alone were known, or, rather, 
 when people thought they knew them, many important points 
 remained almost completely in the dark. One of these among 
 others deserves, so early as this, a rapid mention. The starting- 
 point of humanity from light and culture, and not from dark- 
 ness and savageiy, could scarcely be explained satisfactorily, be- 
 cause of the long ages during which our European ancestors 
 had been plunged in comparative barbarism, or, at least, in what 
 was thought to be such. The clear-speaking sacred books of 
 India have removed in great part the difficulty, and the result 
 h^been a reflected light on the west, enabling us to appreciate 
 much better the "heroic ages" of Hellas. |jpven t)ne numer- 
 ous tribes of barbarians of the north, who destroyedthe Roman 
 power, could not have been so rude in their beginnings, as when 
 they swarmed into Europe ; for their languages, as well as many 
 traditions preserved among them, show manifestly that they 
 came originally from a centre of light, and that the condition 
 in which they were when they invaded Gaul, Italy, and Greece 
 was not their primitive state, but had been gradually produced 
 by that historical law, to which we have alluded, by which na-
 
 PREFACE. Xlll 
 
 tions left to themselves naturally degenerate and fall into gross 
 superstition and degftded customs. 
 
 Hence, we hope to be able to give a completely different turn 
 to the myth of Prometheus, who was supposed to have invented, 
 to the profit of mankind, the art of speech nay, reason and 
 memory, as well as the use of fire, and of^ more comfortable 
 dwellings than caves and holes underneath the ground. ^Eschy- 
 lus, we shall see, had no real conception of the great truths con- 
 cealed under the noble allegory which he produced so splendidly 
 on the Grecian stage ; and that poet was probably the cause of 
 the common error of many subsequent authors, who represented 
 man as at first feeding- on acorns and addicted to all the instincts 
 
 o 
 
 of the brute. We never find such myths in the oldest poems 
 or compositions of the Far Orient. There, on the contrary, it 
 is always the reign of the gods on earth, the happy life of 
 JZishis, of patriarchs, of men nourished intellectually by the 
 sublime effusions of the noblest upanishads, and, physically, by 
 the luscious and abundant fruits of a teeming and friendly earth, 
 We will try to find out which of the two, the East or the West. 
 is more likely to have spoken the truth. This is the problem 
 in its simplicity. 
 
 Those who will condescend to read this work ought not, how- 
 ever, to expect a complete demonstration as strict as that of a 
 mathematical theorem. Many reasons confined us within nar- 
 row limits ; and historical deductions are not susceptible of the 
 dogmatism leading to the absolute and final Q. E. D. We hope, 
 however, to establish that the balance of probability is found 
 overwhelmingly on the side herein advocated ; and that the 
 contrary position may be considered as decidedly untenable. It 
 will be for Christians merely a confirmation of what revealed 
 truth says with much more authority and innate power. 
 
 A last remark of consequence, in conclusion, is that the sub- 
 ject, most important and interesting in itself, possesses besides 
 this advantage, that it is the natural prelude to considerations
 
 XIV PREFACE. 
 
 of a far higher import. In studying the religious aspect of the 
 world, during several thousand years of Gentilism, we are neces- 
 sarily attracted by the grand spectacle offered to our view when, 
 at the end, the decomposition of all previous religious principles 
 took place, to make room for another pouring out of divine 
 effulgence, to last, this time, forever ; when the loss of those 
 truths first communicated by heaven to mankind was amply 
 compensated by a far higher and nobler revelation ; and when, 
 at the very moment of almost complete darkness, light broke 
 out afresh more brilliantly than ever, not to be obscured any 
 more, because the torch was intrusted to the hands of an infal- 
 lible guide. 
 
 The bright form of the Catholic Church arises on a sudden, 
 in the midst of universal darkness ; and the infinite boon con- 
 ferred on man by the Divine Redeemer is appreciated with a ten- 
 fold delight, because it comes unexpectedly after so many ages 
 of doubt and error. Gentilism becomes, thus, the natural in- 
 troduction to the study of the new, complete, final revelation 
 which followed it. Religion, invested henceforth with the per- 
 manent characters of universality, perpetuity, and holiness, takes 
 from the start the guidance of the world, never to lose hold of 
 the reins, in spite of all obstacles and of millions of enemies. 
 . TVTiere is the pen that can adequately describe that sublime 
 straggle, which has now lasted more than eighteen centuries ? 
 "What power of description is equal to such a theme ? Where 
 is that master of language who shall narrate in fit terms the 
 ' gradual spread of heavenly truth to the utmost bounds of the 
 earth embracing all nations, all races, all tribes and making 
 one family of mankind ; victories without number over a pow- 
 erful and hostile world ; and Christian holiness subduing the 
 passions of men, and establishing on earth the peaceful reign 
 of virtue? 
 
 The subject is so vast and of so exalted a nature, as to inspire 
 with fear the heart of any one who should make the "bold at-
 
 PREFACE. XV 
 
 tempt. Be ours the more modest task of describing the times 
 which preceded Christianity. There was no Church then ; at 
 least, no universal Church claiming the love and homage of all 
 mankind ; it was only the conflict of unorganized truth with all 
 the passions of man and all the fury of hell. The result was 
 unavoidable : Truth could not stand ; Error and Yice were des- 
 tined to conquer. Not so now, thank God ! The World has 
 now the Church to contend against, and the Church is stronger 
 than the World.
 
 GENTILISM: 
 
 RELIGION 
 
 PREVIOUS TO f 
 
 CH RISTIAN IT-Y.
 
 GENTILISM, 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 INTRODUCTORY REMARKS ON THE EARTH, ITS POSITION AND CONFIGURA- 
 TION AS PROOFS OF DESIGN (I) ON THE UNIFORMITY OP NATIONS IN 
 PRIMITIVE TIMES (II) ON THE OBSTACLES THEY MET TO THE PRE- 
 SERVATION, OF THEIR TRADITIONS (III). 
 
 Domini est Terra et pleniludo tjus. Ps. xxlii. 
 
 WHAT can be the object of our globe as it is fashioned ? How 
 is it adapted to human society? "Was it made originally for one 
 universal race, having but one religion or the reverse ? How 
 did the actual obstacles to the primitive plan originate ? What 
 must have been, therefore, the first state of society and religion 
 on its surface ? And, finally, how does revelation agree with rea- 
 son and history on the subject? These are the momentous 
 questions we propose to ourselves on the very threshold of our 
 investigations. We do not intend to treat them exprofesso in 
 this first chapter. But in it we shall confine ourselves to throw- 
 ing out in broad outline, by way of assertion, the several propo- 
 sitions which the remainder of the work will be devoted to 
 establishing. The rest of the work will afterwards fill up and 
 corroborate what we have sketched in advance, and make it, we 
 hope, clear and evident. 
 
 Our chief object is to show that man really came from heaven, 
 and did not receive his being from the development of an inf e 
 rior species. And a few preparatory observations will not be 
 misplaced on the relations which God established originally be- 
 tween Himself and the inhabitants of our globe, after the fall. 
 
 (l)
 
 2 GENTILISM. 
 
 to prepare them for the fulness of redemption and the bonds 
 of a higher uniformity. 
 
 The configuration of the globe, the unity of the human race, 
 the same language for all, the same primitive traditions given 
 to all, would seem to indicate that the intention of Providence 
 was to keep them united, and chiefly under the control of the 
 same worship. This was to be the form of universality in the 
 . patriarchal period, or rather until the Saviour should appear 
 and call all mankind to Himself cum exaltatus fuero, omnia 
 traham ad meipsum. 
 
 This plan of God was frustrated at the dispersion of nations. 
 Henceforth, we say, the ocean, the large rivers, the chains of 
 high mountains, and the deserts spread here and there over the 
 globe, became obstacles to intercourse, owing to the social 
 breaking up which then took place. And thus, the configura- 
 tion of the globe, instead of facilitating universal communica- 
 tion among men, was turned into a hindrance, or rather into an 
 almost insurmountable barrier. The primitive language was 
 replaced by a large number of idioms, many of which had. 
 scarcely any root! in common. To the unity of 'origin and of 
 species succeeded the diversity of races, a source of untold di- 
 vision. Finally, the primitive traditions were soon obscured, 
 and were, at length, disfigured by the grotesque mythologies 
 and absurd philosophies which then became prevalent to such 
 an extent, that only the faintest traces of them could be de- 
 tected in the mass of gross inventions which had buried them 
 out of sight, and those only here and there. Thus, what we 
 may call Patriarchal Catholicity, disappeared; chiefly owing 
 to a complete want of a central authority, for direction and 
 counsel even, which the existence of the Synagogue among the 
 Jews was not intended to furnish. Such are our preliminary 
 assertions. 
 
 But we must go a little more into detail before we advance 
 beyond our preparatory observations.
 
 INTEODUCTOBY. 
 
 I. 
 
 And first, "What does our globe itself tell us of its own con- 
 formation, and how does the revealed Word of God explain its 
 object ? 
 
 " There are men of our generation," says a sagacious writer 
 in the Dublin Review (July, 18Y3, page 67), "for whom 
 this world is only one of innumerable planets, careering through 
 space without any particular object ; while its inhabitants are, 
 more or less, intelligent animals, who know neither whence they 
 come nor whither they are going." 
 
 In spite of all the discoveries in modern science, it may be 
 said, that the number of such men as these increases every day ; 
 and we are fast going back to the period anterior to Christian- 
 ity, when the most important problems of human destiny, often 
 agitated by philosophers, had not yet reached the first rational 
 solution. Our globe is now much better known physically; 
 yet the moral ignorance of some learned men is as great as ever, 
 with respect both to man himself and to his dwelling religiously 
 considered. It is true, this is considered by them as out of the 
 pale of science, but is it so really ? 
 
 Revelation, we assert, has long ago solved even the physical 
 problem most satisfactorily to human reason, as well as to hu- 
 man conscience, and given us facts which true science has noth- 
 ing to do but to register. But its light is precisely the guide 
 which many refuse to admit. Unable to quench it, they re- 
 move it from the sphere of their vision; and thus, groping in 
 the* dark, they pretend that the utter obscurity of the divine 
 splendor is the most sure means of finding their lost way. We 
 assert that the revealed word of God was not certainly given to 
 teach us science ; but that not a single phrase of it, rightly un- 
 derstood, can be opposed to true science, and that there is much 
 in it which has anticipated science.
 
 4 GENTILISM. 
 
 Many ardent investigators of human knowledge in our days 
 imagine that, because revealed truth does not satisfy an idle 
 curiosity, and contents itself chiefly with giving us the informa- 
 tion required for the fulfilment of our eternal destiny, no ray 
 of light is thrown by it on external creation ; arid that, what- 
 ever it says of the origin of our dwelling, of its object in the 
 mind of God, and of the ways of Providence in its very his- 
 tory, is an absurd legend, worthy only of affording amusement 
 to children in the nursery. 
 
 Yet, as we shall presently see, the solution it gives to the 
 physical problem even of this earth, is the only one that can 
 satisfy rational beings ; and any one who does away witli it, or 
 refuses to take an account of it, has nothing to fall upon but 
 crude conjectures ending in materialism or scepticism. Hence 
 all the absurd cosmogonies which have ever been imagined, 
 from the time of the first Hindoos or Greeks to our own. At a 
 period of time before any other writings now extant, Holy 
 Scripture gave to man the noblest and justest idea of the im- 
 mensity of creation, and of the position of the earth in the phys- 
 ical heavens ; m and modern astronomers 'cannot expect, by all 
 their labor and discoveries, to do more in noticing the gen- 
 eral aspect of the whole exterior creation than comment on the 
 sublime imagery of Job, who wrote in the time of Moses, if not 
 before. 
 
 For whatever may have been the individual thoughts of the 
 time prophets of God, whatever sense they may have personally 
 attached to the words they uttered, the words themselves had a 
 deep meaning, intended surely by the Divine Kevealer to illu- 
 mine the future discoverers of His laws, and show them that 
 whatever they might discover He had created. Happy they, 
 should they pay attention to it ! Hence when Moses repre- 
 sented the Almighty creating light by His great fiat, before he 
 had launched into space the bright orb of the sun, he may 
 have continued to imagine that it was the sun itself which emit-
 
 LNTEODUCTOEY. 5 
 
 ted the effulgent rajs of light; but He had used an expres 
 sion on -which men might long afterwards ponder, and which 
 God alone could at the time utter ; He had asserted the crea- 
 tion, at the beginning, of the imponderable ether from which 
 light, and heat, and electricity must come. 
 
 Of the same nature are the astounding questions proposed by 
 the Almighty to Job, (Ch. xxxviii., 19, 24): "Where is the 
 place where light dwelleth, where is that of darkness ? . . . . 
 By what way is light spread, and heat distributed upon the 
 earth ?" Should the prophet of the land of Hus have dared to 
 open his lips when God spoke, he might have found the answer 
 easy, and replied : " Light dwelleth m the sun and stars, and 
 darkness wherever they do not shine. Light is spread by that 
 dazzling globe, and from its fiery furnace heat is distributed 
 upon the earth." But God would have repeated what He told 
 him at the beginning of this chapter (v. 2) : " Who is this man 
 that wrappeth up sentences in unskilful words ?" and Job, no 
 doubt, did not make the reply previously supposed, as he knew 
 his own ignorance in the presence of Eternal Truth ; and he 
 acknowledged humbly that what appeared to him easy of an- 
 swer was in fact unknown to him, since God said so ; and that 
 in spite of the testimony of his eyes, light and heat might come 
 from another source than the sun and stars. 
 
 After light itself, the innumerable bodies destined to set it 
 in motion through space, are described in Holy Scripture with 
 such a splendor of expression that never, either before or after, 
 has the ear of man heard such glowing and eloquent words on 
 so august a subject. Compare with it the low and ridiculous 
 ideas all the Greek physical philosophers, with the exception, 
 perhaps, of Pythagoras, had of the visible heavens ; remember 
 that one of the boldest among them thought he would astonish 
 his hearers by asSerting that the sun was as large as Pelopon- 
 nesus, and read Job afterwards. The only license we shall 
 allow ourselves, will be to place in a new juxtaposition the
 
 f> GENTILISM. 
 
 various verses of the sublime 38th Chapter, which relate to the 
 great subject under consideration. " Who can declare fhe order 
 of the heavens, and who can make the harmony of heaven 
 sleep ? (by interrupting it)." " Tell me, if thou knowest all 
 things : where does light dwell, and where is the place of dark- 
 ness ? That thou may'st bring everything to its own bounds, 
 and understand the paths of the dwelling thereof." How 
 could the immensity of creation be better expressed than in 
 making it co-extensive with light itself ? 
 
 Job had already said of God (CL ix., v. 8) : " He alone 
 spreadeth out the heavens, and walketh upon the waves of the 
 sea." " He made Arcturus, and Orion, and the Hyades, and 
 the constellations of the far south" un visible to us and to 
 Job. " He doeth things great, and incomprehensible, and won- 
 derful, of which there is no number." But God with a far greater 
 majesty, exclaims (Ch. xxxviii., v. 31) : " Shalt thou be able to 
 join together those shining stars, the Pleiades ?" by reducing 
 to naught the space between them " and canst thou stop the 
 turning about of Arcturus?" "Where wast thou when the 
 stars praised Me on the morning of creation, and all the sons of 
 God sang for joy ?" " Didst thou even since thy birth, com- 
 mand the morning, and show the dawning of the day its place ?" 
 " Canst thou bring forth the day star in its time, and make the 
 evening star to rise upon the children of the earth ?" " Dost 
 thou know the order of heaven, and canst thou set down the 
 reason thereof on the earth ?" 
 
 In vain, we think, would all the literature of Rome and 
 Greece, of the Far Orient and mysterious Egypt, be searched for 
 a single phrase containing at the same time as much truth and 
 as much poetry. 
 
 Alexander von Humboldt was struck by it ; and in his Cosmos, 
 (vol. 2, p. 41 2 ; Bohn's edit.) he says (The underlines are ours) : 
 " It is a characteristic of the poetry of the Hebrews, that as a 
 reflex of monotheism, it always embraces the universe in its
 
 INTRODUCTORY. 7 
 
 unity, comprising both terrestrial life and the luminous realms 
 of space. The Hebrew poet does not depict nature as a self- 
 dependent object, glorious in its individual beauty, but always 
 as in relation and subjection to a higher spiritual power. Nature 
 is to hima work of creation and order, the living expression of 
 the omnipresence of the Divinity in the visible world. Hence, 
 from the very nature of Hebrew lyrical poetry it is grand and 
 
 solemn Devoted to the pure contemplation of the Deity, 
 
 it remains clear and simple in the midst of the most figurative 
 forms of expression, delighting in- comparisons which recur 
 with almost rythmical regularity." 
 
 Commenting, page 413, on the Psalm 104, which he quotes 
 at length, Humboldt remarks: "We are astonished to find 
 in a lyrical poem of such a limited compass, the whole uni- 
 verse the heavens and the earth sketched with a few bold 
 touches." 
 
 " Similar views of the cosmos occur repeatedly in the Psalms, 
 and more fully perhaps in the 3^7th (38th?) Chap, of the Book 
 , of Job. The meteorological processes which take place in the 
 atmosphere, the formation and solution of vapor, the play of 
 its colors, the generation of hail, and the voice of the. rolling 
 thunder are described with individualizing accuracy ; and many 
 questions are propounded which we, in the present state of our 
 physical knowledge, may, indeed, be able to express under more 
 scientific definitions, but scarcely to answer satisfactorily." 
 
 The " more scientific definitions " may pass for what they are 
 worth ; a slightly greater knowledge often obliges our " scien- 
 tists " to change altogether their " definitions ;" but the fact 
 deserves to be recorded here : Humboldt himself acknowledges 
 that the questions propounded in the 38tfi Chapter of Job, " can 
 scarcely be answered satisfactorily," with all our modern knowl- 
 edge. 
 
 Yet, as we have before observed, the more science advances, 
 the more the accuracy, even of expression of these scientific
 
 8 GENTILISM. 
 
 hintings of Holy Scripture, sliows that, often at least, the words 
 themselves could not come but from the lips of God. 
 
 The same must be asserted of what the Book of Job says of 
 our globe, which is the proper subject of this chapter, and of 
 which we 4 must now begin to treat. 
 
 Who can read without astonishment and admiration the 7th 
 verse of Chap, xxvi: "He" God " stretcheth the north" 
 the northern constellations " over the empty space, and hang- 
 eth the earth upon nothing." There we have the position of 
 our globe in the physical heavens, accurately described in the 
 oldest book that remains to us of all those ever written by 
 man, unless, as some pretend, the first Yedas are more ancient. 
 
 Here, as usual, according to Humboldt, " Hebrew poetry 
 embraces the universe in its unity, comprising both terrestrial 
 life and the luminous realms of space" To understand the 
 phrase, the reader must remember that he stands, as Job stood, 
 on some point of the northern hemisphere ; and, looking at 
 night on the starry firmament, he sees "the North" the 
 boreal constellations " stretched over the empty space," and 
 he knows, as Job v knew already, since God had revealed it to 
 him, that " the earth is hung upon nothing." 
 
 Compare with this, we repeat, what all the Greek philoso- 
 phers have ever said of the cosmos. And all the Greek philoso- 
 phers, without exception, nourished long after the author of 
 the Book of * Job.* 
 
 Thus the oft-repeated objection disappears, that Science . 
 alone discovers the greatness of the physical world, and knows 
 
 * We speak of philosophers and physicists, not of the Latin and Greek 
 poets, who have preserve<lin their verse some precious fragments of the 
 primitive revelation. Our readers will remember here the line of Ovid 
 (Lib. 1, Metam.), 
 
 ' ' Ncc circumfwo pendebat in aere tellus 
 
 Ponderibus librata suis." 
 
 n 
 
 It lo >ks almost as a literal translation of the passage of Job just quoted.
 
 ESTTKODUCTOEY. 9 
 
 how to enlarge the ideas of man. The Author alone of that 
 immensity knows perfectly His secrets, and He had conde- 
 scended to reveal something of it to man more than thirty 
 centuries ago long before Science, as it is called, was born. 
 Yet puny man imagines that, because he sees a little more 
 than his immediate ancestors, he has no thanks to give to the 
 Creator of all* things. Nay, he claims to be himself almost the 
 very demiurgos, since, in his opinion, a discoverer can be called 
 an inventor, nay, a creator. 
 
 The strong light which the 7th verse of Chapter xxvi. throws 
 so suddenly on the isolation of our globe in space, is curiously 
 singled out and rendered more vivid by the apparent meta- 
 phoric obscurity of the Chapter xxxviii., as a bright ray becomes 
 more dazzling in the black emptiness of the camera obscura. 
 " Where wast though when I laid the foundations of the e*rth ? 
 Tell me if thou hast understanding ? Who hath laid the meas- 
 ures thereof, if thou knowest ? or who hath stretched the line 
 upon it ? Upon what are its bases grounded ? Or who laid 
 the corner-stone thereof I" Archbishop Kenrick, whose trans- 
 lation we adopt, remarks on the words we have underlined, 
 that " the position of the earth in space, unsupported, is clearly 
 intimated." The whole passage is metaphoric, and under 
 material images depicts the mighty operations of the great 
 creative mind. He alone knows the exact measure of our 
 globe which he has made, and he has stretched over its sur- 
 face the curved lines which give it its form. By requiring of 
 Job to tell " upon what its bases are grounded," He wanted 
 him evidently to answer, " Upon nothing." And the expres- 
 sion of the Septuagint version deserves to be here mentioned 
 as the word translated in the Vulgate by " bases " is in Greek 
 " Kpiitot" namely, rings or circles. Nothing is more remark- 
 able than this expression, since it is precisely the spherical 
 shape of the earth, the whole globular circumference press- 
 ing upon the attracting centre w r hich can explain how it
 
 10 GENTTLISM. 
 
 can "hang upon nothing." Physicists will easily understand 
 that even if our globe was the only one created, and if it 
 was not 'attracted by other spheres, but acted upon only by its 
 own forces, the earth would for ever stand immovable in space, 
 yet it would be and remain spherical through gravitation, and 
 owing to the force of cohesion which that very form sup- 
 poses and creates. Why modern interpreters have translated 
 the Hebrew word here by " bases," when the Septuagint 
 gave it the meaning of "circles" or "rings," we cannot say. 
 Bufr the Jewish translators, who wrote that version three hun- 
 dred years before Christ, thought themselves right in their in- 
 terpretation. And the Church has, to a certain degree, con- 
 secrated this particular version of the Bible, which all the Greek 
 Fathers have followed. 
 
 ^|e hope that our readers have drawn from what precedes 
 the conclusion, that God has not left altogether to " Science" 
 the task of instructing us on the immensity of creation, on 
 the mysterious nature of light, on the place and form of our 
 dwelling the small globe where we accomplish our mortal 
 destinies. From what precedes we can also conclude that the 
 Creator takes a particular care of this insignificant " spheroid," 
 without, however, neglecting the rest of His creation. What- 
 ever He may have dqne for the beings who, perhaps, inhabit 
 other planets has little or nothing to do with our eternal wel- 
 fare, and consequently of this His revelation has not spoken. 
 But how rich and abundant is the divine communication made 
 to us of all the details which may interest us with regard to the 
 precise little spot where we " move and have our being !" Let 
 us see : First, we can say but a word of that atmosphere where 
 the " waters which are above the firmament," as Moses describes 
 it, follow constantly the marvellous guidance of laws until now 
 almost perfectly unknown. We will merely repeat the few 
 words of Job : " Hast thou entered into the storehouses of the 
 snow, or hast thou beheld the treasures of the hail "....
 
 INTRODUCTORY. 11 
 
 " "Who gave a course to violent showers, or a way for noisy 
 thunder"; that it should rain on the earth, without man, in the 
 wilderness, where no mortal dwelleth ; that it should fill the 
 desert and desolate land, and should bring forth green grass ? 
 Who is the father of rain ? Or who begat the drops of dew J 
 Out of whose womb came the ice ? And the frost from heaven 
 who hath gendered it ? The waters are hardened like a stone, 
 and the surface of the deep is congealed " (Job, Oh. xxxviii). 
 
 This is the passage, with others of similar import, which 
 filled with admiration Humboldt himself ; who confessed that 
 many of these questions " can scarcely be answered " in the 
 actual state of our knowledge. Let us hope that the efforts 
 now made on this Continent of Xorth America by the " Signal 
 Bureau," will ultimately render less problematical the various 
 theories invented until our time by so many explorers and 
 meteorologists, to explain the innumerable processes of atmos- 
 pheric variations. 
 
 But two-thirds of our globe are covered with " the waters 
 that are under heaven," and which were from the beginning, 
 " gathered together into one place ;" and this " gathering toge- 
 ther of the waters God called the seas." (Gen., Oh. 1.) This 
 grand feature of our dwelling calls for a particular attention. 
 
 Whatever may have been the various theories by which cos- 
 rnologists have tried to explain the formation of our globe, and 
 the first functions of the immense atmosphere which from the 
 beginning enveloped it, the general opinion of the greatest phi- 
 Icfsophevs, beginning with Thales, has been conformable to the 
 inspired text of the Christian Scriptures. The earth, after its 
 first condensation, is supposed by nearly all the great thinkers 
 to have been surrounded by a vast envelope of aqueous vapors, 
 a part of which was ultimately condensed to form our ocean and 
 the rivers it receives, the other part remaining suspended in 
 the air and undistinguishable from it. This primitive process 
 of " the separation of the waters " must have been one of the
 
 12 GENTILISM. 
 
 grandest phenomena accompanying the birth of our globe. The 
 Book of Genesis devotes two or three lines to it, with the simpli- 
 city of an ordinary chronicle. And this very way of treating 
 such a stupendous subject is to every thinking man a suffi- 
 cient proof that God himself dictated the narrative. What 
 was, for His power, the pouring down of the liquid sea from 
 the ocean of the air ? Exactly what is for man the cooling of a 
 few drops of water into a glass receiver from the heated coils 
 of a cubic foot alambic. . A simple word or two expresses suf- 
 ficiently the wonderful fact. 
 
 But to please all minds, the splendor of inspired poetry was 
 to be thrown over the same creative act ; and, in his terrible 
 affliction, the prophet of the land of Hus was to hear from the 
 lips of God, and to preserve for all time to come the following 
 words: 
 
 (Chap, xxxviii., v. 8, and foil.) : " Who shut up the sea with 
 doors, when it brake forth as issuing out of the womb ?" 
 namely, from the atmosphere " When I made a cloud the gar- 
 ment thereof, and wrapped it in a mist as in swaddling bands ? 
 I set my bounds around it, and made it bars and doors ; and I 
 said : Hitherto thou shalt come, and thou shalt go no further ; 
 and here thou shalt break thy swelling waves." 
 
 The ocean here is individualized. It is a new-born infant. It 
 issues forth from the womb of the all-surrounding atmosphere. 
 It breaks forth having a cloud for its garment, and a mist in- 
 stead of swaddling bands. Could the .physical process be 
 better expressed, and .a more gracious image represent more 
 truthfully the passage of invisible vapor to liquid through the 
 intervening state of cloud or mist ? Often human poets have 
 expressed physical truths under graceful imagery. But how 
 often have they not failed either in the metaphorical expression 
 or in the exact statement of the truth? Here both were ad- 
 mirably rendered, many ages before Lavoisier, by the invention 
 of his gas-receiving tub, was the-first to render the process visible
 
 INTRODUCTORY. 13 
 
 to the eve of man ; for it is here the same phenomenon on a 
 scale commensurate with the globe. 
 
 After all this magnificence of language, a yet greater height 
 of sublimity is reached by the last words, which soar to the 
 utmost height possible to human language : " I set My bounds 
 around it, and made it bars and doors ; and I said : Hitherto 
 thou shalt come, and thou shalt go no further, and here thou 
 shalt break thy swelling waves." 
 
 And it is books containing such descriptions as these that 
 some men of the last and the present age have f nought they 
 could make the butt of their ridicule, and speak of them with 
 contempt as beneath the dignity of " Science." 
 
 "We could indefinitely enlarge on this theme, and snow how 
 correctly Holy Scripture speaks not only of the great features 
 of the earth, but likewise of the beings which fill the air, the 
 sea and the land. Humboldt calls it an "individualizing ac- 
 curacy." Compare its language in the description of the horse, 
 the crocodile, etc., with that of the great naturalists of past 
 ages, of Pliny the Elder, for instance, and the most renowned 
 philosophers of Greece, not excepting Aristotle, and men may 
 see on what side is true Science. We cannot, however, dis- 
 patch this branch of our subject without insisting on a par- 
 ticular reflexion of a general character. The whole hubbub 
 which is now raised, not only among " Scientists," but among 
 almost all classes of readers since " Science " is now popular- 
 ized is reduced in our days, to a great extent at least, to the 
 theory of "evolution" as explanatory of the existence of all 
 material substances, of the mind itself and of its most intricate 
 operations. We know what consequences are drawn from the 
 theory by some " leaders of thought " in our age, to explain 
 the formation of every species of beings, from an original " pro- 
 toplasm," by the action of laws independent, in their opinion, 
 of any creative act. There is undoubtedly some truth in the 
 theory of " evolution." But as the belief in the essential dis-
 
 14 GENTILISM. 
 
 tinction of species has not yet been overthrown by all the argu- 
 ments and facts adduced by the supporters of the system, since 
 many learned naturalists not only are not convinced, but appear 
 more persuaded than ever of the solidity of the doctrine op- 
 posed to the modern theories ; it is possible that the only frag- 
 ment of truth, after all, that the "new science" can rely upon, 
 consists in the fact that the production of material beings has 
 begun by the simplest forms, and proceeded gradually to more 
 complex organizations ; until the highest and noblest work of 
 nature appealed in our humanity. And it is remarkable that 
 the strongest proof, after all, that this is true as to the succession 
 of material beings is contained in the first chapter of the first 
 book of the Bible. For so it is. How could Moses begin his 
 narrative by speaking first of the creation of mere inorganic ele- 
 ments : earth, light, ether, called by him firmament, and water 
 either in the form of vapor suspended in the atmosphere, or 
 visible and gathered in the seas ; next of vegetable forms, be 
 fore reptiles and birds are introduced ; to be followed by aquatic 
 mammalia first, and later on by tame and untamed' quadrupeds ; 
 the whole of it to be crowned finally by the* creation of man ? 
 How could he do so, unless apprised of it by the Author Him- 
 self ? His narratiw reaches directly the most scientific form 
 that any book on natural history can take. Modern naturalists, 
 even now that the more proper and natural order is known, 
 begin generally their descriptions by the " bimana " man ; 
 then the " quadrumana " apes ; afterwards other " mammalia," 
 before they speak of inferior organizations; tljey thus unac- 
 countably reverse the natural order. Moses was the first, long 
 before " Science " was invented, to give the proper classification 
 of material beings, commencing by the most simple elements, 
 and ending by the most complex being man whom some 
 Fathers of the Church called, on that account, a " microcosm." 
 Let it be understood that this was the real evolution of mun- 
 laue things, and science will be reconciled with truth ; and the
 
 IXTKODUCTOEY. 15 
 
 first chapter of Genesis will be placed at the head of all scien- 
 tific treatises on natural history, as it surely deserves to be for 
 its accuracy and completeness. 
 
 Xature presented under this light, offers itself at once to the 
 most determined sceptic as the work of a designer ; and it is 
 precisely what many modern naturalists try their best to avoid. 
 When reproached with the tendency of their theories toward 
 materialism and atheism, they exclaim that they are misjudged, 
 and their intentions misconstructed. Yet it is undoubtedly the 
 main apparent object of all their scientific labor to take away 
 from human sight the view of design which many of them 
 certainly positively deny and to present creation as the result 
 of mechanical laws behind which mind may exist, but without 
 being seen or felt, without consequently deserving the gratitude 
 and love of man. 
 
 But in the narrative of Holy Scripture God is heard and seen 
 in the smallest as in the greatest things ; and we have to acknowl- 
 edge Him as the true Author, both of the design and of its 
 execution. For as Humboldt himself acknowledges, " the He- 
 brew poet does not depict nature as a self-dependent object, 
 glorious in its individual beauty ; but always as in relation and 
 subjection to a higher spiritual power. Nature is to him the 
 work of creation and order, the living expression of the omni- 
 presence of the Deity in the visible world." And thus it is 
 proper it should be. 
 
 Design is therefore visible in all the features of the earth, 
 the dwelling of man, the future temple of a universal Church. 
 But we must examine more in detail the configuration of its 
 surface as conducive to the great object in view ; namely, the 
 formation of a place adapted to all the evolutions of human 
 society, with respect either to distinct nations, or to the possi- 
 bility of combining them all in one great catholic whole. 
 Holy Scripture everywhere delights in speaking of the seas 
 and of the high mountains, and of the flowing rivers, as well
 
 16 GENTILISM. 
 
 as of arid deserts and level plains. It would be idle to imagine 
 that the chief object of the inspired writers was to please our 
 imagination by a striking description of those great features of 
 our globe. As from the very beginning, and throughout all 
 those glorious pages, we see mention made of the origin and 
 various fortunes of all the diverse nations, to which invariably 
 places are assigned often by a direct intervention of Provi- 
 dence, we must suppose that the actual configuration of the 
 earth was the result of a great design on the part of God, with 
 respect both to the social life of individual nations and to the 
 spread of the " universal kingdom " of God so often spoken of 
 in Scripture. We would, otherwise altogether misunderstand 
 the spirit and character of Holy Writ. 
 
 II. 
 
 Mankind was to come from a single pair ; and if the first 
 man had persevered in the state of holiness in which ho 
 was created, it is very possible that the surface of the globe 
 would have been very different from what it is. Nothing in 
 that case would have prevented mankind from remaining united, 
 and most probably human society would have existed as a Church 
 rather than as a civil government. It is, moreover, doubtful if 
 the waters of the universal flood, in retiring to their former 
 bed, restored to the continents and seas their former delimita- 
 tions. But these are mere theoretical questions of which we 
 cannot speak ; and we have merely to suppose that the actual 
 earth, as it exists since the flood, was intended for the dwelling 
 of actual men, such as we know them to be since the fall. 
 
 The general appearance of the earth, as sketched out on a map, 
 is that of an all-embracing ocean, over whose surface rise sev- 
 eral large continents, chiefly in the northern hemisphere. This 
 first aspect shows at once that the Designer intended all men to
 
 LNTKODUCTOKY. 17 
 
 have intercourse of some kind with each other ; an intercourse 
 well-nigh impossible without the all-surrounding seas, as it shall 
 presently appear. This is the first and general outlook (a). 
 
 But a more close consideration of the continents themselves, 
 with their chains of high mountains, their broad and long rivers, 
 and, in some cases, the large, sandy deserts or rocky and barren 
 plains, with which their surface is dotted, intimates that, so- 
 cially, man was not to form a universal republic, but must con- 
 sent to exist in larger or smaller groups, each of them sur- 
 rounded with well-defined limits, determining numerous nation- 
 alities. This is the particular aspect not inconsistent with the 
 first (&). 
 
 This state of human society shows itself directly of such a 
 nature, that, owing to numerous obstacles arising from the an- 
 tagonism of character in nations, a universal religion, humanly 
 speaking, is impossible ; and, if such an institution exists, it 
 must come directly from God. In the supposition, even, that 
 He has decreed it, it must remain subject to the play of the free 
 will left to man. Thus, the struggle of the Church to realize 
 itself, and to continue, after having once started into existence, 
 must be the main history of the true religion ; and it may re- 
 quire long ages to come to a complete and final state, although 
 all along the character of universality must be discernible. The 
 fact, however, that there can be but one religion coming from 
 God is plain enough, and need not be discussed in these 
 pages (c). 
 
 But, before we enter at length into these considerations, we 
 must speak first of the adaptability of the human race to the 
 whole globe, and show that the earth is really his dwelling, and 
 the dwelling of him alone, considered in its entirety. A fact 
 most striking and well-ascertained, now that our globe is known, 
 is that man not only adapts himself to all countries and all 'cli- 
 mates to which he migrates, but that it is in his nature to spread, 
 himself over all continents, and to take possession of the whole
 
 18 GEXTILISM. 
 
 earth, although he at first started from a single point. This ia 
 not the case in any single class of other living beings, even of 
 a high order. The learned and acute observers, who have writ- 
 ten on the geographical distribution of plants and animals, have 
 been obliged to draw on their maps curved lines, across the va- 
 rious meridians, showing the invariable limits in which the dif- 
 ferent orders and families of organized beings are confined. 
 And it would be a matter of great astonishment to find any in- 
 dividual of those orders and families out of the well-ascertained 
 limits of each. Yet such law does not bind man ; the whole 
 globe being his by the right of his organization and aptitudes. 
 
 It is time that man himself, in his character of lord of crea- 
 tion, can extend the sphere of existence of those inferior be- 
 ings, by transferring them wherever he chooses, and naturaliz- 
 ing many of them in other countries ; provided he follows some 
 rules of artificial acclimation. But man alone can do it; 
 and plants and animals will not of themselves choose a new 
 place of residence. Thus, even this apparent exception proves 
 that the whole earth is the dwelling of man and of him alone. 
 Many details contained in modern books of natural history 
 would render these considerations most striking and interesting. 
 AVe can only but refer to them in general. 
 
 (a) Man, endowed with such a general adaptability to all 
 parts of the globe, finds it made precisely to suit this quality 
 which he possesses, since the very distribution of water over the 
 earth shows the possibility for him to become acquainted and 
 deal socially with all other men. Yes ; the, oceans and rivers, 
 instead of being primarily dividing lines, intended to separate 
 men from each other, had precisely for their first object to be- 
 come highways and common channels of intercourse between 
 the various nations of mankind. To become convinced of this 
 truth, which is now, however, admitted by nearly all, we have 
 only to reflect on the great cause which rendered, for so many 
 ages, India and China almost totally unknown to Europeans.
 
 INTRODUCTORY. 19 
 
 The passage of ships around the Southern Cape of Africa, had 
 not jet become possible for western navigators, and the com- 
 munication between Europe and Eastern Asia was yet confined 
 to the exertions of a few undismayed travellers, or of Arabian 
 caravans through the old continent. It took then several years 
 to go from one end of it to the other. Hence only a few books 
 of travel conveyed all the information Europeans had received 
 concerning those distant regions, an information often impaired 
 by many fables ; and the only things they could see coming from 
 the great East were products of the land or manufactured goods 
 imported at a great labor and cost. Those countries were yet, 
 in the opinion of Western people, the dwelling of monsters and 
 the theatre of fabulous institutions. It looked almost as if the 
 inhabitants of the east and west belonged to two altogether 
 distinct species of beings, and dwelt in two different planets 
 scarcely connected together. But as soon as Yasco de Gama 
 opened the gates of the vast Indian Ocean, a new and wonder- 
 ful world was unfolded to the curiosity and energy of men of the 
 Japhetic race, for so many centuries estranged from their Mon- 
 golian brethren. The way existed before, but was closed. Had 
 not the ocean been there, should we know much more at this 
 time of Hmdostan and Japan than our ancestors four centuries 
 ago ? Again, supposing that in place of the Atlantic, a barren 
 desert, a far larger Sahara than that of Africa, had stretched it- 
 self between the old world and the new, it would have required 
 a persistence, an energy, and a foreknowledge far superior to 
 that which has immortalized Columbus to bring in contact the 
 adventurous Spaniards and the simple-minded natives of Cuba, 
 which then would have been in the midst of a vast continent. 
 God, therefore, could not render more easy the spread of the 
 human race, and the subsequent intercourse of all its members 
 together, than by covering our earth with the universal element 
 where wood can float, and where a simple sheet of canvas can 
 become a sure means of propulsion through the waves, by op-
 
 20 GEXTILISM. 
 
 posing, in a few feet of the atmosphere, the free passage of a 
 current of air. We do not speak of the modern means of loco- 
 motion, since they never would have been found out by man, 
 if the previous ones, more simple, natural, and always of uni- 
 versal use, had not been first known and adopted from the be- 
 ginning of navigation. 
 
 King David knew this particularity of our globe when 
 he exclaimed (Psalm xxiii. 2) : " God hath founded the 
 earth upon the seas, and established it upon the floods," 
 and (Ps. cxxxv. 6) : " God has spread out the earth upon the 
 waters." 
 
 And the sublime king-poet knew the object of this earthly 
 arrangement when he cried out (Ps. ciii. 25) : " Look at the 
 great and wide sea, wherein are creeping things without num- 
 ber, both small and great beasts. There go the ships ; there is 
 that leviathan Thou hast made to play therein." 
 
 And (Ps. cvi. 23) : " They that go down to the sea in ships, 
 doing business in the great waters : these have seen the works 
 of the Lord, and His wonders in the deep. He " God " said 
 the word, and there arose a storm of wind; and the waves 
 thereof were lifted up .... And they cried to the Lord in 
 their affliction; and He brought them out of their distress. 
 And He turned the storm into a breeze ; and its waves were 
 still. And they rejoiced because they were still ; and He 
 brought them to the haven they wished for." 
 
 Job, long before, had in a few words, as usual, pictured viv- 
 idly this great feature of the earth and its object, when He said 
 (Chap. xxvi. 10) : " God hath set bounds about the waters, till 
 light and darkness come to an end .... By His power the 
 seas were suddenly gathered together, and His wisdom defeats 
 the proud." The prophet described thus the wide expansion 
 of the liquid element, spread wherever terrestrial light and 
 darkness extend, and this geographical fact, so favorable to the 
 general intercourse of mankind, is at the same time an impas
 
 IXTEODUCTOBY. 21 
 
 sable barrier against the ambition of a proud conqueror aiming 
 at universal dominion. 
 
 But Isaiah went further and announced openly the subser 
 vience of the seas to the conquests of religion, and the future 
 spread of the Church of Christ through the open highways of 
 the ocean, unamenable to the laws of a despotic police, and des- 
 tined for ever to be left free to the zeal of the messengers of 
 God (Chap. xlix. 11> 12, etc.) : " I will make all iny mountains a 
 way, and there shall be paths over their highest ranges. Be- 
 hold peoples shall come from afar, and behold these from the 
 north and from the seas, and these from the land of Sinim." 
 And (Chap. Ix. 4, 5, 9) : " Lift up thy eyes round about and 
 see : all these are gathered together ; they are come to thee : 
 thy sons shall come from afar, and thy daughters shall rise up 
 at thy side. Then shalt thou see and abound, and thy heart 
 shall wonder and be enlarged when multitudes from beyond 
 the seas shall be converted to thee, the strength of the Gentiles 
 shall come to thee ;" and v. 8 : " Who are these that fly as 
 clouds, and as doves to their dove-cotes ? For the islands wait 
 for me, and the ships of the sea in the beginning ; that I 
 may bring thy sons from afar ; their silver and their gold with 
 them, to the name of the Lord thy God, and to the Holy One 
 of Israel." Could stronger and clearer language express the 
 idea under consideration ? 
 
 And as the last words of a seer are always those which are 
 more particularly retained in the memory of his hearers, the 
 last verses of the prophet give yet more brilliancy to the 
 thought in the following words : " I will set a sign among 
 them, and I will send of them that shall be saved to the Gen- 
 tiles beyond the sea, into Africa and Lydia, them that draw the 
 bow ; into Italy and Greece, to the islands afar off, to them 
 that have not heard of Me and have not seen My glory. And 
 they shall declare My glory to the Gentiles." 
 
 (5.) According to the prophet, whom St. Jerome called an
 
 22 GENTILISM. 
 
 Evangelist, the mountains even were destined to be " a way " 
 for the general intercourse of men and the propagation of the 
 gospel. The sea, however, was a plainer and more universal 
 one. We may gay that naturally mountains are rather an 
 obstacle to the intercourse of mankind, and, in fact, they were 
 evidently intended for a very different object, and the great 
 feature of high mountain-chains so remarkable on the surface 
 of our globe was designed for a far dissimilar purpose, which 
 must now attract our attention. 
 
 By the cosmologist and the geologist the high ridges of rocks 
 by which the earth is intersected so as to furnish to geogra- 
 phers remarkable land-marks to guide them in their descrip- 
 tions are attributed to various causes and are supposed to be 
 destined to purely physical functions ; to the Christian philo- 
 sopher they afford considerations of a far higher order. For 
 him the earth at its creation was intended to become in time 
 the dwelling of intelligent and moral beings ; and the smallest 
 features even of its exterior organization must have some refer- 
 ence to this destination. Design must appear in all the details 
 of the works of God ; and the more striking ones in the exte- 
 rior arrangement of our globe must have a corresponding strik- 
 ing purpose with respect to the whole of mankind. 
 
 Thus, there can be no doubt that, viewed as a cause of varia- 
 tion of climate as powerful, at least, as the difference in de- 
 grees of latitude, mountains were formed designedly to render 
 the earth more pleasant and more universally habitable to man, 
 and that by gathering around their high peaks the vapors of the 
 atmosphere, they were to keep constantly filled the various 
 reservoirs of all rivers and lakes. But another grander purpose, 
 referable, in fact, to the whole history of mankind, appears to us 
 written, as it were, on their very rocks, and the most important 
 probably in the designs of the Creator. They were to form 
 immense parks, with well-defir ed limits, to inclose within them 
 the various nationalities into which mankind was destined to be
 
 INTRODUCTORY. 23 
 
 for ever divided. Apparently, therefore, a cause of division rather 
 than of union for man, one civil government, one despotism, 
 could not be possible ; and the true religion alone, coming from 
 God and possessing a divine power, would, at a future day, be 
 able to overcome all those barriers ; so that God would make, 
 according to Isaiah, " all His mountains a way, and there would 
 be paths over their highest ranges." (Ch. 49).. 
 
 We are not, therefore, surprised that the prophets of the old 
 law delighted so much in describing the mounts of God, and in 
 referring constantly to this, the greatest feature of our globe, 
 after the ocean. The mountains certainly did not fulfil that 
 high purpose during the whole ante-diluvian period ; but see 
 how soon after, when Xoah became a second father of the 
 human race, and left his sons to become directly the pro- 
 genitors of the various nations, tliis purpose is directly un- 
 folded. 
 
 We cannot show in detail the adaptation of all mountain- 
 chains to this object. They were not, moreover, intended to 
 fulfil it alone. The rivers, the seas, and the sandy deserts, as 
 well as the mountains, were destined to be the dividing lines of 
 nations and races. It is, however, to our purpose to give some 
 remarkable instances of it, in order to show that we are not 
 merely following the delusions of our fancy. 
 
 In his general description of Asia, Heeren uses the following 
 words : " To enable us to form an adequate notion of the natural 
 features of the different parts of Asia, and the intercourse of 
 its inhabitants which is dependent on the former, it is necessary 
 before all to become acquainted with the great mountain-ranges 
 which stretch across this portion of the globe, and determine, in 
 a great measure, the nature of the soil, and the mode of life of 
 its occupants. Two of these vast chains of mountains extend 
 across the continent from west to east, forming, by their ramifi- 
 cations to the north and south by "which they are connected 
 together a species of gigantic network; or, as it were, the
 
 24 GENTILISM. 
 
 skeleton on which the surface of the whole country is disposed, 
 and to which it is attached." 
 
 Then, describing them, he shows how the races of men which 
 they divide differ from each other. The first, the Altaic range, 
 in a great measure unknown to the Greeks, extends through the 
 southern part of Siberia, from the north of the Caspian Sea, in 
 the west, to the Pacific Ocean, near the Behring Straits ; the 
 second, known to the ancients under the name of Taurus, 
 stretches likewise through the whole continent from west to 
 east ; beginning in Asia Minor, then through Armenia, to the 
 north of which it becomes the Caucasus ; turning afterwards round 
 the southern coast of the Caspian Sea it runs along through the 
 countries known of old as Media, Hyrcania, Parthia, and Sog- 
 diana ; where it branches off into two lower chains, one going 
 north-east and the other south-east, embracing between both the 
 great Sandy Desert of Herodotus, known to us as the Desert of 
 Gobi, until it reaches finally the Pacific Ocean in Mantchou 
 Tartary. 
 
 These two great mountain-chains divide Asia into three parts 
 " essentially distinct," says Heeren, " from each other with re- 
 spect to climate, and the property of their soils ; and presenting 
 differences no less striking in the mode of life and manners of 
 their inhabitants." 
 
 These last are, 1st, the hunting and fishing tribes of Siberia 
 north of the 50th degree of latitude, and of the Altai mountains ; 
 2d, the pastoral and nomad nations known as the Mongol, 
 Kalmuc, and Sangarian tribes of Tartary, north of the 4:0th 
 degree; and, 3d, south of this parallel, the numerous agri- 
 cultural races inhabiting a country blessed with the choicest 
 gifts of nature ; so that as our author says : " The earliest 
 records of the human? race ascribe to this region the first 
 origin of tillage, of the cultivation of the vine, and the estab- 
 lishment of cities and political combinations." 
 
 These striking remarks show conclusively how mountain-
 
 INTEODUCTOEY. 25 
 
 Chains liave become, under Providence, the natural limits of 
 many races of different aptitudes ; and, carried into minor 
 details, this study might become yet more striking and interest- 
 ing. A mere child, looking over the map of Europe, will see 
 how Spain is divided from France by the Pyrenees ; Italy from 
 France and Germany by the Alps ; Turkey in Europe from 
 the Austrian provinces by the Balkan ; Austria from Russia 
 by the Carpathian mountains ; and how Russia in Europe was, 
 until last century, separated entirely from Asia by the Ural 
 chain. A good map of Switzerland would show, further, that 
 the tribes, originally distinct, which formed what we call the 
 Swiss Cantons, had, each of them, well-defined limits in the 
 highest ranges of the Alps. 
 
 These are merely particular instances, which could be 
 generalized and extended to nearly the whole globe. It is 
 clear that the various products of the whole earth the 
 result of the industry of each and all the races of mankind 
 destined to be interchanged by commerce, and thus to form a 
 bond of union among men, were dependent on this general 
 configuration of the globe. No diversity of products could be 
 obtained if a dead level obtaining everywhere, the same cli- 
 mate, the same atmospheric changes, the same energy of 
 nature, should be the universal feature of all countries ; and 
 in this case commerce among men would be out of the ques- 
 ' tion, as no interchange could benefit any one. At the bottom 
 of these considerations a subject opens which could furnish 
 matter to long dissertations. We can only point at it in a 
 few words. The multiform divisions of the earth require, 
 for drawing out their capabilities, as many different aptitudes 
 in those intrusted with the work; and the general result is 
 commercial intercourse on a large scale, and, consequently, 
 social union of some kind. We can thus easily understand 
 how the exterior geographical configuration of our planet com- 
 bines, with the diversity of human races, to form a connecting
 
 26 GENTILISM. 
 
 link for the whole, and tends to spread everywhere through 
 commerce a spirit of universal kindness and amity. We begin 
 to see, therefore, how design already appears tending benevo- 
 lently to fraternity and peace. But in the primitive plan of 
 Providence, this agency was to be pOAverfully strengthened by 
 the unity of mankind coming from a single pair, and drawing 
 the same blood from common ancestors. 
 
 We have not here to prove this unity. " Science " still 
 allows us to suppose it, since the greater number of learned 
 men still defend it energetically, and, we believe, victoriously. 
 But if " science " was universally to contradict it, we would 
 nevertheless prefer to follow the lead of " revelation/' which 
 has never yet contradicted itself as " science " has often done. 
 For the Christian there can be here no question. He must 
 admit Eedemption if he have any faith, and redemption sup- 
 poses the fall, and, consequently, a first single pair. There is 
 evidently nothing more to say. 
 
 The unity of mankind is, therefore, for us, a truth adopted 
 advisedly, conscientiously, and firmly. God created the race 
 one ; therefore He wished it to remain one. He placed in the 
 heart of all a feeling of sympathy for all those of the same 
 race ; and the line of Terentius, applauded so ardently many 
 ages later, expresses the feeling of all at all epochs, but 
 chiefly in primitive times, at the very cradle of mankind, not 
 long after the great calamity of the flood, when the traditions 
 of all families went back so easily to the first, that of Ifoah : 
 Homo sum / humani nihil a rue alienum puto. The passions 
 of the human heart, the divergent interests of many, the for- 
 getfulness of common human ties on the part of surrounding 
 multitudes, may stifle for a moment the voice of a common 
 blood speaking to the conscience of all, and uttering, at least 
 unconsciously, the low murmur of sympathy. But reflection 
 and the calmness of reason bring back infallibly, in times of 
 quiet and peace, the feeling which God has so firmly implanted
 
 INTRODUCTOKY. 27 
 
 in the breast of all, and which St. Paul expressed so felicitously 
 when he said to the Athenians : fecit Dcus ex uxo omne genus 
 hominirrn inhdbitare super universam faciem terrcs. The 
 crimes men often commit against this inward sentiment of a 
 common humanity, are no more an argument against it than the 
 occasional hatred of two brothers in the bosom of a single 
 family. 
 
 But it was chiefly in that early period of "human history, 
 when mankind before its dispersion lived, spoke, worked in a 
 kind of large community, so soon after the catastrophe which 
 had overwhelmed the whole species, and left but a small band 
 of three brothers, with their parents and their wives, that this 
 sentiment of universal brotherhood sank deeply in their 
 bosom, and must have become traditional in the race, even 
 after its dispersion. From that time down, through long ages 
 of ignorance, division, error, and crime, the small still voice 
 of human conscience continued to speak audibly, when the 
 storm of passion subsided, and appropriated the beautiful sen- 
 timent of the Latin poet before he had uttered it, as well as 
 after. 
 
 The unity of which we speak could not be forgotten in those 
 early ages, because the race had then but one language : erat 
 autem terra Icibu unius one tongue as well as one origin for 
 man. Had this language been invented ? Speech is a necessary 
 consequence of human thought, and social man can no more 
 be understood without it than God Himself without His 
 Eternal Word.* To speculate, therefore, on the supposed 
 
 * We do not mean to say that the personality of the Divine Word is 
 so necessarily connected with the idea of God in the reason of man, that 
 the belief of God once supposed the person of the Divine Word is thereby 
 known", since this great truth is above reason and required a positive 
 revelation. But an infinite mind cannot really be understood without an 
 infinite word or speech, and reflection will show directly the truth of the 
 proposition. The only thing really revealed is that both are distinct as 
 to personality in God.
 
 28 GENTILISM. 
 
 invention of language is at once ridiculous and childish. All 
 we know about it is, that man has never been a deaf and dumb 
 animal. Individual deaf and dumb persons can subsist in 
 human society, because they form an infinitely small minority, 
 and are helped by their more favored brethren, with whom 
 they have always had means of communication, even be- 
 fore the Abbs' de L'Epee invented for them a system of 
 signs. But a human commonwealth, even that of a small 
 tribe, composed altogether of deaf and dumb persons, is com- 
 pletely unintelligible. 
 
 It may be said, however, by the friends of evolutionism, 
 that man invented language gradually, as his mind was 
 evolved ; first, signs and indistict voices, like animals and birds ; 
 later on, a kind of pantomime, with, possibly, interjections and 
 ejaculations, when he had reached the intelligence of the ape ; 
 finally, articulate speech when his reason enjoyed full con- 
 sciousness. For this they assert. But in their system, as there 
 is no higher type than man, from which reason and, conse- 
 quently, language can be evolved, both must come, either from 
 mere matter, which is truly incomprehensible, and will not be 
 asserted by them, or by the intrinsic power or force of mind 
 itself, which from an almost indistinct germ is developed into 
 a mighty and powerful individuality. This is certainly their 
 only resource, and we doubt if they could express it in stronger 
 terms. But this development is more mysterious than creation 
 by a superior power. It is undoubtedly making something out 
 of nothing, without a supreme agency. And this is not mys- 
 terious only, but truly impossible. Ex nihilo nihil Jit, For 
 the intellect of man is evidently of so superior and altogether 
 different a nature from that of an ape, that evolving the first 
 from the second is producing something out of nothing. The 
 pretension, which they now put forward, of a sudden so to 
 speak development of the brain, would reduce the evolu- 
 tionists to be merely a materialistic sect, "and mere materialism
 
 I1STEODUCTOEY. 29 
 
 is now condemned forever, we hope. Language, as well as 
 reason, can no more come into existence by mere evolution, 
 than a complete star out of pure vacuum. Both must have 
 originated from above, and received their illumination and 
 power from the Eternal Word, Who illumines all men coming 
 into the world, and by Whom all things were made. 
 
 "We know, moreover, that mankind at first had but one 
 language, and we can see at once what a powerful means of 
 union there must have been in that great privilege of each 
 understanding all others and being understood by them all. 
 Had not this unappreciable prerogative been justly lost by the 
 overbearing pride of the builders of Babel, how different 
 would have been subsequent human history ! Could men 
 have ceased to form one great universal commonwealth, if they 
 had continued to speak the same idiom ? How many things, 
 at least, they would have forever kept in common, of which 
 they were deprived as soon as estranged from each other by 
 the very words they uttered. To understand it, let any one 
 reflect on the bond of union which remains between, for in- 
 stance, all English-speaking communities, even when perfectly 
 independent of the mother country.* 
 
 (c) The reader is, we trust, now prepared to understand the 
 real catholicity established at first amongst mankind, and which 
 
 * We find the following remarks on the " original unity between the 
 languages of Africa and Asia," in the " Herodotus " of Sir George Raw- 
 linson (N T ew York edit., 1870, page 525), and we merely copy them as 
 appropriate to our present subject : 
 
 " The peopling of Europe in primeval times by tribes having a similar 
 form of speech, which yielded everywhere to the Indo-European races, 
 .... is apparent from the position of the Lapps, Finns, Esths, and 
 Basques, whose dialects are of the Turanian type. Africa, where the 
 Hamitic character of speech prevails, might seem to he an exception, 
 more especially since Hamitism is represented by the best modern ethno- 
 grapher .... as a form of Sc-mitism, and distinct altogetbei from the 
 Turanian family, But the early Babylonian language, in its affinity with 
 the Susianian, the second column of the cuneiform trilingual inscriptions,
 
 30 GENTILISM. 
 
 took a directly religious aspect by tlie dogmatic truths and tlie 
 exterior rites of worship, which most certainly a primitive 
 revelation alone could grant liberally and equally to all the 
 children of Adam. We call this : Patriarchal Catholicity ; and 
 the uniformity of religious traditions among men in primitive 
 ages a well-established fact proves it beyond question. It is 
 known, moreover, that it took centuries for religion to become 
 totally corrupt ; and there was for a long time such a mixture 
 of truth and falsehood in the worship of various nations, that 
 nothing else than a primitive revelation can explain many 
 startling facts well ascertained by the labors of modern savants. 
 Even as late as the age of total darkness, just previous to the 
 appearing of the " light which was to illumine all men," we 
 are surprised to find ourselves occasionally blinded by the 
 bright flash of some primitive truths in the writings even of 
 shallow poets as Ovid and Horace. 
 
 The nations on parting from each other carried evidently 
 to their new homes the treasure confided to man at the first 
 unveiling of God himself to our humanity, and we shall be able 
 to trace many points of direction this " treasure " took. The 
 dogmas of the unity of the Godhead, preserved at least in the 
 personality of One Supreme among the gods ; of the exalted 
 
 the Armenian cuneiform, and the Mantchoo Tatar on the one hand, with 
 the Galla, the Gheez, and the ancient Egyptian on the other, may be 
 cited as a proof of the original unity between the languages of Africa and 
 Asia ; a unity sufficiently shadowed out in Genesis (x. 6-20), and con- 
 firmed by the manifold traditions concerning the two Ethiopia?, the 
 Cushites above Egypt, and the Cushites of the Per&ian Gulf. Ilamitism, 
 then, although no doubt the form of speech out of which Semiiism was 
 developed, is itself rather Turanian than Semite; and the triple division 
 corresponding to the sons of Noah .... may stUl be retained, the 
 Turanian being classed with the Hamitic." .... 
 
 The meaning of the whole is that "primitively" the language of 
 Europe had " a form similar " to that of Asia ami Africa, whose " oiiginal 
 unity is apparent to the best modern ethnographers ;" therefore linguistic 
 now confirms Genesis : terra erat labti unius.
 
 INTEODUCTOEY. 31 
 
 state of primeval man during the golden age ; of his fall, the 
 cause of all misfortunes ; of the immortality of his soul even 
 after the fall;* of the hope left at the bottom of Pandora's 
 box; of the necessity of expiations for sin, of sacrifices con- 
 sequently, chiefly the sacrifice of pure and innocent victims ; of 
 a possible expiation for sinful man by the austerity of penance, 
 except, perhaps, in the case of some few great, inexpiable crimes ; 
 of the communication of guilt passing from father to son, kept 
 till our days in the legislation of China, but in antiquity univer- 
 sal among all nations ; these truths stand out clear and precise 
 in the infancy of all ancient races, and previous to idolatry, by 
 which they were gradually clouded, though kept for a long 
 time under the veil of types or myths. 
 
 Besides these dogmas, the great facts, likewise, of creation, 
 under the shape of some imaginary cosmogony ; of a primitive 
 paradisiacal state of bliss, of subsequent evil creeping in and 
 degrading man ; of consequent universal corruption ; of the 
 flood following it, and of a renewed humanity starting on a 
 new career, are discovered more or less distinctly in the tradi- 
 tions of all Asiatic peoples without exception, and from Asia 
 passed over to Greece and Italy in Europe. Whoever reads the 
 first pages of the metamorphoses of Ovid cannot but see in them 
 a translation of the first chapters of Genesis adapted to the Ro- 
 mans of the Augustan age. 
 
 * Mr. E. B. Tylor, it is true, in his " Early History of Mankind," pre- 
 tends that " the general prevalence of a belief in the continuance of the 
 soul's existence after death, does not prove that all mankind have inher- 
 ited such a belief from a common source." He thinks that it was more 
 probably derived from dreams and visions of the dead of which he gives 
 in his introduction a list which he might have indefinitely enlarged ; but 
 few, we suppose, "will 'adopt his opinion ; for the reason, chiefly, that if 
 man did not previously believe in the "continuance of the soul's after- 
 death," he would have had indeed few " dreams and visions of the dead," 
 or would have laughed at them, should they ever come to trouble him. 
 The explanations of many modern thinkers are indeed too weak intellect- 
 ually to account for the universality of our traditions. 
 4
 
 32 GENTILISM. 
 
 But the religious rites of antiquity are of a yet more striking 
 character than the iew dogmas and facts preserved in the primi- 
 tive traditions of men. All nations had altars, priests, offer- 
 ings and sacrifices, a sacred fire, rites requiring lustral water, 
 libations of wine, sprinkling of salt and of flour, prayers recited 
 in a standing position with hands raised and head erect. The 
 rites of the patriarchal religion as related in Genesis, and devel- 
 oped later on by Moses in the " Leviticus," are reproduced al- 
 most identically in the poems of Homer ; in the long-subsequent 
 Greek dramas ; in the prayers and rites of the Etruscans in 
 Italy, whence the original religion of the Romans spnmg ; in 
 what we know of the primitive rites of the Chaldeans, the As- 
 syrians, the Persians, the Hindoos. The monuments which have 
 remained standing, after so many ages in Egypt, Italy, Greece, 
 Hindostan, and Persia, reproduce on their walls the scenes en- 
 acted, as we know, in Solomon's temple, and, at a much earlier 
 period, in front of the simple altars raised in Syria and Mesopo- 
 tamia by Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. 
 
 All these and many things else argue an identity of belief 
 and religious practice in primitive times; and we call it the 
 universal creed of old Catholicity, which lasted in its purity 
 about a thousand years, except probably at Babylon, where it 
 seems that the most rank idolatry followed close upon the dis- 
 persion of mankind.* 
 
 * Max Miiller, in his first lecture " On the Science of Religion," says : 
 " The theory that there was a primeval preternatural revelation granted 
 to the fathers of the human race, and that the grains of truth which catch 
 our eye when exploring the temples of the heathen idols, are the scattered 
 
 fragments of that sacred heirloom, would find but few supporters 
 
 at present; no more, in fact, than the opinion that there was in the be- 
 ginning one perfect, primeval language, broken up in later times into the 
 numberless languages of the world." If the celebrated writer meant and 
 thought that many have believed that there was "a primeval preternatu- 
 ral revelation," perfect in all its parts, and clear and precise as the credo 
 of the Christian, he is m'staken in the supposition; and (ertainly there 
 can be but few supporters of it. But if he thinks that God had not
 
 IKTEODUCTWEY. 33 
 
 It was, therefore, apparently from that great centre of unity 
 the former tower of Babel that error and superstition radiated 
 gradually toward all the points of the compass, and replaced 
 the pure patriarchal religion by all the -aberrations originating 
 in the corrupt inclinations of man ; so that Asia, the cradle of 
 primitive truth, became at last the hot-bed of the most abomi- 
 nable superstitions. 
 
 But the conclusion is irresistible, not, indeed, from the meagre 
 details our space has allowed us to give, but from the many 
 undeniable facts which have come down to us from the highest 
 antiquity, that God certainly revealed to man at the beginning 
 a number of truths which may be said to have formed in their 
 complexity a system of belief, and a code of morality all-suffi- 
 cient for the guidance of mankind ; and the germs of this primi- 
 tive revelation have been found scattered, yet preserved in the 
 traditions of all ancient nations. Should this not be admitted, 
 the universality of those traditions is truly inexplicable. Con- 
 trary to the supposition of those who believe that man ap- 
 peared at first everywhere in the savage state nay, derived all 
 his faculties from the brute the higher we reach in the history 
 of man, the nearer we come to his cradle, and the purer and 
 holier we find his religion to be. The oldest fragments pre- 
 served to us of human wisdom, are likewise the most rational 
 
 spoken to the patriarchs as He spoke later to Moses, and that few now 
 believe in such divine communication, he is again mistaken on a subject 
 with which he is, however, perfectly familiar. He seems, everywhere 
 in his writings, to imagine that the " primeval revelation " was only an 
 interior one to each individual, who found in his heart the great truths 
 of the unity of God, the creation of the universe, the necessity of expia- 
 tion for sins, etc. But how can he explain in this case the primitive 
 uniformity of belief which he himself admits, and of which he often 
 speaks so well and so eloquently ? In this age of wrangling we ought to 
 know at last, and Mr. Max Miiller ought to be one of the first to perceive, 
 that, with the "inner, individual word of God to man alone," there is no 
 possibility of uniformity in the human assent to truth ; although each one 
 certainly can reach it, when it is question of the domain of pure reason.
 
 34 GE1STTILISM. 
 
 and consistent with what we know to be the truth ; and without 
 going to the length of Cudworth in his " Sy 'sterna Intelleo- 
 'tuale" without attempting to prove that all the philosophies 
 and religions of antiquity asserted the dogmas of what we call 
 " natural religion," it is certain at least that by supposing mono- 
 theism and its cognate truths to have been at first admitted by 
 all, the gradual creeping in of error and the slow progress of 
 corruption in belief and morals, is much more naturally ex- 
 plained than in any other supposition ; and we shall see the 
 whole process unfold itself in these pages. 
 
 Yes ! all nations believed at first that there is a God superior 
 to all Powers the Almighty Father of gods and men, the 
 rewarder of right and the avenger of wrong ; that bliss and 
 woe after this life are to be eternal ; that there was first a 
 golden age when God communed with us ; that man lost this 
 privilege by disobedience, and that hope alone remained in the 
 midst of all the calamities originating in sin ; that expiation is 
 necessary and blood required for it ; that sacrifice, and chiefly 
 the sacrifice of the innocent, propitiates heaven ; that God's 
 law is written in the conscience of man, and notliing that this 
 conscience reproves can possibly be right ; finally, that a 
 heavenly teacher is required for our safe guidance, and that 
 the great hope left us in Pandora's box is, after all, the com- 
 ing of such a teacher. 
 
 But if all these truths were the universal treasure possessed 
 at the very beginning by men of all nations, history has not 
 begun universally by barbarism, and we have, on the contrary, 
 the strongest proof of an original culture among mankind. 
 The sublime being created to the image of God had not passed 
 through an interminable period of education, during which 
 modern theories pretend that he painfully and laboriously 
 developed himself, and actually changed many times his own 
 species, before he could acquire the erect position and the 
 faculty of speech and of abstract reasoning. The proofs of a
 
 35 
 
 primitive civilization, and of universally -received dogmas, 
 which could not come but from heaven, are too clear in the 
 oldest annals of mankind to allow the new-fangled notions of 
 " evolutionists " to prevail among sensible men, at least with 
 respect to the human kind. When the chronology of the 
 " stone period," of the " troglodytes," of the " lacustrine sub- 
 terranean villages," is as well established as that of the 
 Bible although no one thinks of raising any chronology to 
 the dignity of dogma it will be time to discuss the matter 
 coolly, and to see what reason can accept and what it cannot. 
 Should the defenders of the old doctrines by which human 
 society is upheld, use for their arguments such loose conjectures 
 and. baseless suppositions as many pretended " scientists " bring 
 forth to support their destructive systems, all the floods of 
 ridicule that engraving, printing, and oratory can let loose at 
 once to overwhelm antagonists, would certainly be lavishly 
 spread out against the luckless assertors of conservatism. But 
 because it is question only of upsetting the foundation-stones 
 of the social fabric, in order to erect a new and problematical 
 one in its place, whatever the new builders may assert, ought 
 to be considered as sacred and directly admitted as proved be- 
 yond question ; myriads of ages are clearly required since the 
 appearance of man, because, forsooth, fossil bones and rude 
 implements are found together in strange juxtaposition ; and all 
 the wild conjectures of a disordered fancy must be pronounced 
 to be the only means of solving a problem which a hundred 
 other suppositions can as well explain. But of this we shall 
 speak exprofesso in the next chapter. 
 
 Ko ! although the prerogative of close thought and reason- 
 ing seems to have been abdicated by most men of our genera- 
 tion, we are not yet brought down to the level of quasi-idioey, 
 and the men of our days are not simple enough to reject plain 
 and glaring truths for the sake of adopting at most ingenious 
 fancies.
 
 36 GENTILISM/ 
 
 And, curiously enough, a new procf of what we call the 
 catholicity of patriarchal religion in primitive times is found 
 in a universal fact of that period, which has been thoughtlessly 
 considered as an argument for primeval barbarism, and which 
 is, in fact, one of the strongest supports of our opinion. 
 
 All thoughtful investigators of general ancient history are 
 struck by the aspect of human society at its beginning. Every- 
 where, at the time, men are found in small groups, in what is 
 called the " tribal state." Evidently mankind began by clan- 
 skip. Central and Southern Asia, the cradle of the human 
 race, offer everywhere that strange spectacle. The English 
 savants, who have studied Hindostan most carefully, are com- 
 pelled to admit that the tribe system prevailed at first through 
 the whole peninsula, and the land-tenure of the present time, 
 which the government dared not .suddenly abolish, bears, it 
 seems, a striking analogy to the primitive land-tenure of the 
 Celtic nations ; yet how many foreign invasions, in the course 
 of ages, have subverted apparently the original institutions of 
 the country ! Ancient Persia, Media, Sogdiana, and all the 
 other States of Central Asia, bear out the same supposition. It 
 is now admitted that the same took place, to a certain extent, 
 in Egypt, where the antagonism of city against city in later 
 times was the lasting consequence of the first state of society. 
 Every one knows that Arabia, Syria, and Palestine have offered 
 at all times, down to our very days, the same spectacle. Europe : 
 heroic Greece, primitive Italy, the Spain of antiquity, and all 
 the Celtic nations, are another proof of the universality of the 
 fact. Hence many writers have concluded that everywhere, at 
 first, barbarism prevailed, and that man began really in the 
 savage state. But clanship is not barbarism ; and admitting 
 the unity of the human species, it must have begun by clan 
 ship, since it all came from a primitive family. 
 
 In the supposition of " evolutionism," men would have 
 sprung everywhere, after millions of ages of successive " nat-
 
 INTRODUCTORY. 37 
 
 ural selection ;" and the absurd theory of " autochthones," im- 
 agined, first, by the overflowing fancy of the Greeks, would 
 have 'to be resorted to, in order to explain the appearance of 
 man on the globe. He would have certainly begun everywhere 
 in the savage, or rather the brute state, but he would never 
 have come out of it ; since the transit of the Rubicon, as it is 
 ingeniously called, namely, the passage from brute instinct to 
 real abstract intellect, is yet unexplained, in spite of Mr. 
 Wallace and of the pleasant author of a late article in the 
 " North American Review " for October, 1873. That " nat- 
 ural selection " may be busy at first in changing the physical 
 appearance of man, and afterwards turns its activity towards 
 increasing the volume of his brain, as soon as " man is endowed 
 with sufficient intelligence to chip a stone tool, .... or when 
 intelligence has progressed so far as to sharpen spears, to use 
 rude bows, .... to cover the body with leaves or skins, and to 
 strike fire by rubbing sticks," may be allowed to pass for the 
 sake of argument. Yet the difficulty will always be for the 
 brute to acquire such a degree of intelligence as to perform all 
 the operations above enumerated, by its own effort, and with- 
 out the assistance of a superiorly civilized master. We have 
 seen Jocko, a monkey, serve a lady and gentleman at table, and 
 do everything that a well-trained waiter could accomplish ; but 
 we do not advise Mr. Wallace or the writer in the "North 
 American Review," if they ever travel to South America, to 
 leave their cosy hotel in Rio Janeiro, and go in the afternoon 
 in the neighboring forests with the expectation that they would 
 find their dinner ready and nicely served out by the swarms of 
 monkeys who chatter in the immense trees of the country. 
 
 If this is the way to explain the " passage of the Rubicon " 
 in the " progress from brute to man," and if readers of our 
 times are satisfied with such an explanation, we assert that the 
 average intellect of our age has strangely deteriorated, and 
 that our reason is too easily satisfied, indeed, and admits too
 
 38 GENTILISM. 
 
 readily what would have but raised a smile on the grave face 
 of a monk of the thirteenth century. Yet this " passage of 
 the Rubicon " is given as a wonderful discovery, and " one of 
 the most brilliant contributions ever yet made to the Doctrine 
 of Evolution ! " we copy the capitals as we find them in the 
 "Review." Henceforth surely the -expression, " Doctrine of 
 Evolution," must be treated with as much respect as that of 
 " Christianity." 
 
 But even granting everything to the partisans of the new 
 theory, it is clear that neither their system nor that of the 
 Greek " autochthones " could have produced the universal state 
 of society mentioned above. As there would be, in either 
 supposition, no unity in the human race ; and as, moreover, 
 the system of evolution supposes no real distinction or even 
 existence of species, although they try likewise to explain the 
 origin of such, all the supposed human beings evolved from 
 brutes would have presented unimaginable differences which 
 have not been sufficiently opposed to these theorists, as pro- 
 ducing necessarily a real jumble without order and possibility 
 of comparison. To employ a simile which has often been 
 used against other and previous sects of " philosophers," there 
 is no more probability of the " evolution " of a well-defined 
 and organized species, than of the poem of the Iliad coming 
 out ready-made from the mixing up together of an infinite 
 number of the characters of the alphabet thrown at random. 
 For the explanation they give, that through natural selection, 
 only one results from many, is not sufficient ; since on account 
 of the process going on in so many places at once, under so 
 many altogether divergent conditions, and with no guiding 
 control but chance, in fact, under the name of " selection," the 
 ultimate effect cannot be but a "jumble" of dissimilar mon- 
 sters, out of which man could never issue. 
 
 In the supposition, on the contrary, of all mankind coming 
 from a single pair, created at first and instructed by their
 
 INTEODUCTOKY. 39 
 
 [Maker, the government that would naturally prevail, at first, 
 among men, would be that of the tribe, and all would 'neces- 
 sarily adopt it. Mankind would, therefore, on that hypothesis, 
 consist, at first, of an immense number of small groups of 
 people, each group governed by a patriarch ; all the details of 
 clanship, as they obtained formerly among the Jews and the 
 Celts, and as they were preserved by the Irish until the seven- 
 teenth century, a period which we can call contemporary, 
 would become the universal features of human society ; and 
 the first epoch of human history would be the reproduction 
 everywhere of what we read in Genesis of the posterity of 
 Heber, or of Abraham, his grandson. This is precisely what 
 the discoveries of modern historians of antiquity tell us of the 
 state of mankind in Asia, Europe, and Africa, four or five 
 thousand years ago, a state which continued, as we shall see, to 
 a very modern period. 
 
 But was then clanship a condition of barbarism or of civili- 
 zation ? To answer the question, we have only to make a 
 general remark : When large empires arose shortly after, we 
 are dazzled by their brilliancy ; and the monuments which still 
 exist of the original civilization of Egypt, India, Persia, Arabia, 
 and even Ethiopia, excite our wonder, chiefly when we com- 
 pare ourselves to these nations with all our boasted progress. 
 But these splendid empires themselves could only have been 
 formed by the agglomeration of previously existing tribes, and 
 the high degree of culture which they immediately displayed 
 must have existed in great part, at least, in the tribal fragments 
 of which they were composed. In fact, the change did not 
 destroy the tribes, which invariably continued to exist. We 
 propose to prove it. 
 
 We are not here reduced to conjecture. We have the posi- 
 tive proof of the book of Job, and of the Hindoo Yedas, for 
 our firm belief that the first patriarchal civilization was of a 
 high order ; and that the Arabians, who existed before Job
 
 40 GENTILISM. 
 
 and Moses, and the East Indians who lived before the authors 
 of their sacred poems, were men of a high culture intellect- 
 ually, and of a brilliant and luxuriant life materially. 
 
 But what we must chiefly insist upon is the fact, that all 
 the tribes of which we speak, and into which mankind was 
 then split up, preserved the traditions handed down by their 
 first progenitors, which became the common property of all 
 ancient races. And there is no fear that any people preserving 
 intact |and un corrupted those traditions, would become barba- 
 rous and uncivilized. Job, Abraham, and Jacob were patriarchs. 
 They lived when original clanship obtained yet universally. 
 What elevation of intellect, greatness of soul, firmness of 
 character, " and amplitude of mind to greatest deeds,' as Milton 
 says, do we not admire in the little we know of their lives ! 
 The civilization then prevailing spread broadcast the seed from 
 which arose the brilliant empires which followed. Not only 
 nobleness of soul and character was everywhere impressed ; 
 but art, primitive art in the Orient, has preserved to our very 
 times the human figure as it then was ; not the cast of an ape 
 and gorilla, but the majestic features of primeval 'man, nearly 
 as he came from the hands of God. If it has not the softness 
 of a Grecian statue, it possesses the august and sovereign gran- 
 deur of the King of creation. Phidias had, no doubt, in his 
 mind what he may have seen of Egyptian, Persian, and Syrian 
 art, when he modelled the head of his Olympian Jove, besides 
 a few lines of the Iliad, of which alone all authors speak. 
 And it is enough to look at the few remains preserved in 
 European cabinets of antiquities, nay, at some ancient marbles 
 dug out of Cyprus and brought lately to New York, to cause 
 one to smile at the idea of man originating in the ape, and at 
 the conceit that " our human form divine " in these days of 
 progress, is of a higher type than that of those intellectual 
 giants who trod this earth three thousand years ago. "We 
 could enlarge indefinitely on this part of our subject, but we
 
 INTRODUCTORY. 41 
 
 must prescribe ourselves narrow limits on this preliminary 
 matter. 
 
 The reader, we hope, at the end of this volume, will share 
 our conviction that there was at first existing on this globe a 
 real patriarchal catholicity, of a truly civilized character, and 
 coining directly from God. We must now consider how, not 
 having received any heavenly promise of perpetuity, it finally 
 failed and disappeared. The first signs of a future dissolu- 
 tion showed themselves as early as the building of the Tower 
 of Babel, when all the fatal seeds of disunion were 'thickly 
 scattered in human society. We must, therefore, say a word 
 of it. 
 
 III. 
 
 The narrative contained in Chap. xi. of Genesis is the most 
 rational explanation of the change which certainly took place 
 at that time among men, although it supposes a positive in- 
 tervention of Divine power. We pity from our heart those 
 partisans of an irrational rationalism who directly reject an 
 historical fact as soon as it is cleary miraculous, and then are 
 reduced to wild conjectures to explain the sequel of history. 
 What amount of intellectual labor has been expended on the 
 childish effort to " elucidate " the life of Christ and the estab- 
 lishment of His religion, while doing away with the manifest 
 prodigies related in the gospel ! It is in the name of " Science " 
 that many assertions of Scripture have been either denied 
 openly or pleasantly turned into myths by writers of this and 
 of the previous centuries. And this fact of the miraculous 
 dispersion of mankind, on account of a suddenly-imposed 
 diversity of speech, has been one of the most violently at- 
 tacked by many modern authors. The " Tower of Babel," of 
 course, in their opinion, was a most ridiculous myth. Man- 
 kind, yet united, had never entertained such a project. No
 
 42 GENTILISM. 
 
 edifice of the kind had ever been raised. It was, in fact, the 
 first of "Arabian tales." And they certainly, thought them- 
 selves perfectly safe in these assertions, as they could not for a 
 moment imagine that the very first monument built by man 
 could have left any of its ruins in existence to our very days 
 to testify against their unbelief, or, at least, that any chain of 
 historical evidence could be found to connect with it existing 
 debris. Yet in this even their hopes have been deceived, 
 and the curious inquirer can see with astonishment the proofs 
 of it detailed by Heeren in his work on the "^Babylonians." 
 The concordance of ancient authors with the discoveries of 
 modern travellers, chiefly of Eich and Ker Porter, is certainly 
 most convincing. And should the consequence be denied, 
 namely, that the ruins of Birs-Nimrod on the Euphrates are 
 the true remains of the celebrated Tower of Babel, we do not 
 see how any fact of ancient history can be believed as true, 
 since no other, undoubtedly, is more clearly proved. E. F. 0. 
 Rosen miiller has admirably condensed this discussion of the 
 Gottingen Professor in his excellent little work entitled, " The 
 Biblical Geography of Central Asia." 
 
 Yes, we have yet among us a great portion of the prodigious 
 pile raised by united mankind before its dispersion three 
 stories out of eight and men of our time have actually 
 handled the very same " fire-burnt bricks " mentioned in 
 Genesis : "Jfaciamus lateres et coquamus eos igni^ This 
 positive discovery, corroborated by the inscriptions found on 
 the spot, and interpreted by Frangois Lenormant, render easy 
 of belief the remainder of the story that the builders had to 
 part company and look for distinct habitations, because they 
 could no more understand each other. And this was the first 
 and sufficient cause of division among them.* 
 
 * George Rawlinson in his " Five Great Monarchies" (Vol. I., page 21) 
 seems to object entirely to the identity of the ruins of Birs-Nimrod with 
 the Temple of Belus and the Tower of Babel. He relies on cuneiform
 
 IXTRODUCTOEY. 43 
 
 This want of mutual agreement, resulting from difference of 
 utterances, has been ever since a powerful source of discord, 
 nay, of bitter enmity. Every one finds no difficulty in ad- 
 mitting it who is aware of the fact so often mentioned in 
 antiquity, of anger and wrath immediately appeased and 
 changed into sympathy by the sudden discovery of a common 
 speech. "Who has not witnessed, even in our days, men thrown 
 by various circumstances at a great distance from their country, 
 among people of a different race, and language, becoming at 
 once intimate friends, as it were, because of their discovering 
 by chance, through a few words spoken at random, that they 
 were bom under the same sky, and came originally from the 
 same province or city ? If such is the power of a common 
 tongue to excite in the hearts of men warm feelings of reciprocal 
 affection, we cannot wonder that a different state of things 
 produces altogether contrary results, and that the impossibility 
 of understanding each other is immediately the cause of dis- 
 trust at first, and soon of mutual contempt and hatred. How 
 is it that uneducated people, transplanted to a strange country, 
 invariably pronounce, with assurance, that the language of this 
 nation, foreign to them, is barbarous and far inferior to their 
 own, when they have not r through ignorance, the most necessary 
 means of comparison ? We have no doubt that when the fol- 
 
 inscriptions for placing them in a city of Borsip or Borsippa, distinct 
 from Babylon, and thinks they are the debiis <<f a temple of Nebo a god 
 far posterior to Belus. But in his second volume, page 53i, he modifies 
 considerably his opinion, and states that " the Birs-Nimrod had certainly 
 seven, probably eight, stages stories and it is the only ruin on the pres- 
 ent western bank of the Euphrates which is at once sufficiently grand to 
 answer to the description of the Belus temple, and sufficiently near to the 
 other ruins to make its original inclusion within the walls not absolutely 
 impossible. Hence .... opinion has been divided on the question, and 
 there have not been wanting persons to maintain that the Birs-Nimrod 
 is the true Temple of Belus.'' In a note he names those " persons," 
 namely, not only Mr. Rich, Major Rennell, Sir R. Ker Porter and, 
 Heeren ; but Xiebuhr in 1826, and " recently," he adds, " they have been
 
 44 GENTILISM. 
 
 lowers of Nimrod were hunting beasts and men in the plains 
 of Mesopotamia or around: the Persian Gulf, they made very 
 little difference between both, because both appeared to them 
 deprived of speech ; and the men, women, and children whom 
 they captured and bound with cords, appeared to them as 
 unintelligent as the beasts of the field, which they drove 
 together on their return to Babylon. The nations of antiquity 
 which subdued foreign people and wished to keep them in sub- 
 jection, never allowed them to use the language of their con- 
 querors, and thus originated, probably, the distinction of the 
 " sacred " and " popular " idioms in Egypt, India, and Iran. 
 In modern times, on 'the contrary, the kingdoms or empires 
 whose rulers wish to arrive at a complete unity and peace 
 among their subjects, insist on having one prevalent and uni- 
 versal language with the ultimate object of abolishing gradually 
 all the other primitive dialects and idioms. Greece and Rome 
 were the first to inaugurate the policy now universally followed 
 among civilized nations. It is remarkable that no religion, 
 except the Jewish and the Roman Catholic, -has ever insisted 
 on a common language for sacrifice and liturgy among tribes 
 of different origin although professing the same faith. 
 
 We can see, therefore, how, from the beginning of mankind, 
 diversity of speech began to oppose the universality of the 
 
 described and copiously illustrated by Mr. Oppert" ("Expedition Scien- 
 tifique," torn. I. pp. 200-216). These " persons " are respectable enough. 
 But a very remarkable corroboration of our belief on the subject is 
 found in a most interesting study by Mr. Francois Lenormant on a num- 
 ber of cuneiform inscriptions brought to England by Mr. Layard, and in 
 which the learned Frenchman thinks he has discovered a first Chaldean 
 
 * ( 
 
 empire anterior to the one described by Sir G. Rawlinson. He calls this 
 most ancient people the Accads, whose chief city was the Accad men- 
 tioned in Gen. x. 10. 
 
 In one of the poems whose translation he attempts; is frequently men- 
 tioned " the Hoase with its head erect" "the House of the right hand," 
 etc. ; and Mr. Lenormant, grouping all the details, sees evidently in it the 
 celebrated " Tower Qf languages," as he calls it from the inscription it-
 
 INTRODUCTORY. 45 
 
 same religion, and how the primitive traditions and dogmas 
 given at first by the Almighty Himself to man, were gradually 
 to become dim, and finally to disappear almost altogether, by 
 the action of various causes, of which the fact now under con- 
 sideration was to be one of the most powerful. These con- 
 siderations enable us likewise to acknowledge the profound 
 wisdom of the Church of Rome, and place before us vividly 
 the reason why she has always attached such an importance to 
 the use of the same idiom in her liturgy and sacraments, and 
 always granted, with an evident reluctance, the privilege 
 of using a different one to some branches of the true Church, 
 but only to those whose origin went to the Apostolic period. 
 
 We cannot know, it is true, what length of time it took 
 exactly for men to forget their former dialects, and acquire 
 new ones, nor how many were thus originally formed ; but 
 there can be no doubt that from that epoch began the state of 
 things w r e now witness, when the number of distinct languages 
 is so immeasurably great, and opposes such a barrier to inter- 
 communication among men. Many, no doubt, in subsequent 
 times, originated naturally among nations unacquainted with 
 the art of writing, by which alone language is fixed, and be- 
 comes durable ; and thus, certainly, were formed numerous 
 
 self. He is most decidedly of the opinion that this edifice was at Borsippa, 
 and, consequently, at the modern Birs-Nimrod ; and he says that " this 
 venerable monument, with which so many legends are associated, was, 
 even at the epoch of the composition of the Accadian poem, in the dilapi- 
 dated state in which Nebuchadnezzar found it when he undertook its 
 repair. ' The temple of the seven lights of the earth, the Pyramid ot 
 Borsippa,' says the Assyrian king, in a preserved inscription, 'has been 
 constructed by the most ancient king of all ; .... but he could not crown 
 the top of the edifice; .... consequently the rains and the storms had 
 worn away what was built interiorly with unburnt bricks, and thus the 
 exteiior construction of fire-burnt bricks had split. . . .'" 
 
 The whole composition of the learned French Academician, under the 
 title pf '' Un Veda Chaldeen,'' ought to be read ; it will be found in the 
 92d vol. of u Le Correspondant."
 
 46 GENTILISM. 
 
 idioms of North American Indian nations. But as there are 
 certainly hmnan languages which do not possess any number 
 of roots in common, such a catastrophe as the one described in 
 Chapter xi. of Genesis, can alone explain this complete antago- 
 nism of tongues, if we believe the truth of the unity of man- 
 kind. 
 
 To this first source of division among men was added a much 
 more powerful one, that of the diversity of races. "We know, 
 from the tenth chapter of Genesis, that the posterity of the 
 three sons of Noah was distributed over the surface of the old 
 world, and that the three continents were occupied by the 
 various nations which sprung from them. They would have, 
 henceforth, only one bond of union : the same patriarchal 
 religion based on primitive traditions ; and that bond of unity 
 itself would be gradually loosened by the opposing forces of 
 difference of language, of race, etc., which would, in course of 
 time, introduce idolatry with all its accompanying errors and 
 crimes, and render the unity of worship, humanly speaking, im- 
 possible, and the existence of national religions universal over 
 the globe ; so that the future catholicity of the Church would 
 become visibly a divine -fact, impossible in truth without the 
 direct intervention of God. 
 
 The inspired author of Genesis intended certainly to explain 
 in his tenth chapter the spread of nations over the various 
 regions of the earth. The names contained in it are under- 
 stood by many modern exegetists, chiefly Protestant, to be the 
 names of tribes. Catholic commentators generally think they 
 are the names of individuals. Some were, certainly, individ- 
 uals, as Nimrod and Canaan ; others were undoubtedly nations, 
 as the Philistine, and most of those having the same termina- 
 tion. But whether individuals or nations, the various races of 
 men which have since formed the whole of mankind, were cer- 
 tainly derived from them. 
 
 The origin of those human varieties which we call races, is
 
 INTRODUCTORY. 47 
 
 clouded in mystery. When we see the persistence of the 
 national character in each social family, resisting, during long 
 ages, all opposing forces, and exhibiting the same features 
 after thousands of years ; when we contemplate each nation 
 or tribe, forming, as it were, a compact and almost indestruct- 
 ible unity ; when we mark how the striking differences be- 
 tween contiguous peoples continue, passing from fathers to 
 sons, without even dove-tailing in the very points of contact 
 between each and each ; we demand a cause for all those strange" 
 phenomena, and we can scarcely see any other than the diversity 
 of progenitors. Hence, we all say that these differences are 
 in the blood ; and we think we have said enough. The op- 
 posers of the unity of mankind would have here the basis of a 
 strong argument in their favor, if, unfortunately for them, it 
 did not go too far ; as it is clear that the origin of the human 
 race cannot be so multiform, and that one Adam is yet more 
 acceptable to reason than/bw orfitie hundred. 
 
 All things considered, the most sensible opinion on the sub- 
 ject is that God presided at this arrangement, which entered 
 into the plan of His providence throughout the future history 
 of man. And we think that He Himself gave to each pro- 
 genitor of a race the distinguishing characteristics which were 
 to pass to all its future members. The otherwise unaccount- 
 able permanence of these characteristics is a strong support of 
 this opinion. The progenitor himself may be any individual 
 in the line of ancestry, chosen by God for some reason of His 
 own. 
 
 Yet we admit there is a great deal of truth in the supposi- 
 tion maintained by several modern writers of note, that many 
 of those diversities arose from the various circumstances in 
 which the descendants of the sons of !Noah were placed, with 
 respect chiefly to the special character of the dwelling they 
 chose. Thus, as we have seen, it looks as probable that the 
 
 inhabitants of the north of Asia from east to west, down to the 
 5
 
 48 GENTILISM. 
 
 50th degree of latitude, became hunters and fishermen, owing 
 to the multiplicity of game, whose flesh and fur they needed, 
 and to the abundance of fish in the seas and the large rivers 
 of Siberia ; and thus the chief habits and characteristics of 
 those nations were acquired. Similarly the immense plains 
 deprived of trees and covered only with herbage, forming the 
 whole of Asia from east to west, between the 50th and 40th 
 degrees of latitude, originated the pastoral habits of the nomad 
 Tartars dwelling in those regions from the beginning. Finally, 
 the rich agricultural countries of Asia, from the 40th degree 
 downwards, furnished to their inhabitants the determining mo- 
 tive for their social lif e, and enabled them to cultivate literature, 
 the arts, and the sciences, together with agriculture, which 
 have rendered Persia, Hindostan, and China so celebrated from 
 a very early period. 
 
 This may, no doubt, explain some divergences in the social 
 and physical life of many peoples, but not all the facts by 
 which they differ ; and the diversity of races is alone adequate 
 to this explanation. 
 
 But whatever may have been the causes originating that 
 great variety remarked in the nations of antiquity and of mod- 
 ern times, there is no doubt that the opposition of temper, in- 
 clinations, aptitudes introduced by this dissimilitude, became 
 an immense obstacle to moral unity among mankind. Hence 
 the institutions which have always ruled Arabia could never 
 prevail in contiguous Persia or Iran. And this last country 
 was at all times in antagonism with the nations of the north 
 or of Turan ; and thus of all the others. Nothing is more 
 striking in human history than this mutual opposition and 
 antagonism, the source of all the wars and of most of the calam- 
 ities w r hich have afflicted mankind. And this can almost in- 
 variably be traced to difference of race among men. It is clear 
 that a merely human religion cannot overcome such an obstacle 
 as this to unity hence all false religions are national ; : and
 
 IXTKODUCTORY. 49 
 
 with such a constant and powerful cause of divergence, what 
 was first common among men becomes gradually weakened 
 and finally must disappear. Thus the common traditions im- 
 parted to mankind by the first utterances of divine revelation, 
 grew, by degrees, more and more dim, vague, and uncertain, 
 until they were altoge'ther veiled and obliterated by the succes- 
 sive additions and perversions of error. To establish this in 
 detail, is the purpose of this book. 
 
 That special spirit which characterizes each nationality, and 
 gives it the peculiar aspect by which it is distinguished from any 
 other, soon grew to such prominence that the features of our 
 common humanity almost disappeared ; and men came, at 
 length, to consider all other races as enemies, so that the very 
 name of foreigner became synonymous with barbarian or foe. 
 The geographical limits by which they were separated became 
 the scene of a constant border war ; and unless high mountains 
 or extensive deserts intervened, the mutual depredations and 
 the incessant depopulation going on in those almost mutual 
 grounds prevented everywhere the delimitation* of precise 
 frontiers, which, in the history of man, has generally charac- 
 terized Christian Europe alone. In our own America it is well 
 known that the Mexican JCmperor considered the countries 
 around his dominions as veritable nurseries of men, having no 
 other object but to furnish his subjects with slaves and the 
 altars of his gods with victims. Such was also in general the 
 ideas powerful nations of antiquity had of their surrounding 
 neighbors. Among the primitive Romans themselves the 
 word " hostis," which was applied by them to nearly all foreign 
 tribes, had no other derivation than the word "hostia" 
 victim ; and the old Greek dramatists tell us what was the fate 
 of shipwrecked strangers stranded on their shores. 
 
 The early unity of mankind had, therefore, in a few centuries, 
 been altogether forgotten, and was replaced by division, enmi- 
 ty, and war. And this unhappy state of things was the fruit
 
 50 GENTILISM. 
 
 of the antipathy produced by diversities of race, and by the 
 long-continued separation of the various families of nations. 
 Egotism had entered into those partitions of the globe destined 
 to be the dwellings of each ; every distinct territory had become 
 a lair of wild beasts, and mankind appeared to be irremediably 
 sundered and split into hundreds of hostile fragments, because 
 according to Scripture (Gen. xi. '9), Disperait eos Dominus. 
 su/per faciem cunctarum regionum. 
 
 Thus, likewise, the very configuration of the globe which, 
 as we have before urged, was intended primarily as a bond of 
 union among men, became a new source of division. Hence- 
 forth the mountain-chains, the great rivers, the inland seas, and 
 the all-surrounding ocean were to be truly dividing lines, which 
 nations dared not cross, in view of a sure hostility on the far- 
 ther side. Occasionally an insignificant stream became a Rubi- 
 con, impassable except by the most daring spirits ; and strange 
 to say, it was only in the interminable deserts of Africa, and 
 the immense plains of Central and Southern Asia, that, united 
 in lai'ge caravans, men travelled to a great distance for the pur- 
 poses of commerce. Every pleasant country became forbidden 
 ground for all those not born in it. The words of Scripture 
 placed at the head of this first chapter, appeared no more to be 
 true. The earth in all its amplitude did no more belong to the 
 Lord, and man lived in each small district of it as a prisoner 
 kept within bounds. 
 
 The vastness of the ocean, the breadth of large fluvial cur- 
 rents, the height of mountain-chains, the barrenness of sandy 
 or rocky wildernesses, had, in fact, become great fences, inside 
 of which the different races of men were " parked," and kept 
 apart from each other, until in the designs of God, these bar- 
 riers were to be lowered down, or thrown everywhere open, by 
 the future discoveries in navigation, aided by the introduction 
 of a new spirit' of universal brotherhood : a spirit which no re- 
 ligion for many ages fostered, and which was to be ushered in
 
 INTRODUCTORY. 51 
 
 finally among men by the only one destined in future times 
 to spread and rule everywhere ; which the Jewish religion 
 was not. 
 
 The most superficial acquaintance with ancient history dis- 
 closes the facts just enunciated. Men could scarcely know the 
 nations living at some distance from them, since the very next 
 neighbors were real enemies. To whatever extent may be sup- 
 posed to have gone the incursions of a Nimrod, and a Semi- 
 ramis in the far East, of a Sesostris in Syria and Asia Minor, of 
 other conquerors in those primitive ages, these few sudden ex- 
 plosions of the fury of conquest form but a few short-lived 
 exceptions in the general history of those remote ages,- in 
 which mankind was in fact cut up in an infinite number of 
 small tribes, governed each of them by a petty ruler dignified 
 with the name of king. The reader of Holy Scripture knows 
 how Abraham, with his three hundred and eighteen men, 
 fought and conquered four of those chieftains near. Damascus, 
 and delivered Lot from their hands. The fourteenth chapter 
 of Genesis, in which this victory is recorded, deserves indeed to 
 be carefully studied, in order to form an exact idea of society 
 in those far-distant ages. Yet, antecedently to Abraham, and 
 during his time, communications on foot or on the back of 
 camels were much more easy than .they became afterwards ; 
 since the population of many large districts was as yet sparse, 
 and patriarchal manners were still prevalent. Men had not yet 
 heard of the strict' regulations of despotism, nor of the harsh 
 measures taken by the egotistic municipalities which soon 
 followed. 
 
 Modem researches in the oldest annals of mankind have 
 placed beyond question the fact that in India, Bactriana, Iran, 
 as well as in heroic Greece and Pelasgic Europe in general, the 
 tribal state of society appears to have been the first, and to have 
 everywhere preceded the great empires recorded afterwards in 
 history ; and we shall have occasion to show that it lasted far
 
 52 GENTILISM. 
 
 longer than men generally suppose, coming down, in fact, very 
 near to our time. 
 
 Not that barbarism was everywhere the first stage of humani- 
 ty. For the clan system exists invariably with real civilization ; 
 and the clanship of primitive Hindostan, for instance, endowed 
 with the Sanscrit language and literature, can very well compare 
 with many modern social institutions which boast of being civ- 
 ilized. But the state of Syria in the time of Abraham, so admir- 
 ably described in the fourteenth chapter of Genesis, so compati- 
 ble with a happy state of society in spite of occasional wars, 
 seems to- have been generally the position in which men 
 lived everywhere, immediately after the dispersion of man- 
 kind. 
 
 An immense drawback, however, resulted from the chief 
 characteristic of that system, namely : an endless, and scarcely 
 imaginable for us, division ; such a disintegration of society, 
 that it soon became very difficult to travel from one point of the 
 globe to the other. What has been said, not very exactly, of the 
 middle ages, that in the dark period of that name, men were afraid 
 of losing sight of the steeple under the shadow of which they were 
 bom ; and that, before travelling from Paris to Lyons in France, 
 they invariably wrote their last will and testament, can be surely 
 asserted of the long period of time following the first free and 
 easy patriarchal manners. It was then a kind of feudal divi- 
 sion of society carried to its utmost limits, and by referring to 
 the twelfth chapter of the Book of Joshua, the reader will see 
 how many different kingdoms there were then in a small part of 
 Palestine. 
 
 It was only with arms in their hands, and in comparatively 
 great numbers, that men could pass from place to place ; either 
 to colonize countries yet void of inhabitants, or to establish 
 themselves in regions already occupied, but from which they 
 first drove away the population. 
 
 This explains perfectly the endless subdivisions of idolatry,
 
 INTRODUCTOKY. 53 
 
 as each city, each district came to have its gods and its religious 
 rites. And hence arose the impossibility of modern social writers 
 combining into any system the theological opinions of any single 
 nation. Greek mythology, for instance, is formed of so many 
 discordant elements, belonging to hostile cities into which the 
 country was divided at the beginning, that the task of hannoe 
 nizing the whole is perfectly hopeless. 
 
 The readers of Herodotus know how far this good man 
 travelled to ascertain the truth with respect to Hercules, and 
 how, finding the legend of the hero so different in Egypt, in 
 Phoanicia, and in Greece, he gave up the attempt in despair, 
 and could not solve the problem but by the supposition of 
 three different men of that name. 
 
 The difficulty, in fact, of travelling through any continent 
 or large island in those times became such, that even the sea 
 appeared closed to the efforts of early navigators, through the 
 fear inspired by the certain hostility to be met with at a com- 
 paratively short distance from the point of starting. Thus the 
 Argonautic expedition to Colchis, across the Black Sea, became 
 truly an heroic undertaking, and sufficed to inspire poets and 
 historians so as to immortalize the few bold spirits who dared 
 the attempt. 
 
 "We can judge, by this single instance, of the state to which 
 human society was reduced, and how truly insurmountable 
 appeared to be the obstacles opposed to common intercourse 
 among men. Who could then have imagined that the time 
 would come when a universal religion would be proclaimed for 
 the acceptance of all, and when the evils consequent on the 
 first dispersion of mankind would be remedied as far as human 
 imperfection can allow it ? 
 
 So far, we have said nothing of the variations of climate to 
 which the human race was subjected by its very aptitude for 
 inhabiting the whole globe ; and thisVas certainly another pow- 
 erful cause of division among men.
 
 54 . GENTILISM. 
 
 "We have seen how man differs from animals in that remark- 
 able adaptability to every geographical zone. It seems that at 
 first mankind spread chiefly under the tropics, and the most 
 powerful empires of antiquity are found to have flourished in 
 warm regions. Yet the sons of Japhet, from the start, took 
 the north chiefly as their portion, and gradually the whole 
 globe was peopled. But how different, after a few generations, 
 became the inhabitants of the tropics from those of the cold 
 zones ! 
 
 We have only to compare in our days the natives of equa- 
 torial Africa with those of the temperate regions of Asia or 
 Europe, to judge at once of it. Civilization ought not prop- 
 erly to enter as a factor in the problem, since civilization to a 
 great degree is independent of climate, as the nations of the 
 highest culture in antiquity were those of Southern Egypt and 
 Gangetic India. But it cannot be denied that mild or fero- 
 cious disposition, precocious or sluggish intellect, impulsive or 
 well-balanced nature, depend in a great degree on the direct dis- 
 tance from the equator or from the poles. Hence the old Per- 
 sian Empire, which spread so easily as far as the Indian Ocean 
 in Asia, and the southern borders of Meroe in Central Africa, 
 could not cross the Danube in the north, and remained, in fact, 
 limited to the southern coast of the Black Sea. The Roman 
 Empire, on the contrary, made for middle latitudes, never 
 crossed permanently the Euphrates in Asia, and possessed of 
 Africa only the northern borders. The Mongolian Tartars, it 
 is true, spread both north and south ; but they never formed 
 an empire properly so called. Theirs was a fitful and barba- 
 rous life, never merging in any permanent and positive settle- 
 ment. If the Mongols reigned for a long time in Hindostan, 
 they owed it to millions of Mahometan subjects who had come 
 originally from Persia. The Mongol Tartars themselves 
 formed always a very small part of the people, and it may be 
 doubted if many of their descendants can be found in Hindo-
 
 INTRODUCTORY. 55 
 
 stan at this time, although the Mahometan population amounts 
 to about ten millions. 
 
 There is naturally an extreme difficulty of coalescing between 
 peoples of extreme geographical range ; and if the English re- 
 main in possession of Hindostan two centuries longer, we think 
 it very probable that the broad line which divides now the two 
 races, will be then as broad and impassable as it seems now 
 to be. 
 
 What renders the cause of division more effective is the well- 
 
 * 
 
 known and remarkable fact, that the natives of the most un- 
 .pleasant and deleterious climates can scarcely adapt themselves 
 to milder countries. They soon die away in regions in which 
 there appears every probability that they would thrive. No 
 Esquimau can live south of Cape Farewell in Greenland, and 
 an original inhabitant of equatorial Australia, transplanted into 
 England, would as soon disappear as would any of the black 
 swans swarming in the rivers of its native country, taken sud- 
 denly to English waters or Scotch lakes. 
 
 Civilized man, it is true, can adapt himself to all climates by 
 his foresight and intellect, but even in his case it requires a 
 long period of time for his posterity to become perfectly ac- 
 climated. . 
 
 It is true, that the differences of race and language, the diffi- 
 culty of communication by travel, and the climatic variations, 
 might have been overcome to a great degree, and have left to 
 the human race a power of aggregation, which for several thou- 
 sand years it never had, if God had condescended to establish 
 for its advantage a central focus of authority or direction. But 
 nothing of the kind existed during all the centuries which pre- 
 ceded the preaching of Christ and the establishnrent of the 
 Church. Yet a sort of unity was preserved among men for 
 many 'centuries owing to the holy truths originally given to, 
 mankind. And a counterpoise to the many causes of division 
 previously mentioned, would have been found in them, if this
 
 56 GENTILISM. 
 
 deposit of faith and morality, such as it was, had been entrusted 
 to some competent authority to keep and explain. 
 
 The grand expiation imposed on mankind for its insolent 
 pride at the erection of the Tower of Babel, was to last for 
 centuries ; and, as the sin had been one of combination against 
 God, preserved in the fable of the Titans, the fittest expiation 
 was to be division, expressed so powerfully in the name JPhaleg, 
 given by heaven itself to the chief patriarch of those ancient 
 days. Hence God refused to the human race, throughout the 
 period of time allotted in the Divine counsels, a central power 
 able to hold aloof at least the beacon-light, calling back all 
 men to the memory of primitive revelation. It is true, that to 
 supply this deficiency to a certain extent, a nation was called 
 into existence for the very purpose of preserving always bright 
 and clear, what was soon to become obscure and dim among 
 other races. The Hebrew people was not only destined to be 
 a kind of moral centre for mankind placed, on that account, 
 in the very physical centre of the world; but a directive 
 authority for faith and morals was positively established in the 
 nation, called the Synagogue, faint and diminutive figure of the 
 future universal Church. 
 
 But although the social destinies of the Hebrew, people were 
 intimately connected with all the great nations of antiquity in 
 the midst of which it was placed ; although the Assyrians, the 
 Chaldseans, the Egyptians, the Persians, and, later, the Greeks 
 and the Romans, were in constant communication with Jeru- 
 salem and the Jews ; although all those various races had under 
 their eyes the astonishing spectacle of a monotheist people 
 worshipping Jehovah alone, and preserving the ancient moral 
 code, scarcely modified, from the time of Noah,- they were all 
 blind ; a veil was over their eyes, as St. Paul remarked later of 
 .the Jews themselves with respect to Christ ; they could not see 
 what the loving intention of God designed they should see ; and 
 they all sunk deeper and deeper in the mire of idolatry, atheism.
 
 INTRODUCTORY. 57 
 
 and vice, in spite of the instructive exemplar of the truth which 
 they all saw in Judea. Meanwhile division lasted, and appeared 
 to be perpetual. And in spite of those brilliant and immense 
 empires which succeeded each other, city remained always 
 hostile to city, district to district, tribe to tribe. It is a fact 
 not sufficiently appreciated, yet admitted now by all, that under 
 the dominion of the Pharaohs, even during the magnificent 
 period of the eighteenth dynasty, there was no other union 
 among Egyptian cities than the will of the despot, and at that 
 very epoch the worshippers of the crocodile in one place made 
 incessant war against the worshippers of the cat in another. 
 The ox Apis was the only god universally respected, on account 
 of his supposed identity with Ammon. 
 
 Again, in th.e Persian empire, when the Achaemenidae were at 
 the acme of their power under Xerxes, the innumerable tribes 
 which obeyed the despot of Susa, were as absolutely distinct 
 from each other, nay, as fiercely opposed the one to the other, 
 as they had ever been previously; and to become convinced 
 of it, the reader has only to go cursorily over the catalogue of 
 those nations preserved by Herodotus in his description of the 
 army of the Persian king. 
 
 The same must be said of the Greek empire under Alexander 
 and his successors. Rome, in fact, was the first to insist, not 
 on the fusion of the different nationalities she had conquered 
 she never dared to attempt it but on their keeping the peace 
 and not warring on each other. It was the great cause of 
 admiration for her eulogists that she had universally imposed 
 peace on her subjects, and to disturb it was for the first time in 
 human history pronoimced to be a crime, which Rome was 
 sure and prompt to avenge. And, let the reader remark it, it 
 was just on the eve of the coming of the Prince of Peace, when 
 the protracted division of mankind was to come finally to an 
 end, and the pristine unity was to be replaced by a higher one, 
 that such a determination was solemnly taken by the People-king.
 
 58 GENTILISM. 
 
 The end, therefore, God had in view in prescribing to the 
 earth its configuration, and in giving to mankind one progenitor, 
 first in Adam and then in Noah, was kept in abeyance, and 
 instead of unity, division came to be the great feature of the 
 globe itself and of the human family. The ocean, spread every- 
 where, and penetrating the various continents with its deep bays 
 and inland seas, intended consequently for a universal element 
 of intercommunication, became an impassable abyss over which 
 men cast their shuddering eyes when they looked out upon its 
 shores.* The rivers, and the mountains from which they 
 gushed forth, instead of being highways and public roads, were 
 turned into barriers of division, behind which the timorous and 
 hostile tribes looked askance at each other, and thought only 
 of overreaching their neighbors, changed into enemies. That 
 " articulate speech," so celebrated in Homer as the great char- 
 acteristic of god-like man, and by which he is raised so high 
 above the lower animals ; the mind's medium of exchange, the 
 instrument of sweet intercourse, the great bond of unity whilst 
 remaining in itself one, was split into thousands of idioms, 
 every one unintelligible to those who spoke any one of the rest, 
 and thus reduced every insignificant tribe to the sad condition 
 of looking on all mankind out of their own small community 
 as if it was really deprived of speech, and composed of deaf and 
 dumb individuals. Religion, finally, the worship of a common 
 Creator, deprived of authoritative teaching and of a central 
 light, became the greatest source of division, and would of 
 itself have made of earth a real hell, inflamed incessantly by 
 the burning fire of fanatical hatred and war.f 
 
 * The Phoenician adventures cannot be objected, as they were the only 
 ones which gradually spread, and proved by their success that all the 
 other nations experienced the feelings described in the text. The 
 Phoenicians were not, first, so daring as they became later on. 
 
 t The religious dissensions, in post-Christian times, result from op- 
 position to authoritative teaching ; the contrary was the case before 
 Christ.
 
 IXTEODUCTORY. 59 
 
 At the beginning of this chapter we begged of the reader 
 to consider these 'preliminary remarks as assertions which the 
 sequel would abundantly prove. This task we have now to 
 undertake ; but we must first clear the ground by treating suc- 
 cinctly a previous question, namely, the now generally-sup- 
 posed primitive barbarism of the human race. AH our future 
 considerations shall certainly tend to this, but not exprofessoj 
 and it is proper, at the very beginning, to look into the matter 
 directly, and to see what truth there is in many positive asser- 
 tions of the day. To demonstrate the primitive high state 
 of man, intellectually, at least, it is fit to show first the weak- 
 ness of modern theories, built purposely to contradict this 
 truth. When it is established that nothing has been really 
 proved by the numerous geological and archaeological dis- 
 coveries made lately in "Western Europe, in opposition to the 
 comparatively modern origin of our* species, then it will be 
 clearly understood that history and tradition have not lost any 
 of their real value, and that we can listen to their voice with- 
 out fear of being deceived by them. If, on the contrary, the 
 assertions of the advocates of " prehistoric times " had, in 
 truth been sufficiently established, the demonstration we 
 propose to undertake would be proportionately weakened. 
 Hence the manifest importance of the following chapter.
 
 CHAPTER II. 
 
 THE SUPPOSED BARBARISM OP PRIMITIVE MAN. 
 
 THE modern doctrine of indefinite human progress, either 
 from the brute according to the followers of Mr. Darwin or, 
 at least, from the lowest condition of savage life if we believe 
 Sir John Lubbock, E. B. Tylor, and many others may be 
 called, with Dr. O. A. Brownson, " the creed of the nineteenth 
 century." " It is held by whole multitudes, with unquestioning 
 faith, or, rather, with the blind credulity of fanaticism. It 
 pervades all popular literature, even most scientific treatises. 
 It is iterated and reiterated ad nauseam by the press, from the 
 stately quarterly, the infallible daily, down to the seventy- 
 nine weekly. With not. a particle of evidence to sustain 
 it, treading on an earth covered all over with ruins, we know 
 not how many layers deep, with the unmistakeable signs of de- 
 terioration, weakness, and decay everywhere staring us in the 
 face, we yet are deluded enough to assert that man is naturally 
 progressive, and that the nations now pursue a steady march 
 towards the realization of an earthly paradise much more 
 desirable than the heaven hoped for by Christians." (Brown- 
 son's Rev., Last Series, Yol. I., pp. 226, 227.) This certainly is 
 true of our age, and does not speak highly in its favor. 
 
 But we are here concerned only with the pretended starting- 
 point of " barbarism ; " the study of " progress " will come 
 later on. The first must be treated apart to understand well 
 the second. 
 
 I. 
 
 "We have already discarded the consideration of the zoological 
 question with respect to the origin of man. "We confine our- 
 (60)
 
 SUPPOSED BARBARISM OF PRIMITIVE MAN. 61 
 
 selves to the historical or traditional view of the case. An 
 argument, however, adduced lately by several writers on the 
 subject, appears to us decisive and final on the zoological ques- 
 tion. And as it will not detain us long, we are unable to with- 
 stand the temptation of saying a word or two upon it. 
 
 If man had really been evolved from the brute by an indefi- 
 nitely long process of a succession of specific changes the 
 product of natural selection we say that geology would have 
 proved it long ago, and neither Mr. Darwin, nor Lamark, his 
 predecessor, would have invented the system. The forms of a 
 great number of extinct species are forever preserved in the 
 fossil state. The specific characteristics of all these formerly 
 organized and living beings are so precise that naturalists intro- 
 duce them in their classifications, and we know that Baron 
 Cuvier could, from a single bone of any of them, reproduce ' 
 the whole lost skeleton. Not a single fossil yet discovered has 
 been found in the incipient stage with respect to any of its 
 future organs. And, by a strange accident, Mr. Darwin must 
 place this universal fact in the chapter of accidents none of 
 those innumerable organizations which, in his system, must 
 have existed prior to their ultimately reaching the well-defined 
 characters of species now known to us, has been allowed to 
 embalm its remains in the universal place of sepulture for all ' 
 former beings the rocks and drift deposits of former ages. 
 
 And this is true, not only of the " ancestors " of man, 
 according to Mr. Darwin, but of all classes of ancient animals, 
 of whatever kind they may be supposed to be. This, in our 
 opinion, cannot be an accident, but is, in fact, an unanswerable 
 refutation of the system of evolution. The supposed forma- 
 tions in embryo have never, in point of fact, belonged to any 
 zoological system. They are the mere phantoms of a diseased 
 imagination. And we may as well at once peremptorily deny 
 the immense series of ages required to account for the origin 
 of man in the new theory, without granting to its supporters
 
 62 GENTILISM. . 
 
 the privilege of a serious discussion, which the matter does not 
 deserve. 
 
 II. 
 
 "We come, therefore, to the consideration of another pre- 
 tended proof of the " incalculable " antiquity of man, and hia 
 primitive barbarism, namely : the well-ascertained facts of what 
 is called the " stone period," everywhere earlier ', it is said, than 
 the subsequent periods of bronze and iron, as regards the whole 
 human species, as well as any particular tribe. 
 
 We admit all the facts, but deny the anteriority and the 
 subsequence in the sense we shall presently explain. We 
 admit the facts, with the remark, however, that they are in- 
 variably selected so as to make a perfect caricature of " prim- 
 itive man." All the ridiculous customs, all the filthy habits, 
 all the horrible crimes which can be found narrated by not 
 over-scrupulous travellers, are purposely chosen in order to con- 
 struct a " history of early civilization." At least, this is de- 
 cidedly the manner of Sir John Lubbock and his followers. 
 We <Jo not think, consequently, that the premises are unob- 
 jectionable. 
 
 If we consult other travellers, quoted certainly in these 
 books, but never given in extenso, namely : Catholic mission- 
 aries, we find the state of the case to be quite different. With 
 much that they acknowledge is reprehensible, they relate often 
 admirable things calculated to raise a blush on the face of 
 civilized man. Head throughout the " Jesuit Relations" as to 
 ]!^orth America, the startling histories of the " Reductions " as 
 in the south of this continent, and all the details given by 
 recent missionaries in Polynesia, and you will be able to com- 
 plete the pictures of which Sir John Lubbock has presented 
 only the revolting side. Read chiefly the first letters of 
 Columbus, after he had become somewhat acquainted with the
 
 SUPPOSED BARBARISM OF PRIMITIVE MAN. 63 
 
 primitive inhabitants of Hispaniola. Where can you find now 
 on earth such a lovely simplicity, such ingenuousness, truth- 
 fulness, and candor, such artless innocence, if we can use the 
 expression with respect to fallen and unregenerated man ? And 
 as to their exterior circumstances and habits, where will you 
 see anywhere, at this time, such a truly patriarchal society, 
 such temperance in the midst of plenty, such cleanliness in 
 their dwellings, their persons, and all their surroundings? 
 Those who, it seems, have undertaken the task of degrading 
 man by their theories on his origin, and the supposed history 
 of his first state, would do well, at least, to relate all the facts, 
 since they rely only on facts, and repudiate with contempt all 
 the traditions of mankind on the original " golden age." 
 
 These few observations were necessary, in order to qualify 
 our admission of the numerous quotations contained in the 
 works of Sir John Lubbock. But we deny the supposed ante- 
 riority of the " stone period," and the " subsequence " of those 
 of bronze and iron even ; although, on the very hypothesis we 
 reject, it be susceptible of proof that the antiquity of man is 
 not necessarily on this account indefinite, and that the length 
 of his history on earth can very well fall in with the narrative of 
 our sacred books, admitting even all the vagaries of the Palaeo- 
 lithic age, as F. Lenormant and E. Chevalier have done in their 
 " Manual of Ancient History of the East," with which we do 
 not agree altogether. 
 
 We must first acknowledge and we do it with real pleasure 
 that among the most ardent admirers and promoters of the new 
 discoveries, many give them a meaning perfectly acceptable to 
 Christians. Thus, Mr. John Evans, in his " Stone Implements, 
 etc., of Great Britain," speaking of some human remains, and 
 objects of human industry, found in caves, together with fossil 
 animals of supposed great antiquity, says with truth : " It must 
 never be forgotten, that the occupation of caves by man is not 
 
 confined to any definite period ; and that even in the case of 
 6
 
 64 GENTILISM. 
 
 the discovery of objects of human workmanship in direct asso- 
 ciation with the remains of the Paleistocene extinct mammals, 
 their contemporaneity cannot be proven without careful observa- 
 tion of the circumstances under which they occur, even if then." 
 The underline is ours. " Another point may also be here men- 
 tioned, namely : that where there is evidence of the occupation 
 of a cavern by man, and also by large. carnivora, they can hardly 
 have been tenants in common, but the one must have preceded 
 the other, or possibly the occupations by each may have alter- 
 nated more than once," etc. 
 
 We seldom find such candid admissions in the works of Sir 
 John Lubbock, and their meaning is plain. It is scarcely pos 
 sible to draw any safe conclusion with respect to the antiquity 
 of man from all the discoveries which were at first thought by 
 many as a clear refutation of the " Bible records." 
 
 The impression left by most of the modern books on the 
 " stone and other periods," is that, in the main, mankind began 
 everywhere by using only stone implements ; and that the first 
 utensils used were of the most rude manufacture in fact, just 
 made for the hands of an " anthropoid ape," or a gorilla. The 
 writers who seem to take such a lively pleasure in thus pictur- 
 ing the first state of man, have, it is true, the condescension 
 to admit that those three great periods ought not to be sup- 
 posed so completely independent of each other, that no stone 
 implement will ever be found in deposits of the bronze and 
 other ages. They dove-tail mutually, they say, and have evi- 
 dently passed gradually from one to the other. And this ap- 
 parent concession is precisely of such a nature as to complete the 
 delusion, and render their system simple, natural, and probable. 
 But we wonder why they do not see that, even with this con- 
 cession, it is completely opposed to the true state of the case. 
 Ifot only all the facts which have been found out do not sup- 
 pose a periodicity of the kind they proclaim ; but they evi- 
 dently set forth the real contemporaneity of all those periods
 
 SUPPOSED BAEBAEISM OF PRIMITIVE MAK. 65 
 
 throughout the long history of man. If in each nation the stone 
 utensils appear first, and are afterwards followed by those of 
 bronze, etc., does not much concern us, when we wish to know 
 the real progress of the whole of mankind ? And for this simple 
 reason, that Denmark, for instance, where the system was first 
 broached, is not mankind in itself, but a very small part of it, 
 and it is too palpable a sophism to argue from a small tribe to 
 the aggregate of the race the rude fallacy, in short, of infer- 
 ring a universal from a particular. Should they insist that the 
 same happened in many other tribes, the sophism remains the 
 same ; because from the " periodicity " in any given number of 
 tribes, their conclusion is to a similar periodicity in the whole 
 of mankind. When, on the contrary, the palpable fact must be 
 known to all, even to the ardent supporters of the system under 
 consideration, that in this last age in which we live, in the pre- 
 vious ages w r hich we can know by clear and unobjectionable 
 history, finally in the dimmest ages of antiquity of which we 
 possess any sufficiently reliable records, the three " periods" of 
 stone, bronze, and iron have always subsisted simultaneously, 
 and consequently are no more " periods " when we speak of the 
 aggregate of mankind, but they are only three co-existing as- 
 pects of the same specific individual, as distinct from the ape 
 in the Polynesian with his bone hooks and stone hatchets, as in 
 the highest European, with all the paraphernalia of modern 
 civilization. 
 
 At this moment, it is true, the number of geographical spots 
 where man is unacquainted with metals, is gradually and stead- 
 ily decreasing, owing to the universal spread of the Japhetic 
 race, together with the complete and rapid means of intercom- 
 munication all over the earth, which we owe, undoubtedly, 
 to human ingenuity. Yet in how many extensive countries 
 must not this still be the case ! The whole interior of the 
 Australian Continent, and the large island of New Guinea ad- 
 jacent to it, besides numerous smaller districts, no doubt are
 
 66 GENTILISH. 
 
 inhabited only by what modern writers call primitive in our 
 opinion, really degraded men. There you will find surely, 
 fish-hooks of shark's bone, arrows of flint, knives of obsidian, 
 if the country furnishes it, clubs of hard wood, and axes of 
 basalt or quartz. Let Mr. E. B. Tylor calculate how long it 
 will take for those tribes to pass from these primitive imple- 
 ments to metals of any kind. The gentleman is positive, that 
 if left to themselves, those poor savages would surely rise from 
 their present degradation to the highest top of the civilized 
 ladder. And he naturally finds fault with " the late Archbish- 
 .X>p Whately," who had, this time, been sensible enough to state 
 in a lecture on the Origin of Civilization, the well known and 
 indisputable fact, that " all experience proves that men, left in 
 the lowest, or even anything approaching to the lowest degree 
 of barbarism in which they can possibly subsist at all, never did 
 and never can raise themselves, unaided, into a high condition." 
 
 But to return to our subject, we see that in our own age, the 
 simultaneity of the three pretended " periods " exists yet, in 
 spite of all Europeans have done to spread their civilization and 
 habits everywhere. Two hundred years ago, the phenomenon 
 was much more remarkable. Earlier still at the time of the dis- 
 covery of America the Spaniards and French found in the new 
 continent the contemporaneous existence of these periods. The 
 French in the North were confronted by the " stone age " in all its 
 glory in the country of the Ilurons and Iroquois ; the Spaniards 
 met with the bronze age in full sway, in Mexico and Peru. 
 
 A retrospective glance through all previous history would 
 ascertain the same fact under the Romans, the Macedonians, 
 the Persians, Assyrians, and even Chaldseans, of the most prim- 
 itive times. .At all the epochs known to us by history or 
 tradition, a number of nations of antiquity have worked aU the 
 metals really useful to man. It is perfectly well ascertained, 
 that the methods of the early Phoanicians for mining were 
 exactly what our methods are yet now. Job, we believe, has
 
 SUPPOSED BARBARISM OF PRIMITIVE MAIS'. 67 
 
 described the process in one of his chapters. And another 
 previous chapter of the Bible a book at least worthy of 
 respect tells us that Tubal Cain, before the Deluge, if you 
 please, used extensively iron for many purposes, as we do 
 to-day. Hence they say that he is old Yulcan himself a god 
 certainly dealing in iron long before the celebrated bronze age 
 of Egypt or Greece. 
 
 At the very time this was taking place in the Old World, 
 many other nations, then existing, used only stone, bones, or 
 wood. The question is merely, who were the real " primitive 
 men," the first or the second ? those namely using iron, or 
 those using stone and wood? Sir John Lubbock says, the 
 second ; and we may affirm the contrary. And this will be the 
 place to interpose a few observations on civilization as distinct 
 from barbarism. The speculators on the " stone, bronze, and 
 iron ages" place civilization almost exclusively in the en- 
 joyment by man of a multitude of little inventions of his 
 own, many of which certainly are derived from the knowledge 
 and use of metals. Any nation deprived of them cannot 
 be called civilized, in their opinion, because reduced to a very 
 simple state of life, which they say unhesitatingly is barbarism ; 
 and the stone age appearing everwhere at the cradle of nations, 
 mankind began by savagery. We cannot admit this statement 
 of the question. And one proof that we are free to do so, 
 is the striking fact, admitted by all, that the whole of Africa, 
 including the most central part unknown till our days, is at 
 this time, and has been from time immemorial, in possession of 
 iron and steel. , Livingstone found it to be the case, not only 
 in the south of the continent and along the Zambezi, but all 
 over the extensive country of the great lakes, whence probably 
 the Nile derives its source. Strange indeed ! The most invete- 
 rately barbarous portion of our globe wretched, degraded, 
 almost uncimlizdble Africa, if we are allowed to coin a word 
 has enjoyed the greatest means of civilization, according to
 
 68 GEOTILISM. 
 
 modern thinkers, namely, the use of the most intractable but 
 necessary metal, iron, so long that in order to find the epoch 
 when the great triangle of the sons of Misr or Cush was buried 
 in the barbarism of the " stone age," we^have to go far beyond 
 the dynasties of Manetho ; and our modern collections of stone 
 hatchets and flint arrows from Africa will have to come from 
 the head waters of the Senegambia, or contain only the stone 
 utensils of the ancient priesthood, obliged by their strict ritual 
 to avoid the use of iron in their sacrifices. Egypt, however, 
 has furnished a number of them lately, to which subject we 
 shall return. 
 
 We submit that this fact alone concerning Africa must pre- 
 vent the necessary identification of a really civilized state 
 with the use of metals, and consequently the forced connection 
 of what is called the "stone period" with the savage social 
 state. Barbarism, in fact, depends much more on moral degra- 
 dation than on physical want of comfort. And when we come 
 to describe patriarchal society, our readers will understand how 
 a tribe or nation may deserve to be placed on an exalted round 
 of the social ladder, although living exclusively on the fruits 
 of the earth and cultivating it with a simple wooden plough. 
 The Brahmin of the Rig Yeda epoch, living under his thatched 
 roof on the cool borders of a grove of palms, by the banks of a 
 limpid stream of pure water, using only stone to break his nuts 
 or grind his roots, and covering his body with the cotton he had 
 himself planted and spun ; nourishing his soul at the same time 
 with the reading of sublime " upanishads," and reciting his 
 " gayatry " to the Supreme God at the beginning of his chief 
 actions, was more truly civilized than the voluptuous Baby- 
 lonian of the same period, enjoying all the advantages of a 
 refined " iron age," all the means of luxury furnished by the 
 progress of arts, but degraded by the long-established idolatry 
 of Hamitism, which from Nimrod had come to him through 
 a succession of downward steps, always the more enticing to
 
 SUPPOSED BARBARISM OF PRIMITIVE MAN". 69 
 
 the senses that they were more and more monstrous and un- 
 natural. 
 
 It seems to our modern scientists that the use of stone is in 
 itself contaminating and discreditable. They do not fail to 
 recor,d the fact that in our age it is yet used even by some 
 Europeans. But they always take good care to select their 
 examples so as to connect the use of it with a kind of semi- 
 barbarism. Thus they state with due emphasis that the Irish, 
 wherever in their island they are less in contact with the blessed 
 " Sassanagh," brandish yet in their clumsy work stone mallets and 
 basalt hammers ; and that some of their Gallic neighbors, chiefly 
 the fruit- venders and nut-peddlers of western France, break 
 yet the shells between two stones, exactly as the roughest Poly- 
 nesians do in their island homes of the Pacific Ocean. They 
 are perfectly right in these remarks ; and we remember that, 
 whilst yet a boy, we have often bought nuts from good women 
 who were at the very time breaking them just as described. 
 But since the " prehistorians " are so fond of small details 
 their books literally teem with them we would like to ask 
 them what is the difference of the two methods with respect to 
 " barbarism " or " civilization P If a simple stone hammer can 
 turn out as good a horse-shoe as a steel one ; and if a walnut or 
 hazlenut can as deftly be opened and present as temptingly 
 the fruit inside, by using a couple of clean white pebbles, as by 
 handling a many-toothed steel cracker, why does the use of one 
 argue a higher civilization than the use of the other ? 
 
 We have to ask the pardon of our readers for detaining them 
 with such trifles. But it is literally the fact that Sir John 
 Lubbock, Mr. E. B. Tylor, and all writers of the same class, 
 believe conscientiously that they are founding a new science by 
 accumulating and heaping together almost at random, from 
 every book of travel and every possible excavation made any- 
 where on our globe, trifling facts, oftentimes of no bearing 
 whatever on the question ; on which, however, they speculate
 
 70 GENTILISM. 
 
 in their own way, forgetting, as it would seem, that others may 
 draw from the same facts absolute contrary conclusions to theirs, 
 when everyone could do so differently, and deluding themselves 
 all the while with the imagination, which they often assert in 
 so many words, with no little positiveness, that they have found 
 the true solution of hitherto intricate problems of the greatest 
 importance to mankind ; as if it were their object to assign to 
 the human being a position of the utmost possible degradation. 
 
 But is it not true that every tribe or nation began every- 
 where by the roughest stone period what is called the 
 Pakeolithic age using unpolished stone tools, whose very 
 make denote real barbarism ? Is it not a fact attested by many- 
 discoveries in Western Europe ? Did not man at the time drag 
 on a troublous existence in companionship with ferocious beasts, 
 in the midst of a frozen ocean, like our actual Arctic region ? 
 We answer, that this is asserted by many, and admitted by such 
 men as Messrs. Lenormant and Chevalier, in their excellent 
 " Manual of Ancient History of the East." We reply, that if 
 it is proved, it is only for Western Europe, where man did not 
 originate, and no general conclusion can be drawn from it. 
 
 Bewildered as we are by the accumulation of innumerable 
 facts, mostly insignificant, or proving often only what every- 
 body knows ; and wishing in truth to treat the matter rationally, 
 so as to come to some practical and tangible conclusion, we 
 have only to propose to ourselves two queries : 
 
 First. What kind of researches have been made in Western 
 Europe, and what do they say pointedly ? 
 
 Second. Has the remainder of the globe been interrogated 
 on the same topic, and to what effect ? 
 
 I. Into our present inquiry the ages of bronze and of iron 
 do not' enter, since all admit they coincide with historic times ; 
 and we shall have sufficient proofs on our side when we come to 
 interrogate antiquity. The " stone period " even does not offer 
 any great difficulty, except for the first stage of it what is
 
 SUPPOSED BARBARISM OF PRIMITIVE MAN. Vl 
 
 
 
 called the palaeolithic age ; as the neolithic, or the period of 
 " polished stone," shows already a high degree of artistic 
 development, and is generally admitted to coincide in point of 
 time with the first spread of the Aryan races toward the West 
 and Xorth an epoch very far from the pretended reign of 
 barbarism. But the palaaolithic discoveries have apparently 
 thrown back the existence of man to an almost incalculable 
 distance, owing to the manner in which they have been inter- 
 preted ; and the man they suppose must certainly have been a 
 barbarian. The question for us will be, "Was he the primitive 
 man ? At the time he existed, was there no other type of the 
 human race on the globe ? And must we begin the history of 
 our species by the monster placed under our eyes by Sir John 
 Lubbock in England, and M. De Mortillet in France ? 
 
 To treat the subject with lucidity, we will state first the facts, 
 and then some of the speculations of these gentlemen. Our 
 own we will not offer ; but we will afterwards adduce those of 
 other competent writers on the subject, and conclude how far 
 barbarism has existed in former ages, as it certainly exists at 
 present. 
 
 (a). On both banks of nearly all the rivers of Western 
 Europe, often at a distance from the shores, are seen ranges of 
 hills running parallel with the streams. If these topographical 
 elevations are looked into closely, deposits of coarse gravel 
 below, and sand above, generally are found, varying in depth, 
 but descending mostly to a depth of from ten to twenty feet. 
 These strata are always sometimes as high as a hundred 
 feet, often less above the actual bed of the river. Over the 
 whole a coating of argillaceous clay is spread. In many local- 
 ities in England, France, and other European countries, two 
 kinds of heterogeneous substances are found imbedded in the 
 gravel, the sand, or even the clay. First, pieces of flint never 
 anything else worked, or rather clipped, nnartistically in the 
 rough shape of pointed cones, rounded clubs, or flattened spears,
 
 72 GENTILISM. 
 
 
 
 arrows, awls, etc., never to be inserted in handles of any kind ; 
 and, secondly, often together with these the undoubted remains 
 of huge animals, some of them of extinct species, others of ac- 
 tually existing kinds, but living in countries farther north or 
 south, together with extinct species of plants. 
 
 These deposits are generally met with on ~bofh sides of the 
 rivers, mostly at a distance from them y and it looks really as 
 if the whole intermediate distance across in the entire length 
 of the stream had been originally filled with the same deposits, 
 which must have been swept away to the sea, or into caves 
 often discovered in the neighborhood choke full of the same 
 objects. When this occurs near the mouth of rivers, the great 
 distance between both ranges of hills, the depth looked down 
 into from the tops of surrounding heights, strikes the beholder 
 with awe, when he knows that such an enormous quantity of 
 material has been swept away by the current and buried at the 
 bottom of 'the ocean. It is useless to add that the insignificant 
 bed of the actual stream adds to the effect produced on the 
 imagination by the conception of the past. These few words, 
 we think, have placed the difficulty before us in all its strength. 
 We are now in possession of the leading facts. Our limits do 
 not admit of going into any minuter detail. 
 
 (J). It is easy to suppose how such discoveries, after they had 
 been well ascertained, gave rise immediately to numerous 
 speculations, some of the wildest kind, all more or less unjus- 
 tified by the actual facts. When men propose themselves an 
 a priori object the remotest pretext becomes directly a most 
 powerful argument. 
 
 First, a name was to be found to convey to the student some 
 adequate idea of the immense importance of the treasures 
 concealed in the newly-found deposits. Formerly, being well 
 known exteriorly, they made in books of geology a part of what 
 was called the Drift. And this name was perfectly appropriate, 
 as the reader must not suppose that the whole globe, or a great
 
 SUPPOSED BAEDARISM OF PRIMITIVE MAN. 73 
 
 part of it, is covered with this now celebrated coating of clay 
 above an underlying of sand and gravel. It is found, as we have 
 stated, only along water-courses. It is, therefore, a phenome- 
 non of drift and nothing else. It came evidently from power- 
 ful floods, of the violence of which we can have now scarcely 
 any conception. But the name only half -pleased the discover- 
 ers, and they preferred to call it the Quaternary deposit. As 
 the well-known Primary, Secondary, and Tertiary Strata are 
 absolutely, or at least nearly, co-extensive with the earth itself, 
 the student was led to believe that the. new Quaternary shared 
 in the same ubiquity. Thus a new geological epoch was in- 
 vented. And as remains of human industry have been certainly 
 exhumed from the lowest strata of the new deposits the pre- 
 tended discovery of them in the Tertiary itself by Mr. 1'Abbe 
 Bourgeois and others, has been rejected, and ridiculed even 
 it was evident, they argued, that not only has man existed 
 through the present alluvial formations, but that in a previous 
 long geological epoch, a barbarian industry had been at work, 
 which could not have been but the first attempt at intelligent 
 labor by primitive-barbarian man. Thus a great deal was 
 gained by the cause of barbarism. 
 
 Secondly, in studying the fauna and flora of this Quaternary 
 epoch, another step was made, but not fairly, perhaps, in the 
 same direction. The remains of immense mammalia : elephants 
 (the mammoth), bears, tigers, etc., the congeners of which in 
 our days look like young cubs compared to those prototypes, 
 astonished the beholder, and gave a stronger idea of the weak- 
 ness, inferiority, and rough life of primitive-barbarian man. 
 We certainly do not deny the fact of the existence of those 
 huge beasts, since their bones exist, and are now preserved. It 
 has been long known that the mouths of rivers in Siberia are 
 full of their gigantic carcases. But simple reason tells us that 
 if the life of our first ancestors had been such as they describe, 
 mankind would have disappeared long before the extinction of
 
 74 GEJf TILISM. 
 
 such fearful enemies as ursus spelceus, fell's leo spelaxi, rhinoce- 
 ros tichorinus, and elephas primigenius. The upholders of the 
 supposition have evidently gone too far and defeated them- 
 selves ; and there must be some other way of solving the prob- 
 lem. We will not certainly pretend that because no human 
 fossil remains have been undoubtedly found in the Quater- 
 nary,* man did not exist, since the flint implements must be 
 the work of intelligent beings. But we maintain that these 
 coarse tools do not give the measure of his intellect at the 
 time, and that many things have been lost which might have 
 given us a different idea of man as he was. He must have 
 been certainly superior in intelligence to all those monsters, 
 since being so much weaker in body than they were, he con- 
 quered them, and subsisted when they perished. He must 
 have had other weapons than any which have been yet un- 
 earthed to oppose successfully such huge and ferocious ene- 
 mies ; and the Bible alone, perhaps, has solved the problem in 
 telling us that " there were giants in those days" a text which 
 we will not undertake to explain, since we have not yet met 
 with the offensive and defensive arms which enabled man in 
 those early ages to maintain his superiority throughout a period 
 of such gigantic animal life. No one has a right to say dog- 
 matically what was his social and domestic life. We do not 
 know enough at present to venture even a hypothesis. Shall 
 we ever be able to do so ? Perhaps we shall know more when 
 the same researches have been extended to Asia and Africa. 
 
 Thirdly, the artistic distance between the rough palaeolithic 
 flints and the polished stones of the neolithic period exhibits a 
 gap, which tells but indifferently in favor of the believers in 
 continuous progress. Either there has been a strange severment 
 of continuity, or the men of the first period were better artists, 
 and not such rough barbarians as the remains we possess of 
 
 * Tliis is the assertion of English writers : the French speak quite dif- 
 ferently.
 
 SUPPOSED BARBARISM OF PRIMITIVE MAIT. 5 
 
 them seem to attest. To explain the existence of this gap, 
 which they acknowledge, the supporters of primitive barharism 
 express the hope that the time may come when the intervening 
 links will be discovered. It may then appear that originally 
 men were not satisfied with the rude unpolished flint imple- 
 ments, which alone are now found. The only conclusion which 
 can be drawn is, that we know very little yet of those ancient 
 times ; and that the speculations indulged in our days will be 
 found probably as wide of the mark as the hasty inferences 
 of the first geologists, whose imaginations are now repu- 
 diated. 
 
 But should everything be admitted that Sir John Lubbock 
 himself asserts, it would not be a solution of the problem in 
 his favor. Because, since all acknowledge that barbarians exist, 
 and have existed at all times, the question is merely, " Did 
 barbarism embrace the whole of mankind at first?" So far 
 our researches have been limited almost exclusively to Western 
 Europe. We have not yet said a word of the two other con- 
 tinents, of which we shall shortly have to speak. Man did not 
 originate in Europe. He came from the East, and his migra- 
 tions, now well ascertained, will tell a very different tale. 
 Even in the stone period of the most remote age, he was 
 not without congeners in other parts of the globe. We pro- 
 pose, in this chapter, to take into consideration some of the 
 human races, which, as the best ethnographers admit, went 
 forth from the original seat of mankind, to spread themselves 
 in successive streams of slow, but continuous migrations, in 
 the most remote corners of the earth. Then, indeed, we 
 shall be able to compare race with race, and to examine if all 
 were barbarous at the origin. Meanwhile we reaffirm that the 
 totally degraded state of man as supposed by the supporters of 
 the new theories is not proved. And this suffices for us at 
 present. The neolithic epoch, which must have been connected 
 with the previous one, is certainly admitted to have been far
 
 76 GENTILISM. 
 
 from barbarous, and on this account we do not speak of it cos 
 professo. 
 
 " We have," as Mr. Evans himself says of it, page 423, " hatch 
 ets, adzes, chisels, borers, scrapers, and tools of various kinds, 
 and know both how they were made and how they were used. 
 We have battle-axes, lances, and arrows, for war or for the chase. 
 We have various implements and utensils adapted for domestic 
 use. We have the personal ornaments of our remote prede- 
 cessors, and know something of their methods of sepulture, and 
 of their funeral customs," etc. We may add to this enumera- 
 tion, that all this is often artistically manufactured ; and we have 
 also spirited sketches in intaglio, in which the animals then 
 existing, including the mammoth with his mane, are represented 
 with astonishing precision. Moreover, this (and it is a fact on 
 which we lay especial stress) must have belonged to the palaeo- 
 lithic age, not to the neolithic, since those animals had disap- 
 peared in the latter times. We have therefore to smooth down 
 considerably the rough picture offered us of " homo primi- 
 tivus." The number of those beautiful artistic' sketches found, 
 in the oldest deposits, increases every day, and of themselves 
 alone would prove that man was not then a barbarian. 
 
 But, lastly, a consideration which is of extreme importance in 
 our present investigations, and which, consequently, we pro- 
 pose to treat somewhat more at length, is as follows : 
 
 Nearly all the writers on the subject, including several sin- 
 cere Christains, seem to admit, that in the quaternary geologi- 
 2al epoch, the deposits of sand, gravel, and clay followed nearly 
 the almost peaceful course which we witness ourselves on the 
 banks of the Mississippi River, and which are present under the 
 eyes of South Americans, along the Amazon. Consequently, 
 to calculate the time required for the scooping out of the im- 
 mense valleys then in process of formation, is merely an affair 
 of common arithmetic. It is true, the results of the mathemati- 
 cal operation vary in a most wonderful manner. Sir Charles
 
 SUPPOSED BARBARISM OF PRIMITIVE MAN. 77 
 
 Lyell, according to Mr. John Evans (page 619), requires no less 
 than 800,000 years for the whole process from the glacial 
 period, during which time man but barbarous man is sup- 
 posed to have always existed. Sir John Lubbock undertakes 
 the same calculation, and finds that 200,000 years have sufficed. 
 Finally, the Christian writers of whom we spoke, think that a 
 minimum of 10,000 will sufficiently account for the general 
 facts ; and to that extent must the chronolgy of the Bible be 
 extended. Such a disaccord ought evidently to demand a denial 
 of the whole by sensible men. 
 
 It is true, that independently of our sacred records, reason alone, 
 and geology, to a great extent, proves that man could not, and 
 did not appear on our globe before it was settled definitely, and 
 was fit to become his dwelling. And, in fact, the remains of 
 man of his body, I mean can bs found only in the scrapings 
 of its uppermost surface ; namely, in the drift the real drif t 
 not the quaternary strata understood in the modern sense. 
 Since the epoch of the real drift, naturalists of the true 
 stamp, endowed with a deep spirit of observation, can calculate 
 with^sufficient accuracy, the time required for the various oper- 
 ations going on yet under our eyes ; such as the forming of 
 deltas at the mouth of rivers, the spreading of sand on the out- 
 skirts of deserts, etc., etc. Yet, we may say it incidently, 
 Baron Cuvier having undertaken to show in his " Discours sur 
 les Revolutions du Globe " that our continents in their present 
 shape could not go farther up in time than the epoch generally 
 assigned for the Noachian deluge, after he had brought to the 
 study of the question all the resources of his exact and power- 
 ful mind, all his extensive knowledge, all the means furnished 
 him by the libraries and collections of Paris, having, in fact, ap- 
 parently given an opinion which could be called final ; what was 
 our surprise to hear, lately, from the lips of an eminent geolo- 
 gist of this country, that all this discussion of Baron Cuvier 
 must r ow be considered of no value ! We ask our candid read-
 
 78 GENTILISM. 
 
 ers, what will be thought In fifty years to come of all the calcu- 
 lations of actual geologists and palaeontologists ? 
 
 But to return to our subject. What is positively asserted by 
 eminent naturalists of this important quaternary epoch ? Was 
 it a peaceful period of ordinary development, following clear 
 and steady rules ? Is it easy, or, rather, is it possible, in the ac- 
 tual state of our knowledge on the subject, to calculate the num- 
 ber of years required for its formation ? Are we consequently 
 able to conclude from the incredible length of time it supposes, 
 that man, at first nearly a brute, slowly developed with the 
 globe on which he trod ? For this is the real object all those 
 modern writers propose to themselves in their investigations. 
 
 On the contrary, our knowledge of this newly-invented geo- 
 logical period tends to prove that either on account of the most 
 strange climate which can be imagined, or of the extreme vio- 
 lence of water-courses which must have amounted to numerous 
 and extensive floods, or finally of the almost complete absence 
 of regular and orderly stratification, puzzling indeed to geolo- 
 gists, the celebrated quaternary epoch must have been one of 
 severe and constant disturbances, scarcely allowing man to ex- 
 ist, and certainly placing an insurmountable obstacle in the 
 way of calculators, when it is a question of determining the 
 length of the period ; so that the 800,000 years of Sir Chas. 
 Lyell, the 200,000 of Sir John Lubbock, nay, the insignificant 
 10,000 of Christian palaeontologists, are only unreliable guesses 
 which can as well be passed over without a word of discussion. 
 
 The climate, it seems, was such at that geological epoch, that 
 neither before nor after, has anything ever been experienced 
 to equal its irregularity. The whole series of other strata 
 offers nothing of the kind ; everywhere there is order except 
 in the quaternary. Yast moraines testify to the existence of 
 stupendous glaciers, one of them spreading^ itself from the 
 source of the Rhone, east of the Lake of Geneva, nearly to 
 Lyons in the west ; the whole of Europe, in very truth, north
 
 SUPPOSED BARBARISM OF PRIMITIVE MA.N. 79 
 
 of the Pyrenees was covered with them. Consequently the 
 reindeer throve everywhere over that vast area. Many valleys, 
 however, must have been exposed to a high summer heat, to 
 admit of their being a home for the elephant. The hippopota- 
 mus of Africa, only much larger, found a congenial climate as 
 far north as Belgium. Many conjectures have been ventured 
 to explain such anomalies as these. Not one of them, however, 
 is satisfactory. To obviate this difficulty, geologists assure us 
 that " the glacial disturbance did not last long." How do they 
 know that ? Is not the fact that remains of the reindeer are 
 found throughout the period, and that it was the only large 
 animal which did not perish, but retired to the north, where it 
 thrives yet a sufficient refutation of the assertion that " the 
 glacial period did not last long ? " 
 
 But it is well known that extremes of this kind must power- 
 fully influence the meteorological phenomena ; and nothing is 
 more effective for disturbing the surface of the globe, and for 
 producing most fearful storms. We might, therefore, already 
 conclude that the quaternary period was, during its whole ex- 
 tent, a violent one, whose effects can scarcely be calculated, and 
 to pretend to measure it at this time is a dream. 
 
 All palaeontologists tell us that, during this epoch, the at- 
 mospheric moisture must have been extreme, and the fall of 
 rain nearly incessant. Which fact, joined with the rapid melt- 
 ing of the glaciers, must have caused a literal deluge, lasting 
 through the whole time of the period. If this be so, (and we 
 wait for it to be controverted,) there is then no need of calling 
 to one's aid the true Noachian flood, as Mr. 1'Abbe Lambert 
 has done in his interesting work, " Le Deluge Mosaique, 1'His- 
 toire et la Geologic," to explain the same facts. Perhaps the 
 palaeontologists go too far on this subject. Yet much of what 
 they affirm is proved by the short description we have given of 
 the enormous water-courses which existed at the time. Our 
 
 surprise is, indeed, great, that* Sir Charles Lvell was not dis- 
 
 7
 
 80 GE^TILISM. 
 
 turbed in his calculations- by such an obvious objection as this, 
 and that he felt himself at liberty to speak so dogmatically 
 on a subject so obscure. 
 
 It is certain that in the whole field of geology nothing is so 
 problematical as every thing connected with what is called the 
 quaternary deposits ; yet it is on this subject men now speak 
 most peremptorily. 
 
 Finally, to confirm all these views, we are supplied with 
 another striking characteristic of the quaternary period : 
 namely, that the " statigraphic classification of the deposits 
 of this geological epoch is yet very obscure and uncertain." 
 Which means, we presume, that the stratification of the vari- 
 ous deposits is irregular and without order, so that palaeontol- 
 ogists are at a loss to know how to begin or to end the epoch, 
 and the way things used to go on during the whole of it to 
 us a homely but very appropriate phrase. This, of course, all 
 students of geology well know, supposes an habitual state of 
 disturbance during the whole period, constantly displacing the 
 strata, and rendering any system on the subject impossible. 
 
 It is true that Mr. Ed. Dupont, after a deep study of the caves 
 near Dinan, in Brittany, " has been able to reconstruct all the 
 phases of the primitive industry of man, as it existed at the 
 time in the country we now call Belgium ! " and Mr. Gabriel 
 de Mortillet " has proposed a classification of the whole period, 
 which has been adopted in the Paris Museum of -National 
 Antiquities." But this last gentleman has been obliged to 
 designate his subdivisions of the period merely by the names 
 of the places where he supposes the remains of each are mainly 
 found, thus : epoque du MoustieH the most ancient ; .epoque de 
 Solutre next in order ; epoque cPAurignac succeeding the pre 
 vious one ; and lastly, V epoque de la Madeleine. But it is obvi- 
 ous that it is merely the individual view of Mr. G. de Mortillet, 
 and not a natural one, based on precise data, as seemed to be the 
 one proposed by Mr. Ed. Lartet, namely : epoque du renne /
 
 SUPPOSED BARBARISM OF PRIMITIVE MAN. 81 
 
 epoqiie de Pours / epogue du rnammouih^ which at first satis 
 tied a number of learned men, but had to be abandoned as not 
 sustained by actual facts, owing to the confusion of everything 
 at the time those deposits were accumulated. 
 
 The conclusion of the whole is well expressed by Mr. Adrien 
 Arcelin, in " Le Correspondant, Decembre, 1872 " : " Some 
 geologists have thought, not without foundation, that the ap- 
 pellation quaternary epoch ought to be suppressed, because 
 not representing any precise idea. It is, in fact, rather a transi- 
 tion from the tertiary period to the actual one, than an " epoch " 
 properly so called. Our own conclusion is that nothing is yet 
 known positively of the length of the period, and all calcula- 
 tions in the face of its numerous anomalies are altogether 
 worthless." Thus the barbarism of " quaternary man" is not 
 yet proved, any more than his high antiquity. 
 
 But we cannot dismiss the subject without calling the atten 
 tion of the reader to the theory of Mr. 1'Abbe Lambert, men- 
 tioned above. We have not seen his work, but we learn from 
 Mr. Arcelin that its object is " to assimilate the diluvian " or 
 as we prefer to express it, the drift " phenomena to the Biblical 
 deluge." The idea is, in fact, striking after one has perused suffi- 
 ciently what has been written on the quaternary or drift deposits. 
 
 The extreme moisture of the atmosphere, not only during 
 the fall of the pouring rain, but all through the subsidence of 
 the waters, and perhaps long after even, must have been nearly 
 of the nature described above. With respect to the strange- 
 ness of climate, if the deluge was universal, as the literal text 
 of the Bible, and the traditions of it spread among all nations, 
 except the blacks, seem to intimate, may we not suppose that 
 the immense volume of the then universal sea detached from 
 the neighborhood of both poles, not glaciers, perhaps, but at 
 least immense and innumerable icebergs, deposited afterwards 
 over the continents, when they emerged anew from the ocean ? 
 What would be the climate of England and France for the sub-
 
 82 GENTILISM. 
 
 sequent time ? Isot very different, possibly, from what wo 
 described above. Then the incalculable rush of the waters, 
 when they subsided, might account for the " scooping out " of 
 those large valleys, which fill the beholder with wonder and 
 astonishment, and which excite the wild speculations of ardent 
 geologists. In this case, again, we cannot be surprised at the 
 confusion of the various deposits, which bewilder learned men, 
 and defeat all attempts at classification. The presence of 
 human remains there were many, at least in France, as we 
 shall see presently together with the uncouth animals of the 
 ante-diluvian period, both mixed together as they are often 
 found, can be best explained by the supposition of the Mosaic 
 deluge. For, as Mr. John Evans very properly observes, men 
 and ferocious beasts could not live together in the same caves. 
 All these considerations, and many others which might be 
 indulged in, will for ever prevent the opinion of Mr. Lambert 
 from being considered as ill-founded, when compared with the 
 theories of " prehistorians." 
 
 On this hypothesis for it is claimed only as such the clip- 
 ped and unpolished flint instruments found everywhere in the 
 drift, w r ould have been used by the ante-diluvian people ; but 
 it was not, by a great way, all they possessed in point of art. It 
 be may conjectured that innumerable objects, already in those 
 far-off ages, invented ]>y man for his convenience and pleasure, 
 have either perished, or have not yet been found, and may be 
 later discovered in the drift deposits of Asia, where man really 
 originated. For if we do not believe in indefinite and continu- 
 ous progress, any more than in the barbarism of primitive 
 man, we acknowledge in fact that the only thing which man did 
 not invent was language. Writing, the knowledge and use of 
 metals, the various arts, the sciences, etc., are the proud con- 
 quests of the King of creation. But if he had to go through a 
 long process of investigations and discoveries after his fall, he 
 still possessed reason, nourished at first by divine revelation;
 
 SUPPOSED BARBARISM OF PRIMITIVE MAJf. 83 
 
 and nothing can give more elevation and activity to the human 
 mind, besides its native energy, than the word of God commu- 
 nicated first to the race, and preserved more or less faithfully 
 during a long period at least of the ante-diluvia'n epoch. His 
 inventions, therefore, were then more rapid and remarkable 
 than we can suppose them to have been at a later period. 
 
 These considerations, worthy of the respect of all Christians, 
 cannot any more be derided by merely learned men ; because, 
 in our age, the truth of the ISToachian deluge gradually gains 
 ground, and begins to be adopted by men of learning, even 
 when unfortunately deprived of the belief in divine revelation. 
 
 The following quotations from Mr. E. B. Tylor, and Mr. 
 Maury, deserve, on this account, to find a place in our pages : 
 
 " The notion of men having existed before the flood, and 
 having been all destroyed except a few who escaped and re- 
 peopled the earth, does not flow so immediately from the obser- 
 vation of natural phenomena that we can easily suppose it to 
 have originated several times independently in such a way ; yet 
 this is a feature common to the great mass of flood traditions. 
 Still more strongly does this argument apply to the occurrence 
 of some form of raft, ark, or canoe in which the survivors are 
 generally saved, unless, as in some cases, they take refuge 
 directly on the top of some mountain which the water never 
 covers. The idea is, indeed, conceivable, if somewhat far- 
 fetched, that from the sight of a boat found high on a moun- 
 tain, there might grow the story of a flood which carried it 
 there, while the people in it escaped to found a new race. But 
 it lies outside all reasonable probability to suppose such cir- 
 cumstances to have produced the same story in several different 
 places, nor is it very likely that the dim remembrances of a 
 number of local floods should accord in this with the amount 
 of consistency that is found among the flood traditions cf 
 remote regions of the world. The occurrence of an ark in the 
 traditions of a deluge, found in so many distant times and
 
 84 GEirriLisM. 
 
 places, seems to entitle them to be received as derived from a 
 single source." (E. B. Tylor, " Early History of Mankind," 
 ' page 324.) 
 
 " The cause -of the likeness of the diluvian traditions of the 
 people of the New World to those of the Bible, remains still 
 an unexplained fact," says Mr. Maury, who nevertheless tries 
 in the same book to destroy the authority of the Mosaic narra- 
 tive of the deluge. The fact once admitted, most of the dis- 
 coveries of the paloaolithic age can be explained. We will, 
 however, show later on that there is yet a better explanation 
 of the whole misconception of unbelieving scientists, and 
 that not only the actual state of the quaternary deposits, but 
 chiefly the human remains they contain, prove their real age, 
 and their probable origin bring them absolutely within the 
 limits of historic times, and do away entirely with the im- 
 mense number of ages supposed to be required by enthusiastic 
 prehistorians. 
 
 II. We have, thus far, briefly examined the researches made 
 in Western Europe in the Drift, and compared the conclusions 
 drawn from them by many " prehistorians " with those of a 
 very competent class of writers on the same subject. We must 
 now answer the question, What of Asia and Africa ? 
 
 It seems that a large number of specimens of stone imple- 
 ments have already been received in England from Bombay. 
 But we have not heard that the circumstances of their discovery 
 agree with those enumerated above, with respect to the Euro- 
 pean Drift. For the various theories on the quaternary period, 
 as it is called, do not rely only, nor principally even, for 
 their support on the stone relics of the palaeolitliic age, but 
 chiefly on their surroundings in situ; on the remains of 
 extinct mammalia, which often accompany them ; on the clear 
 proofs of a very different climate at the time ; on their siati- 
 graphy, as geologists express it ; and on several other circum- 
 stances which have been closely investigated in Europe. We
 
 SUPPOSED BAEBAEISM OF PRIMITIVE MAN. 85 
 
 have not heard anything of the kind from Bombay, so that no 
 conclusion whatever can yet be deduced from Asiatic discoveries. 
 
 But an answer has come from Africa, and it is, in its sim- 
 plicity, a terrible blow given to the fine-spun theories of " pre- 
 historians." Mr. Mariette has already been heard from Egypt ; 
 and Mr. F. Chabas, in his " Etudes sur 1'Antiquite Historique, 
 etc." (2d edit. Paris, 1873), has summed up the conclusions 
 deduced from those African discoveries. Mr. Mariette states 
 positively that Egypt and the adjacent countries, chiefly in the 
 north, are literally filled with stone implements of the (so- 
 called) palaeolithic and neolithic ages ; but all evidently belong- 
 ing to the true historic period, to all centuries, in fact, from 
 the first Egyptian dynasties to the Ptolemies. They are in- 
 variably mixed up with copper, bronze, and even sometimes 
 iron utensils. Workmen continued to use them indiscrim- 
 inately, probably because silex is extremely abundant all over 
 Egypt, and they are as useful as metallic tools for many opera- 
 tions. They served in the mines of Mount Sina which Mr. 
 Mariette went to explore to extract from, the clay the tur- 
 quoises which are abundant there, and were used by the 
 Pharaohs for the ornamentation of their temples and palaces. 
 They served around Memphis and Thebes for cutting stone, 
 and polishing the obelisks, columns, statues, etc. With them 
 are often found fresh-water shells, on the fish of which the 
 workmen fed, as well as many objects of Egyptian art of all 
 periods, etc., etc. 
 
 These few remarks evidently nullify all the prehistoric 
 systems invented by ardent French and English discoverers. 
 But combining the facts of Egypt with those of Europe, 
 Mr. Chabas draws conclusions perfectly in accord with our 
 own, and expressed pithily in the analytical index placed at 
 the end of his most interesting volume. We quote his own 
 words, on account of the rare good sense they exhibit, so dif- 
 ferent from the idle guessing of shallow theorists :
 
 86 GENTILISM. 
 
 " Les silex tallies des epoques du renne et de 1'elephant (en 
 France), sont aussi remarquables que ceiix dits de la pierre 
 polie." (Consequently neither belong to a barbarous age.) 
 "Des outils grossiers et des instruments bien travailles sont 
 repandus dans toutes les stations" (Consequently nv periodicity.} 
 " Superiorite incontestable du travail de 1'os a 1'epoque du 
 mammouth et du renne." (Therefore no quaternary period, 
 so called.) " Le grand deplacement d'tau qui a donne le relief 
 actuel du bassin de la Seine a ete de peu de duree." (No proof 
 consequently of a great antiquity for objects found in it. It 
 was not an epoch.) " Incertitudes sur la duree et sur 1'uni- 
 versalite des phenomenes glaciaires," etc., etc. A phraso same- 
 where in the book seems to indicate that the author would not 
 be much opposed to the opinion that all those drift phenomena 
 are the effects of the Noachian deluge. 
 
 Mr. Chabas is a man of science, of no mean attainments ; 
 and, if we do not mistake, he began his investigations with a 
 real bent towards the new theories ; but, in his good faith, he 
 soon perceived the error, and, with an honest simplicity, he de- 
 clared openly his convictions. 
 
 ' III. 
 
 The question seems now to be in a fair way of a rational 
 solution. By looking at it under a new aspect, we hope to 
 solve it in a way which, we trust, may be considered to be not 
 very far from a complete demonstration. 
 
 The English scientists generally assert that very few un- 
 doubted remains of the human skeleton have been discovered 
 among the deposits of the palaeolithic age, if, indeed, any can 
 be said to have been found really belonging to it. The French, 
 on the contrary, have had the good luck to fall on real treas- 
 ures of this kind, to which a slight allusion has already been 
 made by us.
 
 SUPPOSED BARBARISM OF PRIMITIVE MAtf. 87 
 
 In the classification of the various stages of the quaternary 
 period suggested by Mr. de Mortillet, and adopted in the Paris 
 Museum of National Antiquities, the first and oldest epoch, 
 \ve said, was that of " du Moustiers," in which no human 
 remains have been discovered. But in the deposits of the 
 second epoch that of " Solutre " a number of skeletons, more 
 or less perfect, have been exhumed, " well constituted," says 
 Mr. A. Arcelin, "worthy in every respect to be called men, 
 although offering, certainly, some characteristics now belonging 
 only to inferior races." But in the subsequent epoch that of 
 "Aurignac" to which the remains found at Cro Magnon, in 
 Dordogne, France, are supposed to belong, far superior char- 
 acteristics are visible. Dr. Broca published in the " Memoirs 
 of the Anthropological Society," a most interesting dissertation 
 on the subject. He found that, in some respects, that antique 
 race " possessed some of the highest and noblest traits of the 
 human form, whilst in some others it could only be compared 
 with the lowest types of the present age." 
 
 Already, not only many conveniences for life existed, but 
 art was likewise attempted in those productions of sculpture 
 and bas-relief of which we have already spoken. The men of 
 that very early age worked not only on stone, but also on bone 
 and ivory. The representations of the various animals exist- 
 ing at the time, and of which several species are now extinct, 
 are so well brought out that they are easily recognizable spe- 
 cifically, and their individual nature is clearly expressed. 
 There is even a kind of boldness in the execution which sup- 
 poses in the workman a real artistic taste, at least, in the in- 
 cipient stage. 
 
 We are far, it is evident, from finding in " primitive man," 
 oven in Western Europe, the brute type of the pretended 
 Neanderthal cranium which had produced such a lively and 
 triumphant sensation in the Darwinist ranks, until it was proved 
 that its age could not be ascertained, and that it might have
 
 88 GENTILISM. 
 
 belonged to an idiot, a class never extinct, even among the 
 most polished and civilized races. And the same may be said 
 of several other human bones found isolated and mutilated, so 
 as to offer scarcely any positive and certain characteristics. 
 Yet were such discoveries as these invariably received by the 
 evolutionists with shouts of exultation. 
 
 It was not the case with respect to the remains of man in 
 what is called the Quaternary deposit. They were so abundant 
 and so well preserved that anthropologists began to study and 
 ascertain their characteristics ; and the result was, in our opin- 
 ion, a complete refutation of the common delusion of our age 
 regarding " primitive man." Dr. Pruner-Bey was instrumental 
 in bringing this about. He asserted plainly that they belonged 
 to the branch of the human family remarkable for a lozenge- 
 shaped visage, to which he had already given the name of 
 " Mongoloid " much more extensive, remark it well, than 
 the former Mongolian race, but including it. He thought even 
 that he could recognize in the skeletons in his possession four 
 principal types, which could be assimilated to races existing at 
 the present time, namely, the Lapps, the Finns, the Esthonians, 
 and the Esquimaux of Behring Straits. 
 
 Therefore the "man" of the Quaternary period, according 
 to Pruner-Bey, belongs to history, and there is, in fact, no pre- 
 historic man ; a discovery so important that we must consider 
 it somewhat at leisure ; and the more we examine it, the more 
 surely shall we arrive at a rational solution of the problem. 
 
 first, to establish firmly the competence of the discoverer, it 
 must be said that his declaration was stoutly opposed by the 
 transformist school, as it is called, namely : by the partisans of 
 Darwinism. They pretended that, as, in the opinion of their 
 leader, all organized beings are in a constant state of transfor- 
 mation, it is not possible to establish the permanent character- 
 istics of races, and distinguish one from the other. This was 
 to deny the possibility of a scientific natural history ; and as it
 
 SUPPOSED BAKBARI3M OF PRIMITIVE MAN. 89 
 
 is certainly a positive consequence of their system, it is another 
 proof that it must be wrong. But it is useless to add that all 
 men in France, learned in the science of anthropology, declared 
 themselves firm supporters of the ideas and conclusions of 
 Pruner-Bey. De Quatrefages, acknowledged universally as 
 one of the first European anthropologists, distinguished himself 
 by his ardent championship of the discovery. 
 
 To understand fully its paramount importance, and show 
 how completely it undermines the very existence of prehistoric 
 times, we have only to compare its results with the well-known 
 conclusions of the best ethnographers of our age. It will then 
 be found that the men of the Quaternary period belonged, really, 
 to those branches of the human family which have been called 
 Allophylian by Dr. Prichard Turanian, by the majority of 
 writers Hamitic, by very respectable scientists and historians, 
 and by the majority of Christian writers, such as De Maistre, 
 Lord Arandel, etc., and now are called Mongoloid, or Mongo- 
 lian, by such men as Dr. Pruner-Bey, Quatrefages, and Max 
 Miiller. 
 
 We request the reader's particular attention, since we are 
 going to speak of the real " primitive man " among the races 
 degraded not only by the Fall, but likewise by a particular 
 curse, to the fact, that, although the skeletons studied by Pru- 
 ner-Bey belonged to races far superior to the pretended proto- 
 type of the supposed prehistoric times, still they were far 
 inferior to other races included, it is true, in the fall of Adam, 
 but not in the curse of ISToah, namely : the Japhetic and Sem- 
 itic families. 
 
 Dr. James C. Prichard, in his " Researches into the Physical 
 History of Mankind," was the first to speak in extenso of the 
 almost universal spread in primitive times of various races com- 
 paratively barbarous, when placed in juxtaposition with the 
 Indo-European family of nations. He called them Allophylian, 
 and showed that they were not yet extinct, but formed, even
 
 90 GENTILISM. 
 
 in our own days, sometimes vast centres of population, chiefly 
 in Northern and Eastern Asia, sometimes less numerous com- 
 munities in the north and the west of Europe. He showed 
 that the Basques, at the foot of the Pyrenees, were most prob- 
 ably allied to them ; that the same may be said of the Iberians 
 who occupied one-half of Spain-; and that the Finns and Lapps 
 were certainly branches of the same family. He proved it 
 likewise of the Tartars and Turks certainly not a degraded 
 race. He includes in the same vast agglomeration of nations 
 all the tribes of Siberia, together with the peoples inhabiting 
 the high regions of Central Asia, divided between the Turkish, 
 Mongolian, and Tungusian branches. Finally, besides nume- 
 rous other less important tribes, he admitted into the same 
 classification the Thibetians, the Chinese, and Indo-Chinese 
 nations ; also the aboriginal races of the Dekhan in India, and 
 of Ceylon, so different from the Hindoos of Indo-European 
 origin. 
 
 The " Mongoloid " race of Dr. Pruner-Bey, on which he in- 
 grafts the " men of the Quaternary period," whose remains 
 were discovered at Solutre, and elsewhere in France and Bel- 
 gium, is, we may say, co-extensive with the family of Allophy- 
 lian races enumerated by Dr. Prichard. 
 
 But the author of the " Physical History of Mankind " went 
 further. It was chiefly by the study of the languages of all 
 those tribes that he showed their affinity. And he positively 
 disproved by his deep researches the previous assertions of 
 Leontier, in his " Letters to Mr. Langles on the Literature of 
 the Mandchoos," of Klaproth himself, and of other best-in- 
 formed writers, who apparently had established firmly the 
 opinion of a radical difference in the languages chiefly of the 
 Tartar, Mongolian, and Tungusian families. Dr. Prichard dem- 
 onstrated so completely the affinity of language in all the 
 tribes and nations which he called Allophylian, that from his 
 time the decision has been considered as final ; and the best
 
 SUPPOSED BAEBAEISM OF PRIMITIVE MAN. 91 
 
 ethnographers of our times, besides such men as George Raw- 
 linson and Max Miiller, fully admit it as incontestable. 
 
 The name, Allophylian, given by Dr. Prichard to this im- 
 mense agglomeration, was, it is true, soon forgotten, or at least 
 neglected ; and a new one, Turanian, was introduced. But its 
 introduction brought out no new view on the subject, or none 
 worth chronicling. 
 
 In Sir George Rawlinson's " Herodotus " Tom. 1, Essay xi. 
 we find a succinct, we may say, indeed, exhaustive discussion 
 on the " Tatar or Turanian races," as he calls them ; and he has 
 certainly collected there all the sound erudition, ancient or 
 modern, which we possess on the topic. We can give only the 
 conclusions he has reached ; but they must not be omitted on 
 account of their importance. 
 
 He gives more details than Prichard on the languages used 
 by the various families of this ancient race, and admits that in 
 "character and genius the Turanian tongues may be said to 
 resemble one another." He pretends, it is true, that " although 
 the connection between them may be accounted for by real con- 
 sanguinity or descent from a common stock, it does not necessi- 
 tate such a supposition, but it may be sufficiently explained 
 without it. The principle of agglutination, as it is called, 
 which is the most marked characteristic of their languages, 
 seems almost a necessary feature of any language in a constant 
 state of flux and change, absolutely devoid of a literature, and 
 maintaining itself in existence by means of the scanty conversa- 
 tion of nomads." But all the remarks which follow this sin- 
 gular or rather too sweeping opinion of the learned English- 
 man, tend to show that he believed with Priehard in the real 
 and substantial affinity of language between all these tribes. 
 And after enumerating the various original races of Western 
 and Central Asia, he adds a few phrases, which we quote 
 on account of their important bearing on our present subject : 
 " The primitive form of the tongue .... has remained, from
 
 92 GENTILISM. 
 
 the earliest times to the present day, the language of four-fifths 
 of Asia, and of many of the remoter parts of Europe. It is 
 spoken by the Finns and the Lapps .... the Ostiaks and 
 Samoyeds, by all the various races which wander over the vast 
 steppes of Northern Asia, and Eastern Europe ; by the hill- 
 tribes of India the Dekhan and by many nations of the 
 Eastern Archipelago." We see its co-extension with the Allo- 
 phylian family of Dr. Prichard. To show, moreover, that their 
 language is not so unsettled as he seems to imply in this pas- 
 sage, he quotes, in his notes on the subject, Max Miiller, who 
 certainly, in his lectures " On the Science of Religion," in- 
 cludes, with Prichard, Thibet and China in the category. And 
 there is, and there certainly has been, a "literature" in those 
 Turanian countries. He mentions several times, likewise, the 
 remarkable fact that in most cuneiform. inscriptions found in 
 formerly civilized countries of Asia, there is not only a Sanscrit 
 as well as a Semitic column, but also a Turanian one, so that 
 they are called " trilingual." Thus identifying, as many eth- 
 nographers do, the Turanian with the Hamitic family of nations. 
 We shall show this more fully presently. Asia exhibits yet 
 in all its principal inscriptions the original division of mankind 
 among the three sons of Noah, beyond which we have no traces 
 of " primitive man." Dr. Pruner-Bey, in his classification of 
 the races found in the quaternary period, cannot consequently 
 extend it to the epoch previous to the Deluge, but must confine 
 this nomenclature to a posterior period of time, since it is only 
 later on that there have been Lapps, Einns, Esthonians, and 
 Esquimaux, whose types he has discovered among the remains 
 of Solutre and of Cro Magnon. Those remains, therefore, 
 belong really to historic, not to prehistoric times. 
 
 A second general remark of great importance made by Sir 
 George Rawlinson, regards the priority of the spread of the 
 Turanian family to the Semitic and Indo-European branches, 
 which certainly appear in history after the Turanians. The
 
 SUPPOSED BARBARISM OF PRIMITIVE MAN. 93 
 
 Paschal Chronicle, Epiphanius (adv. haeres), and John of Malala 
 (Chronogr.), speak of a period which they designate by the term 
 2Kv$iopb(;, when Turanian or Scythic races were predomi- 
 nant, and when Aryan or Semitic civilization does not seem to 
 have been developed. Berosus and Justinus, the first by allud- 
 ing to the Median dynasty, the second by what he calls the 
 Scythic domination, evidently refer to this early epoch. In 
 the time of Herodotus there was yet everywhere in Western 
 Asia a large Scythic element in the population, which gave 
 grounds for the supposition that formerly it was predominant. 
 And the recently-discovered cuneiform records place the fact 
 beyond a doubt. These Scythic writings appear not only in 
 Media, but in Persia proper, chiefly at Pasagardas. 
 
 To use the very words of Rawlinson : " All this can only be 
 accounted for by the supposition that before the great immigra- 
 tion of the Aryan races from the East, Scythic, or Tatar, tribes 
 occupied the countries seized by them. This population was 
 for the most part absorbed in the conquering element. In 
 places, however, it maintained itself in some distinctness, and 
 retained a quasi nationality, standing to the conquerors as the 
 Welsh and ancient Cornish to the Anglo-Saxons of our t own 
 country." 
 
 On these sensible observations of the great English writer, we 
 may be allowed to remark that the priority of which he speaks 
 cannot have been one including many ages, as the prehistoric 
 writers suppose. It is clearly allowable to speak pf the prior 
 period of SKV^IOHOS as of an historic epoch ; and thus the 
 human remains of the so-called quaternary deposits in France 
 do not belong in fact to prehistoric times : since the existence 
 of the Lapps, Finns, Esthonians, etc., being admittedly included 
 in that of the Scythic, or Turanian, or Allophylian tribes 
 whichever of these names the reader may adopt everything 
 found in the drift, even of the palaeolithic age, must be referred 
 to the same period of time.
 
 94 GEXTILISM. 
 
 Sir George Rawlinson's clear details on the Turanian race con- 
 tain yet another remarkable fact, which ought not to be omit- 
 ted in these investigations. The generic name he gives to the 
 race itself Turanian includes not only Scythic, or Tatar, tribes 
 of Central and Northern Asia, as well as of Northern and West- 
 ern Europe, but likewise the Hamitic populations of nearly the 
 whole of Africa, and of Southern Arabia and Asia. The de- 
 tails ought to be read in the work to which we refer, since 
 the limit we have assigned to ourselves does not allow us to 
 quote them in extenso. But from the whole the conclusion 
 remains, that primitively the whole of Asia, Africa, and prob- 
 ably Europe, was inhabited by a race whose language differed 
 certainly in most of the tribes composing it, but partook evi- 
 dently of a common characteristic, and was of a similar nature. 
 This similarity consisted chiefly in its form ~by agglutination. 
 The ancient language of Egypt bore certainly that character, 
 as well as that of actual China. That race is undoubtedly the 
 most ancient with which we now are acquainted. Neverthe- 
 less, the immense addition to historic knowledge, acquired 
 lately by the arduous labors of many investigators, enables us 
 to assert that it does not reach beyond historic times. To- that 
 race belonged certainly the skeletons studied by Dr. Pruner- 
 Bey, since the Lapps, Finns, and Esthonians are invariably 
 ascribed to it by all modern writers on the subject. But Kaw- 
 linson, who sticks to the term " Turanian," by which he distin- 
 guishes it, is bound, by his own list of nations, to include in 
 it all the Hamitic tribes known in ancient times. 
 
 Hence, Christian ethnographers and men of science have des- 
 ignated it by this last name, and state boldly, and probably 
 truly, that the children of Ham spread at first more rapidly on 
 the earth than those of Sem and Japhet ; and thus took posses- 
 sion of the places where their more favored brethren were to 
 come after them, and to assume the authority over them, prom- 
 ised by the father of all future men Noah himself. Thus
 
 SUPPOSED BARBARISM OF PRIMITIVE MAN. 95 
 
 the priority of which we spoke is not that of the race itself, 
 but of its extension. The reason of its inferiority in this case 
 is not that it was a more primitive state of humanity, but that 
 it lay under a curse. We may here remark, incidentally, that 
 Mr. de Maistre, in his celebrated passage of the " Soirees de St. 
 Petersbourg," quoted by Lord Arundel at the head of his chap- 
 ter on " Tradition," does not suppose the curse to have been a 
 single one, as that of Noah referred to above ; but he explains 
 the existence of perhaps many savage tribes by the crimes of 
 their chieftains. " A chief of a nation," he says, " having 
 altered the principle of morality in his household by one of 
 those prevarications which, so far 'as we can judge, are no 
 longer possible in the actual state of things because happily 
 our knowledge is no longer such as to allow us to become cul- 
 pable in this degree ; this chief of a nation, I say, transmits the 
 curse to his posterity ; and every constant force being accele- 
 rating in its nature, this degradation, weighing incessantly upon 
 his descendants, has ended in making them what we call 
 savages" 
 
 Here, however, as we speak of a vast primitive race, com- 
 posed of an almost indefinite number of tribes, the curse must 
 have happened at the very beginning of mankind, and can be 
 explained only by the fact recorded in'- the Book of Genesis. 
 There are considerations on the subject in the chapter " on 
 primitive man " of the recent work of Lord Arundel, well 
 worthy of perusal. He, however, thinks that the Hamitic fam- 
 ily was not co-extensive with the Turanian race, which, he 
 says, is a philological, not an ethnic, entity ; and this observation, 
 striking at first, is, in my opinion, calculated to create a far 
 greater difficulty than the one it obviates. The noble writer, 
 in the course of his remarks, seems to limit the Hamitic race to 
 black, or nearly black, tribes, as he readily classifies with it the 
 degraded races of Hindostan, the Sudras particularly, on ac- 
 count of their dark complexion. But is he right in placing
 
 96 GENTILISM. 
 
 " blackness," as lie calls it, among the essential characteristics of 
 the Hamitic family ? The Hamitic race spread from the very 
 beginning, not only in Egypt and Ethiopia, but likewise in Baby- 
 lonia, Palestine, and along the Syrian coast ; many nations 
 sprung from it not only were not black, but were remarkable 
 for their ruddy complexion. 
 
 "We prefer, therefore, not to distinguish, ethnically, the Tu- 
 ranians of the North and West from the Hamites of the South 
 and East. And in this we are in harmony with the best ethnog- 
 raphers of our time. All the facts we have adduced, tend to 
 prove the real origin of the skeletons found in the " Quater- 
 nary " deposits of France. 
 
 A great part of this is confirmed by the name given by 
 Pruner-Bey to the race whose remains were found particularly 
 at Solutre* and Cro Magnon. He calls it Mongoloid. ]STot 
 that Mongolians alone are included in it, but because the chief 
 members composing the whole body in our time are truly Mon- 
 golians. The term, then, becomes synonymous with Turanian, 
 and Max Miiller, everywhere in his works, but particularly in 
 his third lecture " On the Science of Religion," insists par- 
 ticularly on this point, that the " Turanian world," as he calls 
 it, is chiefly composed in our days of " the Chinese, the Mon- 
 golians, the Samoyeds, the Finns, and the Lapps." 
 
 Our readers will, we think, by this time have perceived the 
 reason of the great importance we have attached to the discov- 
 ery of those human skeletons in France, studied and inter- 
 preted by a learned Frenchman, whose name indicates that 
 probably he belongs to that class of his Mussulmanized coun- 
 trymen attached to the service of the present Khedive of 
 Egypt, and that consequently he had no preconceived Christian 
 theory to subserve in his investigations and declarations. 
 
 We must not omit another and last argument in the same 
 direction, which, in the wealth of matter, had well nigh 
 escaped, and which no one will consider as without weight.
 
 SUPPOSED BAEBAEISM OF PEIMITIVE MAN. 97 
 
 Mr. A. Arcelin positively states that human types have been 
 found in the same localities, so nearly bearing the character- 
 istics of the Aryan race, that it is very likely some early migra- 
 tion of it had already reached the centre of France at the time 
 these diifts, supposed to be of the paleolithic age, became the 
 common sepulchre of those " primitive men," as well as " the 
 rough chipped arrows and hatchets " which the new scientists 
 consider of such an appallingly ancient origin 200,000 years, 
 according to the moderate calculation of Sir John Lubbock. 
 Mr. Arcelin, it is true, adds that as the real and undoubted 
 Aryan type was not positively ascertained, it could not be given 
 as a fact resulting from these researches. But those Aryan 
 characteristics, if not positively found, were, however, very 
 nearly approximated to in those remains. They could not be, 
 consequently, the relics of barbarians and savages ; and it is a 
 new proof of the worthlessness of the speculations indulged in 
 by many modern scientists. 
 
 We may, therefore, now proceed to the investigation of the 
 origin and nature of primitive man, after having removed from 
 our path the phantom evoked in the name of natural science. 
 And yet it must not be called science, but mere perverse specu- 
 lation, urged in the teeth of all history which teaches us that 
 man is only of yesterday ; of geology which says that his remains 
 are found only on the surface-crust of our globe, so that he cannot 
 have appeared before the earth had reached the form and 
 aspect it at present bears ; in spite of the distinct and positive 
 statements of revelation, which ascribe to him an origin 
 totally opposed to the wild and fanciful theory of an evolu- 
 tionary process progressing through untold ages ; yet persists 
 indeed, it is to be feared, precisely on account of those state- 
 ments of revelation, in thrusting down the throats of men its far-, 
 fetched paradox, and in endeavoring to force them to believe 
 that what is new must be called old, what is noble must be 
 called mean, what is to last forever must be made perish-
 
 98 GENTILISM. 
 
 able, aiid sure to disappear with all the other shadows of his 
 earth. 
 
 It is but comparatively little we were able to produce from 
 this vast field of investigation, within the limits of a work of 
 ordinary dimensions. But we think we may be allowed to 
 indulge the hope that our induction has been sufficient to sat- 
 isfy the reader that with the history of Hindostan, as well as that 
 of Mesopotamia, have really begun the annals of mankind ; 
 and, in proving what was their belief at first, we prove, in 
 truth, what man has assented to from his very origin. 
 
 IY. 
 
 "We now proceed to make a few general observations on 
 primitive barbarism. Hitherto, we have only discussed systems 
 opposed to what we believe to be the truth ; and many consid- 
 erations which have escaped us, as not lying directly in our 
 line of thought, may here be introduced with advantage, with 
 the view of adding additional cogency to what has already been 
 advanced. 
 
 Now, first, as to the pretended long ages of unconsciousness 
 for humanity, which, according to many writers of our age, 
 have preceded historic times, and suppose evidently the state 
 rather of the brute than of barbarism, we have to say that no 
 barbarians have ever been discovered without language, and, 
 consequently, without real consciousness. And, as the writers 
 we oppose, delight in finding analogies between the degraded 
 tribes of our days and " primitive man," a prompt answer can 
 be given them by referring to our existing savages. Nay, the 
 tongues of many modern savage tribes are very complicated 
 and rich in their construction, showing evidently their degene- 
 racy from a higher state ; and in all, even in the agglutinative 
 dialects of the Turanian nations, there is always a completeness
 
 SUPPOSED BAEBAEI3M OF PEIMITIVE MAN. 99 
 
 with respect to their wants, which assures us, indeed, that they 
 are fully conscious and wide awake. Nay, should we try the 
 experiment proposed by Max Muller in the " Contemporary 
 Review " (January, 1875), we should easily find that the im- 
 perfection of the dialect of any nation does not arise from 
 their individual barbarism or even inferiority. " We see, to- 
 day, that the lowest of savages men whose language is said 
 to be no better than the clucking of hens or the twittering of 
 birds, and who have been declared, in many respects, lower 
 even than animals possess this one specific characteristic, that 
 if you take one of their babies, and bring it up in England, it 
 will leam to speak as well as any English baby, while no 
 amount of education will elicit any attempt at language from 
 the highest animals, whether bipeds or quadrupeds. That 
 faculty cannot have been formed by definite nervous structures, 
 congenitally framed; for we are told that both father and 
 mother clucked like hens " (page 325). 
 
 How can any one know that our ancestors have been at any 
 time unconscious ? It is a purely gratuitous assertion ; and, as 
 it rests on no basis of serious argument, it merits nothing more 
 than a peremptory denial. Let prehistorians show, at least, 
 that man can be a real man, and at the same time a dumb 
 animal. The discovery of some few disinherited outcasts to 
 borrow a very appropriate French word rambling in forests, 
 and apparently denied the gift of speech, is no proof of this, 
 but only a consequence of their having been deprived from 
 infancy of the companionship of other men, required absolutely " 
 by the social nature of the King of creation. But, as soon 
 as they were received in the bosom of human society, of what- 
 ever kind, their tongue was unloosened, and they began to 
 speak. As to those born deaf and dumb, it is an evident abuse 
 of language to call them dumb persons. They express their 
 ideas ; they speak in reality, although only by signs ; they 
 understand their friends, and their friends understand them.
 
 100 GEXTILI3M. 
 
 Yet it is, we think, Sir John Lubbock who brings seriously the 
 fact of the deaf and dumb people as a proof that man can exist 
 without language. 
 
 But it is not the gifj of speech alone which is required for 
 true consciousness, and without which man remains a barbarian, 
 or rather a brute. ' "Writing, besides, they say, is necessary to 
 transmit to posterity the consciousness of humanity ; and a 
 human creature deprived of that art, has no adequate means of 
 passing over to his children the events anterior to his own 
 time. Tradition by speech is not sufficient, according to Sir 
 John Lubbock, and many others. Thus in their estimation 
 humanity lives only for the time being; each one is discon- 
 nected from what went before, and what is to follow. With- 
 out wnting, in fact, man remains in childhood all his life ; and 
 the tribal organizations of such infantine individuals cannot be 
 composed but of barbarians, if not of savages. But is not 
 writing a really modern invention ? ' Even if it be true that 
 the art of writing is " modern," tradition by speech is amply suf- 
 ficient to transmit to posterity the important events of past ages, 
 and with it alone man can be a civilized and noble being. An- 
 tiquity attests with one voice to the retentive memory of early 
 men ; and the practice of universal oral tradition was considered 
 so sure, and at the same time so becoming for man in those re- 
 markable ages, that even after writing was invented, the custom 
 prevailed everywhere, to transmit orally, not only the long 
 series of previous events, but even the most considerable pro- 
 ductions of primitive literature. It is known that the poems of 
 Homer were for many ages preserved safely in the memory of 
 Greece, and it was only the comparatively modern Pisistratus 
 who thought of having them committed to parchment or per- 
 haps papyrus. Many other facts of the kind, brought together 
 by Lord Arundel, in his chapter " On the Tradition of the 
 Human Race," confirm this statement. But the list might be 
 made much longer, as he does not say a word of the immense
 
 SUPPOSED BAKBAKISM OF PKIMITIVE MAN. 101 
 
 production called the "Vedas," in Hindostan, which certainly 
 remained for a long time in the memory of Brahmins, before 
 being indited on lotus leaves. The Zends in Bactria, the Kings 
 in China, the enormous compilation of the Buddhist works in the 
 Far-East ; the later Greek Dionysiacs, Thebaids, Epigoniads, 
 etc., mentioned by Coleridge in his " Greek Classic Poets," have 
 most probably to be placed in the same category. Moses cer- 
 tainly, when he wrote the Pentateuch, had only oral tradition 
 to guide him, humanly speaking; the divine inspiration he 
 enjoyed, having mainly for its object to prevent his falling into 
 error in making the collection. The mind of men in those 
 times was so capacious, that, almost without effort, their memory 
 was stored with the sublimest productions of human genius ; 
 and they seem to have delighted in imbuing their whole soul 
 with the most elevated thoughts of those who had preceded 
 them. In making an estimate of them we must adopt a rule 
 directly opposite to that followed by the " prehistorians " of 
 our days. They predicate of them all that is low, mean, nar- 
 row in our actually existing savages. We must start from the 
 other end of the series, and place them only " a little below the 
 angels," as David says. 
 
 Hence, even supposing Sir John Lubbock to be right in what 
 he states of the " Tasmanians," who, " a few years after Cap- 
 tain Cook had passed among them, had totally forgotten his ap- 
 pearance which was that of the first white man on their 
 island ;" an assertion, by the way, which Lord Arundel haa 
 victoriously disproved ; what has this to do with oral tradition 
 as it existed primitively, as all antiquity shows it in actual ope- 
 ration all over Asia and Europe ? But, now, is the art of 
 writing modem ? And can mankind be said to have remained 
 long ages without it, and, consequently, in a half-conscious 
 state ? 
 
 Sir George Rawlinson proves that, at least, some of the Tu- 
 ranian nations, in the oldest historic times, had already acquired
 
 102 GENTILISM. 
 
 the art of writing. The Chaldseans of the most ancient known 
 period were Cushites, and consequently Turanians. We possess 
 many inscriptions of those early ages. They are invariably on 
 bricks ; either drawn on the fresh clay with the triangular point 
 of a tool, or cast from a mould previously engraved. Rawlin- 
 son proves that it was a kind of picture-writing on a par with 
 that of the more recent Mexicans ; and the early Chaldseans are 
 the first people known to history. , 
 
 Moses certainly wrote the Pentateuch, in spite of what Ger- 
 man and English exegetists may say ; and Job has told us that 
 even flint in silice was used in his time to perpetuate 
 the memory of events. Those great men had not degenerated 
 so far as to use the wretched paper on which we transcribe 
 our thoughts ; they wanted theirs to remain as permanent as 
 material things can be. Hence they chose the hardest rocks 
 or the toughest metals to write them on. This, it is true, 
 was perhaps an obstacle to having large "libraries" in their 
 possession, although that of the kings of Assyria transported 
 to England cannot be called a very small and unimportant one. 
 They, however, preferred in general to make of their memory 
 the store-house of their longest literary productions. 
 
 If Moses wrote the Pentateuch, we may be sure that Egyp- 
 tians of his time wrote, also, the already long history of their 
 gods. And we know, from existing monuments, that, long 
 before Moses, they practised writing either on granite, or on 
 porphyry for great occasions ; keeping papyrus and other light 
 materials for the ordinary uses of common life. But we shall 
 treat this part of our subject more in detail by and by. 
 
 The discussion of this subject at greater length is not re- 
 quired in these pages. For the present, we close our remarks 
 under this heading, with the observation, that picture-writing 
 is not necessarily the sign of a half -barbarous nation. It can 
 exist in union with a high culture, as in Mexico, as in an- 
 cient Egypt, even as in the China of our day, which has not yet
 
 SUPPOSED BAKBAKISM OF PEIMITIVE MAN. 103 
 
 adopted our alphabet. That may be said of writing which has 
 already been proved of the " stone," " bronze," and " iron " 
 ages. All kinds can exist together, even in the same nation. 
 Without it, a people can still enjoy a high moral elevation ; 
 although we do not pretend that it is not a powerful help for 
 real and sound development. In our times, it is far more im- 
 portant than in the first ages of the world. Our minds are oc- 
 cupied with so many different objects of thought ; we are so 
 little trained to the consideration of a single subject abstracted- 
 ly from any other, and we impose so little restraint on our restless 
 imagination, that writing seems to be absolutely required to fix 
 the wandering faculties of our soul. Our memory, especially, 
 is too often unreliable and unsafe. It was not so in the first 
 ages of mankind. A few great thoughts occupied wholly the 
 minds of men ; they were accustomed to reflect deeply on the 
 limited subjects of their mental activity ; thus everything pre- 
 sented to their intellectual faculties became deeply impressed, 
 and remained permanently in their souls as a spiritual treasure, 
 always full and always open. This alone can explain the surprising 
 fact of the richness and depth of their languages, and the im- 
 mense amount of inventions which go back certainly to the 
 cradle of mankind. 
 
 Finally, the difference of races, which appear from the be- 
 ginning as distinct as they are now, show that universal barba- 
 rism is not the starting-point of humanity. We see, at the very 
 origin of nations, Hindostan and Central Asia occupied by very 
 superior races whose mental elevation astonishes the modern 
 student, of which many examples will hereafter come under 
 our observation ; and, at the eame time, by low and degraded 
 tribes, called in the laws of Menu chandalas, in our age pariahs, 
 co-existing with the others, and remaining, even to our very days, 
 without rising in the social scale. We see in Egypt the same 
 phenomenon of a ruling race, great in philosophy, in religion, 
 in art ; and, side by side, the debased negro appearing on the
 
 104 GENTILISif. 
 
 monuments still in existence, with all the signs of degeneracy 
 and enslavement which are, to this day, his share. We see the 
 same variety and antagonism of races without number, in Iran, 
 in Arabia, in Syria ; and later on in Greece, Italy, and the rest 
 of Europe. Could the system of Sir John Lubbock and his 
 friends be confuted more pointedly by any argument, than it is 
 , by all these facts of the primitive ages ? What was the primary 
 and original cause of this strange difference of races ? We can- 
 not know. We only are sure that the human species was one 
 in spite of all those divergences. It does not seem probable 
 that they arose one from the other, although, as Dr. Prichard 
 has shown conclusively in his great work on the " Physical His- 
 tory of Mankind," they everywhere pass from one to the other 
 by almost insensible gradations, so that the unity of mankind 
 is never contradicted by the net-work of their variations. Last- 
 ly, they are so slow in changing, that often the greatest period 
 of time makes scarcely an impression upon them. We may re- 
 peat the question : What has been the primary cause of the differ- 
 ence of races among men ? 'No one can know positively. Either 
 the opinion of De Maistre, quoted above, is the true one, or there 
 must have been, at the origin of mankind, a far superior action 
 of exterior circumstances on man than there is at the present 
 time, when races change so slowly and so imperceptibly. If 
 this last hypothesis is the right one, then that happened moral- 
 ly and physically for human land, which took place in the physi- 
 cal order for the exterior covering of our globe. For, no intelli- 
 gent geologist can admit, that the alterations of its surface could 
 be always as slow and imperceptible as they now appear to be. 
 But meanwhile, at all times, the passage of any race from a 
 lower point to a higher one is of the greatest difficulty. It is 
 to us a matter of wonder to hear " prehistorians " talk, when 
 they speak of it as if it was the " law of the moral universe." 
 In North America, however, we meet with the real difficulty 
 every day. Is it not known, nay, demonstrated, after so
 
 SUPPOSED BAEBAEISM OF PRIMITIVE MAX. 105 
 
 many experiments, that it is almost impossible to reclaim the 
 red man, with all the means of culture which surround him ? 
 Is not the same true of many tribes of Africa, of Polynesia, of 
 South America ? And, if in human history, many nations have 
 effectually passed, on many occasions, from a low degree of 
 culture to a higher one, to the highest, in fact, in some excep- 
 tionable cases have they not invariably been helped up to it 
 at least at the beginning of the struggle, and a long time per- 
 haps of their national existence? The Hellenes, one of the 
 most remarkable examples of it, thus had certainly received a 
 great deal at first from the anterior civilization of Hindostan 
 and Egypt. The same was the case with the Romans with re- 
 spect to the Etruscans and the Hellenes. The northern barba- 
 rians who destroyed the Roman Empire possessed, certainly, in 
 their intimate nature, some germ deposited there by their 
 long-forgotten ancestors of Central Asia germs developed with 
 infinite pains by Christianity, which, first humanized and after- 
 ward civilized them. 
 
 Thus the self-educating principle is seen nowhere in history. 
 And on this account, we presume, the " prehistorians " set 
 themselves, from the start, in fierce opposition to history and 
 tradition. We cannot do this. We propose, on the contrary, 
 to consult them with all the zeal of ardent inquirers, bent on 
 discovering the mystery of Isis by raising her veil.
 
 CHAPTER III. 
 
 ABORIGINAL RELIGION OBSCURED OR DESTROYED BY PANTHEISM OB 
 POLYTHEISM IN HINDOSTAN. 
 
 THE best directed efforts to ascertain the origin of man, or 
 primeval religion, by the facts of geology or zoology, can at 
 best only result in more or less probable conjectures. The 
 gradual development of the globe, even, has not been yet 
 proved by so many arduous mental labors; for scientists are 
 not agreed about many important details. And, in the classifi- 
 cation of organized beings, opinions are almost as various as 
 individuals. How can we hope to come to a more satisfactory 
 conclusion with respect to man and his religious feelings, when 
 the remains we have of him are so scanty, and their surround- 
 ings so problematical ? History and the cognate sciences are 
 much more likely to tell us the truth on those important sub- 
 jects. We have at least in them positive records, which speak 
 for themselves, and place directly the men of old in intimate 
 communication with us. Particularly since philology has made 
 BO many gigantic strides of late years on a ground formerly 
 closed, in appearance at least, against the most persevering stu- 
 dent. Its former field, confined to the Latin and Greek lan- 
 guages, with a smattering of the Semitic tongues Hebrew, 
 Syriac, and Arabic has been extended so as to include, not 
 only the Sanscrit and the Egyptian, but even the Turanian 
 idioms, with, their mere agglutinative process and most primi- 
 tive grammars. Champollion has given us the key of the 
 hieroglyphs ; and the cuneiform inscriptions of every shape 
 have now scarcely any mystery for our antiquarians. The 
 Cushite tongue, spoken by the near successors of the builders 
 (106)
 
 ABORIGINAL RELIGION IN HINDOSTAN. 107 
 
 of Babel, nay, engraved on the very bricks which remain of 
 it, reveals its meaning to the scientific academician of London 
 or Paris ; and the amulet of the negro, the totem of the red 
 Indian, are no more mere objects of wonder or pity, but speak 
 to the understanding of our Schoolcrafts or Catlins. 
 
 And not only the writing of man, but his manual work even, 
 is often as eloquent as language to transmit his ideas and 
 social customs to a later age. At this very moment the his- 
 tory of Egypt is being reconstructed from its monuments. 
 Hundreds of ardent explorers are busy examining them, un- 
 earthing them, measuring their vast size, and reproducing on 
 paper, by the art of the engraver, their grand proportions and 
 gigantic surroundings. On pyramids, obelisks, walls, colossal 
 statues, signs no longer mysterious indicate what happened 
 thousands of years ago ; and the former lists of Manetho are 
 from them recomposed, combined, and made at last to agree. 
 The archaeologist has found likewise the means of judging of 
 antiquity by the mere aspect of a monument, and the historical 
 succession of former times is graphically represented by a sim- 
 ple series of architectural drawings. 
 
 Enriched with all these precious fruits of an arduous, but in 
 the end pleasing and useful study, the exact and impartial his- 
 torian can at last pronounce, without fear of great error, the 
 verdict of truth on the most ancient ages.- We are at least in 
 much less danger of being misinformed and deceived ; no longer 
 are we limited to the untmstworthiness of feeble guesses, and 
 it is the consciousness of this invaluable truth which inspires 
 us, when we open the noble books where all this learning is 
 condensed. The great works of Wilkinson, Max Miiller, the 
 two Rawlinsons, the Sanscrit scholars of India, and many 
 others in the English language ; those of Spiegel, Haug, etc., in 
 the German ; the writings of Champollion, Burnouf, Lenor- 
 mant, Comte de Rouge, and others in French ; those of Rosel- 
 liui, etc., in Italian, are much more likely to be of real service
 
 108 GENTILISM. 
 
 to us in our investigations into the origin of human society, 
 than all the possible speculations on the rough stone imple- 
 ments of France, Belgium, and England, added to the nume- 
 rous observations and experiments on hybridism and natural 
 selection. 
 
 Moreover, when we consider that the more historical studies 
 progress, the more profane learning becomes reconciled to our 
 sacred records, that is, to the most ancient writings in existence, 
 we find in this reflection a new motive of assurance, which is 
 absolutely wanting whenever a new theory suggests conclusions 
 in opposition to our Holy Scriptures. For, independently of 
 Christian faith, if we follow only the dictates of reason, the 
 books which form our Bible ought to be considered as of great 
 weight merely as historical records of the past ; and whatever 
 new discovery in science, or intellectual research of any kind, 
 agrees with them, finds in this agreement a corroboration and 
 a strong support ; whilst -on the contrary whatever new specula- 
 tion opens a prospect of antagonism to them, ought by this 
 very fact to become an object of suspicion and distrust. 
 
 I. 
 
 If, then, God spoke in the beginning to mankind, whose 
 primitive religion must thus have been a pure monotheism ; if 
 man did not begin by the savage state, but enjoyed high moral 
 prerogatives at his first entrance into the world ; as we believe 
 modern theories on the origin of our species are really founded 
 on false suppositions or on mere conjectures, primeval history 
 must say something of that golden age, and show the idea of 
 one eternal, infinite, all-powerful God, existing in the tradi- 
 tions of mankind, previous to all polytheistic errors. 
 
 A hundred years ago this could not have been asserted. A 
 true knowledge of antiquity did not then exist ; and it is only
 
 ABORIGINAL KELIGIOX IN HI^DOSTATT. 109 
 
 in our times, quite recently, indeed, that the veil covering the 
 infancy of the human race begins to be raised, independently 
 of the infallible Hebrew and Christian records. 
 
 The question, however, of the introduction of polytheism is, 
 no doubt, not unattended with difficulties. Nevertheless, yet, 
 on the whole, the universal voice of history in that regard is so 
 precise, that the conclusion may be said to amount almost to 
 demonstration. 
 
 For us, Christians, the truth is known, since the word of God 
 has revealed it to us ; and we place it far above the oldest In- 
 dian, Persian, or Egyptian pronouncements. And yet, if we 
 discover that it is supported by these, our previous faith re- 
 ceives a subsequent confirmation of no mean value. We, there- 
 fore, begin by quoting the simple statement contained in the 
 Book of Wisdom on the origin of idolatry. And some of our 
 readers may be afterwards surprised to find, that the ascer- 
 tained history of Hindostan, Egypt, Greece, and other countries, 
 is, after all, the strict fulfilment of a single chapter of the Old 
 Testament. It is the thirteenth chapter of Wisdom, which first 
 makes a most remarkable distinction between those " who wor- 
 shipped the works of God " Nature and those who " adored 
 the works of man" Idols. What took place, historically, 
 everywhere on earth, in the declension from monotheism to pan- 
 theism, and from this last to strict idolatry, could not be more 
 clearly expressed : Men first had received " the knowledge of 
 God ;" but later, " by the good things that are seen, they could 
 not understand Him, that is ; neither by attending to the works 
 have they acknowledged who was the workman. But they 
 have imagined either the fire, or the wind, or the swift air, or 
 the circle of the stars, or the great water, or the sun and moon, 
 to be the gods that rule the world : with whose beauty, if they, 
 being delighted, took them to be gods, let them know how 
 much the Lord of them is more beautiful ; for the first author 
 of beauty made all those things. Or if they admired their
 
 110 GENTILISM. 
 
 power and their effects, let them understand by them that He 
 that made them is mightier than they." 
 
 Divine revelation tells us, in these few words, precisely 
 what happened, according to well-ascertained history. After a 
 period of universal monotheism, the nations began to worship 
 " the works of God," and fell generally into a broad pantheism. 
 They took subsequently a second step, perfectly well marked, 
 later on, in Hindostan, Central Asia, Egypt, Greece, etc. ; a step 
 originating everywhere in the imagination of poets, material- 
 izing God, bringing Him down to human nature and weakness, 
 and finally idealizing and deifying His supposed representa- 
 tions in statuary and painting. 
 
 The author of the Book of Wisdom describes this last down- 
 ward step toward pure idolatry, in the second part of his thir- 
 teenth chapter, and the beginning of the fourteenth. And we 
 shall now proceed to place the reader in possession of historical 
 facts which will satisfy him of the faithfulness of the descrip- 
 tion by what actually took place in history. The text itself : 
 " If a carpenter hath cut down in the woods a tree," etc., need 
 not be quoted as even modern apologues have made it familiar 
 to everybody. 
 
 n. 
 
 There is, first, a general remark, not without force certainly, 
 which will naturally introduce the subject. It is this : No one 
 can refuse to admit that monotheism always existed among the 
 Hebrews, from the time of the patriarchs downward, and that 
 the various attempts to introduce idolatry among them were 
 always successfully repressed. So that the nation continued 
 throughout its history monotheistic. This high, intelligent 
 worship, supposing in man an advanced state of knowledge 
 and civilization, incompatible certainly with barbarism con- 
 sequently never expected to be found in savage tribes, in a state
 
 ABORIGINAL RELIGION IN HINDOSTAN. Ill 
 
 of society such as the human race is fancied by modem the- 
 orists to have invariably presented at its cradle was certainly 
 the religion of the Hebrew race from its great progenitor, 
 Abraham. At the same epoch, likewise, many noble traditions 
 about creation, the origin of moral evil, the hope of- better 
 things ; including a moral code worthy of God and of. man, and 
 a firm belief in Divine Providence that is, an infinite, benevo- 
 lent Power far above all " the forces of nature " these tradi- 
 tions, we say, must have been likewise, owing to the unity of 
 the human species, the heirloom of other nations existing at 
 that time in the same tribal state. Now, besides what we 
 know of the Canaanite Melchisedech, of the Arabian Job, and 
 a little later of the Cushite Balaam, etc., besides all these, the 
 people of the whole of Hindostan, and of Central Asia at the* 
 north of it, was living precisely in the same conditions, in the 
 same original state of clanship, to which we alluded in our first 
 chapter. But what is more, at this present time when their 
 primitive books can be well understood, we are sure that those 
 numerous tribes enjoyed the privilege of a pure and exalted 
 monotheism, untainted, as yet, not only by the gross idolatry . 
 which now prevails in those unfortunate countries, but even by 
 the grand and all-absorbing pantheism by which it was too soon 
 invaded. 
 
 We say the whole of Hindostan, and Central Asia at the 
 north of it : because it is now demonstrated that this was the 
 native country of that old, rich Sanscrit language in which the 
 three first Vedas were written, as well as the Zends, namely : 
 the books attributed to Zoroaster. Strabo remarked it as a 
 fact of his own time, when Hindoo civilization was already on 
 the wane : " The name of Ariana is extended so as to include 
 some parts of Persia, Media, Bactria, and Sogdiana in the 
 north ; for these nations speak nearly the same language." 
 (Book xv., c. xi., 8). 
 
 Bactria and Sogdiana, therefore, the eastern part. of what wo 
 9
 
 112 GENTILISM. 
 
 call Persia, and northern half of India, is the great country 
 which ought to attract our attention. But as, owing to some 
 unfortunate mistakes of former learned and well-intentioned 
 critics, which have long delayed the discovery of the whole 
 truth* with regard to the antiquity of the Zends, it has becoms 
 an established custom to consider the three first Vedas as exclu- 
 sively Hindoo, and the Zend-Avesta as exclusively Persian, when 
 both were Aryan books, previous to the division of the people ; 
 we propose to take an historical survey of those countries apart ; 
 and to study, one after the other, their tribal system, and the 
 real primitive doctrines of their books. We shall thus ascer- 
 tain the identity of their origin, as well as the primeval religion 
 and social life of the tribes. 
 
 III. 
 
 First, then, their civil and social condition. 
 
 When Alexander reached the Indus and invaded the country 
 beyond, he found himself in what we now call the Punjaub, 
 and was surprised to meet, not the monarch of a great empire, 
 but the petty chieftains of many a tribe of warriors, the ances- 
 tors, it is now believed, of the modern Rajpoots. The name of 
 the most valiant of them was Poros in the Hindoo language it 
 must have been Puru. ^earchus, the commander of the Macedo- 
 nian fleet, Onesicritus, an amateur historian who followed Alex- 
 ander, Megasthenes and Deimachus, sent later as ambassadors 
 to the Head-Sovereign of India, at Palibothra on the Ganges, 
 all spoke in their works, now lost, except that of the first, of an 
 immense number of nations living in that vast country, each of 
 them governed by a king in the Greek language, by a chieftain 
 in our own, by a rajah in the modern Hindoo dialect. Strabo, 
 (Book xv., c. 1., 3), says that " Writers affirm that the Mace- 
 donians conquered nine nations between the Hydaspes and 
 the Hypanis (now called the Behul and the Beas), and obtained
 
 ABORIGINAL RELIGION IX HINDOSTAX. 113 
 
 possession of five hundred cities." Xearchus, likewise, in sail- 
 ing down the Indus to its mouth, met with many nations in- 
 habiting the countries of Porticanus and Musicanus, as he calls 
 them. Thus, also, Arrian and Ptolemy describe the western 
 part of the- Deccaii exactly as it appeared to the Portuguese 
 fifteen hundred years later. 
 
 It is supposed that Alexander with his army, advanced into 
 the interior of the country only about half-way between the 
 Indus and the Ganges ; but he heard of a great empire .whose 
 capital, called Palibothra, was built on this last-named river. 
 Megasthenes later on visited it, and many details of his narra- 
 tive, now lost, have been preserved by Strabo, Pliny, Arrian, 
 and others. What was then the great empire of the Prasii ? 
 For such was the name it bore. 
 
 First, Strabo remarks, that " the king," besides his indi- 
 vidual name, had always the surname of " Palibothrus," and he 
 adds : " Such also is the custom among the Parthians ; for all 
 have the name ' Arsacse,' although each has his peculiar name 
 of Orodes, Phraates," etc. Therefore, the " Emperor of the 
 Prasii " was the head of a great clan called Palibothrus. "We 
 shall have the same remark to make of the tribe of the " Achse- 
 menidae " in Persia. 
 
 Secondly, although Alexander heard of the empire of Prasii 
 as the most powerful in India, yet it could not have extended 
 over the whole country ; since we know the west was altogether 
 out of his control ; and, on the south-east, the country of the 
 Gangarides marked its boundary. It did not, therefore, in- 
 clude modern Bengal. In fact, it comprised merely modern 
 Behar, with some adjacent provinces. 
 
 But even in that limited extent, it was nothing like a cen- 
 tralized government ; for, from the whole social state of the 
 country at the time, it is fair to conclude that the monarch at 
 the head of it was only the suzerain of a great number of 
 almost independent chieftains or rajahs.
 
 114 GE^TILISM. 
 
 We have already remarked that the social or political life of 
 mankind began by clanship. It now appears that in India, 
 that state of things continued to exist as far down as the time 
 of Alexander the Great. "We shall see that to a great extent it 
 has continued to our days. 
 
 But were all those tribes, or nations, as they are called by 
 the historians of the times, real clans ; so that all may be said 
 to. have been " blood relations ?" It is difficult, or rather im- 
 possible, to answer with certainty such a question. The learned 
 men, even of the age of Alexander, even of the Augustan age, 
 which followed, knew nothing of what is called now " Social 
 Science." Julius Caesar, after a ten years' residence in Celtic 
 Gaul, had not the least idea of the clan system. Authors, 
 then, attached a great importance to the physical description 
 of foreign countries, to the exterior peculiarities of the people 
 inhabiting them, to their outward manners and customs, to 
 their literary culture, or the reverse. They generally passed very 
 lightly over the real constitution of their government, and the 
 secular institutions which really ruled them, but which require 
 considerable philosophical acumen for their analysis and expo- 
 sition. We have, therefore, often to trust to a few incidental 
 phrases which seem to have escaped writers almost uncon- 
 sciously, and which help a modern reader to an insight into the 
 political and social institutions of those people, about which 
 such writers as those we have named did not concern them- 
 selves. 
 
 The few words of Strabo on the name " Palibothrus," are of 
 that character. But we are not confined to their testimony in 
 the present case. If the men who then* composed the tribes 
 were not blood relations in the same sense as the Celtic, Jew- 
 ish, or Arabian septs, they had certainly been so originally. 
 And a sure indication of it was that everything in their social 
 organization was determined by strict marriage-rules. It may 
 be said that one-half at least of the laws of Menu have for
 
 ABORIGINAL RELIGION IN HINDOSTAN. 115 
 
 their object to regulate marriage relations, by establishing the 
 strictest rules with respect to the bonds of consanguinity, and the 
 innumerable consequences which may follow with respect to 
 purity of blood or the reverse. But, in liindostan, this strict 
 marriage-relationship took the shape of castes, not of clans ; 
 not, however, from the beginning, not from Vedic times. At 
 the origin of the system 'a distinction had been established 
 among brothers, which was to continue for all time to come. 
 Three classes : not yet castes, since the laws of Menu do not 
 speak of them had been admitted to be pure : the Brahmins, 
 the Kshastriyas, and the Vaisyas ; the fourth, the class of the 
 Sudras, was declared impure, not regenerated. Their more 
 fortunate brethren had been twice born, and could alone wear 
 the thread of regeneration. "What was the original cause of 
 these strange distinctions? At what time were they intro- 
 duced ? No one can tell. And the only explanation given by 
 the Hindoos, is, that the first class was born of the mouth of 
 Brahma ; the second of his arm ; the third of his thigh, and the 
 last of his feet. The chandalas, pariahs, etc., did not belong 
 to the nation ; they were aliens, and became outcasts. 
 
 But it is a fact now perfectly well established, that the opin- 
 ion of Greek and Latin writers who pretend that marriage 
 was absolutely forbidden between the various classes, so as to 
 be really impossible, is a mistaken one ; and that, at the very 
 origin of the nation, when the Vedas and the laws of Menu were 
 written, nothing was so common as those inter-marriages. All 
 the consequences of them were mere disabilities, some of them 
 not of a very grave character, and not carrying with them any 
 stain or " impurity," when such unions took place between the 
 three first castes. That cases of the kind happened frequently 
 even in the most ancient times, results clearly from many pas- 
 sages of the laws of Menu, where the reader may find striking and 
 extremely interesting examples of them all through the book, 
 but chiefly in the whole tenth chapter : on the mixed classes.
 
 116 GENTILISM. 
 
 There is no doubt that the numerous mixed castes mentioned 
 by valious authors who, even in our age, cannot agree as to their 
 number, and increase it sometimes indefinitely, came from the 
 facility left to individuals to choose their wives in inferior 
 or superior castes. 
 
 This alone shows the importance that was ascribed to blood- 
 relationship in India. It may be said to have ruled everything 
 in the country, as it did in the old Celtic nations. But the 
 result was very different, as its action differed so considerably. 
 Hence, Heeren could say, in his great work on India, Chapter 
 II. (the underlines are ours) : " The distinctions of castes, 
 though a fundamental principle of the constitution itself, at 
 least, in the three superior ones, is based upon the organization 
 of families. The desire of perpetuating the memorial of his 
 house by heirs male, is, to a Hindoo, one of the most lively 
 importance ; and the want of sons is considered a misfortune 
 
 only to be remedied by adoption We have already seen 
 
 what frequent use the Indian poets have made of this national 
 peculiarity ; and how, both in the epic poem and in the drama, 
 the preservation of a male child is often the main point on 
 which the action of the piece turns." 
 
 This remarkable difference between the tribal system of 
 Hindostan, and that of other primitive nations, being kept 
 in view, we must come to the numerous points of agreement 
 between both ; so numerous, indeed, that the conclusion forces 
 itself upon the mind, that both belonged evidently to tl e 
 venerable patriarchal period. We speak of the uniformity of 
 institutions, not of the character of the two peoples, which 
 are altogether different. 
 
 First, then, as to the village, or, rather, township. This uni- 
 versal social and civil element in India, which bears to-day 
 exactly the features it had three or four thousand years ago, is, 
 in -reality, a small elan; with its head called the potaU, who, 
 superintending the affairs of the community, settling disputes,
 
 ABORIGESTAL RELIGION IN HINDOSTAIf. 117 
 
 attends to the police and collection of taxes, and is the exact 
 reproduction of the small chieftain and brehon judge* ; with 
 the Bjrahniin priest and astrologer, another name for the old 
 Druid and, Ollamh ; with its poet, rhapsodist, and schoolmaster, 
 instead of the shanachy and the file; with their several other 
 officers, whose counterparts could be found easily in the old 
 Celtic septs. And to render the similarity more perfect, all 
 these functionaries were paid in the same manner, either in 
 land or in a certain quantity of grain furnished by the agri- 
 culturists of the community. 
 
 According to an evidently well-informed author, quoted, 
 without name, in " Chambers' Encyclopaedia" (Lippincott's ed., 
 1872) : " Under this simple form of municipal government, 
 the inhabitants of the country have lived from time imme- 
 morial. The boundaries of the village have been but seldom 
 altered ; and though the villages themselves have been some- 
 times injured, and even desolated by war, famine, and disease, 
 the same name of the township, the same limits, and even the 
 same families have continued for ages. The inhabitants 'give 
 themselves no trouble about the breaking up or division of 
 kingdoms. So long as the village remains entire, they care 
 not to what power it is transferred, or to what sovereign 
 it devolves. Its internal economy remains unchanged ; the 
 potail is still the head inhabitant, and still acts as the petty 
 judge and magistrate, and collector, t or renter of the village." 
 
 Heeren proves that these strange organizations have existed 
 in India as far back as the time of Menu, whose laws spoke of 
 them, probably, 1,500 years before Christ. He says : " The 
 whole seems to have originated in the partial organization 
 of isolated communities, which, with their respective head- 
 men, might be considered as so many petty States ; and this 
 fundamental institution still continued to subsist even when 
 several of these townships or communities were united under 
 the dominion of one Rajah, and thus formed a part of a larger
 
 118 GENTILISM. 
 
 State or kingdom " we should say tribe. " In the northern 
 parts of India, particularly near the Ganges, where the irrup- 
 tions of foreign conquerors succeeded each other like the 
 waves of the ocean, all traces of the primitive form must 
 have long since been obliterated ; but in the southernmost 
 division of the peninsula, in Mysore and Malabar, etc., which 
 were least of all exposed to foreign invasions, they are still in 
 existence at the present day." 
 
 We have thus, under our own eyes, many precious remnants 
 of a primitive civilization, which has disappeared everywhere 
 else, and which calls to our remembrance the heroic times 
 anterior to the formation of great monarchies and republics.* 
 
 IY. 
 
 "We may now treat briefly of those simple arid pure manners, 
 untainted yet with idolatry of any kind, and elevated by the 
 doctrines of the holiest and highest monotheism. 
 
 As late as the expedition of Alexander, Onesicritus, accord- 
 ing to Strabo (Book xv., ch. 1, 34), had remarked this in 
 particular of the tribes living near the mouth of the Indus 
 river. They were governed by chiefs whom he calls Porti- 
 canus and Musicanus their Hindoo names are, no doubt, 
 strangely disfigured. " The inhabitants of that country," he 
 says, " are long-lived, and that life is protracted to the age of 
 130 years ; they are temperate in their habits, and healthy ; 
 although their country produces everything in abundance. The 
 following are their peculiarities : to have a kind of Lacedremoj 
 
 * The similarity of institutions in old Hindostan and in the former 
 Celtic countries is so striking, and the consideration of it is so important 
 with respect to the primitive state of mankind, which is now the object 
 of our investigation, that we give a more extensive sketch of it in an 
 Appendix at the end of this volume.
 
 ABORIGINAL KELIGION IN HrNDOSTAlST. 119 
 
 nian common meal, which they partake of in common. Their 
 food consists of what is taken in the chase. They make no use 
 of gold nor of silver, although they have mines of these metals. 
 Instead of slaves, they employ youths in the flower of their age. 
 
 They study no science with attention but that of medicine 
 
 There is no process of law among them but against murder and 
 outrage." 
 
 Megasthenes, speaking of the Prasii, living far down on the 
 Gauges, at a great distance from the just-mentioned tribes, 
 says : " Charmers go about the country, and are supposed to 
 cure wounds made by serpents. This seems to comprise nearly 
 their whole art of medicine, for diseases are not frequent 
 among them, which is owing to their frugal manner of life, 
 and to the absence of wine ; whenever diseases do appear, they 
 are treated by the sophistae (or wise men)." With respect to 
 the " absence of wine," we shall see directly what was their 
 " homa," or " soma," which replaced it. 
 
 It seems, therefore, that already Brahmins practised the heal- 
 ing art as they do now ; whilst formerly the law of Menu for- 
 bid them to have anything to do with physicians, who ought to 
 be considered, according to that code, as a degraded class, im- 
 pure, it seems, from their barbarous surgical operations, etc. 
 
 Strabo says, again, (same chapter, 53) : " All the Hindoos 
 are frugal in their mode of life, especially in camp. They do 
 not tolerate useless and undisciplined multitudes, and con- 
 sequently observe good order. Theft is very rare among them. 
 Megasthenes, who was in the camp of Sandracottus, which con- 
 sisted of 400,000 men, did not witness on any day theft re- 
 ported, which exceeded the sum of two hundred drachmae, 
 and this among a people who have no written laws, who are 
 ignorant even of writing, and regulate everything by memory." 
 (We shall soon see that Megasthenes was mistaken ; Sanscrit lit- 
 erature at that very time was most flourishing). " They are, how- 
 ever, happy on account of their simple manners and frugal ways
 
 120 GEXTILISM. 
 
 of life. They never drink wine but at sacrifices.* Their beve- 
 rage is made from rice instead of barley, and their food consists 
 for the most part of rice pottage. The simplicity of their laws 
 appears from their not having many law-suits. They have no 
 suits respecting pledges and deposits, nor do they require wit- 
 nesses or seals, but confide in one another. Their houses and 
 property are unguarded. These things denote temperance and 
 sobriety." 
 
 If such was the aspect of Hindostan three or four centuries 
 before Christ, what must it have been in those early ages of the 
 Yedas and the laws of Menu ? For all that country the de- 
 generacy of man, and of human institutions, is more visible 
 probably than in any other known region of the globe. In 
 this age something remains yet of those primitive manners ; but 
 how much allied with vices then unknown, chiefly with respect 
 to purity of morals and chastity ? Nothing can show better 
 the advanced state of morality that is, its real and genuine 
 purity than the various enactments of the code of Menu on 
 marriage, and the situation of woman in the family. An ab- 
 stract of them, put in order and published, would be redolent 
 of the golden age of the Hebrew patriarchs, and show at once 
 how mankind has truly degenerated from the primeval state of 
 society. We can merely quote a few (chap, ix., 45) : " Then 
 only is man perfect, when he consists of three persons united, 
 his wife, himself, and his son ; and thus have learned Brahmins 
 announced this maxim : ' The husband is even one person with 
 his wife ;' " (and 46) : " Neither by sale nor desertion can a wife 
 be released from her husband ; thus we fully acknowledge the 
 
 * The wine of which Megasthenes speaks is the "horaa," oi* "soma," 
 made of fermented rice, not of barley; the Vedas speak often of it, and 
 call it sometimes vinas, vinum, although not made from the grape; but 
 the sacred character these old and venerable books give to it, forbid alto- 
 gether the supposition which many modern writers on Hindooism in- 
 dulge in on the subject. To listen to them one might imagine that there 
 was uo sacrifice in Hindostau without the grossest intoxication ; and the
 
 ABORIGINAL RELIGION IN HINDOSTAN. 121 
 
 law enacted of old by the Lord of creatures." Had they read 
 the book which says : erunt duo in came una f 
 
 The code said, it is true (chap, vi., 148) : " In childhood 
 must a female be dependent on her father ; in youth, on her 
 husband ; her lord being dead, on her sons." And this 
 last provision of the law contained a germ of wrong which 
 produced in Hindostan that frightful state of oppression 
 under which women live. But in those primitive times was 
 the woman a slave ? was the simple girl a slave ? read (chap. 
 ix., 88) : " To an excellent and handsome youth of the same 
 class, let every man give his daughter in marriage according 
 to law." (89) : " But it is better that the damsel, though 
 marriageable, should stay at home till her death, than that 
 he should ever give her to a bridegroom void of excellent 
 qualities." (90) : " Three years let a damsel wait though she 
 is marriageable ; but after that term, let her choose for herself 
 a bridegroom of equal rank." (91): "If, not being given in 
 marriage, she choose her bridegroom, neither she, nor the youth 
 chosen, commits any offence." 
 
 Then follow many enactments full of the true sense of right 
 and propriety, and which forbid any man to sell his daughter, 
 under the pretext of gratuity : " Since a father," says the law, 
 " who takes a fee on that occasion tacitly sells his daughter." 
 (100) : " Never, even in former creations, have we heard the 
 virtuous approve the tacit sale of a daughter for a price, under 
 the name of a nuptial gratuity." (101) : " Let mutual fidelity 
 continue til death : this, in few words, may be considered as 
 the supreme law between husband and wife." 
 
 excesses of the Scandinavians in their religious festivals appear a mere 
 copy of those of the Hindoos. Nothing more untrue and more in disac- 
 cord with all we know of former India could be imagined, and the long 
 quotation from Megasthenes in the fifteenth chapter of Strabo's Geogra- 
 phy, is a sufficient refutation of it. What he says of the Brahmins ought 
 to be read attentively.
 
 122 GENTILISM. 
 
 Read, again, the following, and say if there can be a 
 brighter picture of a household even in Christian countries? 
 (Chap, v., 149) : " Never let the wife wish to separate herself 
 from her father, her husband, or her sons : for, by a separation 
 from them she exposes both families to contempt." (150) : 
 " She must always live with a cheerful temper, with good man- 
 agement in the affairs of the house, with great care of the 
 household furniture, and with a frugal hand in all her expenses." 
 (151) : " Him to whom her father has given her, or her bro- 
 ther with the paternal assent, let her obsequiously honor while 
 he lives ; and when he dies, let her never forget him." 
 
 There is something so pure, so elevated, so truly refined in 
 many . passages of that venerable legislation, that some modern 
 writers have pretended that it was never enforced ; and that its 
 author merely intended to publish a Utopia, as the Republic of 
 Plato. Unfortunately for that opinion, the Hindoos have 
 always taken the book to be a serious production, and a real 
 law to which the nation has owned obedience for many ages. 
 If, gradually, the primitive purity with which it is invested 
 grew dim, and was replaced by a corrupt gloss, which led to 
 the mass of depravity which disgraces modern Hindostan, it is 
 only a new proof that the doctrine of the indefinite perfectibil- 
 ity of mankind is a mere delusion, and that in general the pro- 
 gress since the beginning has been backward. 
 
 But we have not yet done with this code. The marital relations 
 as expressed in it, are those of a truly moral and chaste people, 
 and would scarcely be understood in the present age. We will 
 not recite the texts imposing the various times of conjugal ab- 
 stinence, which in our days would appear truly impracticable 
 and impossible ; but we must quote a few passages calculated 
 to give us a true idea of the real purity and refinement of patri- 
 archal times. (Chap, iv., 43) : " Let the husband neither eat with 
 his wife, nor look to her eating, nor sneezing, or yawning, or 
 sitting carelessly at her ease." (44) : " Nor let a Brahmin
 
 ABORIGINAL EELIGION IN HIND STAN. 123 
 
 behold her setting off her eyes with black powder, or scenting 
 herself with essences, or bringing forth a child. (Chap, ix., 77) : 
 " For a whole year let a husband bear with his wife who treats 
 him with aversion ; but after a year let him deprive her of her 
 separate property, and cease to cohabit with her." 
 
 One particular feature, common to Hindostan, and to other 
 patriarchal countries, we must not pass by without notice ; we 
 mean polygamy, which the law of Menu permitted within cer- 
 tain limits. But we prefer to quote a few judicious remarks 
 of Heeren on the subject : " The world of India, both as it 
 exists in the fanciful descriptions of poetry, as well as in the 
 sober realities of actual life, presents us with a sufficient num- 
 ber of characteristic traits to show that monogamy is the prev- 
 alent custom From all' attending circumstances we 
 
 may reasonably conclude that polygamy among the princes and 
 great men was the consequence of luxury and fashion ; but 
 that in general, wherever it existed among the higher classes, 
 it was principally founded on the necessity of preserving fam- 
 ilies ; and, moreover, on the religious precept which allowed a 
 man to marry one or more additional wives, on account of the 
 sterility of the first. The members of the fourth caste, the 
 Sudras, were only permitted, to have one wife, taken exclu- 
 sively from their own class." Is not this a common feature in 
 the patriarchal period ? 
 
 But besides the remarkable spectacle of purity offered by 
 the primitive Hindoo code with respect to conjugal relations, 
 there are other prescriptions which concern unmarried people, 
 and show a state of morals almost unknown on earth, except at 
 the very origin of human society. We will quote only a text 
 or two. (Chap, ii., 212) : " A student must not greet a young 
 wife of his preceptor, even by the ceremony of touching her 
 feet, if he have completed his twentieth year, or can distin- 
 guish virtue from vice." This text alone surpasses our concep- 
 tion of human native purity. But it is clear, and it means
 
 124 GENTILISM. 
 
 that in those primitive ages, in the burning climate of Hindo- 
 stan, the age of twenty-one years was usually reached before the 
 time of moral danger from female seduction arrived. But if 
 the period of safety from temptation extended so far, let the 
 reader ponder on' the preservatives recommended to men of 
 mature age in the following (215) : " Let not a man sit in a 
 sequestered place with his nearest female relations : the assem- 
 blage of corporeal organs is powerful enough to snatch wisdom 
 from the wise." 
 
 The previous details suffice to give an idea of the exalted 
 type of virtue presented by our fallen humanity in those dis- 
 tant times, so near the origin of mankind ; a virtue which, on the 
 hypothesis of the evolutionists, would be impossible, on account 
 of the imagined barbarism of our primeval state, but natural 
 enough to those who have been informed by revelation. The 
 reader will now not be surprised to learn that doctrines we're 
 promulgated and firmly believed in at the same epoch, which 
 far transcend all the most solemn teaching of the greatest phi- 
 losophers who flourished in the following ages ; and which yield 
 only to the sublime and exquisitely refined teachings of In- 
 carnate Wisdom, who, through human lips, revealed a code 
 of morality more exalted and more explicit than those glorious 
 strains of human intellectual harmony. The pure monotheism 
 of the old inhabitants of Hindostan will appear consequently 
 in agreement with the whole domestic and social condition of 
 the people. The texts are known now, and their meaning is 
 no more problematical. "When Sir William Jones first an- 
 nounced the fact to Europe, it was considered an exaggeration, 
 and attributed to his sanguine and benevolent nature. The 
 latest discoveries have proved that the great and good founder 
 of the Asiatic Society of Calcutta was not mistaken.
 
 ABORIGINAL RELIGION IN HINDOSTAN. 125 
 
 Y. 
 
 We find the following passage and reflections in Heeren's 
 Asiatic Nat. 11, p. 139 : " As the Yedas, like the Zend-Avesta, 
 are for the most part conversant about ceremonial laws, they 
 imply consequently the existence of a certain form of religious 
 worship, which, being subject to the observance of peculiar rites 
 and invocations, would of course be confided to a sacerdotal 
 caste. Now the worship in question concerns a religious sys- 
 tem, which, according to the unanimous opinion of all those 
 who have studied the subject, has for its foundation the belief 
 in one God." And in a note he refers to Asiatic Researches, 
 vol. viii., p. 396, adding the following phrase : " Sir "W. Jones, 
 Father Paulino, and the reports of the Danish missionaries, all 
 agree on this point, which is further confirmed by numerous 
 passages in the Upanishads." Since Heeren's time a far more 
 extensive study of the Indian " sacred " books has raised his 
 assertion to what we may call the height of demonstration ; and 
 Colebrooke, Haug, Spiegel, as well as Max Miiller, have made 
 it a truth which cannot be now contested, that the Yedas, as 
 well as the Zend-Avesta, contain the doctrine of plain and pure 
 monotheism. This last celebrated writer, particularly, has 
 spoken eloquently and emphatically of it in his lectures " On 
 the Science of Religion," to which later on we shall allude. 
 
 To show the importance of this concession, we have only to 
 bring it in juxtaposition with the remarks of the Gottingen 
 Professor at the beginning of his first chapter on Indians: 
 " The historians who have inquired into the religion and learn- 
 ing of the East, have almost always been obliged to revert to 
 India for information in their researches. That distant coun- 
 try, however, has at no former period attracted the attention of 
 Europeans in these particulars, so much as at the present day. < J 
 The learned of Great Britain now flatter themselves that they
 
 1 26 GEXTILISM. 
 
 have at length discovered the sources from which, not only the 
 rest of Asia, but the whole Western World, derived their 
 knowledge and their religion." 
 
 Our whole thesis, therefore, seems to be thus already granted, 
 at least in a general way ; and we might almost conclude at 
 present, that the religion of the ancient world was pure mono- 
 theism. 
 
 'For, this would seem, at first sight, to settle the question of the 
 pure monotheism of the earliest civilized communities ; of the 
 Hindoos, at all events ; and to emancipate us from the task of 
 further elucidating the subject. 
 
 But so decided is the sceptical attitude adopted, alas ! by a 
 large portion of the literary, and, at times, even of the learned 
 world, that were we to stop here, we might be condem-ned tp 
 listen to a remonstrance against our conclusion, drawn from a 
 kind of ambiguity in the very word " monotheism," which many 
 would now make synonymous with real pantheism, or rather 
 with the absorption of all beings in one ; and this they pretend 
 is tne real doctrine of the Hindoo Yedas. We must, there- 
 fore, enter into some discussion on those primitive books. And, 
 although *we cannot pretend to solve the difficulty with respect 
 to the grammatical meaning, since we know nothing of the San- 
 scrit, old or recent, yet we imagine that we can communicate to 
 our readers a conviction which is firmly established in our own 
 mind, from numerous passages whose strict meaning has now 
 been settled by competent writers, that any such remonstrance 
 has no foundation in fact ; and that the numerous other pas- 
 sages of a different nature, in which the language involves 
 really the doctrine of absorption in Brahma, can be shown in 
 truth to strengthen our very position, by indicating the first of 
 those downward steps, from pure doctrine to the reverse, 
 which, as we said previously, is clearly demonstrable 'in the 
 case of Hindostan. Moreover, we expect to be able to show 
 that the transition from truth to error was natural and so grad-
 
 ABOKIGLS'AL KELIGION IN HIXDOSTAIT. 127 
 
 ual as to afford additional confirmatory evidence of the posi- 
 tion we are endeavoring to maintain. 
 
 We cannot enter into a lengthy description of the cele- 
 brated books known as the Yedas. The reader can consult the 
 more recent authors on the subject. Enough is it for us to say 
 that they are of a very high antiquity, possibly, and even prob- 
 ably, older than the Pentateuch of Moses ; that the three first, 
 known as the Rig, the Yajur, and the Saman -Yedas, are 
 admitted to be " canonical," if we may use the expression ; and 
 that the fourth the Atharvan-Yeda contains, certainly, mat- 
 ter unacceptable to a strict exegetist, although a great part of 
 it cannot give rise to any objection. Each of them may be 
 divided into three parts, which, however, often encroach upon 
 one another the mantras, the brahmanas, and the upanishads. 
 The first consist of prayers and solemn rites ; the second con- 
 tain precepts chiefly, but often accompanied with hymns and 
 invocations ; the last, met with sometimes among the mantras 
 and the brahmanas, are in greater number placed at the end 
 of each Yeda, and consist of treatises, dialogues, and high con- 
 siderations on the nature of God, on creation, on the world, 
 on the soul of man, on the most elevated subjects of religious 
 philosophy. It is chiefly in the upanishads that is to be found 
 the purest doctrine of monotheism and natural religion. Some- 
 times, also, the errors not found, however, in the Rig-Yeda 
 of transmigration, etc., and chiefly of the final absorption of the 
 soul, even of the whole universe, in God, lead evidently to 
 open heresy, and to that broad pantheism which was advo- 
 cated later by Hindoo philosophers, who carried it at length 
 to atheism and annihilation, or, as it is called, the nirvana. 
 
 But before proceeding to point out the various steps down- 
 wards of the religious and philosophical systems of Ilindostan, 
 and how the grossest subsequent errors came from an exag- 
 geration of truth, natural to a nature so poetical as was that of 
 
 the Hindoos, whence, it is evident, our thesis that the primitive 
 10
 
 128 GENTILISM. 
 
 pure monotheistic doetrine was the starting-point from which 
 were evolved the most erroneous systems of religion or philos- 
 ophy will receive abundant support, we must pursue a brief 
 inquiry into the authenticity and antiquity of the upanishads 
 as a part of the Vedas. Indeed, the whole question would 
 seem to hinge on this fact. So incontestible are the proofs in 
 them, of a truly Christian monotheism, that those, too many, 
 alas ! modern writers, who will persist in asserting, against 
 all the proofs, that the human race, started from sheer barba- 
 rism, and from the lowest conceivable doctrinal points, have 
 pretended, lately, that the upanishads are very much later in 
 point of time than the other portions of the Yedas, and were, 
 in fact, the result of long studies on the highest subjects of 
 philosophy. We, on the contrary, maintain that the purer 
 and the higher is the doctrine, the older it is on that very 
 account ; that the noblest ideas are precisely those which man- 
 kind received and held at first ; that all errors, all false beliefs 
 and absurdities, were the strange progress made by the human 
 mind reflecting on revealed truth as communicated to it at 
 first ; finally, that, as the grossest immorality, the absurdities 
 the most revolting, and an almost incredible perversity, con- 
 stitute, confessedly, in our days, the pagan moral atmosphere 
 of Hindostan ; whatever in the doctrine of the old books of the 
 country is acceptable to a Christian, as noble, grand, just, and 
 true, must be placed nearest to the origin of the nation. 
 
 First, there is no reason whatever to place, in point of time, 
 the upanishads, at least those admitted as genuine and ancient, 
 after the mantras and brahmanas. No Hindoo Brahmin would 
 do so. They would all alike say, that both are Yedic, and be- 
 long to the same epoch. They are certainly written in the same 
 style, that noble archaic, rich, and abundant Sanscrit, so differ- 
 ent from that of the great poems of Ramayana, and Mahabha- 
 rata, chiefly from that of the Puranas, and above all from the 
 grovelling and detestable Tantras, the most modern of all.
 
 ABORIGINAL RELIGION IN HINDOSTAN. 129 
 
 Since there is perfect sameness of style in the whole of the 
 three first Yedas, since the upanishads are often intermixed 
 with the mantras and brahmanas, since the Hindoo nation 
 has always accepted them as having the same authority and 
 <]'n-' t! \e origin, what rational pretext can there be for endeav- 
 oring to make a distinction where, in point of fact, there is 
 none ; what motive can there be but to suit preconceived opin- 
 ions, and to force an argument in behalf of what is precisely in 
 question, namely : the supposed primitive low state of man ? 
 What but a perverse resolve to obliterate, so far as it is in 
 their power to do, the undeniable testimony supplied by con- 
 temporary authoritative records to the nobleness of mind, eleva- 
 tion of thought, true civilization, and high religious and philo- 
 sophical thought, which we see surrounding with their benedic- 
 tions the very cradle of mankind ? 
 
 Max Miiller, in his " History of Sanscrit Literature," makes a 
 marked distinction between the new and the old Upanishads. 
 He says that "new Upanishads were always composed by new 
 sects." .... The old and genuine ones did not pretend to give 
 more than " guesses at truth " ; and " when in course of time 
 they became invested with an inspired character, the text al- 
 Iow3d great latitude to those who professed to be believers in 
 their revelation." Consequently, "not only the Yedanta phi- 
 losophers, but likewise the Sankhya, the Nyaya, and the Yoga 
 teachers all pretend to find in the. Upanishads some warranty 
 for their tenets, however antagonistic in their bearings." But 
 this is said only of comparatively modern compositions. 
 
 The truly old and genuine ones are to be spoken of very dif- 
 ferently. Rammohun Hoy, according to Max Miiller, asserted 
 that, " The adoration of the Supreme Being is exclusively pre- 
 scribed by the Upanishads, or ih& principal part of the Yedas, 
 and also by the Yedanta." Every one knows the authority of 
 the celebrated Rammohun Roy on the subject. Himself a 
 Hindoo, no one, perhaps, in modern times has ever known so
 
 130 GEXTILISM. 
 
 well the language and the true doctrine of his country in the 
 past. 
 
 But who were the composers of those remarkable books, the 
 Vedas ? "Were they, from the beginning, arranged as they are 
 in the eleven very large volumes which now form the collec- 
 tion ? A word first on this second question: "The Vedas," 
 says Heeren, " must evidently have required the labors of some 
 compiler who incorporated the detached pieces into one work. 
 And in effect, Hindoo tradition has assigned the task to Yyasa, 
 whose age goes far back into the fabulous periods. Yyasa, 
 however, is nothing more than a common term applicable to 
 any compiler in general ; we are therefore still in the dark. . . . 
 There is, nevertheless, the less reason to be surprised at this 
 uncertainty; the same is the case with the books of Moses. 
 They have been preserved to our times, but the true account of 
 their origin," Heeren should have said of their "compila- 
 tion " " is involved in the deepest obscurity." 
 
 But who were the original "composers" of these books? 
 Each particular piece, prayer, hymn, precept, upanishad, bears 
 in the compilation the name of its author ; and it is especially 
 recommended to the officiating Brahmin not to forget this name 
 when using the text in any sacred rite. The whole is revealed 
 in the opinion of the Hindoos, and comes from God. Thus 
 every author of any particular piece is, according to that opin- 
 ion, an inspired writer. No Christian, of course, can share in 
 this belief. Yet it is well to mention it, in order to show that 
 no discrimination can be made by any modern critic as against 
 the upanishads, in particular. But if the actual name of every 
 one of those writers can very well be matter of doubt, there is, 
 however, a general attribute given to many of them by all 
 Brahmins, which it is as well to note. The hymns and prayers 
 of the mantras, comprised in ten thousand verses or stanzas, 
 are put into the mouths of holy men Rishis mentioned by 
 name. And says Heeren : " Tli3 supponed composers are very
 
 ABORIGINAL HELIGIO2T IN HLJTDOSTAN. 131 
 
 frequently Rishis themselves, and count, among their number, 
 Brahmins, and sometimes even royal personages." This re- 
 mark of the Gottingen Professor is worthy of attention. The 
 mention of Brahmins is here superfluous, as in Hindostan, 
 chiefly at the origin, all great and holy men belonged to that 
 caste. But it is, in our opinion, extremely important to know 
 that in general the authors of the various parts of the Yedas 
 were holy men Rishis and likewise powerful men, " some- 
 times even royal personages." We cannot have a better de- 
 scription of a " patriarch " in olden time than a " Rishi " or holy 
 man of high standing, rich and powerful, and of a kingly race. 
 Thus were surely Abraham in Mesopotamia, Melchisedech in 
 the land of Canaan, and Job in the land of Hus. The "inspi- 
 ration " of these three great men was indubitable, and we can- 
 not, we need scarcely remark, place the Hindoo Rishis on the 
 same elevated plane. But how many other patriarchs in the 
 times of Abraham and Job were holy and powerful men with- 
 out being " inspired ?" And what should prevent us from 
 placing the Hindoo Rishis in the same category ? We consider 
 it, therefore, as extremely probable that the authors of the 
 Vedas were true patriarchs of Central Asia, who left to their 
 posterity the noble doctrine of which we propose to give a 
 short sketch. And what confirms us in our opinion is, that 
 invariably the laws of Menu, in texts which we have had no 
 occasion to quote, recommend to the true Brahmin, together 
 with high piety and entire devotion to God, together even with 
 simplicity of manners and frugality of life, a great care of their - 
 wealth, attachment to it, and a real solicitude in increasing it 
 by all lawful means. Wealth, in the institutes of Menu, is a 
 precious thing, almost a virtue ; its loss a great evil ; and yet 
 a luxurious life is strictly forbidden, and simplicity of diet and 
 apparel highly recommended. We would like to know where 
 all this can be found combined more preeminently than* in the 
 patriarchs of ihe cast of Abraham, of Jacob, of Job ?
 
 132 GE^TILISM. 
 
 After sucli testimony as this, lie must be a bold man, and 
 something more than bold, who would venture to dispute that 
 the Yedas were composed before idolatry prevailed. The cele- 
 brated Orientalist, Henry Thomas Colebrooke, was, we think, 
 the first to make the observation that the Vedas exhibit no traces 
 whatever of the sects of Siva and Vishnu ; " Nowhere," he says, 
 " excepting only in the latter sections of the Atharvan-Veda 
 the fourth Yeda which must, therefore, be regarded as spu- 
 rious, have I been able to discover the slightest vestige of the 
 worship of Rama and of Krishna, considered as incarnations of 
 Vishnu." In fact, the " Trimourti," which has so often been 
 adduced as an evidence that the Hindoos had some knowledge 
 of the Christian Trinity, but which was in truth one of the 
 most prolific sources of the subsequent idolatry, makes its ap- 
 pearance long after the epoch of the Vedas. There is no men- 
 tion in them of any real God but the " Supreme Spirit, 
 which moves at pleasure, but in .itself is immovable ; distant 
 from us, yet very near us ; pervading this whole system of 
 worlds, yet infinitely beyond it." 
 
 If Siva and Vishnu, as mythological personages, are not men- 
 tioned in the Vedas, much less can the reader find in them that 
 crowd of gods whose ridiculous history form what is called the 
 mythology of Hindostan. And, as all the monuments of former 
 times in the country, even those of the highest antiquity in point 
 of art, are literally covered with the various episodes related in 
 the long epic poems sculptured in prominent relief on the re- 
 maining walls of these edifices, it follows strictly that the Vedas 
 are more ancient than the oldest of them. ~No antiquary has 
 yet found in Hindostan buildings which can be referred to 
 Vedic times. This remark has not been sufficiently insisted 
 upon. And nothing, in our opinion, is more natural, and more 
 in the order of things. There can be no relics of that primeval 
 period, because the " patriarchs " never could attempt to build 
 Buch piles as those of a subsequent epoch. They- lived mostly
 
 ABOKIGLSAL RELIGION IN HINDOSTAtf. 133 
 
 under tents ; a rude stone altar was the place- chosen for sacri- 
 fice ; and the smoke of the holocaust rose upwards in the blue 
 atmosphere, and never blackened the interior walls of any gigan- 
 tic edifice. 
 
 After these preliminary observations, we arrive now at the 
 doctrine of those ancient days, as far as it can be ascertained. 
 
 VL 
 
 The mantras of the Yeds make often mention of gods and 
 deities, as they are called in our translations, and it is impor- 
 tant to know what is really meant by such expressions as these. 
 It seems that the word thus interpreted is devatd in Sanscrit ; 
 and its meaning, in comparatively modem language, may be, 
 indeed, deity or god. But we protest against giving it this in- 
 terpretation in the Case of the first Vedas. It is beyond dis- 
 pute, that in these old books, anything either consecrated or 
 endowed with some native dignity, chiefly in the matter of re- 
 ligious rites, is called devata. Thus a horse led to be sacrificed, 
 a weapon on which the help of heaven is invoked, even a rem- 
 edy against impure dreams, considered justly as a great evil in 
 the Menu code, as well as many other sacred or consecrated 
 objects, are called devatas ; and we by no means deny that 
 some help, temporal or, spiritual, was expected from them. 
 
 We ought not, therefore, to be surprised that fndra, or the 
 blue vault of heaven ; Agni, or the elementary fire, chiefly 
 that of lightning ; Culiu^ or the beautiful western sky, when 
 the new crescent of the moon begins to appear, etc., etc., are 
 all called devatds, and addressed with devotion by the highly 
 imaginative Hindoo. The primitive inhabitants of that extra- 
 ordinary country were of so poetical a nature, that their great- 
 est geniuses could never write a history or a chronicle. Their 
 vivid imagination could not rest satisfied with cold and stub-
 
 134 GE1STTILISM. 
 
 born facts, no more than with a precise philosophical lan- 
 guage. 
 
 It is true the Yedas speak of oblations and sacrifices to 
 Indra, to Agni, etc. Were not these, therefore, in the opinion 
 of the writers, beings of a divine nature ? We reply, not in 
 the sense of our own more exact way of expressing ourselves, 
 although they supposed in them some inexplicable consecration. 
 But the " Institutes of Menu " appear to us to decide the ques- 
 tion (Chap. ii. 83) : " The triliteral monosyllable (om or aum) 
 is an emblem of the Supreme ; the suppressions of breath with 
 a mind fixed on God are the highest devotion, but nothing is 
 more exalted than the gayatri" (84) : " All rites ordained in 
 the Veda, oblations to fire (or Agni), and solemn sacrifices, pass 
 away ; but that which passes not away is declared to be the 
 syllable om ; since it is a symbol of God, the Lord of created 
 beings." (85) : " The act of repeating his Holy Name is ten 
 times better than the appointed sacrifice, etc." (86) : " The 
 four domestic sacraments, accompanied with the appointed 
 sacrifice, are not equal all together to a sixteenth part of the 
 act performed by a repetition of the gayatri." 
 
 And what is the gayatri, so superior to all invocations of the 
 elements for help ? Here is the translation of it given by Sir 
 William Jones : " Let tis adore the supremacy of that divine 
 Sun," - not the visible luminary, l>ut " the Godhead who 
 illuminates all, who recreates all, from whom all proceed, to 
 whom all must return, whom we invoke to direct our under- 
 standings aright in our progress towards His holy seat." This 
 was the most sacred verse of the "Vedas, whose recitation, ac- 
 cording to the code of Menu, was not only far above all high 
 expressions of awe in presence of the elements, but was to pre- 
 cede all the religious acts of Brahmins. How could they have 
 been at any time worshippers of the forces of nature when 
 anteriorly, and at the same time, they acknowledge such an 
 infinitely Superior Being ? It is repeatedly declared in the
 
 ABORIGINAL KELIGIO2T IN HINDOSTAN. 135 
 
 Menu code that all ceremonies and rites are nothing compared 
 to the adoration of the SUPREME. 
 
 As well might we say that the Catholic Church teaches the 
 worship of the elements, because in her liturgy she consecrates 
 them, and addresses them afterwards in language which in 
 some way approaches to Yedic expressions. If some of the 
 modern critics who comment on the Hindoo religious books, 
 knew how the Catholic Church speaks of water, salt, fire, oil, 
 and wine, they might be prepared to understand those other 
 literary compositions, and they would not try, as they do, to 
 assign to them an interpretation which they do not really bear. 
 Not that we admit a perfect identity in them, nor see any diffi- 
 culty in the strange forms of the Kig-Veda. The mantras led 
 certainly the people gradually to idolatry. But we know that 
 a primitive religion must have viewed the material world in a 
 very different manner from the learned man of the nineteenth 
 century. And we think that what astonishes the " modern 
 savant," namely, the confidence reposed in the help expected 
 from mere material beings, is caused by his ignorance of the 
 natural primitive feeling of man in presence of a wonderful 
 world, of which he feels that he was made to be the master, 
 and yet finds that he is often the slave. 
 
 To explain our meaning more clearly, suppose a philosopher 
 believing himself to be well acquainted with what he calls the 
 laws of nature, yet, conscious of being profoundly ignorant of 
 the Catholic religion, to enter by chance, on Holy Saturday, an 
 edifice dedicated by the Mother Church, and to read carelessly 
 from a book lent him by one of the worshippers. "What would 
 be his surprise to find, in the office of the day, at the moment 
 that the officiating priest touches with his hand the water of 
 the font he is blessing, the following words : " Sit hceo sancta 
 et innocens creatura " namely, the water contained i % i the font 
 " libera ab omni impugnatoris inoursu, et totius neyuitioa 
 purgata discessu. Sitfons vivus, aqua regenerans^ undapuri-
 
 136 GEJSTILISM. 
 
 cans, ut omnes hoc lavacro salutifero diluendi, perfectoe pur- 
 gationis indulgentiam consequantur. . . ." He would conclude 
 that the Catholic expects his moral purification from mere ma- 
 terial water, which besides is openly called a " holy and inno- 
 cent being." Surely this philosopher would be as safe in his 
 conclusion as the critic who, from the " oblation to fire " in the 
 Yedas, is perfectly certain that the primitive Hindoo " wor- 
 shipped the elements." Many other passages of the Catholic 
 liturgy, chiefly in the administration of baptism, in the blessing 
 of the holy oils, etc., etc., might be adduced in illustration of 
 what few, we suspect, will be found willing to deny, and 
 brought forward to illustrate the subject under consideration. 
 
 We hope no one, in our days, would call the " holy water," 
 the " blessed salt," etc., used in Catholic rites, the gods of the 
 Catholic. It is as just to imagine that the " sacrificial post," the 
 " cords," etc., used in Hindoo worship, were really the gods of 
 the Yedic Hindoo ; yet they were devatds. 
 
 We can now somewhat understand the address in the Rig- 
 Veda to the horse led for sacrifice, which, as a modem critic 
 says, is invoked by the worshipper in the following strain : " Thy 
 great birth, O horse, is to be glorified ; whether first springing 
 from the firmament or from the water, inasmuch as thou hast 
 neighed at thy birth ; thou hast the wings of the falcon, and 
 the limbs of the deer. Trita harnessed the horse which was 
 given by Yama, Indra first mounted him, and Gandharba seized 
 the reins .... Thou, horse, art Yama, thou art Aditya, thou 
 art Trita by a mysterious act ; thou art associated with Soma." 
 Job in describing the horse,' was not so mystical as the com- 
 poser of this piece of the first Yeda ; but any one acquainted 
 with Catholic liturgy has really the key for the interpretation 
 of this passage ; because he knows that in high religious poetry, 
 any natural element, any animal even, can be found associated 
 with superior beings, and with a whole mystical world perfectly 
 unknown to the physicbt of modern times.
 
 ABORIGINAL RELIGION IN HINDOSTAN. 137 
 
 And tlie "critics" of whom we speak cannot strengthen 
 their position by the opinions of Hindoo " theologians," as they 
 call them, who evidently lived many ages after the Vedas were 
 composed, who were, moreover, rank idolaters, and could no 
 more understand those old and venerable books than the mod- 
 ern critics themselves. It has even become the fashion for 
 Orientalists of our age to address themselves in India to pun- 
 dits, and to consider their interpretation of the Yedas as a safe 
 one. A sincere Christian will probably better understand them 
 than an idolatrous pundit, because natural religion is a fun- 
 damental part of the Christian religion, not of modern Hin- 
 dooism. 
 
 AVe must conclude briefly this part of our investigations, by 
 stating that all the labor of modern writers, to explain in the 
 Rig- Veda the evolution of Hindooism from the worship of 
 elementary powers, by trying first to reconcile it with the idea 
 of one Supreme Being, as expressed in the brahinana part, 
 and then by emancipating altogether monotheism from the 
 primitive elementary religion in the upanishads, is perfectly 
 thrown away. There has never been such an evolution. The 
 three parts of every Veda stand together. And nothing is more 
 absolutely certain, nothing more completely out of the reach of 
 cavil, than that antecedently to all other Hindoo beliefs what- 
 soever, existed the belief in the SUPREME ; since all the ceremo- 
 nies of elementary religion even, as it is called by modern 
 critics, must begin by the solemn profession of the gayatri. 
 
 We are now prepared to listen to some of those grand voices 
 of antiquity proclaiming the eternal existence of the INFINITE. 
 It is called Brahma ! But Brahma (neuter), not the (male) 
 Brahma of the Trimourti that abomination introduced by the 
 poets of the Epic period. 
 
 It has been remarked by several recent writers that, in the 
 Hindoo worship, Brahma has scarcely a place ; and that Siva, 
 Vishnu, Ganesa, etc,, absorb all the interest of the worshipper.
 
 138 GENTILISM. 
 
 "We reply, yes, in the modern Hindoo religion. "When the 
 fables of Siva, and later those of Vishnu, were invented by the 
 fertile imagination of the poets, they could not forget at once 
 the great name of Brahma, which occupied a supreme place in 
 the primitive religion of the country. They retained it, there- 
 fore ; but they made it a man. Thus the male Brahma was 
 invented ; and henceforward the Hindoos had the elements of 
 their Trimourti. But instead of having any correspondence 
 with the Holy Trinity of the Christian, it was the introduction 
 of pure idolatry, which has prevailed since that time ; and it 
 was only to be expected that the new monstrous god, the male 
 Brahma, should take an inferior position to that of his two 
 new brothers ; an inferior position, we mean, as far as regards 
 the interest taken in him by the idolatrous Hindoos. The 
 male Brahma, the product of the later Vedic times, could not 
 compete in mythology with Siva and Vishnu, whose avatars, 
 or incarnations, were the great and absorbing subject of the 
 then new Epic poems. He therefore the male Brahma re- 
 mained in the back-ground, to use a vulgar expression ; and the 
 adoration of the more modern idolater was turned chiefly to 
 Siva and Vishnu, the new and brilliant divinities invented by 
 poets, whose fertile legends could fill the imagination of artists 
 who then began to represent their history on the walls of 
 majestic edifices. 
 
 But, in old and primitive times, Brahma (neuter), namely, 
 the Supreme, the Eternal and Infinite Spirit, was the chief and 
 all-absorbing object of the adoration of the well-instructed 
 Brahmin. .Read some few of the great conceptions transmit- 
 ted, no doubt, from the origin of man, through the first Patri- 
 archs or E-ishis, who wrote the great TJpanishads of the yet un- 
 corrupted Vedas. 
 
 " What the sun and light are to this visible world, that is 
 the Supreme Good and Truth to the intellectual and invisible 
 universe ; and as our corporeal eyes have a distinct perception
 
 ABORIGINAL RELIGION IX HIXDOSTAN. 139 
 
 of objects enlightened by the sun, thus our souls acquire sure 
 knowledge, by meditating on the light of truth which emanates 
 from the Being of beings ; that is the light by which alone our 
 minds can be directed in the path to beatitude." 
 
 " Without hand or foot He runs rapidly, and grasps firmly ; 
 without eyes He sees; without ears He hears all j He knows 
 whatever can be known, but there is none who knows Him ; 
 Him, the wise call the great, Supreme, pervading Spirit." 
 (Sir William Jones, extracts from the Vedas). 
 
 Of this last text, says the same authority, Radhacant has 
 given a paraphrase : " Perfect truth ; perfect happiness ; with- 
 out equal ; immortal ; absolute unity ; whom neither speech 
 can describe, nor mind comprehend ; all-pervading ; all-tran- 
 scending ; delighted with His own boundless intelligence ; not 
 limited by space or time ; without feet, moving swiftly ; with- 
 out hands, grasping all worlds ; without eyes, all-surveying ; 
 without ears, all-hearing ; without an exterior guide, under- 
 standing all ; without cause, the first of all causes ; all-ruling ; 
 all-powerful ; the creator, preserver, transformer of all things ; 
 such is the Great One ; this the Yedas declare." Can a Chris- 
 tian philosopher, we ask, speak more correctly ? "Were not the 
 Hindoos at first monotheists ? 
 
 Sir William Jones gives yet the following, as extracted from 
 an Upanishad of the Yajur-Veda : " Unveil, O Thou who 
 givest sustenance to the world, that face of the true Sun, 
 now hidden by a vase of golden light ! so that we may see the 
 truth, and know our whole duty !" " That all-pervading Spirit, 
 which gives light to the visible sun, even the same in kind am 
 I, though infinitely distant in degree" St. Paul said later : 
 Ipsius genus sumus. " Let my soul return to the immortal 
 Spirit of God, and then let my body, which ends in ashes, re- 
 turn to dust !" " O Spirit, who pervadest fire, lead us in a 
 straight path to the riches of beatitude! Thou, O God, pos- 
 sessest all the treasures of knowledge ; remove each foul taint
 
 140 GENTILISJI. 
 
 from our souls ; we continual! y approach Thee with the highest 
 praise and the most fervid adoration." 
 
 Of such sort were the first strains of Hindoo intellectual 
 melody which reached the ears of Europeans. Yet, at that 
 time, only a few pages of the Yedas had been perused and 
 translated. How much more is known from the labors of later 
 Orientalists, of Colebrooke, Max Miiller, Wilson, Burnouf, 
 Hang, and so many others ! 
 
 Hear from the Rig- Veda that this world had a beginning, and 
 what existed before : " Then (before creation), there was no 
 entity or non-entity ; no world, or sky, or aught above it ; 
 nothing anywhere involving or involved in the happiness of 
 any one (created) ; nor water deep and dangerous. Death was 
 not, nor was there immortality (for created beings), nor distinc- 
 tion of day or night. But THAT breathed without (sensible) 
 afflation, single with Her who is within Him (Eternal Wisdom 
 probably). Other than Him nothing existed which since has 
 been .... Who knows exactly, and who shall in this world 
 declare whence and why this creation took place ? The gods 
 (devattis) are subsequent to the production of this world ; then 
 who can know whence it proceeded, or whence this varied 
 world arose, or whether it upholds itself or not ? He who in 
 the highest heaven is the ruler of this universe, does indeed 
 know ; but not another one can possess this knowledge ? " 
 In this passage we have inserted a gloss of ours between 
 brackets. 
 
 Max Miiller thinks that Brahma was not the only name given 
 to the Supreme by the first Hindoos. He even goes so far as 
 to say that many names were applied to Him ; and he supposes 
 that the subsequent gods of the Indian mythology were all Su- 
 preme in the Hindoo mind ; and thus, in his opinion, polythe- 
 ism was introduced. We cannot discuss this theory of the 
 celebrated writer for it seems to be with him a theory ; yet 
 there is a name often used by the writers of " hymns " in the
 
 ABORIGINAL KELIGION IX HIKDOSTAN. 141 
 
 Yedas, which evidently in their mind was that of the true 
 Almighty God. It is Yaruna, the Greek Ovpavbg, "an ancient 
 name of the sky," Mr. Miiller says, " and of the God who 
 resides in the sky." He took the trouble to translate the 
 whole hymn, and introduces it in his " Fourth Lecture on the 
 Science of Religion," by the following solemn words perfectly 
 appropriate to our purpose : " It was the hymn more than 
 three thousand years ago, uttered for the first time in a village on 
 the banks of the Sutledge, then called the Satadru, by a man who 
 felt as we feel, who spoke as we speak, who believed in many 
 points as we believe." He had previously given his name, Ya- 
 sishtha " a dark-complexioned Hindoo, shepherd, poet, priest, 
 patriarch .... and does it not show the indestructibility of the 
 spirit, if we see how the waves which, by a poetic impulse, he 
 started on the vast ocean of thought, have been heaving, and 
 spreading, and widening, till after centuries and centuries they 
 strike against our shores, and tell us in accents that cannot be 
 mistaken, what passed through the mind of that ancient Aryan 
 poet, when he felt the presence of an Almighty God, the maker 
 of heaven and earth, and felt at the same time the burden of 
 his sin, and prayed to his God that He might take that burden 
 from him, that He might forgive him his sin." 
 
 " Wise and mighty are the works of Him who stemmed 
 asunder the wide firmaments (heaven and earth). He lifted 
 on high the bright and glorious heaven ; He stretched out 
 apart the starry sky and the earth. 
 
 " Do I say this to my own self ? How can I get near into 
 Yaruna ? Will He accept my offering without displeasure ? 
 WTien shall I with a quiet mind see Him propitiated ? 
 
 " I ask, O Yaruna, wishing to know this my sin ; I go to 
 inquire of the wise ; the sages all tell me the same : ( Yaruna 
 it is who is angry with thee.' 
 
 " Was it for an old sin, O Yaruna, that Thou wishest to de- 
 stroy thy friend wko always praises Thee ? Tell me, Thou
 
 142 GEXTILISM. 
 
 unconquerable Lord ! and I will quickly turn to Thee with 
 praise, freed from sin. 
 
 " Absolve us from the sins of our fathers, and from those 
 which we committed with our own bodies. Release Yasishtha, 
 O King, like a thief who has feasted on stolen cattle ; release 
 him like a calf from the rope. 
 
 " It was not our doing, O Yaruna, it was a slip ; an intoxi- 
 cating draught, passion, dice, thoughtlessness. The old is thero 
 to mislead the young ; even sleep is not free from mischief. 
 
 " Let me without sin give satisfaction to the angry God, like 
 a slave to Jiis bounteous lord. The Lord God enlighten the 
 foolish ; He, the wisest, leads His worshipper to wealth. 
 
 " O Lord Yaruna, may this song go well to Thy heart ! 
 May we prosper in keeping and acquiring ! Protect us, O 
 gods, always with your blessings." 
 
 " This poem alone," says Max Miiller, " shows that man 
 was never forsaken of God ; and this conviction is worth more 
 to the student of history than all the dynasties of Babylon and 
 Egypt, worth more than all lacustrine villages, worth more 
 than the skulls and jaw-bones of Neanderthal or Abbeville." 
 
 Yet the same writer gives us a far superior hymn, in our 
 opinion, in his " History of Sanscrit Literature " (London edit., 
 1860, p. 540), and as it is short, we copy it : 
 
 " Let me not yet, O Yaruna, enter into the house of clay. 
 Have mercy, Almighty, have mercy. 
 
 " If I go along trembling like a cloud driven by the wind, 
 have mercy, Almighty, have mercy. 
 
 " Through want of strength, Thou strong and bright God, 
 have I gone to the wrong shore. Have mercy, Almighty, etc. 
 
 " Thirst came upon the worshipper, though he stood in the 
 midst of the waters. Have mercy, Almighty, etc. 
 
 " Whenever we men, O Yaruna, commit an offence before 
 the heavenly host, whenever we break Thy law through thought- 
 lessness ; have mercy, Almighty, have mercy."
 
 ABOEIGINAL RELIGION IN HINDOSTAN. 143 
 
 Mr. Miiller remarks with justice on the subject of this short 
 poem, that " the language of these simple prayers of the Yedas 
 is more intelligible to us than anything we find in the liter^- 
 ture of Greece and Rome, and there are here and there ardent 
 expressions of faith and devotion in which even a Christian can 
 join without irreverence." 
 
 This is perfectly true, and we could not certainly "join with- 
 out irreverence " in any of the prayers of the pagan Romans 
 and Greeks when addressing Bacchus or Yenus. Thus the 
 men of those- primitive times, when the Hindoo " sacred " 
 books were written, may be said to have been much nearer 
 our own days than the much more recent inhabitants of Italy 
 or Hellas; and we naturally find the language and the feelings, 
 of those old patriarchs untainted, as yet, with idolatry, a great 
 deal more genial and acceptable to us. 
 
 But besides Brahma and Yaruna (Ovpovb?-), the Supreme 
 God received often in Hindostan the name of " sky " and 
 " light," and we will here conclude our observations on this 
 part of our subject. It is Max Miiller again who remarks, that 
 the name of the Supreme God was originally Dyaus in San- 
 scrit, Zeus in Greek, Jovis or rather Diespiter in Latin, and 
 Tiu in German. " These words are not mere words," he says, 
 " but they bring before us with all the vividness of an event 
 which we witnessed ourselves but yesterday, the ancestors of 
 the whole Aryan race, thousands of years may be before Homer 
 and the Yedas, worshipping an unseen Being, under the self- 
 same name, the best, the most exalted name they could find in 
 their vocabulary under the name of LIGHT and SKY. And let 
 us not turn away and say that this was after all but nature-wor- 
 ship and idolatry. !N^o, it was not meant for that, though ^l 
 may have been degraded into that in later times" We under- 
 line these expressions as very remarkable in the gifted author, 
 because he often seems to think that the Aryan, as well as all 
 
 other races, began bv nature-worship, and raised themselvea 
 11
 
 144 GENTILISM. 
 
 afterwards to the higher belief of true monotheism a com- 
 pletely false idea, of which even Max Miiller, it seems, could not 
 dispossess himself. "Dyaus" he continues, " did not mean the 
 blue sky, nor was it simply the sky personified. It was meant 
 for something else. We have in the Yedas the invocation : 
 Dyaus pitar, in Greek Zev -rrdrep, in Latin Dies piter or Jupiter, 
 and that means, in all the three languages, what it meant before 
 these three languages were torn asunder. It means Heaven- 
 Father ! These two words are not mere words. They are, to 
 my mind, the oldest poem, the oldest prayer of mankind, or, 
 at least, of that pure branch of it to which we belong." 
 
 We may add that this invocation, going back to the very 
 origin of our race, is evidently a part of that primeval revelation 
 of which we have already spoken, and which our Divine Lord 
 only revealed with more consummate clearness, when He taught 
 us to say : Our Father, who art in Heaven. 
 
 But there is in the name, Light, given to God, a great deal 
 more than Max Miiller appears to imagine. In another fine 
 passage of the same lecture, he explained how the first Aryans 
 themselves were led to give it to the Supreme Being ; and he 
 imagines that they merely looked all around themselves to find 
 in their language the expression most appropriate to the Being 
 whom they worshipped in their own mind, and as they could 
 see in the whole creation nothing to compare with the bright 
 and immense sky over their heads, they chose it as that which 
 came nearer to their original idea, although it could not express 
 it entirely, and was, in fact, a failure, as, we think, he calls it. 
 This is connected with his theory, that the religion of any peo- 
 ple ought to be sought in their language ; that in truth religion 
 came from language. A thought striking at first sight, and 
 which we are far from placing on a par with the degrading 
 doctrine of the supporters of primitive barbarism ; yet which 
 we cannot admit, and must reject in toto ; because religion is 
 in se anterior to language, although both belonged to man
 
 ABORIGINAL RELIGION IN HINDOSTAN. 145 
 
 from his very origin. Religion is a sentiment which could not 
 be generated by language. This latter was merely the expres- 
 sion of the former. 
 
 Man, indeed, had many reasons for applying the name, Light, 
 to God. According to St. Paul, the Author of all things has 
 manifested Himself in His creation, and all His great attributes 
 can be read there. Was it not, consequently, because light is 
 the most perfect emblem of the Godhead that it was first cre- 
 ated ? fiat lux is the great word which ushers in all the other 
 creative acts of God. And we know how sublime Longinus, 
 though a pagan, thought that short phrase to be. Light alone 
 would have sufficed for expressing nearly all, if not all, the 
 attributes of the Divine Being His immensity, 'power, good- 
 ness, immateriality, indestructibility, etc. And was it not for 
 this, when in the fullness of time, God wished to manifest 
 Himself to us by assuming our nature, and the most beloved 
 disciple was impelled by the Holy Spirit to declare the incar- 
 nation of the Son of God, and the real and substantial divinity 
 of Jesus Christ, that in the first lines of his gospel, he called 
 Him what ? the infinite ? the absolute ? etc. No ; but the 
 true Light erat lux vera ? 
 
 It is clear, therefore, that the primitive Aryans had many 
 reasons for choosing the word Dyaus light or sky as the 
 name of the Almighty. We have every motive for supposing 
 that they did not find the name after a long search, as Max 
 Miiller supposes. It rushed into the minds of the first men in 
 their communication with God for revelation for us is iden- 
 tical with communication. We do not know indeed whether 
 the Divine Author of our race in His sweet intercourse with 
 the first man, and with many patriarchs of those early ages, 
 revealed the name itself, as He did that of Jehovajh. to Moses 
 I am He who is. If He did not by word of mouth, He did 
 by an interior revelation, which we intended to convey in the 
 expression, " the name, Light, rushed to the mind of the first
 
 146 GENTILISM. 
 
 men in their communication with God." And since that time 
 it has been the most appropriate, and the most universal, even 
 in pagan. antiquity ; and, we repeat, when a new, purer, clearer 
 revelation was given through Jesus Christ, the same name was 
 given again to the Incarnate God erat lux vera. 
 
 These liigh considerations, which the study of the Yedas 
 have naturally suggested, show how pure, elevated, really sub- 
 lime was the primitive doctrine, since it originates such con- 
 templations as these, which are, in fact, in the style of many 
 Yedic upanishads. 
 
 "We now hasten to the investigation of those less fortunate 
 times, when pantheism began to invade the Domain of truth. 
 
 YIL 
 
 No Christian can pretend that the oldest upanishads are alto- 
 gether free from error; no uninspired writing can be and 
 some of the finest among them contain already the seeds of the 
 subsequent pantheism, gliding gradually into naturalism, to 
 come finally to the epic idolatry which followed. But hi those 
 really astonishing productions of religious philosophy, even 
 when already somewhat tainted, how clear appears the bright- 
 ness of primitive revelation ! We will quote as an example a 
 passage of the Kathaka Upanishad : a doubt is submitted to 
 Yama, the sovereign of the dead, in these words : " Some say 
 that the soul exists after the death of a man (in connection 
 with another body than this) ; others say that it does not. This 
 I should like to know, instructed by thee." Yama explains to 
 him that the soul and Brahma are one (not in nature, at 
 least in the primitive doctrine) that a man attains immortality 
 only by understanding this union, and that, to arrive at this 
 understanding, he must free his mind from sensual desires, and 
 get a correct knowledge both of Brahma and of the soul.
 
 ABORIGINAL RELIGION IN HINDOSTAN. 147 
 
 " Know the soul as the rider and the body as the car ; know 
 intellect as the charioteer, and manas (the will) as the rein. 
 The senses, they say, are the horses ; the objects, their roads ; 
 and the enjoyer (or the rider), is the soul endowed with body, 
 senses, and manas (or will). Thus say the wise : " If the char- 
 ioteer is unwise, and his manas is always unbridled, his senses 
 are uncontrolled like vicious horses ; but if he is wise, and his 
 manas is always bridled, then his senses are controlled like 
 good horses. He who, always impure, is unwise, and whose 
 manas is unbridled, does not attain that abode (of immortality), 
 but comes to the world (of birth and death, of expiation by 
 transmigration). He, however, who, always pure, is wise, and 
 whose manas is bridled, he attains that abode whence he is not 
 born again. The man who has a wise charioteer, and whose 
 manas is bridled, reaches the other shfie of the road. Higher 
 indeed than the objects are the senses ; higher than the senses 
 is manas ; higher than manas, intellect ; and higher than intel- 
 lect, the great one (the soul). Higher than the great one is 
 that which is unmanifested, and higher than the unmanifested, 
 is the Supreme Spirit. But higher than the Supreme Spirit 
 there is nothing ; He is the goal, the highest resort. This 
 highest spirit is the soul hidden in created beings ; it is not 
 manifest, but is beheld by those who can see what is subtle with 
 an attentive, subtle intellect." 
 
 * 
 
 Here, with an admirable analysis of the soul's faculties, and 
 of the relations of the soul and body, truly worthy of the most 
 pure primitive doctrine, we see the beginning of two great 
 aberrations, which became the unfortunate cause of the devia- 
 tion of subsequent philosophy, and the ruin of the primeval 
 true religion. These two aberrations were : the transmigra- 
 tions of the soul, and its absorption in Brahma. This was the 
 passage from monotheism to pantheism, from which was to 
 issue the subsequent idolatry. 
 
 It is very remarkable that the transmigration of the soul is
 
 148 GEJfTILISM. 
 
 never mentioned in the Rig- Veda the oldest. At first it was 
 thought by modern critics to be contained in some expressions 
 of the thirty-second verse of one of the hymns, according to the 
 translation of Professor Wilson. But a more serious examina- 
 tion proved that the passage, although susceptible of such a 
 meaning, could more naturally bear a very different interpreta- 
 tion ; so that it is now admitted that the Rig-Yeda is pure of 
 that error ; a new proof that the oldest doctrine is the purest. 
 The absorption of the soul in Brahma grew gradually also from 
 the primitive tenet, orthodox certainly ; that the soul was the 
 same in kind with Brahma, but infinitely distant in degree. 
 The union of the soul with God after death (a truth Christian 
 as well as Yedic), became gradually a real absorption, and thus 
 led to pantheism. 
 
 Nothing is more easy fc> conceive than such a degeneracy in 
 doctrine, in the supposition of a primitive revelation left with 
 only human tradition for a channel of communication through 
 long ages. The versatility of the human mind is such, that a 
 strong and exterior restraint is required to keep it in due sub- 
 mission to truth. Christ gave that power to the Church which 
 He established. Nothing of the kind existed before His com- 
 ing; not even in the Synagogue, which left the subversive 
 tenets of the Sadducees uncontradicted. The great truths, 
 therefore, entrusted to man at the beginning could not possibly 
 remain entirely pure ; and fhe natural progress which might 
 have been expected was the retrogression from unmixed truth, 
 first to a sh'ght deviation from it, then to a strange misconcep- 
 tion of it, leading finally to positive, unmitigated error. 
 
 The 'Book of Wisdom, has tojd us that men began to err by 
 worshipping the works of God instead of God himself. We 
 see in Hindostan the first symptoms of the great evil. Ab- 
 sorption in God naturally leads to deify the whole universe, 
 and thus to make the works of God equal to Himself, in order 
 finally to worship them. Too sfeon was this the case in India.
 
 AfiORIGLtfAL EELIGION IN HIXDOSTAN. 149 
 
 The Yedas were not written all at once, and of course they are 
 not inspired as the Hindoos think. The first even, the most 
 pure, is the work of many Rishis and great personages. Soon, 
 In the finest upanishads, which contained yet admirable traits 
 of the primeval grandeur, a reckless imagination introduced 
 new forms of thought, chiefly by exaggerating what had been 
 first transmitted from lieaven. Expiation was the great moral 
 law revealed even in Paradise, when man had to leave it. It 
 took in Hindostan the form of the wanderings of souls from 
 bodies to bodies, until first the idea of existence became a bur- 
 den, and the wish arose to be absorbed in God, until at last 
 philosophy should come to turn it into positive annihilation 
 nii'vana. 
 
 The progress of error was so rapid, that when the book of 
 Menu was written, certainly before the end of the Yedic period 
 since the Atharvan-Veda had not yet begun to appear 
 already the imagined creation of the universe was a jumble of 
 ridiculous legends, mixed up with some sublime conceptions 
 left still entire in the universal wreck. (See the 1st chap, of 
 Menu " On Creation.") Yet this book was composed in a pure 
 moral age, and .contains an immense number of splendid imagin- 
 ings. But, already, the error of transmigration had attained its 
 utmost limits. Incredible details were given as inspired ; so that 
 to each sin committed in this world, Jhe exact being, animal, 
 plant, or mineral even, was allotted into which the guilty soul 
 had to transmigrate. Already, likewise, the torments accom- 
 panying these changes were described with a minuteness and 
 horrible accuracy worthy of the long-subsequent Inferno of 
 Dante. It was hell indeed without its eternity. AiM such 
 doctrines prepared already the Hindoo mind for the desire of ab- 
 sorption in God, merging at last in pantheism and the " nirva- 
 na." The twelfth chapter of Menu deserves indeed to be read by 
 every one who wishes to understand the rapid progress of^rror 
 in Hiudostan. The conclusion arrived at will be abundantly
 
 150 GENTILISM. 
 
 confirmed by the reflection that a few centuries before, when 
 the Big- Veda was written, not an iota of that doctrine had yet 
 been even imagined. It is to us perfectly clear that the error 
 of transmigration preceded that of openly-declared absorption 
 in God, for which it prepared the way. And the Institutes of 
 Menu prove it ; since, with all the minute details of the first 
 doctrine they contain, the other one of absorption is nowhere 
 in the book fully advocated. Not a word of it is said in the 
 first chapter, which treats of creation, cosmogony, and the sup- 
 posed divine plan in the existence of various beings ; no full 
 expression is given to it whenever the book speaks of supreme 
 beatitude ; and even in this twelfth chapter, after the elaborate 
 explanation of the wanderings of souls, when speaking of the 
 destiny of the pure, the wise, and the holy, the highest felicity 
 it promises them is : union with the male Brahma (already 
 known it seems), union with the mighty and the unperceived ; 
 but not with Brahma (neuter), the Supreme One, Infinite, Eter- 
 nal Spirit There is even, a little later, after all the trivial 
 rubbish previously detailed, a bright spot reflecting yet some- 
 thing of primitive effulgence which deserves to be quoted 
 (Chap, xii., 84) : " The sages inquired : ' After all those good 
 acts performed in this world (to insure final happiness), is no 
 single act held more powerful than the rest in leading men to 
 beatitude ?' " (85) : " Of all these .duties," answered Bhrigu, 
 " the principal is to acquire from the upanishads a true knowl- 
 edge of One Supreme God ; that is the most exalted of all sci- 
 ences, because it ensures immortality." (86) : " In this life, in- 
 deed, as well as the next, the study of the Yedas, to acquire a 
 knowledge of God, is held the most efficacious of those six 
 duties in procuring f elicity to man." (87) : " For in the knowl- 
 edge and adoration of one God, which the Yedas teach, all the 
 rules of good conduct are fully comprised." (88) : " The cere- 
 moniy duties prescribed by the Yedas (namely, oblations to 
 fire, sacrifices, etc.,) are of two kinds : ons connected with this
 
 ABORIGINAL RELIGION IN HIKDOSTAN. 151 
 
 world, and causing prosperity on earth ; the other abstracted 
 from it, and procuring bliss in heaven." (89) : " A religious 
 act proceeding from selfish views in this world (as a sacrifice to 
 obtain rain), or in the next (as a pious oblation in the hope of 
 a future reward), is declared to be concrete and interested ; but 
 an act performed with a true knowledge of God, and with- 
 out self-love, is called abstract and disinterested." (90) : " He 
 who frequently performs interested rites, attains an equal sta- 
 tion with the rulers of the lower heaven ; but he who frequently 
 performs disinterested acts of religion, becomes for ever ex- 
 empt from a body composed of the five elements " that is to 
 say, is not any more subject to transmigration". (91) : " Equally 
 perceiving the Supreme soul in all beings, and all beings in the 
 Supreme soul, he sacrifices his own spirit by fixing it on the 
 Spirit of God, and approaches the nature of that Sole Divinity 
 who shines by His own effulgence." This last paragraph does 
 not, of necessity, lead to pantheism. A quite similar doctrine 
 has often been developed by Catholic mystic writers of the 
 school of " pure love ;" and one is really astonished to find it 
 so clearly expressed in the law of Menu. But the road is 
 already plain which error was to take, in order to invade the 
 religious life of such enlightened men as the primitive Hindoos 
 were. A similar, concurrent, testimony to the truth we are 
 endeavoring to establish is supplied by what is said of " cere- 
 monial rites." It furnishes a new proof, that those primitive 
 religious functions contained really nothing of the worship of 
 elements, and the theory which modern critics have endeavored 
 to establish, the natural passage, namely, from " elementary 
 religion" to " monotheism" is not substantiated ; because a truly 
 grand monotheistic belief alw.ays accompanied those " ceremo- 
 nial rites " even, of the Eig-Yeda. 
 
 But when the doctrine of a " universal soul " was openly 
 proclaimed ; when it was asserted that our own is a " spark " 
 from the " blazing fire," that God ia " all beings," and " all
 
 152 GENTILISM. 
 
 beings are God," then indeed, Agni, Indra, Cuhu, and all the 
 other " devatas " became parcels of the Universal God. Then, 
 indeed, they imagined, as the Book of Wisdom says, " either 
 the fire " Agni, or " the winds " Meruts, or " the swift air, 
 or the circle of the stars, or the great water, or. the sun and 
 moon, to be the gods that rule the world." ^ 
 
 This became for Hindostan the period of pantheism, usher- 
 ing in the philosophy prevalent for many ages, until it culmi- 
 nated in Buddhism. 
 
 And here we must interrupt our direct course of thought to 
 make one or two observations on that very mixture of truth 
 and falsehood in many pieces of the Yedas, confirmatory of our 
 opinion on the primitive purity of belief in Hindostan. When 
 admirable doctrines are clearly expressed, bright as day and 
 pure as light, and when, in the same chapter or paragraph, the 
 seeds of error appear which subsequently ruled supreme in the 
 same country, which of the two was the predecessor of the 
 other ? If the errors were, and the " worship of elements" was 
 the primitive religion of the country, then monotheism, which 
 on that hypothesis followed them, was a true and very remark- 
 able " progress," which would have naturally struck deep into 
 the Hindoo 'mind, and have formed, for a long time, the firm 
 belief of the race. The exaggerations and false consequences 
 which might have followed would certainly have taken a direc- 
 tion very different from the one out of which monotheism had 
 sprung ; and to suppose that a pure and exalted belief emerg- 
 ing from a kind of fetichism, would have almost immediately 
 returned to it, or even to a large and universal pantheism, 
 much more akin to the " worship of elements," is to ignore 
 human nature and to contradict the very doctrine of "pro- 
 gress," advocated so warmly by the very supporters of the 
 opinion we endeavor to disprove. 
 
 It took long ages to obscure entirely the primitive patriarchal 
 religion, and the progress of error was so gradual, although at
 
 ABOEIGIXAL EELIGIOISr IX HIXDOSTAN. 153 
 
 times rapid, that it is impossible to assign a positive epoch to 
 the introduction of idolatry. It would be unreasonab e to 
 imagine that the adoration of a " Supreme Ruler," eo clearly BX- 
 pressed in primitive Hindooism, and which is supposed by 
 many writers to have been the natural result of philosophical 
 investigation, could have been so soon replaced by pantheism 
 and the rank idolatry which followed. The same writers, it is 
 true, try their best to ignore that primitive purity of belief 
 which we advocate. But they cannot destroy the texts we 
 have quoted and many others which could be adduced ; and 
 Heeren expressed only a simple fact when he said, that " the 
 religious system of the Hindoos, according to the unanimous 
 opinion of all those who have studied the subject, has for its 
 foundation the belief in one God." At the same time, the 
 whole formula of " progressive " error in Hindooism forms a 
 " series " which cannot be broken. It begins in the Rig-Veda, 
 by pure monotheism unmixed as yet with pantheism and trans- 
 migration. It exhibits in the laws of Menu a multitude of 
 erroneous deviations which strike the reader at first sight. It 
 teaches open pantheism in the subsequent philosophy which 
 was deduced from those errors, chiefly in Buddhism, an off- 
 shoot of the Hindooism of that period, as we shall prove. 
 Pure idolatry, or the worship of the works of man, according 
 to the Book of Wisdom, is finally the religion advocated in the 
 great poems of Ramayana and Mahabahrata, which followed ; 
 an idolatry which culminated in the puranas and the tantras, 
 of which we have yet to speak. No link is wanted in that 
 chain of errors which we have called a strict " series ;" and we 
 do not see how a more perfect demonstration of our opinion 
 could be furnished, than the well-known succession of beliefs 
 in Hindostan. 
 
 Our next step, therefore, is to examine briefly the philosophy 
 which was the real introducer of pure pantheism in that country, 
 and whose remarkable exponent, Buddhism, remains to this day.
 
 154 GENTILISM. 
 
 YIII. 
 
 The pliilosopliical labors of Hindoo-Brahmins began during 
 the Yedic period, since the Institutes of Menu contain already 
 speculations which entered largely into the succeeding systems. 
 The Mimansa is yet almost completely Yedic, and contains lit- 
 tle of the subsequent errors. The Vedanta is considered in the 
 same light by Max Muller; but its branches, called Nydya, 
 and Sdnkhya, preach openly the doctrine of a Great Pan, sole 
 reality ; the exterior world having no true existence. In this 
 system the human soul is a part of the universal one, and is 
 destined to be finally merged and absorbed in it. We remem- 
 ber the utterances of the first Yedas, declaring God " one in 
 kind with our soul, but infinitely superior in Degree." How 
 different are the two doctrines ! Yet we see clearly in the first 
 the genesis of the last. 
 
 The philosophy of Hindostan is remarkable chiefly in two 
 ways : First, in the immense variety of objects it embraces, so 
 that most of the speculations of Greek, Latin, and modern phi- 
 losophy are already discussed in that rich Sanscrit of old times ; 
 and the systems of logic, metaphysics, and theodicea, so differ- 
 ent in method from the Aristotelic and scholastic systems, 
 often, nevertheless, open up views as remarkable as unexpected, 
 and show the extraordinary acuteness and activity of the Hin- 
 doo mind. Second, in those strange, abnormal with respect to 
 us and always' original, speculations, we see from the start a 
 union of abstract philosophy with physiology and physical sci- 
 ence in general, truly astonishing, when we reflect that our 
 Western mind was so slow in trying to make the world of 
 spirits and the world of exterior objects help each other for 
 the instruction of man. Leibnitz, we think, was the first to 
 try it, at least in the modern sense. Catholic philosophy has 
 always done it in its own way.
 
 ABOEIGHS T AL KELIGION IN HOTDOSTAN. 155 
 
 We must not be tempted to any digression on this inter- 
 esting subject. The scope of our work limits us* for the pres- 
 ent to the religious aspect of the question. The philosophical 
 doctrines, we repeat, which followed the -Yedas, and preceded 
 the great Epic poems, teach an undisguised pantheism, and pre- 
 pare the way for the Buddhistic nirvana, or annihilation of the 
 soul as the only deliverance from transmigration. 
 
 Already all the systems declare, in their opening page, that 
 time philosophy is the final emancipation of the soul from the 
 material evils of this world ; Brahma (neuter), the previous 
 time God of the monotheistic Hindoo, has become the Univer- 
 sal Soul. It is yet one, self -existent, supreme ; but the uni- 
 verse has emanated from It, and remains a part of its sub- , 
 stance ; its visibility being merely a deception maya. The 
 soul of man is itself a part of the great Soul ; it is a spark 
 issued from a blazing fire ; and it will remain, apparently, dis- 
 tinct from Brahma, only as long as its ignorance of truth shall 
 continue ; that ignorance consists merely in regarding the world 
 as a reality capable of subsisting out of Brahma. The object 
 of philosophy is, therefore, to teach that we are one with God, 
 or rather that the whole universe is one with Him. The conse- 
 quence is, that the whole universe must be adored, if there is 
 such a thing as a worship of God. Thus, as the Book of Wis- 
 dom openly declared, man was led to prostrate himself before 
 the works of God, ignoring the true Creator. The Hindoo 
 worship remained meanwhile, apparently, that of the Vedas, 
 which all those systems professed to acknowledge as revealed. 
 But, indeed, the " devatas " . acquired then a very different 
 consecration from the one they possessed previously. It was 
 precisely what would happen if an uninstructed Catholic, alto- 
 gether ignorant even of the first mystery of his religion the 
 most adorable Trinity prostrated himself, as before a god, at 
 the sight of " holy water " with which his ancestors had been 
 directed to bless themselves in that Supreme Name. Hence
 
 156 GENTILISM. 
 
 the Yoga part }f the iSdnTchya laid already the foundation of 
 all the absurd practices of idolatrous fakirs, as they are wit- 
 nessed in the Hindostao of our day. 
 
 How long a tiin this remained the prevalent superstition of 
 India, we do not know, as the country does not possess any 
 more architectural remains of it than of the preceding Vedic 
 period. But it is now proved beyond question that it merged 
 finally into the open atheistic pantheism of the Buddhists. 
 
 IX. 
 
 Until very recently nothing was known of the true origin of 
 Buddhism. For a long time it was thought to be more recent 
 than Christianity. Later on, the general opinion inclined to 
 make it older even than Brahminism. But in 1828, Mr. B. II. 
 Hodgson, British resident at the court of Nepaul, where Buddh- 
 ism is the prevalent religion, discovered a voluminous compila- 
 tion of Sanscrit manuscripts, which were found to be nothing 
 else than what may be called the " sacred books " from which 
 those of Thibet, Mongolia, and China were translated. The 
 ones used in Ceylon, Burmah, Siam, etc., are in Pali, and agree 
 in the main with the Nepaulese manuscripts, although neither 
 set is the translation of the other. 
 
 Copies of this precious treasure, transported to London and 
 Paris, attracted the attention of Orientalists, and Mr. Eugene 
 Burnouf , after a serious study of those documents, published in 
 1844 his " Introduction to the. History of Buddhism." From 
 that moment a public opinion, regarded now as final, was 
 formed on the subject. 
 
 The founder of this wide-spread superstition lived about six 
 hundred years before Christ. This is now ascertained his 
 name was Siddartha, son of a Hindoo Rajah, whose territory 
 lay on the confines of Oude and Nepaul. Siddartha belonged
 
 ABORIGINAL RELIGIOX liST HINDOSTAN. 157 
 
 to the Sakya clan ; hence he is often called Sakya-muni, this 
 last adjunct being equivalent to the Greek /zova^o^, from which 
 monk is derived. He is yet of tener called Oautama, because 
 the Sakya clan was a branch of the great " Solar " race of that 
 name. Without entering into the details of the life of this 
 prince, suffice it to say, that renouncing the world, and even 
 the wife with whom he had lived twelve years, he retired into 
 a forest and abandoned himself to the wild reveries of a Hin- 
 doo ascetic. Brahminism, the religion of his family and ances- 
 tors, he rejected forever, and falling back on the Sankya phi- 
 losophy, then in full sway, he carrie.d yet farther than any 
 adept of that system the principles of distaste for this life and 
 its pleasures, of dread of almost endless and painful transmi- 
 grations, and of ardent desire toward nirvana or total annihi- 
 lation, no more by absorption in Brahma, whicH he rejected 
 with the Hindoo Trimourti, but by returning into the univer- 
 sal concatenation of causes and qffects, the only god which 
 henceforth he admitted. . . . Hence the frightful doctrine he 
 began to advocate, became, at least for those who knew it thor- 
 oughly and embraced it fully, an atheistic and destructive phi- 
 losophy, the fully developed and altogether systematized San- 
 kya doctrine. But for the great mass of people who were car- 
 ried into the whirlpool of this superstition, it became a real 
 worship of man and the elements. Buddha (the enlightened), 
 which was at first only a title given to the founder of the sys- 
 tem Gautama became, in course of time, the real substitute 
 for God in the inind of hundreds of millions of men ; and 
 Buddha, or Lama, in Thibet, was any one who succeeded in 
 making people believe, that Tie was a real incarnation of a pre- 
 vious Buddha, and for the mass of the people there was, and 
 there is yet, no other God. 
 
 It is not, therefore, true to say that 400,000,000 of the human 
 race are professed atheists. The knaves of the sect, those who 
 profit by the credulity of the people, and live on the abundant
 
 158 GEXTILISM. 
 
 alms profusely given to religious mendicants, deserve truly to 
 bear that odious name. But the masses of deluded people who 
 prostrate themselves before the colossal idols of the country, or 
 in front of living impostors surrounded with all the pomp of 
 external worship, surely believe that they adore superior beings 
 from whom they can expect blessings and happiness. They 
 are consequently by no means atheists, though they can truly 
 be called idolaters. Let not, therefore, the infidels of our day 
 flatter themselves, as some of them do certainly, that they have 
 numberless correligionists in far-off Tartary, unless they choose 
 themselves to worship the idol Buddha. 
 
 And this is so true that in the most ancient religious buildings 
 of the sect, the subterranean rock temples of Bombay, chiefly the 
 gigantic one of Salsette, together with the worship of Buddha, 
 that of Siva, the god destroyer, is plainly indicated in the 
 numerous reliefs of the adjacent temple of Monpeser. The 
 correlation of both was so surprising to the first investigators of 
 those antiquities who firmly believed in the perpetual antago- 
 nism, from the start, of JELindooism and Buddhism, that they 
 thought they had found a strange case of two hostile creeds 
 consenting to exist near each other in harmony. But it is 
 known to-day that even in Thibet the triumphant Lainaism 
 feels no opposition to the worship of Siva, whose adepts are 
 numerous in the country, and join together the belief in nir- 
 vana, and the adoration of the great symbol of destruction in 
 Hindostan. 
 
 Even in the rock temple of Elephanta, near Salsette, where 
 the Trimourti begins to appear, Siva, however, being evidently 
 the chief god, Buddha is also represented, according to Lang- 
 les a very competent French authority. And it is worthy of 
 mention here that the Lingam, in every possible form, shocks 
 the eyes of the beholder ; so that those who have seen only the 
 plates of Langles, 150 in number, say that " the obscenity dis- 
 played on the walls surpasses everything that the most de-
 
 ABORIGINAL RELIGION IN HINDOSTAN. 159 
 
 praved European fancy could possibly imagine." Monuments 
 anciens et modernes de 1'Inde. Paris, 1813. 
 
 These temples belong to the primitive great architecture of 
 Hindostan ; so that nothing has remained of the edifices raised 
 in Vedic and following times, so far down as the sixth century 
 before Christ. The country where they are found, so distant 
 from the native place of the sect, is the only one in India where 
 remains of Buddhist buildings are met with, if we except those 
 of Ceylon, just at the other extremity of the peninsula. It is 
 now ascertained that in this island the strange religion of Gau- 
 tama is far later in time ; and it is from it that the worship of 
 Buddha spread all over the country beyond the Ganges : China, 
 Thibet, and some of the large islands of those distant seas ; par- 
 ticularly Java, into which it penetrated only between the tenth 
 and twelfth centuries of our era. 
 
 Buddhism is, therefore, an Hindoo sect, and nothing else, con- 
 temporaneous with the origin of pure idolatry in the country, 
 but an offshoot of the atheistic and pantheistic Sankya philoso- 
 phy. This is positively ascertained. How it disappeared from 
 India proper is yet an unsolved problem. Was there a long 
 struggle between the new sect and the old Brahminism, as it is 
 generally supposed ? And was the exclusion of the new heresy 
 the end of that struggle, as all until lately believed ? It seems 
 reasonable to answer this last question affirmatively, as Brahmin- 
 ism must have undoubtedly resisted the preponderance of a sys- 
 tem destructive of castes, which do not exist properly in Buddh- 
 ism. Yet the literature of Hindostan says absolutely nothing 
 on the subject ; and the existing monuments common to both 
 seem to point in a contrary direction. There is no doubt that 
 in India the worship of Buddha and that of Siva is indivisible ; 
 yet worshippers of Siva belong often to the Brahmin caste. 
 
 But we must insist on this what a fearful degeneracy 
 from previous doctrines prevalent in the country \ How differ- 
 ent the language of the first Vcdas, and the utterances of the 
 12
 
 160 GENTTLISM. 
 
 new doctors ! What lias become of tlie sublime monotheism 
 preached with such impressive eloquence ? How have tho 
 noble patriarchal manners of the nation been replaced, where- 
 ever Buddhism prevailed, by the unnatural and ungodlike celib- 
 acy of myriads of deluded beings intent only on annihilation ! 
 The most rigorous, austere, but at the same time vulgar and 
 gross kind of life is strictly insisted on, as the chief condition 
 for reaching "the other side of the road," that is to say, a state 
 of absolute non-existence, free, at least, from the burden of 
 further transmigration ! 
 
 And as the worship of Siva was, at the beginning, intimately 
 connected with the sect we do not know precisely how ; 
 as both are yet connected in Thibet, with all the apparent aus- 
 terity of manners prevailing in that country it is indeed sur- 
 prising that the most flagrant and abandoned immorality has not 
 yet eaten up the miserable nations bowed down under the yoke 
 of those errors. The only explanation which can be given is, 
 that human nature, with all its failings, is yet better than the 
 absurd theories which try to degrade it ; and the Providence of 
 God does not allow one-third of the human race to be plunged 
 irremediably in the mire of the most foul superstitions. 
 
 One feature of Buddhism chiefly has helped to prevent it 
 from corrupting altogether the nations it keeps in darkness. It 
 is the spirit of genuine benevolence it has always preached in 
 the midst of the most immoral principles. The nations where 
 Buddhism prevail, chiefly the Thibetan, are 'composed of two 
 classes of persons ; the largest number seem to give up the 
 hope of nirvana on account of the austere life required of 
 those who aim at it. But another, large, certainly, in many 
 countries, professes the accomplishment of the harsh austerities 
 practised at first by Gautama himself, and imposed on all thoss 
 who wish to escape future transmigration. They live in monas- 
 teries, practise strict celibacy, dress very poorly, and subject 
 themselves to a life compared to which that of a Christian
 
 ABORIGINAL RELIGION IN HINDOSTAN. 161 
 
 monk is pleasant indeed. Yet some travellers have tried to 
 identify Buddhism with Christianity, or rather to degrade 
 Christianity by the mere comparison. But both this class of 
 people living in monasteries, and the larger one of those who 
 remain in the world, are enjoined to practise unbounded be- 
 nevolence toward all living beings, not men and women only, 
 without exception of nationality and religion, but even toward 
 senseless animals, even ferocious beasts, which are scarcely 
 allowed to be killed in self-defence. Moreover, benevolence, 
 or as we might say, charity, patience, courage, even self-abase- 
 ment almost akin to Christian humility, and, what is yet more 
 surprising, purity of morals, and the greatest restraint on the 
 senses as being often causes of sin, are openly advocated. Tet, 
 all this is not to be accomplished because God commands it, 
 and threatens punishment on the evil-doers, but merely as a 
 means of attaining annihilation in the next world, or, at least, 
 of preparing a glorious and happy transmigration. An urgent 
 motive, likewise, for those deluded people is the example of 
 Gautama himself, who practised those virtues, they say, during 
 his life, and recommended them to his followers after his death. 
 In fact, he is for them God, since they acknowledge no superior 
 one, except the strict, fatal, irresistible, and unavoidable " con- 
 catenation of causes and effects." 
 
 We repeat, however, that for the great mass of those nations, 
 the ritual of the worship is the chief object of Iheir religious 
 life, and this ritual is altogether pagan. The admirers of those 
 eastern atheistic " philosophers " try their best to insist that the 
 ritual is merely commemorative, and they do not, they say, adore 
 the Buddha, nor the objects before which they prostrate them- 
 selves ; but they do this in honor merely of the founder of their 
 religion, whom they believe incarnated in the living representa- 
 tive before their eyes. We answer, that for the mass of the 
 people, such a commemorative worship is impossible. They 
 adore in fact what is before them, and their earnest prayers are
 
 1G2 GESTTILISM. 
 
 addressed to tliii miserable impostor who personates their Gau- 
 tama. " It is improbable," they say, " that the original scheme 
 of Buddhism contemplated either the adoration of the statues 
 of the Buddha, or the offering of prayers to him after his death. 
 These are an after-growth, an accretion upon the simple scheme 
 of Gautama, and in a manner forced upon it during its struggle 
 with other religions." This may be so, and the founder him- 
 self, whoever he may be, might not have intended to originate 
 an idolatrous sect, since he was himself an atheist. But so it 
 has turned out to be ; and we speak of what exists, not of what 
 was the first project, if there was one. But the hold of that 
 truly detestable superstition upon the many millions of Mongo- 
 lians and East Indians is truly incredible, and can be understood 
 only by those who have witnessed it. 
 
 Last century a Catholic Bishop, missionary at Ava, in the 
 Birman Empire, whose name we cannot now ascertain, having 
 asked a Buddhist priest for some short treatise on the doctrines 
 of Gautama, received a compendious manuscript, which stated 
 that the founder of the sect had died 2362 years before a 
 remarkable coincidence with the dicovery made by Mr. Eugene 
 Bumouf and which contained the chief points of Buddhism 
 as we know them. But imagine the surprise of the bishop, who 
 had left country and friends to convert the Burmese, reading 
 the following address by which the manuscript ended : 
 
 " Revolving these things in your mind, O ye English, Dutch, 
 Armenians, and others, adore Gautama, the true god; adore also 
 his law and his priests. Be solicitous in giving alms, in the 
 observance of Slla (which prepare for nirvana), and in 
 performing Havana (by which the utter misery of life is 
 acknowledged). . . . You have obtained, O Bishop, a great 
 favor, having been thought worthy, although born in one of 
 the small islands depending on Zdbudiba, to come hither and 
 to hear the truth of the divine law. This book is more worthy 
 of esteem than gold and silver, than diamonds and precious
 
 ABORIGINAL RELIGION IN HINDOSTAN. 1G3 
 
 stones, and I exhort all English, Dutsh, Armenians, and others 
 to act up to it." 
 
 Max Miiller in a short lecture on " Buddhism," to the surprise 
 of many, tries to create a very different impression. Carried 
 away by his feelings in favor of a ss?t which, in his opinion, 
 practises charity with as much generosity and devotedness as 
 Christianity itself, he endeavors to vindicate it from the two 
 damnable doctrines of atheism and annihilation; but he is 
 obliged to confess that on both points Eugene Burnouf and he 
 might have added with him all other actual writers on Buddh- 
 ism is against him. He himself quotes a passage of a 
 Buddhist book of great authority, in which the invention of 
 the existence of God Brahma (neuter) is attributed, as a 
 piece of imposture, to Brahmin priests, and is openly rejected as 
 false, so that Max Miiller himself cannot save Buddhism from 
 the imputation of pure atheism. Of nirvana he is more confident 
 that he can explain it away. But all he can say consists in this, 
 that the common people of Buddhist countries do not consider 
 it as real annihilation, but as an Elisian Paradise where every 
 good thing is enjoyed. This is very possible ; and we believe 
 it, since Mr. Miiller affirms it. The only conclusion we draw 
 from it is, that the poor people of those countries are the dupes 
 of knaves who know well the meaning of their books, but would 
 be afraid of the complete desertion of the great mass of the 
 population if they spoke openly. 
 
 As to the Roman Catholic Bishop of whom Mr. Miiller 
 speaks, not the same as the one we previously mentioned, who 
 lately published a work, altogether in praise of the manners 
 of the nation, in the midst of which he has lived a long time ; 
 we can admit all he says, and not change our mind on Buddhism, 
 because the Bishop spoke of the good life of many of these poor 
 deluded men ; but said nothing in praise of the real doctrine 
 which lay at the bottom of the imposture.
 
 164 GENTILISM. 
 
 X. 
 
 This short history of Buddhism has showed us already, as 
 contemporary with its origin, the idolatrous worship of Siva, if 
 not of the whole Hindoo Trimourti. We are, therefore, natu- 
 rally brought down a step further, and have to speak briefly of 
 the introduction in Hindostan of pure idolatry that is, the 
 worship of the works of man, as the Book of Wisdom has it. It 
 began certainly long after the Vedic times, and must have been 
 gradually derived from the pantheistic doctrine of the Sankya 
 philosophy, joined with the previous Vedic rites and ceremo- 
 nies, which finally became altogether misunderstood and misap- 
 plied. Then poetry, as in Greece, completed the work. It is, in 
 fact, acknowledged generally that the whole jumble of Hindoo 
 mythology is the offspring of Sanscrit literature, as the history 
 of the gods in Greece came from the fertile brain of Hesiod, 
 and chiefly Homer. 
 
 Herodotus tells us plainly that the mythology of his own 
 country was, in his time, no more than four hundred years old, 
 and had been fabricated by the epic poets. 
 
 It is true that the poetry of the Hindoos was much earlier 
 than the strictly idolatrous period. It is natural to the race, 
 and existed among them from the very beginning. With them 
 private conversation, even, is poetical, which would be intolera- 
 ble among us. And their very digest of law, the code of Menu, 
 is a highly imaginative production. It is said they have no 
 historians ; yet they have, but of their own fashion. An his- 
 torian, in their idea, ought not to be simply a cold narrator of 
 events, but chiefly an embroiderer of facts. Rather facts, sim- 
 ple facts, do not exist for them. They are accustomed to look 
 at them, when, they occur, under the most brilliant prismatic 
 colors ; much more do they appear so to them long after they 
 have taken place. Hence their historians became epic poets.
 
 ABOKIGLtfAL EELIGION IN HLNDOSTAN. 165 
 
 But something ought to be said of their preparation for it ; 
 since the great authors of the Ramayana and Mahabharata 
 did not, and could not, appear directly after the compilation of 
 the Yedas was finished. A long interval of time was evidently 
 required. 
 
 First, the great truths of their primitive religion, the tradi- 
 tions they had received with the rest of mankind, the solemn 
 rites embracing all the elements of nature as dedicated to the 
 service of God, were not to remain in the strict line of ortho- 
 doxy, since there was not among them any central power in- 
 vested with spiritual authority to restrain every attempt of 
 private thought from corrupting the original purity of their 
 creed. Hence, as was seen of two great dogmas in particular, 
 pure monotheism gradually merged into a broad and elevated 
 pantheism at first, before reaching the scattered state of mere 
 forces of nature ; and the necessity of expiation for the soul 
 took easily the shape of almost endless transmigration. From 
 these two errors the majority of those which followed, can easily 
 be derived. 
 
 But the great " universal soul," the brilliant array of mate- 
 rial beings concerned in " sacrificial rites :" fire, air, the dawn, 
 the magnificent vault of heaven, etc., could not but take indi- 
 vidual shapes in the imagination of the Hindoo, and thus the 
 spiritual world became inhabited by a multitude of " devatas," 
 which in course of time could not but be changed into real indi- 
 vidual " gods." Brahma himself, the " universal soul," could 
 not remain in his single blessedness ; but as creator, preserver, 
 and destroyer, naturally was transformed in the " Trimourti." 
 
 How did the idea originate among them, that some deity 
 ought to take a human shape and " dwell among us ?" We 
 cannot say. Perhaps it was derived from the primitive tradi- 
 tion about the One who was " to crush the head of the serpent." 
 Perhaps it was merely the result of an exuberant fancy. But 
 in their ideas of propriety it was not the head of the Trimourti,
 
 166 GENTILISM. 
 
 so dignified in himself, nor the third member of it, the god 
 of destruction, which could undertake a mission of salvation ; 
 the second one, Vishnu, the preserver, was therefore to be the " in- 
 carnate god ;" and as the Hindoos cannot understand moderation 
 in fancy, as many as ten " avatars " of the god are known in 
 their poetry. The Sankya philosophy, with its austere doctrine 
 of contempt of life and aspiration toward " deliverance ;" nay, 
 the very extreme and absurd result of that philosophy, the aim- 
 ing at complete destruction by the nirvana of Buddhism, had a 
 strong poetical side which the Hindoos could not leave unem- 
 ployed ; and thus their first great architectural art was all in 
 honor of Buddha and Siva. 
 
 This was the real origin of idolatry among them. Hence 
 the horrible idol of Siva, the obscenity of its images, together 
 with the unimpassioned, total apathy of the long face of Buddha, 
 plunged in deep meditation, and looking vacantly into the 
 void of nothingness, are the first mythological emblems oifered 
 by the poets of the period to the adoration of the wretched 
 native of Hindostan. How fallen from his first state ! Let 
 the loathsome remains of the astonishing rock temples of Ele- 
 phanta and Salsette speak to the eyes, since no poem of that 
 epoch has yet been found to astonish our awe-struck imagina- 
 tions.* 
 
 Bat this was too horrible to last. Hence the critics who 
 have studied most successfully Sanscrit literature, tell us, that 
 the worship of Siva, and of Buddha consequently, since both 
 appear always connected together in the really primitive monu- 
 ments of Hindostan, had to give way to that of Yishnu, less 
 disgustingly sensual, and of far milder and gentler type. They 
 
 * It seems that, during that period, the Sanscrit was not the idiom of 
 lapidary style, since Niebuhr, who first described those wonderful monu- 
 ments, has published long inscriptions found there, totally unintelligible 
 to Sanscrit scholars. There ia here, we think, the germ of a great dis- 
 covery.
 
 ABOEIGIXAL RELIGION IN HINDOSTAN. 167 
 
 speak of two sects, those of Siva and of Vishnu, struggling 
 together for long ages, until the last conquered, and has ever 
 since remained by far the most numerous in India. 
 
 The brilliant authors at last appeared who were to celebrate 
 for ever the names of a multitude of gods, worthy rivals of 
 those of Homer and his compeers, and the ever-gushing well- 
 spring of an art so well described by the author of the Book of 
 Wisdom. 
 
 Before speaking with some details of that luxuriant mythol- 
 ogy of the Far-Orient, a word ought to be said on the precise 
 epoch when this downward step in morality and intelligence 
 took place among the Hindoos. "We shall be surprised to find 
 that it was exactly at the time of their highest culture, of the 
 most brilliant civilization for them, as the word goes. 
 
 Mr. Hodgson and Eugene Burnouf are indeed to be called 
 two great benefactors of mankind, since they have positively 
 ascertained a date most important for the establishment of a 
 sound doctrine : the first in discovering the documents, and the 
 second in deciphering them. Buddhism is not older than six 
 or seven hundred years before Christ ; this the Xepaulese 
 manuscripts assert, and the Burmese likewise which belong to 
 the Ceylon or Pali class of manuscripts. 
 
 But, by the common consent of all intelligent travellers and 
 antiquaries, the Buddhist monuments in the Bombay Presidency 
 are incontestably the oldest of any architectural remains that 
 exist in the country. At that epoch, certainly, the various 
 incarnations of Yishnu were unknown. Siva, known undoubt- 
 edly, was not an " incarnate god," except, it seems, in much 
 later times, when he had one or two avatars. Siva, therefore, 
 at the time was merely an emblem, a revolting emblem cer- 
 tainly, of cruelty and lust. Buddha, at that same epoch, was 
 ascertained to have been Gautama, a great man, but merely a 
 man, the son of a Rajah on the borders of Oude and jSTepaul. 
 None of the numerous attendants sculptured on the monuments
 
 168 GENTILISM. 
 
 could be "incarnate gods," since avatars were as jet unimagined. 
 These statues, consequently, could not have the sanctity which 
 those of Yishnu, in the shape of Rama, or of Krishna, subse- 
 quently possessed, in the eyes of the Hindoos. 
 
 We may, therefore, safely conclude that, although pure 
 idolatry had already begun to a certain extent, and many, no 
 doubt, adored really Siva with his " collar of human skulls," 
 and his other unmentionable emblems, yet in the strict sense of 
 the word, pure idolatry existed only in an inchoate state. The 
 pretended sanctity of sculptured or pictured representations, 
 which was afterwards supposed to exist, and which formed the 
 only sure ground of real idolatry, could not yet have entered 
 fully into the mind of the worshippers. 
 
 The conclusion of it all is, that the poems of Ramayana and 
 Mahabharata are not nearly as old as the sixth century before 
 Christ, namely, about the age of Lycurgus at Sparta ; and they 
 alone have actually introduced in the country idolatry based on 
 mythology. The rock temples at Ellora, in Central Hindostan, 
 were surely constructed after the period of the composition of 
 the great epic poems, since most of the episodes narrated in 
 those compositions are sculptured on the walls ; but the Buddh- 
 istic system had already ceased to exist in the country, as 
 there is not a single sign of it on those monuments. Artists, 
 besides, and antiquaries easily recognize a much earlier style of 
 art in the temples of the neighborhood of Bombay. The 
 ruins at Ellora, consequently, and the Ramayana and Mahabha- 
 rata, are certainly much later than the sixth century before 
 our era; and they give the first certain indications of pure 
 idolatry in Hindostan. Buddhism, which preceded it, was a 
 pure atheistic philosophical system, although it culminated like- 
 wise ultimately in Sivaic idolatry, and was from the beginning 
 associated with the image of Siva and its detestable emblems. 
 
 From that epoch, temples or pagodas, as they are called, 
 began to be constructed above the ground, and not to be hewn.
 
 ABORIGINAL RELIGION IN ILTNDOSTA^. 169 
 
 out of the hard rock under its surface. And in all those monu- 
 ments, whose ruins may be said to cover now the country, the 
 same stories are repeated which were first celebrated in the 
 great epic poems, or in the episodes elaborated later from them 
 in the puranas or tantras. And the most rank and abominable 
 idolatry has certainly prevailed, and prevails yet, over the whole 
 peninsula. Everywhere it is the Trimourti, and Siva, and Vishnu, 
 and all the stories connected with the " avatars " or incarnations 
 of this last god. 
 
 It is important, therefore, to say a word of the Ramayana 
 and the Alahabharata, out of which two poems has issued an 
 exhaustless stream of incredible superstitions. The Ramayan# 
 is thought to be the oldest, is certainly the finest, and according 
 to Sanscrit scholars merits to be compared with the Iliad of 
 Homer. It can be read easily through, since it contains only 
 thirty thousand verses ; and there are in it certainly great 
 literary beauties. But what gave it its subsequent importance 
 in the religion of the country is the poetical halo it throws 
 around the incarnation of Vishnu in Rama, ^ishnu, or God 
 as Preserver, became Rama, a mere mortal, and henceforth his 
 history could be sculptured or painted on walls and canvas, 
 and men began to adore the works of the statuary or painter. 
 Thus, according to the Book of Wisdom, '< the creatures of God 
 were turned to an abomination and a temptation to the souls of 
 men, and a snare to the feet of the unwise." And thus, " by 
 the vanity of men idols came into the world. . . . And in pro- 
 cess of time, wicked custom prevailing, this error was kept as a 
 law ; and statues were worshipped by the commandment of 
 tyrants." (Wisdom, Chap, xiv.) 
 
 Poetry and art were, therefore, the origin of pure idolatry in 
 Hindostan, as they were in Greece ; and, in both countries, this 
 happened at about the same time, and during an age of advanced 
 civilization and most luxurious living. The primitive clanship of 
 heroic times had given way in Greece to numerous aristocracies
 
 170 GENTILISM. 
 
 bearing the name of free States ; and in India the tribal system 
 of the V^edic, that is, patriarchal period, was succeeded by the 
 already extensive Empires of Ayodhya and Mathura. In Greece, 
 during what is called the barbarous epoch, the prevailing 
 religion was to a great extent monotheistic, as will be illustrated 
 later. But great poets introduced all the gods of mythology, 
 worshipped later, in the period of the highest culture and refine- 
 ment. Precisely the same thing happened in Hindostan, 
 and at about the same time, as is evident from the ascertained 
 origin of Buddhism. 
 
 O 
 
 The great Mahabharata poem, far inferior to the Ramayana 
 in point of style and interest of an interminable length, for it 
 contains one hundred thousand verses, evidently the work of 
 several authors, and on that account altogether episodical is yet 
 of extreme importance on account of the varied matter con- 
 tained in it; on which account it may bear the name of 
 Encyclopaedia, as well as on account of the fanciful details 
 of mythology it contains. It became, therefore, together with 
 the Ramayanaj the great source of delusion for the people of a 
 great country a delusion the more remarkable because of the 
 great respect which continued to be paid to the venerable Yedas, 
 which are everywhere spoken of in the poems as the true source 
 of pure religion. Hence the Brahmins themselves, those per- 
 petual readers of the primitive religious books, having at the 
 same time their imagination full of the impure fancies of the 
 Ramayana, forgot altogether the true sense of the old worship, 
 and became as degraded idolaters as the populace itself, and 
 intent only on the exterior rites of worship. 
 
 The corruption of morals which naturally followed the intro- 
 duction of impure emblems, could not but increase the degrada- 
 tion of intellect which always accompanies lust. It has been 
 already remarked that the lingam never appears in the Vedic 
 period, and that it came into Hindostan with the worship of 
 Siva. The same we shall have occasion to remark of Egypt,
 
 ABORIGINAL RELIGION IN HINDOSTAN. 171 
 
 where the phallus is never seen in the temples of Ethiopia ; 
 and nothing can better explain the degeneracy of mind in both 
 countries than the reckless profligacy which must have been 
 caused by throwing before the eyes of every man, woman, and 
 child, yea, by placing constantly into their hands, as was cer- 
 tainly the case in Egypt, the disgusting object known under 
 those names. Let any one read the description of those im- 
 mense processions of as many as 700,000 people, related by 
 Herodotus in his second book, and he will easily understand 
 how the most austere, sublime, and intellectual religion of 
 early ages, became the mass of corruption and profligacy which 
 any one may witness who should visit Hindostan, and assist at 
 many of the pretended religious festivals. 
 
 We ought not, consequently, to be surprised that the worship 
 of animals became prevalent in India, as well as in Egypt. For 
 there is no doubt that the people adore there the bird which 
 Vishnu rides, as well as the elephant-shaped Ganesa, and the 
 ape Hanuman. It is true that the admirers of mythological 
 worship excuse the idea under the plea that they are " divine 
 animals " thus speak nearly all modern critics. But unfortu- 
 nately those " divine animals," as objects of actual worship, 
 are far from elevating and refining the ideas and habits of the 
 Hindoo people. And if we remember rightly, Miss Maria Gra- 
 ham, in her " Journal of a Residence in India," complains that 
 those rites she herself witnessed, were far from coming up to 
 the exalted ideas she had previously formed of pagan worship 
 as transmitted to us from Egypt and Greece. It is true that 
 if the same British lady had been present at Bubastis with 
 Herodotus, in a country where " divine animals " were also wor- 
 shipped ; and had she seen what he describes in his Second 
 Book " Euterpe " she might very probably have experienced 
 the same disgust, and changed her opinion on the refining ele- 
 gance of pagan rites of any kind. But such is the education 
 well-bred people of our day receive and derive from their
 
 172 GENTILISM. 
 
 " classical studies." "We will not certainly invite them to look 
 at the plates given to the public by Langles from the rock-tem- 
 ples of Elephanta. It is enough for them, as well as for us, to 
 remember the words of Heeren we have already quoted on the 
 subject. 
 
 But we have not yet reached the bottom of that unimagin- 
 able corruption originated by the mythology of the great poems. 
 These were to be followed by the puranas and tantras, on which 
 our limits do not allow us to say more than a word. Both are 
 now the " main foundation of the actual popular creed of the 
 Brahminical Hindoos ; " and on this account they deserve atten- 
 tion. It is the last term of that " series" of which we spoke 
 previously, which began by pure monotheism, and which ends 
 in the present " abominations " of India. 
 
 It seems that there were originally eighteen puranas of a 
 high antiquity, of which some Sanscrit works of the Yedic 
 period speaks. But they have disappeared ; and if in the pura- 
 nas now existing there are any fragments or shreds of them 
 surviving their destruction, it is absolutely impossible to dis- 
 tinguish them and point them out in the modern compositions. 
 The late Professor H. II. Wilson, an eminent Sanscrit scholar, 
 who studied, edited, and translated the eighteen puranas which 
 now remain, was of opinion that the age of their appearance 
 falls within the twelfth and seventeenth centuries of our era, 
 with the exception of one of them, which, on account of its 
 " unsectarian character," as the Professor expresses it, he would 
 place between the ninth and tenth. They are, therefore, quite 
 recent. Yet, to a great number of Brahmins, they replace en- 
 tirely the Yedas, although it is admitted by modern critics that 
 even a slight examination and a hasty comparison of them with 
 the ancient books containing the primeval lore of Hindoo relig- 
 ion and science, is sufficient to convince every one that the 
 description of religious life they unfold is simply a misrepre- 
 sentation of that afforded by the Yedic literature.
 
 ABORIGINAL RELIGION LN HINDOSTAX. 173 
 
 Of their general purport it is enough to say, that some advo- 
 cate the worship of Vishnu, and others that of Siva ; and sev- 
 eral of them propose chiefly to the adoration of their disciples 
 the female energy of the god they place at the head of the 
 Hindoo pantheon. This is called in Sanscrit Sakti, which is 
 generally translated by the word " wife." But it is, indeed, 
 the god himself, originally hermaphrodite, as many statues of 
 Siva exemplify, and who is considered either as male or as 
 female by his deluded worshippers. The wife, or female en- 
 ergy of Vishnu, is called Sri or Lcikshmi and the name of 
 that of Siva is Durga. In either case it may be called the 
 concentrated spirit of the particular deity under considera- 
 tion, as the female activity is known to be more energetic. 
 Thus to speak of Siva, Durga represents all the fury of which 
 the god of destruction and of lust is capable ; for Siva is, in- 
 deed, /the diabolical emblem of both. Durga, therefore, is the 
 great object and the last term at which all Hindoo mythology 
 and religious rites must aim, and fatally terminate. And this 
 is the purpose of some at least of the puranas. 
 
 But this is the only, entire, and absolute purpose of the abom- 
 inable tantras, which are yet oftener in the hands of the mod- 
 ern Brahmins than the puranas themselves. And strange to say, 
 these books seem or look to be much older than the actual pura- 
 nas. Everything appears to be in favor of such a supposition. 
 Yet their name the very word " tantra," as a particular reli- 
 gious work, is never mentioned except in quite recent times, 
 even in Sanscrit glossaries of classical words. The modern 
 critics who have examined them most carefully cannot account 
 for this apparent contradiction. In our opinion, an easy solu- 
 tion of the problem is found in the character of those infamous 
 books. They must have formerly circulated secretly, and not 
 have been allowed to be known except to a few. 
 
 It is impoi tant to examine them more closely than the pura- 
 nas themselves, as thsy express in fact the last phase of the
 
 174 GENTILISM. 
 
 religion of Hindostan, and prove truly more forcibly than 
 aught else could do, how entirely the primitive patriarchal rites 
 of the great Hindoo nation were destroyed by polytheism, 
 which is the main object of this chapter. 
 
 Ta/ntra means, literally, an instrument or means of faith : " It 
 is," say the modern Sanscrit lexicographers, "a name given 
 to the sacred works of the female energy of the god Siva." 
 The underline is ours. The definition cannot be plainer and 
 more appropriate. Siva is the god of destruction and of lust. 
 The liugam is his perpetual . emblem. His female energy 
 Durga is the rage of both. For rage expresses the maniac 
 activity of a furious woman. What can be the sacred works of 
 such things ? Let our reader imagine it. We cannot ourselves 
 describe it. Yet we must say something of it, however unwil- 
 lingly ; otherwise our very purpose would be somewhat frus- 
 trated. 
 
 The tantras are books which comprise many subjects. Some 
 of these are, of course, the creation and destruction of the 
 world ; the worship of the gods ; the attainment of all objects, 
 etc., etc. But the chief one is a long detail of " magical rites 
 for the acquirement of six superhuman faculties, and four 
 modes of union with spirits by meditation." Devil-worship 
 and spiritism are already visible enough. The votaries of this 
 abominable religion are called Sacktas, and nothing is more 
 common than to meet them everywhere in the country, chiefly 
 in Bengal. Many belong to the Brahminical class. But those 
 of other castes are easily admitted to that Hindoo freema- 
 sonry which has also for its device something akin to the 
 modern motto, " Fraternity, equality." They do not, however, 
 conceal themselves in our days, and take good care to besmear 
 their forehead with lines of red sandal-wood or vermilion, and 
 a circular spot of red at the root of the nose. Being openly 
 worshippers of the female energy of Siva, which typifies all 
 that is excessively terrific and obscene, our readers need not be
 
 ABOEIGINAL KELIGIOIST IN HIND STAN. 175 
 
 told what are their rites. They naturally lead to brutalism, 
 and involve the grossest immorality of all kinds. 
 
 It seems, however, that there is a limit to shamelessness in 
 some of those Brahmins, since they form two sects : the adher- 
 ents to the right-hand, and the left-hand, ritual. The first are 
 less degraded, and probably never imbrue their hands in the 
 blood of innocent children, as many are suspected of doing. 
 Yet these, even, are known to oft'er blood without causing 
 death ; and in the case of animals, to sacrifice annually num- 
 bers of kids and goats, a practice totally abhorrent to the well- 
 known benevolent feelings of Hindoos toward all living beings. 
 But the left-hand ritual is altogether unmentionable. A quota- 
 tion from Professor Wilson may, however, be introduced : 
 " All the forms of the ritual require the use of some or all of 
 five words, beginning with M, namely : Mansa, Mataya, Madya, 
 Maithuna, and Mudra *. <?., flesh, fish, wine, women, and ob- 
 scene gesticulations." "But," he adds, "when the object of 
 the ceremony is to acquire an interview with, or control over, 
 impure spirits, a dead body is necessary. The adept is also to 
 be alone, at midnight, in a cemetery or place where bodies are 
 
 burned and buried, or criminals executed." We cannot 
 
 conclude the quotation, which is nevertheless only a repetition 
 of the well-known diabolical rites generally ascribed to the 
 devil-worshippers of the middle ages. It is enough to say, 
 with him, that " the whole is terminated with the most scan- 
 dalous orgies among the votaries." 
 
 It is strange after this, that the learned Professor should pre- 
 tend that, " In justice to the doctrines of the sect, it is to be 
 observed, that these practices, if instituted merely for sensual 
 gratification, are held by these sectarians to be as illicit and rep- 
 rehensible as in any other branch of the Hindoo faith." We 
 will merely ask how such " practices" as these can be supposed 
 free from "sensual gratification" of the grossest and most 
 
 abominable nature \ 
 13
 
 176 GENTILISM. 
 
 We admire profoundly the benevolent feelings of most 
 writers of our age who always try their best to excuse the 
 most hateful excesses of polytheistic superstition. But, to us, 
 vice is vice; and pure devil-worship, as this undoubtedly is, 
 cannot be justified under any pretext, and must always be 
 absolutely condemned as the highest crime and most horrible 
 abomination. 
 
 The demonstration, we hope, is complete. The progress in 
 India, from the beginning, has been constantly backwards. 
 The nation began with pure monotheism, and ends in deviltry. 
 The noble picture of venerable rishis and patriarchs living in 
 devout simplicity in the first ages, is replaced by the ignoble 
 aspect of degraded adepts in witchcraft and the lowest super- 
 stition ; and the gradual steps by which this unfortunate result 
 was attained, appear clear and convincing in the whole history 
 of this extraordinary people. Contrary to the dogmas of Dar- 
 winism, the Hindoo type, at first so noble and almost godlike, 
 has followed an inverse evolution, which might, if not arrested, 
 end in something very like the type of the ape and gorilla. 
 .Not that the physical features of the species can, in oui 
 opinion, be radically changed even inversely, and become 
 those of a quite different species, of a much lower and de- 
 graded type. But morally the change is almost equivalent to 
 it ; and, in the words of the Prophet, we might exclaim : 
 " Quomodo cecidisti, Lucifer ( , qui mane oriebams ! '* 
 
 We will conclude this chapter with a word or two on a fea 
 ture remarkable, certainly, in the actual idolatry of Hindostan. 
 In reading the works of well-informed English travellers, when 
 they profess to describe the popular religion, one is struck with 
 the constantly-changing names of the gods in passing from one 
 town or village to another. This is certainly very striking in 
 the long and detailed account of Mysore and the Malabar coast 
 undertaken by Buchanan, at the request of the East India Com- 
 pany, after the conquest of that part of the country by the
 
 ABOKIGINAL EELIGION IN HINDOSTAN. 177 
 
 English and the fall of Tippoo Saib. In every village, as you 
 read, you find the people at the foot of some idol altogether 
 unknown to the common Hindoo mythology. And the names 
 of these gods are seldom the same. So that the conclusion forces 
 itself upon the mind, that besides the celebrated deities wor- 
 shipped chiefly in large towns, there is an infinite number of 
 inferior ones known only to villagers and rude people. The 
 country, therefore, has arrived to that point of "individual- 
 ism " in religion which will strike us more forcibly when we 
 speak of Egypt, Greece, and Italy. But of this anon. 
 
 The primitive religion of Central Asia being intimately con- 
 nected with that of Hindostan, we had thought of speaking of 
 it at the end of this chapter. But on account of its length we 
 prefer to transfer it at the head of the next. The reader will 
 perceive where the natural connection lies; and the details 
 will sufficiently point it out.
 
 CHAPTEE IY. 
 i 
 
 THE PRIMEVAL RELIGION, AND ITS DECLINE, IN CENTRAL ASIA AND AFRICA. 
 SECTION I. CENTRAL ASIA. 
 
 A FEW years back, the exact time of the great " reform " 
 of Zoroaster was unknown ; or rather the general belief con- 
 cerning it was incorrect. Owing to several mistakes of previous 
 chronologists, Zoroastrianism was thought *to be a great deal 
 more recent than it really is ; and had it not been for the labors 
 and discoveries of several orientalists of our days, the common 
 error could not have been corrected, and the arguments we have 
 adduced in support of the primitive monotheism of Hindostan 
 would have been the only ones possible. They might have 
 sufficed, certainly, but a more exact knowledge of Asiatic 
 antiquities, and the true interpretation of the Zend-Avesta, 
 enable us to add to them a much more powerful one, which the 
 plan we have adopted will oblige us to confine within as narrow 
 a compass as is compatible with a satisfactory exposition of it. 
 
 We have already hinted that the Zends were hot Persian 
 books, but truly Yedic; and that if we still follow the old 
 distinction, and consider them apart, it is merely for the sake 
 of convenience. We must, in the first instance, establish this 
 truth, most important in our present considerations. 
 
 The author of the Zend-Avesta, or at least of the oldest part 
 of it the Gathas since it was compiled, as it would seem, 
 like the Yedas, by several authors, Zoroaster, or in the old 
 spelling, Zarathustra, has himself described very accurately 
 the vast region which is to be now the object of our investiga- 
 tion. The Yendidat begins by an enumeration of the provinces 
 (178)
 
 CENTRAL ASIA AXD AFRICA. 179 
 
 and chief cities governed by King Gustasp or rather Vistagpa, 
 according to the correct orthography to whom the book is 
 addressed, and, indeed, dedicated. The list includes all the 
 countries east of the Caspian Sea and north of Hindostan, with 
 the northern part of this peninsula, besides Azerbijan west of 
 the Caspian Lake. A glance over the map will show that it 
 embraced Khorasan, Bactriana, and Sogdiana, Cabul, Lahore, 
 and the Punjaub, with several other provinces of less renown. 
 Nothing absolutely is said in the book, either of Persia or of 
 Media even. King Gustasp's Yistac,pa's Capital was evi 
 dently Bactra. The centre of his empire was the country 
 included between the Oxus and the Jaxartes. It was, therefore, 
 precisely Central Asia. None of the southern regions of the 
 continent belonged to it. Knowing, as we do, that the Yedas 
 came from the north of Hindostan, the remark is important. 
 The Yedas, in fact, and the Zends were literary productions of 
 the same country almost. The Zends, therefore, were not Per- 
 sian books. 
 
 I. 
 
 The apparent similarity of the name of Gustasp with Darius 
 Hystaspis, had been a sufficient reason for the antiquarians of a 
 previous age to presume that Zoroaster lived under his reign. 
 Yet many Greek writers had asserted that this Sage, whom they 
 all admired as one of the greatest men our world had seen, 
 belonged to an epoch far earlier than the Persian, or even than 
 the Median dynasties. Aristotle went so far as to state that he 
 lived 6000 years before his own time ; Xanthus of Lydia was 
 therefore very moderate in placing him 600 years before the 
 Trojan war ; Berosus of Babylon made him a Babylonian King 
 corresponding with an epoch equivalent to about 2000 years 
 before Christ. Now that the Zend-Avesta is well known, 
 and has been correctly translated, the general opinion makes
 
 180 GEISTTILISM. 
 
 him at least contemporary with Moses. It is clear that we have 
 here a book of very high antiquity, and that its doctrines must 
 represent the thoughts of men very near the origin of our 
 species. It was Anquetil Duperron, a Frenchman, who first 
 brought a copy of it to Europe, about the middle of last 
 century; and although his translation was very defective, owing 
 to the backwardness of philology at the time, it produced an 
 immense sensation. The English promptly accused it of being 
 a forgery. The Germans, more equitable, were at first divided 
 in opinion, but Klenker having translated it into German, its 
 genuineness was generally admitted beyond the Rhine. It is 
 Rask, a Dane, who having procured many Zend manuscripts for 
 the Copenhagen library, showed conclusively the close affinity 
 between the language of the Zends and the Sanscrit. But it is 
 again Mr. Eugene Burnouf who determined several important 
 points, admitted now generally by all orientalists, which clearly 
 show the intimate relation of the Zends with the Yedas, 
 establish the character of the first as a " reform " intended to 
 bring back the second to their old pure monotheism, and deter- 
 mine many points which we may be allowed to set forth in 
 the following catechetical form : 
 
 1st. Is the book really as ancient a production as has been just 
 stated ? It was not certainly written so as to circulate, at the 
 time mentioned above ; but was transmitted orally, as the Yedas, 
 the Homeric poems, the Talmud, etc. At the beginning, undoubt- 
 edly, it was much more voluminous "than at present. Pliny 
 speaks of 2,000,000 verses written by Zoroaster, which must be 
 an exaggeration common enough with the author of " Historia 
 Naturalis." Bat a great part of the work perished in the 
 frightful invasion of Omar in Persia, and what was saved was 
 collected together only under the Sassanian Kings, in the third 
 century of our era. These are real difficulties. Nevertheless, 
 the style of a good part of what remains is truly Yedic. "Who- 
 ever understands the Yedas will easily understand it. These
 
 CENTRAL ASIA AND AFRICA. 181 
 
 books must have been transmitted with the extreme precision 
 and caution always attached to ritual prayers ; for such they arc 
 mostly. We have, therefore, an authentic, most ancient work. 
 The language is somewhat different from the Sanscrit, but 
 certainly of the same typs. The verses are truly Vedic verses, 
 without rhyme, and with the syllables only counted. All 
 modern orientalists seem to agree on this first point. 
 
 2d. Is the doctrine of monotheism as clear in the Zends as 
 in the Yedas ? The answer is plain, almost emphatic : It is 
 clearer and more precise. From many expressions of the 
 Zend-Avesta, it is evident that the nation to which Zoroaster 
 belonged had been previously connected intimately with 
 another Aryan nation. But a long war had raged between both ; 
 enmity at the time of Zoroaster reigned supreme. Tho 
 chief cause of complaint on the part of the Sage himself was, 
 that the primitive religion of the people had been corrupted by 
 this now hostile race. The pure worship of one God, admitted 
 at first on both sides, had been gradually replaced by the wor- 
 ship of devas, and Zoroaster wished to bring back his nation 
 to primeval monotheism. Thus the Bactrian patriarch was 
 merely a reformer, in the true sense of the word. From the 
 same text it appears that, since the introduction of corrupt 
 worship, the people of Gustasp had been under the guidance 
 of " fire priests," who had established a false religion known 
 under the name of " ahura," because inferior spirits, called 
 " ahuras," w f ere adored instead of the " devas " of the enemy. 
 Zoroaster declared himself against both, and proposed the wor- 
 ship of Ormuzd Ahura-Mazda alone, which he emphatically 
 proclaimed as the* old worship of both nations. 
 
 We recognize clearly in the " devas " of the enemy the 
 "devatas" honored in the Yedic sacrifices, to which Zoro- 
 aster objected as making mere creatures real "gods." We 
 may also conclude from this warm hostility the motive which 
 led Zoroaster to give to the Supreme God, not the name of
 
 182 GENTILISM. 
 
 Brahma, but that of Ormuzd Ahura-Mazda. He wished to 
 have nothing to do with the Hindoo religion. And, moreover, 
 the language in which he wrote had then become, to a certain 
 
 O O ' 
 
 degree, a different one from the Sanscrit of the Yedas, although 
 closely allied to it. Other proofs of the Zend rnonotheisih will 
 presently be given. Before passing to the next point, we may 
 here repeat that India has been, indeed, the centre of all 
 the religions of Asia, as Heeren asserts. We have seen how 
 Buddhism, which has since prevailed all over the Far-ast, was 
 derived from the Hindoo philosophy. And, now, we notice 
 another curious fact : The Brahminic religion becoming the 
 source of the worship of all Western Asia, where Zoroastrian- 
 ism prevailed in the end, through the Medians and Persians, 
 in Assyria, Babylonia, and a great part of Asia Minor ; and that 
 it might have ruled even over a great part of Europe, if Persia 
 had not been defeated by Greece at Marathon and Salami s. 
 It is even pretended by some orientalists that the religion of 
 Zoroaster was the true source of the only three great monothe- 
 istic systems, embracing nearly all the Semitic nations : namely, 
 Judaism, Christianity, and Mohammedanism. But this is an 
 evident error. And every candid observer will easily acknowledge 
 that neither Judaism, nor chiefly Christianity, not even Moham- 
 medanism, have taken their dogmas from the creed of Zoroaster ; 
 although there is no doubt that many truths contained in this 
 last, form also a part of the three others ; because they are truths 
 coming from God, and not because Zoroaster originated them. 
 He insists himself on this: that he is a reformer, not an inventor 
 of religion. The opinion, therefore, of Sir William Jones, that 
 mankind originated probably in Iran Pergia and that the 
 first study to which an orientalist ought to apply is that of the 
 Persian language, as it is from that country that the truth 
 radiated from the beginning, is not substantiated ; and the 
 very respectable founder of the Asiatic Society would, no 
 doubt, have changed his opinion, had he known what a
 
 CENTRAL ASIA AND AFEICA. 183 
 
 more advanced study of Sanscrit and Zend has now demon- 
 strated. 
 
 3d. What is the part of monotheism and that of " sacrificial 
 rites" in Zoroaster's religion ? The -answer is plain again from 
 the late discoveries in the text of the Zend-Avesta. There is 
 much less room with respect to both, for error to creep in, 
 than in the Yedas, as we know them ; and, consequently, the 
 pantheism, polytheism, and devilish idolatry which invaded 
 Hindooism never made inroads of such frightful import in the 
 worship oj: the Parsees, for Manicheism can scarcely be con- 
 sidered as a branch of this religion. The imagination of the 
 northern tribes, over which Gustasp ruled, being more sober 
 and guarded, the pure sparks of the heavenly doctrine which 
 we have admired in the Vedas, were not in Central Asia so 
 easily dimmed by vague expressions containing seeds of manifest 
 error. Hence, its monotheism resembled much more the true, 
 solid, always consistent doctrine of the Hebrew prophets 
 independently of their inspiration. There has been, however, 
 a great decline in Zoroastrianism, which it will be our duty to 
 notice. 
 
 II. 
 
 The Divine Unity in the person of Ormuzd (Ahura-Mazda) 
 and the height of His divine attributes, are expressed in the 
 Gathas the most authentic part of the Zends with a supreme 
 energy which cannot be misunderstood. The multiplicity of 
 passages which contain them, their agreement together, and the 
 identity of interpretation by the most learned and skillful trans- 
 lators, cannot leave room for hesitation and doubt. The name 
 itself, Ahura-Mazda (Ormuzd) signifies, according to Mr. Haug, 
 (Essays, p. 256) the Living Creator of the Universe. The most 
 common appellations by which He is addressed are in the in- 
 terpretation of the same gentleman, and of Mr. Spiegel, the last
 
 184 OENTILISM. 
 
 translator of the Zends : " The living God the Good Spirit 
 the Sublime Truth the Creator of Life the Essence of Truth 
 the Primordial Spirit the Source of Light the most Holy 
 Spirit the Creator of all that is good the Author of the 
 World and of Law the most Powerful of Beings. It is He 
 who has traced to the sun and the stars their road in the 
 heavens ; it is He who brings on the increase and decrease of 
 the moon ; it is He who has created the earth, the ocean, the 
 trees, etc., etc." 
 
 It is precisely thus that we speak of God. Zarathjistra, since 
 his name ought, it seems, to be thus spelt, had received from 
 tradition the true key-note of religious truth. He said, him- 
 self, that he had invented nothing ; but merely restored the 
 primitive belief obscured by the new worship of devas. In 
 him we find, therefore, a great link of the golden chain, which 
 starting first from the mouth of God, was often on the point of 
 being broken and lost, until Christ secured it for us for ever, 
 by handing it oVer to His infallible Church. Evidently the 
 Bactrian Sage spoke as we do, and believed as we do, with 
 respect to God. He appeared when the purity of doctrine, 
 first contained in the Yedas, began to be dimmed by poetry and 
 imagination ; and devatas, or devas, as he called them, were 
 insensibly personified, and turned into personal beings and 
 deities ; to protest against this invasion of the rights of the Su- 
 preme and Living Author of the Universe ; and all the terms by 
 which he expressed his essence and attributes, were precisely 
 those we employ ourselves, and which will be used henceforth 
 to the end of time. 
 
 Hear one of the hymns of Zarathustra, translated in German 
 by Mr. Spiegel, to which Max Miiller gave an English dress. 
 (It is taken from Spiegel's Yasna, p. 146). 
 
 " I ask Thee ; tell me the truth, Ahura ! Who was from 
 the beginning the father of pure creatures ? Who has made 
 a path for the sun and for the stars? Who, but Thou, makes
 
 CEXTIIAL ASIA A!XD AFRICA. 185 
 
 the moon to increase and to decrease ? That, Mazda, and 
 other things I wish to know. 
 
 " I ask Thee ; tell me the truth, O Ahura ! Who holds the 
 earth and the clouds that they do not fall ? Who holds the 
 sea and the trees ? Who has given swiftness to the wind and 
 the clouds ? Who is the creator of the good spirit ? 
 
 " I ask Thee ; tell me the truth, O Ahura ! Who has made 
 the kindly light and the darkness? Who has made the kindly 
 sleep and the awaking ? Who has made the mornings, the 
 noons, and the nights ? Who has made him who ponders on 
 the measure of Thy laws ?" 
 
 In perusing this passage, which is only one of many, the Chris- 
 tian may well imagine he is listening to fresh strains of the in- 
 spired Moses, Job or David ! With respect to " sacrificial rites," 
 a greater precision of language than that of the Yedas, serves in 
 the Zends Jo render much less imminent the danger of intro- 
 ducing polytheism through them. In the Tasna of the Zend- 
 Avesta, where the five Gatkas, of which we just spoke, are 
 contained, and which treat of "sacrifice," "devatas" are not 
 addressed, as in the Vedas, and cannot so easily be transformed 
 into " gods." But the ritual contains merely " prayers for the 
 consecration of holy water, of the bundle of twigs used in the 
 rites, of the liquor extracted from the plant called homa the 
 soma of Hindostan or of anything connected with the sacri- 
 fice." Thus it is only a blessing bestowed on some object 
 which is set apart for the service of God, exactly as in the 
 Catholic ritual prayers are directed to be said over water, oil, 
 frankincense, etc. And thus the rites of Zoroastrianism be- 
 come plain, and are void of the least danger of obscuring the 
 pure monotheism advocated everywhere in the Zends. For- 
 tunately, moreover, for our argument, their intimate connection 
 with the corresponding forms of the Yedas, in which we find 
 also blessings for fire, for water, for the soma liquor, of which 
 we had an occasion to speak previously, explain the original
 
 186 GENTILISM. 
 
 meaning of the Hindoo books, and show conclusively the truth 
 of our preceding remarks on those ritqs, and the appropriateness 
 of our protest against the translation of the word " devata " 
 into that of " god ;" at least as it was understood primitively ; 
 and thus our assertion was limited. From the need of a " re- 
 form," so early as the time of Zarathustra, it seems the decline 
 to error began sooner than we might otherwise have imagined. 
 Yet it may be supposed that the zeal of the " reformer " was 
 kindled at the very first innovations, and perhaps at the inter- 
 pretations the people alone gave to " sacrificial rites," when the 
 pure Yedic meaning was well understood by the learned Brah- 
 mins. These, however, are mere conjectures on which we do 
 not insist. 
 
 But we must here introduce a few remarks on the ritual of 
 ancient religions in general, whether true or false. In all the 
 new forms given by Protestantism to Christianity, the ritual is 
 absent, or, if there is some remnant of it, it is merely a shred. 
 In the old religions, it was always extremely elaborate ; and 
 we may say that the older a religion is the more complicated 
 is the ritual. Could this be the effect of barbarism in man, 
 as everything old is often considered as barbarous ? And is a 
 religion deprived of a ritual, on that account, more refined and 
 true ? 
 
 The Jewish ritual, given by God Himself, as we firmly be- 
 lieve, is certainly very copious and long. The Christian ritual 
 in the true Church is, undoubtedly, much more simple and far 
 less complex. Authors generally attribute the difference, in 
 the first case (that of the Jews), to the necessity of striking 
 their imagination, and obliging them to many small observ- 
 ances, and of thus opposing their proneness to idolatry. It 
 might be so in part. Yet it is undoubtedly true that the 
 rituals adopted, from the beginning, by all nations of antiquity, 
 were all of a very elaborate nature, and contained as many 
 apparently trifling prescriptions as the one of Leviticus. And
 
 CENTBAL ASIA AJSD AFEICA. 187 
 
 this did not prevent them from falling into many grievous 
 errors. Xay, it was not unseldom the cause of leading them 
 to polytheism, as it certainly was in the case of the Hindoos. 
 A reason more consonant with the doctrine of several Fathers 
 of the Church, and among them, we think, St. Leo the Great 
 and St. Irenaeus. is the difference of the three dispensations of 
 nature, law, and grace, which required differences of worship 
 and rites. To our thinking, the patriarchal religion adapted 
 to men who were, in truth, giants intellectually, required 
 strong, vivid, and varied rites, because their powerful^ minds 
 must have been swayed by a correspondingly powerful imagi- 
 nation, which had to be occupied with the things of God in 
 order to avoid the danger of plunging headlong into the things 
 of this world, as all did sooner or later. If the Jewish patri- 
 archs, from Abraham downwards, used much more simple 
 rites, they were certainly exceptions in the general state of 
 things at the time. Being frequently in direct communica- 
 tion with Almighty God, who treated them as friends, and 
 whom they loved ardently, there was no need, for them, of so 
 many slight observances and prescriptions. But there is no 
 doubt that, when they lived on earth, all other nations of Asia 
 were subjected to extremely complicated religious rites, which, 
 on account of their uniformity, ought to be considered, in the 
 main, as handed down to them by primitive tradition ; and the 
 only reason we can assign for this is the one mentioned above. 
 
 The Jewish nation, according to many Fathers of the 
 Church, were kept under a rigorous dispensation, and bound 
 hands and feet, from morning to night, at all hours of the day 
 by observances of every kind, because they were children 
 kept under the rod, and trained to better things by a harsh 
 treatment necessary for their long education. 
 
 But to suppose that the dispensation of grace, the everlast- 
 ing and final religion of Christ, was to leave us without a 
 ritual of any kind, is to fall into an egregious errcr. Man
 
 188 GENTILISM. 
 
 wants it; and if he emancipates himself entirely, or almost 
 entirely, from it, under the pretext that we live under the dis- 
 pensation of love, and are free from all the 'restraints of the 
 law, he is most likely, in the course of time, to forget God alto- 
 gether, and to lose completely, not only the exterior, but the 
 very spiritual essence of religion. The man who belongs to a 
 sect without rites, will soon be practically without God ; be- 
 cause, owing to the double nature of man, prayer itself requires 
 the elevation or joining of the hands, the bending of the 
 knees, the raising of the eyes to heaven, or other acts of bodily 
 worship. And all these are real rites, and without them prayer 
 itself would soon cease to exist. 
 
 If Christ has freed us from the law, it is merely from the 
 Mosaic ceremonial law. But He gave to His Church a true 
 legislative power. And this Mother of all true Christians, 
 knowing their wants and understanding their nature, yet aware 
 of their native weakness, although living under the dispensa- 
 tion of "grace" (which, according to St. Paul, was instituted 
 for men, and no more for babes, as the Jews were), this Mother 
 Church, with the unlimited power given her by Christ, has, 
 from the very beginning, instituted rites which, with the ever- 
 increasing number of the faithful, have grown to the imposing 
 forms we all know so well, and we love to witness daily, in 
 the ever-recurring round of our festivals through the Christian 
 year. 
 
 And, although the Mosaic law is abolished, although the 
 patriarchal religion has long ago ceased to exist, yet we have 
 still many points of similarity with the "men of old;" and we 
 use yet all the elements to praise our Creator, because we wor- 
 ship the same God and inhabit the same earth. Our Holy 
 religion is the true one ; and as that of the patriarchs was in 
 the same position in their time, there must be some points, at 
 least, of resemblance between both. 
 
 It is time to return to Zoroastrianism, or rather to Mazdeism,
 
 CENTRAL ASIA AND AFRICA. 189 
 
 as it is now called ; and we must begin to adopt the general 
 way of speaking of our contemporaries. "Was not Mazdeism, 
 from the very time of its first expounder, impregnated with 
 dualism, and consequently not teaching pure monotheism ? 
 To what extent can this be asserted ? Mr. Haug, who made it 
 a point to examine this question, thinks that dualism is cer- 
 tainly expressed in the philosophy of Zarathustra, as distinct 
 from his religious teaching. But he openly refuses to believe 
 that in primitive Mazdeisnij Ahura-Mazda, or Ormuzd, had a 
 rival in power. " An evil spirit," he says, " distinct from, 
 Ahura- Mazda, possessing the same power, and in direct and 
 perpetual opposition to Him, is a thing completely foreign to 
 Zoroaster's theology ; although such an opinion among his fol- 
 lowers may very well be found, by implication at least, in the 
 later books, such as the Yendidat." Mr. Haug, however, ad- 
 mits that in the old Yagna which, as we saw, comprise the 
 Gathas, where the authentic Mazdean doctrine is contained 
 is found the positive teaching (very different from the previous 
 one), " that there are two principles, the Good and the Evil 
 spirit, the first the only author of Gaya, entity r , namely, all that 
 is good ; the other the only author of Ajyditi, non-entity, 
 namely, all that is bad ; both act in the universe ; both were 
 together in the origin of things, subsisting," Mr. Haug says, 
 " in the divine substance as they do now in mortal beings, and 
 called the < Twins.' " 
 
 On account of this discovery, confirmed by Mr. Spiegel, 
 and of some other texts which seem analogous, the mass of 
 orientalists in our days admit a kind of real dualism in primi- 
 tive Mazdeism, but a very different one from that of the Zar- 
 vanians, as Mr. F. Lenormant calls them. This latter doctrine 
 of dualism was " promulgated about the time of Alexander, 
 and developed only during our middle ages, chiefly after the 
 Moslem conquest of Persia ; and is still held by the Guebres 
 and the Parsees of Bombay. According to it, one great Being
 
 190 GENTILISM. 
 
 existed before Ormuzd and Ahriman, superior to them, the 
 source of all, called Zarvanakarana (time without limits) ; 
 from whom had emanated the two principles, and into whom 
 they are one day to be absorbed, together with all the beings 
 who peopled the world" ("Ancient History of the East," 
 Tom. ii.). This is pure pantheism, which can nowhere be 
 found in the works of Zarathustra. 
 
 But is it true that real dualism, as contained in the passage 
 quoted above from Mr. Haug, and interpreted by him, is surely 
 to be accepted as pure, primitive Mazdeism ? This would 
 not certainly be surprising, as nobody concedes infallibility to 
 Zoroaster, who never pretended to it himself, always announced 
 himself as a single mortal, and was never called a god or even 
 a semi-god by any of his followers in after ages. And this is 
 certainly remarkable. A man of his moral and intellectual 
 height, living in the remote antiquity all must now concede to 
 him, would certainly, in any other nation out of Judaism, have 
 been placed among the gods ; to be worshipped, with temples 
 and altars. He is the only hero of such high antiquity who 
 has not enjoyed the privilege of godship, which he would him- 
 self have repudiated with horror. And, in this respect, he is 
 on a par with the great men of the Bible who honored God, 
 fransmitted faithfully His worship to their descendants, fought 
 for Him if needed, and were true heroes and sages, to whom 
 no one ever thought of granting divine honors. Are we obliged 
 to believe that he Zoroaster taught real dualism, the exist- 
 ence of two distinct, opposite principles, one good, the other 
 bad ; both equal ? We have still great doubts upon this point, 
 after having read what has been published lately by men whom 
 we honor, and to whom religion is really indebted for their 
 discoveries. 
 
 First, in the midst of that metaphysical obscurity which cer- 
 tainly surrounds the doctrine of Zarathustra on the origin of 
 evil, we read in a passage of Mr. Spiegel, translated in French,
 
 CENTEAL ASIA AND AFRICA. 191 
 
 the following phrase, taken from the thirtieth chapter of the 
 fourth Gatha : " Both these Celestial beings, the Twins, showed 
 originally in their own. persons, the Good and the Evil, in 
 thoughts, words, and acts. . . . They both united together to 
 create first life and transitory things, and regulate the future 
 formation of the world. ... Of these two Celestial beings, the 
 Evil spirit chose evil, and the Most Holy who created the 
 solid heaven, purity." 
 
 This is not certainly orthodox Christian teaching. We must, 
 however, remark, that this very text supposes the belief in real 
 creation, not by emanation. And this was undoubtedly a dogma 
 of Mazdeism ; and here the text speaks of an epoch previous 
 to this creation. How difficult was it for Zoroaster to interpret 
 correctly the original tradition on the subject ? But when he 
 says that the " Twins" showed " originally" the Good and the 
 Bad in their thoughts, etc., we may suppose that the Bactrian 
 Sage made a slight mistake in interpreting the time tradition 
 contained in his own mind, and wished only to say, that the 
 being who was destined to be the Bad Principle, by his own 
 choice, " showed it by his thoughts, words, and actions." "We 
 should have an orthodox enough description of Lucifer. For 
 the angels, for aught we know, may have been created long 
 ages before man, and Lucifer may very well have been the first 
 created among the angels, as he was the highest. He must 
 have 'been, therefore, with God in heaven, during long ages, 
 and united with Him, perhaps, in the creation of the world as 
 His minister ; only he was not Evil yet, but merely destined 
 to be one day by his own choice, as Zoroaster has it. A very 
 slight change, therefore, would make the text correct in doctrine. 
 
 This would be plain, perhaps, if so many books of the same 
 author had not been lost. That some explanation of the kind 
 is needed, appears from the following : Ahriman, in the Zends, 
 is not only opposed to Ahura-Mazda, but likewise to Mithra. 
 And, as everything goes by pairs in Mazdeism, he cannot be 
 
 14:
 
 192 GENTILISM. 
 
 called superior to Mithra, to whom he is opposed, and who 
 drives him away from heaven, under the form of a serpent. 
 Consequently he cannot be called equal to Ahura-Mazda or 
 Onnuzd, to whom Mithra is subordinate. 
 
 There is evidently some confusion in the text which cannot 
 be cleared up on account of the loss of the greatest part of Maz- 
 dean books. J3ut the personage of Mithra, his fight with, and 
 his victory over, Ahriman, prove conclusively to our own mind 
 that there is no real dualism between Ormuzd and Ahriman, in 
 the primitive religion of Zarathustra. This question, however, 
 merits a somewhat more detailed investigation. 
 
 Who is Mithra in the theology of Zoroaster ? 
 
 F. Lenormant and E. Chevallier, both great orientalists, the 
 first pre-eminently, tell us (Anc. History of the East, T. 2, 
 p. 33), that " Mithra was the Mediator, whose origin is not 
 clearly explained in what remains of the Zoroastrian books ; but 
 who seems to have sprung from Ormuzd, and to have, been con- 
 substantial with him. Mithra had driven Ahriman who is rep- 
 resented as a serpent with two legs from heaven. Mithra was 
 the guardian of men during life, and their judge after death. 
 His functions are especially enlarged on in the later books ; but 
 his name, his title, " victorious," and his high position in the 
 Mazdean faith, unquestionably belong to the most ancient 
 phase of this religion. And as everything was arranged in 
 hostile pairs, Mithra had his double and adversary in the* crea- 
 tion of Ahriman (Mithra Daradj), " the evil Mithra," who 
 labored to destroy all his beneficent work. Is not this merely 
 the fight of Michael with Lucifer ? Only Michael is not placed 
 so high in the Old Testament. 
 
 Ahriman, according to this, was the adversary of Mithra, who 
 conquered him and drove him from heaven. He could not be, 
 consequently, equal in power to Ahura-Mazda, from whom 
 Mithra sprung. Zarathustra, whose expressions are nearly 
 always exact, certainly much more so than the often vague for-
 
 CEJTTKAL ASIA AND AFEICA. 193 
 
 mulas of the Yedic books, could not fall into so egregious a con- 
 tradiction as this would suppose. The real obscurity of the case 
 must come from the loss of the other Mazdean books ; and to 
 confirm this opinion, we have all the titles given to the Living 
 Creator of the Universe (Ahura-Mazda), and noted previously. 
 Such an all-perfect Being cannot brook an equal. Hence, in 
 all the cuneiform inscriptions preserved yet in Asia, even those 
 of the Persian kings of the Achcemenidae dynasty, the only God 
 recorded on the monuments is Ahura-Mazda, his supposed ad- 
 versary never being mentioned. 
 
 Another argument, not without force, is derived from the 
 general attribution given to the two principles in the text from 
 which the difficulty arose. One is the cause, the author of 
 entity, namely : of all that is good ; the other is the cause, the 
 author of non-entity, namely : of all that is evil. God is, and 
 can only be, the cause of what is good, never of evil ; all Chris- 
 tian theologians and philosophers agree in this Calvin would 
 have been the only exception, had he been a Christian. Zara- 
 thustra, consequently, in this shows himself to have been a 
 most profound thinker, if he did not derive it from primitive 
 tradition. . 
 
 That the devil is the great cause of evil, and that evil is non- 
 entity, is likewise the doctrine of some of the greatest Christian 
 philosophers, among whom are St. Augustine and St. Thomas. 
 Zarathustra, consequently, is right again in this doctrine. The 
 only error consists in making both " Twins," which evidently 
 must not be understood literally as enjoying equal power, since 
 Ahriman was once conquered by Mithra inferior to Ormuzd. 
 Every sound reasoning, therefore, goes to exclude real dualism 
 from primitive Mazdeism. 
 
 There is no need of recalling to the mind of the reader the 
 numerous inferior beings whose existence is proclaimed by this 
 religion, either on the side of the good, or on that of the bad 
 principle. A ncng the 'irst were included the Amshaspands,
 
 194 GENTILISM. 
 
 the Yzeds, and the Fervers ; among the second, the Darvands, 
 the Divas, etc. This was merely the doctrine of the existence 
 of angels and demons. 
 
 This discussion, therefore, instead of weakening the impres- 
 sion that the religion of Zoroaster was monotheistic, has indeed 
 added new proofs to what has been the universal belief of all 
 learned men in ancient as well as in modern times. Bergier is 
 the only one perhaps who in his " Dictionnaire Theologique," 
 declares himself openly an antagonist of the prevailing opinion. 
 But all the ancients were unanimous in asserting that the doc- 
 trine of the Bactrian Sage they thought him Persian was 
 opposed to the multiplicity of gods. In modern times the 
 more fully the question has been investigated, the clearer has 
 it appeared that their appreciation of his doctrine was correct. 
 Eugene Burnouf proclaimed it, it seems, openly ; and he had a 
 right to speak on the subject. The new texts, translated by 
 Mr. Haug and Mr. Spiegel, appeared at first to throw some 
 doubt upon it, but Mr. Haug admits unequivocally pure 
 monotheism in the religious part of the Zends. And, if Mr. 
 Spiegel inclines to the other side, his supposition gives rise 
 to immense difficulties. We can say, certainly, that the new 
 discoveries have brought to light the most unexpected results, 
 and raised at once the religion of Zoroaster far above all 
 the other natural religions of the East. It is now admitted 
 by all, except a few, that dualism is an after-growth in the 
 religious, if not in the philosophical, system of the Zends. Its 
 restorer speaks constantly of one God, and not two. He in- 
 veighs vehemently against the multiplicity of gods ; and wishes 
 his people to adore but one. Even much later, when Media 
 and Persia received his religion through the tribe of the Ma- 
 gians, real dualism, or the co-existence of two equal and supreme 
 principles, the good and the evil, was completely unknown. 
 All the cuneiform inscriptions found at Persepolis and else- 
 where, which commemorate some great events under the Per-
 
 CENTRAL ASIA AND AFEICA. 195 
 
 sian kings of the Achsemenidse family or clan, speak only of one 
 God, Onnuzd, sole object of the worship of the nation. It is 
 in the philosophical, not in the religious, part of the Zends, that 
 the evil principle is spoken, of, as a great fact appearing every- 
 where, and everywhere interfering with the harmony of the 
 divine plan. It is just thus that a Christian speaks. But Zoro- 
 aster, it seems, had gone farther still in Christian philosophy, 
 if we may employ such phraseology. God, according to him, 
 can be only the cause of what is good. He cannot be the cause 
 of 'evil. Consequently true evil, chiefly moral evil, ought to 
 be detested absolutely as coming from a cause distinct from, 
 and consequently opposed to, God. But how is the cause of 
 evil opposed to God ? Here, truly, we admire the noble dis- 
 coveries made by modern learned men ; and we would wish to 
 be able to ascertain them of our own knowledge, by diving, 
 as they do, into the great languages of primitive man. 
 
 They tell us that the cause of what is good is entity the 
 cause of evil, non-entity. Thus, at least, they make Zoroaster 
 speak. And what is this but the language of St. Augustine 
 and St. Thomas? All that exists in reality is being; entity 
 comes from God. All moral evil, sin, imperfection even, arises 
 from some deficiency, and in that respect is a non-entity. God 
 cannot be its cause. Zoroaster, therefore, only asserts that God 
 exists, although there are moral evils of which He is not the 
 cause. In this he controverts all future atheists, whose great 
 argument is precisely the reverse, namely : that God is not, 
 because evil is. The sage friend of Gustasp answers them : * 
 evil in existing beings, as far as it is evil, is non-entity. There- 
 fore God exists in spite of it. 
 
 We have, it is true, placed in strict order the thoughts spread 
 less regularly in the translation of the Zend-Avesta ; but from 
 the whole context, we think that this was at the bottom of the 
 mind of the author.
 
 196 GENTILISM. 
 
 III. 
 
 It is not surprising that such a pure doctrine should become, 
 in course of time, less understood, and, indeed, distorted by 
 commentaries. It is only what we should expect from human 
 infirmity. That Zoroaster, when speaking of the " enemy," 
 the " adversary " had in his mind the great cause of all evils, 
 the Devil himself, we firmly believe ; and if so, he was right. 
 But this was not the dogma of Ahriman as subsequently de- 
 veloped. In the original text of the Zends, Ahriman was not 
 " without the reach of Ormuzd" this is textually taken from 
 the Zend-Avesta. Ormuzd alone, therefore, was truly God. 
 His enemy succumbed to Mithra, inferior to Ormuzd, but his 
 minister and he Ahriman was driven from heaven. In 
 course of time, however, both became independent of and hos- 
 tile to each other, each ruling over a realm of his own. Then 
 Parsees began, really, to believe in two gods a belief which 
 was thus a corruption of the ancient doctrine. The exact time 
 when this took place cannot be ascertained. It was under the 
 Persian dynasty, yet not at its beginning ; at which time the 
 Magians were not dualists. Mauicheism came much later ; and 
 Manicheism did not belong to Zoroaster's doctrine in any manner. 
 It was rather a kind of gnostic heresy, since, according to Manes, 
 the good Principle, Primeval Light, had given birth to twelve 
 seons, corresponding to the twelve signs of the Zodiac, and the 
 twelve stages of the world ; and Darkness, the Bad, or Archon, 
 had peopled his kingdom with demons fighting each other ; 
 not knowing even the existence of Light until, in their con- 
 tests, coming to the outer edge of their region, they became 
 aware of it, and made captive one of the superior aeons, Christ. 
 Nearly all we know of Manicheism is from St. Augustine ; 
 and from his writings no parallelism can be established be- 
 tween it and Zoroaster's system. The most corrupt Ahrimanic
 
 CENTRAL ASIA AND AFEICA. 197 
 
 doctrine of the modern Parsees or Guebres is far superior to 
 what Manes ever taught. Modern critics, therefore, have re- 
 moved by their philological discoveries, all the doubts and un- 
 certainties which formerly obscured the real belief of the primi- 
 tive Magians. The doctrine was pure at first. In course of 
 time it was altered, and dualism replaced monotheism. Thus 
 several texts of Plutarch (De Iside et Osiride) are reconciled ; 
 and the conclusions drawn by Thomas Hyde, Peter Bayle, and 
 other critics of the seventeenth century, are proved to have 
 been mistakes ; whilst the truths elicited by Cudworth, and 
 Mosheim, his annotator, are confirmed; this time, however, 
 supported by irrefragable documents, which render the conclu- 
 sion final. -Mithra, likewise, comes thus into the system. 
 
 We need not enter into other peculiarities of Zoroastrianism. 
 Our whole object has been to ascertain if monotheism was con- 
 tained in it, and we think we have placed that beyond dispute. 
 A word or two, however, may be said on some other dogmas 
 of that primitive faith. That the certainty of a judgment 
 after life, of places of reward or punishment Heaven and 
 Hell formed a portion of its creed, cannot be a matter of 
 doubt. But even the doctrine of the resurrection of the body 
 is clearly contained in the most authentic part of tl\e Zend- 
 Avesta ; and the solid argument used by Christians to prove its 
 possibility the almightiness of the Creator is likewise referred 
 to in the work of Zoroaster. Finally, there is that august per- 
 sonage, apart from all superior beings under God, " who stands 
 between God and man ; shows the way to heaven, and pro- 
 nounces judgment upon human actions after death ; guards 
 with his drawn sword the whole world against the demons ; 
 has his own light from inside, and from outside is decorated 
 with stars," who is, apparently, more powerful than the great 
 archangel Michael in Scripture, and inferior only to our Lord 
 Jesus Christ. Nothing certainly more holy and more pure has 
 ever issued from an uninspired pen, nor been bequeathed to
 
 198 GENTILISM. 
 
 the teachings of reason and the transmission of tradition. We 
 allude to the great personality of Mithra, as he is described in 
 the Zends, not in his infamous travesty, in later tunes, in heathen 
 Rome. 
 
 It was against the believers in such exalted doctrines that 
 the brutal sword of Omar was drawn from the scabbard, never 
 to return to it until they were well-nigh extirpated. A few 
 thousand Guebres still surviving in Persia, and a few more 
 thousand Parsees settled in the neighborhood of Bombay in 
 India, are all that remain of the followers of Zoroaster. The 
 Moslems, with their boasted mission of destroying idolatry, 
 waged a more implacable warfare against the purest nionothe- 
 ists of the East, as well as against the Christians of the West, 
 than ever they did against the fetichists of Africa, or the wor- 
 shippers of Siva in Hindostan. 
 
 The fact is, the great danger in our days, in speaking of the 
 religious system of the Zends, is to appear to favor the opinion 
 of those modern writers who pretend that Judaism, or even 
 Christianity, found there the substance of the belief elaborated 
 in the Old and New Testaments. But Origen had already, six- 
 teen hundred years ago, guarded us against this error by assert- 
 ing (Contra Celsum, vi.) " that Christianity has received noth- 
 ing from them ;" and it is a fact easily ascertained by history. 
 
 In speaking of the doctrinal corruptions which time and the 
 weakness of the human mind introduced into Mazdeism, we do 
 not find the gradual and well - ascertained decline which we 
 described in Hindooism. Zarathustra had spoken so openly 
 against the multiplicity of gods, and his ritual was so clear and 
 precise in the same direction, that his followers could not go 
 totally astray as long as they read and revered his books. 
 Yet, we have just seen how real dualism was introduced. 
 And something has been said of the form it took when the 
 fatal error of Zarvanakanara crept in. We refer to a para- 
 graph a few pages back. " This monstrous conception "
 
 CENTRAL ASIA AKD AFRICA. 199 
 
 remark with justice F. Lenormant and E. Chevallier in their 
 History of the East " which converted Mazdeism into abso- 
 lute pantheism, substituted emanation for creation, and reduced 
 Ormuzd from the position assigned him by Zoroaster, as the 
 Great Creator of all, to that of a mere demiurgos the organ- 
 izer of a pre-existent universe ; which assimilates the self-exist- 
 ing Being, the Deity, with uncreated matter, with a chaos sup- 
 posed to be eternal ; which destroys all distinction in the moral 
 government of the world between good and evil, making them 
 both to have emanated from, and to be destined to be again 
 absorbed into, the same divine being .... this monstrous con- 
 ception is absolutely Contrary to the very spirit of the reform 
 of Zoroaster." 
 
 Yet it seems that it is, and has been, the belief of the Parsees 
 for many ages. Mr. Spiegel, Mr. Oppert, and the Baron d'Eck- 
 stein have shown that this " Zarvanian doctrine " resulted from 
 the infiltration of the gross and materialistic pantheism of Chal- 
 dsea into Mazdeism. This religion, therefore, in course of time, 
 took the first downward step in error Pantheism as described 
 in the Book of Wisdom ; but never reached the second, pure 
 idolatry. Even during the dynasty of the Aehcemenidce, when 
 bloody, nay, human sacrifices a thing so abhorrent to primi- 
 tive Mazdeism made a part of the Persian religion, not only 
 did not the worship of idols prevail, as in other countries 
 at the time, as in Hindostan certainly ; not only no great works 
 of art were ever raised to polytheism as in Hindostan, Egypt, 
 and Greece ; not only poetry did not rival art for its illustra- 
 tion, as in all those regions ; but invariably in their warlike 
 expeditions the Persians showed their hatred of idolatry by 
 destroying its emblems and its temples in Asia Minor, Egypt, 
 and Greece. 
 
 " Fire worship " was another deterioration of the primitive 
 doctrine, of which a word must be said. It became a real 
 " worship of fire " as an element. Nor is there in that any-
 
 200 GENTILISM. 
 
 thing to surprise us, inasmuch, as fire must always be an im- 
 portant object in any pantheistic creed. But was it so in 
 Mazdeism at first \ Some modern philologists think so, and 
 accuse- Zoroaster of not having had the courage to destroy this 
 superstition which he found in the country of G-ustasp. This 
 pusillanimity is scarcely intelligible in the Bactrian Sage, 
 whom we heard, at the very 'commencement of his reform, 
 declaring openly against the "fire worship" of the "ahura" 
 priesthood of his own country, as well as against the " devas " 
 of the " enemy." If he kept the symbol in his ritual, it must 
 have been only as an emblem. Hence F. Lenormant and E. 
 Chevallier state openly : " The only representation of Ormuzd 
 admitted within the sanctuaries by the Zend-Avesta, arid per- 
 mitted in worship, was fire, because this was considered as per- 
 fectly pure and almost immaterial. From this arose the adora- 
 tion of the sacred fire, though the Mazdeans did not adore the 
 fire itself, but considered it merely a representative of Or- 
 muzd." 
 
 In conclusion, it is almost needless to add that the morality 
 of the Zends is irreproachable. Its ethical code is the only 
 ancient one the Jewish Decalogue being always withdrawn 
 from comparison, which taught openly that purity of morals 
 ought not to reach only human actions, but to embrace likewise 
 words and thoughts. The phrase is repeated to satiety in the 
 Zends, so as to become a general formula, which necessarily 
 recalls to a Christian the order he has to follow in the examen 
 of his own conscience. 
 
 With pure morality, a great simplicity of life is everywhere 
 recommended in Mazdeism, as it was in primitive Hindooism. 
 Three orders of men in society are mentioned the priest, the 
 warrior, and the agriculturist never, however, degenerating 
 into castes. To encourage agriculture ought to be the chief 
 object of a good king ; and Vistagpa, Gustasp, is represented 
 as a pattern in that regard. Under his sway, each Mazdean
 
 CENTRAL ASIA AND AFEICA. 201 
 
 "built to himself an habitation on the earth, in which he 
 maintained fire, cattle, his wife, his children, and flocks and 
 herds." This is again the picture of patriarchal life we have 
 already admired in Hindostan. In Bactria, besides, the Maz- 
 dean had to protect himself against the nomads of the north ; 
 and he could not do it better than by adopting a sedentary 
 life, and devoting himself to agricultural pursuits. Another 
 convincing example is thus f umished of primeval " civil- 
 ization," so different from ours, yet so superior to it, if we 
 take an account of the spiritual and moral aspect of our 
 humanity. 
 
 The greatest enemies the Mazdeans had ever to fear, accord- 
 ing to the Zends, were the nomads in the north, and the wor- 
 shippers of the " devas " in the south. 2?o mention is ever 
 made of savages and barbarians ; so that the common theory 
 of our days does not seem to hold good for Central Asia in the 
 oldest times. There were, certainly, Turanian races all around 
 the faithful subjects of King Yistacpa ; but they were not 
 materially different from the Tartar nomads of our day. Of 
 the " primitive man," as described by Sir John Lubbock, E. B. 
 Tylor, etc., not a single representative appears to be present. 
 Had they all been already buried, and were their remains to 
 be found only in the tertiary strata of the epoch \ A geologist 
 alone could answer. But we must ask permission to believe 
 that " savagery " had not yet begun for Central Asia. The 
 Russians even scarcely found it in their expedition of last year 
 against Khiva, the very centre of the kingdom of ancient 
 Gustasp ; although, undoubtedly, the people they met with and 
 described have prodigiously degenerated from the contempo- 
 raries of Vistagpa and Zarathustra. Shall we ever find the 
 theory of progress proved in history, except as a consequence 
 of the doctrines of Christianity 2
 
 202 GENTILISM. 
 
 SECTION II. AFRICA. 
 
 In the preceding pages, we hope that we have established 
 tolerably conclusively the fact, that monotheism was the primitive 
 religion of the whole of Asia ; or, at least, spread itself over its 
 whole surface from the central part of the continent, where it 
 surely existed before any other known religion. The only parts of 
 it which have not come directly under consideration, are at the 
 west, Arabia, Syria, and Scythia ; but as Hamitism, or the Allo- 
 phylian races, invaded all those countries, little can be said 
 of them. We will waive all mention of them at present. As 
 to the Far-East : China, Thibet, Farther-India, Japan, and other 
 large islands, Buddhism overran them with error, by a process 
 we have already described, and into which Hindooism entered 
 largely. Of the religion of those countries previously to Buddh- 
 ism, nothing is known, except a very slight account with respect 
 to China, which we may in due time adduce as not unfavorable 
 to our views. In a future chapter more shall be said on these 
 various points. 
 
 The field, therefore, which now offers itself to our investiga- 
 tion is the large continent of Africa ; and as the direction of 
 immigration taken by its primitive population was from the 
 basin of the Red Sea, and through the far-reaching channel of 
 the Nile toward the interior of the country, Egypt must be 
 the first and chief object of our attention. The negroes of the 
 centre, the Kafirs of the south, the barbarian tribes of Guinea, 
 will reveal to us their real ancestors in Egypt and Ethiopia ; 
 and we shall be able to decide whether or not they ought to 
 be placed in juxtaposition with the gorillas and the apes of 
 the same country. 
 
 EGYPT AND ETHIOPIA. 
 I. 
 
 All ethnographers now admit that Egypt received its first 
 inhabitants from Asia, the cradle of mankind. But the ques-
 
 CENTRAL ASIA AND AFRICA. 203 
 
 tion is, To what race did they belong ? Sir George Rawlinson, 
 in his "Herodotus" (Tom. 2d, Appen. to Book 2d, Chap. 1), 
 says bluntly: "The inhabitants of the valley of the Nile 
 derived their origin from Asia. . . . Their skull shows them to 
 have been of the Caucasian stock, and distinct from the 
 African tribes westward of the Nile ; and they are evidently 
 related to the oldest races of Central Asia." 
 
 Yet, everywhere, the same author, to his great credit, bends 
 to the authority of the Bible, and rejects aify system which 
 openly contradicts it. The book of Genesis is plain in its 
 language : Egypt was the land of Mesraim, and Mesraim was 
 the son of Ham. Can the posterity of Ham be said to belong 
 to the Caucasian stock ? Indeed, universal opinion ascribes 
 the old Egyptians to the Hamite races ; and their language 
 was certainly Turanian in its general character. There are, 
 however, difficulties on the subject which it does not come 
 within our plan to smooth over. It is believed by many 
 that they were " an offset from the early undivided Asiatic 
 stock," and that their language was not altogether " Turanian," 
 but " partook also of the peculiarities of the Semitic and San- 
 scritic." Dr. Prichard, in his "Natural History of Man," 
 thinks they were of a mixed origin. 
 
 This indistinctness both in their ethnic and grammatical 
 characteristics, is only what we should have expected from the 
 circumstance of their being the most ancient civilized people 
 on earth. They must, like the Celts, have left Central Asia 
 before the Aryan and Semitic character was fully formed ; and 
 on this account there was in them something of the primitive 
 unity. The reflections of Sir George Rawlinson, and of 
 several other modern Egyptologists, lead to this strange con- 
 clusion, which certainly lends an additional interest to the 
 study of this ancient people. 
 
 There is another curious and suggestive peculiarity of the 
 Egyptians, namely, their civilization from the very first. The
 
 204 GESTTILISM. 
 
 Hindoos, certainly, and the Bactrians, enjoyed from the earliest 
 times a civilization of their own. Yet it was a very different one, 
 as we saw, from that which is understood by the word in our 
 modern ages. But " it is a phenomenon worthy of the most 
 serious attention," says Champollion-Figeac, (Egypte ancienne, 
 Paris, 1839), " to see Egypt already, at such remote period, in 
 possession of all civil, religious, and military institutions indis- 
 pensable to the prosperity of a great people, and of all the 
 gratifications that science and arts can add to the advantages of 
 civil and religious laws." And more emphatically still, 
 Mariette Bey says in his "ApperQu de 1'histoire d'Egypte," that 
 " at the very origin of time we see Egyptian civilization 
 already complete, and future ages, however, numerous and 
 long, can scarcely teach it anything more." 
 
 The authors who hold such a language do not pretend, 
 certainly, that something of the apparent progress we have 
 already pointed out in Hindostan, and which took place even 
 more obviously in Greece, did not take place in Egypt ; since 
 all are agreed that the eighteenth dynasty, and the reign of 
 Harnesses II. was the apogee of Egyptian art and refinement. 
 But they mean there was no visible childhood for this nation ; 
 which emerges in history with all the appliances of arts ; so 
 that E. Kenan himself is obliged to admit (Antiquites et fouilles 
 d'Egypte, Revue des deux JVIondes, 1865), that " this country 
 cannot be said to start from a mythic, heroic, and barbarous 
 beginning." 
 
 It is, therefore, for us an especially important subject for 
 investigation, on account of the flat contradiction it gives to 
 the theory which supposes man to have been at first a barba- 
 rian. Whilst, at the same time, it establishes conclusively that 
 man is not so ancient as modern theories pretend ; for Bunsen 
 himself assigns to the origin of the monarchy of the Pharaohs 
 in Egyptian, Pir aa the date of 4245 before Christ. And 
 although, generally, the first Manetho dynasty is believed to have
 
 CENTRAL ASIA AND AFRICA. 205 
 
 begun eight hundred years earlier toward 5004 Mr. Mariette 
 says, with a pleasing diffidence in his " Notice des Monuments, 
 etc., Alexandrie, 1864 :" " The Egyptian chronology offers 
 difficulties which have not yet been conquered .... For all 
 dates anterior to Psamineticus First (665 before Christ), it is 
 impossible to assign more than approximations, which becom2 
 uncertain the more we go up the stream of ages .... Doubt 
 increases as we recede back from the time of our era, so that 
 according to the various attempted systems, there may be a dif- 
 ference of two thousand years in the way of establishing the 
 foundation of the Egyptian monarchy." 
 
 Modern opposers of Christianity, therefore, have ceased to 
 object the millions of years, and the interminable dynasties of 
 the gods contained in the Egyptian mythology. They have 
 changed altogether their tactics ; and, setting aside the teach- 
 ings of history as lately developed, they fall back on the long- 
 forgotten cosmogonies of the Greeks. And, in order to explain 
 the creation of the world without the intervention of God, they 
 present to our astonished gaze the infinite duration of a process 
 which must begin by nothing (their celebrated protoplasm), to 
 end with all the wonders we now admire. 
 
 Egypt, therefore, was one of the first countries settled by 
 man ; and if we can know what divinity Egypt first worship- 
 ped, a great step will have been made in our progress toward 
 the truth we are investigating. But an immense difficult/ 
 meets us at the very outset. We are surrounded with myste- 
 ries, and we have no certain records to solve them. For Egypt 
 is, in truth, the land of mystery. Sphinxes of hard granite, 
 sculptured and polished with a wondrous art, arrayed in long 
 lines before the porticoes of the temples, seem yet in our days 
 to mock the traveller, and dare him to raise the veil of Ibis. 
 The country as it was formerly is really a puzzle : so grand 
 in her monuments, and so vulgar in her manners ; so civilized 
 and so wretched ; full of noble temples and of dark sepulchres ;
 
 206 GENTILISM. 
 
 with palaces for the great and wretched huts for the masses of 
 the people ; a paradise four months of the year, a desert of 
 mud or of dust for the remainder. Celsus could with justice 
 say to the Egyptian Origen, who, for once, did not contradict 
 him : " In the places of worship of the Egyptians, as you ap- 
 proach them, are to be seen splendid enclosures, and groves, 
 and large and beautiful gateways, and wonderful temples, and 
 magnificent tents around them, and ceremonies of worship, 
 full of superstition and mystery ; but when you have entered 
 and passed within, the object of adoration is seen to be a cat, 
 or an ape, or a crocodile, or a goat, or a dog !" 
 
 II. 
 
 It is chiefly religion that is in Egypt hard to understand. 
 After all the researches of previous centuries, and of our own 
 age, whose discoveries surpass those of all the others put to- 
 gether, there are still nearly as many opinions on the subject as 
 there are investigators. Can we pretend to solve the problem ? 
 If the mystery had not been already cleared up as far as re- 
 gards Hindostan, we might well despair. However, orientalists 
 and learned travellers have of late years brought to light a 
 certain amount of information as to the dark past of Egypt. 
 And this, taken in connection with the full and instructive In- 
 dian discoveries, may yet help us to do something towards 
 solving a problem which, at the first blush, seemed to be 
 closed against us. And this the more, as, of late, inscriptions 
 have been deciphered which will materially contribute towards 
 such a result. The books which, no doubt, previously existed 
 have been lost, probably for ever. "We have not the Yedas 
 and the Zends of Egypt ; and thus we appear to grope in the 
 dark. For the full knowledge of the hieroglyphs, if they
 
 CENTRAL ASIA AND AFRICA. 207 
 
 could all be read even, would not, probably, be sufficient to 
 offer a complete solution of our difficulty. 
 
 That tliere were books written in Egypt in the most primitive 
 times, cannot be denied. The proof of it exists in too many 
 passages of ancient authors. There were even, in that strange 
 country, simultaneously, several different alphabets and distinct 
 kinds of writing. St. Clement of Alexandria, who is an au- 
 thority, since they existed yet in his time, tells us, that " those 
 instructed among the Egyptians learned first of all that style of 
 the Egyptian letters which is called epistolographic (we call 
 it now demotic) ; and, secondly, the hieratic, which the sacred 
 scribes practise ; and finally and last of all, the hieroglyphic, of 
 which one kind is by the first elements literal (kyriologic), and 
 the other symbolic. Of the symbolic, one kind speaks literally 
 by imitation, and another writes as it were figuratively ; and an- 
 other is quite allegorical, using certain enigmas." (Stromata, 
 Lib. v., Cap. 4). It appears from this passage, that the Egyp- 
 tian language had forms enough to satisfy all tastes; and 
 we do not think that any other country, even India, enjoyed 
 such a superabundance of literary elements. Modern Egyptol- 
 ogists are familiar with ancient documents written in demotic 
 letters and style ; and owing to the recent discoveries of 
 Young, Champollion, Koselliiii, and others, the hieroglyphs, 
 either literal (kyriologic) we call them phonetic or symbolic, 
 of the two kinds mentioned by St. Clement, begin to be known 
 to us, and to unveil many events of the past hitherto concealed 
 or in doubt. But, unfortunately, the books written in the hie- 
 ratic style, which were chiefly those answering to the Vedas of 
 Hindostan, are now lost, or if a few pages of them .are now 
 occasionally found, as some pretend, these are but insignificant 
 fragments. 
 
 A word on each of those subjects will render the matter 
 clear. Nothing was written in Egypt in the epistolographic, 
 
 or as we say, demotic style, but civil and domestic documents, 
 15
 
 208 GE1STTILISM. 
 
 of which a great number now exist and can be deciphered. 
 Hence, we know how the Egyptians kept their accounts, 
 wrote to their friends, corresponded for the sake of trade, 
 barter, information, sold or bought their houses and fields, etc., 
 etc. But in vain should we look in those documents for any- 
 thing concerning their religion, unless in a fragmentary shape, 
 and by mere allusions, which give us the religious thoughts of 
 the people by implication. According to Sir George Rawlin- 
 son (Herodotus, Tom. ii., Appendix to Book ii., Chap. 5) : " The 
 demotic character replaced the hieratic," which consequently 
 fell into disuse. He asserts, likewise, that " it was used in his- 
 torical papyri," arid consequently did not serve only for domes- 
 tic purposes. It seems that many important discoveries have 
 been made lately in this kind of writing. Yet it is not known 
 when the demotic came into use, although " it was as early as 
 the reign of Psammeticus II., of the twenty-sixth dynasty." 
 But this is not an early epoch for us, and cannot give us the 
 primitive Egyptian religion. 
 
 People, in general, know well how, a few years ago, the key 
 of the hieroglyphs was at last found ; and this discovery pro- 
 duced the greatest sensation throughout the learned world. It 
 was thought that, at last, we should know the religion of the 
 Egyptians. For was it not on the public monuments, on the 
 obelisks, and colossal statues of the gods, that the sphinx 
 spoke ? It turned out, however, that all those mysterious char- 
 acters composed merely inscriptions in the "lapidary style," 
 as a Roman would say, stating that such a monument, obelisk, 
 statue, had been raised by such a king, who was of course de- 
 voted to the worship of Amun, Osiris, Ra, Phtah, etc., etc. 
 It was a complete disappointment. Yet people might have 
 expected it, had they reflected on passages in well-knowa 
 authors, from which it appears that the hieroglyphs were per- 
 fectly understood, and could be read easily long ago. For the 
 Ptolemies and the Caesars had erected monuments, with the same
 
 * CENTRAL ASIA AND AFEICA. 209 
 
 kind of inscriptions, all over Egypt. Such stale affairs could 
 not, consequently, make us acquainted with the primitive wor- 
 ship, and the mysterious knowledge of this strange people.* 
 
 How could any serious and deep information be satisfactorily 
 conveyed by writings in which it seems there cannot be gram- 
 mar nor orthography ; since, on the same monuments, some of 
 the characters are truly phonetic, others are strictly and liter- 
 ally figurative, and others finally enigmatical and allegori- 
 cal ? And that has actually been found out by Champollion 
 and others, which was stated by St. Clement of Alexandria, in 
 the passage quoted above, more than fifteen hundred years ago. 
 
 The phonetic or kyriologic signs, as St. Clement says, in a 
 subsequent part of the passage referred to, are invariably 
 composed of the first letters of well-known words. Thus, to 
 speak in our modern language, an I might be represented by a 
 lion, a lyre, a log, a locust, or by whatever you please, begin- 
 ning by the same first letter. The literally figurative signs, or 
 imitative, as St. Clement calls them, were plain and strict figures 
 representing any object whatsoever ; thus the sun could be rep- 
 resented by a circle, its exterior figure ; and the moon could be 
 denoted by a crescent, its supposed image, etc. But worst of 
 all, the enigmatical and allegorical signs might be anything 
 which in the fancy of an Egyptian artist could be called an 
 enigma or an allegory of the object intended to be represented. 
 
 * The men of the times anterior to our own, well acquainted with class- 
 ical authors, had likewise the translation of two long inscriptions, taken 
 from well-known obelisks, which might have taught them not to expect 
 too much from those sources of information. There was first the one 
 mentioned by Ammianus Marcellinus, in his Book xvii., 4, translated into 
 Greek by Hermapion, from the obelisk of Heliopolis. placed by Caesar 
 Augustus in the Circus Maximus, which runs thus : " Thus says Helios 
 to King Ramesses : I have given to thee, with joy, to rule over the world ; 
 whom Helios loves, and Apollo the powerful ; . . . . the son of the gods, 
 the ruler of the world .... King Ramesses, to whom all the earth is 
 subject, by valor and boldness .... 
 
 " Apollo the powerful, the true lord of the diadein ; Ramesses, of whom
 
 210 GENTILISM. 
 
 And all those various signs of thought were indiscriminately 
 used in the hieroglyphic inscriptions. 
 
 Tliis-brief description contains the substance of the chief dis- 
 coveries explained in the ponderous volumes of modern Egyp- 
 tologists until the death of Champollion. The hieroglyphs 
 were merely objects of art to adorn the monuments of the 
 nation ; and the ideas they conveyed were known by the 
 beholders almost conventionally. The learned men among 
 them tacitly agreed that such an idea would be represented 
 by such a sign, and that is nearly ah 1 . It is evident that the 
 knowledge of the primitive religion of Egypt cannot be de- 
 duced from such public documents. It ought, moreover, to be 
 remarked, that the invention of hieroglyphs was probably later 
 than the introduction of idolatry, as we shall have occasion to 
 show ; and, thus, these inscriptions could only refer to the idola- 
 trous religion of the people, not to their primitive worship, 
 whatever that might have been. 
 
 Lately, it is true, a more exact study seems to have brought 
 the system of Egyptian hieroglyphs to something of the nature 
 of a rude alphabet ; by finding out what are thought to be deter- 
 minative letters of a phonetic kind, either preceding or some- 
 times following the symbolic or enigmatical hieroglyph, impart- 
 ing to forty-two characters they say this is the last and most im- 
 proved style all the required meanings by the help of those 
 determinatives, which might be thus called affixes or suffixes; 
 
 Egypt boasts; who has glorified the city of Helios; who rules over the 
 earth ; who honors the gods dwelling in the city of Helios ; whom Helios 
 loves." 
 
 Four more paragraphs follow of the same kind. 
 
 The second example is found in tlie second book of the Annals of Taci- 
 tus, who, speaking of the expedition of Germanicus to Egypt, says : 
 
 " He visited the mighty antiquities of Thebes, where upon huge obe- 
 lisks yet remained Egyptian characters, describing its former opulence. 
 One of the senior priests was ordered to interpret them : He said they 
 related, ' that Thebes once contained seven hundred thousand fighting 
 men ; that with this army King Harnesses had conquered Lybia, Ethiopia,
 
 CENTRAL ASIA AND AFRICA. 211 
 
 And it is said, that documents of this nature, chiefly on papy- 
 rus for occasionally hieroglyphs are found on papyrus contain 
 not only inscriptions, but ideas of any kind, even ritual prayers 
 and hymns. But this seems to us very conjectural ; principally, 
 for the reason that this kind of informal alphabet is said to 
 have been constantly improving from the 4th dynasty to the 
 26th ; and thus could never have had a permanent character ; so 
 that nothing certain and positive can be gathered from it. We 
 should, indeed, wonder that the old Egyptians, so traditional, so 
 conservative, so much attached to their customs, should have 
 been constantly revolutionizing their alphabet, and never satis- 
 fied with the wisdom of their ancestors in so important a 
 branch of their science and art. Moreover, the theory we are dis- 
 cussing would suppose that the Egyptian dynasties have been 
 well ascertained ; whereas, it is known that the best Egyptolo- 
 gists differ on that essential point, and there is very little pros- 
 pect of their ever agreeing on the subject. 
 
 This discussion, however, is not essential for the object we 
 have in view. For it is evident that, however improved and 
 grammatical the Egyptian hieroglyphs may finally be found to 
 have been, they could, at best, be of very little help for the 
 question under consideration. Can we find in them the true 
 primitive system of the Egyptian worship ? Undoubtedly not. 
 
 The books which might, indeed, have helped us to solve the 
 problem, were certainly those written in the hieratic style, as 
 
 the Medes and Persians, the Bactrians and Scythians, and to his empire 
 had added the territories of the Syrians, Armenians, and their neighbors, 
 the Cappadocians .... Here, al-o, was read the assessment of tribute laid 
 on several nations ; what weight of silver and gold ; what number of horses 
 and arms .... were by each people paid ; revenues equalling those ex- 
 acted by the domination of the Parthians, or by the power of the Ro- 
 mans.' " 
 
 This last translation was evidently a free one. such as a Romr.n con- 
 queror might understand. But in substance it was true, and shows that 
 hieroglyphs were merely used for pompous state inscriptions. The same 
 has Champollion found out by his discovery.
 
 212 GENTILISM. 
 
 St. Clement calls it, which, he says, " the sacred scribes practise." 
 And the description he gives of some of them, in another chap- 
 ter of his " Stromata," shows that they were the very ones so 
 celebrated under the name of Hermetic books, as he attributes 
 them himself to Hermes. The whole passage is so important 
 to our purpose that we must give it entire. And the object 
 of the illustrious author, in this particular instance, being to 
 show that the Greeks had derived " many of their philosophical 
 and religious tenets from Egyptian and Hindoo sources," as he 
 had proved, in a previous very long chapter, that they had 
 likewise " plagiarized from the Hebrews," lends to it a special 
 interest and value in our present investigations. 
 
 (Strom., Book vi., Chap, iv.) We quote from the recent 
 Edinburgh edition of the Aute-Nicene Fathers : " The best 
 of the (Greek) philosophers, having appropriated their most 
 excellent dogmas from us namely, from the Holy Scrip- 
 tures boast, as it were, of certain of the tenets which pertain 
 to each (philosophical) sect (among them) being culled from 
 other barbarians, chiefly from the Egyptians both other 
 tenets, and that especially of the transmigration of the soul. 
 For the Egyptians pursue a philosophy of their own. This is 
 principally shown by their sacred ceremonial. For first ad- 
 vances the Singer, bearing some one of the symbols of music. 
 For they say that. he must learn two of the books of Hermes, 
 the one of which contains the hymns of the gods, the second 
 the regulations for the king's life. After the Singer, advances 
 the Astrologer, with a horologe in his hand, and a palm, the 
 symbol of astrology. He must have the astrological books of 
 Hermes, which are four in number, always in his mouth. Of 
 these, one is about the order of the fixed stars that are visible, 
 and another about the conjunctions and luminous appearances 
 of the sun and moon ; and the rest respecting their risings. 
 Xext in order advances the Sacred Scribe, with wings on his 
 head, and in his hand a book and rule, in which were writing-
 
 CENTRAL ASIA AND AFKICA. 213 
 
 ink and the reed with which they write. And he must be 
 acquainted with what are called hieroglyphs, and know about 
 cosmography and geography, the position of the sun and moon, 
 and about the five planets ; also the description of Egypt, and 
 the chart of the Nile ; and the description of the equipment 
 of the priests and of the places consecrated to them, and about 
 the measures and the things in use in the sacred rites. Then 
 the Stole-keeper follows those previously mentioned, with the 
 cubit of justice and the cup for libations. He is acquainted 
 with all points called Psedeutic (relating to training) and 
 Moschophatic (sacrificial). There are also ten books which 
 relate to the honor paid by them to their gods, and containing 
 the Egyptian worship as that relating to sacrifices, first-fruits, 
 hymns, prayers, processions, festivals, and the like. And be- 
 hind all walks the Prophet, with the water-vase carried openly 
 in his arms ; who io followed by those who carry the issue of 
 loaves. He, as being the governor of the temple, learns the 
 ten books called ' Hieratic ; ' and they contain all about the 
 laws, and the gods, and the whole of the training of the priests. 
 For the Prophet is, among the Egyptians, also over the distri- 
 bution of the revenues. There are, then, forty-two books of 
 Hermes indispensably necessary ; of which the six-and-thirty. 
 containing the whole philosophy of the Egyptians, are learned 
 by the forementioned personages ; and the other six, which are 
 medical, by the Pastophori (image-bearers), treating of the 
 structure of the body, and of diseases, and instruments, and 
 medicines, and about the eyes, and the last about women. 
 Such are the customs of the Egyptians, to speak briefly." 
 
 From the very w r ay of expressing himself, it is evident St. 
 Clement meant to say that all this existed in his time, and he 
 had probably witnessed the ceremony. 
 
 From this very clear and interesting description, we may 
 safely conclude that we have here evidently mention made of 
 what we have already called the Yedas of Egypt. In these
 
 214 GENTILISM. 
 
 forty-two Hermetic books we find the whole science of the 
 Egyptians, that science in which " Moses had been taught." 
 In Hindostan, it is true, the Brahmins were to study constantly 
 the Vedas, to know them by heart, and transmit orally their 
 interpretation ; and the Vedas, as we have seen previously, con- 
 tained all the science of the Hindoos, in a series of details 
 exactly corresponding with those of the Hermetic books as de- 
 scribed by St. Clement. But the recommendation addressed 
 to the Brahmins in India was a general one. Each man was 
 commanded to study and know by heart the whole large col- 
 lection of the Hindoo scriptures. Here, on the contrary, 
 priests invested with particular functions, had to commit to 
 memory, and study thoroughly, some particular part of the 
 Hermetic books. We may suppose, it is true, that each one 
 of the priests was to be likewise acquainted with the whole 
 collection, and have a general knowledge of them ; but each 
 particular minister of religion was to give his especial attention 
 to a single branch of the whole ; and we see nowhere in Hin- 
 dostan such a distribution of mental labor recommended to 
 specific classes of Brahmins. But keeping in view this distinc- 
 tion, how well all else agrees amongst both people no one can 
 deny. 
 
 We shall have occasion to remark many other points of 
 resemblance between the two races. This first one is suffi- 
 ciently striking. 
 
 But how did it happen that we have yet the. "Vedas and we 
 cannot hope ever to find an authentic copy of the books of 
 Hermes ? In India, the primitive religion, following the back- 
 ward progress of which we spoke, was always, nevertheless, 
 supposed to exist ; and the most corrupt generations of our 
 days practising in the dark the abominable doctrines of the 
 tantras, profess still as great a veneration for the Yedas as their 
 ancestors of three thousand years ago. Mohammedanism never 
 had any chance of converting Hindostan to its doctrines, and
 
 CENTRAL ASIA AND AFRICA. 215 
 
 made 'a very slight impression on the country. Christianity 
 itself has sc-arcely moved it yet. The missionaries of the true 
 Church, led by the great Francis Xavier, were, indeed, begin- 
 ning to turn the heart of the people towards the true " Brah- 
 ma," when the Dutch first, and afterwards the English, thought 
 they would serve God best by undoing what the successors of 
 Xavier were zealously endeavoring to effect, and prevented the 
 happy impulse given to truth in the sixteenth century, from 
 becoming a universal movement toward the unification of the 
 human race. The consequence was, the Hindoos are yet idola- 
 ters ; but they, nevertheless, keep jealously their Yedas. 
 
 In Egypt the case was altogether different. Mark was sent 
 by Peter to Alexandria. A number of holy doctors, beginning 
 by Pautcenus, founded the Alexandrian Christian school, and in 
 spite of the persecutions of pagan emperors, Egypt in the 
 fourth, or at least fifth, century, was altogether Christian. The 
 idolatrous ceremonies, frequent yet in the time of Origen, as 
 he often testifies, and still in full sway in the time of St. 
 Clement of Alexandria, gradually fell into disuse, and at length 
 disappeared altogether. The Hermetic books had no more any 
 object. The Christian teachers must have discountenanced the 
 indiscriminate reading of them. And, when the Saracens came 
 with their hatred of everything not contained in the Koran, 
 they, too, disappeared, no one can say precisely how or when. 
 The story of the water in the public baths of Alexandria being 
 heated during six months by the burning volumes of the pub- 
 lic library, if not altogether untrue, can easily explain how the 
 old works of Hermes ceased to exist, as the same destructive 
 measure must have been carried out all over the country. But 
 previously to this, the Christians, by publishing false Hermetic 
 books, which circulated more freely in a Christian country than 
 the authentic ones, written in a character soon forgotten ; and 
 before them the ^Teoplatonic philosophers of Alexandria, by a 
 series of analogous forgeries, contributed, likewise, considerably
 
 216 GENTILISM. 
 
 towards their disappearance. To understand this more fully, a 
 few remarks on the compilation itself will not be inappropriate. 
 
 In the common opinion of all, they had been written origi- 
 nally by Thoth himself ; that is, they were divine ; as, indeed, 
 were the Vedas in the belief of the Hindoos. Thoth was the 
 Egyptian Logos ; for the name means " speech " or " word." 
 The real authors of the Hermetic books, therefore, were un- 
 known ; and thus the compilation was supposed to contain a 
 real "revelation" from heaven, from the Divine Word itself. 
 
 "We have seen that, according to St. Clement of Alexandria, 
 they were forty-two in number in his time. lamblichus pre- 
 tended there were of them as many as twenty thousand ; and 
 Manetho, not satisfied with this, made them equal in number 
 to the astronomical cycle of thirty-six thousand five hundred 
 and twenty-five. But these pretensions were evidently fabu- 
 lous. The opinion of the Alexandrian Father of the Church 
 is the only reasonable one ; especially as he goes into details 
 and mentions how many of them related to geometry, geogra- 
 phy, and astronomy, to cosmogony and theological science, to 
 law and justice, to the religious ritual, prayers, sacrifices, pro- 
 cessions, etc. ; finally to medicine, anatomy, physiology, and 
 sexual considerations. 
 
 Many ancient classical authors distinguished two different 
 Thoths or Hermes ; the first, real and divine, the Thoth of 
 whom we have just spoken ; and another much later, bearing 
 the name of Trismegistus, given him chiefly by the Neopla- 
 tonic philosophers and the mediaeval alchymists. According 
 to many ancient writers the books given to Egypt by the first 
 Thoth were no more in existence. But those of the second 
 personage were of almost, if not quite, equal authority; and 
 these were, in fact, the only ones known to the Egypt of the 
 Pharaohs. This distinction is no more taken into account by 
 modern writers on the subject ; although it does not appear to 
 us to be deserving altogether of neglect. On the strength of
 
 CENTRAL ASIA AND AFEICA. 217 
 
 it we must be permitted to conjecture that idolatry penetrated 
 into Egypt very soon after the first settlement of the country 
 by Menes ; and that thus the pure monotheism contained in 
 the doctrine of the first Thoth was so anciently corrupted 
 by the innovations of Trismegistus, that the memory of the 
 first was only preserved in a vague tradition. This certainly 
 did not happen to the Hindoo Yedas, whose primitive pure 
 text remained yet clear in many upanishads, even after the 
 progress of time had spread new and false interpretations of 
 the primeval dogmas. 
 
 Be this as it may, we are compelled to limit our investiga- 
 tions to the Hermetic books, such as they existed during many 
 ages in the country ; and to ask ourselves if we can find here 
 and there in antiquity a few fragments from which we may 
 infer something of the original belief of the people contained 
 in them. 
 
 Had we the forty-two volumes known to exist by St. Cle- 
 ment, we might find in them numerous allusions of a most pre- 
 cious character, able to guide us in our investigations. But, as 
 we hinted above, when the Christian religion came to be that 
 of all Egyptians, in the fourth or fifth century of our era, two 
 kinds of spurious Hermetic volumes were spread all over the 
 country, and helped to the complete disappearance of the gen- 
 uine work. First in point of time certainly, some of the ~Neo- 
 platonists, chiefly lamblichus, Porphyry, and, later on, Proclus, 
 thought they had found in the old Egyptian literature arms 
 against Christianity, which they opposed all their life. Hence 
 they tried to uphold polytheism by explaining away its absurdi- 
 ties, through a series of philosophical speculations ; in about 
 the same way as our modern " mythologists " try their best to 
 render not only tolerable to reason, but even worthy of admira- 
 tion and respect, the idolatrous rites of ancient nations. One 
 of them, Thomas Taylor, an English pagan enthusiast, the 
 translator of Apuleius' " God of Socrates," commenting on
 
 218 GE^TILISM. 
 
 the work of Proclus on the " Timseus of Plato," at the end of 
 a long praise of Egyptian and Greek mythology, dares to say : 
 " If we unite this with the preceding theory, there is nothing in 
 the ancient theology (meaning polytheism) that will not appear 
 admirably sublime and beautifully connected, accurate in all its 
 parts, scientific and divine." This admiration of Egyptian poly- 
 theism the Neoplatonists of Alexandria endeavored to render 
 prevalent, chiefly by using the Ilermetic books for their pur- 
 pose, adapting them to their philosophical ideas, and draw- 
 ing from them a doctrine apparently acceptable to modern 
 reason. But in that operation the original text must have 
 been subjected to a great many exegetic changes. And as 
 that text was rendered in those characters and that style which 
 we have called "hieratic," and which gradually became un- 
 known as the pagan worship was superseded by Christianity, a 
 new form of the Ilermetic books was gradually introduced which 
 served to obliterate the memory of the former ones ; especially 
 as the new were written in Greek, a language well known to all, 
 while the old hieratic Egyptian style fell into complete disuse. 
 The Christians, on their side, seeing what was done to spread 
 error by means of the ancient literature of the country, began 
 to study it anew, and found, in the primitive volumes of Her- 
 mes, many passages which appeared to them corroborative of 
 Christian dogmas. Thus Egypt soon received a new edition of 
 them, and the original books were destined to be buried in a 
 deeper oblivion than ever. The subsequent violent destruction 
 caused by the Mohammedan fanaticism completed the wreck. 
 And if we inquire, finally, why, in Hindostan, the Yedas were 
 preserved in spite of so many revolutions and invasions, and 
 why Mohammedanism, in particular, did not destroy them, 
 whilst it gave the last stroke to the existence of the Ilermetic 
 books in Egypt, an obvious answer is at hand. The Hindoo 
 priesthood never perished ; and it subsists to this day, intent 
 as much as ever on the keeping, preserving, and studying its
 
 CENTKAL ASIA AND AFEICA. 219 
 
 sacred books. The Egyptian priesthood, to which was intrusted 
 the same particular care of the books of Hermes, ceased to 
 exist altogether when Christianity succeeded at length in con- 
 verting the whole country, and in abolishing altogether the 
 worship of Osiris and. Isis. 
 
 III. 
 
 But let us ask ourselves the question, Why is it that the 
 platonists, and after them the Christians, attached so much 
 importance to effecting alterations of the text of the Egyptian 
 Sacred Scripture ? Did the new books retain something, at least, 
 of their primitive contents ? The Neoplatonist philosophy has 
 attracted the notice of many philosophers in our age, but of 
 none more than of Victor Cousin, the celebrated French Ec- 
 lectic, who popularized the ideas, on the subject, of Fichte and 
 others in Germany. Later on, Simon, Barthelemy St. Hilaire, 
 Lewes, and Tennemann, completed the work ; and we may say 
 that the tendencies and the doctrines of the school are now thor- 
 oughly appreciated. It is admitted by all that its main object 
 was to give to polytheism a scientific basis ; that the chief 
 means used for that purpose was the mixture of Oriental mys- 
 ticism with Plato's ideas ; that theurgy, or magic, had a 
 great function to fulfil in the system, by attracting the morbid 
 curiosity so prevalent at the time ; and, finally, that the writ- 
 ings of Hermes were the chief source of the new inspiration. 
 Proclus believed them divine. Long before him lamblichus, 
 Porphyry, and the other chief adepts of the sect, quoted them 
 in support of their opinions. And, to favor their design, 
 a Greek edition of fifteen volumes of Hermes was published at 
 Athens, according to St. Cyril of Alexandria, under the title : 
 
 EpfMUKO, TTEVTKKdldeKa |3i/3/Ua. 
 
 Mosheim, in his notes on Cudworth's " Systema Intellectuale," 
 pretends that all the spurious books of Hermes were the work
 
 220 GENTILISM. 
 
 of deluded Christians, and that if the Neoplatonists began, 
 after a while, to give a false interpretation of them, it was only 
 in pure retaliation. But the contrary is proved ; and the help 
 given to Neoplatonism by these forgeries is a well-established 
 fact. As to the time of their first appearance, nothing is 
 known for certain. Of the Fathers of the Church, Origen 
 and St. Clement of Alexandria, seem to have been ignorant' of 
 them, and to have been acquainted only with the genuine 
 Hermetic books. Lactantius, however, was acquainted with 
 them, and had perused them at the very beginning of the 
 fourth century ; and all the subsequent Greek and Latin 
 Fathers mention them. Of the Neoplatonists, Ammonius 
 Saccas, the founder of the sect, and Plotinus, who succeeded 
 him, appear to have been unacquainted with those Greek for- 
 geries. But lamblichus and his successors, Proclus chiefly, 
 made constant use of them. It seems clear that the end of the 
 third century is the real epoch of their appearance, and that 
 Christianity had not yet triumphed when they were first pub- 
 lished. Hence the prophecy contained in one of the spurious 
 volumes (the "Asclepius "), of the total conversion of Egypt, of 
 the possession taken of the pagan temples by the bones of 
 Christian martyrs, etc. a prophecy which St. Augustine (De 
 Civ. Dei, Lib. viii., Cap. xxiii.) considered as a proof of the 
 terror of devils at the near triumph of truth, nd which 
 Casaubon and Mosheim found too clear to be true, and attrib- 
 uted, consequently, to Christians after it had been itself accom- 
 plished, becomes a positive historical fact, established now 
 by modem criticism. 
 
 But, such being the case, it seems that we cannot, with per- 
 fect certainty, know from them what was the genuine doctrine 
 of the primitive books of Thoth. Yet very important conse- 
 quences follow from this statement of facts ; and the general 
 tendency of the original Egyptian belief may be gathered from 
 it to a great extent, at least.
 
 CENTRAL ASIA AND AFRICA. 221 
 
 First, the forgery must have been a clever one, and have 
 retained a great deal of the primitive volumes not to have been 
 exposed at once. When the Greek edition was published at 
 Athens, the pagan worship, as described by St. Clement, was 
 yet prevalent in Egypt, and the genuine work of Thoth, in 
 hieratic style, still existed in all pagan temples. Many Greek 
 scholars of Alexandria knew yet the Egyptian language, and 
 must have been acquainted with the genuine writings of Her- 
 mes. Indeed lamblichus, in a fragment which we yet possess, 
 asserts this to have been the case. And, what is yet more to 
 the purpose, he mentions that the very question of the genuine- 
 ness of the Greek edition was raised in his time. Porphyry, 
 in a letter to Anebon, an Egyptian priest, had stated that 
 Cheereinon objected to this interpretation, and he wished to 
 know, from a man well versed in both languages, what was the 
 truth in the matter. The reply of Anebon has not come down 
 to us ; but lamblichus gives the substance of it by stating, 
 that " the Greek books which go under the name of Hermes, 
 contain really the Hermaic doctrine, although they use the 
 phraseology of Greek philosophers ; for they were translated 
 from the Egyptian language by men well versed in philosophy." 
 We may conclude that much of the writings of Thoth was 
 contained in the Hellenic version. 
 
 But, secondly, the question comes, How can we distinguish 
 the genuine from the spurious ? No doubt, much obscurity 
 must always surround the subject. Yet, we may possibly make 
 a step further in advance, by asking, what was the object of 
 the authors of this deception ? It was evidently to help the 
 cause of Neoplatonism this is admitted, now, by all to give 
 to polytheism a scientific basis, by using both Plato's writ- 
 ings and those of Hermes, better known than the Brahminical 
 books, namely : by uniting positive Hellenic philosophy with 
 Oriental mysticism. The main object was to rescue polytheism 
 from the load of opprobrium cast upon it both by Greek seep-
 
 222 GENTILISM. 
 
 tics of Lucian's type, and Christian apologists, as Arnobius, 
 Minutius Felix, and others. An unextinguishable laughter had 
 spread all over the world at the expense of that poor paganism. 
 Lucian of Samosata had started it by his pungent sarcasm. 
 His books were in the hands of all. And, to make matters 
 worse, those hateful and contemptible Christians had found a 
 never-dying well of pure wit in the remarkable adventures of 
 gods and goddesses. Hence, the whole world was turning its 
 back on that ridiculous mythology, and looking for a more ra- 
 tional religion even in the teachings of ths Galilean fishermen. 
 How could the movement be arrested ' more successfully than 
 by combining what was highest in paganism the sublimity 
 of Plato's clear doctrine, with the strange, startling, grand the- 
 ism of ancient seers, like Thoth, whose very origin went far- 
 ther back than the memory of man, and the revelation of his- 
 tory could go ? Plato, after all, with his monotheism, sacrificed 
 to inferior gods; and Hermes, by his mystic language, had 
 given rise to the grand pantheism of Orpheus, whence the sub- 
 sequent polytheism had sprung. lamblichus and Porphyry 
 could now successfully resist the attacks of Christians, support- 
 ed, as those writers were, by the highest and noblest efforts of 
 human genius, the utterances of Thoth and of Plato. The whole 
 history of Neoplatonism, at least from the time of lamblichus 
 down, seems to us to be comprised in this short description. 
 And let our reader mark it well : the philosophy which the 
 ISTeoplatonists endeavored to propagate, was to start from a 
 supreme, self-existent, all-powerful God the Absolute. So well 
 had Christianity succeeded, in three hundred years, in estab- 
 lishing the essential truth of monotheism, that no theory, no 
 speculation, no philosophy could hope to acquire adherents, 
 and procure a following which did not propose to the venera- 
 tion of mankind a great Father and Lord of all. 
 
 This was the first condition of success. And all the leaders 
 of the system, from Ammonius Saccas and Plotinus, down to
 
 CENTRAL ASIA AND AFEICA. 223 
 
 Proclus and his disciples, have been careful to place at the head 
 of all a Supreme, Infinite Being, whom we all call God. And 
 this they found in the books of Thoth as well as in those of 
 Plato. The dialogue, " Asclepius," already quoted, contains a 
 very remarkable passage, which, since the modern discoveries 
 in Hindooism, must be admitted to have really belonged to the 
 old work of Thoth, since it reproduces so exactly the primitive 
 Hindoo doctrine on monotheism, providence, and renovation 
 of worlds by cataclysm and fire. We quote the Latin transla- 
 tion as given by Cudworth. (Syst. Intell., vol. i., p. 492) : 
 "Tune itte Dominus et pater Deus, primipotens et unus guber- 
 nator mundi, intuens in mores facta que hominum, voluntate 
 sua (qiice est Dei benignitas), vitiis resistens, et corruptelcB 
 crrorem revocans, malignitatern omnem vel alluvione diluens, 
 vel igne Gonsumens, ad antiquam faoiem mundum revocdbit" 
 And a few pages further Cudworth quotes the following lines : 
 " Summus qui dicitur Deus, rector gubernatorque sensibilis 
 mundi, qui in se complectitur omnem locum omnemque re- 
 rum substantidm." Mosheim, it is true, remarks in his notes, 
 that the same Hermetic dialogue is full of the most super- 
 stitious ideas on the worship of idols. From this we may 
 conclude that the primitive doctrine did not remain pure in 
 the writings of Hermes Trismegistus. But the texts just 
 quoted cannot be explained except on the supposition of a 
 belief in one God ; whilst the admixture of superstition with 
 truth is only what we have already found in the Hindoo Vedas. 
 This exactly served the purpose of the Neoplatonists ; and they 
 accepted both sides of the doctrine. They adopted the high and 
 the true in order to help themselves in advocating and teach- 
 ing the low and the false. 
 
 IY. 
 
 "We ought not to be surprised that the sacred books of the 
 Egyptians contained originally a sublime faith, since many 
 16
 
 224 GENTILISM. 
 
 ancient authors concur in attributing it to them. The philoso- 
 phers and poets of antiquity have often spoken with admira- 
 tion of their esoteric doctrine. And travellers, even such as 
 Herodotus, when relating the absurd and occasionally revolting 
 sights which presented themselves to them exteriorly in the 
 country, often refer to secret explanations, which set them 
 forth as connected with a high and pure doctrine. Origen 
 himself alludes to it (Contra. Cels., Lib. 1, Cap. xii.), when he 
 says: " With regard to the statement of Celsus, that he is ac- 
 quainted with all our doctrines, .... he appears to me to speak 
 very much as a person would do, who visited Egypt (where the 
 Egyptians, learned in their country's literature, are greatly 
 given to philosophizing about those things which are regarded 
 among them 'as divine, but where the vulgar, hearing certain 
 myths the reasons of which they do not understand, are greatly 
 elated because of their fancied knowledge), and who should 
 imagine that hs knows the whole circle of Egyptian science, 
 after having been a disciple of the ignorant alone, and without 
 having associated with any of the priests, or "having learned 
 their mysteries from any other source." 
 
 We have no doubt that many of those pretended deep 
 secrets were, after all, very flimsy affairs, and could not satisfy 
 a serious and inquisitive mind. Yet it cannot be denied that 
 some of the greatest Sages of Greece, who travelled through 
 the country and heard the comments of the priests on the' 
 exterior symbols of religion, professed themselves admirers of a 
 wisdom which they thought could not then be found anywhere 
 else on earth. 
 
 The dogma of a positive creation of the universe, for instance, . 
 seems to have been one of those esoteric traditions kept in the 
 land of mystery. Simplicius, at least, who lived, it is -true, 
 only in the sixth century, but who is considered by Bruckner 
 and Fabricius as one of the greatest pagan philosophers, whose 
 commentaries on Epictetus and Aristotle were translated into
 
 CENTRAL ASIA AND AFRICA. 225 
 
 Latin first, and afterwards into English and French in the 
 seventeenth century, as the best in existence, did not scruple to 
 say that " if the legislator of the Jews affirmed that God in 
 the beginning created heaven and earth, . . . and separated 
 light from ' darkness,' etc, let an intelligent man know that 
 this is merely a fabulous tradition born altogether of Egyptian 
 myths." (In Arist., Lib. viii.) For Simplicius, so late as the 
 reign of Justinian, believed in the eternity of the world. 
 
 The immortality of the soul, coupled, as in India, with the 
 doctrine of transmigration, was publicly affirmed by their care 
 in embalming bodies to which the soul was to return in three 
 thousand years. Thus they admitted a real resurrection of the 
 body. 
 
 Of the existence of one Supreme God we have already 
 spoken ; but the teaching that " man ought to love and fear 
 Him " is curiously illustrated by St. Clement of Alexandria, 
 (Strom., Book v., Chap, v.) : "The Egyptians place sphinxes 
 before their temples, to signify that the doctrine respecting 
 God is enigmatical and obscure ; perhaps, also, to teach men 
 that we ought both to love and fear the Divine Being ; to love 
 Him as gentle and benign to the pious ; to fear Him as inexor- 
 ably just to the impious ; for the sphinx shows the image of a 
 wild beast and of a human being together." 
 
 It is very remarkable, that, not only the ancient Greek 
 philosophers who visited Egypt, not only the Neoplatonists, 
 lamblichus, Porphyry, Proclus, etc., but even the Greek 
 Fathers of the Church, chiefly those who could form a correct 
 judgment of it, Origen, St. Clement, and St. Cyril of Alexan- 
 dria, speak nearly always with respect of the mysterious 
 doctrine of the Egyptians, and certainly attribute to them a 
 real belief in monotheism. There are, assuredly, positive asser- 
 tions in St. Justin Martyr (Cohortat ad Graecos), in St. Cyprian 
 (De idol, vanitate), in St. Augustine (De baptismo, Lib. vi. 87), 
 in St. Cyril of Alexandria (Lib. 1, Contra Julianum), to the effect
 
 226 GENTTLISJT. 
 
 that the books of Hermes acknowledged a supreme, ineffable, 
 and eternal God. St. Justin Martyr states positively that His 
 name was Aminon. 
 
 Hence, after the Neoplatonists had produced, in support of 
 their doctrine, the translation of the Hermetic books of which 
 we spoke, the Christians likewise published their own, and 
 among others the book called "Poemander '' and the "Sermo in 
 monte de regeneratione" Marsilio Ficino, who tried to revive 
 Platonism under the Medici in Florence, gave an edition of 
 them, which, we think, it would be hard now to procure. But 
 it suffices for our purpose to know what was the object of the 
 original compilers. They wished to deprive their adversary 
 the pagans of a weapon which they had found useful. We 
 do not pretend to decide on the morality of their action. Was 
 it confined to reproducing only the text of some of the old 
 Hermetic writings? which would have been fair; or did it 
 include real literary forgery ? No one can say. It is known 
 to the literary world how frequent was the use of such forged 
 tools, about the same time. We cannot enter into the examin- 
 ation of the question. We conclude from it only that, even 
 then, when the genuine works attributed to Hermes were 
 certainly yet in existence, the Christians could truly claim a 
 great resemblance between several tenets of old Egypt and their 
 own. 
 
 But, a new argument offers itself to our consideration, and it 
 is one of no inconsiderable importance. If the Egyptians 
 worshipped at first one God only as the Hindoos did, viz. : 
 Brahma (neuter) there must have been for them some divine 
 name superior to any other, corresponding to the Jehovah of 
 the Jews, the Brahma of the Hindoos, the Ornmzd of the 
 Bactrians. What was it? It was Amun (simpliciter), not 
 Amun-Ra. 
 
 First, the worship of Amun was not confined to Egypt, but 
 extended over to Ethiopia, and some say to a great part of
 
 CENTRAL ASIA AND AFRICA. 227 
 
 interior Africa. The temple built south-west of Lake Mareo- 
 tis was not the most important, nor the most ancient one. The 
 centre out of which the worship of Amun radiated was in fact 
 iu Ethiopia, not far from, and south-east of Meroe. Hence 
 the Greeks called that god sometimes Zev$ siifivKog, Libya being 
 for them the name of Africa. It was not, therefore, a local 
 god, of later origin, embalming a fact of previous history with 
 respect to a single city, or to a particular district of the country. 
 It was the chief God of the whole continent, and had not a 
 human history like Osiris and Isis, both of whom, according to 
 Plutarch (De Iside et Osiride), had " passed to godship from 
 the inferior state of good genii," or men. Hence, although 
 the cult of these two last divinities extended to all Egypt, that 
 of Osiris was altogether local, at Abydos ; and that of Isis, at 
 Bubastis. The worship of Amun could not be said to have 
 been local, even at Thebes, although the sacred name of that 
 city was No-Amun. The temple in Ethiopia, near Shendy, 
 consequently on the borders of Central Africa, and near the 
 confluence of the White and Blue Niles, was certainly more 
 august, ancient, and peculiar to Amun than any other in Egypt 
 and out of it. The discoveries of Caillaud and Elphinstone, 
 commented upon by Heeren in his "Researches on African 
 Nations," have placed the fact beyond question ; and all those 
 acquainted with the origin and state of the various religions of 
 antiquity will admit its importance. Great difficulties sur- 
 rounded the question, because of the frequent indistinctness of 
 ancient classical authors with respect to topography and local 
 details. Hence, even learned men in modern times had 
 become persuaded that the Ammonium so celebrated in antir 
 quity was at Siwah in Lybia, west of Memphis, not far from 
 Lake Mareotis ; and the worship of Amun was thought to be 
 altogether Egyptian. But after a deep and critical investigation 
 such as the celebrated Professor of Gottingen knew so well how 
 to accomplish, comparing the text and plates of the two French
 
 228 GENTILISM. 
 
 and English travellers (Caillaud and Elphinstone), with what 
 old classical writers have reported, he gave a complete demon- 
 stration of the fact that the great temple of Aniun was south 
 of Meroe in Ethiopia, near Shendy, almost at the confluence of 
 the two Niles. Then, entering into a long and learned discus- 
 sion of what antiquity has said of this country, he showed that 
 the time of its greatest splendor was the eighth century before 
 Christ, when Sabaco, Senechus, and Tarhaco ruled it ; that at 
 the period of Solomon, ten centuries before our era, at the time 
 of the Trojan war we invite special attention to this it could 
 send large armies to the conquest of foreign countries ; that 
 many monuments of Nubia and Ethiopia, still in full preserva- 
 tion, represent Harnesses, or Sesostris, with as much splendor as 
 at Thebes and Luxor ; and drew hence the inevitable conclusion 
 that it was a civilized country fifteen centuries before Christ. 
 This brings us nearly to Moses, whom Josephus represents as 
 commanding the armies of Pharaoh, and conquering the South, 
 and Heeren can conclude in these words : " History itself 
 has carried us back to those ages in which the formation of the 
 most ancient States took place, and has thus far shown that 
 Meroe was one of them." This brings the belief in Amun to 
 the times of the highest antiquity. But the most important 
 details mentioned by the celebrated writer we have not yet 
 stated. The first is, that although Kubia and Ethiopia are full 
 of splendid monuments, some of them of the purest Egyptian 
 art, with all the richness of architecture and sculpture that has 
 rendered the land of the Pharaohs so celebrated ; although the 
 language of the travellers who first visited them is most positive 
 qn the subject : " These colossal figures," says Caillaud, " are 
 remarkable for the richness of their drapery and the character 
 of the drawing ; their feet and arms are stouter than the Egyp- 
 tian, yet they are altogether in the Egyptian style ;" and " Rup- 
 pel," says Heeren, "notices a similar perfection on the pyramids 
 of Kurgos in the same neighborhood ;" yet when they come to
 
 CENTKAL ASIA AND AFRICA. 229 
 
 examine the mass of noble ruins which the Professor of Gottin- 
 gen declares emphatically to be " THE AXCIENT ORACLE OF 
 JUPITEK AMMOX," everything is of quite a different character. 
 ; ' The rarity of sculpture and hieroglyphs,." he relates, " is very 
 remarkable ; no trace of that Egyptian art has been discovered 
 here. The few figures on the pillars, now scarcely visible, have 
 nothing in common with it. One of them has evidently the 
 hair done up in the broad Nubian fashion." The reason is 
 plain : this edifice is more ancient than all the other monu- 
 ments. It existed, probably, before the folly of idolatry had 
 covered Africa with the representation of polytheistic myths. 
 Thus with respect to Amun, the monuments agree with history. 
 Another, and most important fact, which we think extremely 
 significant, is given by Heeren in the following words : " One 
 thing is very remarkable, namely, that of all the representations 
 of Xubia yet known, there is not one, which, according to our 
 notions, is offensive to decency." They are, therefore, anterior 
 to the introduction of obscene emblems in the public worship 
 of the people. At least we are allowed to think so until the 
 contrary is proved by monuments as yet undiscovered. The 
 same strange fact we have already remarked in Ilindostan. 
 
 But a third, and, if possible, more striking conclusion drawn 
 by Heeren himself from all the facts accumulated in his 
 " Researches " is this : that although he does not believe that 
 all the civilization of Egypt came from Ethiopia, but thinks 
 that a part of it was native, and even reacted on Ethiopia 
 itself by conquest, institutions, religion, and art ; yet he is most 
 positive in asserting that " colonies of the priest-caste spread 
 from Meroe into Egypt." This happened according to the 
 oracle of Ammon : " They undertook their expeditions at the 
 time and to the place appointed by the god " (Herodot, ii. 29). 
 And the learned writer goes on investigating this civilizing 
 religious process from Central Africa to the basin of the lower 
 , and tries to prove that Merawe*, Ammonium in the Lybian
 
 230 GEXTILISM. 
 
 desert, west of Memphis, and Thebes Amun-No with its cele- 
 brated temple of the same deity, were really cojonies originally 
 from Ethiopia, from the old temple of Amun there ; and he 
 thinks he finds his own historical researches confirmed by the 
 discoveries of Gau, Champollion, and others in their studies 
 of the monuments of Upper and Lower Egypt. 
 
 This last conclusion of the Gottingen Professor is now con- 
 sidered as disproved by the monuments. "As for the opinion 
 once generally admitted " (say F. Lenormant and E. Chevallier 
 in their Ancient History of the East, Tom. 1) " that the 
 Egyptians belonged to an African race whose first centre of 
 civilization was at Meroe, and who had gradually descended 
 from the banks of the Nile to the sea, it cannot now be sus- 
 tained. We know, in fact, from the monuments, that the 
 most ancient centre of Egyptian civilization was in the neigh- 
 borhood of Memphis, in Lower and Central Egypt, before 
 even the foundation of Thebes ; and we can follow the gradual 
 march of -culture, ascending the ISTile towards Ethiopia, in a 
 way exactly the reverse of what has hitherto been supposed." 
 
 The recent researches and discoveries of new explorers, 
 chiefly of Mariette-Bey, seem certainly to afford a sufficient 
 proof of this last opinion. Yet Heeren had so many very 
 plausible reasons to give in support of his conclusions, that 
 they may yet be reinstated in general acceptance ; and it is for 
 this we have given them in some detail. At any rate, the 
 extreme antiquity of the civilization of Ethiopia, and the cer- 
 tainty of the worship of Amun at Meroe in the most remote 
 ages, cannot be " disproved," and amply suffice for the estab- 
 lishment of our own thesis. 
 
 Finally, a last remarkable opinion of Heeren we will quote 
 in his own words, and pass on to look more closely at Amun 
 himself, the real object of our actual investigations. " With- 
 out digressing," he says, " into a detailed description of par- 
 ticular deities, which I leave to mythologists, I think I may
 
 CENTRAL ASIA AND AFRICA. 231 
 
 venture a step further, and assert that this worship of Ainun 
 had its origin in natural religion connected with agriculture." 
 The underline is ours ; but we think that, in th3 opinion of all, 
 natural religion implies monotheism. 
 
 Y. 
 
 And, now, who was Amun ? We have said already that we 
 do not mean Amun-R,a. This last god, He/uof in Greek, 
 begins to appear on the monuments of the eighteenth dynasty 
 only. He is therefore a comparatively modern invention, and 
 we will shortly find in it a corroboration of our peculiar belief 
 on the gradual progress of idolatry. 
 
 It seems that even in the temple of Karnac at Thebes, which 
 is more recent than the old one of Meroe, whence his statue 
 has disappeared, he is represented as sitting alone on a throne, 
 holding the symbols of life and power, and wearing a crown 
 with a peculiar ornament of two feathers, and a band falling 
 behind and hanging down to his feet. This is a very un- 
 Egyptian appearance of a deity. 
 
 And what was said of the extent of his worship does not yet 
 realize all the idea the ancients had of it. According to many, 
 he was not only the Supreme God of Africa, but if we listen to 
 the certainly learned poet Lucan (Pharsal, Lib. ix. v. 517, 518) : 
 
 " Quamvis jEthiopum populis Arabumque beads, * 
 
 Gentibus atque Indis unus sit Jupiter Ammon." 
 
 Lucan seems thus to have entertained the thought that Amun 
 of Africa, and Brahma of Hindostan, were the same Supreme 
 God ; and the word units he employs is remarkable, as, in his 
 time, Egypt had more gods than any other country on earth. 
 Yet he thus acknowledges that there was one infinitely superior 
 to all the others. Hence, even in our time, all admit that in
 
 232 GENTILISM. 
 
 the Egyptian mythology "Amun held the highest place." But 
 Egyptologists recognize, likewise, that his character was unde- 
 fined, as was also that of Brahma ; and thus inferior deities 
 were identified with each of the two in both countries, as if 
 no being could share in the divine honors unless he received 
 something from the Head one, which was thus the original 
 fountain of divinity. This has not hitherto been sufficiently 
 considered. 
 
 We ought not, therefore, to be surprised that the very word 
 Amun means " hidden," " invisible," " unapproachable to our 
 understanding." And there is a curious passage on the subject 
 in Plutarch (De Iside et Osiride), which makes allusion to an 
 Egyptian custom quite significant to our purpose : 
 
 " Manetho the Sebennite " (the author of the celebrated list 
 of kings), " thinks that the word Amun means ' hidden,' and 
 also ' the act of concealing oneself ' (upvifiiv) ; and Hecatseus 
 of Abdera says that the Egyptians use that expression when 
 they call each other " (probably in the dark) ; " for the word 
 itself indicates invocation. And as they think that the First 
 God is the same with the Universe, as being obscure and con- 
 cealed, they say they call on Amun and pray to Him that He 
 may. unveil His face and allow them to see Him." 
 
 In the time of Hecatseus of Abdera, five hundred years be- 
 fore Christ, it was certainly true that the Egyptians thought 
 " that the First God was the same with the Universe." They 
 even thought worse than this, as we shall see. But is this a 
 reason for concluding that it had always been so ? The very 
 words of our author show the contrary. The " Universe " is 
 not certainly a " hidden " being. There is no need of calling 
 on it to unveil its face. It was precisely on account of the 
 true God being invisible, that in the course of ages corruption 
 of belief had crept in, and substituted for an " invisible " God 
 a visible Universe ; for Monotheism the ancient Pantheism of 
 Orpheus. The phrase, therefore, on which we comment,
 
 CEXTEAL ASIA AND AFRICA. 233 
 
 renders the passage of Hecataeus, as quoted by Plutarch, unin- 
 telligible ; and the only way to clear it up is to suppress the 
 parenthesis (the First God is the same with the Universe), and 
 to say, merely : " The Egyptians use that expression Amun 
 when they call each other in the dark ; for the word itself in- 
 dicates invocation ; and as they think that the First God is in 
 His nature obscure and concealed, they say they call on Amun 
 and pray to Him, that He may unveil His face and allow them 
 to see Him." 
 
 The text being now intelligible, throws a flood of light on 
 the divine nature of Amun ; and we cannot but remember the 
 beautiful passages of the Yedic upanishads where we have read 
 that " God sees everything and is not seen ; that He hears all 
 and is not heard, etc.," and praying " that we may know Him 
 and love Him, by seeing Him face to face." 
 
 But modern Egyptologists object that all those passages of 
 old classic writers are unreliable. Difficulties have been raised 
 about them without end ; and this is true. Science, they say, 
 is now positivist, and cannot be satisfied with conjectures; 
 with etymologies, conclusions drawn from some stray passage 
 of an old author, etc. Hence for Egypt, particularly, all the 
 authority of ancient lore ought to be discarded ; and, as the 
 monuments say very little on the primitive religion of Egypt, 
 we had better acknowledge our ignorance, and merely state* 
 what appears on the monuments under our very eyes that 
 Anubis had the head of a dog, Thoth that of a hawk or ibis, 
 Isis that of a cow, Amun, finally, the great Amun, that of a 
 ram. 
 
 To this we demur most emphatically. Our knowledge of 
 the Egyptian religion is not derived only from stray bits of old 
 manuscripts, from conjectural etymologies, from very doubtful 
 conclusions, etc., etc. But, as our readers have seen, there has 
 been in Grecian antiquity a positive public opinion on the sub- 
 ject, asserting that the first Egyptians worshipped one Supreme
 
 234 GENTILISM. 
 
 God. This has been corroborated by the general belief of the 
 oldest Fathers of the Church, of those most likely to know the 
 truth. The researches of more modern authors have, un- 
 doubtedly, taken the same direction ; and many Egyptologists 
 of our age acknowledge the force of all those sources of infor- 
 mation, and find that the monuments often hold the same lan- 
 guage. 
 
 For, although, owing to the very few inscriptions and papyri 
 relating to the primitive religion of Egypt, which have been 
 so far discovered and deciphered, our demonstration derived 
 from these cannot be but partial and fragmentary ; yet 
 the few words of real antiquity on the oldest monuments 
 which have reached us, are emphatic, and of a most striking 
 character. 
 
 These have been chiefly found in sepulchres or on funereal 
 columns, where the true meaning of the inner religious feeling 
 of the old Egyptians would be more surely met with than even 
 in temples erected designedly for idolatrous purposes. Mr. 
 Yiscount E. de Rouge has given a strict translation of several 
 of them, which, after due discussion, has been only strength- 
 ened by the labors of other French, German, and English 
 Egyptologists, so as to be considered now as proof against con- 
 tradiction. 
 
 We quote the very words of the noble author. They are 
 taken from a " Conference sur la Religion des Anciens Egyp- 
 tiens," published at Paris in 1869. 
 
 " Nobody," he says, " has been able to directly dissent from 
 our interpretation of the chief texts on which we think we can 
 establish the belief of ancient Egypt, with respect to God, the 
 world, and man. 
 
 " I have said on God, not on the gods. The first character 
 of the old Egyptian religion is the Unity of God, expressed 
 most energetically : God one, sole, unique / no others with Him 
 He is the only Being living in truth Thou art one; and
 
 CENTRAL ASIA AND AFRICA. 235 
 
 millions of beings issue from Thee He has made everything, 
 and alon-e He has not been made. 
 
 " Second character : God exists by Himself ; He is the only 
 Being who has not been generated. The old Egyptians con- 
 ceived God as the active cause, the perpetual source of His own 
 existence ; He engenders Himself perpetually. God A SE. 
 Hence, the idea of God under two aspects : the Father and the 
 Son. In many hymns is found the notion of a double being en- 
 gendering himself j the SOUL in twins, as the funereal ritual 
 speaks . . . ." 
 
 Mr. de Kouge, however, in these last texts could have easily 
 seen the first step to pantheism, and a visible copy of the later 
 Yedic Hindooism. It is creation by emanation. 
 
 Yet, " on the subject of creation," several texts quoted by 
 the same writer, express certainly the true doctrine. God has 
 made the Heavens ; He has created the earth He has made 
 aU that exists ;He is the master of beings and of non-beings. 
 " These texts," he adds, " date from fifteen hundred years at 
 least before Moses. According to the same hymns, God has 
 regulated the order of nature ; the sovereign rights of the 
 Creator cannot be more clearly asserted." But he confesses 
 that, " as to the origin of matter the old Egyptians seem to have 
 believed that the world was eternally engendered .... they 
 thus fall into the doctrine of direct emanation ; hence the 
 deification of the Nile, of animals, of all that exist." Mr. de 
 llougd might have seen that pantheism was contained in some 
 of the texts in which he saw only the unity and immensity of 
 God. Several striking passages, however, which we have 
 translated from him in the previous paragraphs, show no sign 
 of any error even in inception, and confirm powerfully what 
 was quoted previously from Greek authors, and from what re 
 mains to us of the Hermetic books. 
 
 Mr. Mariette, in his " JSTotice sur les Monuments du Musee de 
 Boulaq," inlicates several striking similarities between the
 
 236 GE1STTILISM. 
 
 Egyptian cosmogony and the Hebrew traditions contained in 
 Genesis. He says : " In the Egyptian cosmogony, Knouphis 
 is the first demiurgos / his name is analogous to the Hebrew 
 nouf, breathing, spirit. On a monument at Philoe, he is 
 called : He who has made all that is, the creator of beings / the 
 first existing being, the father of fathers, the mother of mothers. 
 On several papyri he is represented sailing on the primeval 
 ocean. The Egyptian spirit thus carried on the waters, calls to 
 mind the passage of Genesis : ' And the Spirit of God was borne 
 on the waters.' ' : Several other striking analogies are quoted 
 by the same learned author, the most celebrated of recent or 
 of any other discoverers. 
 
 There is no need of mentioning the belief of the Egyptians 
 in the immortality of the soul. In the creed of no ancient 
 nation was it more clearly defined. But, since the discovery 
 of the " Funereal Ritual," on which Mr. de Rouge has pub- 
 lished most important " Etudes," many details hitherto un- 
 known have rendered this truth more definitely settled. This 
 discovery has increased the universal regret that all the Her- 
 metic books, of which this was probably a small fragment, are 
 in all appearance lost for ever. 
 
 "We will quote of it only the defence of the soul before the 
 judgment seat of Osiris, and his terrible forty-two assessors. 
 We quote from the " Ancient History of the East " : "I have 
 not blasphemed," says the deceased ; " I have not smitten men 
 privily ; I have not treated any person with cruelty ; I have not 
 stirred up trouble ; I have not been idle ; I have not been in- 
 toxicated ; I have not made unjust commandments ; I have 
 showed no improper curiosity ; I have not allowed my mouth 
 to tell secrets ; I have not wounded any one ; I have not put 
 any one in fear ; I have not slandered any one ; I have not let 
 envy gnaw my heart ; I have spoken evil neither of the king 
 nor of my father; I have not falsely accused any one; I have 
 not withheld milk from the mouths of sucklings ; I have not
 
 CENTRAL ASIA AND AFRICA. 237 
 
 practised any shameful crime ; I have not calumniated a slave 
 to his master." This is, indeed, the judgment after death 
 post hoc autem judidum. 
 
 And, after this " negative confession," as Champollion called 
 it, the deceased man speaks of the positive good he has done in 
 his lifetime : " I have made to the gods the offerings that were 
 their due ; I have given food to the hungry, drink to the thirsty, 
 and clothes to the naked," etc. 
 
 Such a high morality supposed certainly a pure dogmatic 
 doctriire ; for corruption of belief brings on necessarily corrup- 
 tion of manners ; and " without doubt," F. Lenormant says, 
 " it was this clear insight into truth, this tenderness of con- 
 science, which obtained for the Egyptians this reputation of 
 wisdom, echoed even by Holy Scripture " (1 Kings iv. 30 ; 
 Acts vii. 27). 
 
 There is no doubt, certainly, that the clear assertion of a pure 
 monotheism and of an undefiled morality, was not considered 
 in Egypt, at least during the ages well known to us, as fit to 
 be published everywhere and communicated to every one. 
 Everybody knows that this was reserved only for the educated 
 and higher classes of society. It was the esoteric doctrine re- 
 vealed to a comparative few. But it had not probably been so 
 at the very beginning ; we cannot know when the unnatural 
 distinction began. We can scarcely be sure for how long it 
 was preserved. It is certain that, in the age of Herodotus and 
 Plato, the esoteric doctrine was yet taught in the interior of 
 the temples ; and the father of history, who has preserved for 
 us the knowledge of many ridiculous fables, has likewise posi- 
 tively asserted that "the Egyptians of Thebes recognized one 
 only God, who had had no beginning, and would have no end." 
 Thus at least F. Lenormant asserts (Ancient History of the 
 East, Tom. i., p. 318). 
 
 Sir George Rawlinson is so much convinced of this, that he 
 thinks it is from the primitive belief of Egypt that most Greek
 
 238 GENTILISM. 
 
 philosophers of the ancient school admitted real Unity in Di- 
 vine Nature, although their mythology soon divided it into 
 several manifestations, from which polytheism sprung. As the 
 words of so learned a man carry a great weight with them, we 
 quote from his second volume of Herodotus (Appleton's edi- 
 tion), p. 249 : 
 
 " The philosophical view taken by the Greeks of the nature 
 of the Deity was different from their mythological system. . . . 
 Directly they began to adopt the inquiry- into the nature of 
 the Deity ; they admitted that He must be One Supreme ; and 
 He received whatever name appeared to convey the clearest 
 notion of the First Principle. How far any of their notions, 
 or at least the inquiry that led to them, may be traced to an 
 acquaintance with Egyptian speculation, it is difficult to deter- 
 mine ; Thales and many more philosophers studied in Egypt, 
 and must have begun, or have sought to promote, their inquiry 
 during their visit to the learned people of that age ; and in 
 justice to them, we must admit that they went to study there 
 for some purpose. At all events, their early thoughts could 
 not but have been greatly influenced by an intercourse with 
 Egypt, though many a 'succeeding philosopher suggested some 
 new view of the First Cause ; speculation taking a varied range, 
 and often returning under different names to a similar conclu- 
 sion." 
 
 We shall, however, later on, show that an acquaintance with 
 the primitive doctrine of Egypt was not the only, nor perhaps 
 the greatest, cause of the monotheistic views of many Hellenist 
 Sages. But the reflections of the learned editor of " Herodotus," 
 are certainly true, and remarkably appropriate to our subject. 
 
 In conclusion, we cannot do better than quote a somewhat 
 long but very important passage of Mr. Mariette in his " No- 
 tice du Musee de Boulaq," p. 15 and sq., in which we shall 
 find a natural transition to the period of decline in truth and 
 introduction of error in Egypt :
 
 CENTKAL ASIA AND AFKICA. 239 
 
 " The almost infinite variety of types presented by the 
 Egyptian pantheon is a fact known to everybody. It would 
 be wrong, however, to draw from this the conclusion that the 
 Egyptian religion was never anything but a tissue of gross and 
 
 ridiculous fables Had its only basis been composed of 
 
 the strange superstitions practised in that country, it could not 
 have run the splendid career of its history. . . . Such a shame- 
 less religion would have contained a germ of death, rather than 
 the active principles of life which gave such a high position in 
 the world's history to the old Egyptian civilization. Recent 
 disco veri2s in the art of reading hieroglyphic inscriptions have 
 confirmed these views. 
 
 "At the head of the Egyptian pantheon appears a God, one, 
 immortal, uncreated, invisible, and hidden in the unapproach- 
 able depths of His essence. He is the creator of heaven and 
 earth ; He has made everything that exists, and nothing has 
 been made without Him. But He is the God reserved only to 
 the initiated. 
 
 " Egypt, however, did not know how, or did not wish, to 
 stop at so immense a height. She came down to consider the 
 world, its formation, the principles by which it is governed, 
 man and his destiny on earth, as an immense drama." ("We 
 shall speak later on of the fable of Osiris.) " The Being of 
 beings is the only actor in it ; everything comes from Him, 
 and must return to Him. He is served, it is true, by agents ; 
 but these are His own personified attributes, and these become 
 finally so many gods under visible forms, inferior gods, limited 
 in their actions, although participating in all His essential char- 
 acteristics 
 
 " Behind those altars loaded with the images of deities, 
 apparently so strange, Egypt, therefore, concealed serious dog- 
 mas. And thus it can be easily understood that if the Egyp- 
 tian religion has lasted so long a time, it was because it rested, 
 originally on a theology not altogether unworthy of the name." 
 17
 
 240 GENTILISM. 
 
 VI. 
 
 These revelations of the great explorer of Egyptian antiquities 
 bring us naturally to consider the first downward steps towards 
 error in Egypt, as we have already done as regards Hindostan. 
 And the result is again a rapid fall to the pantheism described 
 by the Book of Wisdom. A text quoted previously in support 
 of Egyptian monotheism, under a mistake, certainly, by Mr. de 
 Rouge, expresses the doctrine clearly but crudely : " The idea 
 of God is offered under two aspects : the father and the son ; 
 he is a double being engendering himself ; the soul in twins." 
 In this passage, and many others of the kind, the father is 
 God and the son is the World. The world, as expressed by 
 Plato in his " Timosus," is " the only-begotten Son of God." 
 Both, therefore, are identified, and the most rigid pantheism is 
 at once introduced as a religious dogma. 
 
 To give it a stronger hold on the Egyptian mind, both the 
 texts on papyri and on monuments represent, in many different 
 forms, the " principal god of the temples " engendering him- 
 self in the bosom of his mother. The god becomes, conse- 
 quently, his own father and his own son, the mother contrib- 
 uting nothing in that system, but being altogether passive, as 
 Diodorus asserts (Lib. I., 80). Thus there is the most complete 
 identity between God and Ihe world ; and the Egyptian will 
 be able, henceforth, to worship the sun, and the moon, and 
 the winds, and the Xile, and the trees as real gods. The Book 
 of Wisdom has, in fact, related only what really took place. 
 Mr. Mariette says, with justice, that this " double god " is " the 
 one whose image the Egyptians saw everywhere repeated on 
 the walls of sacred edifices." 
 
 It is not probable, nay, it does not seem possible, that pan- 
 theistic error should have reached at once such an extreme 
 limit. It came on gradually, we may well suppose. And as in
 
 CENTRAL ASIA AND AFRICA. 241 
 
 the Vedic upanishads sublime trutlis were often nobly ex- 
 pressed, with some incidental phrases introducing the fatal 
 formulas, the sams must have taken place in Egypt. 
 
 St. Justin Martyr, in his " Cohortatio ad Graecos," says of 
 some author, whoss name now escapes us : " Ammon Deum 
 prorsus occultum nominat ; Hermes vero dare et manifeste 
 dicit : Deum intelligentia comprekendere, difficile est / eloqui 
 a/ntem impossibile" 
 
 There is nothing here to which the strictest orthodoxy can 
 object. Any Christian philosopher of our days will say, like- 
 wise, that God is truly " hidden " from ns ; and that if it is 
 hard for our intellect to understand Him, it is really impos- 
 sible for our tongue to express His nature. 
 
 But lamblichus, in his book, " De Mysteriis Egyptiorum," 
 stating briefly the answer of Anebon to Porphyry, no longer 
 now in existence, gives a definition of God which any Catholic 
 theologian could adopt, if it were not marred by some dubious 
 expressions. God is declared to be " totius natures et genera- 
 tionis potestatumque elementarium, Causa. . . . immaterialis, 
 incorporeus, ingenitus, indivisus, totus a seipso, et in seipso 
 dbsconditus, .... etc?' It seems as if we were reading some 
 of the scholastic theologians. But doubt begins to be awakened 
 when we read : " Universal, in se complectitur" and '' sequeipse 
 omnibus mundi partibus communicat." We cannot forbear 
 pointing out this close resemblance of ancient Egyptian lore 
 with the Hindoo Yedas. It is again the universal soul perme- 
 ating creation. 
 
 The error is yet more clearly expressed in a passage taken 
 from the dialogue "Asclepius" in Greek, 6 reXeiog Aoyo^ 
 misunderstood by Lactantius and St. Augustine. We quote 
 from the late Edinburgh translation of the Ante-lSTicene 
 Fathers : " Hermes, in the book which is entitled The Perfect 
 Word, made use of these words : ' The Lord and Creator of 
 all things we have thought right to call God, since he made
 
 242 GEXTILISM. 
 
 the Second God visible and sensible Since, therefore, 
 
 He made Him first, and alone, and one only, He appeared to 
 Him beautiful, and most full of all good things ; and He hal- 
 lowed Him, and altogether loved Him as His own Son.' " 
 Lactantius and St. Augustine understood this of the Logos, 
 Son of God ; but Hermes meant to speak of the created World, 
 and thus made the exterior creation a second and visible God, 
 the first after the Supreme One. It is evidently that double 
 god engendering himself, whom Mr. Mariette declares is repre- 
 sented everywhere on the monuments. 
 
 Likewise in one of the " Christian " Hermetic books the 
 Poemander it is first stated that " the First God is the eternal 
 architect of all things, made by no one ;" but directly after, 
 the writer adds : " The Second God is the one which has been 
 made in the image of the First, contained in It, loved, nour- 
 ished, and rendered immortal by its Father." The visible 
 world, therefore, is declared to be the Son of God, immortal 
 likewise, and true God. This was also a Hindoo doctrine, 
 which marks distinctly the passage from monotheism to pan- 
 theism. 
 
 It seems that in Egypt this occurred sooner than in Hin- 
 dostan, as the Egyptians appear to have been more prone to 
 idolatry than the Hindoos. But it is not a little remarkable 
 that the same pro3ess of error shows itself in both countries 
 at a very remote age ; for this alteration of the primitive doc- 
 trine must have happened before any of the monuments still 
 existing in Hindostan or Egypt were built. Certainly, at the 
 time this was first written, nothing of the absurd mythology 
 sculptured at length on the oldest edifices, had been yet imag- 
 ined to please the vulgar. 
 
 The coincidences between the Hindoo and Egyptian relig- 
 ions are so remarkable, that we wonder indeed they have not 
 yet been fully pointed out. It is true the most important dis- 
 coveries in Yedic lore date only from a few years ago ; and
 
 CENTRAL ASIA AND AFRICA. 243 
 
 Egyptology progressing apart, no extensive comparison of both 
 could yet have taken place. A most interesting volume, we 
 think, couM be written on the subject ; and as the Hindoo dis- 
 coveries are admitted to be positive, we may say clear and final, 
 the light thrown thereby on what is yet obscure in Egypt 
 would, in our opinion, take away from modern writers the pre- 
 text that, for the country of the Pharaohs the old classics are 
 " unreliable." Thus, who will not wonder that in the " Poem- 
 ander " God is twice declared appevod^vg hermaphrodite. 
 Cudworth, who lived in an age very little acquainted yet with 
 Indian theology, says on the subject : " Hoc, ni fallor, Jigyp- 
 tium est." He might as well have said : " This is purely 
 Yedic," and we know that error penetrated first the mind of 
 the Brahmins when they imagined Brahma (male). The same, 
 namely, the hermaphroditism of Amun, is asserted also in the 
 dialogue, " Asclepius," one of the iXeoplatomst Hermetic 
 books. 
 
 In the eleventh and twelfth chapters of the Poemander, the 
 doctrine of transmigration first appears, and the destruction 
 and renovation of the world is likewise broached. We know 
 that these doctrines, specially the first, received in Egypt great 
 later developments. And thus this country walked in the foot- 
 steps of India ; where, nevertheless, the superior imagination 
 and poetical feeling of the nation made of those two extraor- 
 dinary beliefs, such a fantastic system of dreams that the like 
 never could happen in any other country on earth ; so that 
 Egypt could never keep pace with it. 
 
 Pantheism in Hindostan originated chiefly first from the 
 doctrine of " universal soul," or God animating the world ; and, 
 secondly, from the ritual and " Sacrificial rites ;" and the pro- 
 cess is rendered now manifest by all the recent researches 
 which have brought to light so many texts descriptive of it. 
 The Egyptian ritual is lost ; yet we possess ancient texts, which 
 show clearly that the passage to pantheism must have hap-
 
 244 GENTILISM. 
 
 pened precisely in the same manner. ~We shall speak again 
 later on of the " Book of Funereal Rites," lately discovered. 
 
 A passage of the book of Hermes (rapt rd yev/xd), preserved 
 in the Chronicle of Eusebius, and referred to by Lactantius 
 (Divin. Inst., L. ii., C. 15), says clearly : " Nonne audivisti 
 omnes animos ab uno hujus Universitatis animo profectos 
 esse ?" " Did you not hear that all souls proceed from the soul 
 of this Universe ?" 
 
 Many, it is true, object yet to those texts of books published 
 either by ISTeoplatonist philosophers, or by Christians, under the 
 name of Hermes, as expressing merely the doctrines of the 
 translators and publishers. The reader will remember what 
 was stated previously on the subject. It is certain that authors 
 such as St. Cyprian, Lactantius, St. Augustine, St. Cyril of 
 Alexandria, and many Christian writers of the time, as on the 
 other side, Porphyry, lamblichus, Proclus, etc., admitted their 
 genuineness, and no one at the time rejected them as unworthy 
 of credit. All that was said in opposition was confined to this 
 observation : " They were not the very text of Hermes ;" but 
 all agreed that they expressed well the sentiments of Hermes, 
 tppaLKag 66ga<; ; it is all we claim ; but every one will admit 
 now that the " sentiment " expressed above is altogether Hin- 
 doo, and reflects perfectly the doctrine developed with such a 
 superabundance of details in all the commentaries of the Yedas, 
 after the East had passed from the pure original monotheism 
 to the pantheism which followed. 
 
 And the following text " on creation" is so completely 
 Brahm'nic, that we wonder it has hitherto escaped observation. 
 It is taken from the dialogue, " Asclepius :" "Hie ergo qui solus 
 est omnia, utriusque sexus fecunditate plenissimus, semper 
 voluntatis suaz prcegnans, parit semper quid quid voluerit pro- 
 c'/'eare." We do not think thai any Neoplatonist philosopher 
 would ever have spoken with this crudity, although their doc- 
 trine may, in the end, have come to this. The very words
 
 CENTRAL ASIA AND AFEICA. 245 
 
 indicate something Egyptian, as Cudworth would say ; some- 
 thing Hindoo, as we would express ourselves. We are fully 
 persuaded that it came in truth from the original Hermetic 
 books; and in our conviction, if those old productions of 
 " Thoth " had been preserved, we should have in them a true 
 counterpart of the Atharvan-Yeda. 
 
 Was India, then, the source of the religion, art, and civiliza- 
 tion of Egypt or the reverse ? 
 
 In both countries strict castes existed, and, originally, the 
 same four in each : priests, warriors, merchants, artisans. The 
 priest caste in Africa bore certainly a great resemblance to the 
 Brahminical caste in Hindostan. Both had a great power over 
 the kings, yet did not take an avowed part in the government 
 of the country. Both had to study the sacred books : in India 
 the Yedas ; in Egypt the Hermetic writings. The every-day 
 occupations of each were almost the same, as well as the relig- 
 ious ceremonies at which they presided the processions, the 
 sacrifices, the daily ablutions, the ritual, in fact, with all its 
 numerous and perplexing details. The temples and other edi- 
 fices devoted to religion had so many traits in common that 
 when, at the beginning of this century, some Sepoy regiments 
 were sent to Egypt by the British Government against the 
 French, the Hindoo Sepoys fell down prostrate, and worship- 
 ped their gods in the colossal statues they saw -at Thebes. 
 
 The military caste of Egypt was almost the exact reproduc- 
 tion of that of Hindostan. Neither were remarkable for their 
 fighting qualities ; once only did the Egyptian armies invade 
 foreign countries ; which was under Sesostris. And when the 
 country itself was invaded, it nearly always succumbed. Thus 
 the Ethiopians, the Hyksos, the Persians, the Macedonians, and 
 the Eomans, subdued Egypt successively, almost without any 
 resistance. It was the same with India. 
 
 In the merchant caste we see likewise a great similarity. 
 The people in both were .more agriculturists than traders.
 
 246 GEKTILISM. 
 
 They had no great fondness for the sea. To trade abroad, the 
 Egyptians used, first, the vessels of the Phoenicians, and after- 
 wards those of the Greeks. The Indians employed for the 
 same purpose the merchant fleets of Arabia. 
 
 Yet was the character of the Egyptian people of a very dif- 
 ferent type from that of the Hindoos. There was in the latter 
 an exuberance of fancy, of poetry, of enthusiasm, which were 
 quite wanting in the Egyptians. The literature of the latter, 
 so meagre at all times, exhibits to us in the few fragments we 
 still possess a low, material, realistic feeling altogether the re- 
 verse of the aesthetic ardor of the literature of India. When we 
 read the explanation of myths communicated by the priests to 
 Herodotus, whenever the honest Greek writer forgets the 
 promise of secrecy he had given, and makes his revelations in 
 epite of his fears of offending " gods and heroes/' we wonder 
 at the triviality, sometimes even the vulgarity of style, thought, 
 and expression. We cannot imagine a Hindoo Brahmin, in 
 such circumstances, exhibiting such a total want of noble feel- 
 ings, or giving so mean a conception of his religion to a 
 foreigner. Whoever has read anything of Sanscrit literature, 
 even in the poorest translations, cannot possibly admit the 
 smallest resemblance between the two peoples,, in mental con- 
 stitution at least. 
 
 Yet an ingenious writer, Mr. E. Pococke, attempts to dem- 
 onstrate that Egypt was altogether colonized by Hindoos ; and 
 that the Egyptians came, in fact, directly from the country 
 about the mouths of the Indus. In the fourteenth chapter of 
 his book, " India in Greece," he argues that Egypt in general 
 in Greek, AI-GUP-TIA derives its name from " H' AI-GO 
 PATI," a term at once revealing their original land, and the 
 object of their worship. They are settlers from the same laud 
 with the " HORSE TRIBES," most of whom are Children of the 
 /Sun, and worshippers of Crqpati, a term which at once signi- 
 fies " the Sun," "the Bull," and " Siva." Hence their desig-
 
 CEXTKAL ASIA A^D AFEICA. 247 
 
 nation as " Hyas of the Solar Race," or " H'ai-Goptai." These 
 " Horse Tribes " come, he says* from the Gulf of Gush, near 
 the mouths of the Indus. 
 
 In the same manner he endeavors to prove that the Ethio- 
 pians are " Cushites," as applied in Hindostan to the " Arno- 
 PAS, or " Chiefs of Oude;" that the Abyssinians and Nubians 
 came originally from " ABTJA-SIN," or the Indus, and the river 
 Xubra. This is, indeed, a mere etymological argument t) 
 which no sound scholar in our days attach much importance. 
 But Mr. Pococke groups around it such an array of facts, of 
 texts, of historical, geographical, and ethnographical details, 
 that he almost contrives to surround his speculations with an 
 air of such plausibility as to resemble at times demonstration. 
 
 But unfortunately for his theory, the whole of it hangs on 
 Buddhism. The book itself is an apparently serious argument 
 to prove that not only Egypt, Ethiopia, and the interior of 
 Africa, but likewise Palestine, Syria, Greece, Etruria, the 
 North of Europe even, at least Scandinavia, were all settled 
 by Buddhist tribes. His excess of zeal has carried Mr. E. 
 Pococke too far. A few years after the publication of his very 
 erudite and interesting book, Mr. E. Burnouf demonstrated 
 that Buddhism is of a comparatively recent origin ; and, con- 
 sequently, that Egypt, of which alone we now treat, had been 
 settled long before Gautama, the founder of Buddhism, ap- 
 peared. 
 
 Such a mass of erudition, however, as is displayed in " India 
 in Greece," must not be supposed to be on the whole barren of 
 result. It quite establishes the fact that Egypt had from the 
 beginning close and constant intercourse with Hindostan ; that 
 any resemblance between the two peoples is perceptible, chiefly, 
 in the most remote ages ; and that such rememblance displays 
 itself most conspicuously in the similarity of their public build- 
 ings. " A striking analogy," he writes, " will be found to 
 exist between the rock architecture of both countries ; the grot-
 
 248 GENTILISM. 
 
 toes of Salsette, Elephantina, and Ellore, remind us strongly of 
 the excavations in Egypt and Nubia, of the royal tombs at 
 Thebes, and the splendid monument rescued from the sand 
 and restored to the light of day by Belzoni, at Ipsambul." 
 
 Lord Yalentia was struck by the identity of character in the 
 monuments of both countries, although few of them compara- 
 tively were known in his time. But here the question naturally 
 presents itself, Did Egypt receive its civilization from India, 
 or India from Egypt ? To maintain the latter, we must sup- 
 pose that in Ilindostan civilization travelled from the South 
 Northward, as the Egyptians could not then reach India except 
 from the South. And it is demonstrated that the contrary was 
 the case. We have seen, in a previous chapter, that Brahmin- 
 ism originated in the northwest of the Peninsula, and all the 
 late discoveries go to prove that the Himalaya mountains, and 
 along their range, probably Cashmere, was the starting-point 
 of the intellectual movement. " In the heart of these moun- 
 tains," says, again, Mr. E. Pococke (quoting Lemp., Barker's 
 edit., " Meroe,") " are found the residences of the earlier Brah- 
 mins, and the more ancient temples of their gods. At the con- 
 fluence of the two arms of the Ganges, rises the holy city De- 
 vaprajaga, 30, 8' lat., inhabited only by Brahmins ; further on 
 is seen the temple of Badri-Nuth, said to be extremely rich, 
 and to possess as its domains more than seven hundred flour- 
 ishing villages, placed in a state of dependence on the high 
 priest of the temple .... 
 
 u The most ancient poems of India represent the countries 
 of the Ganges as the cradle of those heroes, who afterwards 
 carried their arms in the southern regions as far as Ceylon. 
 Everything, in a word, tends to show most clearly that civiliza- 
 tion followed in India a route diametrically opposite to the 
 one which it pursued in Egypt, where the Social movement 
 was from the South to the North." 
 
 Colonel Todd, on the contrary (Rajastan, vol. i, p. 250),
 
 CENTRAL ASIA AND AFEICA. 249 
 
 remarks that, " The allegory of Chrishna's eagle pursuing the 
 serpent (Buddha), and recovering the books of science and re- 
 ligion with which he had fled, is an important historical fact 
 disguised .... The gulf of Gush (at the mouth of the Indus), 
 the point where the serpent attempted to escape, has been from 
 time immemorial to the present day, the entrepot for the com- 
 merce (of India) with Sofala, the Red Sea, Egypt, and Arabia. 
 There Buddha Trivicrama, or Mercury (Thoth), has been, and 
 yet is, invoked by the pirates of Dwarica. Did Buddha, or 
 Mercury (Thoth), come from or escape to the Nile ? Is he the 
 Hermes of Egypt, to whom the four books of science, the 
 Yedas of the Hindoos, were sacred ? The representative of 
 Buddha, at the period of Chrishna, was Nema-Nath ; he is of a 
 b)ack complexion (As. trans., v. ii., p. 304), and his statues ex- 
 actly resemble in features the bust of young Memnon. His 
 symbol was the snake. I have already observed that Chrishna, 
 before his deification, worshipped Buddha ; and his temple at 
 Dwarica rose over the ancient shrine of the latter, which yet 
 stands. In an inscription from the cave of Gaya, their charac- 
 ters are conjoined, 'Heri, who is Buddha.' " 
 
 If these conjectures of Col. Todd be correct, as we believe 
 them to be, to a certain extent, tha colonization of Egypt took 
 place from India ; and even it was through the gulf of Cush, 
 or from the mouth of the Indus River. It is now generally 
 admitted that Syria and Mesopotamia were the real channel of 
 immigration. Yet this passage is of extreme importance ; and 
 shows that the Hindoos, at the time of the writing of the Pu- 
 ranas, were persuaded that the Yedas had been taken to the 
 South by Mercury (Thoth). And if the attempt at first failed, 
 according to the poet, they must have succeeded later, since 
 the Hermetic books existed afterwards in Egypt. If Buddha a 
 much more recent personage appears in the poem, the reason 
 is that Buddhism existed at the time when the Puranas were 
 composed, and was in conflict with Brahminism ; and the de-
 
 250 GENTILISM. 
 
 fender of this last system of religion, the poet who wrote the 
 history of Chrishna and Rama, was not absolutely obliged 
 to write quite correctly of what happened so long before him. 
 
 VII. 
 
 From the pantheism which is the logical deduction from a 
 belief in the " Universal Soul," we proceed to a short investiga- 
 tion of the " worship of elements," which is the natural con- 
 sequence of it, and which the Book of Wisdom has told us is 
 the first form idolatry took everywhere among men. 
 
 We shall be satisfied, on this subject, with a very remarkable 
 passage of Porphyry, taken from his " Epistola ad Anebonem." 
 He wants to know how far Chseremon was right, or if he was 
 not altogether wrong, in attributing to the Egyptians a very 
 gross and material belief in visible gods, namely : " The Planets, 
 the signs of the Zodiac, the Stars, etc." Chaeremon insisted that 
 even the oldest writings on theology in Egypt, consequently 
 the books of Hermes, did not acknowledge any other gods but 
 these ; and he added : " That those who believed the Sun to be 
 the real architect of the universe, corroborated their arguments 
 by what is said of Osiris and Isis ; that all the sacred fables re- 
 solve themselves in the various aspects of the stars, in their oc- 
 cultations and wanderings, even in the Nile and its overflow- 
 ings, finally in nothing but physical things, material altogether, 
 without any need of a spiritual principle altogether." 
 
 Our readers perceive that the arguments of atheists are not 
 recent. But it is clear that this followed logically from the 
 doctrine of the " Universal Soul." Everything was divine ; 
 and we have only to look on the " visible god " the world 
 without caring for the "invisible one" Amun. In Hindo- 
 stan, also, as soon as the " eternal, infinite, self-existent Brahma," 
 falling asleep, had generated from himself another Brahma,
 
 CENTRAL ASIA AND AFRICA. 251 
 
 with a particular sex and visible attributes, the first god, too 
 indistinct and "undefined" for popular worship, gradually 
 ceased to attract the attention of the worshipper, and all hom- 
 ages and adorations were reserved for what the senses could 
 
 O 
 
 perceive. 
 
 Hence the elements, the " forces of nature," to speak as men 
 do in our age, became the objects of the exclusive worship of 
 the Egyptians ; and the belief began to spread among some of 
 the Greeks, and was adopted by a few Christian ecclesiastical 
 writers, that the inhabitants of that country never had any 
 other gods than " the stars of heaven either fixed or erratic ;" 
 that the " esoteric doctrines, even of the priests, did not ac- 
 knowledge any invisible and spiritual Creator, but that every- 
 thing ought to be attributed to the visible sun, the centre of 
 the world." This renders at least the sense of Eusebius in the 
 u Freparatio Evangelica " (L. iii., cap. 4), and he concluded 
 from it : " You know now the mysteries of that divine wisdom 
 which brought finally the Egyptians to worship wolves, dogs, 
 and lions." 
 
 Eusebius was right in asserting that the worship of Nature 
 was the cause which gradually introduced into Egypt animal- 
 worship. But if he pretended that the object of adoration was 
 only the visible universe, without any reference to a " spiritual 
 principle," he was evidently wrong. The error of the Egyp- 
 tians consisted precisely in this : that they imagined the " Uni- 
 versal Soul " Amun to be portioned out and divided, as it 
 were, into as many distinct particles as there were living beings, 
 and thus each one of them was animated by a parcel of divinity. 
 It was, therefore, not only a " spiritual " but a " divine " being 
 they worshipped when they addressed their homages to the 
 sun, the stars, the planets, the ule, etc. Pantheism, for them, 
 had become the origin of idolatry by offering to their adoration 
 the " works of God," instead of " God himself." But their 
 worship was directed, that of the enlightened among them, at
 
 252 GENTILISM. 
 
 least, to the " spiritual principle " animating Nature. The 
 same was likewise clearly the case in Hindostan ; as the " Book 
 of Wisdom " has it, " they imagined, either the "fire or the 
 wind, or the swift air, or. the circles of the stars, or the great 
 waters, or the sun and moon, to be the gods that rule the 
 world." 
 
 As the monuments of the eigthteenth dynasty are those on 
 which Amun-Ra first appears, it seems probable that this was 
 the epoch of the introduction of real idolatry, as subsequent to, 
 and caused by, Pantheism. The god is usually represented 
 under the form of a man with a high head-dress, on which is 
 sculptured the globe of the sun. Hence the Egyptian word 
 Amun-Ra was translated by the Greeks into He/Uof, very dif- 
 ferent from A\i\i.uv. The ram's horns which became in time 
 the distinguishing mark of Amun, do not appear when the 
 god is represented as the sun. The precise epoch when those 
 various emblems were introduced into Egyptian mythology 
 cannot now be determined. If some future Egyptologist, by 
 interpreting aright and in detail the existing monuments, could 
 state positively those diverse steps of Egyptian imagination 
 and systematic polytheism, the whole secret of the progress 
 of error in the land of the Pharaohs would be revealed, and 
 a true history of superstition in that country might be written. 
 
 We cannot, however, be much mistaken when we state, that 
 the eighteenth dynasty was the period when idolatry took a 
 sudden and highly-developed form. It was at the same time 
 the epoch of the greatest material civilization of Egypt ; and 
 we have already had occasion to remark that the same took 
 place in Hindostan and Greece. In Egypt, nevertheless, an 
 element is, or appears to be, wanting, which is most pre-emi- 
 nent in the two other countries. We hear in Thebes and 
 Memphis of no great poems to which the origin of the names 
 of the gods could be ascribed as those of the Hellenic deities 
 wei e. to the poems of Homer and Hesiod by Herodotus ; and
 
 CENTRAL ASIA AND AFEICA. 253 
 
 as the avatars of Vishnu, ard the legends of Rama and Krish- 
 na, in Hindi tstan, to the great Indian epics, the Ramayana and 
 Mahabharata. Had the Egyptians any poetry ? Did they 
 possess any epic poems ? Was music and the other fine arts 
 cultivated by them ? This last question may be answered 
 affirmatively, as we know their musical instruments, and we 
 have still models of their sculpture and painting. It is only 
 very lately that any writing has been found which can be called 
 poetry, such as we understand the word ; but certainly no ex- 
 tensive work of the epic kind has been not only preserved, but 
 even mentioned in all the Egyptian lore now in existence, 
 unless it be " poems in prose." We may, however, state most 
 positively that they must have had such poems ; and, first, we 
 cannot suppose music in antiquity except as an accompaniment 
 to versification. We know, moreover, that the Egyptians had 
 songs ; among the priestly officers mentioned by St. Clement 
 of Alexandria, the " Singer" was the first, walking at the head 
 of the procession ; and his chief office was to learn by heart the 
 " hymns to the gods," and sing them. Can we suppose a 
 " hymn " in ancient times except in verse and with rythm ? 
 
 The main question, however, is to know if the Egyptians 
 had really poems of an epic kind, out of which an intricate 
 mythology could grow. None certainly have been preserved, 
 and none are alluded to in any ancient author. But we are 
 acquainted with the history of several of their gods. Those of 
 Osiris, Isis, Horus, and Typhon are especially known in all 
 their details, made out of many bits of information contained 
 here and there in Greek and Latin works. These histories are 
 certainly fictitious ; and we cannot admit fiction in ancie-nt 
 times except under the form of a poem. Novels were un- 
 known, and the subject was too sacred for the Egyptians to be 
 treated as a mere novel, in the modern acceptance of the term. 
 We have no dpubt, consequently, that the history of Osiris 
 and Isis was first enunciated in a poem of the form of the
 
 254 GENTILISM. 
 
 Ramayana among the Hindoos. The original work has per- 
 ished ; we have only a few fragments, contained in more recent 
 authors, yet so that a complete fabulous history has been recom- 
 posed, and is known now as the myth of Osiris. 
 
 We find, therefore, in Egypt, at least by indirect conclu- 
 sions, the phenomenon so striking in India and Greece. The 
 poets of Memphis and Thebes originated a mythology best 
 known now by the astonishing sculptures which still exist, 
 chiefly in the ruins of Thebes, Luxor, Philo3, Elephantine, 
 and all over Nubia and Ethiopia. Their imagination created 
 those monsters which strike the traveller in Egypt as in Hin- 
 dostan ; and there is a remarkable fact in both countries, which 
 establishes a wonderful difference between them and Greece : 
 The gods are found in groups, never singly. Amun-Ra is 
 always surrounded by his kindred deities, as Osiris, and Phtah, 
 and all the others by theirs. Each temple represents, conse- 
 quently, a different fabulous history, which must have origi- 
 nated from a different poem ; not so in Greece, where each 
 god or goddess alone enjoys the monopoly of the temples con- 
 secrated to each. 
 
 There is, moreover, another resemblance in this respect be- 
 tween India and Egypt worthy of note. It is that each prin- 
 cipal god is always accompanied with a goddess, called, by the 
 vulgar, his wife, but, in reality, his " female energy," as we 
 remarked in Hindostan, in the case of Siva, in particular. The 
 original hermaphroditism of the Godhead is replaced by a dis- 
 tinction of sexes for each deity ; and we already know how 
 immorality and monstrosity have spread, which sprung origi- 
 nally from this strange fancy of primitive poets and artists. 
 Thus Phtah, or Vulcan, at Memphis, is never seen alone ; but 
 the monstrous goddesses Pasht and Bast keep always attend- 
 ance on him ; Knum, worshipped at Elephantine, is in company 
 with Heka, or Anuka ; Amun-Ra, or Helios, cannot appear 
 without Mu, the " Mother ;" Osiris and Isis are well known. But
 
 CENTRAL ASIA AND AFRICA. 255 
 
 we have no occasion to enter into the detail of all the Egyptian 
 mythology. These few instances will suffice. It is difficult, 
 however, not to see an identity of origin in a mythological 
 idea of this kind existing at the same time both in India and 
 
 Egypt- 
 
 A very striking peculiarity of this last country, however, is 
 the local character of these gods, restricted, except in the caso 
 of a few, to a comparatively small territory ; a local character 
 whence, probably, animal- worship took a much greater preemi- 
 nence in Egypt than in India. It is well known that except 
 the worship of Amun (sirnpliciter), and that of Osiris and Isis, 
 which was universal throughout the whole extent of the coun- 
 try, the other gods of Egyptian mythology were honored only 
 in particular cities or districts ; and this took place in groups, 
 as each individual chief deity had always a number of invari- 
 able companions whose statues were worshipped with the prin- 
 cipal one. Thus there must have been a special fabulous his- 
 tory connected with each group, which fact, in our opinion, 
 supposed originally a poem, or, at least, some tradition in verse, 
 poetry being invariably the religious language of ancient 
 times. We have observed a similar fact in India, but not to 
 the same extent. 
 
 Thus religion although it had everywhere in this country 
 the same character, which one invariably recognizes by its 
 Egyptian look was, in fact, divided to an incredible extent 
 into individual deities for individual towns and villages. In 
 Egypt, therefore, not only was the religion a national one for 
 idolatry made it national everywhere, instead of universal, as it 
 was at first but it became truly an institution of townships ; 
 and this was carried to extreme by animal-worship. 
 
 The doctrine of all living beings partaking of a spark of the 
 
 universal fire, or rather of a divine parcel of the " Universal 
 
 Soul," gave to all objects a strangely superstitious character. 
 
 The attention of Egyptians had been very early attracted by 
 
 18
 
 256 GEXTILISIM. 
 
 the peculiar habits of the few animals indigenous in the coun- 
 try ; for the territory is not extensive, only a narrow belt of 
 four or five miles on both banks of the Nile, and it is 
 covered with water for several months every year. Particular 
 places being benefited by the presence of some animals, these 
 were divinized ; other localities being plagued and cursed by 
 the presence of some others, these were treated as enemies. 
 And it frequently happened that the animal-god of a city was 
 looked upon with horror by the next one along the river. 
 And from this cause arose frequent quarrels, mutual insults, 
 even wars between contiguous localities. To such an extent 
 of absurdity, odiousness, and barbarism had religion if thus 
 it must be called been debased by the introduction of 
 idolatry. 
 
 But this state of religious disintegration, if we may call it 
 so, supposed a previous disintegration of the country. This 
 phenomenon has been remarked of other regions, but of India 
 in particular ; and our proposition, that " evidently mankind 
 began by clanship," has an especial applicability to Egypt. Ac- 
 cording to the general idea, it is supposed to have formed a 
 compact kingdom, rising occasionally to the proportions of a 
 mighty Empire, as it did under Sesostris ; and as we, in mod- 
 ern times, are accustomed to see large nationalities existing 
 with a high state of centralization, under the sway of one 
 strong and ever-present administration, we are prone to con- 
 clude, hastily, that it has always been so, and that Egypt, in 
 particular, was a powerful State, whose parts were firmly knit 
 together by religion, civilization, and customs. But this is 
 nothing but a huge mistake. There never was in Egypt such 
 a social and re'i^ious compactness before the Ptolemies, and 
 after them the Romans. And, even in this last case, the unifi- 
 cation was rather one of administration than of social customs. 
 
 It is certain that under the Pharaohs, and long after, Egypt 
 was parcelled out into a great number of small districts called
 
 CENTRAL ASIA AND AFRICA. 257 
 
 " nomes." Learned men differ as to the precise meaning of 
 this word ; some deriving it from the Greek vopog, different 
 from vopos ; others thinking, with more probability, that it was 
 originally an Egyptian, or perhaps a Phoenician, expression. 
 It meant a territory of any size, small generally, around a city 
 or village. The same word was used by the author of the 
 Book of Maccabees (I Lib., cap. x., v. 30), for certain small dis 
 tricts in Samaria and Galilee, called cities in the Douai ver- 
 sion ; and by Herodotus (in Thai.) for Persian Satrapies in 
 general. Isaiah (cap. xix., v. 2) employs a word generally trans- 
 lated by kingdom, and which the Sept. expresses by vo/i6? ; and 
 this last text being precisely adapted to our present consider- 
 ations, we give it here : " I will set the Egyptians against the 
 Egyptians ; and they shall fight brother against brother, and 
 friend against friend, city against city, kingdom against king- 
 dom." This last expression translated by vopog in the Sept., 
 is very remarkable. 
 
 J. J. Hoffmann, in his " Lexicon Universale," gives a list of 
 sixty-five nomes into which Egypt was divided. Pliny the 
 Elder, having always before his eyes the Roman Empire, calls 
 them Prcefecturas, giving us to understand that they were 
 merely provinces of a centralized government. But from what 
 we have just quoted from the Book of Maccabees and from 
 Isaiah, it would appear that decentralization was rather include! 
 in the meaning of the word " nome." The question so often 
 raised on the dynasties of Manetho has an important bearing 
 on this part of our subject. Those who contended last century 
 for the immense period of time required, apparently, by the 
 only chronology of Egyptian history we possess, maintained, 
 of course, that the dynasties of Manetho were all successive. 
 But, although Egyptologists seem to have now adopted this 
 opinion, there are very good reasons for supposing that a cer- 
 tain number at least of those dynasties were simultaneous ; and 
 that, for a long time, Egypt was, in fact, a kind of " pentarchy,"
 
 258 GE3TILI8M. 
 
 or something of the kind. Rawlinson shows it perfectly well 
 in his " Herodotus." The virulence with which, as it is now 
 ascertained, " nome " frequently fought against " nome," or as 
 Isaiah says, " kingdom against kingdom," proves clearly like- 
 wise that to consider Egypt as a compact commonwealth, ruled 
 by the same laws, and under a centralized government, is alto- 
 gether a mistake. When the worshippers of the crocodile went 
 forth in battle array against the adorers of the ichneumon the 
 destroyer of the reptile's eggs we do not read that the Pha- 
 raoh of Memphis or of Thebes interfered, at least usually. It 
 was a fight of clan against clan, and the supreme monarch did 
 not think his authority required him to chastise the disturbers 
 of the peace. Each one had a right to fight for the honor of 
 his god. We see at a glance what must have been then the 
 state of society. 
 
 But there is, in Strabo, a short passage which supplies a very 
 remarkable incidental confirmation of what we have just as- 
 serted. In Book xi., ch. xi., 5th, we read : " When I was 
 sailing up the Nile, schoeni measures of distance of different 
 lengths were used in passing from one city to another, so that 
 the same number of schoani gave in some places a longer, in 
 others a shorter, length of the voyage. This mode of compu- 
 tation has been handed down from an early period, and is con- 
 tinued to the present time." Strabo speaks of a fact to which 
 he was himself a witness, and on which he could not be de- 
 ceived. As his travelling in Egypt took place under Augustus, 
 the whole country was cowed into submission, and strict laws, 
 which the Romans knew so well how to impose and execute, 
 were in full vigor in Egypt, and forced it to be one and whole. 
 Yet the intelligent observer was struck with a fact which he 
 could not explain, having not deeply studied the early history 
 of the country. The mile around Memphis was different from 
 the mile around Thebes. And it must have been for any 
 traveller a source of inextricable confusion, to have to adopt a
 
 CENTRAL ASIA AND AFRICA. 239 
 
 new measure of distance every time he passed " from one city 
 
 to another." It was the confusion which existed not long a"x> 
 
 
 
 in Germany, with respect to coin and money, and which the 
 French have had themselves so much trouble to remedy in 
 their own country by their modern decimal system for all quan- 
 tities. Formerly France, Germany, Italy, etc. ; much more, in 
 old times, Egypt, India, etc., were partitioned out into an im- 
 mense number of " small states," each having its own measures 
 of distance, of weight, of bulk, etc. Are they not yet to-day in 
 Spain fighting for the old system against the new and quite re- 
 cent one, of reducing large bodies of people to the same inflex- 
 ible rules of what they call unification of races ? Nothing is bet- 
 ter calculated than this short passage of Strabo to give to the 
 common reader an idea of what Egypt must then have been, or 
 rather of what the world then was ; for it is to be remarked that 
 the whole geography of Strabo is merely a record of " tribes." 
 
 Most of those who have written on ancient Egypt suppose 
 that this strange superstition animal - worship existed from 
 the most ancient times, and that it is, in fact, a part of the " pri- 
 meval religion." Do they not still see it everywhere in Africa, 
 from Ethiopia to Senegal ? What must have been its cause ? 
 Unable to conjecture a satisfactory one, they assume that, in 
 the " infancy of nations," men were " infants " probably, and 
 amused themselves with those strange toys, cats, dogs, etc., and 
 admiring, we suppose, their curious antics, they believed them 
 animated by a " divine instinct" divino instinctu. Thus were 
 they led to divinize the vilest animals, such as serpents and 
 crocodiles. We find hypotheses of this kind in very thought- 
 ful writers, for whom we entertain a real regard, and whom 
 we would not for any consideration ridicule, or even treat with 
 any kind of disrespect. Heeren of Gottingen is one of them. 
 
 Our readers know what we think of the " infancy of na- 
 tions ;" and many striking facts already related and commented 
 upon in these pages, show how different the first period of hu-
 
 260 GE^TTILISM. 
 
 man society was from the barbarous degradation said to have 
 existed in primitive times. Heeren himself believes, and we 
 honor him for it, that the first building "erected by human 
 hands was the " Tower of Babel," whose stupendous ruins, he 
 thinks, exist yet in our days; three high stories out of eight. 
 Men, therefore, built then for eternity. The same celebrated 
 writer has told us what he believes of the antiquity and the 
 original civilization of Ethiopia, saying in as many words that, 
 " History itself carries us back to those ages in which the for- 
 mation of the most ancient States took place, and has thus far 
 shown that Meroe was one of them." His most interesting 
 historical works are full of many admissions of the kind ; and 
 in very few modern productions of human literary industry 
 shall we find so many arguments fatal to modern evolution- 
 theorists. Yet he, too, speaks of the "infancy of nations," 
 and of the childish admiration of man at that time for inferior 
 animals ; an admiration going so far as to make them his gods 
 and to worship them. And he calls such a degrading worship 
 a part of the "primeval religion." When he wrote this he 
 was not consistent with himself, and must have forgotten 
 many splendid passages of a contrary purport which had come 
 from his own pen, and which will give him an honorable and 
 lasting place among the great writers of our day. And the 
 only reason he assigns for attributing this origin to " animal- 
 worship " is, that human reason cannot explain otherwise such 
 an absurd freak of human superstition. That origin, we have 
 showed, is sufficiently explained by the pantheistic doctrines 
 introduced . in Hindostan and in Egypt from the belief in a 
 " Universal Soul ;" an obvious corruption of the first doctrine 
 of an Eternal, Infinite, Self-existent Being creating the world ; 
 and thus supposed to have changed from invisible to visible. 
 Animal-worship, consequently, derived from that great error, 
 must have been long subsequent to the primitive times ; and 
 the " primeval religion " must have known nothing of it. And
 
 CENTRAL ASIA AND AFRICA. 261 
 
 although we have not ourselves seen any of the antique monu- 
 ments of India, Egypt, and Ethiopia, we are sure that nothing 
 bearing testimony to this absurd and low belief can be found 
 in any building claiming a right to be called really old. Ac- 
 cording to the authors we have followed, we see at the cradle 
 of African civilization, in the neighborhood of Meroe, monu- 
 ments of a severe and noble style, with few sculptures and 
 scarcely any hieroglyphs. Further on, in places farther north, 
 on piles erected during the high material civilization of the 
 eighteenth dynasty, we see the various histories of Osiris and 
 Isis ; Phtah and Bast ; Knum and Heka ; Amun-Ra and Mu. 
 On none of them do we find anything relating to animal-wor- 
 ship, except, perhaps, here and there the presence of the ox 
 Apis, a singular emblem, whose meaning was well known to 
 all Egyptians. If anything is preserved on monuments of the 
 worship of cats or dogs or crocodiles, they must have been 
 built in the latter time of the Pharaohs, just before Cambyses 
 came with his Persians to protest with indignation against such 
 a degradation, to destroy the monuments and the priests, and 
 to obtain from posterity the title of a mad man, because he 
 eould not overcome the wrath excited in him by such sights. 
 
 The recent discoveries made by Mr. Mariette around Mem- 
 phis are, in fact, a splendid confirmation of our thesis. Close 
 by the great Sphinx at Gizeh, but certainly much more ancient, 
 he found, buried in the sand of the desert, a vast temple en- 
 tirely constructed of enormous blocks of black or rose-colored 
 granite, and of Oriental alabaster, without any sculpture or even 
 ornament of any kind. Straight lines alone, in the severest 
 purity, were used in its decoration. , 
 
 But if the walls of this temple are deprived of sculptural 
 ornaments, statues have been found in it which deserve a brief 
 mention. They were certainly chiselled before the priestly 
 " Canon of proportions " was imposed on Egyptian artists, 
 consequently, at the very beginning of the nation. They are
 
 262 GENTILISM. 
 
 merely statues of kings or great men adorning their sepulchres. 
 There is in them an elegance of composition, a simplicity and 
 reality of movement, a life in all the figures, such as to con- 
 vince the beholder that, if the priesthood had not imposed 
 strict ritual rules, the beauty of Greek art, later by, perhaps, 
 as much as fifteen centuries, would have been anticipated in 
 Egypt. But nowhere could Mr. Mariette find in this temple 
 any proofs of the subsequently degraded worship. 
 
 In the " infancy of nations," therefore, at least in Egypt, 
 not only was the human face that of a superior being, but even 
 his life was that of a Hindoo risM j since, on the walls of 
 those tombs of the primitive dynasties of the country, are 
 represented all the scenes domestic or agricultural of a truly 
 patriarchal condition ; large and well-cultivated farms, numer- 
 ous herds of cattle, fish and game in abundance, commodious 
 houses and villas, all the details of a most simple but truly civil- 
 ized life. Not so a thousand years later. 
 
 Egypt was yet under the domination of the Persians when 
 Herodotus visited it ; and he has left us details of the stupid 
 veneration of the people for animals, which is simply astonish- 
 ing, when we reflect on the progress the Egyptians had long 
 before made in civilization. " When a conflagration," he 
 relates (Euterpe, 66, 67), "takes place, a supernatural impulse 
 seizes on the cats of the neighborhood. The Egyptians, stand- 
 ing at a distance, think only of the cats, and neglect to put out 
 the fire. Then the animals, making their escape, leap over the 
 men and throw themselves into the fire. "When this happens, 
 great lamentations are made among the Egyptians. In what- 
 ever house a cat dies of a natural death, all the family shave 
 their eyebrows only ; but if a dog die, they shave the whole 
 body and the head. All deceased cats are carried to certain 
 sacred houses, where, being first embalmed, they are buried in 
 the city of Bubastis. All persons bury their dogs in sacred 
 vaults within their own city ; and ichneumons are buried in the
 
 CENTRAL ASIA AND AFRICA. 263 
 
 same manner as the dogs ; but field-mice and hawks they carry 
 to the city of Buto ; the ibis to Hermopolis ; the bears, which 
 are few in number, and the wolves, which are not much larger 
 than foxes, they bury wherever they are found lying." 
 
 Everybody knows how all these details have been verified 
 by modem researches, and what enormous quantities of em- 
 balmed cats, in particular, have been found in Egypt in this 
 century. AYe cannot believe that the people who built the 
 stupendous monuments of Thebes were so superstitious and 
 so much addicted to animal-worship as those whom Herodotus 
 has described from eyesight. It is, no doubt, much later than 
 even the eighteenth or nineteenth dynasties that such scenes 
 began to take place in Egypt. 
 
 Yet already, long before the time of Herodotus, the progress 
 of idolatry had introduced strange superstitions. A single 
 example will suffice an example which will, at the same time, 
 illustrate the old Egyptian exalted doctrine, and show how 
 former noble traditions had been altogether forgotten in the 
 midst of ever-advancing degradation. We take it from He- 
 rodot. II., 42 : " The Thebans, and those who, following their 
 example, abstain from eating mutton, say that this custom was 
 established among them in the following way : Hercules 
 (Khonsn) was desirous of seeing Jupiter (Amun), but Jupiter 
 was unwilling to be seen by him ; at last, however, as Hercules 
 persisted, Jupiter had recourse to the following contrivance : 
 Having flayed a ram, he cut off the head and held it before 
 himself, and then having put on the fleece, he, in that form, 
 showed himself to Hercules. From this circumstance the 
 Egyptians make the image of Jupiter with a ram's head ; and 
 from the Egyptians, the Ainmonians (in Ethiopia), .... and, as 
 I conjecture, the Ammonians from hence derived their name, 
 for the Egyptians call Jupiter, Ammon (Amun)." 
 
 It is evident from this narrative that the " Father of His- 
 tory " attached no other meaning than the literal one to this
 
 264 GENTILISM. 
 
 apparently absurd tale ; and that all the Egyptians of his time, 
 even the priests with whom he was in constant communication, 
 saw no deeper meaning in it. And as the whole country was full 
 of statues with rams' heads representing Amun, all the id^ea 
 the people gathered from it was the altercation between Amun 
 and Khonsu ; and, on that account, many of them abstained 
 from eating mutton. Yet the full understanding of this myth 
 is easy for us, and we find in it a strong confirmation of some 
 of our previous observations on the monotheism of the first 
 Egyptians : Jupiter, or Amun (simpliciter), is " invisible," 
 " self-existent," the " highest," the " supreme." He cannot 
 be seen understood perfectly by inferior gods, his creatures. 
 Hercules (Khonsu) is one of the twelve gods of the second 
 order, according to Herodotus in another passage (II. 43). 
 He (Khonsu) asks to see Amun, who cannot grant his request 
 absolutely, but makes use of a " contrivance ;" He creates the 
 "visible" world, chiefly the Sun, centre of it. This visible 
 Amun begins his course every year, by the first sign of the 
 Zodiac (Aries). It is known that the Egyptians were the first 
 inventors of the Zodiac. Every year, therefore, when the 
 inhabitant of Egypt sees the sun enter Aries* the Ram he 
 can look on the visible representative of the invisible God, who 
 has thus " covered himself " with the ram's Tiead and fleece. 
 Can any myth be more consistent and perfect in all its parts, 
 and express more eloquently the truth of " one invisible 
 God, Creator of the visible Universe ? " Yet the Egyptians, 
 the priests even, had entirely lost the meaning of such a grand 
 conception, and looked only on the contemptible fable, in- 
 tended, at first, as a striking symbol to remind them of it. 
 Thus superstition and idolatry had crept in, and the people, at 
 first imbued with a sublime doctrine destined to last forever, 
 
 * That the world was created at the spring equinox, when the sun 
 enters Aries, was, we think, the belief of many ancient nations, and 
 probably of the Egyptians.
 
 CENTRAL ASIA AND AFRICA. 265 
 
 had become adorers of rams and timid fasters from the flesli of 
 sheep ! 
 
 It is impossible to read the second book of the interesting 
 History dedicated to the Nine Muses, without a feeling of sad 
 pity. We find there the artless effusions of a gifted writer 
 setting out from his native Greeas, at the beginning of the 
 most brilliant period of its existence Greece victorious over 
 the Persians, Greece already refined, and on the eve of reach- 
 ing the exquisite culture of the era of Pericles he reflects in 
 himself all the intelligence, culture, refinement of his native 
 country ; he comes to visit a land celebrated for its early civil- 
 ization, which Solon and Pythagoras had already admired, 
 and which Plato, with many other men of genius, would visit 
 later ; the common report is, that it is a land not only of mys- 
 tery, but of wisdom ; a thoroughly religious country, where 
 many sublime truths can be known about the " worship of 
 the gods." The amiable traveller is himself religiously in- 
 clined, though, too often, even in him, the future scepticism 
 of his countrymen begins to appear. Yet he is careful not to 
 betray the secrets of religion, since religion has secrets in 
 Egypt. At every moment he says that " he would speak if he 
 dared ;" that " it is more becoming for him not to mention it, 
 though he knows it ;" that the obscenities which he is obliged 
 to relate " are accounted for by a sacred story ;" that " it were 
 impious for him to divulge" the reason of the absurdities 
 which he narrates, etc., etc. And when, finally, garrulity con- 
 quers, and he says what he " ought not to say ;" when he feels 
 that he has betrayed some secret, and he is bound to pray that 
 " he may meet with indulgence and pardon both from gods 
 and heroes," the secrets which he unveils are as ridiculous as 
 the stories themselves. The Thebans abstain from mutton be- 
 cause Jupiter covered himself with a ram's skin to show him- 
 self to Hercules ! 
 
 "When he compares the religion of his country with that of
 
 266 GENTILISM. 
 
 Egypt, it is nearly always to place side by side the " dresses of 
 the gods ; " the " Hercules " of one country with that of the 
 other ; the ridiculous " rites " of the Egyptians with the yet 
 more childish " rites " of the Lybians, the Phoenicians, or of 
 his own Greeks. Of what deserves the name of religion, not a 
 word ! And, if ancient wisdom has spoken in the land of mys- 
 tery, and the word she spoke reaches the ear of the traveller, it 
 does not bring to his mind any rational thought ; but it is alto- 
 gether a jumble of puerilities when it is not a disgusting spec- 
 tacle of coarseness. Miss Maria Graham, in her " Journal of a 
 Residence in India," (1812), remarks that, " The coarseness and 
 inelegance of the Hindoo polytheism will certainly disgust many 
 people accustomed to the graceful mythology of Europe .... 
 For my own part," she adds, " living among the people, and 
 daily beholding the prostrate worshipper, the temple, the altar, 
 and the offering, I take an interest in them which makes up for 
 their want of poetical beauty." And, again, in another place : 
 " When processions are in honor of a god, they take place dur- 
 ing the day ; the deity is carried on a litter in triumph, with 
 banners before and behind, arid priests are seen carrying flow- 
 ers, and milk and rice ; while hardly any one joins the proces- 
 sion without an offering. All this looks very well at a distance, 
 but when one comes near, one is shocked at the meanness and 
 inelegance of the god, and at the filth and wretchedness of his 
 votaries." 
 
 Miss Maria Graham would, no doubt, have been highly 
 pleased with polytheism in the East, in her time, had it been 
 polished and elegant, as that of Greece and Egypt was in her 
 opinion. Yet had she witnessed the scenes described by Hero- 
 dotus, as he saw them himself on the banks of the Nile, she 
 might have not found so great a difference between the poly- 
 theism of our day and that of antiquity. Let the reader im- 
 agine an incredible procession of boats on the mighty river, con- 
 veying seven hundred thousand men and women to Bubastis ;
 
 CENTRAL ASIA AND AFRICA. 20 7 
 
 each barge filled with men and women together, some of the 
 women playing on castanets, keeping time for men who played 
 on the flute, the remainder of the human cargoes clapping 
 their hands, singing and dancing without order. Let the 
 reader imagine, we say, what must take place, not on the voy- 
 age only, but at every town on the banks of the Nile, where the 
 huge fleet stopped to allow the travellers the pleasure not only 
 of bandying words with the inhabitants, but chiefly of so out- 
 raging decency, that our pen cannot reproduce the words of 
 the Greek writer. As to the festival itself, at Bubastis, Hero- 
 dotus does not attempt to describe it, but he merely says : 
 " They offer up great sacrifices, and more wine is consumed at 
 this feast than in all the rest of the year." But with respect 
 to the ceremonies which accompany the yearly sacrifice of swine 
 to Osiris, we shrink from even an allusion to the obscenities in 
 open air which disgrace the whole proceedings. 
 
 The Egyptian rites, therefore, in the time of Herodotus, 
 were as gross and licentious as those of the degraded Hindoos 
 of our days. But it was not so at the beginning. Already 
 have we been told that nothing can be found on the primitive 
 monuments of Nubfa and Ethiopia, any more than on those of 
 ancient Egypt, that " could offend decency." 
 
 We need dilate no more on the gradual decay of true relig- 
 ion in ancient Egypt. The process of disintegration in every 
 respect is visible enough. Noble religious truths spread at 
 first over a great part of Africa, begin by admitting a mix- 
 ture of error. Soon the genuine dogmas are altogether ob- 
 scured, and totally forgotten, although still preserved in. books 
 which have not yet perished. The worship of elements be- 
 comes, then, universal, until the progress of art brings the wor- 
 ship of idols, which ends finally in rank fetichism. 
 
 All the various tribes of the third continent, which had at 
 first a common doctrine, loose it and are reduced each to its 
 local superstitions. Religion becomes more clannish, perhaps,
 
 268 GENTTLISM. 
 
 in Egypt than in any other country on earth. What we see, 
 now, all over the interior of that vast continent is merely the 
 result of this long process of mental, social, and religious disin- 
 tegration. When the Romans took possession of the lower 
 basin of the Nile, the whole country was a putrid moral cess- 
 pool. Hence there was not, there could not be, the slightest 
 resistance against the spread of their power. The Christian 
 religion alone gave it a temporary splendor by the great men 
 whom the Church produced in that land so long degraded; 
 until Mohammedanism brutally quenched this last spark of holy 
 fire, only to bs succeeded by what we now witness in that de- 
 voted country. 
 
 A few remarks, in conclusion, on the " Funereal Ritual " of 
 the ancient Egyptians, will complete our argument in proof of 
 the process of moral deterioration universal in ancient history, 
 in so far as Egypt is concerned. We quote F. Lenormant : 
 
 " The Egyptians," says Horappollo in the Hieroglyphics, 
 " call knowledge ' sbo,' that is, ' food and plenty.' This passage 
 certainly contains an allusion to the religious ideas as deter- 
 mining the destiny of the dead.* Knowledge and food are, in 
 fact, identified on eveiy page of the Ritual 1 . The knowledge of 
 religious truths is the mysterious nourishment the soul must 
 carry with it to sustain it in its jourmjys and trials. A soul 
 not possessing this knowledge could never reach the end of its 
 journey, and would be rejected at the tribunal of Osiris. It 
 was, therefore, necessary, before commencing the journey, to 
 be furnished with a stock of this divine provision. To this 
 end is destined the long chapter, the seventeenth, at the end of 
 the second part of the book. It is accompanied by a large 
 vignette, representing a series of the most sacred symbols of 
 the Egyptian religion. The text contains a description of these 
 symbols, with their mystical explanation. At the beginning of 
 the chapter, the descriptions and explanations are sufficiently 
 clear, but as it advances, we get into a higher and more ob-
 
 CENTRAL ASIA AND AFRICA. 269 
 
 scure region ; at the end of the chapter we lose the clue 
 almost entirely, and, as often happens in such cases, the expla- 
 nation ends by being more obscure than the symbols and ex- 
 pressions explained." (Anc. Hist, of the East, Yol. 1.) 
 
 In a note on this passage reference is made to a peculiarity 
 of the text first pointed out by Baron Bunsen, which is this : 
 " The original text is, after every sentence, followed by a com- 
 mentary, explanation, or gloss, prefaced in every case by a 
 group of characters in red, meaning ' The explanation is this,' 
 or ' Let him explain it*' From this it necessarily arises : first, 
 that the text had by a certain time become so unintelligible as 
 to require an explanation ; secondly, that the explanation itself 
 had in its turn become unintelligible ; and finally, that the text 
 and gloss, equally obscure, had been jumbled together, and 
 written out as one continuous document." ISTo fact could bet- 
 ter prove that any text requires an infallible interpreter to be 
 for ever proof against error. 
 
 Here we have a very simple, natural, and probably true de- 
 scription of the way " the Egyptian faith " had become a real 
 " jumble " of unintelligible phrases ; and this by the early time 
 of the eleventh dynasty, as this seventeenth chapter of the 
 " Funereal Ritual " was found on a papyrus of that age. 
 
 Mr. Alexis Chevalier, in the " Correspondant " of Paris, of 
 the 10th August, 1872, writes as follows, in accordance with 
 the opinions of such men as de Rouge, Mariette, Lenormant, 
 etc. : " If ancient civilization, particularly that of Egypt, has 
 shed a brilliant light, it is only because the great things accom- 
 plished by the people of those times sprung originally from the 
 truths and virtues of the natural order, and likewise from the 
 remains of the primitive Revelation, of which the religious 
 and moral doctrines of the Egyptians have so clearly showed us 
 the footmarks. 
 
 " But as soon as those traditions decline in strength, a dis- 
 agreement, nay, a contradiction becomes directly more and
 
 270 GE1STTILISM. 
 
 more sensible between the healthy moral thoughts primitively 
 contained in the Funereal Kitual, and that monstrous religion 
 which degraded the soul of man by the worship of animals, and 
 let loose by its shameless mysteries all the depraved inclina- 
 tions of our fallen nature .... 
 
 " Under the pernicious influence of this corrupt religion the 
 moral vigor of man is weakened, social order becomes less vig- 
 orous, and the nation finds itself powerless to repel foreign in- 
 vasion .... We all know how animal-worship had rendered 
 the Egyptians ridiculous and contemptible in the eyes of other 
 nations. After having obtained a complete victory before Pe- 
 lusiuin, merely by placing a number of cats, of dogs, and other 
 * sacred' animals in the front rank of his army, Cambyses 
 made it a point of killing with his own hand the ox Apis, to 
 show his worshippers the powerlessness of their god .... 
 
 " The more we go up towards the origin of the Egyptian 
 nation, the clearer we find, in their primitive purity, the prin- 
 ciples of tlie natural law revealed to man at first by God him- 
 self : the adoration of one only God, creator of the world and 
 of man ; paternal authority and the respect due to parents by 
 their children ; the love of the neighbor ; the necessity of labor ; 
 the immortality of the soul, and due rewards and punishments 
 after this life . . . ." 
 
 " But the more we go down in time, and farther from the 
 cradle of primitive society, the more altered we find the pri- 
 mordial truths and divine traditions by the invasion of polythe- 
 ism, which had perverted everything on earth when the Re- 
 deemer finally appeared. 
 
 "A time shall finally come," says Hermes Trismegistus, 
 quoted by St. Augustine (De Civ., Dei viii., 23, 26), " when 
 it will be found that in vain have the Egyptians first honored 
 God rightfully and faithfully ; their most holy worship shall 
 have brought them no profit, and go out in smoke .... Then 
 this venerable land, consecrated of old by innumerable temples
 
 CENTRAL ASIA AND AFRICA. 271 
 
 and altars, shall be henceforth full only of dead bodies and of 
 sepulchres." 
 
 With these quotations we close our argument, in so far as 
 Egypt is concerned, and we think our induction was equally 
 convincing with respect to India : that nations left. to them- 
 selves, retrograde invariably ; at least, that they did so in the 
 time previous to Christianity, from truth to error, from a pure 
 morality to degradation, from a truly civilized but simple state, 
 to an artificial and brilliant corruption, ending in moral putrid- 
 ity and national dishonor. 
 19
 
 CHAPTER Y. 
 
 KELIGION IN PELASGIC GKEECE. 
 
 I. 
 
 THAT Europeans are not autochthones, but came from an- 
 other continent that, consequently, the most primitive inhab- 
 itants of the western part of the old world were not of native 
 growth, but immigrants from an original foreign country is 
 now admitted by all. And the strange theory so prevalent a 
 few years back, which supposed many " centres of creation," 
 even for man, seems now to be forgotten, until, perhaps, our 
 grandchildren hear of it again in some other shape. A Dar- 
 winian may, possibly, conclude that we came from Asia or 
 Africa ; since, with the exception of the rock of Gibraltar, 
 where a few monkeys amuse, by their gambols, the English gar- 
 rison settled there, no individual of the Simian family, from 
 which man is said to have sprung, can claim Europe for its 
 native country. We prefer, on the score of reason alone, to 
 conclude that the creation of the primitive man did not take 
 place in Europe ; and all are now of this opinion, some for one 
 reason, some for another. History, geography, philology, give 
 the various proofs leading to that conclusion, independently of 
 revealed truth. History began evidently in Asia and Africa, 
 and except upon the supposition of the previous population of 
 these two continents, European history, from the start, would 
 be a puzzle. Asia, especially, is the great and high centre,, 
 looming up in the distance of ages, from which the diverse 
 streams of human annals took their rise and began to flow. A 
 * (272)
 
 RELIGION IN PELASGIC GREECE. 273 
 
 few years back some ingenious writers tried to make geography 
 the great prop of the same truth ; and Mr. E. Pococke, in his 
 " India in Greece," produced an immense number of names of 
 mountains, rivers, lakes, and cities indicating Asia and North 
 Hindostan, in particular, as the primitive spot whence tribes 
 started in search of a new home in the wilds of the West. 
 Precisely in the same way, as some future writer will be able 
 to show, that America and Australia were colonized by Euro- 
 peans merely by the various names given to the geographical 
 features of these two continents. But philology, especially, 
 has of late been adduced, with great force, to prove that it is 
 to the great plateau of Central Asia we must look for the real 
 origin of all European nations, with the trivial exception of the 
 Turks, the Magyars, and the Finns. Sanscrit seems to be the 
 mother tongue, though some philologists suppose a more an- 
 cient and primitive language out of which even the Sanscrit 
 arose. But the very interesting discoveries of Max Miiller in his 
 " Comparative Philology," establish an intimate connection 
 between Europe and Central Asia the precise spot to which 
 we traced, in a previous chapter, the original seat of the 
 Vedas and the Zends. A new name has been given to the 
 whole, or rather a very old name has been revived, and Europe 
 speaks again of the Aryans as of her ancestors. God be 
 praised ! The current of European opinion, this time, does not 
 run counter to revealed truth. For the latter, together with 
 the whole voice of antiquity, had taught us to believe that the 
 population of Europe and of Northern Asia was Japhetic ; and 
 the word Aryan, after all, means only the posterity of Japhet. 
 A Catholic, therefore, can now embrace Science as a daughter 
 of heaven, and replace, with her help, the true foundation of 
 the history of man. And, at the same time that the dignity of 
 our species is asserted anew, and the belief of our first ancestors 
 is proved to have been that of rational beings, namely, the wor- 
 ship of one Supreme God ; the true origin of error, and the
 
 274 GENTILISM. 
 
 unfortunate spread of polytheism, become finally evident, and 
 show conclusively how the author of the Book of Wisdom 
 knew well history as well as ethics. 
 
 But in Europe, Hellas must be the first subject of our inves- 
 tigations, as she is the first spot where positive history appears, 
 and from her all Europe, except the Celtic and the northern 
 Germanic races, received truth and" error. 
 
 First, let us describe, in a few words, what the new discov- 
 eries in philology have rendered probable with respect to the 
 migration of primitive tribes from the starting-point of the 
 great plateau of Central Asia. It seems to us to be only a 
 detailed commentary of what the Book of Genesis* had long 
 previously stated. 
 
 The first migration is admitted to have consisted of the ances- 
 tors of the Celts or Kelts, the posterity of Gomer^Kymris), 
 established first on the northern shore of the Black Sea. Later, 
 the Teutonic people, perhaps Magog, a general term for tribes 
 north-west of Caucasus, rather than Tartars, together with the 
 Greeks and Italians (Javan). All these, it is now said, would 
 seem to have made their way to their new settlements, through 
 Persia and Asia Minor, crossing to Europe by the Hellespont, 
 some, perhaps, through the passes of the Caucasus. The 
 Sclavonic nations are thought to have afterwards taken their 
 route by the north of the Caspian. They may be indicated by 
 the Teras of Genesis, the river Tiras, or the Dniester. Finally, 
 the Medes, Persians, and North Hindoos are supposed to have 
 been the last emigrants from Central Asia, through the passes 
 of the Himalaya and Hindu Kush. "We do not see precisely 
 why this should have been the last emigration. Genesis 
 places the one of the Madai directly after that of Magog. In 
 our opinion, the direction southward must have been one of 
 the first taken by the migrating patriarchal peoples. Yet it is 
 certainly remarkable that modern investigators, in working 
 away at their speculations derived only from the comparative
 
 
 
 RELIGION IN PELASGIC GKEECE. 275 
 
 study of Sanscrit and European languages, without having, for 
 a moment, in their minds, we are sure, the thought either of 
 Genesis or of Japhet, should happen to give us a new interpre- 
 tation of a few verses of the first book of Moses. So it is, 
 however. Only, there is no question any more of the Tower of 
 Babel, which was generally, until lately, considered as the 
 starting-point of those primitive migrations. Central Asia 
 now replaces it. But it is to be remarked that the history of 
 Babel's edifice is given in Chap. xi. of Genesis, and the list of 
 nations, which subsequently separated from each other, in 
 Chap. x. The writer, therefore, did not intend to establish a 
 connection between the various settlements of the nations 
 alluded to and the confusion of tongues ; and thus there is not 
 the least discrepancy between our sacred text and the modern 
 discoveries ; and this is a very favorable circumstance for the 
 " discoveries,'' as the " sacred text," in our opinion, never had 
 anything to fear from modern investigators. 
 
 "We are, therefore, brought back by the labors of recent 
 ethnologists and linguists to the time-honored book and termi- 
 nology, dear to Christians ; and we may now, again, speak of 
 the Japhetic race without fear of being " unscientific." We 
 come, therefore, to consider the Javan (Ionian) family in that 
 great race. The questions we propose to ourselves are : What 
 is its origin ? What was its primitive religion ? How did it 
 degenerate into the polytheist anthromorphism of which our 
 classical studies have so well informed us ? 
 
 II. 
 
 The various branches of the Japhetic or Aryan family which 
 remained in Asia continued for many ages civilized, polished, 
 monotheists ; or, only if not pure monotheists, at least men 
 whose religion was just on the borders of that broad and grand
 
 276 GENTILISM. 
 
 pantheism to which we have had occasion to allude so often. 
 Probably the Vedas and the Zends, containing at first the 
 main doctrines of the primitive revelation, were written for 
 them after their less fortunate brethren had left for the 
 North-west. These, therefore, could take with them no copy of 
 those great works. Had they at the time an alphabet ? It is 
 probable ; since they knew so well the Sanscrit. Had they in 
 their possession a written literature of any kind ? The prob- 
 ability is, that they had not ; since they made such indifferent 
 custodians of the language they possessed on parting, and made 
 subsequently such a poor use of it in the various settlements 
 they occupied. 
 
 The language, at least, which they brought with them could 
 not be but strangely modified by the various dialects of the 
 nations through whose territory they had to pass. A great 
 number of tribes had migrated before them, going in the same 
 direction ; and Mr. Max Miiller has shown, in his " Languages 
 of the Seat of War," that, from that early period to this, the 
 Western part of Asia and the South-east of Europe have been 
 inhabited by nations speaking an incredible number of tongues. 
 " The Caucasus itself," he says, " is called by the Persians the 
 mountain of languages ; and the diversity, of dialects spoken 
 there in every valley has been the chief obstacle to a united 
 resistance on the part of the Caucasian tribes against Russia. 
 The South-east of Europe has indeed long been notorious as a 
 Babel of tongues. Herodotus (iv., 24) tells us that caravans of 
 Greek merchants, following the course of the Volga upwards to 
 the Ural mountains, were accompanied by seven interpreters, 
 speaking seven different languages. These must have com- 
 prised Sclavonic, Tartaric, and Finnic dialects, spoken in those 
 countries in the time of Herodotus as well as at the pres- 
 ent day. In yet earlier times the South-east of Europe was 
 the resting-place for the nations who transplanted the seed of 
 Asia to European soil. Three roads were open to their North-
 
 RELIGION IN PELASGIC GREECE. 277 
 
 
 
 westward migrations. One east of the Caspian Sea, and west 
 of the mountains, leading to the North of Asia and Europe. 
 Another on the Caucasian Isthmus, when they would advance 
 along the northern coast of the Black Sea, and following the 
 course of the Dnieper, Dniester, or Danube, be led into Russia 
 or Germany. 
 
 "A third road was defined by the Taurus through Asia Minor, 
 to the point where the Hellespont marks the ' path of the Hel- 
 lenes ' into Greece and Italy. While the main stream of the 
 Aryan nations passed on, carrying its waves to the northern and 
 western shores of Europe, it formed a kind of eddy in the Car- 
 pathian peninsula, and we may still discover in the stagnant dia- 
 lects, north and south of the Danube, the traces of the flux and 
 reflex of those tribes who have since become the ruling nations 
 of Europe. The barbarian inroads, which, from the seventh cen- 
 tury after Christ, infested the regions of civih'zation, and led to 
 the destruction of the Greek and Roman Empires, followed all 
 the same direction. The country near the Danube and the 
 Black Sea has been for ages the battle-field of Asia and Europe. 
 Each language settled there on the confines of civilization and 
 barbarism recalls a chapter of history." 
 
 We can understand how many obstacles were thus placed in 
 the path of the future Hellenes and Italians. But the worst, 
 for them, was the aspect of the unpromising countries which 
 they were going to turn into a paradise. We talk of our 
 Western American colonists being hardy pioneers, and carry- 
 ing civilization into the wilds of the far-west ! We think it 
 quite natural that these restless roamers over our immense 
 
 Cairies, should become half barbarians and savages on the bor- 
 rs of civilization ! How different is their position in these 
 recent days ! Were our emigrants to the West to profit by all 
 the advantages they enjoy, there would be no necessity what- 
 ever for them to fall into barbarism and uncouth savagery. 
 But could the wretched children of the third son of Noah avoid
 
 278 GENTILISM. 
 
 
 
 the terrible fate of lapsing into barbarous manners, and of fall- 
 ing into the most brutal ignorance and superstition ? The 
 more that they were destined to have no more any intercourse 
 whatever with their original country, and to forget it so en- 
 tirely, that it would take very nearly four thousand years to 
 recover their claim of lineage with their real ancestors. 
 
 Picture we, then, these migrating tribes, as they wandered 
 away from their early civilization, making a path for them- 
 selves through the tangled and interminable forests, stretching 
 north and west as far as the ocean, and obliged to cross the 
 redoutable mountains of Northern Persia, of Armenia, of the 
 Caucasus ; where first one of them, Prometheus, a representa- 
 tive man, was to be bound and nailed to a rock, and exposed to 
 the cruel talons of the vulture. * 
 
 In how many places did they not stop and attempt a settle- 
 ment ? How often, after immense labors, were they not obliged 
 to give up the hope of finding a new country in a place which 
 at first appeared desirable ? But the forests, the interminable 
 forests were everywhere in their way. Then, perhaps, they 
 would move on, in the hope of lighting on some more promis- 
 ing spot for. a settlement, only to find the same difficulties re- 
 newed. 
 
 Mr. E. Pococke, in " India in Greece," represents the move- 
 ments of those immense armies of emigrants under a very dif- 
 ferent aspect. If we are to believe him, they went on in an 
 uninterrupted stream from their starting-point to their ultimate 
 destination, without difficulty, without a moment of hesitation,^ 
 without a shadow of obstacle. They appear to have been di- 
 rected, as the Ethiopians were, according to Herodotus, by " tha 
 voice of the oracle ;" and they stopped only when they reached 
 the spot indicated by the " divine commandment." ~No sooner 
 arrived, than they began b/ mapping out their new country 
 exactly on the pattern of their old one ; and they gave to givers, 
 mountains, lakes, etc., the names of similar geographical fea-
 
 KELIGION IN PELASGIC GEEECE. 279 
 
 tures in their former dwelling-place. Thus it happens that 
 Mr. Pococke could write " India in Greece," with two maps ; 
 one of the north of Hindostau, the other of Hellas itself, with 
 corresponding names and indications, making the nomencla- 
 ture of the two territories almost exactly alike. 
 
 But evidently he had not been one of the primitive travel- 
 lers ; he had not even come to North America to see how these 
 things are generally done; but he quite forgot to picture to 
 himself the world as it must have been at the time of the old 
 migration of the sons of Japhet, or, if you choose, of the "Aryan 
 tribes ;" and has, consequently, produced a work, which, how- 
 ever full of curious erudition, is fantastic and visionary in the 
 highest degree. He maintains, for example, that those " Aryan 
 tribes" were at the same time " Buddhist ;" and has been 
 compelled to make the brilliant Athenians, the decendants of 
 the " Attock," a gloomy .Buddhist community of the Punjab ! ! 
 although Buddhism originated more than a thousand years 
 later. Yet with all the strangeness and incongruities of the 
 book, with its false conclusions and absurd theories, it shows 
 conclusively that the "Hellenes" must have been formerly 
 deeply connected with the Hindoos ; and .no man of any under- 
 standing and knowledge would at this time contradict this 
 position. 
 
 The circumstance mentioned above, however, namely, the 
 incredible hardships sustained by the emigrants from Northern 
 Hindostan to the West, must be insisted upon, as it gives so 
 evident and satisfactory a reason of the state of barbarism in 
 which, according to all ancient authors, the first inhabitants of 
 Greece were plunged. Had not Prometheus, according to 
 JEschylus, speaking the language of universal tradition (Prometh. 
 vinctus), " to invent for them the senses of sight and of hear- 
 ing ? To bring them out of their caves and teach them how to 
 build wooden houses ? To make them first observe the differ- 
 ence of seasons, of hard winter, and flowery spring, and fruitful
 
 280 GENTILISM. 
 
 summer ? To discover for them numbers, and the combina- 
 tions of letters, and even memory, the effective mother-nurse 
 of all arts?" 
 
 From the traditions of Greece, this narrative of the primitive 
 state of man was handed down as the first page of the annals of 
 all Europeans. In their long ramblings through the wilds of 
 the western continent the wretched emigrants from Asia had 
 well-nigh forgotten the comparatively brilliant state enjoyed 
 by all in their former country. And can we wonder that relig- 
 ious doctrines had been in the main forgotten like all things 
 else conducive to their comfort and civilization ? 
 
 But here the inquiry naturally presents itself, Were the first 
 settlers in the country we now call Greece, Hellenes ? Were 
 they not rather PELASGIANS ? What of them ? 
 
 III. 
 
 Certainly Pelasgic tribes thus were they called dwelt in 
 very early times all over Greece, chiefly in Thrace at the north 
 of it, and in many districts of Western Asia, and of Southern 
 Italy, and in the islands of the Mediterranean Sea ; in fact, 
 wherever the Greek tribes latterly spread themselves and their 
 language ultimately prevailed. In spite of profound researches 
 in all the annals of antiquity which yet remain in our hands, in 
 spite of the ingenuity of modern critics, and of the light 
 thrown recently over many particularities of the life of nations 
 until this time unknown, no satisfactory solution has yet ap- 
 peared of this question, Who were the Pelasgians ? We will 
 not attempt to discuss it, as it does not lie directly in our way. 
 It is generally believed that the extraordinary ancient build- 
 ings, known as Cyclopean, whose ruins are yet found all over 
 the above-mentioned countries, we're their work. They were at 
 the same time an agricultural and warlike people, but more the
 
 EELIGION IN PELASGIC GREECE. 281 
 
 former than the latter. They were constantly moving, often 
 crossing the sea, yet not given over to trade, like the Phoenicians, 
 who came after them. These characteristics seem pretty well 
 ascertained, and are generally admitted by all writers. But 
 what relations had they to the Hellenes ? For a long time the 
 two races were contemporaneous. Herodotus says that their 
 language was " barbarous," that is to say, " foreign " to the 
 Greeks; but this does not suppose a totally different tongue. 
 A dialect not easily understood at first would suffice for the 
 epithet. Homer sometimes speaks of both nations as belong- 
 ing to the same race. At other times he distinguishes them 
 and seems not to agree with himself. But, without quoting 
 ancient authorities, which have been sufficiently examined by 
 modern investigators, the opinion of those who, in our days, 
 think tliat the Pelasgians gradually passed into the Hellenes, 
 and these last insensibly came from the first, is respectable and 
 seems to us the most probable, precisely from the indistinctness 
 of the difference, even in the eyes of those who admit a differ- 
 ence. Both, moreover, can be reconciled, by admitting that 
 the " Javans " Javanas in Sanscrit did not migrate all at once 
 from Central Asia, but that the first migratory band took the 
 name of Pelasgians, and the second one that of Hellenes. For 
 certainly all must admit now, after the labors of Muller and 
 others, that both came from the same original centre. 
 
 It is the religion of those migrating tribes, however, which 
 chiefly concerns our investigations. And here a great uncer- 
 tainty prevails, as in the case of Egypt, chiefly on account of 
 the want of documents, arising from the uncivilized state to 
 which they were necessarily reduced by all the circumstances of 
 their migration. 
 
 We learn from Herodotus (Euterpe, 52), that " Formerly the 
 Pelasgians sacrificed all sorts of victims to the gods with prayers, 
 as I was informed at Dodona ; tftit they gave no surname or 
 name to any of them, for they had not yet heard of them ; but
 
 282 GENTILISH. 
 
 they called them gods Theoi, because they had set in order and 
 ruled over all things. In course of time, they heard the names 
 of the other gods that were brought from Egypt, and after 
 some time that of Dionysus. On this question they consulted 
 the oracle of Dodona, for this oracle is" accounted the most 
 ancient of those that are in Greece, and was then the only one. 
 When, therefore, the Pelasgians inquired at Dodona whether 
 they should receive the names that came from the barbarians, 
 the oracle answered, that they should. From that time, there- 
 fore, they gave names to the gods in their sacrifices, and the 
 Grecians afterwards received them from the Pelasgians." 
 
 This is a most important passage, as it explains very natu- 
 rally the origin of idolatry in Greece. The Pelasgians had left 
 Central Asia before the worship of elements had introduced 
 polytheism. Indra, Agni, Cuhu, etc., were not yet individual- 
 ized. They were merely aspects of nature calling back the 
 mind to God ; and were known, probably, under the general 
 name of " devatas." The Pelasgians, in their new country, 
 called them " Theoi," in general. When they heard of the 
 individual names given by the Egyptians to their gods, they in- 
 quired of the oracle at Dodona, which their growing superstition 
 had already established, and the " lying oracle " deceived them. 
 Hence their acceptance of individual names for their gods; 
 that is to say, of idolatry, which they passed over to the 
 Hellenes. 
 
 A discovery made by modern collectors of Pelasgic antiqui- 
 ties, not long since, still further illustrates this part of our sub- 
 ject. A curious piece of sculpture, of undoubted Pelasgic 
 origin, was ascertained to be a goavov, or Divine Image of 
 Orpheus ; showing that this more than half-mythic personage 
 was truly Pelasgic, and must be referred to the Ante-Hellenic 
 period. 
 
 A reflection of Heeren will help us to the conclusion we 
 would draw from these two facts. It is taken from his
 
 RELIGION IX PELASGIC GREECE. 283 
 
 "Ancient Greece," Chap. iii. : " The feelings of religion can 
 be unfolded, and thus the character of our existence ennobled, 
 even before a high degree of knowledge has been attained. It 
 would be difficult, and, perhaps, impossible, to find a nation 
 which can show no vestiges of religion ; and there never yet 
 has been, nor can there be, a people for whom the reverence 
 paid to a superior being was but the fruit of refined philo- 
 sophy." 
 
 There can, certainly, be no doult that God spoke to the 
 patriarchs before philosophy systematized human knowledge. 
 The language of divine revelation cannot contradict that of 
 reason, yet is superior to it ; fii st, because it unfolds truths 
 which reason could not attain ; and, secondly, because the truths 
 demonstrable by human reason, as the existence of God, His 
 unity, etc., are "much more safely guarded and secured to man- 
 kind when they form a part of a religion coining from heaven. 
 On this account God, full of love for man, and always doing 
 for him more than is strictly necessary, gave him from the be- 
 ginning a deposit of religious truths, which can be said to be 
 anterior to reflection, in the tense that man had not yet used 
 his reason to reflect on them ; and thus the words of the Got- 
 tingen Professor expresses a fact, extremely important for us, 
 since they give to divine revelation a place assigned to it, we 
 may say, historically. It is not named, it is true, but it is 
 evidently supposed in the words above" quoted. 
 
 As Greece is undoubtedly the country where philosophical 
 systems have most flourished, as subtlety of reasoning was 
 there the peculiar character of the people as no metaphysical 
 subject, indeed, can be adequately investigated without a thor- 
 ough acquaintance with what the Greeks have said on the mat- 
 ter it becomes of extreme importance to examine if the mono- 
 theism taught by Pythagoras, Plato, Socrates, and so many 
 others, was merely a philosophical conclusion, or if it was not 
 the handing down of primitive doctrines left to the race by
 
 284 GENTILISM. 
 
 mystagogues, as th^y were called, who were merely the chan- 
 nel of a belief revealed to the first men by the God " who 
 spoke to the fathers." And this question is more important in 
 the case of the Hellenes than in that of any other nation of 
 antiquity, for the following reasons : 
 
 If there is one country where the doctrine of progress ap- 
 pears to be proved by actual facts, it is certainly Greece. We 
 have heard .^Eschylus describing the state of its primitive inhab- 
 itants as that of savages living in caves, without the senses of 
 sight and hearing, unable to discern the difference of seasons, 
 etc. ; and we see them, in the course of centuries, reaching 
 the highest civilization and culture, and proving, rationally 
 and metaphysically, the existence of a Supreme God and the 
 immortality of the human soul. We must endeavor to show 
 that this " progress " was not really of the character indicated ; 
 that, at the beginning of the series, humanity possessed, in 
 fact, all the truths which long afterwards appeared to have 
 been discovered ; and that, in the words of the Professor of 
 Gottingen, speaking of Greece, " There never yet has been, 
 nor can there be, a people for whom the reverence paid to a 
 superior being was but the fruit of refined philosophy." 
 
 Did the Pelasgians, and after them the Hellenes, bring noth- 
 ing from Central Asia where they had left such heaven-taught 
 .ancestors ? or did these two migrating armies lose entirely, in 
 the hardships of the way, the traditions and belief handed 
 down to them ? 
 
 Cadmus, it is said, brought the first alphabet to Greece, and 
 he was a Phoenician, and established himself in Baeotia. The 
 Pelasgians dwelt chiefly in Thrace and Thessaly, far from the 
 land adopted by Cadmus, and do not appear to have profited 
 by the boon which he brought to Greece. They may, how- 
 ever, have had an alphabet of their own, and, if so, probably 
 they had brought it from Asia. Yet no Pelasgian inscription, 
 that we know of, has been discovered. How can we know
 
 RELiGioisr rSr PELASGIC GEEECE. 285 
 
 what were their religious ideas ? Herodotus, who had heard 
 it from the priests of Dodona in Thessaly, affirms that they did 
 not worship at first individual gods, but merely superior beings, 
 without names, whom they called " Theoi ;" and Thrace and 
 Thessaly was precisely the country where Orpheus flourished. 
 He must have been one of them. "We are confirmed in that 
 supposition hy the ^oavov, or Divine Image preserved to this 
 day, and sculptured by Pelasgic hands thousands of years ago. 
 The great question, for us, therefore, is merely, "Who was Or- 
 pheus ? and did Pythagoras, and Plato, and other philosophers 
 of the same school receive anything from him ? and had the 
 doctrine of Orpheus any analogy with that of Central Asia ? 
 
 IY. 
 
 We have all heard what the fable relates of Orpheus, the 
 son of Apollo and Calliope, the great inventor of harmony, 
 on whom Apollo, his father, bestowed the gift of the lyre ; to 
 whose songs men and beasts, the birds of the air and the fishes 
 of the sea, nay, the trees and the rocks, were not insensible ; 
 who accompanied the Argonauts in their expeditions, and 
 secured their success by lulling monsters to sleep, and check- 
 ing overhanging rocks in their impetuous fall ; who finally 
 brought back Euridice from the lower regions, and, at last, 
 perished, miserably torn to pieces by the Menades. 
 
 But here, as usual, Hellenic imagination has buried the prim- 
 itive myth under such richness of exaggerated details, that 
 it is impossible to separate the wheat from the chaff, and the 
 whole of it deserves to be rejected. It is worthy of note, how- , 
 ever, that Suidas pretends that Orpheus was not a single indi- 
 vidual, but that the deeds of several heroes were attributed to 
 .one, as was frequently the case among the ancients. And it is 
 probable, in our opinion, that they were all of them Pelasgians,
 
 286 GENTILISJf. 
 
 that is to say, belonged to the first emigration of Javans from 
 Central Asia. One only of them, it is true, seems to have had 
 the name of Orpheus whilst living ; for modern Sanscrit 
 scholars think they find him mentioned in the Yedas under the 
 name of Arbhu, whose pronunciation comes very near to that 
 of Orpheu other orientalists had, long ago, pointed out that 
 Arif, in Arabic, means a learned man, a sa/vant (Hoffmann, 
 Lex. Univ). The coincidence is remarkable, although the Ara- 
 bic, a Semitic tongue, seems to have few common features with 
 the Sanscrit. All this, nevertheless, points out to the East as 
 the primitive country of the initiator of the Greeks in religious 
 doctrines and mysteries, for such was always Orpheus thought 
 to be. 
 
 It is time, the opinion of Aristotle that Orpheus never ex- 
 isted, and that the doctrines attributed to him were not so 
 ancient as was pretended, has been admitted by modern writers 
 of note. Yet it must be said that Aristotle was. the only one 
 of the ancients who thought so. All the others, without ex- 
 ception, believed in the existence of the celebrated Thracian 
 mystagogue, and thought him as great in religious inspiration, 
 as mythology made him in strange adventures and artistic 
 gifts. And this opinion of the ancients was shared by the 
 Fathers of the Church of the first centuries. So that around 
 the name of Orpheus we see the same ideas gather in Greece, 
 which we have already remarked to have gathered in Egypt 
 around that of Hermes. He was said to be a divine bard in 
 the service of Zagreus, the horned child of Zeus and Persep- 
 hone a kind of mystic Dionysus half buried in obscurity. He 
 was not only the first to use the lyre, but he had initiated the 
 men of his time and country into the rites of expiation, teach- 
 ing them how to appease the wrath of the gods ; and he had 
 explained to them the art of divination, as well as the art of 
 letters and of poetry. According to Pausanias (in Boaot.), he 
 was the first to teach a whole system of universal theology ; he
 
 RELIGION IN PELASGIC GKEECE. 287 
 
 had written on the reciprocal action of the elements', on the 
 force of love (or of attraction) in natural things, on the ob- 
 servation of auguries, on the interpretation of dreams, on signs 
 and wonders, how to conjure their fatal prognostications. 
 
 Lactantius (Divine Institutes] called him " the most ancient 
 of the poets," and thought that "he spoke of the true and . 
 great God as the first born (npu-oyovov). He also said that 
 Orpheus "called God Thanes (0av?/ra)." the appearer be- 
 cause when as yet there was nothing, He first appeared and 
 came forth from the infinite." A doctrine evidently Yedic as 
 well as Egyptian. 
 
 When we stated that Orpheus was, like Hercules, a type to 
 which many events of particular lives were referred, we could 
 not corroborate our assertion by any facts, as things and men 
 are necessarily confused and mixed together in so high an an- 
 tiquity. Yet a . coincidence, remarkable certainly in many 
 points of view, comes here to our rescue, and deserves to be 
 noted. The name of Orpheus, in ancient writers, is nearly 
 always accompanied with two other names more obscure yet 
 than his own : those of Musaeus and Linus. Who were these ? 
 They must have belonged to the same age, although some 
 critics doubt if they were not posterior to Homer. The mass 
 of evidence, however, is against this last opinion. Musseus is 
 said to have been an Athenian, Linus a Theban. They were 
 not certainly from Thrace, like Orpheus ; but at the time, all . 
 Greece, as well as the circumjacent countries, was Pelasgic. 
 We know very little of Musaeus, and less yet of Linus. Diogenes 
 Laertius, however, has preserved of both a short fragment of 
 some importance. He asserts that Musaeus had said : " g evbq 
 ra -ndvra yeviodai, Kal h$ ravrbv dvaXveoOai" namely : " that 
 from One all things had proceeded ; and into the same One all 
 should be resolved or return." Sir William Jones would call 
 this the substance of the Hindoo gayatri. As to Linus, Laertius 
 
 savs that, having written a book on the generation of animals 
 20
 
 288 GENTILISM. 
 
 and plants, he placed at the head of it the following line : 
 Hv TTore rot xpovog ovrog iv oi dfia ndvr' i7re<j>vKi. " There was 
 a time when at once all things were created." This refers 
 evidently to the " sleep and dream of Brahma " when all crea- 
 tion suddenly appeared. 
 
 To come back to Orpheus himself, we have no doubt that it 
 would make a good size volume, if all the fragments attributed to 
 him by the Fathers of the three or four first centuries were col- 
 lected together and printed with a few pages of comment. But 
 it is objected that the " enormous Orphic literature." which re- 
 tained its ancient authority as far down as the last generation, 
 that is to say, thirty years ago, has been " irrefutably proved to 
 be, in its main bulk, as far as it has survived the production of 
 those very third and fourth centuries, raised upon a few scanty, 
 primitive snatches." We must, at the very beginning of the 
 discussion, make" some remarks on this assertion, and show that 
 it is of a far too sweeping character, and that it leads to an 
 altogether false conclusion. 
 
 Our readers will remember that the very same objection was 
 raised against the Hermetic books, and that long ago the right 
 answer to it has been given, namely : if the books published 
 under the name of Hermes by Neoplatonic, and Christian 
 authors, were not really the production of Thoth, yet they con- 
 tained really his ideas dogas The same answer precisely can 
 be given here. But how do we know that they were, in the 
 present case, the ideas of Orpheus ? By a very simple process. 
 Those who published that " enormous Orphic literature " in the 
 third and fourth centuries, knew, certainly, absolutely nothing 
 of Hindoo lore and Yedic philosophy and religion ; and if they 
 had some idea of Egyptian cosmogony, they did not perceive 
 its connection with the Orphic literature which they published. 
 Yet what was then written under the name of Orpheus is full 
 of both Indian and Egyptian ideas, showing the almost com- 
 plete identity of both. It must, therefore, have been origin-
 
 KELIGION IN PELASGIC GEEECE. 289 
 
 ally derived from a source connected with Asia or Africa, as 
 Orpheus or, if our readers prefer as Pelasgic writers must 
 certainly have been, if the labors of modern Sanscrit scholars, 
 particularly Max Miiller, have not been in vain. And it is to 
 be remarked that the authors of the " imposture" under discus- 
 sion, if it deserves so harsh a name, were precisely the same 
 who had also circulated with such a success an " enormous Her- 
 metic literature " in the same countries, namely : both Neopla- 
 tonic philosophers and Christian apologists. 
 
 To prove our assertion, our readers need not be afraid that 
 we shall launch into a sea of erudition, and quote a long, dry 
 series of passages from Greek and Latin authors. AVe may be 
 satisfied with two of them, which, however, may be regarded 
 as an epitome of all. Our authorities shall be St. Clement of 
 Alexandria for the Greeks, and Lactantius for the Latins, both 
 unexceptionable in their way. The first is undoubtedly with 
 Origen, the most erudite Greek Father of the Church in the 
 third century. ^Fhe same may be said of Lactantius on the 
 Latin side. 
 
 The former in his Stromata, Book v., after having quoted 
 the following passage of one of the tragedies of Sophocles, 
 which we have lost, thus : 
 
 " When the whole world fades, 
 And vanished all the abyss of ocean's waves, 
 And earth of trees is bare ; and wrapt in flames, 
 The air no more begets the winged tribes ; 
 Then He, who all destroyed, shall all restore." 
 
 . . -0_ 
 
 This is certainly Vedic he adds : " We shall find expres- 
 sions similar to these also in the Orphic hymns, written as fol- 
 lows : 
 
 "For having hidden all, (He) "brought them again 
 To gladsome light, forth from His sacred heart, 
 Solicitous."
 
 290 GENTILISM. 
 
 And a little farther, lie himself proceeds : " That respecting 
 God, Orpheus had said that He was invisible, and that He was 
 known to but one, a Chaldean by race." 
 
 " But in great heaven, He is seated firm 
 Upon a throne of gold, and 'iieath His feet 
 The earth. .His right hand round the ocean's bound 
 He stretches ; and the hills' foundations shake 
 
 To the centre by His wrath 
 
 He all celestial is, 
 
 And all things finishes upon the earth. 
 
 He, the Beginning, Middle is, and End. 
 
 But Thee I dare not speak. In limbs 
 
 And mind I tremble. He rules from on high." 
 
 And again : 
 
 "Ruler of Ether, Hades, Sea and Land, 
 Who with thy bolts Olympus' strong built home 
 Dost shake. Whom demons dread, and whom the throng 
 Of gods do fear 
 
 O deathless one 
 
 
 
 Our mother's sire! whose wrath makes all things reel. 
 .... Deathless Immortal, capable of being 
 To the immortals only uttered ! Come, 
 
 Greatest of gods, with Strong Necessity. 
 Dread, invincible, great, deathless one, 
 Whom Ether crowns" 
 
 And, again, with more appropriateness : 
 
 " One Might, the great, the flaming heavens, was 
 One Deity. All things one Being were, in whom 
 All these revolve, fire, water, and the earth." 
 
 Finally, after having quoted a passage wherein he speaks of 
 one God in the finest style of the upanishads of the Yedas, and 
 passed gradually to another, wherein there is an evident trans- 
 ition to pantheism, St. Clement gives one line more, which can- 
 not be surpassed by the harshest doctrine of the puranas : " Nor 
 is there any other (thing) except the Great King."
 
 RELIGION IN PELASGIC GEEECE. 291 
 
 We have underlined several passages which certainly recall 
 as many Hindoo doctrines. If, in the above quotations, God 
 is called " the deathless One, our mother's Sire," the expression 
 is certainly equivalent to the Ermaic doctrine oi the " "World 
 being the Son of God, and the Second God," and to the 
 Vedic teaching of " creation emanating from the sleeping 
 Brahma." 
 
 Many more passages of the same kind could be adduced, 
 collected by Cudworth in his " Systema Intellectuale ;" but we 
 have promised to confine ourselves to quotations of St. Clement 
 of Alexandria among the Greek Fathers. A few passages of 
 Lactantius will stand for the opinion of the Latin Doctors. 
 Cudworth did not see their Indian and Egyptian analogies. 
 
 In the first book of the " Divine Institutes," Chap, v., we 
 find a passage attributed to Orpheus, which seems an exact 
 reproduction of many texts out of the dialogue "Asclepius," 
 among the writings of Hermes : " Orpheus .... speaks of the 
 true and great God as the first-born (Trpwroyovc^), because 
 nothing was ever produced before Him, but all things sprung 
 from Him. He also calls him Phanes, the appearer, because 
 when, as yet, there was nothing, He first appeared and came 
 forth from the infinite. And since he (Orpheus) was unable 
 to conceive in his mind the origin and nature of this Being, 
 he said that He was born from the boundless air : ' The first- 
 born Phaeton, son of the extended air.' He affirms that this 
 Being is the parent of all the gods, on whose account He 
 framed the heavens, and provided for his children, that they 
 might have a habitation and place of abode in common ; ' He 
 built for immortals an imperishable home.' " 
 
 Ko one will, we hope, deny that this theology, which is, of 
 course, erroneous, is yet very superior to the celebrated myth- 
 ology whidh prevailed during the " enlightened " period of 
 Greece, and that, consequently, the " progress " in that " pro- 
 gressive" land was far from an improvement, and may be
 
 292 GENTILISM. 
 
 said to have there also, on the. whole, " progressed " back- 
 wards. 
 
 But, unnecessary as we think it to quote more at length 
 what the Neo^)latonists and the Christian writers of the third 
 and fourth centuries have said and believed of the writings of 
 Orpheus, we must answer the objection alluded to above, 
 namely, that nothing certain can be said about it, and that no 
 sound criticism is able to make any use of this " enormous 
 Orphic literature." 
 
 In the time of Pythagoras, if not even before, the same im- 
 portance was ascribed to a certain body of Orphic doctrines, as 
 in the third and fourth centuries after Christ, although the 
 nature of the doctrines is now unknown. But they could not 
 have been the " enormous Orphic literature, which has been 
 ascertained to have been the production of these very third 
 and fourth centuries of our era," and which, consequently, 
 could not have ex'sted at the time of Pythagoras. To Karl 
 Ottfried Miiller we owe the certain knowledge of several facts 
 on the subject, which give a great probability to our own 
 theory. This eminent Hellenist scholar thought, it is true, that 
 the old Orphic literature was, " like Orpheus' own biography, 
 the darkest point in the entire history of early Greek poetry ;" 
 yet he established clearly the fact of a vry " early literature 
 of that kind." He showed conclusively that a universal tradi- 
 tion in Greece pointed to it. Orpheus formed the brightest 
 link of a whole chain of poets earlier than Hesiod and Homer : 
 Olen, Linus, Philammon, Eumolpus, Muso3us, and other legen- 
 dary singers of prehistoric Greece. Fragments of Orpheus' 
 writings were current in old Hellas ; and if the thought of 
 collecting and publishing them arose only in the age of the 
 Peisistratidse, the same is true, likewise, of the Homeric poems. 
 Onomacritus undertook the task ; and a remarkable passage of 
 Herodotus shows that "prophecies" formed, at least, a part of 
 the Orphic legends. "We quote from (" Polymnia," vi.) : " Ono*
 
 RELIGION IN PELASGIC GREECE. 293 
 
 macritus was an Athenian, a soothsayer, and dispenser of the 
 oracles of Musoeus a branch of Orphic lore. The Peisistratidse 
 went up to Susa (with him), having first reconciled their 
 former enmity. For Onomacritus had been banished from 
 Athens by Hipparchus, son of Peisistratus, having been de- 
 tected by Lasus the Hermionian in the very act of interpolat- 
 ing among the oracles of Musaeus, one importing that the 
 islands lying off Lemnos would disappear beneath the sea ; 
 wherefore Hipparchus banished him, although he had before 
 been very familiar with him. But at that time, having gone 
 up (to Susa) with them, being reconciled, whenever he came 
 into the presence of the King (Xjerxes), as the Peisistratidae 
 spoke of him in very high terms, he recited some of the oracles. 
 If, however, there were among these oracles, any that portended 
 misfortunes ^o the barbarians, of these he made no mention ; 
 but selecting such as were most favorable, he said it was fated 
 that the Hellespont should be bridged over by a Persian, de- 
 scribing the march. Thus he continually excited the king, 
 rehearsing oracles, as did the Peisistratidae and Aleuadae, in 
 support of their opinions." 
 
 This passage alone would suffice to prove that, long before 
 Herodotus, there were poems, hymns, oracles, attributed to. 
 Musaeus. It is certain now that Orpheus' poems formed the 
 best part of the collection. If Onomacritus, the editor, could 
 be guilty of interpolating those ancient writings, there were, 
 at the time, critics who could find out the literary forgery ; 
 and the forgery itself shows the real existence of earlier writ- 
 ings, the actual subject of interpolation. 
 
 The nature of these poems is, moreover, revealed yet further 
 by the well-established relation of Orphic and Pythagorean doc- 
 trines and associations. Both brotherhoods of Orpheus and 
 Pythagoras continued to flourish down to a comparative late 
 age. The fragments collected by Onomacritus were used in the 
 reunions and festivities of both. The doctrine of metem-
 
 294 GENTILISM. 
 
 psychosis was admitted fully in both. And as the Pytha- 
 goreans are known to have professed opinions on the subject 
 of the Godhead far in advance of their polytheistic age, we 
 do not see how the same could be denied of Orphic doctrine. 
 It is 'true that the Thracian bard is strongly suspected of hav- 
 ing given rise to the subsequent mythology of the Greeks ; so 
 that, should these suspicions be founded, Homer and Hesiod 
 would not have been the first poets " to give names to the 
 gods," as Herodotus thought. But it is known that the pro- 
 fession of belief in one Supreme God could be allied in those 
 early times with a superstitious leaning towards inferior deities. 
 The Vedas themselves became impregnated with monstrous 
 errors, which gave rise to the degrading polytheism of the 
 actual Hindoos. Hence originated, as we have before stated, 
 the reform originated by Zoroaster in Bactriana. 
 
 The most remarkable analogy between Orpheus an4 Pytha- 
 goras is the institution of mysteries in the associations they 
 founded. Orpheus, whom Pythagoras merely followed, was, 
 in fact, chiefly a mystagogue. He taught men to believe that 
 expiation was required by sinful human nature, and initiation 
 into his secret rites was the proper means of expiation. These 
 rites he was said to have brought from abroad, probably from 
 Egypt; and he was thus considered by many as the real 
 founder in Greece of the Eleusinian mysteries. Much uncer- 
 tainty prevails, however, on this subject,. in spite of the many 
 researches which have been pursued in this century and the 
 last. Nevertheless it seems to be certain that the Egyptian 
 and Greek orgies exerted, at first, a salutary influence on mo- 
 rality, by giving more distinctness to the dogma of the soul's 
 immortality ; and, for many ages, men imagined they could not 
 " secure their salvation," as we should say, and acquire a safe 
 and easy conscience, without undergoing the process of initia- 
 tion. "We know, it is true, that the whole of these mysterious 
 ceremonials degenerated into a mass of corruption ; and the
 
 EELIGIOX IN PELASGIC GREECE. 295 
 
 Fathers of the first three centuries, St. Clement of Alexandria 
 chiefly, spoke with due emphasis on the subject. This was not, 
 however, the -case for a long time, and the only objection 
 Cicero could make in his age against the Elusinian mys- 
 teries, which he highly praised, was their celebration at 
 night, on account of the moral danger incurred by women and 
 young girls in the promiscuous crowd of people admitted to 
 witness the exoteric ceremonies. But it is clear how Orpheus 
 contributed powerfully to form the primitive religion of 
 Greece ; and how, at first, that religion partook of a character 
 akin to that of eastern and southern countries. 
 
 Of his travelling into Egypt, Diodorus Siculus speaks posi- 
 tively (Book iv., Chap. 25) ; and the passage has so instructive 
 a bearing on our present argument, that we think we cannot do 
 better than quote it : 
 
 " Orpheus, already an adept in science, and instructed chiefly 
 in theological lore, went into Egypt, where he increased his 
 stock of knowledge, so that he becajne the first among Gre- 
 cians, in point of ability, in expiatory rites and theologipal 
 science, as he was already the most expert in poetry and music." 
 
 And in Book i., Chap. 23, the same author gives some more 
 details on the subject, not unimportant to the subject we have 
 in hand : 
 
 "Those who pretend that the god Osiris the Greek 
 Dionysus was born at Thebes in Boeotia from Jove and 
 Semele, are mistaken ; for it is in Egypt that Orpheus re- 
 ceived himself the rites of initiation, and participated in the 
 mysteries of Dionysus Osiris ; and being friendly to the race 
 of Cadmus (settled in Boeotia), he transferred there the history 
 of this god, and the rites of expiation connected with his mys- 
 teries, in order to please them. And the vulgar, ignorant of 
 these facts, wished merely to make the god one of their own 
 race, and thus rushed to be initiated in ceremonies which they 
 thought were native to their country."
 
 296 GENTILISM. 
 
 Of the prophetic and mantic art attributed to the Thracian 
 bard, we have already spoken ; and we narrated how Onoma- 
 critus subsequently tried to interpolate the Orphic pro- 
 phecies and was punished for it. This establishes a new an- 
 alogy between Orpheus and the Egyptian Hermes, whose books 
 contained likewise predictions, one of which announcing that, 
 " at some future day, the bones of martyrs would take posses- 
 sion of the empty temples consecrated at first to the Egyptian 
 gods," was believed by St. Augustine to have been a true pro- 
 phecy, uttered by the genius of evil against its own inclina- 
 tion. 
 
 The conclusion, at all events, to be drawn from the facts 
 thus ascertained by Karl Ottfried Miiller is*, that the Orphic 
 books are far earlier than the third and fourth centuries of our 
 era ; and that, long previous to the absurd mythology of the 
 bright period of Greece, a religious system existed in the coun- 
 try which the noble minds of Pythagoras and his associated 
 brethren made the groundwork of their own worship and philo- 
 sophy. Unfortunately, that system merged very eaily in pan- 
 theism, and tainted the highest conceptions of the oldest sages 
 with the all-absorbing errors of the " Great Pan " the Great- 
 All. But this is another resemblance with both Hindostan and 
 Egypt, and a new proof of an ancient connection between the 
 three countries. And it supplies another confirmatory testi- 
 mony of the statement of the Book of Wisdom so often al- 
 luded to. 
 
 In the time of Plato anthropomorphist mythology was so prev- 
 alent, that even this, great man could scarcely understand the 
 archaic language of Orpheus, of whom he speaks frequently. 
 He quotes him in the " Cratylus" as one of the first inventors of 
 the " generation of the gods " out of the Ocean. In " Ion " he 
 treats chiefly of his talent as a musician and a rhapsodist. In 
 " The Laws " (Book viii., Chap. 1),- when it is question of the 
 education of youth, he deprecates the -custom of having the
 
 RELIGION IN PELASGIC GREECE. 297 
 
 works of all sorts of poets placed in their hands, to be learned 
 by heart and sung. He requires a strict choice to be made of 
 such poetic compositions ; and he would like that only sacred 
 poems, dedicated to the gods, scattering justly blame and 
 praise, with moderation, on the actions of men such as those 
 of Thamyris and Orpheus should b.e used for such a holy pur- 
 pose as educating the young. Every one knows how, in " The 
 Republic" (Book iii., Chap. 9), he refuses to. admit those 
 authors who excite the interest of readers for what is evil as 
 well as for what is good. " The author," he says, " who is 
 able by his talent to become everything and picture everything, 
 if he was to come to our State, and wish to circulate among us 
 his poems, we should respect him as a wonderful and pleasant 
 person, but should refuse to allow him to stay with us ; and, . 
 taking him by the hand, we should lead him on his way to 
 some other city, after having poured scented oil on his head, 
 and crowned him with a chaplet of flowers." 
 
 Commentators have agreed in considering Homer himself to 
 have been the poet alluded to. But about Orpheus, Plato, as 
 we saw, entertained very different sentiments. We do not 
 know if it was from the Orphic books, or from the conversa- 
 tions he certainly had with Egyptian priests, that the friend of 
 Socrates received several points of doctrine contained in his 
 celebrated " Timaeus ; " one in particular, adverted to in sev- 
 eral passages of the dialogue, but expressed with emphasis at 
 its close : "Our discourse about the Universe has reached its 
 conclusion. "We have seen it not only containing, and full of, 
 mortal and immortal animals, but itself forming a visible ani- 
 mal, embracing things perceived by our signt, a sensible god, 
 image of the intelligible, the greatest, best, and most perfect 
 this one only-begotten Cosmos." This, our readers know, is 
 purely Egyptian, and a somewhat crude repetition of a much 
 more poetical idea of the Vedas. Did it come, we repeat again 1 , 
 from Orpheus? Plato has not positively said where he bor-
 
 298 
 
 rowed- the idea, wliicli certainly contains nothing purely Hel- 
 lenic. 
 
 Y. 
 
 The reader will not fail to have observed the difficulties 
 which surround the question under consideration. The links 
 which connect Greece with the East appear so often entangled, 
 confused, and even broken, that the elucidation of the primitive 
 religion of the Greeks seems often a hopeless task ; and we 
 ought not to think it strange, since the Hellenes themselves 
 perceived it, felt it, and were unable to account for it. There 
 is, on this subject, a well-known passage in the " Timaeus," 
 often quoted in part by modern writers, although its full signifi- 
 cance cannot be gathered except from the entire passage. It 
 is as follows. "We give the far too literal translation of Henry 
 Davis, in Bonn's edition : . 
 
 " In Egypt, in the Delta, at the summit of it, is the Saitic 
 nome whose chief city is Sais .... It has a presiding divinity, . 
 whose name in Egyptian is Neiih, which, they say, corresponds 
 with the Greek Athene ; and the people profess to be great 
 friends of the Athenians .... Solon said, that, on his arrival 
 thither, he was honorably received ; and especially on his in- 
 quiring about old t'mes of those priests who possessed superior 
 knowledge in such matters* he perceived that neither himsetf 
 nor any of the Greeks (so to speak), had any antiquarian knowl- 
 edge at all. And once desirous of inducing the priests to nar- 
 rate their ancient stories, he undertook to describe those events 
 which had formerly happened among us in days of yore those 
 about the first Phoroneus and Niobe, and again after the deluge 
 of Deucalion and Pyrrha (as described by the mythologists) .... 
 paying due attention to the different ages in which these events 
 are said to have occurred on which one of the oldest priests 
 exclaimed, " Solon, Solon, you Greeks are always children, and
 
 RELIGION IN PELASGIC' GREECE. 299 
 
 aged Greeks there are none." Solon, on hearing this, replied, 
 " How can you say this ?" To whom the priest, " You are 
 youths in intelligence; for you hold no ancient opinions de- 
 rived from remote tradition, nor any system of discipline that 
 can boast of a hoary old age : and the cause of this is the mul- 
 titude and variety of destructions that have been, and will be, 
 undergone by the human race ; the greater indeed arising from 
 fire and water, others of less importance from ten thousand 
 other contingencies. The story, for instance, that is current 
 among you, that Phaeton, the offspring of the Sun, attempting 
 to drive his father's chariot, and not being able to keep the 
 right track, burnt up the surface of the earth, and perished 
 himself, .... in point of fact refers to a declination of the 
 heavenly bodies revolving round the earth, and indicates that, 
 at certain long intervals of time, the earth's surface is de- 
 stroyed by mighty fires. When this occurs, then those who 
 dwell either on mountains, or in lofty and dry places, perish in 
 greater numbers than those dwelling near rivers, or on the sea- 
 shore : whereas, to us the Nile is not only our safeguard from 
 all other troubles, but liberates and preserves us also from this 
 in particular. And, again, when the gods, to purify the earth, 
 deluge its surface with water, then the herdsmen and shepherds 
 on the mountains are preserved in safety, while the inhabitants 
 of your cities are hurried away to the sea by the impetuosity 
 of the rivers .... Besides all the noble, great, or otherwise 
 distinguished achievements, performed either by ourselves, or 
 by you, or elsewhere, of which we have heard the report all 
 these have been engraven in our temples in very remote times, 
 and preserved to the present day ; while on the contrary, with 
 you and all other nations, they are only just committed to writ- 
 ing, and all other modes of transmission which states require 
 when again, at the usual period, a current from heaven 
 rushes on them like a pestilence, and leaves the survivors 
 among you destitute of literary annals .... and thus you be-
 
 300 GENTILISM. 
 
 come young again as at first, knowing nothing of the events of 
 ancient times, either in our country or yours." 
 
 The old Egyptian priest had certainly stated a most evident 
 fact : " That the Greeks held no ancient opinions derived from 
 remote traditions." They were not a traditional people, but 
 rationalistic. The reason, he gave for this will scarcely satisfy 
 the modern reader ; yet owing to its quaintness and plausibility 
 for an Egyptian, we have given it here a place. But if such 
 was really the case in the early age of Solon this absence of 
 traditions how much more was it true of more recent times ? 
 In the time of Plato, everything ancient, we may say, had van- 
 ished ; or only precious fragments handed down by the Orphic 
 School and the Pythagorean Society remained, whose meaning 
 was altogether forgotten, buried as it was beneath the rubbish 
 of mythology. Rubbish we mean, not in a literary point of 
 view ; but as compared with the sublime, rational, and consist- 
 ent scheme of revealed religion. As a product of the imagina- 
 tion, it was anything but rubbish. To the Greeks, the mythol- 
 ogy born of the imagination of Homer had such a fascinating 
 power, that they were bound fast in the brilliant folds of that 
 splendid superstition. The witchery of.it is so charming that 
 even Christian writers have felt its power ; and we shall pres- 
 ently find men of note speaking of it as the true cause of all 
 Greek culture, and shall have to reply to their arguments. 
 
 Meanwhile, we have a few more considerations to urge on the 
 part of our subject which has already for some time occupied 
 our attention. 
 
 There is no doubt, that if it is enveloped yet in still greater 
 obscurity to us than to the Hellenes of the age of Plato and 
 even of Solon, nevertheless, the ingenuity, deep researches, and 
 profound criticism of modern investigators, such as Karl Ott- 
 fried Miiller, have thrown on those primitive times a light 
 which they did not possess. We are, at least, obliged to admit, 
 for that early period, a real superiority in point of strong intel-
 
 BELIGIOX IN PELASGIC GREECE. 301 
 
 lect and morality over the ages that followed. Religion, man- 
 ners, domestic institutions present many traits similar to those 
 of India and ancient Egypt. The Pelasgians were, above all, 
 agriculturists, as were the early Hindoos. They spread, like 
 their progenitors, over continents, an.d were not much addicted 
 to the sea, which they merely crossed for the purpose of colo- 
 nization. They had the Yedic " Arbhu" (Orpheus) for their 
 initiator in the rites of expiation, as the Hindoos had the 
 Brahmins for a like initiation as described in the Institutes of 
 Menu. We have seen his " sacred image," (Orpheus') sculptured 
 by Pelasgic hands and preserved to our very days. "Wherever 
 they spread, the Hellenic race, which replaces them, spread 
 likewise : In Asia Minor, in Southern Italy, in the territories 
 around the Euxine, and even north of it, as well as in Attica, 
 Boeotia, and the whole of Hellas. Max Miiller, and all modern 
 Sanscrit scholars, tell us that they came from Central Asia, 
 that they are the Javanas of the Yedic literature, and we say 
 that they are the Javans of Genesis. They must, therefore, 
 have brought to their new country the idea of " Brahma " 
 (neuter), indistinct, it is true, and scarcely to be recognized, 
 owing to the incredible hardship of their migration ; yet finally 
 taking a shape, announced by Orpheus as the " Deathless One," 
 " our mother's sire," etc., who, in Hellenic times, became 
 Zeus, not the son of Chronos, but the Zeus anterior to mythol- 
 ogy, of whom Plato spoke thus in his " Oratylus " : "In 
 reality the name of Zeus is, as it were, a sentence ; and persons 
 dividing it into two parts, some of us make use of one part, 
 and some of another ; for some call him ZT/V, and some Aiq. 
 But these parts united into one, exhibit the nature of the 
 God, which, as we have said, a name ought and should be able 
 to do. For there is no one who is more the cause of living 
 (Z?)v), both to us and everything else, than He who is the 
 Ruler and King of all. It follows, therefore, that this God is 
 rightly named, through whom life is present to all living beings."
 
 302 GE2fTILISM. 
 
 The -translator of the dialogue, George Burges, adds in a 
 note : " From this passage of Plato were perhaps derived the 
 Pseudo-Orphic verses, quoted by Joannes Diaconus, etc : 'Zeus 
 is the beginning of all things. For Zeus has given and gene- 
 rated animals, and men call him Z?)v, and also Ai<;\ because 
 all things were fabricated through Him ; and He is the one 
 Father of all things, both beasts and men.' " 
 
 On this we remark, and the investigation of this passage is 
 most important : 
 
 1st. The translation here given is scarcely pointed enough ; 
 the verses of the Pseudo-Orphic hymn are in Greek : 
 
 "E<mi> dr) ndvruv apx?) Zevg , Zevg yap 
 
 Zoia T' eylvvrjoev nal Zfjv' avrov K 
 
 Kal Aia r'r/d', on 6rj 6ia TOVTOV atravra TKTVKTUI. 
 
 El$ de TTdTrfp ovTog TTCIVTW, 6r)p&v re 
 
 41 Zeus is the beginning of all things. For Zeus has given, 
 And generated living beings ; thus men call him Zriv. 
 
 They call Him also Atf, since through'Him (6ta TOVTOV) all things are 
 
 made. 
 He is the One Father of all, both beasts and men." 
 
 The importance of these corrections is obvious. 
 
 2d. We cannot understand how the above-quoted hymn was 
 perhaps derived, as Mr. Burges remarks, from the previous 
 passage of Plato. We think, rather, that the text of the great 
 and good friend of Socrates was positively derived from this 
 very Orphic hymn. And for the following reaspns : Plato, 
 after having said that " the name of Zeus is 'a sentence, and 
 people dividing it into two parts, some made use of one 
 part and called him ZT?I>, and some of another, and call him 
 Ai$" seems to announce that he will give the meaning of both, 
 because "these parts united into one, exhibit the nature of 
 the God." Yet he quite forgets to explain the second part, Alq. 
 He is diffuse on the first, Zqv ; and, on reading his " Cratylus,"
 
 RELIGION IN PELASGIC GREECE. 303 
 
 the reader is surprised to find, that, in what follows, not a word 
 is said of the meaning of the second : Aiq. But, among the 
 immense number of fragments of ancient lore, kept and pre- 
 served by more modern writers, a poem of Orpheus is found, 
 quoted by Joannes Diaconus, in which the same object is 
 professed, namely : to explain the meaning of Zeus ; and the 
 omission of Plato is fully supplied by a precious line giving the 
 meaning of Aig. What can be the conclusion for a critic ? 
 This, certainly : Plato shows everywhere a very slight acquaint- 
 ance with the true Orpheus, although he often mentions his 
 name. He meets, however, with a few words which strike him ; 
 they are incomplete, and, as he never had the good fortune to 
 see the whole poem of the old bard, he comments on these few 
 words. But, as the line including the explanation of the mean- 
 ing of Ai<; is wanting in the snatch which he possesses, he does 
 not dare, through religious feeling, to furnish an interpretation 
 of his own. Had it not been the name of Zeus, he might 
 have thought himself competent, of his own authority, to ex- 
 plain it. Had it been the name of some inferior god, he might 
 have treated the subject with levity ; as he did, directly after, 
 in the same dialogue, when it was question only of the names 
 of Hera, of Poseidon, of Pluto, and of all the others, on which 
 he took an evident delight in pouring ridicule and contempt. 
 But he would have considered it sacrilegious to speak in the 
 same strain of " Him who is the Ruler and King of all," as he 
 expressed it. Thus the omission in Plato, shows him, in our 
 opinion, to have lived at a later period than the Orphic verses 
 which he alludes to in part. 
 
 3d. Plato, in explaining the name' of Zeus, and discussing 
 the first part of it, Z?)i>, says only that He is thus called, be- 
 cause " through Him life is present to all living beings." But 
 the Greek of Orpheus has a much stronger meaning. It is, 
 kyiwr\GK rd wa, he generated living animals / and we say that 
 
 the author of the Orphic verses could not have derived this 
 21
 
 304 GENTILISM. 
 
 from the passage of Plato, but that, more probably, Plato took 
 it from some imperfect copy of the verses. The words of the 
 founder of the Academy do not make any mention of " gene- 
 ration," but merely assert that Zeus is "present" to all living 
 beings. No interpreter could be so bold as to introduce the 
 meaning contained in iyevvrjae. 
 
 Plato, on the contrary, in the supposition that he possessed 
 some of the Orphic lines, had a strong reason for toning down 
 their expressions, and giving them an Hellenic aspect. He did 
 so by the phrase he used. His readers could not possibly have 
 understood the direct "generation" of the visible world from 
 the supreme and immaterial God ; hence he had to bring his 
 words to the intellectual capacity of his readers. Orpheus, 
 on the contrary, had the whole cosmogonic system of Egypt, 
 and even that of India, in support of his meaning. To render 
 this clearer still, we will remind our readers of the concluding 
 passage of the " Timseus," quoted above. We have already 
 remarked on it that Plato certainly took the idea from the 
 Egyptians the whole dialogue is supposed to express the 
 Egyptian explanation of creation. But in the passage alluded 
 to, which is certainly one of the strongest, if not altogether the 
 strongest, in all the works of Plato, as redolent altogether of 
 Oriental opinion and imagery, the wise Greek philosopher has 
 considerably altered the Egyptian doctrine. This made the 
 " visible world " positively " the son " of the Creator ; Plato 
 makes it only its " image " (elitbc;). And if, in the last words 
 of the passage, he calls the Cosmos " the greatest, best, most 
 perfect, the one only-begotten " juovoysv^, it is clear that the 
 phrase is metaphorical, because the writer had advertently 
 avoided the only word which could have made it literal, 
 vibv son, which is the correlative of \iovbytvr\. 
 
 These observations supply a convincing proof that many 
 modern mythologists are mistaken in establishing an essential 
 distinction between the Greek Zeus and the Roman Jupiter.
 
 EELIGIOX EST PELASGIC GREECE. 305 
 
 " It is only," they say, " when the Romans began to know the 
 religion and literature of Greece, that they foolishly sought to 
 identity their own noble, majestic, and gravely upright Jupiter 
 with the slippery, lustful, and immoral Zeus of the Greeks." 
 We answer that this Zeus was the god of the degenerate Hel- 
 lenes, not that of the immediate successors of the Pelasgians.* 
 There is no doubt that the original Jupiter of the Romans was 
 altogether different from the Zeus of subsequent mythology. 
 He was, as Pluvius, as Tonans, as Fulminator, as Servator, all- 
 powerful over the elements ; He was all-knowing, all-provid- 
 ing, the highest and the best, Optimus Maximus. As such, he 
 could not be guilty of the crimes insanely attributed to h'm 
 by mythology. Hence the idea of Jupiter was altogether a 
 moral one, and he was properly thought to ba the avenger of 
 those vices which later ages were to condone and even to ren- 
 der .attractive by making them the ordinary actions of their 
 chief god. Thus the primitive Jupiter of the Romans was 
 really the Supreme, the Eternal, the Omnipotent. But such 
 was likewise the primitive Zeus of the Greeks. From whom 
 did the Romans receive the idea of their great Jupiter ? Un- 
 doubtedly from the Etruscans, those Pelasgians of Italy. And 
 this supposed difference between Jupiter and Zeus is thus 
 shown to have been merely the work of time, and the effect of 
 ever-advancing degeneracy, ending in the most wretched degra- 
 dation. 
 
 We hope, therefore, that we have established to the satisfac- 
 tion of the reader, that the Orphic literature cannot truly be 
 called pseudo in any sense. And it follows from this that 
 monotheism appears at the religious origin of Greece, affording 
 thus another confirmation of the remarkable words 6f Professor 
 Heeren : " It would be difficult, and perhaps impossible, to find 
 a nation which can show no vestiges of religion ; and there 
 never yet has been, nor can there be, a nation in which the 
 reverence for a superior being was but the fruit of refined
 
 306 GENTILISM. 
 
 philosophy." For religion came to us from God by exterior 
 revelation. 
 
 There is, however, yet a slight qualification to proffer of 
 what we have advanced. If we have, as is the case, really 
 strong reasons for believing the passage in question to be 
 truly Orphic and not Pseudo-Orphic, we have no intention of 
 maintaining that the " phraseology " is undoubtedly the work 
 of the Thracian bard. "We speak only of the sense of the 
 passage. The " verses " may have been arranged by a subse- 
 quent " literateur." The thoughts have the redolence of the 
 genuine antique, and are evidently older than Plato. This is 
 all we have intended to assert. 
 
 33ut if purity of religion does not suppose necessarily a great 
 advance in knowledge and what is called culture, it does sup- 
 pose, in our opinion, a primitive revelation. And purity of 
 religion is altogether incompatible with barbarism ; and the 
 nations which have received such an incomparable boon, are 
 necessarily intelligent, refined in feeling, in possession of a 
 great control over nature ; in fine, truly civilized. But 
 according to the common opinion, the Hellenes of the heroic 
 age were mere barbarians. The Pelasgians, especially, who 
 preceded them, were uncouth savages. It was, as they say, 
 " the age of Cyclops and Polyphemusses." Homer himself 
 has described those frightful cannibals of Sicily and the sur- 
 rounding islands. 
 
 We assert that, however general such an opinion may be, it 
 is an altogether mistaken one ; and in the same way as we 
 have established, conclusively, the fact that the Hindoos of the 
 Yedic times were, from the very beginning, a great and refined 
 race, do we now propose to demonstrate that the original 
 Hellenes we believe them to have been Pelasgians were not, 
 at all events, savages, but were far advanced in social life, and 
 endowed with noble and elevated feelings, although remarkable 
 for their truly patriarchal simplicity and unartificial mode of
 
 RELIGION LN" PELASGIC GEEECE. 307 
 
 living. This was precisely the character of the primitive Hin- 
 doos; and we ^ay that these are the "notes" of "primitive 
 man," wherever documents have been left to know and describe 
 him. 
 
 The Pelasgians have left after them no traces . whatever, 
 except huge buildings and enormous ruins, in the opinion of 
 those who make them a race altogether distinct from the Hel- 
 lenes. According to their theory, a powerful nation, spread 
 over a great part of Europe, besides a slice of Asia, has sud- 
 denly disappeared to make room for another, without any 
 struggle, at least, corresponding with the magnitude of the 
 event. Is it probable ? Is it possible ? We confess that we 
 do not believe it is. Those who do, endeavor to establish 
 their point by a reference -to the fact of the disappearance of 
 many nations in a similar manner. They argue that, even in 
 our days, the phenomenon is still manifesting itself in many 
 countries. They allude evidently to the Poles, the Turks in 
 Europe, etc. ; and, in the Western Hemisphere, to the North 
 American Indians. We answer, that none of these facts can 
 explain the disappearance of the Pelasgiaus; and that the 
 whole of history, ancient and modern, may be ransacked in 
 vain to find anything similar. 
 
 None of the nations, now in process of disappearance, have 
 been reduced to their actual state without long ages of a pro- 
 tracted struggle well known to history. And some of those 
 named have not yet disappeared, nor are likely to for a long 
 time to come, at all events. We defy anyone to find a case' 
 parallel to the Pelasgic phenomenon. We admit that a race 
 can pass gradually into another by a true process of assimila- 
 tion. But then the two races must not be altogether antago- 
 nistic. And when this happens readily, we may be sure that 
 they belonged originally to the same stock, which was, we 
 imagine, the case with the Pelasgians and the Hellenes. To 
 speak, therefore, of the social state of the first as we do not
 
 308 GENTILISM. 
 
 possess any direct document concerning them we must have 
 recourse to the early documents of the second. Thus the ques- 
 tion resolves itself into an investigation of the heroic age of 
 Greece. We assert that this age was Pelasgic as well as Hel- 
 lenic. Thus also thought Homer, who, as we have seen, some- 
 times makes the two races identical, sometimes seems to admit 
 a difference: "We remarked likewise that, most probably, Or- 
 pheus was a Pelasgic Thracian hero, of whom we yet possess 
 the " sacred image," one of a very few relics of Pelasgian art.* 
 We pass on, therefore, to the subject of Heroic Greece. 
 
 * Few authors have shown as much industry and care in collecting all 
 the passages of ancient writers, chiefly of Homer, having reference to the 
 Pelasgians, as Mr. Gladstone did in his " Juventus Mundi." He confirms 
 the general opinion entertained of the race with respect to its wandering 
 habits, to its agricultural pursuits, to its peaceful disposition, and to its 
 extension over Greece, Italy, and Asia Minor. Perhaps objection could 
 be taken <o the total want of warlike spirit ascribed to it; inasmuch as 
 the universal test adopted by the Right Hon. author to determine if a 
 given tribe was Pelasgic or not, is to ascertain if, in the mention made 
 cfit by the ancients, it was unsuccessful in any conflict; this being a 
 sure .mark, according to Mr. Gladstone, that it belonged to the Pelasgic. 
 But as we are chiefly concerned with the religious leanings of the race, it 
 is almost exclusively to his remarks on this subject, contained in the 
 " Juventus Mundi," that our attention must be directed. 
 
 Mr. Gladstone supposes that the Pelasgians worshipped the " Nature- 
 Powers." as he calls them. He is, no doubt, perfectly right, so far as his 
 subject limited his investigations to the time of the Trojan war and of 
 Homer. The title of the book is evidently a misnomer, if it is meant to 
 indicate really primitive ages. Yet some valuable admissions are con- 
 tained in the scraps of earlier erudition occasionally met with. Thus in 
 distinguishing the old Pelasgic Zeus from the more recent Olympian, 
 created by Homer, he is on the right road to truth. He had already 
 said (page 222), in speaking of this last anthropomorphic deity, that " He 
 is the depository of the principal remnants of monotheistic and providen- 
 tial ideas." And, having stated just before, that "Zeus is the meeting- 
 point of the Pelasgic with the Olympian system of religion," the natural 
 consequence is, that the former God was at the head of a "monotheistic 
 and providential " system, and that the " Olympian," or Hellenic, system 
 contained real " remnants " of it. This is all we are contending for ; and
 
 EELIGION IN PELASGIC GREECE. 309 
 
 it may thus be asserted that the old Pelasgians did not worship only 
 " Nature-Powers." 
 
 But the author of" Juventus Mundi " is particularly skillful in showing 
 how the " Olympian Zeus " of Homer had received, from the Pelasgic, 
 attributes which later did not remain to Him, so that the belief of the 
 Hellenes went on deteriorating from age to age. Thus as he says : " To 
 Zeus, as Providence, belong both a number of separate ascriptions, and a 
 general position, which underlies the whole action of the Iliad. The 
 grandeur of his attributes transcends every other composition. He is 
 identified, in perhaps an hundred places of the poems, with the word 
 theos, in its more abstracted signification, as Providence, or the moral 
 governor of the world. He is the arbiter of war ; and he exhibits in the 
 sky, on great occasions, the scales in which are weighed contending fates. 
 He is the source of governing authority, and he shows his displeasure 
 when it is abused. He is the distributor in general of good and evil 
 
 among mortals He has the care of the guest, the suppliant, and the 
 
 poor ; and thus his name becomes the guarantee for three relations, which 
 were and are fundamental to the condition of mankind, considered with 
 reference to social existence. Indeed, in this character he is himself a 
 Source of Destiny, as we find from the remarkable phrase Afdr alaa the 
 fate p r oceeding from Zeus/' 
 
 These were the grand ideas which Homer took from the former belief 
 of the Pelasgians in their Supreme God. Would to Heaven the poet had 
 always kept up the character of the Pelasgic Deity, and his imagination 
 had not degraded such a Being by all possible human vices, as he does 
 in " an hundred places of his poems." 
 
 Of the deteriorating process " progressing " subsequently for centuries, 
 a remarkable passage ought to be quoted, as it expresses so exactly what 
 we have all along been endeavoring to establish. It is found at page 182 
 of the Boston Ed., 1869. The author is treating of the " Olympian system 
 of Homer ": " Its character continually altered ; and altered for the worse. 
 It has features which are sublime, and features which are debaed. But 
 the sublime features of the Olympian characters became, with the lapse 
 of generations, less and less observable ; the debased ones grew more and 
 more prominent. And the profoundly interesting specialities of the sev- 
 eral deities, indicating their respective origins, at length became appa- 
 rently imperceptible even to the Greeks themselves. No one can closely 
 and carefully examine the system of Homer without a deep interest ; DO 
 one can find much ground for such an interest in the theological part of 
 the religion of the historic period. Only its ethical idens, and the highly 
 poetic ideas connected with destiny, retain any attractive power; and 
 from the mythology these ideas are, in the later stages of the Olympian, 
 system, almost wholly dissociated."
 
 310 GENTILISM. 
 
 Another most interesting point of difference between the Pelasgic and 
 Olympian religions, mentioned by Mr. Gladstone, is the existence of a real 
 priesthood in the first, which is no more visible in the second. 
 
 From the poems of Homer themselves, we learn that the Pelasgic tem- 
 ples had all a' re^evof, or glebe for the priests. It is, in fact, a feature com- 
 mon to all p;imitive nations. It is only the Greeks, led, it would seem, 
 by the Ionian bard himself, who did not, in ancient times, adopt the cus- 
 tom, which we may mention it incidentally is, at this moment, dis- 
 carded,' more or less, by all modern so-called Christian nations, in spite 
 of the protests of the Catholic Church. But a glebe supposes a system 
 of ministers of religion ordained for the purpose, and set apart for the 
 service of God. The Hellenes, from the time of Homer downwards, for- 
 got entirely so necessary a provision for the stability of religion, al- 
 though the Pelasgians, their ancestors, had brought the custom from 
 Asia. 
 
 Consequently, says Mr. Gladstone again (page 182, 183): "The won- 
 der, indeed, is, not that the Olympian religion should have failed to resist 
 the corrosion of change, but that it should have been able, in any manner, 
 to retain its identity. Devoid, as it was, of all authority, and even of 
 the allegation of authority, for its origin, and not only unsustained. but 
 belied, by the witness of surrounding nations, it probably had little less 
 of unity than such as it derived from the great bard of the nation and 
 from its imaginative splendor ; while it had none of the guarantees, real, 
 even if partial, which are afforded either by books known and recog- 
 nized as sacred, or by a compact and permanent hierarchy, dating, or 
 
 professing to date, from the beginning of the system Neither was 
 
 the priest, as such, a significant personage in Greece at any period, nor 
 had the priest of any one place or deity, any organic connection with the 
 priest of any other ; so that, if there were priests, yet there was not a 
 priesthood." 
 
 A last observation, but a very important one, is derived from the list 
 of words which must be Pelasgian, and of which Mr. Gladstone furnishes 
 abundant examples. As no Pelasgic inscription that we know of has so 
 far been found, the Right Hon. author justly remarks, that the La ins 
 being surely derived originally from the race, the words common both to 
 the Latin and Greek languages must come from the primitive source, and 
 be Pelasgic, excepting the few Greek words introduced in course of time, 
 and well known to philologists. But it is extremely remarkable that, 
 except the vocable 6e6f and one or two others which belong both to the 
 Latin and Greek, all the words expressing religious ideas are completely 
 distinct in both idioms. From which very strange fact Mr. Gladstone 
 concludes, that " in one case, or in both, there must have been a great 
 displacement of the Pelasgic vocabulary. And as the Roman religion
 
 RELIGION IN PELASGIC GREECE. 311 
 
 was far more Pelasgian than the Greek, it is probable that this displace- 
 ment, if it occurred in one only of the two peninsulas, occurred in 
 Greece." 
 
 The question naturally arises, after reading this astounding statement, 
 "Was Homer, the founder and absolute maker of Hellenism, gui'ty of 
 changing the language of the Pelasgians, in order to pervert more easily 
 their religion ? We could not venture to answer this question in the 
 affirmative without further proofs, as the change of expression in religious 
 matters might have happened before him.
 
 CHAPTEE VI. 
 
 INTRODUCTION OF IDOLATRY IN HEROIC GREECE. 
 
 I. 
 
 are met at the very threshold of our investigations in 
 this new portion of our subject, by the almost universal opin- 
 ion of writers on Greece, at least of those immediately pre- 
 ceding our age, that the heroic times of Hellas were barbarous. 
 How many horrible facts have not the semi-fabulous annals of 
 Pelops, of Atreus, of Laius, left on record ? Was not the age of 
 Hercules an age of monsters \ The Greeks themselves, in their 
 writings of a later age, have taken an apparent delight in prov- 
 ing that their ancestors were worse than barbarians. The 
 dramatists, particularly, have found, in the old annals of their 
 race, horrors enough to fill their poems. To present the same 
 old subjects on our modern stage, the best poets of France and 
 of Italy have had to tone down considerably the dark colors of 
 the picture left by Hellenic authors. No refined audience 
 could now tolerate an exact reproduction of the great master- 
 pieces of Greece. The attempt has, we believe, been made in 
 Germany ; we do not know with what success. But as nothing 
 has been said of the project for many years past, we presume 
 that the Germans are no greater admirers of Greek mythic 
 horrors than the rest of mankind. 
 
 We propose to show that the Heroic age of Hellas was not 
 the barbarous age it has been represented as being by its own 
 writers, as well as by modern authors ; and that these produc- 
 (313)
 
 HEROIC GREECE. 313 
 
 tions of the Greqk stage do not give us the real picture of those 
 primitive times. 
 
 Where can we find that true picture ? In the long poems of 
 Homer, chiefly his Odyssey ; in many fragments of old. poets, 
 which have reached us through more modern authors ; in num- 
 berless passages of the first historians of Greece, where the sim- 
 plicity of primitive manners is yet preserved in many charm- 
 ing anecdotes, and long stories of enchanting artlessness. The 
 dramatists intended to strike terror, and invented circumstances 
 which were only creatures of their imagination. They took, 
 moreover, a few facts which they painfully elaborated into mon- 
 strous legends of crime and horror. It is not thus we can ob- 
 tain a true delineation of the manners of those times. Let us 
 try to find out what was in fact the moral and social situation 
 of Greece at the time of the Heraclidse and the Argonauts. 
 
 We are met at the very outset of our inquiry by the impor- 
 tant objection : Are Homer and Herodotus, on whose testi- 
 mony we intend chiefly to rely, safe guides in a cool and mat- 
 ter-of-fact research ? Is not the first a " poet," that is to say, 
 an inventor ef things which never happened ? And is not 
 Herodotus a composer of legends, a gossiping historian, fit only 
 for children in the nursery ? Homer is altogether untrustwor- 
 thy when he speaks of religion and cosmogony. As he under- 
 stood nothing of either, he invented what he did not know, and 
 was, by his inventions, the chief cause of the subsequent errors 
 of his countrymen. But when he speaks of things which he 
 knew, either by eye-sight or by sure tradition, can a safer author 
 be found, in ancient or modern times 2 Who has ever described 
 more truly the phenomena of nature, or the marvels of art 
 which he saw ? Is not every word a true pencilling, and the 
 whole thing a picture ? As the rising and the setting of the 
 sun, the howling of the tempest, and the warbling of birds, 
 the colors of the rainbow, and the darkness of night, are to us 
 the same as they were to him, do we not always admire the
 
 314 GENTILISM. 
 
 fidelity to Nature as well as the graphic power with which he 
 describes natural phenomena? And when it is question of 
 things, social and domestic, which he witnessed in his time 
 among his countrymen ; when he speaks, for instance, of the 
 occupations of women in a Pelasgic or in a Hellenic house, of 
 the sitting of judges at the gates of cities, of the public games, 
 the wrestling of athletes, the swift running of chariots, the 
 trappings of horses ; when he describes the public acts of relig- 
 ion and the festivities of citizens, the details of sacrifices, the 
 dancing and music, etc., etc., are we not sure that all those 
 things happened exactly as he delineated them ? 
 
 So, too, when it is question of facts happening in his time, 
 or well ascertained by tra'dition, he must be acknowledged as 
 an historian, for his definite object was to record facts. He 
 is not an epic " poet," like Yirgil, who, living in an artificial 
 age, and after Aristotle had given the artistic rules of a work 
 of " fiction," wrote his ^Eneid as a novelist in our age writes 
 his fanciful tale. 
 
 It in nothing resembles a historic novel. Indeed, in the 
 time of Homer nothing of the kind can be supposed. Prob- 
 ably no one yet among the Greeks had ever written in prose. 
 Yerse was the only means of conveying intelligence by writ- 
 ing ; and whenever an author wrote in verse, he intended to 
 state what he thought was true, and not what he " fancied." 
 Hence, Homer was 'considered by the ancients as a true histo- 
 rian. Strabo, in the two first books of his geography, endeav- 
 ors to show that he was a most reliable historian, geographer, 
 and naturalist. And so, indeed, he was for his age, and those 
 which immediately followed it. We are sure, consequently, 
 that when he describes manners and social customs, they were 
 those of his time, and he merely published what he saw. And 
 as no writer ever equalled him in point of accuracy in his de- 
 scriptions, we can altogether rely on him as on the most faith- 
 ful delineator of those early ages.
 
 HEROIC GREECE. 315 
 
 The same now must be said of Herodotus, of whom, how- 
 ever, Strabo entertained a very different opinion. For a long 
 time the " Father of History " was considered only as a won- 
 der-monger, hunting up ridiculous stories, to idealize them in 
 his imperishable style, and catch gullible people, as children 
 are caught by fairy-tales. But after the long labors of critics 
 and investigators after truth, it is no longer possible to think 
 thus of the enchanting Halicarnassian. All now admit that 
 what he " saw," he faithfully described ; that things happening 
 in liis age, or immediately before, found in him an exact annal- 
 ist ; that what any respectable tradition handed down as true, 
 he transmitted to us in its native simplicity ; and that when he 
 "misleads" us, it is not through any intention of "deceiving," 
 but because he was himself misled by the "tale-bearers" of 
 his day. Nay, many of his assertions which seemed incredible 
 at first, and were, for that reason, alleged by many as proofs of 
 his untrustworthiness, have since been verified. We are con- 
 fident, therefore, that whenever Herodotus describes any event, 
 impregnated with the perfume of patriarchal antiquity, he is 
 but passing on to us the sweet fragrance of primitive times. 
 .And he could not do this unless he had received from previous 
 enchanters the aroma of an age which had, already, in his 
 time, passed away for ever. 
 
 II. 
 
 The first phenomenon which strikes us, when we take 
 a cursory glance over Greek territory, is similar to that which 
 presented itself in India and Egypt. Indeed, the division 
 of the territory is yet a deal more remarkable in the former 
 than in the latter. We find, in the heroic age, the country 
 cut up into an infinite number of small States, each with 
 its peculiar physiognomy, yet enjoying all the same opinions, 
 customs to a great extent, and chiefly social and domestic
 
 316 GENTILISM. 
 
 manners. Homer, in his descriptions, represents all the tribes 
 as equal in point of civilization. "We do not remark between 
 the eastern and western parts of Hellas, between Attica, for 
 instance, and ^Etolia, the difference so remarkable in a later 
 age, when the Athenians were so polished and the ^Etolians 
 so rude. According to him, the Thessalian differs in .nothing 
 from the inhabitant of Laconia. They all speak the same 
 language, have the same dress, the same weapons, the same 
 domestic customs are, in short, evidently the same people ; 
 yet they are each strongly marked with broad special' clan 
 characteristics. Thessaly is divided, in the time of Homer, 
 into ten different small States, each with its own ruler ; and the 
 inhabitant of each boasts of his own small country as if it was 
 the greatest in the world. In the Peloponnesus we find five 
 different kingdoms, besides Arcadia ; and one of them, Elis, is 
 governed by no less than four provincial kings, as an Irish an- 
 nalist would say. Hellas itself, the centre of Greece, is a per- 
 fect hot-bed of principalities. They are as numerous as the 
 cities themselves; and among them the Athenians do not 
 claim any superior right of preeminence to that of the most 
 insignificant of those obscure clans. As to the islands of the 
 -^Egean, and other seas, how could the smallest rock emerging 
 from the deep do less than enjoy its own king or ruler ? 
 Ulysses was a most powerful prince, because, besides his native 
 Ithaca, he claimed a right over Zacinthus and Cephallene. So 
 completely was division in clan^ an established institution 
 among them that when the lonians left Achaia in Pelopon- 
 nesus, driven away by new invaders who took the name of 
 Achseans, and established themselves on the western coast of 
 Asia Minor, they naturally " formed themselves into twelve 
 cities," as Herodotus relates (I. 14:5), "and refused to admit 
 more ; because when they dwelt in Peloponnesus, there were 
 twelve divisions of them, as now there are twelve divisions 
 of the Acheeaus who drove away the lonians.'' This short
 
 HEEOIC GREECE. 317 
 
 passage of the Father of History lets considerable light into 
 those early times, and proves conclusively that men had not 
 yet arrived at the modern notion that to be happy and prosper- 
 ous, a nation must consist of at least fifty millions of people. 
 
 This fact of the Ionian colonization of Asia Minor is not 
 exceptional. Herodotus, throughout his first book (Clio), 
 shows it to have been a common one in those ages. Thus in 
 149 he enumerates eleven cities founded in Asia Minor by the 
 ^Eolians as centres of new tribes, the twelfth, Smyrna, having 
 been taken away from them. The number twelve seems to 
 have been a sacred number in those days. It is another evi- 
 dence of the extent to which the spirit of clanship was carried 
 amongst them that they were slow even to form confederacies 
 of clans. They were satisfied with building a temple ; the one 
 used by the lonians was called Panionium, where they sent 
 their deputies once a year to regulate the general affairs of the 
 tribes. But Thales, as Herodotus relates (I. 170), having " ad- 
 vised the lonians to constitute one general (permanent) council 
 in Teos, which stands in the centre of Ionia, and that the rest 
 of the inhabited cities should nevertheless be governed as in- 
 dependent States," his advice was rejected. It is as interesting 
 as strange to hear a philosopher like Thales, the oldest in 
 Greece, propose a government exactly similar to that of the 
 United States, and to find his proposition rejected, probably as 
 opposed to the rights of the States (or cities), which might be 
 infringed upon by this kind of Washington government at 
 Teos. Yet if they were jealous of their rights, they were not 
 " republicans." They were strong " monarchists." They could 
 not understand any government but that of one man. Hence, 
 Homer expressed but the general opinion of the heroic age 
 when he made Ulysses exclaim : 
 
 " OVK dyadbv TTokvKoipavir) ' elg Koipavog !<TTO>, 
 Elq fiaoikevg, & d&KE Kpovov Tralg 
 rrpov r' fj6e Olfu^raf, tva afaoiv
 
 318 GENTILISM. 
 
 " Away with democracy ! let there be one ruler, 
 One king, to whom the son of deep-scheming Kronos 
 Has handed over the sceptre and right, that he may govern others." 
 
 Thus the doctrine of the " divine right " is not a modern 
 notion, and did not originate with King James I. "We must 
 not be supposed, however, to be advocating that doctrine. We 
 merely describe the sentiment of the patriarchal times of which 
 we treat. It is certainly remarkable that Greece, which, later on 
 in her history, originated every conceivable form of democratic 
 government, and was the first to proclaim in Athens chiefly 
 the rule of the many, was, in the earliest period of her history, 
 so strongly wedded to the idea of monarchy, whose sway, how- 
 ever, it is true, extended only over the contracted limits of a 
 territory a few miles square. "We meet then," as Heeren 
 says (Ancient Greece, Heroic age), " with no governments but 
 those of princes and kings ; there were then no republics ; and 
 yet republicanism was eventually to decide the political charac- 
 ter of Greece. These monarchical constitutions, if that name 
 may be applied to them, were rather the outlines of constitu- 
 tions than regular, finished forms of government. They were 
 the consequence of the most ancient condition of the nation, 
 when either ruling families sprung up in the several tribes, or 
 the leaders of foreign colonies had known how to secure to 
 themselves and their posterity the government over the na- 
 tives." * 
 
 We must, however, generalize these explanations of the 
 Professor of Gottingen, and say that " they were the conse- 
 quence of the primitive state of man, who began by a family, . 
 and passed directly to the condition of tribe under the rule of 
 the patriarch." Thus the clan becomes a sure sign of " prim- 
 eval man," because, as we have before stated, " mankind be- 
 gan by clanship ;" and the origin of Greece furnishes another 
 proof of the axiom. But the following remarks of Heeren, 
 a page farther down, are worthy of note, as they seem to de-
 
 HEROIC GREECE. 319 
 
 scribe to the letter the Ireland of Ante-Scandinavian times : 
 " Esteem for the ruling families (say for the heads of the 
 Septs) secured to them the government ; but their power was 
 not strictly hereditary. Princes were not much more than the 
 first among their peers The son had commonly the pre- 
 cedence over others in the succession ; but his claim wr.s 
 measured by his personal qualifications for the station. It was 
 his first duty to lead in war ; and he could not do this unless 
 he was himself distinguished for courage and strength. His 
 privileges in peace were not great. He called together the' 
 popular assembly, which was chiefly, if not exclusively, com- 
 posed of the older and more distinguished citizens. Here the 
 king had his own seat ; the ensign of his dignity was a sceptre 
 
 or staff, etc His superiority (in material circumstances) 
 
 consisted 'in a piece of land, and a larger part of the booty. 
 Excepting this, he derived his support from his own posses- 
 sions and the produce of his fields and herds. The preserva- 
 tion of his dignity required an almost unbounded hospitality, 
 etc." Thus the clan system appears to be so natural, and, on 
 that account, precise, that it presents absolutely the same fea- 
 tures in all countries, all climates, and all times. 
 
 But in such state of society was not man an ignorant, rude, 
 and uncouth barbarian ; and is not this the general opinion 
 scholars have ever had of the heroic age of Greece ? "No true 
 scholar can entertain such an opinion. The precise and numer- 
 ous details contained in classic authors, which testify to a high 
 state of knowledge, and suppose a happy and tranquil social 
 condition, make it impossible. 
 
 Take, for example, the excessively numerous and prosperous 
 populations which existed in those times. The intelligent 
 reader of Homer is struck by what the poet says of the num- 
 berless cities which then embellished Greece. And these were 
 not open hamlets, composed of a few huts for a far-scattered 
 population. They had walls ; the gates were generally adorned 
 22
 
 320 GEXTILISM. 
 
 with towers ; the houses formed streets, well laid out and broad ; 
 yet the dwellings were not contiguous and crowding on each 
 other, but they had in front a court, and a garden in the rear. 
 All that our modern ideas of comfort have since realized in ths 
 rural towns of our most prosperous States, existed already i:i 
 Hellas. The faithful delineations of the old wandering bard, 
 who had visited most of the countries he described, or knew by 
 report what took place before him, cannot leave us any doubt 
 of the correctness of his sketches. Later on, in the refined age 
 of Pericles, there were, no doubt, finer buildings, more exqui- 
 site works of art, a greater abundance of metallic or marble 
 statues. There was not, we are sure, more prosperity and real 
 comfort. In each city a large market square, adorned with 
 porticos and simple Doric columns, was the common place of 
 meeting for the citizens. There they lived in the open air, 
 and spent the greater part of the day ; not yet meddling in the 
 affairs of the commonwealth intrusted to the care of the 
 chieftain; not yet all eagerly busying themselves to receive 
 the first news of the day, as later on, at the time of Demos- 
 thenes ; but full already of the spirit of gossip, taking their 
 first lessons in dialectics and argument, preparing for their 
 race a long era of rationalism, philosophy, and discussion ; or 
 listening eagerly to the first strains of that enchanting poetry 
 and music, which was to last forever, and to re-echo in future 
 ages wherever the name of Greece should reach, and the works 
 of her oldest poets should be read. 
 
 III. 
 
 In our false ideas of primitive history, man was first a hunter, 
 a tearer of the flesh of his enemies, a rude warrior, and a 
 blood-thirsty savage. Nothing is more opposed to the first 
 pictures of the state of man as modern researches have spread
 
 HEROIC GREECE. 321 
 
 them before our astonished vision, ^imrod was a hunter in 
 the plains of Babylon and on the shores of the Persian gulf ; 
 but he was an exception ; and hence he destroyed clanship in 
 the countries which he devastated, and established the first 
 centralized empire. But wherever man was allowed to settle 
 quietly and follow the natural inclinations of his race, the 
 first state of society was undoubtedly idyllic, pastoral, and agri- 
 cultural. 
 
 It is Herodotus himself who remarks, at the very beginning 
 of his work, that Asia and Europe had, from the beginning, 
 lived quietly apart, without any mutual disturbance, until the 
 rapes of lo, of Europa, and of Helen, kindled for the first time 
 war between the two continents. This assertion of the Father 
 of History is confirmed by some writer whose name now 
 escapes us, and who remarks, with great justice and force, that 
 the preparations for the Trojan war, all over Greece and Asia 
 Minor, show conclusively that those countries had, until that 
 time, enjoyed a long period of quiet and peace, and had 
 reached, in happiness and contentment, a high state of pros- 
 perity. There can be no doubt of this in the mind of any 
 thoughtful reader perusing the pages of Homer and of Hesiod, 
 chiefly the " Opera et Dies." 
 
 And on this subject we cannot but refer with amazement 
 to the opinion of some modern critics, who, finding the great 
 work of the Boeotian poet (Hesiod) too peaceful and bucolic 
 for their ideas of those blood-thirsty ages, imagine the two 
 bards the Ionian and the Bceotian to have been the heads 
 of two schools of poets : the Homeric, full of fury, of wars, 
 and rumors of war ; the Hesiodic, intent only on rural peace, 
 as a protest against the general savagery of the period. This 
 thought may be ingenious, but it is not true. Homer does not 
 sing only of war. His Odyssey is as idyllic and pastoral as the 
 " Opera et Dies" of Hesiod ; and even his " Iliad" is full of 
 sweet descriptions of agricultural and pastoral scenes, showing
 
 322 GEXTILISM. 
 
 tlie general bias of the time to have been peaceful and home- 
 loving. The very shield of Achilles, forged by Vulcan, repre- 
 sented on its convex surface more scenes of husbandmen's life 
 than of warriors. Yes, the very Trojan war itself, with all its 
 immense preparations, supports our argument. 
 
 Another, and not unimportant, confirmation of what we have 
 alleged, is to be found in the description of an Hellenic private 
 house at that period. It was always large and spacious, cool 
 and airy, as the climate required. Around an open court ran 
 shaded galleries, to which succeeded, much later on, the " at- 
 riums " of the Romans, and later still, the " cloisters " of our 
 mediaeval monasteries. Bed-chambers were prepared for the men 
 around these lower galleries, and, from the court itself, a large 
 entrance conducted the men to the " hall," where they met for 
 conversation. At the back of the whole building stood the 
 " hearth," where the lady of the house was usually to be found. 
 A flight of steps was constructed for her especial use, leading 
 to an upper gallery, around which were arranged the women's 
 apartments. Everywhere painted woods, even then orna- 
 mented with the brush and pencil, gave a cheerful appearance 
 to the interior ; and polished metals brass, chiefly reflected, 
 in the evenings, the light of the blazing fire of the hearth, or 
 of the lamps suspended around. Was this the castle of a me- 
 diaeval Norman, or rather the elegant dwelling of civilized 
 people ? It is true there was somewhere a room apart where 
 arms were kept. We know how they were used in Ithaca 
 against the obstreperous lovers of Penelope. But as we do not 
 read anywhere that public arsenals had yet been built to de- 
 posit the arms required in time of war, or for the hunt, it was 
 but natural that such necessary articles should be deposited in 
 the houses of private citizens. 
 
 These were the dwellings of the inhabitants. All around 
 were erected large stables for their numerous horses, -or for the 
 well-fed cattle. Capacious bams stood ready to receive, in the
 
 HEROIC GREECE. 323 
 
 autumn, the produce of the fields ; for the inhabitants were all 
 of them agriculturists. Everywhere the soil was cultivated 
 with the greatest care ; all the cereals known to us were then 
 in use ; the grape-vine flourished, and was laden, in due s.ea?o i, 
 with its rich purple clusters ; fruit-trees of every kind abound- 
 ed ; and the pruning-knif e, reaping-hook, scythe, and the 
 plough, all the ordinary implements, indeed, used by our fann- 
 ers and gardeners, were constantly in the hands of the primitive 
 Hellenes, although " modern genius " had not yet invented for 
 them the sowing, reaping, and thrashing machines, or the steam- 
 ploughs. Any one acquainted with the agricultural details con- 
 tained in the most ancient authors, may well doubt if the 
 Greece of after ages was ever better cultivated ; nay, if in our 
 boasted days, many nations practice agriculture with the same 
 success. The Hellenes of our times are certainly, in that re- 
 gard, far behind their Pelasgic progenitors. 
 
 A few paragraphs above, we have spoken of metals, of brass 
 chiefly, used in private houses together with fine woods. There 
 is a very general impression, in these days, that metals were 
 scarcely known, and very sparingly used, before our age. We 
 have, however, only to read Homer attentively to find that the 
 houses of rich people and many of them were rich were posi- 
 tively filled with metallic implements of every description. 
 Our most wealthy mansions cannot compete with them in this 
 regard. Polished ^rass was certainly seen everywhere; but 
 what an idea of the splendor of the interior of Pelasgic houses 
 does it give us, to read, that in the dining-hall of Alcinous 
 there was.a row of " gold statues of young men carrying in their 
 hands lighted torches, to shed a brilliant light on the well-built 
 walls and the high ceilings 1" (Odyssey, vii., 100). Yet the 
 manners of the inhabitants of this splendid palace were so sim- 
 ple, that Nausicaa, the daughter of the Phseacian King, used to 
 go to wash the linen of the family in the stream running at the 
 foot of the next meadow. Homer, it is true, may not have had
 
 324 GENTILISM. 
 
 the intention to state an historical fact with respect to these 
 statues of Alcinous; yet he would not certainly have men- 
 tioned it if he had not himself witnessed some fact of the 
 kind, or heard of it on good authority. He always described 
 what he saw or knew. But how many other details given by 
 the poet prove the mineral wealth of those people ? The walls, 
 covered with metallic ornaments ; the seats of brass or iron ; 
 the ewers for washing the hands in gold ; the basins of silver ; 
 everything, in fact, except the house itself, in metal. Let the 
 reader imagine all the wooden utensils seen in our houses ; all 
 the plate used by us, of earthenware, of common china, as it is 
 called, all the chairs and seats spread in our parlors, to be made 
 of brass, gold, or silver, and he will have a faithful representa- 
 tion of the interior of a Greek dwelling in the heroic age. 
 The Phoenicians, and the Arabs before them, as testified by 
 Job, had already carried the mining art as far as it is carried 
 now. 
 
 Herodotus, an eye witness (vi., 46), mentions in particular 
 the gold mines of Thasos : " The most wonderful of them," he 
 says, " are those discovered by the Phoenicians, when led by 
 Thasus they colonized the island. These mines are opposite 
 Samothrace, between ^Enyra and Ccenyra : a large mountain 
 has been thrown upside down in the search." From these 
 words of the Father of History, gold was there obtained by 
 washing. We know that the Phoenicians extracted it also from 
 quartz. 
 
 If people in those times had not yet come to the point of 
 producing lumps of metal, equal in bulk to the enormous 
 masses which now issue daily from our modern huge factories 
 and iron mills, yet what they produced was much more highly 
 elaborated, and, with them, art replaced bulk. If the reader 
 should require further evidence of a similar purport, let him 
 consult Herodotus, where he tells us of the metallic wealth of 
 Croesus in Lydia, who lived in an age not very far removed
 
 HEROIC GREECE. 325 
 
 from that high antiquity which occupies us ; the immense treas- 
 ures of ancient Hellenic sanctuaries, particularly of the cele- 
 brated one of Delphi, etc. 
 
 But as our scope does not require more convincing proofs, 
 we will merely ask ourselves in concluding this interesting sub- 
 ject : Still, it may be objected, what about the Cyclops and the 
 Polyphernusses, and the Geryons of the Greek heroic age ? Is 
 it not by such highly- wrought descriptions of barbarism and 
 savagery, that we ought to judge of that ancient period of Hel- 
 las ? To this we reply, that all those wonderful tales were nar- 
 rated of far distant countries. Geryon was a monster nourish- 
 ing at the western extremity of Spain, at the very last limit of 
 the then known world. The Cyclops and Polyphemusses lived 
 in desert islands, and ate the fiesh only of strangers stranded 
 on their shore. The Griffins, who fought so ardently against 
 the foreign people who came to steal their gold, were supposed 
 to flap their wings and sharpen their claws in the frozen atmos- 
 phere of the far north. And so of the others. It is just what 
 travellers used formerly to relate of the strange countries they 
 alone had visited. Hence the French proverb : " A beau 
 mentir qui vient de loin," etc. We cannot conclude without a 
 word or two on the morality of these primitive ages. It was 
 then that " suppliants " supplices enjoyed an inviolable char- 
 acter ; that the sanctity of an oath was universally respected ; 
 that " hospitality " was not only a name, but a great fact, so 
 that strangers were treated almost as sacred beings, except in a 
 few spots on the borders of hostile countries, as in Tauris, 
 where Greeks, having often acted as pirates, were openly 
 treated as enemies and sacrificed to Diana. The horrors of the 
 old Greek drama have been often insisted upon as positive proofs 
 of barbarism. Yet even in it there are many exculpatory cir- 
 cumstances which militate against such a conclusion. (Edipus, 
 for instance, was never guilty of voluntary incest ; yet he 
 treated himself, and was treated by fate, as if he had been a
 
 326 GEIfTILISM. 
 
 willing criminal. Who, in our age, thinks that adultery ought 
 to be punished as it was on Clytemnestra and her whole fam- 
 ily ? The u feast " of Thyestes was evidently a myth, intended 
 to explain the long misfortunes of the Atridae. For people 
 then believed that a great crime required a great expiation, 
 * and this conviction cannot but be a strong basis of morality. 
 Those very " horrible " facts themselves, instead of indicating 
 a state of barbarism, do, on the contrary, when we study them 
 more profoundly, supply a convincing evidence of the intense 
 vitality of human conscience in those ages. 
 
 IV. 
 
 We have asserted that the period of pure religion in Greece 
 must have been short, and must soon have given way to pan- 
 theism. We must. now examine the "backward progress" of 
 the Hellenes, as we have already done in the case of Hindostan 
 and Egypt. It is remarkable that all ancient authors attribute 
 the first great step in error to Orpheus, the almost-inspired and 
 divine bard. He preached openly pantheism, and even, ac- 
 cording to many, he was, conjointly with Homer and Hesiod, 
 who appeared long after him, the author of positive idolatry, 
 by " giving names to the gods," so that he must have been one 
 of those Pelasgians mentioned by Herodotus in a passage we 
 have previously quoted. 
 
 It is evident that no single man, chiefly a man of genius, 
 could have played so many and opposite characters. Orpheus, 
 in many things, is a generic* name, and includes a succession 
 of several men. But the fact of all being included in one, 
 shows that the decline in pure doctrine must have been rapid, 
 and the result of a short period of time. 
 
 The reader will find in Cudworth's " Systema Intellectuale" 
 many passages of ancient authors attributing to Orpheus the
 
 HEROIC GREECE. 327 
 
 belief that " God was everything," and " that everything was 
 God." The same is contained in the passage of St. Clement 
 of Alexandria, given by us, in which God is said to be " the 
 beginning, the middle, and the end" of all things. Several 
 hymns attributed to 'Orpheus contain not only the broadest 
 pantheism, but indicate a step nearer to the " elementary " wor- 
 ship mentioned in the "Book of Wisdom," by attributing 
 divine attributes to the sun, the stars, the earth, the elements 
 in general and in particular. Our readers remember the pas- 
 sage of the inspired writer we quoted at the beginning of this 
 work. The element-worship of Orpheus is another illustra- 
 tion of it. This, in our opinion, must have been the religion 
 of the Pelasgians for a long time of their existence as a race, 
 although we have scarcely any proof to offer in support of it. 
 AVe could, nevertheless, besides the general religious and moral 
 complexion of the times, give, as an argument on our side, the 
 well-known primitive worship of the Etruscans Pelasgians 
 according to the most common opinion, supported by Niebuhr 
 and Ottfried Miiller and certainly, at first, worshippers of 
 the elements and forces of nature, undoubtedly great diviners, 
 angurers, and conjurors, as the element -worshippers must 
 always be. Every one knows how they studied the phenomena 
 of " f ulguration," the flight of birds, the sudden appearance 
 of u monsters," etc. Their complex ritual was the natural 
 consequence of the complexity of divinized natural phenom- 
 ena; everything, in fact, goes to prove that the Etruscans, 
 Pelasgians originally, brought to Tyrrhenia the awe-inspiring 
 pantheism of the adorers of " disordered " Nature. 
 
 Another, and perhaps stronger, support of this opinion is 
 taken from the passage of Herodotus on the Pelasgians, quoted 
 at the beginning of the preceding chapter. If they did not at 
 first give names to the gods (0eovf), they, however, worshipped 
 them. But what- can be the meaning of such a worship if it 
 is not individualized, at least, by the sight, since it is not by
 
 328 GENTILISM. 
 
 the speech ? They must have worshipped what they saw, 
 since absent beings absolutely require names to be remembered 
 by. Apollo and Athene, in the opinion of an Hellene, not 
 falling under the sight of the worshipper, must have an indi- 
 vidual name to be known by. But the forked lightning, the 
 coruscating meteor, the speaking ox, the eagles flying swiftly 
 in pairs, etc., need not be named when they are seen ; and it is 
 then alone that they are adored they are called " 0eot." 
 
 However this may be, such a religion existed certainly in 
 Greece, and something like it was attributed, by many ancient 
 authors, to Orpheus. But when the imagination of the Hel- 
 lenes began to unfold its wings under the pure, clear sky of 
 their country, they felt the need of a more cheerful religion, 
 and the poets came to their aid by inventing " mythology." 
 Of this now we have to speak somewhat more extensively, as, 
 on this subject, many false opinions are entertained, which a 
 Christian ought closely to examine and sternly to reject. 
 
 Y. 
 
 The word "myth" did not primarily mean "fable" in 
 Greek ; it meant originally an " explanation of common 
 speech," either by allegory or by an historical fiction. This 
 last sense is the most natural one. In the East chiefly, where 
 imagination predominates, a speaker, to render truth more 
 attractive to the minds of his hearers, covers it with an em- 
 blem, or with a supposed history ; and the hearers, accustomed 
 to such mental operations, detect instantaneously the object 
 of the speaker, are pleased with his ingenuity, and retain more 
 easily in their memory the truths hidden under the brilliant 
 fiction. To us the same rhetorical artifice is merely a meta- 
 phor ; to an Oriental, it is a myth. A myth, however, is sub- 
 ject to an abuse which metaphors and other similar figures of
 
 HEROIC GEEECE. 329 
 
 speech are not. If myths had been only metaphorical, or even 
 allegorical, as the parables of the !New Testament, or the fables 
 of ^Esop, they would have led into error only extremely stupid 
 people. Every one who reads the "Parable of the Sower" in 
 the gospel, immediately perceives it to be an allegory, and 
 endeavors to discover the explanation. But a myth, purely 
 historical, although apparently of more easy comprehension, 
 will, precisely on account of this facility of understanding, 
 lead ordinary people to imagine that the fictitious history is 
 everything, and thus they take the husk for the kernel, the in- 
 genious covering for the hidden .truth. When the Egyptian 
 priest related to Herodotus that one day Hercules hearing 
 Jupiter, wished, and asked to see him. But, as the Supreme 
 God must remain invisible even to a hero, and as Jupiter was, 
 nevertheless, desirous of gratifying Hercules, he took the hide 
 of a ram, with the horns on it, and covering himself entirely 
 with it, allowed the son of Semele thus to see him. When 
 this myth, we say, was related by an Egyptian priest to Hero- 
 dotus, with the remark that this was the reason why Amun 
 (Jupiter) is represented with the head of a ram, we do not 
 know precisely what the good Halycarnassian may have 
 thought of it, since he does not attempt to acquaint us with 
 his ideas on the subject ; but it is certain that the majority of 
 the people who heard the story thought only of Amun, and of 
 Hercules, and of the head and hide of a ram. The great idea 
 of a supreme and invisible God becoming perceptible to our 
 sight by the creation of the Universe, represented here by the 
 sun entering the zodiacal sign of the ram, altogether escaped 
 them. The allegorical history had taken the place of the 
 meaning conveyed by it. The religious doctrine had fallen 
 entirely into oblivion. Truth had become a myth, and relig- 
 ion had become changed into " mythology." 
 
 ^Nor was it only intellectual and religious doctrines which 
 thus assumed the form of myths, but physical events of every-
 
 330 GENTILISM. 
 
 day occurrence, or scientific facts, as we of this age call them, 
 were also subjected to the same process. Every atmospheric 
 change, for instance, was explained by a myth ; and soon there 
 were as many gods as meteoric phenomena. The same took 
 place in the wonderful development of vegetation ; in the hid- 
 den current of life in all its stages ; in the mysteries concealed 
 under the waves of the ocean, as well as in the immensity of 
 celestial space. Myths everywhere ; and thus gods everywhere. 
 The life of man, that most mysterious of beings, could not 
 remain independent of the same mythical appreciation ; and 
 St. Augustine tells us humorously, but with truth, in his great 
 work, " De Civitate Dei," Book vi., Chap. 9 : "In the union 
 of man and wife, the god Jugatinus must intervene ; we have 
 no objection to this. But when the bride is to be taken to her 
 new home, the god Dorniducus must be there to conduct her ; 
 that she may like to stay at home, is the office of the god Do- 
 mitius ; that she may not separate from her husband, the god- 
 dess Manturna must see to it. What more is wanted ? Let 
 
 the pudor of the bride be spared Why is the room 
 
 filled with gods and goddesses when the grooms and brides- 
 maids leave it ? What need is there of the goddess 
 
 Yirginiensis ? of the god Subigus ? Is not the husband 
 enough ? " 
 
 And when the child is born : " If a father of family em- 
 ployed two nurses, one to give the baby food and the other 
 drink, would not people say that he is crazy, and wants to turn 
 his house into a scene of comedy ; yet these ' theologians ' must 
 invent for the child the goddesses Educa and Potiiia." 
 
 " Yarron," says again St. Augustine, " unfolds a long list of 
 gods from the conception of man, beginning by Janus ; and 
 the incredible series ends only at the death of the decrepit old 
 stager ; closing the interminable procession by the goddess 
 Kcenia, who is after all only the song chanted at the end of the 
 funeral of old people."
 
 HEROIC GREECE. 331 
 
 As every accident of human life was thus placed under the 
 care of some supernatural being, the natural consequence was, 
 that man himself, especially if a prince or a hero, became god- 
 like, and after his death was ranked among the gods. Thus a 
 new source of inextricable ccnf usion arose in " mythology !" 
 Real historical facts, the events, namely, of some important 
 human life, became mythic ; and often could scarcely be distin- 
 guished from older and more solemn myths. Thus Hercules, 
 Mercury, etc., became types of altogether different mythologi- 
 cal personages. 
 
 It is into this complication of absurdities that modern anti- 
 quarians have tried to introduce order. But as most of these 
 have been systematic men, they have' succeeded in clearing 
 away only a few difficulties, whilst the exclusiveness of their 
 systems have introduced new sources of error and obscurity. 
 Thus to the primitive idea of some old Greek philosophers, 
 chiefly Epicharmus and Empedosles, for whom the gods were 
 merely the types of physical phenomena, Jove being only the 
 Upper Sky, Apollo the Sun, and so forth ; to the bold teach- 
 ing of more modern Greek authors, like Euhemerus, who saw 
 in gods and goddesses only deified men and women ; to the 
 more dignified opinion of many Christian writers who have 
 attempted to explain mythology as only the corruption of re- 
 vealed truth, have succeeded in our days sometimes the learn- 
 ed, severe, and convincing criticism of a few, sometimes the 
 most ridiculous assumptions of a larger number of German and 
 French authors, the English scarcely daring to take such bold 
 flights of fancy. 
 
 There is a plain assertion of Herodotus in Book ii., 53, making 
 the following important statement : " Whence each of the gods 
 sprung, whether they existed always, and of what form they were, 
 was, so to speak, unknown till yesterday. For, I am of opin- 
 ion, that Hesiod and Homer lived four hundred years before 
 my time, and not more, and these poets framed a theogony for
 
 332 GENTILISM. 
 
 the Greeks, and gave names to the gods, and assigned to them 
 honors and arts, and declared their several forms .... What I 
 have stated ahove (with respect to the Pelasgians), is derived 
 from the Dodonean priestesses ; but the last assertion, which 
 relates to Ilesiod and Homer, I say on my own authority." 
 
 It was only, therefore, four centuries before the Father of 
 History that real idolatry began in Greece. For there could 
 be no idolatry properly so called, before the gods had names 
 and forms, after whose likeness images and idols could be 
 made to be Worshipped ; and this is attributed, as a well-known 
 fact, to Ilesiod and Homer. To be sure, German critics have 
 raised serious doubts about the personality of these two poets. 
 But this does not toitch the question. For, admitting even 
 that the critics are right, and that the Iliad, for instance, is the 
 composition of a number of rhapsodists, the poem, at least, can- 
 not be older than the time assigned to it by Herodotus, since 
 he asserted it positively, on his own authority, and he is a bet- 
 ter authority on this subject than any modern critic. We do 
 not, however, for our part, propose to take away from Homer 
 the authorship of his masterpiece, whatever may be said of the 
 Odyssey, which was certainly written later. It is the indi- 
 vidual Homer to whom we shall refer, and not unknown rhap- 
 sodists. 
 
 What, then, is the special work which must be assigned to the 
 great Ionian bard ? It is the anthropomorphism of the gods. 
 He gave them shapes, forms, individualities. He was their 
 creator, and he gave them names. He was thus the chief 
 author of idolatry in Greece. But were they not derived from 
 previous myths? Most certainly; at least as far as regards 
 those divinities whose worship preceded the age of the poets. 
 For it seems certain to us, that the imagination of the bards 
 created many of those fanciful beings whom the Hellenes wor- 
 shipped at a later period. But the gods known to the nation 
 before detailed biographies were written of them, before " Ho-
 
 HEROIC GEEECE. 333 
 
 mer invented their names and forms," were certainly mythical. 
 Of this nnmlter, Apollo was undoubtedly one of the first ; either 
 as representing the sun issuing young, blooming, and glorious 
 from the hancls of the creator, his father ; or even with a higher 
 and more sacred meaning, as typifying the future revealer of 
 the will of Jove, by his oracles ; the Son of Zeus born on earth 
 to restore our humanity to its former ideal ; for Apollo was 
 certainly for the Greeks the ideal of humanity. We can only 
 conjecture this, as nothing can be positively determined on the 
 subject. All we assert is, that myths, in the sense we have 
 explained, were the original foundation of the subsequent my- 
 thological conceptions of the poets. But these brilliant and 
 imaginative wooers of the Muses so completely obscured them, 
 that it is perfectly useless, in our age, to attempt to disem- 
 body them. Their meaning known at first, has entirely disap- 
 peared. The fair form has for ever concealed the inner soul. 
 
 The result of this baneful operation was to " humanize " 
 God himself what we have called just now "anthropomor- 
 phism." And not only did God took the shape of man, but He 
 took also his passions and vices. It is quite a mistake to sup- 
 pose that there was in it something of the great and consoling 
 truth of the "Incarnation" in the Christian sense. In Greek 
 anthropomorphism there was not even the slightest reminis- 
 cence of this great and holy dogma, promised to the first man 
 and woman after their fall. Nay more ; it was a great deal 
 below even that of the avatars of Vishnu in Hindoo mythology. 
 
 When we read the acts and the words of the gods in the 
 Iliad of Homer, we are astonished at the puerility, wantonness, 
 and gross immorality which the narrative supposes. The poet, 
 so truly great, and often sublime, who could represent the 
 whole of heaven grinning lewdly at the capture of Yenus and 
 Mars in the net of Yulcan, had evidently lost the most elemen- 
 tal ideas of religion. And, yet, such was the man who was to 
 be the religious teacher of a great and most influential nation ;
 
 334 GENTILISM. 
 
 to lay the foundation of a literature lasting more than twelve 
 hundred years, and impregnating with its spirit so many other 
 literatures which were to follow ! The only wonder is, that 
 moral decomposition did not proceed more rapidly ; and that 
 the people trained by such a master did not die out a thousand 
 years before it did in fact. It is in our opinion an evidence 
 that the Hellenic nature during the heroic age had imbibed 
 principles of nobleness, simplicity, and natural virtue, able to 
 bear up for a long period of time against the most powerful 
 incentives to corruption. 
 
 YI. 
 
 Yet writers, Christian writers,- have maintained that the 
 Greek mythology was a great source of culture, and literally 
 civilized the nation. Prof. Heeren writes as follows: "The 
 more a nation conceives its gods to be like men, the nearer does 
 it approach them, and the more intimately does it live with 
 them. According to the earliest views of the Greeks, the gods 
 often wandered among them, shared in their business, requited 
 them with good or ill, according to their reception, and espe- 
 cially to the number of presents and sacrifices with which they 
 were honored. Those views decided the character of religious 
 worship, which received from them, not only its forms, but 
 also its life and meaning. How could this worship have re- 
 ceived any other than a cheerful, friendly character ? The gods 
 were gratified with the same pleasures as mortals .... With 
 such conceptions, how could their holidays have been other- 
 wise than joyous ones ? And as their joy was expressed by 
 dance and song, both of these necessarily became constituent 
 parts of their religious festivals. 
 
 " It is another question : "What influence must such a relig- 
 ion have had on the morals of the nation ? The gods were, 
 by no means, represented as pure moral beings, but as beings
 
 HEROIC GEEECE. 335 
 
 possessed of all human passions and weaknesses. But, at the 
 same time, the Greeks never entertained the idea that their 
 divinities were to be held up as models of virtue ; and hence 
 the injury done to morality by such a religion, however warmly 
 the philosophers afterwards spoke against it, could hardly have 
 been so great as we, with our prepossessions, should have at 
 first imagined. If it was not declared a duty to become like 
 the gods, no excuse for the imitation could be drawn from the 
 faults and crimes attributed to them 
 
 " By the transformation of the Grecian divinities into moral 
 agents, an infinite field was open for poetic invention. By 
 becoming human, the gods became peculiarly beings for the 
 
 poets The great characteristics of human nature were 
 
 expressed in them ; they were exhibited as so many definite 
 archetypes. The poet might relate of them whatever he pleased, 
 but he was never permitted to alter the original characters. 
 .... Thus the popular religion of the Greeks was thoroughly 
 poetical. There is no need of a long argument to show that 
 it also decided the character of Grecian art, by affording an 
 inexhaustible supply of subjects." 
 
 The main idea contained in these reflections is that Hel- 
 lenic polytheism became a source of true culture for the na- 
 tion, because from it naturally followed cheerful festivals, a 
 well-spring of poetical invention, and a high scope of art ; yet 
 as true culture cannot be supposed without morality, a word 
 is said to excuse the real profligacy of the religion. We are 
 glad to meet such a thesis expressed in such terms, because the 
 true idea of civilization and progress enters deeply into our 
 subject, and we can find no better opportunity to treat of it. 
 Already, in a previous chapter, we have remarked that the 
 period of the introduction of real idolatry in India, in Egypt, 
 and in Greece, was an epoch of great material refinement, and 
 of an immense development of the fine arts. We will grant, 
 
 therefore, to Professor Heeren, and to- those who think with him, 
 23
 
 336 GEXTILISM. 
 
 more than they ask, since we generalize the phenomenon and 
 show its universality and its almost ubiquitous extension. In 
 Hindostan, in Egypt, in Greece, later in Italy, as soon as real 
 idolatrous polytheism appears, immense and splendid buildings 
 are constructed, prodigious sculptures, showing a rich invention 
 and a most artistic taste, cover immense walls, where their stu- 
 pendous relics still- astonish the traveller. "We learn from his- 
 tory that, at the same epoch, extraordinary festivals and sacri- 
 fices often took place, in the midst of the most exuberant joy of 
 innumerable multitudes ; and the universal myth of Bacchus, 
 Dionysus, or whatever name that god was known by along the 
 Ganges and the Nile, constituted the inspiration of this uproar- 
 ious hilarity. Long and splendid poems, likewise, with lyric 
 songs and musical harmony, reflect on those ages a vivid light 
 of poetry and art. Is not, after all, polytheism a glorious 
 thing for our sad and down-trodden humanity ? What if 
 morality suffers a little ? It is fortunately inscribed in the 
 heart, and exterior religion has nothing to do with it. This 
 is, we think, the thought 6f Professor Heeren and of his school, 
 and we have only expressed it in stronger terms than any one 
 of them has ventured to do. 
 
 There is no doubt that, when the principle of virtue is 
 uprooted, the day has come for the triumph of the senses. 
 But to eulogize a religion precisely because it favors the latter 
 at the expense of the former, is certainly a strange position for 
 a Christian to take. Yet it is exactly what the above quotation 
 does. Joy, poetry, and art are very fine words; but they re- 
 quire great qualification in order to be estimated at their true 
 worth. Not every kind of joy means happiness ; not every kind 
 of poetry commends itself to the human conscience ; art itself 
 is a corrupter when the hand that holds the chisel or the brush is 
 impure ; and as all contributes to what is called culture or civil- 
 ization, we may infer that not everything bearing that name de- 
 serves admiration, the same as not everything that glitters is gold.
 
 HEROIC GREECE. 337 
 
 A nation fed only on these husks could not but end in 
 rottenness, because all these sources of culture are material, 
 sensual, promotive of passion and chiefly of lust ; and for true 
 progress man requires that his immoital soul should be the first 
 cultivated, and that her mastership over the senses should be at 
 all times vindicated. When the true philosophers, who appeared 
 long after the beginning of this intoxicating period of poetry 
 and art, perceived the false direction that the progress of the" 
 nation had taken, they tried to bring it back to first principles. 
 The school of Socrates and of Plato, in particular, insisted on 
 ethics, and on the superiority of the spiritual and intellectual 
 part of man over the sensible and perishable one. But it was 
 already too late ; so late, in fact, that even the best among 
 them did not see the greatest danger for the future, and the 
 real cause of the degeneracy which was already, in their time, 
 but too apparent. They attributed it chiefly to the Sophists, 
 as they called them ; and they thought that the peril lay prin- 
 cipally in an unbridled rationalism, which already denied the 
 most clear principles of sound philosophy. They themselves 
 partook, to a great degree, of the universal artistic fanaticism. 
 They were Greeks, and lovers of the " beautiful." And al- 
 though Plato made a sublime distinction between Venus 
 Urania and the voluptuous mother of Cupid, his distinction 
 was, unfortunately, impotent against moral covruption, and 
 could not stop it in its devastating career. Hence, even 
 amongst ourselves "Platonic love" has become synonymous 
 with " impossible love," and the object of a great deal of 
 harmless ridicule. 
 
 But, in spite of this moral blindness, the philosophers of 
 whom we speak saw that the danger of the nation lay in the 
 neglect of the immortal part of nan. And they endeavored 
 to convince their countrymen that the tendency of such neglect 
 was to pure materialism, and, consequently, to brutalization, if 
 we may be allowed to coin a word. But what was the cause
 
 338 GEXTILISM. 
 
 of it ? Not alone the insane rationalism of the Sophists ; not. 
 alone the ridiculous pretensions of the dialectitians, who prom- 
 ised to teach young men how to " make the worse appear the bet- 
 ter," or " the better appear the worse ;" but originally, and at all 
 times, and chiefly, the predominance given to the senses by 
 the prevailing materialistic polytheism. And this had cer- 
 tainly arisen from degrading the gods to the level of humanity, 
 endowing them with the same aims, and passions, and vices ; 
 in short, from the pure and simple " anthropomorphism " of the 
 religion. Even had the philosophers perceived this, they would 
 not have dared to assert it openly. They had to respect the 
 " religion of the State." It was one of the great accusations 
 against Socrates that he believed in other gods than " those of 
 the State." Happy he if, before drinking the hemlock, he had 
 openly acknowledged the issue between himself and his accus- 
 ers, and announced that the "gods of the State" were immoral 
 beings, unworthy not only of adoration, but of the most com- 
 mon respect ! He would have died a martyr to the doctrine 
 of the true and living God ! Plato, in his " Cratylus," shows 
 openly enough that this was in his mind ; yet neither he, nor 
 Socrates his master, dared openly avow it. 
 
 And, to speak only of the language of art and literature, leav- 
 ing aside that of religion, what could be the culture promoted 
 by Greek art and poetry ? The answer is plain : that of the 
 beautiful. But which beautiful ? only the material and sensi- 
 ble there can be no other answer. Hence, all the object the 
 Hellenes could aim at was to depict, either on canvas, or in 
 marble and bronze, or in imperishable verse, the exterior ob- 
 jects of creation, chiefly the noble or soft features of man and 
 woman. This was for them the " ideal " of humanity ; and in 
 this they certainly reached perfection. No other people, since 
 their time, has ever been able to attain such perfection of 
 aesthetic beauty in art, as did the Greeks. But the " ideal " of 
 human beauty must comprise more than the form. It must
 
 HEROIC GREECE. 339 
 
 reach the soul and depict the passions. "What ideal of the 
 kind could there be for the Greeks ? No higher one certainly 
 than that of the gods. Even in the supposition of Prof. 
 Heeren, that they were never intended to be imitated morally 
 a proposition we will shortly discuss at least their passions, 
 either noble or vile, were the true " ideal " of painter, acxdptor, 
 and poet among the Greeks. Could this be a high " ideal ?" 
 Let any man, if he be a Christian at ah 1 , peruse the greatest 
 work of Homer, the Iliad, to satisfy himself on this point, and 
 we have no fear of the answer he will return. But the ad- 
 mirers of the beautiful in the Hellenic sense, will say that a 
 reader of the Iliad in our days ought to pass lightly over the 
 passages where the gods are described " It is too childish to 
 be adverted to/' We insist that these very passages ought 
 to be seriously read and studied, if we wish to know what was 
 the real " ideal " of Hellenic art and poetry, since this is the 
 question. 
 
 And the writers we now oppose are Christian me*, who 
 know full well what has been, since Christianity, the. " ideal ? ' 
 of our painters, sculptors, and poets. They have no doubt 
 stood often in admiration before their master-pieces ; they have 
 no doubt felt, and have probably themselves not been wholly 
 insensible to, the heavenly inspirations which gave them birth. 
 What if the human shape, under their brush, their chisel, or 
 their pen, is not depicted with such anatomical perfection as dis- 
 tinguished the works of Phidias, or Polygnotus, or Praxiteles, or 
 Homer ? The divine soul that breathes everywhere in modern 
 productions, shows how infinitely higher is the Christian ideal 
 than the pagan one ; and to attribute to the works of antiquity 
 the Hellenic culture and civilization is, after all, merely to say 
 that both must have been infinitely under our own, and that 
 the civilization they brought with them was an inferior one. 
 It must be remarked, however, that the " love of the beautiful " 
 culture consequently among the Greeks did not come from
 
 340 GENTILISM. 
 
 their religion ; but, rather, that their religion, all material and 
 sensual as it was, came from their love of the " sensible beauti- 
 ful," which must have been a characteristic of the race before 
 their polytheism. Bo'h were perhaps developed at once. But 
 their absurd religion had very little to do with the love they felt 
 for the beautiful. That was in them when they were born. 
 
 One characteristic, however, of their art must be ascribed to 
 their religion, their fondness, namely, for the nude human 
 forms. And this deserves at least a passing notice. 
 
 It is, we think, Herodotus who remarks that the Eastern 
 nations, the Persians particularly, felt it a shame, even in men, 
 to let any part of their body appear, except the face and hands ; 
 but that the Greeks felt no such scruple on the subject. This 
 is the thought. We have forgotten the precise words. The 
 remark is an important one, as it shows that for primitive man 
 the body was a mysterious temple to be kept constantly in the 
 " shade of the sacred enclosures and the groves," as they spoke 
 at tha time. The cynics of our days treat the question too 
 flippantly, when they object, that covering, clothes consequent- 
 ly, are required in cold climates, not in warm, and still less in 
 hot ones ; and when they point triumphantly to the different 
 clothing of the savages living under the tropics from the Esqui- 
 maux who live within the Arctic circle. This may be true of 
 savages who have lost the sense of all the mysteries with which 
 our humanity is sacredly surrounded. We have, only, in reply, 
 to point to the Syrians, Persians, Arabs, Indians, and Chinese, 
 who invariably, in the hottest weather, and in their own burn- 
 ing climes, cover their bodies with what may appear to be a 
 superfluous and even ridiculous care. And it is not woman only 
 who is always religiously covered, but in those countries man 
 himself would feel it a shame, as Herodotus said more than 
 twenty centuries ago, to let any part of his body appear except 
 his face and hands. This shows that the care with which women 
 are veilecT is not, as people somewhat carelessly conclude, the
 
 HEEOIC GREECE. 341 
 
 effect of an unnatural jealousy on the part of the men ; but 
 that horror of nudity is in the blood of those races who seem 
 still to possess the modesty which became a part of human 
 nature after the fall. And it originated in the consciousness 
 of the corruption which had seized our senses ; so that we could 
 no more be allowed the simple freedom of look enjoyed during 
 the period of innocence. For savages the danger is not so 
 great, as their senses even, and especially their imagination, are 
 blunted by their want of intellectual development. But cul- 
 tivated man is bound by the laws of decency. 
 
 The Hellenes were the first of polished nations who, on ac- 
 count of their love of the beautiful, threw aside the restraint 
 imposed by modesty ; and, not only the wrestler, the athlete, 
 and the racer, laid aside their dress to give, in the open day, an 
 exhibition of their respective arts, enhanced by the sight of 
 their natural beauty ; but woman herself, at least in the public 
 squares of Sparta, shared with man the odious privilege of 
 barefacedness. 
 
 Religion certainly was, in great measure, the cause of this 
 remarkable difference between the Hellenes and other ancient 
 nations. We cannot say, however, that tfiey stood alone in this 
 unenviable peculiarity. The Egyptians had even anticipated 
 them ; among whom the dancing-girls and female musicians 
 were, perhaps, the first to break through the rules of decency. 
 We say that religion yes, the religion of Homer and his fol- 
 lowers was the chief cause of the immodesty of the Greeks ; 
 since, after him, the gods could no more be represented in 
 the severely modest garb of ancient statues ; but sculptors and 
 painters were at liberty to picture them as simple men and 
 women that they were. It is the custom, on this subject, to 
 congratulate the Greeks on having dared to " break through 
 the dead formulas of old myths," by giving to their gods the 
 freedom of movement and the elegance of form which the 
 " ideal of humanity " requires. We insist upon it again, that
 
 342 GEXTILISM. 
 
 by "breaking through the dead formulas of myths," they 
 merely renounced all participation in the religious knowledge 
 contained originally in the myths ; and they became, as the 
 old Egyptian priest says in the Timseus, " only children, with- 
 out any tradition of old times." As to giving to the gods 
 " freedom of movement and elegance of form," they merely 
 placed them naked under the eyes of all ; and so accus- 
 tomed themselves to lose all feelings of modesty with respect 
 to their own bodies and to that of others. 
 
 And we ought not to imagine that, for them, everything 
 was so enchanting, so harmonious, so well-proportioned, that 
 they could look on the lines, as on so many beautiful geomet- 
 rical or even astronomical figures, without any reference to 
 the senses. To think thus would be to forget, or belie, entirely 
 human nature. Any one who has read the productions of 
 even old Greek authors, who were far more chaste than those 
 who succeeded them in after ages, knows full well how intense 
 in them was, what we call in modern tongue, sensuality. It 
 inspires nearly every line of their writings. 
 
 The guilt of the Hellmes on this subject was not con- 
 fined to their own age and country. From them the evil 
 spread through all European nations, and, perhaps, for all 
 time. It is from them that the Romans, so grave at first, so 
 chaste, so thoroughly masters over their senses, became, in 
 time, through Grecian art, poetry, and religious festivals, ar- 
 dent followers of Epicurus, altogether given to sensual pleasures, 
 great admirers of nudity, and, at last, thoroughly vicious and 
 degraded. It is from them that modern nations have imbibed 
 the same spirit ; so that there is scarcely .any considerable 
 art-collection without Grecian nudities. And we have the 
 strange spectacle, everywhere in Europe, of Christian people 
 collecting in the same edifices sacred to art, the sublime and 
 pure pictures and statues inspired by the virtues of Faith and 
 Chastity, together with base imitations of the universal subjects
 
 HEEOIC GREECE. 343 
 
 treated by old Greek painters and sculptors. From this, like- 
 wise, the whole of Europe rejected, as ridiculous, the solemn 
 garb of eastern men and women, so well adapted to their relig- 
 ion and climate, and made the alluring sight of sensual, living 
 beauty the constant theme of fashion, and, we may say, the 
 chief object of every social gathering. 
 
 In attributing to the far-Orient solemnity of dress and mod- 
 esty of bearing, we >:e aware that our statement requires some 
 qualification. It was, certainly, the rule ; but there have been 
 exceptions. Our readers will remember our description of the 
 rock temples of the neighborhood of Bombay, where edifices, 
 dedicated to the worship of Siva, shock the sight of the least 
 scrupulous travellers by the spectacle of intolerable obscenities. 
 We explained, at the time, the cause of so extraordinary a 
 phenomenon. 
 
 YIL 
 
 The religion of the Hellenes idolatrous polytheism can- 
 not, therefore, be said to have been for them a source of cul- 
 ture, except in the sense of material, sensual culture ; and, con- 
 sequently, could not introduce true civilization, but only a 
 false glitter covering real corruption. Yet it is insisted upon 
 that, " as it was not declared a duty to the Greeks to become 
 like the gods, no excuse for following their example could be 
 drawn from the faults and crimes attributed to them. And, 
 moreover, that these stories were esteemed, even by the vulgar, 
 only as poetic inventions, and there was little concern about 
 their truth or their want of truth. There existed, independ- 
 ently of those tales, the fear of the gods as higher beings who, 
 on the whole, desired excellence, and abhorred, and some- 
 times punished, crime. This punishment was inflicted in this 
 world, etc." 
 
 The obligation to imitate God was not, certainly, so posi-
 
 344 . GENTILISM. 
 
 lively enjoined as a positive precept on the Greeks as it is on 
 Christians, although, if we remember rightly, it was a duty on 
 which great stress was laid by one of the seven wise men. 
 Yet the principles .of morality are so strict and universal that, 
 in the opinion of all nations, they must extend to their gods 
 if they are obligatory on man, and any violation of them by 
 superior beings cannot but weaken, nay, deaden the human 
 conscience. Even in the case of those who do not know that 
 they are bound to imitate God, at least this imitation cannot 
 be a crime ; and every one, even the most rude and uncul- 
 tivated, cannot but flatter himself that he has not been guilty 
 of so heinous an offense, since he has but followed the example 
 of higher beings, a great deal more perfect than, man can be. 
 Temptation is always more irresistible to weak humanity than 
 to those who share in divine privileges and honors ; and even 
 in the opinion of moralists, temptation, if violent, diminishes 
 the responsibility and renders the fault more excusable. 
 
 That these reflections acted on the pagan Greeks cannot be 
 denied by any one acquainted with the nation. Aristophanes 
 has clearly expressed it in his " Clouds," in the discussion be- 
 tween the two strange personages called Aoyof diicaiog and ddi/tog. 
 The extent to which the thought influenced the moral acts of 
 the people cannot be absolutely estimated, because our con- 
 science, from which we are inclined to form our judgment, is 
 far more instructed and sensitive than that of pagans could be ; 
 yet it is certain that conscience was not dead within them, and 
 that, until they had practically destroyed it by their excesses, 
 it spoke within them. Naturally their minds tried to find ex- 
 cuses for the gratification of their passions ; and, in such cases, 
 no doubt the example of the gods was one of the most success- 
 ful arguments to suppress every qualm of conscience which 
 might arise. That those stories were supposed, even by the 
 vulgar, to be only poetic inventions, we are far from admitting. 
 It is more probable that most of those who believed really in
 
 HEROIC GREECE. 345 
 
 the gods did not doubt the genuineness of the stories. Had 
 they not the authority of Homer ? And was not Homer a 
 theologian, as well as an historian, geographer, and poet ? 
 
 There can be little doubt that, in the innermost depths of 
 the Grecian soul, the fear not of the gods, but of God, spoke 
 even louder than the sophism we are now discussing ; and that, 
 on this account, they were morally guilty when they sinned in 
 imitating their gods. Yet every one must admit, that, in their 
 case, conscience ought to have been much less susceptible when 
 the fear of God spoke on the one side, and the example of the 
 gods drew them on the other. 
 
 AVe ought not to be surprised, therefore, that moral corrup- 
 tion increased fearfully from the age of Pericles downward. 
 The comedies of Aristophanes are a sufficient proof of it, and if 
 the works of other dramatists, his contemporaries, had not per- 
 ished, we should probably possess a much more powerful proof 
 of the assertion. Independently of any other testimony, the 
 universality of a single open and degrading passion, such as is 
 well known to those acquainted with Greek literature, would 
 sufficiently attest our assertion. The Grecian is the only nation 
 which did not blush to avow it. And when the sense of the 
 most common decency is so openly outraged there can be 
 no doubt that society is thoroughly degraded, in spite of ex- 
 terior appearances. It took 'a long time, however, to disor- 
 ganize everything; because with such openly avowed vices, 
 there was always in the nation a great activity of mind, and a 
 strong development of physical exertion by colonization and 
 trade. These saved the Greeks for many ages. They were 
 too busy for society to fall into speedy decomposition. And 
 this also accounts for the preservation and great apparent pro- 
 gress of some modern nations in the midst of the most rapidly 
 disorganizing corruption. There was, besides, in Hellenic man- 
 ners, in spite of their rationalism, and at times cynic disposi- 
 tion, a great simplicity, moderation, and opposition to excess,
 
 346 GENTILISM. 
 
 which preserved their correct taste and their artistic perfection 
 for long ages after the decadency began. This simplicity of 
 manners, which continued chiefly in their diet and apparel, and 
 preserved them at all times from the excesses of Roman patri- 
 cians under the Empire, was certainly derived from the golden 
 guilelessness of the heroic age, whose touching stories of Cleobis 
 and Biton, as related by Solon to Croesus (Herod., i., 31) ; of 
 the twin sons of Aristodemus, King of Sparta (vi., 52), and 
 many others found in ancient authors, were so well calculated 
 to refine and ennoble the character of the people. The simple 
 Doric customs of the primitive Spartans, whom Lycurgus 
 spoiled later by his barbarous laws (vi., 58, 59, 60,) explain also 
 the long-continuance of that nation, in spite of such loose mo- 
 rality. For it is a fact strongly corroborative of what we aim 
 at demonstrating, that the farther back we go in the history of 
 man, the higher morality do we find in human society united 
 with guilelessness, a noble simplicity, and, in spite of ignorance 
 of books, profounder appreciation of the mysteries surround- 
 ing God and man. We find also a strong faith, strong in 
 the Creator and ruler of the universe, a thorough conviction of 
 His incomprehensibility as a basis of adoration and worship, a 
 dependence on Him at all the moments of their life, a clear 
 perception of the superiority of the soul over the body, a con- 
 tempt for the flimsy glitter of merely exterior appearances, and 
 the kneenest relish of whatever is substantial and worthy of 
 human aim. Hence food, dj-ess, dwelling, all the surroundings 
 of a patriarchal sage, show the solid greatness of the true master 
 of creation ; but his submission to the ineifable laws of God, 
 which are written in his heart, and impressed on his nature to 
 the very marrow of his bones, proves his acquaintance with the 
 higher world whence he came and where he is to go back. In 
 the presence of such facts, who dares speak of the brute as the 
 progenitor of man ? Is it not true, that in the first Brahmins 
 of India, in the first inhabitants of Ethiopia and Egypt, in the
 
 HEEOIC GEEECE. 347 
 
 primitive Bactrians, in the Hellenes of the heroic age, as well 
 although in a far superior degree as in the Hebrew patri- 
 archs, the same spectacle is offered us of time heroes, real sages, 
 great souls lodged in noble bodies, living on earth as in a dwell- 
 ing of a few days, yet with all the simple enjoyments that the 
 earth can bestow on mortals ? If they were obliged, in burning 
 climes, to dwell hi caves, they adorned those stupendous exca- 
 vations with all the devices of art, which the traveller admires 
 still iu the far-Orient. If flocks fed them, it was in immense 
 droves of splendid cattle that they showed their wealth. If 
 many of them dwelt in tents, it was to be more free to move on 
 a free earth; and to show they were masters of the immense 
 pastures where they could roam at will. Who can suppose 
 that in all these circumstances there are proofs of a low, grov- 
 elling spirit akin to that of the brute ? Who can see there 
 the mere animal emerging into consciousness ? But they pre- 
 tend that the "primitive" man of whom they speak, lived 
 many ages before the epoch we describe ; that, in the patriarchal 
 period, man had already reached a high degree of civilization ; 
 but it was by his own efforts and by many gradual steps that it 
 had been attained. How is it then, that, having reached such a 
 height of civilization, he began immediately to retrograde as 
 
 we have shown he did ? If man's culture came from himself, 
 
 ' 
 
 and if it is his law to develop it, why did he stop at all, and did 
 he not go on constantly improving ? For in the theory we 
 allude to, man is left to himself, and is perfectly able to take 
 care of himself. He can have no master, but his own master- 
 ship is sure. We answer that his own mastership is not sure, 
 as history proves abundantly; and if his privileges are gifts 
 from a superior master, as we contend, as the generality of 
 men have always believed and will, it is certain, continue to 
 believe, then what we assert is the only rational hypothesis. 
 Let them prove first that immense series of unsuccessful at- 
 tempts ending in positive results at last ; let them prove their
 
 348 GENTILISM. 
 
 suppositions by stronger arguments than those they use ; let 
 them bring out facts better ascertained and more telling on the 
 question. Their great discoveries can be explained in a hun- 
 dred ways better than the one they assume ; yet we may say 
 that they have not placed yet on a solid footing the first step 
 in their long progress of pretended demonstrations, and the 
 origin and change of species is yet as great a mystery as when 
 they began their researches ; at least many eminent naturalists, 
 not over-loaded with Christian scruples, refuge yet to adopt 
 their opinion. And we may confidently afBrm that to satisfy 
 all conscientious doubts about it, to convince of its truth the 
 many learned men in natural sciences who remain* incredulous, 
 they will have to perfect their system, enter boldly their labo- 
 ratories, and with the help of all the modern improvements and 
 apparatus, which they know so well how to use, produce at last 
 a new' species whose existence cannot be gainsaid, and thus 
 renew the old prodigies attributed to their first ancestor, the 
 Caucasian Prometheus. Until that time we are afraid their 
 theories will remain mere speculations, and people at last may 
 turn them into merited ridicule. 
 
 YIIL 
 
 
 
 From this necessary digression we return to the direct treat- 
 ment of our subject. Hellenic polytheism, we saw, became 
 positive idolatry, that is, the worship of " idols," of " the 
 works of man." And if this was true of any country, it was 
 true of Greece. The description of the carpenter who, accord- 
 ing to the inspired writer, selects the most useless part of a 
 piece of wood to make a god of it, is generally considered as 
 an ironical exaggeration. But it is not so. It was strictly true. 
 
 Already long before, in Egypt, where art was much less cul- 
 tivated for its own sake, where the myth remained always
 
 HEROIC GEEECE. 349 
 
 much more pre-eminent than in Greece, we find this low and 
 absurd kind of idolatry in full vogue, in the most strict sense, 
 so as really to astonish the reader. We have the proof of it in 
 Herodotus, and no one that we know has quoted the remark- 
 able passage. Yet it deserves, indeed, to be quoted. It is 
 taken from Euterpe, 172 : 
 
 "Apries being dethroned, Amasis, who was of the Saitic 
 district, reigned in his stead ; the name of the city from which 
 he came was Siuph. At first the Egyptians despised him, as 
 having been formerly a private person, and of no illustrious 
 family ; but he conciliated them by his address and his want of. 
 stateliness. He had an infinite number of objects of art, and 
 among them a golden foot-pan, in which Amasis himself and 
 all his guests were accustomed to wash their feet. Having 
 afterwards broken this in pieces, he made from it the statue of 
 a god, and placed it in the most conspicuous part of the city. 
 Directly the Egyptians, flocking to the image, paid it the 
 greatest reverence. As soon as Amasis was informed of the 
 success of tlie new worship, he called the Egyptians together, 
 and thus explained the matter to them : ' The statue was made 
 out of the foot-pan in which the Egyptians formerly vomited 
 and washed their feet ; yet since it had been made a god, they 
 paid it an unbounded respect. Why not,' he proceeded to say, 
 ' act towards him as they did toward the foot-pan f He was, 
 indeed, before a private person, yet he had become their king, 
 and they ought, therefore, to honor and respect him as such.' 
 This artifice won completely the Egypliaus over to him ; and 
 from henceforth they obeyed his decrees and respected him as 
 their king." 
 
 Undoubtedly, if the Egyptians had not believed that a 
 change had taken place in, the foot-pan, by being made the 
 statue of a god, and probably by receiving the usual rites of 
 consecration, the ingenious device of Amasis would have been 
 altogether lost on them. But what change could be supposed
 
 350 GENTILISM. 
 
 to have happened when the image of a god was made, and 
 chiefly after it had received consecration ? The theory of 
 lamblichus, who lived much later, it is true, but whose object 
 was to prove that idolatry was at all times holy, reasonable, 
 and true, that theory so strange to us, yet so natural to a pagan, 
 must have been at the bottom of the reasoning faculty of all 
 idolaters, when they prostrated themselves before their images, 
 lamblichus asserted that the god himself, or, at least, some 
 emanation of his spirit, came to dwell in the image ; so that 
 it was, in very deed, a god. It was thus literally true that the 
 last stage of idolatry was, as the Book of Wisdom expressly 
 stated it, the adoration of the works of man. And their artistic 
 perfection, under the chisel or the brush of Grecian sculptors 
 and painters, increased, in the eyes of an imaginative people, 
 their sacredness. The works of Phidias, of Praxiteles, of 
 Polygnotus, were, according to public opinion, divine works. 
 The epithet had been given at the first sight of their beauty. 
 When they were carried in gorgeous processions, placed on 
 their high pedestals, surrounded with a large array of priests 
 *and ministers of religion ; when chiefly victims were led be- 
 fore them to be sacrificed, and the perfumes of Arabia were 
 lavishly consumed in their presence, who could refuse his 
 assent to their real divinity ? Hence they might be, in some 
 sense, representative signs of higher beings ; they were infinitely 
 more, namely, the gods themselves ; and it would have been 
 sacrilegious to treat them not only with disrespect, but without 
 the honor due to the rulers of the world. 
 
 But we have not yet expressed in sufficiently clear language 
 the strange idolatrous theory we are discussing. St. Augustine 
 does it fully in his work, " De Civitate Dei " (Book YIIL, 
 Chaps, xxiii., xxiv.), where he replies to arguments in the dia- 
 logue "Asclepius," already known to our readers. It was 
 ascribed to Hermes Trisrnegistus, but is known to have been 
 published anonymously by some Platonist philosopher, per-
 
 HEEOIC GREECE. 351 
 
 haps Apuleius. It expressed certainly the doctrine of this 
 school. 
 
 " Hermes^Trismegistus," says the great African doctor, " has 
 spoken of them (the daemones) differently from Apuleius. 
 This last author denies that they are gods ; yet, placing them 
 as mediators between gods and men, so that they become indis- 
 pensable to the man who wishes to communicate with the 
 gods, it is clear that he does not distinguish their worship 
 from that of the higher gods. But the Egyptian Thoth says 
 expressly ' that there are gods created by the Supreme One, 
 and others created by man.' Any one hearing these last 
 expressions will imagine that he speaks of images only which 
 are truly the work of human hands. But he does more ; he 
 asserts that the material images which are seen and touched, 
 and thus fall under our senses, are, as it were (velul), the bodies 
 of the gods. Inside of these reside, by invitation, certain 
 spirits endowed with the power either of harming or of bene- 
 fiting those who render them divine honors and worship. For 
 man to possess the art of uniting together invisible spirits with 
 material substances, so that the images (simulacra) become, so 
 to say, bodies animated by the spirits to whom they have been 
 dedicated and subjected, is, according to Trismegistus, to 
 create really gods, and thus man has received the great and 
 admirable power of giving existence to gods." 
 
 The same crude language is used repeatedly in the same 
 Hermetic dialogue. One single passage more shall render the 
 repulsive doctrine more striking and clear : 
 
 "As the Father and Lord of all," says Hermes, " has made 
 eternal gods to His own image, thus our humanity has figured 
 its own gods to its own likeness and resemblance." " You 
 speak here of statues, oh, Trismegistus !" exclaims Asclepius ; 
 and Hermes answers : " Statues, indeed, oh, Asclepius ! thy 
 eyes can see ; but why shouldst thou hesitate to believe ? They 
 are animated statues, full of a divine npirit, and endowed with
 
 352 GENTILISM. 
 
 a powerful energy ; they are statues which can foretell events, 
 and declare them by the casting of lots, or by the inspiration 
 of the seer, or in dreams, or in many other ways ; statues 
 which can bring to men diseases or cure them, and thus' cause 
 joy or sadness." 
 
 There was not, therefore, any exaggeration in the text of 
 the inspired writer, whose tale of the carpenter and his work 
 naturally brings a smile on the lips of the reader. For it is 
 clear, from the above quotation, that, in the opinion not of the 
 vulgar alone, but of philosophers, educated men, and pretended 
 sages, the statues and pictures adored by pagans were true 
 gods in the estimation of the worshippers. 
 
 This was at last the religion of reiined, philosophical, artis- 
 tic Greece ; and if on account of the universal taste of the 
 people there was generally, in the exterior ceremonies, an ap- 
 pearance of decency, of propriety, of sesthetic culture, differ- 
 ent certainly from the tumult and uproarious noise of the 
 monstrous processions of Egypt, or of modern Hindostan, we 
 ought not to think that everything was poetical, tasteful, enchant- 
 ing. What was in Sparta the worship of Diana Orthia, at whose 
 altar Plutarch testifies that " he had seen many boys expire 
 under the lash ? " Yet it is pretended that Lycurgus had, by 
 his laws, substituted a simple flagellation for the immolation of 
 human victims. The gossiping philosopher of Chseronea, 
 when he wrote this in his " Life of Lycurgus," boasted of the 
 refinement of his age which had abolished all previous barba- 
 rous customs ; and he lived to see the second age of Christianity, 
 whicli he does not seem to have known ; yet how many other 
 senseless and monstrous rites existed still, and continued to 
 exist, until they were put an end to by a pure religion ? It is 
 known that lamblichus and many other Neoplatonists were 
 great partisans of magic ; and the magic of those days was 
 like that of the modem tantras of Hindostan, the bloody, sa- 
 tanic handmaid of the Evil one. Horace has described it in
 
 HEROIC GREECE. 353 
 
 one of his poems (Epod. v.) ; and Julian, the apostate, worthy 
 follower of Xero in this particular, thought *also that future 
 events could be read in the living entrails of expiring human 
 victims. These words may be the expression of an indignant 
 feeling ; but it is a fair and righteous one, in the presence of 
 these undeniable and horrible facts. 
 
 But what we would chiefly call the attention of our readers 
 to on this subject, is the extent to which divisions were intro- 
 duced amongst mankind by these idolatrous rites. Religion 
 was no more national ; it had become purely local. And al- 
 though there has been, we hope, no deviation in our train of 
 thoughts, although the main subject we proposed for our inves- 
 tigations has been steadily kept in view, and no side issue has 
 been at any time allowed to interfere with it ; yet we must be 
 allowed, at the moment of considering the state to which 
 Greece and, we may say, the whole of Europe, was reduced at 
 last, to recall to our mind the religious state of the wojld as it 
 was at first, as God intended it should remain. It was, we 
 saw, a truly Catholic religion which the primitive revelation es- 
 tablished. All nations had received the same truths, the same 
 traditions, the same hopes, and the same worship. The earth 
 itself had been created for that object, and mankind, on its 
 surface, could have Remained one family. But their pride and 
 their passions interfered with the divine plan. Gradually the 
 unity and brotherhood of mankind was exchanged for divisions, 
 continually increasing, until religion itself was rent into frag- 
 ments, and from universal it became national. Pantheism, 
 taking a different shape in different tribes, lent to each a par- 
 ticular scheme of creation, and introduced as many cosmogo- 
 nies as there were peoples. Polytheistic idolatry supervening 
 everywhere, rendered religion everywhere uational^and it be- 
 came invariably an affair of the State. Thus wars between 
 nations became really wars between gods ; and treaties 'of alli- 
 ance or of common defence, became compacts between the
 
 354 GEJSTILISM. 
 
 deities of the contracting parties. No one thought he could 
 worship the gods of another race ; and the idea was rather, 
 everywhere, one of hostility against all foreign religions. The 
 Romans were, the first, as we shall see, to proclaim a spirit of 
 toleration or at least non-interference ; and this happened just 
 on the eve of the preaching of Christianity. The well-known 
 animosity, for instance, of the Persians against the gods of 
 Egypt and of Greece, which was their chief motive for de- 
 stroying their temples and their statues ; the constant clannish 
 wars, in Egypt itself, of city against city, certainly occasioned 
 in many cases by the mutual hatred against their respective 
 divinities; the well-known fact that in the opinion of all 
 ancient peoples their national gods took side for them against 
 all foreign tribes, who received help likewise from their own 
 divinities, many other details of the annals of antiquity supply 
 incontestible evidence of the truth of our hypothesis ; which 
 may thus be considered an axiom of ancient history. 
 
 Greece, likewise, in the course of time, came to have a 
 national religion. Homer made it, and it was then coextensive 
 with the race. But it soon showed a tendency to become local, 
 and, at last, arrived at the last state of decomposition in be- 
 coming individual. 
 
 That the national religion in Greece had, from the begin- 
 ning, a tendency to become local, is evident from the great 
 number of gods of the same name which came finally to be 
 adopted as special deities in various Hellenic localities. It 
 would require a long dissertation on the various divinities 
 known as Zeus, Hercules, Apollo, Hermes, Aphrodite, Arte- 
 mis, Athene, etc., to assign to each their several local districts. 
 Such was not the intention of Homer, the founder of the bril- 
 liant superstition. There is in his great poem only one Zeus, 
 one Hercules, one Apollo, etc. But it can not be doubted 
 that, in course of time, great and essential differences came to 
 be admitted in the various personages who bore those names.
 
 HEROIC GEEECE. 355 
 
 Not to tire our readers with erudite details, which could not 
 be, after all, but incomplete, we prefer, as usual, to copy a very 
 remarkable passage of St. Clement of Alexandria, whose list 
 of such gods is certainly incomplete, but which, from its 
 graphic character, cannot but make a lasting impression on the 
 mind of the reader. It is taken from his " Exhortation to the 
 Heathen," Chap. ii. The great Alexandrian doctor, it is true, 
 in this passage, selects his facts to suit the system of Euhe- 
 merus, of which he declares himself a strong partisan ; and 
 which, after all, was unable ta give an account of all myths. 
 Still the facts quoted here are undoubted, and they are suffi- 
 cient for our purpose. He says : 
 
 . " Agamemnon is said by Staphilus to be worshipped as a Ju- 
 piter in Sparta ; and Phanocles, in his book of the ' Brave 
 and Fair,' relates that Agamemnon, King of the Hellenes, 
 erected the temple of Argennian Aphrodite, in honor of Ar- 
 gennus, his. friend. An Artemis, named the Strangled, is wor- 
 shipped by the Arcadians, as Callimachus says in his ' Book of 
 Causes ;' and at Methymna another Artemis had divine honors 
 paid her, viz., Artemis Condylitis. There is also the temple 
 of another Artemis Artsmis Podagra (the gout) in Laco- 
 nica, as Sosibius says. Polemo tells of an image of a yawning 
 Apollo ; and again of another image, reverenced in Elis, of a 
 guzzling Apollo. Then the Eleans sacrifice to Zeus, the averter 
 of flies ; and the Romans sacrifice to Hercules, the averter of 
 flies ; and to Fever, and to Terror, whom also they reckon 
 among the attendants of Hercules. I pass over the Argives, 
 who worshipped Aphrodite, the opener of graves. The Ar- 
 gives and Spartans reverence Artemis Chelytis, or the cougher, 
 from ^e/lurmv, which in their speech signifies to cough. 
 
 " Do you imagine from what sources these details have been 
 quoted. ? Only such as are furnished by yourselves are here 
 adduced ; and you do not seem to recognize your own writers, 
 whom I call as witnesses against your unbelief. Poor wretches
 
 356 GENTILISM. 
 
 that ye are, who have filled with unholy jesting the whole com 
 pass of your life a life in reality devoid of life ! 
 
 " Is not Zeus, the bald-headed, worshipped in Argos ; and 
 another Zeus, the avenger, in Cyprus ? Do not the Argives 
 sacrifice to Aphrodite Peribaso (the protectress), and the Athe- 
 nians to Aphrodite Hetsera (the courtesan), and the Syracusans 
 to Aphrodite Callipygos, who*m Nicander has somewhere called 
 Calliglutos ?" the pun cannot be translated " I pass over in 
 silence just now Dionysus Choiropsales. The Sicyonians rever- 
 ence this deity, whom they have constituted the god of the mu- 
 liebria the patron of filthiness and religiously honor as the 
 author of licentiousness. Such, then, are their gods ; such are 
 thej" also who make mockery of the gods, or rather mock and 
 insult themselves. How much better are the Egyptians, who, 
 in their towns and villages, pay divine honors to irrational crea- 
 tures, than the Greeks, who worship such gods as these ?" 
 
 This passage is all-sufficient to show how the former national 
 gods of Greece had gradually become local deities. A whim, 
 a caprice, a trivial circumstance, induced the population of a 
 city, a town, a village, to erect a temple to some divinity which 
 had taken their fancy. The building arose. When the ques- 
 tion of the name came to be considered, the particular designa- 
 tion of some well-known god presented itself, but coupled with 
 an epithet, a paraphrase, a specification, which rendered altoge- 
 ther local some hitherto national god. And these designations 
 were, in general, accompanied with such ridiculous, or even infa- 
 mous, particularities that, as St. Clement said : " The Egyptians 
 did better, who, in their towns and villages paid divine honors to 
 irrational creatures, than the Greeks who worshipped such gods 
 as these." To which he added, to explain better his meaning 
 and it offers an appropriate commentary on what, through- 
 out this work, we are endeavoring to establish " For if the 
 Egyptian deities are beasts, they are not adulterous and libidi- 
 nous, and seek pleasure in nothing that is contrary to nature
 
 HEROIC GREECE. . 357 
 
 But if the Egyptians are said to be divided in their objects of 
 cult ; if the Syenites worship the braize-fish, and if the maiote 
 this is another fish is worshipped by those who inhabit Ele- 
 phantine ; if the Oxyrinchites likewise adore a fish which takes 
 its name from their country ; if, again, the Heraclitopolites 
 worship the ichneumon, the inhabitants of Sais and of Thebes a 
 sheep, the Leucopolites a wolf, the Cynopolites a dog, the Mem- 
 phites Apis, the Mendesians a goat, etc. ; you, who are altoge- 
 ther better than the Egyptians (I shrink from saying worse), 
 who are never done laughing every day of your lives at the 
 Egyptians, what are some of you, too, with respect to brute 
 beasts ? Of your number the Thessalians pay divine homage 
 to storks, in accordance with ancient custom ; and the Theb^hs 
 to weasels, for their assistance at the birth of Hercules. And 
 again, are not the Thessaliaus reported to worship ants, since 
 they have learned that Zeus, in the likeness of an ant, had in- 
 tercourse with Eurymedusa, the daughter of Clitor, and begot 
 Myrmedon ? Polemo, too, relates that the people who inhabit 
 the Troad worship the mice of the country, which they call 
 Sminthoi, because they gnawed the strings of their enemies' 
 bows, and from those mice Apollo has received his epithet of 
 Sminthian. Heraclides, in his work, 'Regarding the Building 
 of Temples in Acamania,' says, that at the place where the 
 promontory of Actium is, and the Temple of Apollo of Actium, 
 thev offer to the flies the sacrifice of an ox. Nor must I forget 
 
 9 
 
 the Samians ; these, as Euphorion says, reverence the sheep ; 
 nor the Syrians, who inhabit Phoenicia, of whom some revere 
 doves, and others fishes, with as excessive veneration as the 
 Eleans do Zeus.'' . 
 
 These details prove abundantly what had become, at last, of 
 the religion of the Hellenes. It had become split up into end- 
 less divisions, and localized. Old, respectable traditions, con- 
 taining real myths, intended at first to convey solemn truths, 
 had been long before replaced by other traditions which could,
 
 358 . GENTILISM. 
 
 no doubt, have been traced historically to the whole race, or at 
 least to some great Hellenic tribes. These, in their turn, had 
 given way to local tales, perhaps still connected with local his- 
 tory. And, finally, the whole ended in ridiculous fables admit- 
 ted as truth in some particular spot, village, township, hamlet ; 
 and of these at last the religion of the Greeks almost every- 
 where consisted. 
 
 IX. 
 
 But there was yet a still lower descent, although that seems, 
 indeed, to be scarcely possible.. This was the decomposition of 
 rdKgious feeling into merely individual emotion. We of these 
 days can readily understand it, because Protestantism produces 
 everywhere something very similar in the universal decompo- 
 sition of belief, and in the complete disintegration of sects, 
 everything being reduced to individual feeling. 
 
 The Hellenes were a profoundly reflecting people. They 
 pretended to be always guided by reason. But human reason 
 could not admit the fables into which the exterior religion 
 had resolved itself. Henee, for a great number of them, relig- 
 ion had lost all its power over their mind. To the uneducated 
 people, the popular worship, on account of its absurdities, be- 
 came finally a gross superstition. Everything, consequently, 
 came to be worshipped by them, and every one must have his 
 own particular belief. The educated part of the race, more 
 able to systematize their thoughts, impressed yet with religious 
 feelings, since man cannot exist without them, were reduced to 
 form to themselves religious theories of their own, and to wor- 
 ship the beings who, in their ideas, were the real rulers of the 
 world. These men, therefore, so proud of their science, of 
 their literary attainments, of their artistic culture, were, of ne- 
 cessity, as superstitious as the common people, although in a 
 different way. Thus, in all alike, religion became degraded to
 
 HEROIC GREECE. 359 
 
 an irrational and grovelling superstition. But superstition can- 
 not be anything else than an individual disease of the soul. 
 This certainly happened to the Greeks. 
 
 A similar process took place amongst the Romans of the same 
 epoch ; and the phenomenon has been described with such 
 graphic power and such force by Mr. F. de Champagny in his 
 "Antonins," that we cannot do better than transfer to our 
 pages a short passage of this admirable work (Livre, vi., Ch. 
 iii.) : " Some philosophers were then trying (under Marcus 
 Aurelius) to close against man all the doors leading to God ; 
 but other philosophers knew how to vindicate the rights of the 
 human soul, attested by its needs : ; Atrocious sentence !' cried 
 Apuleius (de Deo Socratis), ' must men remain separated for 
 ever from the communion with immortal beings, imprisoned 
 in the hell of this life, deprived of all communication with the 
 gods ! No celestial guide to watch over them as the shepherd 
 over his flock ! . . . . No superior being to curb their passions, 
 alleviate their sufferings, and relieve their poverty !'.... This 
 outcry of the human conscience, which no philosophy will 
 ever be able to repress, broke forth, then as ever, from the 
 breast of all. 
 
 " More than this ; instead of being smothered, as it is gen- 
 erally to-day, by an abnormal and morbid philosophy, religion, 
 that absolute need of man, over-excited by the impure atmos- 
 phere which surrounded it, went rather too far, and overstep- 
 ped the proper limits. The idea of God remaining obscure to 
 the soul, the soul looked outside of God himself for something 
 which it could adore, hope in, submit and pray to ... What 
 it adored, ran after, dreaded, did not even receive the name of 
 God ; it was Nature, Elements, Force, Fate, Necessity ; under 
 the name of Fatum, the soul divinized whatever is inert, un- 
 intelligent, insensible. The soul, certainly, did not know the 
 object of its adoration ; yet admitting some supernatural 
 agency, without inquiring what it was, it. went in all directions,
 
 360 GENTILISM. 
 
 trying to find by its looks and its prayers a secret force, an un- 
 known power, corporal rather than intellectual, worldly rather 
 than heavenly, superhuman, but not divine. 
 
 " Thus, to tell the truth, no one believed, and all were super- 
 stitious ; no one had any religious conviction : all felt a real relig- 
 ious passion. Every one followed that course with as much 
 more impetuosity, as there was no more any dogma to trace 
 the way. The moral disease which had produced polytheism 
 was as active as ever, although thus reduced to individualism ; 
 and every successive day of the pagan world generated a new 
 paganism in human souls." 
 
 From this passage we ought not to conclude that there was 
 a complete separation between the superstitions of the en- 
 lightened and those of the vulgar. "The atheist himself," 
 says the same author, somewhere else, " was not above the fear 
 of magic, dreams, astrology. The epicurean Caesar had his 
 talismans. Tiberius, an open atheist, despised so much more 
 the gods, says Suetonius, as he believed the more in his astrol- 
 abe. Pliny the Elder denies the soul and insults God ; but he 
 does not think he derogates to his dignity of a free-thinker by 
 having faith in magical incantations to cure bodily sores. 
 Tacitus denies Providence ; yet he speaks of omens, dreams, 
 prodigies, without any apparent hesitation or doubt. . . . Juve- 
 nal laughs boldly at mythological traditions about the ( tims 
 when Juno was yet a little girl, and Jupiter a simple citizen 
 dwelling in the caves of mount Ida.' Still, when one of his 
 friends is saved from shipwreck, Juvenal offers a hind in sacri- 
 fice to Juno, and a young bull to Jupiter, because he feels the 
 need of thanking somebody, and does not know how to do it 
 otherwise." 
 
 Have we not shown, too, how in the dialogue " Asclepius " 
 published by Neoplatonists, and circulated by them as a 
 rational explanation of polytheism Hermes instructs his dis- 
 ciple about those " consecrated statues, full of a Divine energy,
 
 HEKOIC GEEECE. 361 
 
 directing the casting of lots, speaking in dreams, inspiring the 
 predictions of seers, and showing thjir divinity in many other 
 ways ? " 
 
 Hence philosophers, as well as the common people, went 
 still to consult oracles ; they stretched themselves, at night, in 
 the temples, on the bleeding hide of the bull or of the roe, 
 which had been immolated at their expense, trying to sleep 
 and to have dreams, which would certainly be the expression 
 of the will of the gods. For they still read Homer frequently, 
 and Homer has repeated several times : " KOI yap T' bva^ en 
 
 tVere we to quote all the passages of the Fathers of the 
 Church in the three first centuries, and all the remarkable 
 texts of pagan authors during the same ages, containing proofs 
 of the totally rotten superstition of Hellenism at the time, and 
 chiefly of its completely local and individual character, we 
 should fill volumes of quotations. "We have, however, stated 
 enough for our purpose. It only remains that we recall to the 
 memory of the reader, what we have proved of the primitive 
 religion of the race, chiefly of its monotheism, and respectable 
 traditions coming evidently from a primitive revealed doctrine, 
 in order to compare it with the senseless fables which composed 
 the whole religious belief of the nation at the end. 
 
 Such had been the result of the " culture," as it is called, 
 introduced by the polytheism of Homer. All the artistic per- 
 fection, the literary excellence, the philosophical acumen of 
 the race, had brought only religious disorganization and myth- 
 ical absurdity. The same Imd been the case in Hindostan, in 
 Egypt, in all Oriental countries. We must admit, consequently, 
 that the progress had only been backwards : that a brilliant civil- 
 ization is not always the best ; that human society requires 
 more than the glare of what is called " refinement," to have 
 happiness insured, truth really developed, and the imprescript- 
 ible needs of the human soul forever secured.
 
 362 GENTILISM. 
 
 Yet we ought not to imagine that what had been trans- 
 mitted from patriarchal times had altogether perished ; that no 
 trace whatever remained of the primitive revelation ; and that 
 this inestimable gift of God, after having blessed mankind in 
 Europe for a short period at first, had been snatched away, or 
 wantonly dissipated, without a shadow of remembrance. We 
 are quite convinced that something of it always remained, 
 although the great mass of the people was altogether uncon- 
 scious of it ; and to this we must ascribe the fervor, yes, the 
 real enthusiasm with which the Hellenic race admitted Chris- 
 tianity. All the Greek Fathers of the Church are unanimous 
 in finding, in their old authors, innumerable fragments of 
 truth, for which Eusebius coined an admirable word when he 
 said it was prceparatio evangelica. To be sure, many of those 
 texts adduced by the primitive fathers would not be so readily 
 admitted by a sound modern criticism. Yet many are certainly 
 striking ; and modern scholars have, in their learned investiga- 
 tions, discovered others which had escaped the Fathers of the 
 Church themselves, unacquainted as they were with Hindoo 
 and Egyptian antiquities. To know thoroughly Gentilism, to 
 appreciate its real value, apart from the mass of errors and 
 superstitions into which it finally degenerated, we must try to 
 sift the golden grain from the chaff and the baneful seeds, and 
 collect together something, at least, of that treasure so abun- 
 dant and so rich at first, so scanty and so insignificant at last, 
 still always precious, and bearing yet the impress of its divine 
 origin. This we will endeavor to do in the following chapter.
 
 CHAPTER YII. 
 
 HELLENIC PHILOSOPHY AS A CHAN NET, OP TRADITION. 
 
 I. 
 
 THE precious fragments of a primitive revelation are found 
 scattered through the writings of nearly all ancient Greek 
 and Latin authors, and it would require an immense labor to 
 collect them together. We can only select a few of them. 
 And the plan we propose is to adduce first those that have 
 been preserved and transmitted by philosophers, and pass from 
 them to the poets, more rich yet in tokens of this heavenly 
 treasure. 
 
 Philosophy, now called Science, was born in Greece. The 
 Oriental and Southern nations never knew it in the sense we 
 attach to the word. The Hindoo Sankhya drew its doctrines 
 as much from religious tradition as from pure reason. But 
 the Greek philosophers, with the exception of the traditionalist 
 branch Pythagoreans and Platonists left entirely aside what 
 had been handed down from primitive times, and proposed to 
 themselves to study the exterior world and human nature 
 merely from the data of their own mind or senses. Thus pure 
 rationalism started on its career, destined to invade the whole 
 of Europe, and to give to the Japhetic or Aryan races the 
 character peculiar to them of scientific investigators or phys- 
 icists. 
 
 Whoever enters on philosophic studies, soon realizes that, 
 when he is provided with the necessary preliminaries, namely, 
 
 language and logic, he has to examine first the principles of 
 
 (363}
 
 364 GENTILISM. 
 
 things (ontology and pure metaphysics) ; then the Author of 
 the "World, whoever he may be (Theodicaea and Cosmogony) ; 
 and, finally, coming to man himself, he has to inquire into his 
 nature, and chiefly find out, if he can with his reason alone, 
 what is the great object of human life (the surnmum tonum) 
 which must lay at the bottom of ethics. These studies are 
 anterior and far superior to the mere observation of exterior 
 phenomena, which is the great object of physics in all its 
 branches, beginning by mathematics the necessary means 
 of investigation which stands for this material branch of 
 inquiry in lieu of logic and philology for the previous 
 one. 
 
 The Greeks, at first, did not propose to themselves .so vast 
 an amount of mental work. But their very 'first efforts re- 
 quired that, in course of time, they should go through the 
 whole. Two mighty considerations, however, engrossed their 
 attention on the very threshold of inquiry : these were the 
 origin of the universe (cosmogony) and the summuih bonum / 
 of these alone are we bound to speak. 
 
 The same had taken place in Hindostan ; but the Yedas 
 had anticipated the solution. According to them, the world 
 had emanated from Brahma, and man was to return to the 
 source of his being. The Sankhya,' or Hindoo philosophy, 
 must admit these as first principles, and only give its own solu- 
 tion, or rather explanation. In Greece, no authoritative voice 
 had spoken. The philosopher was free to direct his investiga- 
 tions as he chose, and publish to the woild what his reason 
 alone had demonstrated. Hence a perfect avalanche of systems 
 was immediately let^ loose on the country. Most of them, if 
 not all, were completely atheistic. Brahma, Zeus, Amun, or 
 whatever was the name by which the Supreme Being was 
 known, had evidently taken no part in the creation of the 
 world. The world had made itself. The only question was 
 to know which was the first element, Water ? or Air ? or Fire ?
 
 HELLENIC PHILOSOPHY. 365 
 
 As soon as the first link of the chain was found, the whole 
 chain unfolded itself majestically. 
 
 When, later on, ethical subjects came under consideration, the 
 same strange phenomena took place in Greece with respect to 
 the summum bonum, the foundation of all ethics. Was man 
 made for knowledge, or for virtue, or for pleasure ? This was 
 the theoretical question, which was always decided without any 
 reference to the Eternal Lawgiver, who nevertheless speaks to 
 all through human conscience. Evidently rationalism was 
 early in the field, and promised to Europe long ages of fine- 
 spun theories and well-balanced systems. Yet the question 
 here presents itself, Had not the Greeks then a religion ? Did 
 thqy not believe in the gods, if not in a supreme one ? What 
 did the religious authorities of the race say those who had the 
 guardianship of religion ? What did even the people, always 
 fervently religious in Greece, say and do when such atheism 
 was professed ? 
 
 To give to these questions an answer altogether satisfactory 
 is difficult. Yet we must try to suggest, at least, the one 
 which seems to us the most probable and sufficient. The con- 
 crete principle which, in our opinion, renders all this less 
 shocking and inexplicable is this State religion. A great 
 change had tdken place among the Hellenes in the ages imme- 
 diately preceding Thales and the other philosophers. From the 
 heroic Pelasgic age the world had passed over to the purely 
 republican and Hellenic ; and in the change, /State religion had 
 been established everywhere State religion which considered 
 only the exterior worship as everything, the doctrine as noth- 
 ing, or next to nothing. Let us examine this a little more in 
 detail. 
 
 Our readers remember what was said of the extraordinary 
 difference existing in Greece between the people described by 
 Homer and the people we see inhabiting sometime after Hel- 
 lenic cities : government, manners, customs, ideas, conse-
 
 366 GENTILISM. 
 
 quently all, is changed. And, unfortunately, as nearly all 
 the works of the writers of the intervening period have per- 
 ished, we have not the least means of judging how the change 
 was effected. "We only see that, in the first period, all the 
 tribes live apart, each with its own chieftain governing the sept 
 as a true monarch ; and, in the second, many tribes have coal- 
 esced to form States with republican institutions. In the first, 
 religion is intrusted to bards and seers, who sing to the people 
 long poems containing the former traditions, enveloped in 
 myths, it is true, yet conveying often great truths, and proclaim- 
 ing a relatively pure moral law ; in the second, religion is alto- 
 gether a State affair, with State rites, State gods, and really no 
 priesthood ; the whole concerned about completely exterior 
 worship, without any dogmatic teaching and moral exhortation. 
 In the first, we see the simple manners of an agricultural and 
 pastoral people, abounding in all things which make life easy, 
 but with no settled system of trade and colonization ; building 
 already cities with tasteful edifices and dwellings, yet never 
 concentrating their efforts in close agglomerations of men, and 
 preferring still to breathe the free air of the open country. 
 In the second, we have the great mass of the population intent 
 chiefly on trade, colonization, war, city life, and art. It looks as 
 if it was question of two races altogether different. Yet we 
 saw that, most probably, the Pelasgic race had gradually passed 
 into the Hellenic, and this one was the second part of a series 
 begun by the first. 
 
 These considerations render it more easy to understand the 
 freedom of inquiry, unaffected by religious feeling of any 
 kind which prevailed in the second period from its beginning. 
 They spoke constantly of liberty, complete freedom ; no law 
 prevented them from embracing the various careers of com- 
 merce, of agriculture, of study, of art, of propagandism of 
 their ideas. Provided they conformed to the State religion^ 
 they had satisfied all that piety to the' gods required ; and we
 
 HELLENIC PHILOSOPHY. 367 
 
 have no doubt that at the very time Epicurus was publicly lec- 
 turing on his atomic theory, or worse still, on his summum 
 fionum, he was most exact in paying his duties to the temples, 
 and offering victims, probably, to the deities he did not believe 
 in. It is, indeed, surprising how soon the doctrine of the State 
 god had penetrated the Greek mind, not only among the fa- 
 natic Spartans, but among all other tribes, chiefly in refined and 
 rationalistic Athens. It was not Lycurgus alone who preached 
 it to his rude Lacedemonians, and succeeded in making it the 
 chief, or rather the only, belief of the nation ; but, in all other 
 parts of Greece, the same had taken place, we do not know 
 precisely how. Socrates himself was so fully persuaded of the 
 necessity of the doctrine, that he admitted it, even when the 
 measures enacted by it were evidently unjust and barbarous. 
 And he was consistent even against his own interest, since 
 knowing that he had been unjustly condemned, yet he remain- 
 ed in prison, resolved to die, although he could have escaped, 
 because " a citizen must obey even an unjust decree." If a 
 man is bound to submit to death unjustly, when he can escape 
 without any injury to a third person, he will be bound like- 
 wise to obey the State in whatever he is commanded to do. 
 Since obedience to the State is thus placed above any right, 
 human and divine, he will have to worship what he knows is 
 not god, if the State pronounces it to be god ; but the worship 
 will be sufficient if it be merely exterior, and without the as- 
 sent of the mind. In this system there is no truth, there is no 
 right, there is only the omnipotence of the State. To this 
 state had Greece already arrived ; and the strange anomaly of 
 philosophers teaching in fact atheism, when they professed 
 outwardly the belief of the State, has nothing which need 
 surprise us. Hence Epicurus could tell his hearers that " the 
 fear of the gods " is the great error which renders human life 
 intolerable ; and that, by striking at this superstition and free- 
 ing men forever from such a bugbear, he was their benefactor; 
 25
 
 368 GENTILISM. 
 
 yet by submitting in appearance to the " established faith," by 
 admitting gods in name, although denying them in reality, he 
 placed himself above the possibility of a suspicion of atheism, 
 and could continue to teach peaceably what destroyed, in fact, 
 all religion. And Epicurus was not alone. He was not the 
 first. He was only one among many. He merely applied 
 practically the doctrines of his predecessors, chiefly of Anaxa- 
 goras and Democritus. In fact, the fanciful dreams of Hellenic 
 philosophers, chiefly of the physical school, were already as 
 numerous and as deadly as the systems of our days which suc- 
 ceed each other so rapidly, and would soon spread atheism 
 broadcast over the world, if mankind, having possessed truth 
 traditionally for so many ages, was not too profoundly impress- 
 ed with the consciousness of it, to surrender its inward belisf 
 in God at the dictation of learned sophists or brilliant writers. 
 Yes, the Hellas of twenty-five centuries ago was already the 
 Babel of our system-mongers. It would, however, appear at 
 first sight, that what we are now insisting on is completely op- 
 posed to the object we have in view, which is to show that the 
 primitive doctrines transmitted to the Hellenes by their Eastern 
 ancestors, were never altogether dead or inefficient, even in 
 the worst times of idolatry and unbelief. This has not escaped 
 us. But it occurred to us, that, if we directed attention to the 
 innate spirit of rationalism so early developed in the race, and 
 destined to spread so far and so wide, it might serve to bring 
 out in stronger relief what we are now about to urge, since 
 with such an early inclination to practical atheism and material- 
 ism, we see in Greece a long line of great men intent on a 
 completely different object. 
 
 We mean to speak of traditionalist philosophers, and we 
 have mentioned the Pythagorean and Platonician systems 
 namely, the Italic and the Academic schools. To a considera- 
 tion of these, then, we now proceed.
 
 HELLENIC PHILOSOPHY. 369 
 
 II. 
 
 In the midst of those numerous philosophical sects in 
 Greece, founded merely on individual reason, even in the do- 
 main of religious truth ; all appealing to it as to the standard 
 of belief, all warring with each other, jet all proclaiming the 
 paramount claims of human intellect to the possession of ab- 
 solute certainty with respect to the things of heaven and earth, 
 it is consoling to find two great and influential bodies of men 
 agreeing with the others as to the power given to the human 
 mind of apprehending truth and discerning it from mere soph- 
 ism, yet proclaiming aloud that man has not been left without 
 any other guide than his reason ; that there are eternal, divine 
 principles, attainable by human intellect, yet which it will 
 never reach unless they are revealed from above ; that primi- 
 tively heaven spoke, and the divine word was not given to be 
 immediately lost in the universal confusion of human speech ; 
 but that some men have fortunately received it and kept it, 
 more or less perfectly ; that the only important affair is to 
 find those depositaries of divine wisdom, and when they have 
 been found, to gain access to them, and learn from their lips 
 what otherwise we should never discover, namely, the true 
 origin of tliis universe and the real summum bonum of human 
 life. 
 
 If all this series of reasoning is not textually expressed in 
 the belief of the Italic and Academic schools, it is undoubt- 
 edly sufficiently apparent from the history of their founders, 
 and the doctrines they taught. Both Pythagoras and Plato 
 did not think that they could alone find out the truth on such 
 important subjects of inquiry. Both travelled extensively, and 
 Pythagoras at least went certainly to Egypt, and most probably 
 to India, if not to the Celtic countries, to interrogate the wise 
 men of the most ancient nations, who were more likely to pos-
 
 370 GENTILISM. 
 
 sess the divine utterances at the very origin of man. Both 
 finally brought from those foreign countries doctrines more or 
 less pure, but which they both superadded to the teachings of 
 their own reason. Hence we call them traditionalist philoso- 
 phers ; not implying that they set aside and despised what 
 their own intellect saw clearly ; but that they thought there 
 was, for some questions, a light superior to that of their own 
 mind, which it was the duty of the wise man to consult. 
 
 If we consider Pythagorism and Platonisin apart, the first 
 is certainly remarkable for a well-known and perfectly well-as- 
 certained fact ; namely, that alj the disciples were bound to 
 submit to the i-pse dixit of the n< aster, who had himself re- 
 ceived several of his dogmas from other men. This alone 
 would put the real stamp of traditionalism on the Italic school. 
 But besides this important feature, it is likewise well known 
 that the Pythagoreans, after the example of their masts:-, con- 
 sidered of great moment the various Orphic traditions then 
 floating all over Greece. They collected them, preserved them, 
 and compared them together, thus trying to connect their own 
 time with antiquity, and to prevent the disintegration of all 
 ancient doctrines by the ever-moving agitation of mythological 
 diversity going on under their eyes. We are sure that the poor 
 fragments of Orphic lore which remained in the time of Plato, 
 and which have been preserved to our very days, were the 
 result of this particular care of the Italic school. Hence when 
 Pythagorism, after more than a century of almost total disap- 
 pearance in Italy and Greece, revived about two hundred years 
 before Christ, Orphic societies rose up at the same time, in 
 the same countries ; and this well-known fact has not been suf- 
 ficiently dwelt upon even by modern investigators, to show the 
 true character of the sect of Pythagoras. It was, in fact, a 
 real protest, in the name of antiquity, against the deluge of 
 philosophical absurdities which the ever-gushing source of Hel- 
 lenic rationalism poured constantly over the devoted field of
 
 HELLENIC PHILOSOPHY. 371 
 
 Europe. Unfortunately the Pythagoreans were too few in 
 numbers ; for they limited their society chiefly to the aristo- 
 cratic class, which was soon overwhelmed by the flood of de- 
 mocracy that finally prevailed in Greece. 
 
 Our readers, we hope, will not understand us to say that 
 everything was pure in the Italic school, that no error crept 
 into it, and that Pythagoras himself had brought from his 
 travels the real outpouring of the primitive revelation. Nothing 
 is farther from our thoughts. Egypt and India had strangely 
 degenerated, even in his own time, and Orpheus himself, that 
 multiform personage, spoke as glowingly of the Homeric gods 
 as of Zeus ; deriving His name from Zrjv and from big. Py- 
 thagoras brought from Egypt or India his doctrine of metemp- 
 sychosis, as a system of expiation, and thus tried to engraft 
 on the Western tree the most flourishing branch of supersti- 
 tion blooming in the East. His celebrated speculations on 
 numbers must have been brought from Egypt likewise, and 
 were not derived from any respectable antiquity ; although their 
 chief significance, as admitted by modern interpreters, namely, 
 the even and the odd, unity and duality, the single and the mul- 
 tiple, appears to have been fundamentally the great primitive 
 Hindoo and Egyptian doctrine of the world coming forth' from 
 the Supreme, and may consequently have been a system of cos- 
 mogony, erroneous indeed, yet entirely opposed to the insen- 
 sate theories of Greek physical philosophers, and far superior to 
 them. There is no doubt that the primitive traditions had been 
 already, to a great degree, obscured, when the philosopher of 
 Croton, in Southern Italy, wished to make them the basis of his 
 system. Hence, his philosophy could not save the Greek 
 world. He himself taught his disciples to conform exteriorly 
 to the prevalent polytheism, although it is sure that he did not 
 believe in it. For, if many false theories and ideas were by 
 him propagated, and upheld by the authority of his great name, 
 it is certain that his esoteric disciples believed in One God, the
 
 372 GENTILISM. 
 
 Creator and Ruler of the world, infinitely above all inferior 
 gods and demons. Hence, on creation and the sutmnum fionum 
 the teaching of Pythagoras may be said to have been on the 
 side of the truth ; and, if not completely, at least far more so 
 than were the atheistical and materialist doctrines of the phi- 
 losophers of his time. Thus, again, is confirmed the proposition 
 with which we started, namely, that if we trace back the his- 
 tory of mankind in any part of the globe, as near to his origin 
 as it is possible for us to do, we find invariably the great and 
 saving dogma of One God, Creator and Ruler of the universe, 
 together with simple, noble, and comparatively pure morals, as 
 were those of the Pythagoreans ; and if we retrace our steps 
 backwards towards later times, the more corrupt, absurd, and 
 revolting become the religion, institutions, and social customs 
 of all nations, until we reach the period just before the advent 
 of the true Redeemer, when debasement had, we may say, 
 reached its lowest depths. So true is it that the progress of 
 mankind has ever been in a downward direction; and more 
 particularly in the ancient world. 
 
 III. 
 
 These few words must suffice for the Italic school. We 
 come now to the Academy ; we mean the old Academy, not 
 the caricature invented by Carneades, but the real foundation 
 of Plato, the great disciple of Socrates. We have said that it 
 is a second branch of traditionalist philosophy, and we must 
 now explain fully our meaning. We are far from pretending 
 that everything in Platonic doctrines was derived from tradi- 
 tion, for that could not be said even of Pythagorisni. Such a 
 powerful mind as that of the founder of the Academy could 
 not but have thoughts of its own; and these thoughts were 
 most brilliant and profound. Much that he wrote was the
 
 HELLENIC PHILOSOPHY. 373 
 
 genuine, unassisted offspring of his own intellect ; and there 
 was in his character, as a writer, a striking originality. He 
 united in his own person, more, perhaps, than any other author 
 of ancient or modern times, a most dazzling imagination with 
 the deepest reasoning faculty ; so that the reader scarcely knows 
 which to admire the most, his biilliancy or his depth. Even 
 in what he did not invent, he was truly original by making 
 it his own. He had certainly received from others, as we shall 
 see, the great idea of the unity of the Godhead. But he proved 
 it as no one else had done before him ; chiefly from the innate 
 sense of the beautiful. As one of his most recent biographers, 
 unknown to us, has justly said : " "With Plato the foundation 
 of beauty is a reasonable orcer, addressed to the imagination 
 through the senses i. e., s y mmetry in form, and harmony in 
 sounds, the principles of which are as certain as the laws of 
 logic, mathematics, and morals all equally necessary products 
 of eternal intellect, acting by the creation, and by the compre- 
 hension of well-ordered forms, and well-harmonized forces, in 
 rich and various play through the frame of the universe ; and 
 the ultimate ground of this lofty and coherent doctrine of in- 
 tellectual, moral, and sesthetical harmonies lies with Plato, 
 where alone it can lie, in the unity of a Supreme, reasonable, 
 self-existent intelligence, whom we call God, the fountain of 
 all force, and the Creator of all order in the universe ; the sum of 
 whose most exalted attributas, and the substantial essence of 
 whose perfection may, as contrasted with our finite and partial 
 aspects of things, be expressed by the simple term Tb dyadbv 
 the GOOD." 
 
 We do not, therefore, call Plato a traditionalist philosopher, 
 because of his being merely a copyist and collector of texts. 
 He is indeed exactly the reverse. He seldom quotes his author- 
 ities. He never .says : "Such a man has said so and so, there- 
 fore we ought to believe him." He acknowledges the infirm- 
 ity of the human intellect, and asserts that many things must
 
 374 GENTILISM. 
 
 remain unknown or doubtful to us, until a teacher from heaven 
 comes to take the spiritual guidance of mankind ; and this does 
 not exhibit much reliance on previous testimony. Yet, he un- 
 doubtedly consulted at all times what had been said or written 
 before him ; and wherever he found truth he took it and made 
 it his own by giving it a Platonic aspect, if we may use the ex- 
 pression. He was far, therefore, from rejecting tradition ; but 
 on the contrary, he collected the golden coin scattered by it 
 here and there, and made it henceforth a treasure for mankind ; 
 for those at least anxious to profit by it. But we must here 
 enter somewhat more into detail as the subject is of some im- 
 portance, and requires to be clearly understood. 
 
 13y comparing what St. Augustine and Diogenes Laertius 
 say of the Platonic philosophy, we find that, essentially and on 
 the whole, there was nothing completely original in it, and that 
 its founder borrowed outlines and hints from others. The great 
 Doctor of the West (De Civ. Dei., Lib. viii., cap. 4,) says that 
 " Plato made three distinct parts of philosophy : the first, Ethics 
 (moralem), whose object is to regulate human actions ; the sec- 
 ond, Physics (naturalem), intent on the contemplation of the 
 universe ; the third, Intellectual, by which the true is distin- 
 guished from the false." Diogenes Laertius states .positively in 
 his " Life of Plato," that he " united in his philosophy the 
 doctrines of Heraclitus, Pythagoras, and Socrates. In Physics 
 (rayap alaOrjra), he followed Heraclitus ; in the things of the 
 Intellect (ra 6e vorjra\ Pythagoras ; in Ethics (TO, ds Tro/lmKa), 
 Socrates." St. Augustine himself, a few sentences before the 
 one we have quoted, says, what all men know, that he followed 
 in morals the " discipline " of Socrates ; and that in Italy, where 
 he travelled, " he had easily comprehended all the tenets oi! the 
 Italic school, under the tuition of its most eminent teachers." 
 And what is still more to our purpose, Apuleius (in Platonem), 
 says expressly that, " although he had composed the body of 
 his philosophy with members acknowledging a various origin "
 
 HELLENIC PHILOSOPHY. 375 
 
 we translate literally this very pretentious author "the 
 natural part from Heraclitus, the intellectual from Pythagoras, 
 and the moral from Socrates ; yet he had made an homogeneous 
 body of the whole, as if he had given it birth himself." The 
 reader will forgive the unseemly metaphor on account of the 
 perfectly just idea it conveys. Did Plato, however, really adopt 
 the physical theory of Heraclitus ? St. Augustine does not 
 say a word of this cosmical theorist, as having had anything to 
 do in the formation of the system of the first Academy ; but he 
 alludes to Socrates and Pythagoras as having had a great influ- 
 ence in imparting to Plato their respective doctrine on ethics 
 and metaphysics. It seems certain, it is true, that the founder 
 of the Academy, when quite a young man, studied physical 
 science under Cratylus, the disciple of Heraclitus, and even 
 listened to the lesson of Hermogenes, a teacher of the atheistic 
 tenets of Parmenides, who pretended that " creation is impos- 
 sible," because it supposes previous non-existence, and non-ex- 
 istence is simply inconceivable. But we know well that, for- 
 tunately, young students do not admit all the vagaries of their 
 teachers, and that when they happen to have done it, in after- 
 life they modify often what they had heard, should they hap- 
 pen to have any mind of their own. The imaginative Plato 
 may have had all his life a great idea of fire or caloric, as. a 
 noble and active element ; but he did not certainly attribute to 
 it all the marvels of creation without the intervention of God, 
 which was the doctrine of Heraclitus. 
 
 But we may well here set aside whatever Plato might have 
 received from Heraclitus and Socrates, to speak only of the 
 doctrines which the Pythagorean school handed down to him. 
 For, as we saw, this school had collected many tenets held by 
 more ancient sages, and which formed a great part of what we 
 call here " old traditions." There was nothing of the kind in 
 the physical teaching of Heraclitus, and scarcely anything prop- 
 erly traditional in the moral discussions of Socrates, who
 
 376 GENTILISM. 
 
 always called the attention of his hearers to their own con- 
 sciousness, as the principles of right or wrong are inscribed in 
 the hearts of all. 
 
 If there is anything certain in the life of Plato, it is his con- 
 stant intercourse with the philosophers of the Italic school. 
 In Sicily, where he sojourned three different times, he became 
 acquainted at the court of Dionysius both the elder and the 
 younger with the most celebrated Pythagoreans of his time. 
 He made similar acquaintances in Italy, where he also resided 
 for a time, although a few modern critics have doubted it 
 against the testimony of all antiquity. 
 
 He received from these various teachers the doctrine of 
 transmigration, or metempsychosis, which he certainly up- 
 holds ; that of numbers, to which he often alludes ; the general 
 spiritualistic tendency of his teaching, in opposition to the 
 thorough materialism and realism of the Sophists ; and, finally, 
 no doubt, the striking affirmation so often repeated in his 
 writings of the unity of the Godhead. Even, strange to say, 
 his doctrine on " ideas," which seems to be so purely Platonic, 
 is proved to be derived from the Pythagorean Epi charm us, as 
 stated in the life of Plato by Diogenes Laertius ; so that there 
 was really less originality and inventive genius in the mind of 
 Plato "than there seems to be at first sight. In reading the 
 verses of the great Pythagorean poet, Epicharmus, preserved 
 in the " Lives of the Philosophers," and placed by the author 
 in juxtaposition with the very text of Plato, it looks occasion- 
 ally like downright plagiarism ; and the modern reader is sur- 
 prised to find that it was in a comic poet that the friend of 
 Socrates found many links of his pet theory on " ideas." But 
 it must be allowed that Epicharmus was a comic poet very dif- 
 ferent from the subsequent Aristophanes, and even from Me- 
 nander. It must have been something more than mere wit 
 which Plato did not hesitate to place on a par with the high 
 thoughts of Homer himself ,
 
 HELLENIC PHILOSOPHY. 377 
 
 The importance of the matter, left almost entirely aside by 
 all modern writers on the founder of the Academy, obliges us 
 to insist yet longer on the intimate connection which existed 
 at all times between this philosopher and the Pythagoreans of 
 the same age. It is alluded to by Cicero as well as by St. Augus- 
 tine. He writes (De finibus, v. 29) : " We all wish to live 
 happy" to know, consequently, the summum fionum "we 
 Lave, therefore, to see if we can find it in the doctrine of phi- 
 losophers. T-hey certainly promise it to us. If they did not, 
 what motive acted upon Plato when he travelled through 
 Egypt to receive from foreign priests the doctrine of num- 
 bers and of things divine ? "Why did he go later to Tarentum 
 to see Archytas ? Why to Locri to hear the Pythagoreans, 
 Echecrates, Timoeus, Acrion ? Was it not in order to consult 
 Pythagoras, after Socrates ? etc."' St. Jerome, likewise, is 
 eloquent on the subject, and confirms admirably what was pre- 
 viously said on the traditionalist character of the friend of 
 Socrates : " Thus Plato" (Ad Paulinum, Epist. liii.) " per- 
 formed a laborious pilgrimage to Egypt, and to Tarentum, and 
 all along that shore of Italy called Magna Grcecia, in order 
 that, being a master and full of influence at Athens, where the 
 halls of the Academy resounded with his eloquence, he might 
 become a pilgrim and a disciple ; and he preferred to learn 
 modestly the doctrine of others rather than to teach imprudently 
 his own. While thus engaged in the pursuit of philosophy 
 through the whole globe, he was caught by pirates, sold to a 
 cruel tyrant ; but though a captive, bound with chains, and 
 obliged to work like a slave, he was, in fact, greater than the 
 one who bought him, because he was a philosopher." 
 
 Isaac Casanbon, in his notes on Diogenes Laertius, remarks 
 also that Proclus (in Timceum) often shows the identity of the 
 doctrine of Plato with that of Pythagoras ; and the details he 
 gives are quite convincing. 
 
 But we find in the very letters of Plato himself, and in other
 
 378 GENTILISM. 
 
 texts of ancient authors, interesting details still further con- 
 firming our allegation. 
 
 Of all the correspondence of Plato, only thirteen letters 
 have been preserved. Of these the first is from his friend 
 Dion, and the genuineness of the two last has been contested, 
 we do not see, indeed, for what reason. Their main object has 
 reference only to the relations of the Athenian philosopher 
 with Dionysius, the tyrant of Syracuse. Yet we may say that, 
 in these few scraps of literary intercourse, there are abundant 
 proofs of Pythagorean influence over the mind of the writer. 
 Two of the letters are addressed to Archytas of Tarentum, and 
 in the others, chiefly in the seventh, the longest and most im- 
 portant, frequent mention is made of the Tarentine philoso- 
 pher, one of the most celebrated characters of that period, 
 and one of the most ardent friends of Plato. It is known that 
 Archytas was not only a great mathematician, one of the most 
 celebrated of antiquity, and a discoverer of several most inter- 
 esting theorems, as well as of practical applications of mathe- 
 matics to art ; not only a statesman, as all Pythagoreans were, 
 more or less, who raised to a high pitch the prosperity of his 
 native city ; but that he was also a fervent adherent to the doc- 
 trines of the Italic school ; the chief of it, in fact, in his time ; 
 and thus he' made Tarentum the headquarters of this noble 
 sect of philosophers. He is seldom mentioned in the letters of 
 Plato without some allusion to his friends, who formed a 
 society with him, as all Pythagoreans did. 
 
 Archytas was, in fact, the head of the Italic sshool at that 
 epoch. He once saved the life of Plato, whom Dionysius had 
 made up his mind to kill. And although the Athenian philoso- 
 pher was not always on the best terms with many of his friends, 
 and even quarrelled occasionally with those with whom he was 
 the most intimate, as he did once with his bosom friend Dion, 
 there is not a word intimating that throughout his intercourse 
 with Archytas, there ever existed the least coldness or altera-
 
 HELLENIC PHILOSOPHY. 379 
 
 tion of friendship between them. If the whole correspondence 
 of Plato had been preserved, we should have, no doubt, more 
 positive proofs on the subject. Yet there are, in one of the 
 letters, some indications that, on both sides, inquiries were 
 going on about earlier traditions, or, as the letter calls them, 
 " some memorials." It is the twelfth, and as it is short, we 
 give it entire on account of its importance : " Plato to Archy- 
 tas of Tarentum prosperity." ""With what wonderful de- 
 light did we receive the memorials which came from you, and 
 admired ardently everything of the writer's. To us he appear- 
 ed a man worthy of his celebrated ancestors. For they are 
 said to have been ten thousand in number ; and they were, as 
 the story handed down declares, the best of all those Trojans, 
 who during the reign of Laomedon removed themselves from 
 their native land. 
 
 " With respect to the memorials in my possession, about 
 which you have sent to me, they are not yet in the shape I 
 would wish them to be. Such as they are, however, I send 
 them to you. As to the care to take of them, we are of one 
 mind, so that there is no need of exhortation." 
 
 This is certainly obscure, but it becomes clear when we read 
 the letter of Archytas to which this of Plato was an answer. 
 It is given by Diogenes Laertius, and confirms everything we 
 suspected : 
 
 " It is well of you to have recovered from your sickness ; 
 for this we have heard not only from your own letter, but also 
 from the friends of Damiscus. We have not failed to fulfil 
 your intentions with respect to the memorials : we went our- 
 selves to the Lncanians, and found there the grand-children of 
 Ocellus. We have in our possession the existing documents 
 on his laws, on his manner of government, on the holiness of 
 his time, and the whole genealogy of the Sept. We send you 
 some of them ; if we can find more, you shall receive them." 
 
 This is certainly a very important document ; and we have
 
 380 GENTILISM. 
 
 a right to wonder that no one, to our knowledge, has remarked 
 it and commented upon it. Ocellus Lucanus was a celebrated 
 Pythagorean author, of whom we possess yet a work on 'cos-, 
 mogony. Plato had evidently read it, and probably other 
 books of the same writer which have perished. He inquired 
 about it from his friend Archytas, who received from the pos- 
 terity of Ocellus documents which concerned him . personally 
 as a chief of tribe, as a lawgiver, and a worshipper of the 
 deity, for we cannot find any other meaning in the letter 
 quoted above ; the word " holiness," boioTfy, is to be remarked. 
 We see the interest Plato took in these investigations. He 
 made use of them certainly in the composition of his last 
 works, the Republic, the Laws, the Timseus. It was not, there- 
 fore, his original ideas he unfolded in these great compositions ; 
 although he gave them a touch of his genius, and made them 
 his own by the originality of his accessory thoughts, and the 
 brilliancy of his imagination. We can imagine with what 
 ardor the warm-hearted Plato threw himself into those anti- 
 quarian researches, and what rich discoveries he made in those 
 unexplored Pelasgic fields. For it was really Pelasgic lore 
 that fell into his hands. He speaks himself of the times of 
 Laomedon, anterior to Priam ; he speaks of a single tribe of 
 the clan of Ocellus, to the number of ten thousand emigrating 
 to a foreign land, probably to Lucania in Southern Italy ; he 
 speaks of the holiness then prevailing, when Ocellus was giv- 
 ing laws to the people of Magna Graecia. Others gave laws 
 at the same time and in the same country ; the name of Zaleu- 
 cus and Charondas are well known as legislators in Southern 
 Italy ; that of Ocellus, who published these enactments spoken 
 of here, has never come to us, except in this fragment, as a 
 lawgiver. But it was chiefly holiness baior^g a word whose 
 meaning includes both moral purity and the light worship of 
 God, which was of a nature to attract the great mind of the 
 friend of Socrates.
 
 HELLENIC PHILOSOPHY. 381 
 
 A short phrase of Laertius confirms this : " Some authors 
 relate and Satyras is one of them that he wrote to Dion, in 
 Sicily, to buy for him from Philolaus, three books of Pytha- 
 goras, at the price of a hundred minae." 
 
 Plato was rich, although not excessively so, as few Greeks 
 ever were ; and he shows in many passages of his writings, 
 chiefly in his letters to Dionysius, that he took good care of 
 his own, and did not like to be imposed upon by those from 
 whom he purchased. Yet there was that greedy Philolaus, 
 who possessed three short works of Pythagoras himself, and 
 wanted a price, which in our days would be called over-ex- 
 travagant nearly five hundred pounds sterling. There was 
 evidently a long negotiation going on on the subject, ending 
 by Plato giving in, and consenting to the exorbitant price de- 
 manded by the owner. The fact is certain; for not only 
 Laertius gives these short details, but Aulu Gellius relates the 
 same fact from other authorities, and gives a slightly altered 
 price ; he makes it " ten thousand denarii." 
 
 Plato, surely, intended to make use of these books and docu- 
 ments, which he bought at so dear a price, and at such an 
 evident inconvenience of his friends ; and the use he would 
 make of them, would be to read them, collect extracts from 
 them, and shape his thoughts in conformity with those ex- 
 tracts. 
 
 But in addition to Plato and the Pythagoreans, there were a 
 host of sages and writers who evidently did not propagate their 
 own individual thoughts, but formed a large school to whose 
 charge seemed to be entrusted the deposit of old truths com- 
 municated ages before to mankind at large. Thus, the asser- 
 tion we made is abundantly proved, that, in spite of the com- 
 plete disintegration of pure dogmas by a totally corrupt and 
 individualized polytheism, truth itself had not perished, but 
 remained scattered in the teachings of many men belonging to 
 the Italic school and the Academy.
 
 382 GENTILISM. 
 
 IY. 
 
 Had they not, besides, " sacred accounts of the olden times," 
 different from both schools, yet containing holy doctrines for- 
 gotten by the majority of their contemporaries, but which 
 they cherished and tried to preserve and propagate ? In the 
 seventh letter of Plato we find the following : " In things 
 inanimate, there is nothing either good or evil worthy of 
 mention ; but good or ill will happen to each soul, either 
 existing with the body or separated from it. It is on this ac- 
 count most important to trust powerfully (ovrcjf) to the sacred 
 accounts of tlie olden times, which inform us that the soul is 
 immortal, and has judges of its conduct, and suffers the 
 greatest punishments after it is liberated from the body. 
 Hence every one must be persuaded that it is a lesser evil to 
 suffer from, than to do, the greatest sins and injuries. This, 
 indeed, the man who is fond of money and poor in soul does 
 not hear ; and should he hear, he laughs it down, thinking it 
 wise to take his fill, like a wild beast, of food and drink, or 
 to delight in servile and disgraceful carnal pleasures. Being 
 blind, he is not able to see that evil, ever united to each act of 
 wrong, follows him in his insatiate cravings for what is un- 
 holy, and that he has to drag along with himself the long 
 chain of his wrong-doings, both while he is moving along upon 
 earth, and when he shall take, under the earth " (we would 
 say to hell), " an endless journey of dishonor and frightful 
 miseries." 
 
 This was the style suggested by these " sacred accounts of 
 the olden time," and we doubt if a Christian orator could 
 express himself in fitter terms and more glowing language. 
 We are, indeed, surprised to find it under the pen of a writer 
 who lived in the midst of the moral rottenness of the brilliant 
 age of Pericles ; but to understand it without difficulty, we
 
 HELLENIC PHILOSOPHY. 383 
 
 have merely to remember that it was cm, echo, yet vibrating, 
 of a divine -voice, uttered many ages before. 
 
 There is occasionally in the Athenian philosopher a Chris- 
 tian sense which is inexplicable, except on the above hypo- 
 thesis. For it is not only in the letter above quoted that we 
 find it so strangely and powerfully expressed. In the " Re- 
 public," for example (Chap, v.), where is discussed, the ques- 
 tion, Which is the happier life, that of the just man persecuted 
 as a criminal, or of the unjust man honored, and apparently 
 successful in all his undertakings? " There will be no difficulty," 
 said Glaucon, in ascertaining what h'f e will be the lot of either. 
 " It shall be told, then ; and even if it should be told with more 
 than unusual bluntness, think not that it is I who tell it, Soc- 
 rates, but those who prefer injustice to justice. These, then, 
 will say, that the just man thus situated" (considered as a crim- 
 inal), " will be scourged, tortured, fettered, have his eyes burnt 
 out, and, lastly, suffering all manner of evil, will be crucified ; 
 and he will know, too, that, in the common opinion, a man 
 
 should desire not to be, but to appear, just The other, 
 
 on the contrary, holds the magistracy in the State, .... marries 
 into whatever family he pleases, .... forms agreements, and 
 joins in partnership with whom he likes, succeeds in all his 
 projects for gain, because he scruples not* to commit injustice ; 
 .... and to the gods, as respects sacrifices and offerings, he not 
 only sufficiently, but magnificently, both sacrifices, and makes 
 offerings, serving far better than the just man, the gods them- 
 selves, of whom, consequently, he ought to be a greater favor- 
 ite." These are the reasons of those who prefer injustice to jus- 
 tice. And after discussing the question at length, Plato states 
 (Chap, ix.) that " a man must be able to show what has been 
 asserted so far as true, to be false, and fully know and ac- 
 knowledge that justice is best," even in the extreme case pre- 
 viously supposed. 
 
 It is known that some Greek Fathers of the Church have 
 26
 
 384 GENTILISM. 
 
 concluded, from the description of the just man under perse- 
 cution, that Plato had read the prophecies of Isaiah and the 
 other Hebrew seers. We do not think that it can be justly 
 inferred ; but there is certainly in the passage a perfume of 
 pure and perfect morality, so akin to the Christian feeling, 
 that it is hard to understand how Plato or Socrates himself 
 could have drawn it from his own understanding, so that it 
 seems very likely that they had derived it from those " sacred 
 accounts of olden time " mentioned above. 
 
 In the same category may be placed the following quotation 
 of Hesiod, and the short comment on it given by our author 
 (Chap, vii.) : 
 
 " How vice at once- and easily we cboose ! 
 The way so smooth ; its dwelling, too, so nigh 1 
 Toil before virtue " 
 
 " and a certain road," adds Plato, " both long and steep ! " 
 He alludes evidently to some ancient writer beside Hesiod ; 
 and we know how the same thought is expressed in the Gospel 
 in nearly the same words : " How narrow and hard is the 
 road. . . . . " 
 
 But whatsis more wonderful still, is that the most arduous 
 of all Christian precepts, and certainly the most unintelligible 
 to the mere reason of man the forgiveness of injury is so 
 Mearly stated in the " Crito," that the first reading of it is 
 simply startling to any one accustomed to pagan ethics, so as 
 to induce him to read, again and again, the passage, to find out 
 if he had not 'mistaken the meaning. 
 
 " Socrates. Is injustice, on every account, both evil and dis- 
 graceful to him who commits it ? Do we ajlmit this or not ? 
 
 " Crito. We do admit it. 
 
 " Socr. On no account, therefore, ought Ve to act unjustly. 
 
 " Cri. Surely not. 
 
 " Socr. Neither ought one who is injured to return the injury,
 
 HELLENIC PHILOSOPHY. 385 
 
 
 
 as the multitude thinks, since it is on no account right to act 
 unjustly. 
 
 " Cri. It appears not. 
 
 " Socr. What, then ? Is it right to do evil, Crito, or not ? 
 
 " Cri. Surelj it is not right, Socrates. 
 
 " Socr. But what ? To do evil in return when one has been 
 evil-entreated, is that right or not ? 
 
 " Cri. By no means. 
 
 " Socr. For to do evil to men differs in no respect from com- 
 mitting injustice. 
 
 " Cri. You say truly. 
 
 */ t/ 
 
 " Socr. It is not right, therefore, to return an injury, or to do 
 evil to any man, however one may have suffered from him. 
 But take care, Crito, that in allowing these things, you do not 
 allow them contrary to your own opinion. For I know, that to 
 some few only those things appear to be true. These men, 
 consequently, and they to whom they do not seem true, have no 
 sentiment in common, and must needs despise each other, while 
 they look to each other's opinions. Consider well, then, whether 
 you coincide and think with me ; and whether we can begin, 
 our considerations from this point, that it is never right, either 
 to do an injury, or to return an injury^ or when one has been 
 evil-entreated to revenge oneself by doing evil in return, or do 
 you dissent from and not coincide in this principle ? It has 
 been my conviction for a long time, and it is still so now ; but 
 if you, in any respect, think, otherwise, say so, and inform me. 
 Should you persist in your former opinion, which is mine, hear 
 what follows. 
 
 " Cri. I do persist in it, and think with you. Speak on, 
 then. 
 
 We ought not thus to be surprised, if such was the doctrine 
 not only of Socrates, but of Plato his disciple, to hear him as- 
 sert that a man who knows he is to be ' judged after his death,' 
 ought to reflect often on the morality of his actions, in order
 
 386 GEl^TILISM. 
 
 
 
 to prevent the future judgment by that of his own conscience ; 
 teaching thus clearly the practice of the daily exarnen, so well 
 known to Christians. The real text, and the very passage 
 where it is to be found, escapes us for the moment, but it is 
 certainly expressed as clearly as we assert. 
 
 Should any reader require more convincing proofs of the 
 spirit of traditional inquiry in some, at least, of the philosophi- 
 cal sects of Greece, he will find a large number of them in the 
 fourteenth ' chapter of the fifth book of the Stromata of St. 
 Clement, whicli has for its heading : " The Greek Plagiarisms 
 from the Hebrews." He will find there that Thales, being 
 asked, " If a man could elude the knowledge of the Divine 
 Being while doing aught ?" He answered : " How could he, 
 who cannot do so while thinking 2" And " the Socratic An- 
 tisthenes, paraphrasing that prophetic utterance, ' To whom 
 have ye likened me ?' says that ' God is like to no one ; where- 
 fore no one can come to the knowledge of Him from an 
 image.' " 
 
 St. Clement may, in this long chapter, have attributed too 
 uncritically a knowledge of the Bible to Greek philosophers ; 
 but many of their utterances are so repugnant to the general 
 opinions of their time, and in many cases to their own ordinary 
 ideas, that we cannot indeed explain many of them, except on 
 the supposition that they came from an older and holier source, 
 whose stream in its wanderings had at last reached them. 
 
 VI. 
 
 But this very fact of St. Clement of Alexandria attributing 
 to the Hebrew traditions, as a source, many of the thoughts 
 and maxims of Hellenic philosophers, seems to be clashing with 
 our general assertion referring them to an original primitive 
 revelation. Yet, both derivations, instead of contradicting,
 
 HELLEXIC PHILOSOPHY. 387 
 
 really confirm each other. In comparing together the primi- 
 tive belief of Hindostan, Egypt, and Greece, and finding so 
 many points of agreement, we conclude that the traditions of 
 these three races came from a time previous to their separation, 
 an epoch, now sufficiently well ascertained, possibly long be- 
 fore the Mosaic dispensation, at least before the period when 
 it became capable of influencing other nations ; and that the 
 truths common to those great races came from the very origin 
 of mankind, and must be referred, altogether, to the patriarchal 
 epoch. But nothing could be farther from our thoughts than 
 to deny the subsequent moral and religious influence of the 
 Hebrew books and traditions on the Gentile nations of anti- 
 quity. In order that the Jewish people and religion should 
 have such an influence, God placed it in the centre of the 
 world, and willed that its life should ebb and flow in the very 
 eddies of pagan life, so that Assyria, Chaldsea, Persia, Egypt, 
 Greece, and Rome should know practically the great, consist- 
 ent, and ever-accessible monotheistic people of antiquity, as an 
 auxiliary means of preserving truth. 
 
 But the Mosaic revelation, instead of being antagonistic to 
 the patriarchal teaching, was only a development of it, and 
 a more definite preparation for the Redeemer. One 
 thing is sure, however, that whatever came to Greece from 
 Hindostan could not have passed through Judea, as there is 
 not the least proof, or probability even, of communication be- 
 tween both countries ; and the Hindoo myths must have been 
 derived from a higher antiquity. On the other hand, what- 
 ever is found in Hellenic philosophers as evidently taken from 
 the Bible and later Hebrew traditions, could not have corne 
 from India ; since the Pelasgians and Hellenes, after their prim- 
 itive migration, never kept any intercourse whatever with 
 their Aryan ancestors. And it is proper that at the end of this 
 chapter a word should be said of this last kind of plagiarism, 
 as St. Clement calls it.
 
 388 GENTILISM. 
 
 (a). First, it is well known that he was not the only- 
 Father of the Church who believed in that intercourse of Gen- 
 tile nations with the Hebrews, so that they the nations had 
 received many great religious truths and historical traditions 
 from them. Most of the Greek Fathers were of the same opin- 
 ion. Eusebius of Csesarea, in particular, enumerates in his 
 " Propaideia, or Prseparatio Evangelica," an immense number of 
 instances, some of which are certainly very striking, more so, ac- 
 cording to our thinking, than most of those quoted by Clement 
 of Alexandria. Natalia Alexander, in his " Historia Eccles. Yet. 
 Test." (Dissertatio X., Prop, ii.), remarks with justice that the 
 reflections of Eusebius, in his Eleventh Boo"k, Chap, xxvii., etc., 
 are in truth forcible and even convincing; and that any one 
 who reads those chapters with attention, cannot but believe 
 that much of what the " divine " Plato has said on the immor- 
 tality of the soul, on creation, on the end of the world, on the 
 resurrection of the dead of which^he gives an example such as 
 we read in our Lives of the Saints and lastly on " judgment," 
 must have been in the main taken from our Holy Scripture. 
 
 (5.) In the second place, there can be no doubt that many 
 pagan myths were mere allegories containing Biblical facts, or 
 at least alluding to them and supposing them. 
 
 Father Guerin Durocher, in his " Histoire veritable des 
 Temps Fabuleux," comments at length on many of them. If, 
 too often, his conclusions may be called rather fanciful, it is cer- 
 tain that in many points he convinces his readers of the truth 
 of his explanations. 
 
 (c). More singular still, the thinkers of our age begin to come 
 back again to those exegetist interpretations which appeared to 
 have been abandoned for ever ; and Mr. Gladstone, in Chap, 
 vii. of his " Juventus Mundi," not only refers to them with 
 approval,, even as high up in time as Homer himself, but tries 
 to explain the process as it took place in antiquity, which no 
 previous author, to our knowledge, had done.
 
 HELLENIC PHILOSOPHY. 389 
 
 Zeus he justly remarks in his Olympian personality is, 
 with respect to morality, far below Apollo and Athene, but " as 
 the traditional representative of providence and the Theistic 
 idea," he is far above them. Thus, the twoiold character of 
 Zeus in Greek mythology is accepted by Mr. Gladstone, as it 
 seems to be by the generality of writers in our age ; and as 
 Olympian, son of Kronos, he does not correspond to the ideal 
 of God in the Bible anything near so precisely as Apollo and 
 Athene do. The following are his words : u Many elements of 
 the Hebrew traditions recorded in the Holy Scriptures, or 
 otherwise preserved among the Jews down to later times, ap- 
 pear in the Olympian court of Homer. But they are not found 
 in all the personages that compose the assemblage ; nor even in 
 all those deities whom, from various kinds of evidence in the 
 Poems, we perceive to have been fully recognized as objects 
 of national worship. Further, in the characters where the 
 features corresponding with Hebrew traditions mainly appear, 
 there is a peculiar elevation of tone, and a remarkable degree 
 of reverence is maintained towards them, so as to separate 
 them, not indeed by an uniform, but commonly by a percepti- 
 ble and broad line, from the remainder of the gods. 
 ' " Besides the idea of a Deity which in some sense is three 
 in one, the traditions traceable in Homer, which appear to be 
 drawn from the same source as those of Holy Scripture, are 
 chiefly these : (1.) A Deliverer, conceived under the double 
 form, first of the ' seed of a woman ' a Being at once Divine 
 and human ;" Mr. Gladstone understands this of Apollo ; 
 " secondly, of the Logos, the "Word or Wisdom of God," 
 meaning no doubt Athene. (2.) " Next,' the woman whose 
 seed this Redeemer was to be " Leto. (3.) " Next, the rain- 
 bow considered as a means, or a sign, of communication be- 
 tween God and man Iris. And, finally, the traditions of an 
 Evil Being, together with his ministers working under the 
 double form of . . . . ' open war,' and of ' wiles ;' as a rebel,
 
 390 GENTILISM. 
 
 and as a tempter. This last tradition is indeed shivered into 
 fragments, such as the giants precipitated into Tartarus, and as 
 Ate roaming on the earth The other four traditions ap- 
 pear to be represented in the persons of Apollo, Athen, Leto, 
 and Iris If, in the progress of time, and with the muta- 
 tions which that system gradually underwent, the marks of the 
 correspondence with the Hebrew records became more faint, 
 the fact even raises some presumption that, were we enabled to 
 go yet further back, we should obtain yet fuller and clearer 
 evidence of their identity of origin in certain respects." 
 
 A few pages back the same author had already made the 
 same 'assertion, perhaps even in stronger terms, and had tried 
 to explain the process of transmission from the " Hebrew rec- 
 ords," as he calls them, to the Hellenic primitive mythology. 
 
 " The features " he had mentioned, " in the case of the two 
 first-named deities particularly " Apollo and Athene " im- 
 part to the pictures of them an extraordinary elevation and 
 force, such as to distinguish them broadly from the delineations 
 of other gods, in whom these particular features are wanting. 
 The features themselves are in the most marked correspond- 
 ence with the Hebraic traditions, as conveyed in the books of 
 Holy Scripture, and also as handed down in the auxiliary 
 sacred learning of the Jews. But while it seems impossible to 
 deny the correspondence without doing violence to facts, on 
 the other hand we are not able to point out historically the 
 channel of communication through which these traditions were 
 conveyed into Greece, and became operative in the formation 
 of the Olympian scheme." 
 
 Yet Mr. Gladstone attempts it, and although with much dif- 
 fidence he supposes " that the Phoenician navigators offered the 
 natural and probable explanation of any such phenomena. Be- 
 cause, on the one hand, we know, from the historic books of 
 Scripture, that the Phoenicians were at an early date in habits 
 of intercourse with the Jews; while on the other hand, they
 
 . HELLENIC PHILOSOPHY. 391 
 
 
 
 not only were in like habits with the Achaians of Homer, but 
 also, as far as we can discern, no other nation had a sensible 
 amount of intercourse with Greece, or if there were such, it 
 passed under the Phosnician name." 
 
 And the writer endeavors to give greater force to his ideas 
 by bringing forward the myth of Bellerophon, which he tries 
 to prove to have been originally Phrenician, and which, in his 
 opinion, is a legend of Joseph, sinse he says, " there is a strik- 
 ing similarity between Bellerophon, Solicited by the wife of 
 Proitos, and Joseph, by the wife of Potiphar." 
 
 Whatever strength may be granted to this last supposition 
 and, in our opinion, there is very little probability in it, since 
 the two stories of Joseph and Bellerophon are completely at 
 variance with each other in all the other details yet the hypo- 
 theses of Mr. Gladstone respecting Apollo, Athene, Leto, and 
 Iris, chiefly on the two first, are at once new and startling. 
 His subject confined his researches to the poems of Homer, and 
 the very idea of finding in the Iliad and Odyssey, analogies 
 with the Bible, appears at first sight almost a fantastic one. 
 Yet, if the author has not carried his theory to a real demon- 
 stration, he has at least presented it with so much plausibility 
 as to make it probable and serious ; a result which would nat 
 be so successfully attained, if in our day the theory were ap- 
 plied to long-subsequent Hellenic authors. The little we have 
 said may be considered as strictly sufficient ; yet we have availed 
 ourselves only of the kbor of ancient authors, and we could 
 not treat the subject in extenso. The learned Huet, Bishop of 
 Avrauches, is, we think, the last who did it, at least in an ex- 
 haustively erudite manner for his time, in his " Demonstration 
 Evangelique." But, since Huet, many discoveries have been 
 made in the field of philosophy, with respect to classical Greek 
 and Latin writers, as well as to Christian authors of the first 
 centuries. The same subject treated exhaustively in our days, 
 with the help furnished by the German, French, and English
 
 392 GENTILISM. 
 
 editors of classics, and by the numerous additions made to the 
 authentic works of the Fathers of the Church, and of profane 
 writers of antiquity, by such men as Angelo Mai, would surely 
 bring the argument so near to a demonstration, that all would 
 be obliged to admit that, either from the remnants of primi- 
 tive revelation, or from intercourse with the Jews and the 
 knowledge of Holy Scripture, the Gentiles of Greece and Italy 
 were acquainted with many primitive truths which polytheism 
 was not able wholly to obliterate.
 
 CHAPTER Yin. 
 
 THE GREEK AND LATIN POETS AS GUARDIANS OF TRUTH. 
 
 HELLENIC traditional philosophy counteracted to a great ex- 
 tent the evil consequences of an unbridled rationalism, which 
 in Greece threatened, from the first, to make atheism and ma- 
 terialism everywhere prevalent. Either the primitive traditions 
 on the unity of God, on the immortality of the human soul, 
 on the eternity of rewards or punishments after death, on the 
 sinfulness of man, and the necessity of expiation, etc., etc. ; or 
 
 
 
 the same truths and many others contained in the " Hebrew 
 records," as Mr. Gladstone has it, became the heirloom of 
 Europe, as they had been previously of Hindostan, Bactriana, 
 and Egypt ; and this chiefly through Pythagorism and Platon- 
 ism. Thus, something at least of the primitive universality or 
 Catholicism, as we expressed it, of the patriarchal religion, 
 continued to subsist in the western part of the old world, as 
 it did formerly in the central or eastern part of it. Yet and 
 Mr. Gladstone remarks it the primitive brightness of the 
 truth gradually grew dimmer, and error became more and more 
 prevalent ; so that, according to him and we agree with him 
 perfectly on the subject the higher up our researches extend 
 in antiquity, the more pure do we find the belief of mankind, 
 and the more resembling our own. " If in the progress of 
 time, and with the mutations which that (the Homeric) system 
 underwent, the marks of the correspondence with the Hebrew 
 records became more faint, the fact even raises some presurnp- 
 
 (393)
 
 394 GENTILISM. 
 
 tion that, were we enabled to go yet further back (than Homer), 
 we should obtain yet fuller and clearer evidence of their iden- 
 tity of origin in certain respects." (p. 211.) 
 
 This chapter in its entirety will be devoted to showing 
 how that tjie poets, who were, in the main, guilty of introduc- 
 ing idolatry in Europe, were nevertheless the true preservers- of 
 the greatest number of. old traditions handed down to the very 
 times of our Lord. For Poetry is truly a divine gift, and can- 
 not exist without a kind of inspiration, as Plato proves in one 
 of his dialogues, and with justice did Raphael, in representing 
 her on the walls of the Vatican, give her wings, which he re- 
 fused to Philosophy. "We have no doubt that, if Plato, who 
 was constantly looking into the surviving fragments of old 
 philosophers and lawgivers, had condescended to do the same 
 for the bards of " olden time," and of his own age, he would 
 not have been so severe in excluding the poets from his city, 
 .conducting them, it is true, with respect to the limits of its 
 territory, and there sending them on their way, crowned with 
 chaplets of flowers, and loaded with expressions of the highest 
 regard. He might have permitted them to remain ; but with 
 the injunction of cultivating ancient lore, and refraining from 
 inventing false tales. 
 
 Of Orpheus and his numerous school, enough has been said. 
 But the tragic dramatists alone could furnish us with a long 
 list of passages strikingly illustrating our thesis. "We will -se- 
 lect a few of these. The most remarkable of them is, un- 
 doubtedly, the strange poem of " Prometheus bound." Many 
 interpretations of it have been given. Which is the surest ? 
 No one can say. The old mythologists themselves did not 
 agree ; and the modern critics content themselves with an ab- 
 stract of the various old myths supposed to be contained in it, 
 to which they append their comments, often as fanciful as 
 the legends themselves, if not more so. Baron von Humboldt 
 saw in it merely a record of Phrenician colonization. Others
 
 GEEEK AND LATIN POETS. 395 
 
 saw in it the embodiment of the first struggles between the 
 primitive Pelasgic pantheism and the more recent Olympian 
 system of idolatry represented by Zeus. We have already ob- 
 served that it might represent .the constant and cruel hardships 
 of the long migrations of Pelasgians or Hellenes from India 
 to Greece, and, especially, when they reached the almost im- 
 passable heights of the Caucasus. But the poem of ^Eschylus 
 contains many details which cannot be possibly explained by such 
 realistic and common-place interpretations. The great tragic 
 writer relates several incidents as no other traditional narration 
 has reported them. Yet his version of it is full of in- 
 consistencies. It is evident that he had some ancient docu- 
 ments, perhaps the most ancient of all, and he has inserted 
 them in his poem almost at random ; without failing, however, 
 to infuse into them a plentiful admixture of his own thoughts. 
 But in many of them there is intrinsic evidence that he^ould 
 not have invented them, but must have taken them from some 
 ancient source. Being a pagan Greek, he could not understand 
 the myth ; and in order to give an exuberant life to his poem, he 
 has inserted in it the notions polytheism gave him of Zeus, 
 Hephaistos, Hermes, etc. ; and the grand figure of Prometheus 
 has suffered from it. The consequence is, that it is impossible 
 to make a consistent tale of the whole poem, and we have to 
 endeavor to find in it what is really ancient, and could not have 
 issued at all from the imagination of the poet. In the course of 
 such an investigation we shall fall on the most extraordinary 
 and sublime traditions, far superior to any of those preserved 
 by Orpheus, Pythagoras, and Plato. We must, however, start 
 from the supposition that Christianity is true ; and that the 
 fall and the then future redemption of man, in spite of the 
 opposition of Satan, are two great facts kept in the remem- 
 brance of all ancient nations. Yoltaire himself has acknowl- 
 edged it.
 
 396 GENTILISM. 
 
 II. 
 
 A very erudite and clever writer of three most interesting 
 articles on the " Prometheus bound," in the " Annales de Philo- 
 sophic Chretienne" Mr. C. Rossignol places ^Eschylus first 
 of the three great Greek dramatists, because he is " more true to 
 the old traditions, more severe in his style, larger in his mind 
 and views, and far more majestic in all his conceptions " than 
 Sophocles, and still more than Euripides, whom the critic "wil- 
 lingly gives up to the wrath of Aristophanes and of Plato." 
 William Schlegel says, that "the other fictions of Greek tragic 
 writers are merely shreds of tragedy, but the Prometheus 
 bound of ^Eschyles is Tragedy itself in all its primitive and 
 glorious splendor." 
 
 All modern critics admit that ./Eschylus, in this poem, did 
 not give merely the invention of his own fancy, but embodied 
 in them old traditions handed down to him, and preserved in 
 his time by many authors. 
 
 But the question is, What were those traditions ? And what 
 was the true character of Prometheus, according to them ? Mr. C. 
 Rossignol, in his second article, states that " several passages of 
 the poem "he quotes only one, and that not by any means 
 the most striking " have filled with stupor some men of intel- 
 lect by reminding them of Christ, who suffered for the redemp- 
 tion of man." He does not name them, and we were before 
 totally ignorant of the fact that such an interpretation had been 
 given to this tragedy. This hypothesis he altogether rejects, 
 because Prometheus often displays in the poem " a deep pride 
 and a concentrated rage" utterly opposed to the character of the 
 Redeemer. He then adduces several passages which display 
 the contrast existing between Prometheus and Christ. In his 
 opinion the bound " Titan " is Adam after his fall, and he 
 brings forward a considerable body of proof in support of it.
 
 GEEEK- AND LATIN POETS. 397 
 
 We think, however, that Mr. Rossignol has not rendered suf- 
 ficient justice to the opinion he condemns, and that a number 
 of remarkable passages can be quoted from the poem to sub- 
 stantiate it ; so that after all ^Eschylus may have jumbled to- 
 gether several traditions in his possession ; and, being a pagan 
 and not understanding them, he may have unknowingly given 
 to the character of Prometheus, features altogether inconsistent 
 and antagonistic. We are glad to find that the writer in the 
 " Annales de Philosophic " admits fully the double character' 
 of Zeus as existing in the poem of ^Eechylus Zeus the Su- 
 preme, pater Deorum hominumgue^ and Zeus, the son of Kro- 
 nos, the Olympian husband of Juno. This naturally creates 
 some confusion in the myth, and the distinction ought to be 
 carefully kept in view. We say, then, that the Olympian god 
 whom Prometheus opposed in heaven is Satan himself, the 
 enemy of the human race. And on this supposition, based on 
 the dram# itself, we proceed. 
 
 First, in two remarkable passages of the poem, Prometheus 
 is stated to know all future things, and to have been aware of 
 the consequences of his opposition to Zeus, when he took pity 
 on the misfortunes of mankind. This has escaped the notice 
 of many commentators ; and Mr. Rossignol himself seems to 
 think that the " hero " was ignorant of* his fate, and conse- 
 quently cannot be the One we love to call the Redeemer. 
 
 The first passage is taken from verses 101 . T. A, and reads 
 thus: 
 
 rrdvra npov^emarafiai 
 oiteOp&g ra jueAAovr', ovdi IJLOI Troraivov 
 TTT//Z' ovdev jjtjei. 
 
 The literal Latin translation is : 
 
 " omnia prsenovi 
 
 accurate quae futura sunt, neque mihi inopinata 
 ulla calamitas adveniet."
 
 398 GENTILISM. 
 
 The literal English translation given by T. A. Buckley is : 
 " I know beforehand all futurity exactly, and no suffering will 
 (have) come upon me unlocked for." These are the very words 
 of Prometheus himself. There are here two very distinct pro- 
 positions; the first asserts his general foreknowledge which 
 embraces everything, which he must have possessed in heaven, 
 as well as on the rock on which he was bound ; the second 
 refers to the evils yet in store for him. And, as in the same 
 passage, a few lines before, he calls himself a God, he is cer- 
 tainly, in the opinion of ^Eschylus, far above the Olympian 
 gods, above the son of Kronos himself, whose foreknowledge 
 is so limited that he does not know his future fall, announced 
 everywhere in the poem. Satan, likewise, did not know that 
 Christ was the Son of God, and that he would put an end to 
 his power. Hence the temptation related in the gospel. 
 
 The other passage is taken from the verses 265, . r. A. 
 
 eyw 6e rav6' 
 &K&V r/paprov, OVK 
 OvTjroig d'dpjjyuv avrfy evpofirjv novovg. 
 
 The literal Latin reads : 
 
 4 ' ggo vero hsec omnia non ignorabam. 
 volens, volens deliqui, non infitiabor ; 
 mortalibus opitulando ipse serumnas nactus sum." 
 
 And the literal English : " But I knew all these things ; wil- 
 lingly, willingly I erred, I will not gainsay it ; and in doing 
 service to mortals I brought sufferings upon myself." 
 
 The majority of commentators assign to the word ijimprov, an 
 interpretation completely wrong. They make Prometheus con- 
 fess here that he had sinned in opposing Zeus ; and in refusing 
 to repent of his sin and become reconciled with the god, he 
 shows only obstinacy and rage. The nymphs of the chorus had 
 already, a few lines back, used the word fmapreg, and the same
 
 GEEEK AND LATIN POETS. 399 
 
 commentators understood it of sin likewise, and pretend that 
 the friends of the suffering hero exhort him to repent. But 
 the verb a^apravw has generally quite another meaning be- 
 side sinning. The first and most obvious one is, to make a mis- 
 take, to be wrong in judgment, to err in consequence of it, and 
 here it is obviously the meaning of the poet. The nymphs of 
 the chorus had used the word jjfiapreg, " thou hast been wrong 
 or foolish," as we say colloquially ; and Prometheus applies the 
 same word to himselr because it had been used by the nymphs, 
 his friends : " Yes," he says, " I have been foolish enough for 
 my own interest to oppose Zeus ; but I did it willingly, 
 although I knew that my pity for mankind would bring these 
 sufferings on me." 
 
 It is true that, directly after, Prometheus adds, " Yet, not at 
 all did I imagine that, in such a punishment as this, I was to 
 wither away upon lofty rocks, and to find myself bound to this 
 desolate, solitary crag." This is not certainly in accordance with 
 the previous assertion that " all futurity " was open to the eye of 
 the God. ^Eschylus thought, probably, that to make any god so 
 precise in his foreknowledge, as that such inferior details as a 
 " solitary crag " shorud be unveiled to him would be unworthy 
 of Deity. He had not found this certainly in the traditions he 
 possessed, and he merely contradicts what he had previously 
 asserted. 
 
 The next passage we shall quote, commences from the 235th 
 line. We will not give it in Greek, as its meaning is not, as far 
 as we know, disputed. It reads : " These schemes " of Zeus, 
 " no one opposed except myself. But I dared : I ransomed mor- 
 tals from being utterly destroyed, and going down to Hades," 
 namely, to hell. The two previous passages are in these few 
 phrases explained thoroughly, so that no critic can put their 
 true meaning in doubt. They are the words of the Redeemer. 
 
 Another argument in support of the opinion of those who 
 
 see in Prometheus an image or type of the Saviour, is derived 
 
 27
 
 400 GEOTILISM. 
 
 from the character of lo in the poem. Mr. Rossignol himself 
 sees in her the plain features of Eve after her sin, and it is 
 proper to refer to his ideas on the subject in order to under- 
 stand the character and office of the hero of the drama. Mr. 
 A. Nicholas, also, in his " Etudes Philosophiques sur le Chris- 
 tianisme," sees in lo the first mother of mankind ; as, in Pro- 
 metheus, he acknowledges Adam or the human race. 
 
 " lo," says Mr. Rossignol, " bears all the characteristics of the 
 unfortunate Eve ; like her prototype, sfte is under a curse, 
 miserable, a wanderer, followed by the heavenly wrath from 
 country to country ; the earth is bathed by her tears, and re- 
 echoes to her groans. But the picture is yet more true when it 
 embraces the fate of all women before the coming of the Mes- 
 siah. They are happy and respected nowhere ; their dignity is 
 misunderstood, outraged . . . ." Mr. Nicholas speaks almost in 
 the same terms. 
 
 But what does lo herself, in the poem, expect from Prome- 
 theus ? what does she see in him ? what does she think of him ? 
 Had the hero been merely Adam although we do not deny 
 that the poem bears also this interpretation in many passages 
 how different would have been the mee^bg of the two for- 
 lorn sufferers ! 
 
 " lo . . . . Clearly define to me what remedy there is for my 
 disease ; speak, if at all thou knowest ; speak, and tell it to the 
 wretched roaming damsel. 
 
 " Prom. I will tell thee clearly everything which thou de- 
 sirest to learn .... in plain language, as it is right to open the 
 lips is friends. Thou seest him who bestowed fire on mortals, 
 Prometheus. 
 
 " lo. O, thou that didst confer such a benefit on mankind, 
 wretched Prometheus, tell me for what offence thou art under- 
 going such a terrible penance ? 
 
 " Prom. I have just ceased lamenting my own pangs. 
 
 " lo. Say who it was that bound thee fast in this cleft ?
 
 GREEK AND LATIN POETS. 401 
 
 " Prom. The decree of Zeus, but the hand of Hephaistos. 
 
 " lo. And for what offences art thou paying the penalty ? 
 
 " Prom. Thus much alone is all that I can clearly explain to 
 thee." 
 
 Was the document on which ^Eschylus based his tragedy 
 reticent on the answer to such an important question ? Or, 
 having the answer plain before his eyes, and being unable to 
 understand its import, did he fall back, as was usual among 
 Egyptians and Greeks", on the necessity of keeping secret the 
 mysteries ? We are inclined to accef>t this last interpretation. 
 Thus ^Eschylus did not dare to write : " For tky offences I am 
 paying the penalty ! " 
 
 in. 
 
 But we must not suppose that the other tragedies of the 
 great Eleusinian poet contain nothing of a similar import. 
 Among those which have survived the injuries of time, there is 
 only one entire " trilogy," embracing the Agamemnon, the 
 Coephori, and the Eumenides. It is the story of Orestes, 
 from the original cause of his matricide, to his expiation. In 
 the opinion of many modern critics, it is the greatest tragic 
 composition in existence ; and as it is complete, it can give us, 
 they say, a more exact idea of the Greek stage than any other 
 poem we possess. Our subject, however, is not concerned 
 with its artistic merits. It is the echoes of tradition we must 
 endeavor to detect in it. It is, in fact, another exposition of 
 moral truth, such as is contained in the book of Job and in the 
 prophecies of Ezecfeiel. And as, confessedly, the Hebrew 
 poems of both inspired writers are among the grandest con- 
 ceptions of the Old Testament, it is not a little striking to find 
 some resemblance to them in a Greek writer only a little older 
 than Pericles. ^Eschylus, in fact, lived to see the great man 
 who gave his name to the golden age of Greek literature. But
 
 402 GENTILISM. 
 
 lie sternly opposed his innovations in religion, politics, and 
 even art. In the words of Mr. E. H. Plumptre : " He found 
 on his return (from Sicily) new men, new measures, a new 
 
 philosophy, a new taste 'in poetry Men who could claim 
 
 no connection with Eupatrid descent were pressing forward to 
 the foremost place of power. The institutions which were 
 held most sacred as the safeguard of Athenian religion were 
 criticised and attacked. The court of Areiopagos, which had 
 exercised an awful and undefined authority in all matters con- 
 nected, directly or indirdstly, with the religious life of the 
 State, was covertly attacked under the plea of reforming its ad- 
 ministration. Oracles and divinations no longer commanded 
 men's reverence and trust. There were whispers that men 
 were beginning to say that there was no God ; or that the old 
 name of Zeus was to pass away before those of a Supreme 
 Intelligence, or a measureless vortex. And the leader of the 
 movement, in all its bearings upon religion, politics, art, 
 and thought, was one who inherited the curse of the Alcmae- 
 onidae, against whom the aristocratic party had revived the 
 memory of that curse, who had been suspected himself of 
 sacrilege and scepticism on account of his connection with 
 Anaxagoras " (namely, Pericles). 
 
 These were the feelings which prompted JEschylus to write 
 his celebrated trilogy. In it, consequently, we have his in- 
 most thoughts on all those great subjects ; and as he wrote it 
 only three years before his death, when he was already sixty, 
 \ve find in it the most mature reflections of this great mind 
 on human life, the soul, moral evil, its punishment, and pos- 
 sible expiation. It does not contain, consequently, like the 
 Prometheus bound, traditions of primitive history, but the 
 thoughts of antiquity on all those most interesting topics ; and 
 our task will, later on, consist in discovering, as far as possible, 
 how ^Eschylus found them ; if they were the product of his 
 own imagination, or if they had not been proclaimed long
 
 GREEK A1S T D LATIN POETS. 403 
 
 before, so that he might have obtained a knowledge of 
 them. 
 
 The great tragic poet was, undoubtedly, a writer eminently 
 conservative of old traditions. He was certainly inclined towards 
 whatever was truly ancient. He preferred the old Chtonian gods, 
 with their dim light of Hades' sun, to the new divinities of this 
 sublunary world of earthly light ; and he shows it both in his 
 Prometheus and in this Oresteian trilogy. He stood firm for 
 the old Areiopagos against the new reformers of Justice. He 
 leaned even towards the harsh Erinnyes, and would not have 
 their worship abolished in his city of Athens. Yet he pro- 
 tested loudly, in this very last pcem, against the terrible and 
 extreme doctrines that had prevailed for long ages before him 
 in Greece ; and he announced the necessity of employing the 
 good offices of the new gods Apollo and Athene chiefly for 
 a reform of the former unnatural severity. 
 
 AVhat had been until his time the doctrine of Greece on sin 
 and its expiation, on the curse uttered against races and families, 
 on the most frequent causes of the wrath of Zeus, and the in- 
 variable and pitiless character of the punishment inflicted on 
 those who incurred the wrath of the gods? It had carried 
 harshness to absurdity ; and yet it was only a too sweeping con- 
 clusion drawn 'from true and heavenly-revealed premises. Any 
 great crime murder, adultery, the violation of hospitality by 
 lust or other outrage, parricide chiefly, and the murder of in- 
 fants, as in the case of Atreus were thought to be absolutely 
 irreparable crimes, which no amount of repentance and expia- 
 tion could wash away from the soul or the body. Xay, more, 
 the guilt passed directly to the posterity of the culprit, until 
 the whole race was finally destroyed. Then only were the 
 Furies satisfied. (Edipus was not guilty of wilful incest and 
 parricide ; yet not only was he awfully punished, but his chil- 
 dren perished by their own hands as an atonement for the 
 crime of their father. Agamemnon was killed by his own
 
 404 GENTILISM. 
 
 wife on account of the atrocious misdeed of Atreus, bis father ; 
 and so of many others. As Rev. "W. Lucas Collins expresses 
 it in his "^Eschylus " (Ancient Classics for General, Readers), 
 page 133 : "We are so much accustomed to regard each man 
 as responsible for his own sins, and these only, that we are in- 
 clined to forget how much is to be said for a different view 
 to forget that children bear the iniquity of their parents. Now 
 here is a nation the Hellenic full of the joy of life, and full 
 also of careful and wondering reflection just like a child, in 
 fact, in both ; and this nation gives us .... as its experience, 
 that a man is not entirely responsible for his own deeds, but is 
 impelled by temptation, which comes on him in punishment 
 of his father's crimes. The moral unit, so to speak, is a house, 
 not a man. A family sins, and a family is punished. The 
 gods, then, are just, though their course of action presses 
 harshly on the individual." 
 
 This is an exact exposition of the case, except that the 
 writer does not say enough, since he does not state that, in 
 many instances, the crime was thought by the Hellenes to be 
 incapable of expiation, even did the posterity of the guilty 
 embrace a virtuous life. In this, evidently, the old Greek 
 religion erred by excess. 
 
 But how were the Hellenes induced to adopt such extreme 
 doctrines ? No reason can be found for it, unless we go back 
 to the origin of mankind, and hear the voice of heaven crying 
 out to the sinful father of the human race, " Quia audisti vocem 
 uxoris tuse, et comedisti de ligno ex quo prseceperam tibi ne corne- 
 deres, maledicta terra in opere tuo, etc." They had heard from 
 tradition that the sin of the first man had brought a curse on 
 the earth itself, and on his posterity, and they concluded that 
 the sin of a father passed to his children ; and all other nations 
 of antiquity drew the same conclusion. But they went further. 
 They first attributed the same frightful effects to sins of igno- 
 rance, as we call them ; taking into account only the material
 
 GREEK AND LATIN POETS. 405 
 
 act, and supposing the guilt, when in fact there could be no 
 responsibility. And, further, as they had not heard of a Re- 
 deemer, and of the treasures of mercy opened through Him 
 for the repentant sinner, they supposed that the destruction of 
 the whole race or family could alone expiate the crime. It 
 was chiefly murder which took such awful proportions, and 
 brought such frightful consequences ; because they had heard 
 probably from the traditions of their ancestors that the first 
 murderer had received for his sentence an absolute curse with- 
 out any qualification, " Maledictus eris super terrain quae .... 
 suscepit sanguinem fratris tui de manu tua." They had more 
 probably yet heard that the second father of mankind, directly 
 after the deluge, of which they certainly knew, had uttered 
 these awful words without a word of attenuation and explana- 
 tion : " Quicumque effuderit humanum sanguinem, fundetur 
 sanguis illius ; ad imaginem quippe Dei factus est homo." "We 
 say that all this had probably come to the knowledge of the 
 Hellenes, because if they knew nothing of it, the fixedness of 
 their belief in the extreme punishment due to murder, even 
 of material murder, is inexplicable. 
 
 But the Greek error went yet farther. According to it, God 
 often punished men and races of men when there had been 
 no crime committed, when only an uninterrupted prosperity 
 offended Him, and excited His wrath. He was a jealous God, 
 not in the sense of the Old Testament, jealous of His honor, 
 and chastising those who transferred to false gods the worship 
 due only to Himself ; but in the sense that man is envious of 
 the prosperity of his neighbor. This strange hallucination, 
 transferring to the Almighty the low passions of His creatures, 
 was universal, not only among the Greeks, but likewise among 
 other ancient nations, and especially among the Egyptians. 
 Herodotus relates several strange stories based on this error. 
 That of Polycrates of Sa'mos is known to everybody. As ho 
 had never met with any reverse of fortune, with even any dis-
 
 406 GENTILISM. 
 
 appointment during his whole life, Amasis of Egypt wrote to 
 him : "Your good fortune frightens me; if you value my 
 friendship, deprive yourself of something dear to you, which 
 may appease the anger of a jealous God." And he threw into 
 the sea a ring of great value, to which he was much attached ; 
 but the day after, a fish was brought to him in which the ring 
 was found ; and Amasis hearing of it, would not have any 
 more intercourse with the too fortunate Polycrates. Shortly 
 after, therefore, he was betrayed into the hands of a Persian 
 satrap, his enemy, who put him to death with most exquisite 
 tortures. Other examples of the same kind, true or false, can 
 be read in the work of the Father of History. At least they 
 give us an idea of what the Greeks thought of God. ^Eschylus 
 himself has expressed it in his " Agamemnon," (v. Y27) : 
 
 " There lives an old law, framed in ancient days 
 In memories of men, that high estate, 
 Full-grown, brings forth its young, nor childless dies ; 
 
 But that from good success 
 Springs to the race a woe unsatiable." 
 
 The consequence of all these errors of the Greeks is well 
 expressed by Mr. Plumptre, as follows (Life of ^Eschylus, 
 page 72) : " Was there a righteous government of the uni- 
 verse ? Was the ruler of gods and men capricious like the 
 kings of earth ? Was he enslaved by some higher law of des- 
 tiny which moved on its way in a darkness that none could 
 penetrate, and to which even He was subject ? It has often 
 been said that this was the theory of the universe which 
 uEschylus embraced ; that the underlying thought in all Greek 
 tragedy, is that of a curse cleaving causelessly to a given race, 
 generation after generation, against which man struggles vainly, 
 each effort to escape only riveting the chains mo e firmly. If 
 any explanation is at hand of the dark mystery of evil, it 
 is that prosperity, as such, makes mefl obnoxious to the jealous 
 wrath of the gods or of their Kuler.
 
 GKEEK AND LATIN POETS. 407 
 
 " It would be far truer, I believe, to say that this is precisely 
 the theory of the divine government which ^Eschylus lived to de- 
 nounce and protest against Against such a theory the 
 
 heart of JEschylus revolted. He craved for a theodikcea, arid 
 came forward in the spirit, one might almost say, of an Atha- 
 nasius contra mundum, to attack the prevailing creed." 
 
 IY. 
 
 And to come to the various details of error enunciated above, 
 we begin by this last. ^Eschylus did not, however, accept this 
 error ; which was altogether derogatory to the divine character, 
 and is unsupported by any primitive revelation even misunder- 
 stood and misrepresented. For immediately after the lines we 
 quoted from the tragedy of Agamemnon, we read the follow- 
 ing protest : 
 
 " But I, apart from all, 
 
 Hold this my creed, alone : 
 For, impious act it is that offspring breeds 
 
 Like to their parent stock ; 
 
 For still in every house 
 That loves the right, their fate for evermore 
 
 Hath issue good and fair." 
 
 " If prosperity sesmsd to be followed by disaster, it was, in 
 the thought of JEschylus, because men yielded to the tempta- 
 tions which it brought with it, and became wanton, haughty, 
 and reckless. The sequence of evil might always be traced to 
 the fountain-head of some sin which might have been* avoid- 
 ed, but which, once committed, went on with accelerating 
 force .... The woes of Atreus' line, the curse that rested on 
 the house of (Edipus, the misery of Troy, are all referred to 
 a root-sin which remained unrepented of and unatoned for." 
 
 But in the second place the assertion that the guilt of every
 
 408 GENTILISM. 
 
 sin can be washed away by expiation, is repeatedly insisted 
 upon in the Oresteian trilogy, and thus ^Eschylus rejects the 
 harsh belief of the heroic age. Orestes exclaims (Eum., v. 423) : 
 
 " I am not now defiled ; no curse alides 
 Upon the hand that on thy (Athene's) statue rests ; 
 And I will give thee proof full strong of this. 
 The law is fixed the murderer should be dumb, 
 Till at the hand of one who frees from blood, 
 The purple stream from yeanling swine run o'er him. 
 Long since, at other houses, these dread rites 
 We have gone through, slain victims, flowing streams ; 
 This care then I can speak of now as gone." 
 
 The chorus in Agamemnon (verse 1541), having asserted 
 that " the doer bears his deed," that " this is heaven's decree," 
 and consequently that " the brood of curses cannot be driven 
 from the kingly house," because " the house to Ate cleaves," 
 Clyternnestra answers forcibly, and as a truth which must be 
 now recognized, that, Agamemnon having suffered for the 
 crime of his father, "her house is now free from fratricidal 
 hate." 
 
 The whole trilogy attests the value of expiation to wash 
 away even the crime of matricide. In the last drama (Eum., 
 v. 227), Orestes, addressing Athene, says pointedly : 
 
 " Do thou receive me graciously, 
 Sin-stained though I have been ; no guilt of blood 
 Is on my soul, nor is my hand unclean." 
 
 He repeats it in answer to the Furies themselves (verse 265). 
 But w should have to quote almost the whole play, if we were 
 to record all the passages of a similar tendency. 
 
 Indeed, more than sixty years before the birth of JEschylus, 
 Epimenides, the prophet of Crete, had been called by the Athe- 
 nians to purify their city afflicted by the plague and discord. 
 The Athenians, it seems, already growing more polished, un-
 
 GREEK AND LATIN POETS. 409 
 
 derstood that there must be under a merciful God means of 
 reconciliation with Heaven. The old harsh belief appeared to 
 be thus giving way to a more just conception of the Deity. 
 
 But did the theory of expiation advocated by ^Eschylus re- 
 quire "a contrite heart," what we call true sorrow for sin? In 
 the case of Orestes, this " sorrow " did not exist, since he always 
 asserted that he had committed no sin in killing his mother. 
 But his case was peculiar. He rested his defence on the plea 
 that he had acted on the positive command of " Apollo and the 
 Oracle." He was, therefore, not only justified in doing " the 
 deed," but he would have been guilty of disobedience to a 
 " divine command," had he refused. His expiation was conse- 
 quently merely an exterior one, such as we are apt to think 
 expiation always was among the Greeks. Blood shed by his 
 hand required that the blood of victims should wash it away. 
 
 Yet the general opinion on the subject, just mentioned, is 
 not correct. (Edipus, certainly, to judge by the Greek drama, 
 was deeply afflicted for his double crime, although done in igno- 
 rance. And many other similar instances will be recollected 
 by the reader. No one can imagine that the Hellenes could 
 have been so dead to every sting of conscience as not to know 
 that the first condition of reconciliation with God required " a 
 contrite heart," as Scripture says. In the words of Mr. Plunip- 
 tre : " It is enough to note the fact that in the theology of 
 ^Eschylus, as in the ritual which the Cretan prophet had intro- 
 duced, and which was propagated by the Orphic and other 
 mystic brotherhoods, the sufferer who groans under the burden 
 of guilt needs, over and above the discipline of buffering and a 
 life ruled by law, purification and atonement ; that the purifica- 
 tion must be wrought by blood poured or sprinkled on the man 
 who sought it ; that he needs the mediation of another in order 
 that the purification may be accomplished ; that to render this 
 office is the greatest kindness which a friend can show to a 
 friend, or host to suppliant -guest ; that when this is done, he
 
 410 GENTILISM. 
 
 may once more draw near, ' with contrite heart,' ' harmless and 
 pure,' to the temples of the gods." 
 
 There remains, finally, on this subject, to consider the opin- 
 ion of the Hellenes on the transmission of guilt from father to 
 son ; we have said that there was exaggeration in this belief, 
 as it made it inevitable, so that a really virtuous posterity had 
 to suffer on account of a guilty ancestor. ^Eschylus, certainly, 
 in several passages of the trilogy, places the responsibility of 
 crime on " the doer," and on no other. " Doer must suffer " 
 is a pretty frequent axiom with him. In this ^Eschylus shared 
 in the doctrine of Ezechiel (xviii. 2, 4, etc.) The discussion of 
 this most obscure and difficult doctrine of the divine govern- 
 ment of the universe does not enter into the plan of this work. 
 But we are naturally brought, by the mere mention we make 
 of it, to consider how the Greek poet came to adopt, with such 
 firmness of opinion, moral decisions of such high import, and 
 so different from the previous belief of his countrymen. 
 
 We have seen how probably the Hellenes were induced to 
 consider great crimes, such as murder, as inexpiable. The 
 words of God to Adam, to Cain, to Noah, were emphatic and 
 absolute, and did not appear to admit of any mitigation. The 
 ancestors of the Pelasgians and Greeks must have heard some- 
 thing at least of the words of Noah speaking in the name of 
 God, since they knew so well the traditions of the flood. Their 
 extraordinary opinion is naturally explained by such tradition, 
 and becomes otherwise almost inexplicable. The same may be 
 said of the belief in the transmission of guilt from father to 
 son, which the Hellenes and other nations must have derived 
 from the doctrine of an original sin on the part of the parents 
 of the human race, or every conjecture is at fault. 
 
 But the Hebrew people, long before .zEschylus, had received 
 a more clear, precise, and detailed revelation through Moses 
 and the prophets, which did away with many difficulties in- 
 Yolved in the axiomatic character of the first. Moses, trans-
 
 GREEK AXD LATIN POETS. 411 
 
 mitting to the people of Israel the law of God, had stated with 
 precision the various cases of homicide, and assigned the pen- 
 alty for each case. Involuntary homicide required no expia- 
 tion whatever, but cities of refuge were appointed for those 
 who had been unhappy enough to kill another unwillingly. 
 Sins of ignorance required an expiation, as " Leviticus " testi- 
 fies. The transmission of guilt from father to son remained 
 always clear and undeniable with respect to the first offence of 
 the father of our race ; but with respect to subsequent individ- 
 ual cases, other than that of Adam, the utterances appeared to 
 be various, because the cases, admitting such transmission or 
 not, were various likewise. On this subject, the opinions of 
 the long-subsequent Fathers of the Church, chiefly comment- 
 ing on the eighteenth chapter of Ezechiel, may be consulted 
 with profit in the works of more modern exegetists of ap- 
 proved capacity. But the question is, Could ^Eschylus have 
 been induced to adopt milder solutions of those great prob- 
 lems by the knowledge communicated to him, by means un- 
 known to us, of the more precise explanation of the divine 
 law contained in the Hebrew Scriptures ? And what might 
 have been those means ? 
 
 It is certain that his emphatic declarations in the Oresteian 
 trilogy bear often a striking analogy with many passages of 
 the Old Testament. Mr. Plumptre, in his " Life of ^Eschylus," 
 does not undertake to decide the question absolutely. He 
 says : " Whether the phenomenon be one of parallelism in 
 religious feeling which often meets us in races that have had 
 no contact with each other, or be due to the influence of Sem- 
 itic thought passing from Syria to the ' Isles of Chittim,' and 
 so through Epimenides to Greece, we need not now discuss." 
 Yet he later admits that the belief of JEschylus on these mo- 
 mentous questions is "every way analogous to that which is 
 dominant in the Old Testament." We need no more than this 
 admission.
 
 412 GENTILISJI. 
 
 Y. 
 
 We have not, however, yet exhausted the subject. The 
 most important, perhaps, as well as the most striking part of it, 
 remains to be developed. We shall endeavor to do this with 
 all the brevity possible. The doctrine of the great Greek 
 poet, in his Oresteian trilogy, contains axioms we may call 
 them so on the divine government of the world, which are 
 found nowhere else in Hellenic philosophy and poetry, and 
 which raise it to an elevation approaching that of some of the 
 most solemn utterances of Holy Scripture. The great ques- 
 tions, Why is there evil in the world? and why does God per- 
 mit evil at all? are, no doubt, the most difficult of ethical 
 theology. ^Eschylus attempts to solve them, and he does it as 
 no other Greek writer ever did. 
 
 First; he admits the great law of suffering for all : 
 
 " Save the Gods, 
 Who free from suffering lives out all his life ? " (Agam., 536.) 
 
 There is, especially, in the same play, beginning verse 346, 
 a full description by the Chorus, beginning, " O Zeus, our 
 King ! " of all the woes endured by the Trojans, as well as by 
 the Greeks during the war, so generalized, although full of 
 details, so heart-rending and bitter, that it looks as an effusion 
 of Pascal when speaking of the miseries of our humanity. 
 The following short quotation will give the reader some idea 
 of it. After having described the woes ,of Ilion, the poet turns 
 to the Hellenes : 
 
 " From Hellas' ancient shore 
 A sore distress that causeth pain of heart 
 
 Is seen in every house. 
 Yea, many things there are that touch the quick : 
 
 For those whom each did send 
 
 He knoweth ; but, instead
 
 GREEK A:XD LATES POETS. 413 
 
 Of living men, there comes to each man's home 
 
 Funereal urns alone, 
 
 And ashes of the dead. 
 For Ares, trafficking for golden coin 
 
 The lifeless shapes of men, . 
 And in the rush of battle holding scales, 
 
 Sends now from Ilion, 
 
 Dust from the funereal pyre." 
 
 But how does the poet look on this universal spectacle of 
 gloom ? Is Zeus blind ? And does he afflict mortals without 
 any other object than inflicting suffering ? ^Eschylus could 
 not, if he would, think thus of Him whom he acknowledges 
 in the same drama as the Supreme, and, we may say, only 
 God (v. 158) : 
 
 " O Zeus whatever He be, 
 
 If that Name please Him well, 
 
 By that on Him I call : 
 Weighing all other name?, I fail to guess 
 Aught else but Zeus, if I would cast aside 
 
 Clearly, in very deed, 
 From off my soul this weight of vaguest care." 
 
 Why is it that this God, on Iccount of whose Name " every- 
 one ought to cast aside the weight of care," has established all 
 over the world this law of universal suffering ? The answer of 
 ^Eschylus is plain, unmistakable. In many cases, by " suffer- 
 ing " the sins of many men are punished, and not only in this 
 life, but likewise hereafter ; for, speaking of Hades, he says : 
 
 " There, as men relate, a second Zeus 
 Judges men's evil deeds, and to the dead 
 Assigns their last great penalties." (Suppl. 226.) 
 
 And (in Eumen., v. 168) Erinnys declares of the sinner : 
 
 " Though 'neath the earth he flee, he is not freed, 
 For he, blood-stained, shall find upon his head 
 Another after me, 
 Destroyer foul and dread."
 
 414 GENTILISM. 
 
 Again (v. 325) : 
 
 " Nor shall death set him free." 
 
 This is but a specimen of many other passages we might 
 have quoted. But there are cases when we, at least, cannot 
 perceive that any crime has been committed worthy of those 
 " great penalties," and yet they are inflicted. The poet sup- 
 poses, even, that sometimes man may suffer in this life without 
 having really deserved it. How is this ? Can we justify the 
 government of Zeus ? His answer partially unfolds a doctrine 
 often repeated in the trilogy, chiefly in "Agamemnon," and 
 which sheds a halo of almost Christian light around the enigma. 
 Then, says ^Eschylus, Tradrniara become \iaQi\\iara\ suffering 
 brings knowledge, wisdom, and, consequently, gain : 
 
 " Zeus who leadeth men in wisdom's way, 
 And fixeth fast the law, 
 Wisdom by pain to gain." (V. 170.) 
 
 Again (v. 241) : 
 
 " Justice turns the scale 
 For those to whom Through pain 
 At last comes wisdom's gain." 
 
 And in " Eum." (v. 491) : 
 
 " There are with whom it is well 
 That awe should still abide, 
 As watchmen o'er their souls ; 
 Calm wisdom, gained by sorrow, profits much." 
 
 Thus, in ^Eschylus, we find the recognition of a moral dis- 
 cipline by which men 
 
 " May rise on stepping-stones 
 Of their dead selves to higher things/' 
 
 This last reflection we find in Mr. Plumptre's " Life of
 
 GEEEK AND LATENT POETS. 415 
 
 ./Eschylus," from whom also we took the last quotations. In- 
 deed, we mostly use his translation of the Greek poet, as it 
 is admitted to be the best we now possess in English. 
 
 This remarkable doctrine of ^Eschylus is derived, it seems, 
 from that " Orphic literature*' of which we have already said 
 so much. From which also are derived several other expres- 
 sions of the tragic poet which appear in his works in the garb 
 of proverbial ancl traditional sayings, such as the extraordinary 
 phrase used long after as addressed to St. Paul : " It is useless 
 to kick against the pricks." We have already discussed the 
 probable origin of the Orphic poetry ; and we will here 
 merely invite the reader's attention to the above as an addi- 
 tional proof of what we have all along maintained, namely, 
 that it was not the spurious product of Christian writers of 
 the third or fourth century who clothed in a new garb the pre- 
 vious writings of Plato ; since an Hellenic author, who flourished 
 before Plato, knew that old poetry and profited by it. 
 
 VI. 
 
 The same ^Eschylus, as given by Justin Martyr (in Monar- 
 chia) sets forth the power of God (in one of his lost tragedies) 
 in the following splendid outburst of poetry : 
 
 " Place God apart from mortals ; and think not 
 
 That He is, like thyself, corporeal. 
 * Thou knowest Him not. Now He appears as fire, 
 Dread force ! as water now ; and now as gloom ; 
 And in the beasts is dimly shadowed forth, 
 % In wind, and cloud, in lightning, thunder, rain ; 
 
 And minister to Him the seas and rocks, 
 Each fountain and the water's floods and streams. 
 The mountains tremble, and the earth, the vast 
 Abyss of sea, and towering height of hills, 
 When on them looks the Sovereign's awful eye : 
 Almighty is the glory of the Most High God." 
 28
 
 416 GENTILISM. 
 
 Is not this another proof of our so-often-repeated assertion : 
 that the higher we go in time, the more orthodox are the 
 ancient writers, ami the more like they appear to the true in- 
 spired prophets of God ? ^Eschylus, it is known, is the oldest 
 great tragic writer of Greece. 
 
 Sophocles, almost his contemporary, is likewise full of grand 
 thoughts, worthy of a remote age. A most remarkable passage 
 of one of his lost poems, has been preserved by Hecateeus, and 
 is quoted by St. Clement of Alexandria (Stromata) : 
 
 '' One in very truth, God is one, 
 Who made the heaven and the far stretching earth, 
 The Deep's blue billow, and the might of wind% 
 But of us mortals, many erring far 
 la heart, as solace for our woes, have raised 
 Images of gods of stone, or else of brass, 
 Or figures wrought of gold or i^>ry ; 
 And sacrifices and vain festivals 
 To these appointing, deem ourselves devout." 
 
 The old Greek comic poets, who flourished before Aristo- 
 phanes, have also often rendered testimony to the superior 
 orthodoxy of early literature. Unfortunately we possess only 
 a few fragments of their works. We have already spoken of 
 Epicharmus, whom Plato was fond of consulting. A passage 
 of Diphilus, quoted by St. Clement, is remarkable for the pre- 
 cise notion he entertained of a future judgment : 
 
 " Thinkest thou, O Niceratus, that the dead, 
 Who in all kinds of luxury in life have shared* 
 Escape the Deity, as, if forgot ? 
 There is an eye of justice, which sees all. 
 For two ways, as we deem, to Hades lead 
 
 One for the good, the other for the bad. 
 But if earth hides l>oth for ever, then, 
 Go plunder, steal, rob, and be turbulent. 
 But err not. For in Hades judgment is 
 Which God the Lord of all will execute, 
 Whose name too dreadful is for me to name,
 
 GEEEK AND LATEST POETS. 417 
 
 Who gives to sinners length of earthly life. 
 
 If any mortal thinks that day by day, 
 
 While doing ill, he eludes the gods' keen sight, 
 
 His thoughts are evil ; and when justice has 
 
 The leisure, he shall then detected be 
 
 So thinking. Look, whoever you be that say 
 
 That there is not a God. There is, there is. 
 
 If one, by nature evil, evil does, 
 
 Let him redeem the time ; for such as he 
 
 Shall by and by due punishment receive." 
 
 We have before remarked that Plato also had very precise 
 and clear ideas of a future judgment ; not before the tribunal 
 of Minos, but before that of God. Did he take them from 
 the works of the comic poets (strange comic poets indeed) ? 
 or from the fragments left of old philosophers or lawgivers ? 
 
 "We will conclude our quotations by a short passage from 
 Aratus, who lived in the third century before Christ, and whom 
 St. Paul honored by a quotation. Our readers may like to see 
 something more explicit of the text out of which the great 
 apostle of the Gentiles took the phrase, " Ipsiibs enim genus 
 sumus" It is take'n from the " Phenomena " of Aratus : 
 
 " With Zeus let us begin ; Whom let us ne'er, 
 Being men, leave unexpressed. All full of Zeus, 
 The streets and throngs of men, and full the sea, 
 And shores, and everywhere we Zeus enjoy. 
 
 For we also are 
 
 His offspring ; Who bland to men, 
 
 Propitious signs displays, and to their tasks 
 Arouses. For these signs in heaven He fixed, 
 The constellations spread, and crowned the year 
 With stars ; to show to men the seasons' tasks, 
 That all things may proceed in order sure. 
 Him ever first, Him last too they adore : 
 Hail Father, marvel great great boon to men ! " 
 
 A great number of such texts can be found in Eusebius' 
 " Prseparatio Evarigelica," in Clement of Alexandria, in St. Jus-
 
 418 GEISTTILISM. 
 
 tin Martyr " de Monarcliia," and in many other Fathers of the 
 Church. 
 
 Hence St. Clement of Alexandria could say in general of 
 the question which occupies us (Strom., Book v.) : " No race 
 anywhere of tillers of the soil, or nomads, and not even of 
 dwellers in cities, can live without being imbued with the faith 
 of one superior Being. Wherefore, every eastern nation, and 
 every nation touching the western shores, or the north, or to- 
 wards ' the south all have one and the same preconception of 
 Him who hath appointed the government of the universe; 
 since the most universal of His operations equally pervade all. 
 Much more did the philosophers among the^Greeks, devoted to 
 investigation, starting from the barbarian philosophy, attribute 
 providence to the invisible, and sole, and most powerful, and 
 most skilful, and supreme cause of all things." 
 
 YII. 
 
 Knowing, as we do, how Latin literature became early im- 
 pressed with the Hellenic form, and adopted not only the polish 
 and exterior elegance of Greek poetry, but chiefly the thoughts 
 and even phraseology of that brilliant nation, we cannot be 
 surprised that the same phenomenon, the study of which has 
 occupied us so long as far as regards the east of Europe, should 
 have been equally remarkaV.e in the west ; so that the Roman 
 philosophers, mere copyists of "those of Hellas, became the 
 apostles of the old traditions among their countrymen, and im- 
 parted to them a faint flush of the light of primitive barbarian 
 philosophy, as St. Clement of Alexandria calls it, or rather of 
 the primitive divine revelation imparted to mankind, as we 
 would prefer to say. 
 
 But it is chiefly among the Latin poets that this becomes 
 remarkable ; although many passages of Cicero might be quoted
 
 GEEEK AKD LATIN POETS. 419 
 
 
 
 in support of our position. If one of them Lucretius de- 
 voted his immense talent to the propagation of atheism and 
 materialism, and to the denial of the great truths so prevalent 
 still in his time, all the others, even those from whom it was 
 least to be expected, such as Ovid, have invariably proclaimed 
 those noble conceptions of ancient seers and poets, relative to 
 creation, the golden age, the first sin, its punishment, the flood, 
 and the promise of happier days, committed finally to immor- 
 tal verse by Yirgil himself, as the " renovation of ages," and 
 the renewal of the " reign of Virgin Astrsea," or Justice. 
 
 When we read the beginning of the first book of the " Meta- 
 morphoses " of Ovid, we are surprised to see so many points of 
 coincidence with revealed truth in Genesis / and although pa- 
 ganism had certainly tainted many of those great original tradi- 
 tions, yet so much of them remain that we wonder how they 
 could have been so well preserved in the midst of such a mul- 
 titude of absurd myths and fables. The exception of Lucre- 
 tius' poem increases still more our surprise ; since it was only 
 an exception ; and the Romans of the tune knew that to be so. 
 Hence it was opposed with a kind of horror by all those who 
 had not admitted the doctrines of Epicurus. The fact, also, 
 that a great polemic writer of the seventeenth century, Cardi- 
 nal Polignae, thought he would render a service to religion by 
 writing a refutation of Lucretius in Latin verse, shows that 
 those times of the Augustan age were very like our own, when 
 the flood of light poured upon mankind by the revelation of the 
 Gospel is dimmed by the faint equivocations of adversaries, 
 and has to be kept in its brightness by renewed and definite 
 affirmations of the truth. At the epoch, therefore, of the 
 greatest moral corruption in Rome, the truth was known, or at 
 least suspected, by many ; and only a comparatively few re- 
 jected it, in order to introduce false theories and disorganizing 
 Utopias ; much as we witness in our age. 
 
 It must be particularly remarked, that the Latin poets did
 
 420 GENTILISM. 
 
 
 
 not proclaim it as a modern discovery of philosophers, as a 
 bright result of individual inquiry. They sang of it as a " pre- 
 cious deposit " handed down to us from ancestors, as a deriva 
 tion, in fact, of a heavenly voice addressed to man from the 
 beginning. The opposing systems those flippant theories of 
 atheism and unbelief were openly declared to be new / they 
 had been found out by the deep minds of philosophers of latter 
 times ; and the very course they advocated was the rejection of 
 old tales, as they called them, for the pure doctrine of modern 
 philosophy. Would it be possible for us to find a more cogent 
 argument in support of our thesis ? 
 
 It is unnecessary to burden our pages with a number of quo- 
 tations from the Latin poets, as all those who are likely to be 
 our readers are quite familiar with them. A glance at them in 
 order to elicit their significance in relation to our subject will 
 be sufficient. Who has not been struck with the strange ano- 
 maly of a long series of authors, poets principally, whose chief 
 source of inspiration is the prevalent and popular mythology, 
 brilliant on the surface, it is true, but in reality absurd, irra- 
 "tional, and immoral ; yet occasionally startling one by concepts 
 of the highest order, involving of necessity a deep knowledge 
 of things human and divine, and speaking of the highest con- 
 cerns of the soul, almost as an enlightened Christian would in 
 a refined age ? And, we may add, that, when those great and 
 immortal writers venture to touch on those sublime topics, 
 they invariably tell us that it is ancient wisdom which speaks 
 through them ; that they are merely the mouth-pieces of old 
 seers and prophets ; and that it is the deep poetry of the most 
 ancient times from which they draw their inspiration. 
 
 Thus, in Greece and Rome, we see two great streams of relig- 
 ion and ethics running parallel to each other ; most distinct, 
 and in every respect opposite; yet, watering the same coun- 
 tries, feeding the same soil, and nourishing apart, but in the 
 same fields, flowers and fruits on one side, and baneful poisons
 
 GEEEK AXD LATIN POETS. 421 
 
 on the other. Unfortunately one of these streams was the 
 only one apparent to the multitude, the only one from which 
 mankind received its " culture," as it is called, the only one to 
 mould men, and give them a shape. This was polytheism. 
 The other running, as it were, under ground ; well known to a 
 few, because deep knowledge was then possible only to a few, 
 and these few were afraid of communicating to the multitude 
 doctrines which they were not prepared to receive. 
 
 Hence, in order to make ourselves of these modern ages 
 acquainted with the existence of that hidden stream in anti- 
 quity, we have to search with untiring industry into the varied 
 lore of those old times, and to avail ourselves of all the aid 
 our Christian criticism and appreciation can afford us. And 
 although the "ancients" have been known and studied, not 
 only from the " revival " in the fifteenth century, but from the 
 very formation of modern nations after the overflow of barba- 
 rism, yet it is only in our days that the true knowledge of the 
 tendency and manifold bearings of the literature of Greece and 
 Rome has begun to be truly known and appreciated. 
 
 It may be even said that in the opinion of many, even living 
 authors, the noble river flowing from the primitive ages, and 
 enriching the literature of Eastern and Central Europe during 
 pagan times, is not considered as sufficiently ascertained to be 
 altogether relied upon ; and these men see only in polytheist 
 Greece and Rome a mass of absurd tales and conceits impossi- 
 ble to be systematized. Thus the author of " Gentile and 
 Jew," writing of Gentilism, brings forward the treasure of a 
 vast erudition, but fragmentary, confused, incapable of being 
 reduced to any approved whole. It is the chaos of a discon- 
 nected polytheism, whose limbs, broken and disjointed, lay be- 
 fore you in a maze of confusion ; from the study of which you 
 i ie up not one whit more enlightened than when you sat down 
 to its perusal. As to the other hidden stream flowing silently 
 from remote ages, and bearing the testimony of primitive
 
 422 GENTILISM. 
 
 dom and true culture, not a word is said of it ; probably be- 
 cause, in the opinion of the author, it would have been unscien- 
 tific this is the word now used start what to him appeared a 
 mere problematic theory, since, forsooth, the " ancients " did not 
 positively announce it in so many words, or only rarely, and 
 it is thus to be deduced from diligent investigation, erudite 
 reasoning, and exhumation of a long-buried literature. For the 
 same reason, most probably, the same writer, in speaking of 
 Judaism, and pretending to unfold the true religion of the 
 " people of God," does not mention, even once, so far as we 
 remember, the typical character of their worship, which was 
 in fact the chief one. No allusion is made to the temporary, 
 figurative, and shadowy nature of a religion whose only object 
 was twofold : to keep more securely, and with more purity, 
 the deposit of the old traditions than the Gentiles could do, 
 and to prepare the world for a universal belief and worship, 
 at whose appearing the special mission of Judaism would cease. 
 Hence, all the splendid interpretations of the Mosaic law and 
 customs, given by all the Fathers of the Church, without excep- 
 tion, either Greek or Latin, are thrown aside as unworthy, it 
 would seem, of the exegesis of our enlightened age ; as if 
 Origen particularly, the great interpreter of Judaic myths and 
 figures, was altogether a childish exegetist of Scripture, in com- 
 parison with the numerous array of German naturalistic ex- 
 pounders of the Bible ! 
 
 To our thinking, on the other hand, the existence in Greece 
 and Rome, of a mighty undercurrent of what we call the prim- 
 itive revelation, is a well-ascertained fact, although undoubt- 
 edly the great mass of Romans and Greeks was completely un- 
 aware of it ; and even those writers in whose noble productions 
 the sacred fragments of this tradition are yet now found, were 
 often themselves unable to appreciate them thoroughly. Py- 
 +hagoras and Plato, the last one chiefly, seem to have been the 
 two men who were the most fully imbued with the holiness
 
 GKEEK AND LATEST POETS. * 423 
 
 of the ancient doctrine ; and who spoke of it with a respect, a 
 conviction, and a noble simplicity worthy o the subject. In 
 the Latin world it had become, we may say, a mere literary 
 fire-~bug, good for an exhibition of poetic talent, and to strike 
 the beholder with amazement and surprise. Ovid, probably, 
 saw in those great thoughts of ancient time, only a means of 
 turning agreeable and pointed verses ; and he must have read 
 over many times with a secret, but well-pleased vanity, the lines 
 in which he described the noble and erect standing of man in 
 the midst of grovelling and low-born animals : " Os homini sub- 
 lime dedit . . . ." As to Yirgil, it is enough to say that in the 
 Eclogue, where he seems to be a translator of Isaiah, he had 
 most probably in view only to celebrate the birth of a promis- 
 ing l>oy to his friend Pollio. 
 
 Yet, in spite of all this, the fact is indubitable that in the 
 midst of idolatry, there was then in pagan Europe a faint 
 remembrance of holier doctrines and promises ; and this is all 
 we have to establish. 
 
 YIII. 
 
 But of the other stream, it may be said to have been over- 
 whelming and devastating. We have endeavored to impart 
 some faint idea of it. To convey anything like an adequate 
 conception would require a volume of much' larger bulk than 
 we should like to impose on the patience of our readers. It 
 would require a condensation of all that the Fathers of the 
 Church in the four or five first centuries have said of the fool- 
 ishness, absurdity, immorality, and universal demoralization of 
 polytheism. It would require a solid array of passages scattered 
 through a large number of volumes, and unknown, for the most 
 part of them, to our generation, to whom the taste is wanting 
 of going through the simple enumeration of those absurdities. 
 Yet it is a sad fact that these " absurdities " were the " daily
 
 424 GENTILISM. 
 
 bread " of great and apparently enlightened nations ; that they 
 formed, we may sly, the staple of their life ; and that for mil- 
 lions of human beings, during many ages, there was no other 
 religion ; indeed, no other poetry, art, ancient history, current 
 literature, nor source of ethics, or national aspirations, but 
 what was derived from the senseless and immoral legends of 
 those gods and goddesses. And even the few noble minds who 
 had sense enough to despise and abominate the whole corrupt 
 mass, found themselves under the necessity of speaking with 
 respect of it ; yea, of practising outwardly the ridiculous nonsense 
 ' of the national religion, and to become fools among fools, and 
 dotards among children. 
 
 But what ought to attract our attention chiefly, is the ulti- 
 mate disintegration which those senseless rites brought among 
 nations submitted to them. We saw it existing, to a certain 
 extent, in Hiudostan, and to a great degree in Egypt, where we 
 particularly remarked it, in speaking of animal- worship along 
 the Nile. We observed the same in Greece, described in a 
 bold sketch, although in a few words, by St. Clement of Alex- 
 andria. Religion, which ought to be the bond of nations, had 
 become the source of endless divisions ; and if the Greeks had 
 not had their common language, their common taste for art, 
 their ardent love of liberty, and their primitive spirit of coali- 
 tion in forming confederacies, their religion would have carried 
 among them disintegration down to the last social element 
 the village or the hamlet. Then they would not have had to 
 say only, "Hera is worshipped at Samos, Apollo at Delos, 
 Athene at Athens, Artemis Orthia at Sparta, Yenus at Gnidos 
 and Cythera, Zeus at Olympia, and BO of the others." They 
 would have had to complete the list which St. Clement of 
 Alexandria only began ; and the whole would have been a per- 
 fect picture of a complete decomposition of polytheism itself. 
 Prof. Heeren whom we have already quoted so frequently, 
 and whom we like to quote on account of the lucidity of his
 
 GEEEK AND LATIN POETS. 425 
 
 ideas, the general sobriety of his views, and his thorough 
 knowledge of antiquity is obliged to use the following lan- 
 guage (Ancient Greece, Ch. 7th) : " Unlike the religious of 
 the East, the religion of the Hellenes was supported by no 
 sacred books, was connected with no peculiar doctrines ; it 
 could not, therefore, serve like the former to unite a nation by 
 
 means of a common religion As the nation had no 
 
 caste of priests, nor even a united order of priesthood, it nat- 
 urally followed, that though individual temples could in a cer- 
 tain degree become national temples, this must depend, for the 
 most part, on accidental circumstances ; and where everything 
 was voluntary, nothing could be settled by established forms 
 like those which prevailed in other countries." Heeren, it is 
 true, afterwards pretends that in spite of these adverse circum- 
 stances, two or three temples became really national, on account 
 of the oracles connected with them ; he names those of Do- 
 dona and Delphi, which he thinks formed, through the oracles, 
 the connecting link between politics and religion ; and he says 
 that : " Their great political influence, especially in the States 
 of the Doric race, is too well known from history to make it* 
 necessary to adduce proofs of it." But finally he confesses 
 and this is worthy of attention that " Their great political in- 
 fluence became less after the Persian war When the re- 
 ciprocal hatred of the Athenians and Spartans excited them to 
 the fury of civil war, how much suffering would have been 
 spared to Greece, if the voice of the gods had been able to 
 avert the storm ! " 
 
 This quotation from the Gottingen Professor offers a strong 
 confirmation of our argument ; since he himself does not see 
 any national temple and national religion in Greece, except 
 through oracles, which originally were counted to the number 
 of three or four, gradually were reduced to that of Delphi 
 alone, and finally this last, not long after the Persian war, be- 
 came silent. That silence had been already of a long duration
 
 426 GENTILISM. 
 
 when Plutarch wrote his treatise : De oraculorum defectu. 
 Hence we ought not to be surprised, especially after perusing 
 these remarks of Heeren, that in the time of St. Clement of 
 Alexandria, long after the disappearance of all oracular priest- 
 esses, religion was reduced to the state he so graphically de- 
 scribed. 
 
 The Greek nationality was never compact ; it was always, in 
 fact, an aggregation of small tribes, each with its customs, tra- 
 ditions, and tales. Plutarch is called a gossiping writer ; but 
 on that account, precisely, he was eminently Grecian. And 
 Herodotus himself shines particularly with that amiable quality 
 of what the French carl "un conteur." All the great Hellenic 
 writers, not excepting the tragic dramatists, show the same 
 idiosyncrasy. We may call it the clannish spirit, fond of vil- 
 lage tales. In a word, the supposed powerful confederacy of 
 Grecian States was merely an aggregation of clans, constantly 
 changing their respective attitude by forming or dissolving 
 their alliances or feuds. And this is so remarkable, that any- 
 one who labors under the almost universal mistake of suppos- 
 ing a strong cohesion among them, owing to what is called 
 their patriotism, is, or ought to be, altogether unsettled in his 
 belief, when he reads in'the great work of the " Father of His- 
 tory," that the only Greeks who fought at Marathon were 
 " some thousand Athenians, and a few hundred Platseans ; " 
 and that when Xerxes with his millions of men invaded Hellas, 
 even before he left Persia, all the Greek States had granted 
 him " earth and water," except the Spartans who perished at 
 the Thermopylae to the number of " three hundred," and the 
 Athenians who left their city to obey " the oracle " and repair- 
 ed on their " wooden ships " to wander about the ocean whilst 
 the enemy burned Athens. We have no wish to detract from 
 the glory attached to the great names of Leonidas, Miltiades, 
 and Themistocles. Their memory is immortal, and the forti- 
 tude alone with which, at the head of a few thousand brave
 
 GEEEX AXD LATIX POETS. 427 
 
 warriors, they encountered the mighty armaments of the Per- 
 sians, would of itself render them for ever glorious. But it 
 would be folly to think that the innumerable troops led on by 
 Mardonius and Xerxes were defeated only by the diminutive 
 forces which met them at Thermopylae and Marathon ; and 
 even by the Athenian fleet in the ./Egean sea. "What would 
 become, in that case, of the memorable saying of Napoleon, 
 that success is attached to " les gros bataillons" f The fact is, 
 that the Persians were chiefly defeated by their own huge bulk. 
 They were too unwieldly to manoeuvre, and too numerous to 
 feed. 
 
 The great Persian war, therefore, is no proof of a strong 
 nationality among the Greeks. All the events of the contest 
 prove the contrary. The Persian hosts, as they rolled on 
 Greece, met a few tribes, standing resolutely before them ; 
 and as might have been expected, they melted away in a few. 
 months in the plains and around the mountains of a country 
 where they could not be recruited, and could not live after 
 having " drank the rivers " and devoured the " produce of the 
 fields " of the year previous. 
 
 But how is it that there was no compact nationality among 
 the Greeks ? They appeared made to form a great nation. 
 They all had strong aspirations after the same form of govern- 
 ment the republican ; they loved their country, spoke the 
 same language, were great organizers, mighty colonizers ; they 
 all had the same tastes of simplicity of living, apparel, and 
 dwelling. With the exception of those barbarians of Sparta, 
 they carried elegance and good taste farther than it has ever 
 been carried by any other race on earth ; they were brave, well 
 instructed, well made, strong of body, acute of mind, etc., etc. 
 How is it, we repeat again, that they never formed a great 
 nation ? The reason is plain, many will say : " They could 
 not coalesce to form a large State, through their love of liberty, 
 and thus they remained wedded to their fragmentary exist-
 
 428 GENTILISM. 
 
 ence." This, we confess, cannot satisfy us. They could have 
 remained free, even in a different state of agglomeration. 
 Great organizers as they were, they could have introduced the 
 free institutions common to all the tribes, into a larger organ- 
 ism than that of the city. They never thought of it ; and 
 Plato himself, in writing his description of an imaginary 
 republic, supposes it confined to a few villages and one larger 
 city. And when there was question of establishing it in fact, 
 he relied on the promise of Dionysius, the Tyrant of Syracuse, 
 to give him a few miles of territory in Sicily. Within thus 
 narrow a range were limited the views of the Greeks as to 
 the constitution of States. What was the cause of this ? The 
 true explication is to be found in the following axiom : To 
 expand the ideas, and to raise the mind up to the level of so 
 great a subject as that of the permanent constitution of civil 
 society, religion must be the preponderating term. Hence 
 Rome, in order to extend and consolidate her power, had to 
 spread her religious ideas by admitting the gods of the nations 
 she conquered. It was an unsatisfactory solution of the ques- 
 tion, and could not succeed in the long run ; but something of 
 the kind had to be done, and this, at least, she did. 
 
 Greece never attempted anything of the same nature, with 
 the exception of the two or three oracular temples she built, 
 which, in time, disappeared, and left her to the desolation of 
 " individualism." Here is to be found the true explanation of 
 the clannish political views of the Greeks, even of their ablest 
 writers on political philosophy. The disorganization of relig- 
 ious thought amongst the Hellenes was the true source of their 
 complete social and political disorganization. Heeren himself 
 saw a great difference, which he especially noticed, between 
 the religious worship of Hellas and that of India or Egypt, 
 with respect to nationality or universality of belief. Yet, as 
 was seen, disintegration entered deeply, in course of time, into 
 the cult of these two great races. !N either India nor Egypt
 
 GEEEK AXD LATIN POETS. 429 
 
 were so well known in the time of the Gottingen Professor as 
 tliey are now. It is now ascertained much more clearly than 
 it was forty years ago, that a deep " sectarian " strife, intro- 
 duced chiefly by the rank idolatry of the tantras although 
 many ages before Buddhism had already produced the same 
 result agitated Hindostan and divided it into fragments, in 
 spite of the pretended national religion, of which Heeren 
 speaks. And, as to the Egyptians of Pharaonic times, we 
 think we have proved sufficiently the great difference in homo- 
 geneity of thought throughout the country, between the old 
 dynasties previous to the eighteenth, and the last ones during 
 which Amasis and Psammeticus flourished. The opposition of 
 north and south, city and city, hamlet and hamlet, appears 
 principally in the later times ; and it must have been 
 so, owing to the ever - increasing division in worship and 
 customs. 
 
 At the very outset of the human race, it is true that the 
 division among men appears, at first sight, to have been as 
 great as it ever was afterwards ; for then clanship was flourish- 
 ing everywhere. The whole globe was covered with tribes. 
 The patriarchal epoch was eminently an epoch of septs. Does 
 not this settle the question ? Have we not defeated ourselves ? 
 ^ot in the least. First, the tribal state in mankind subsisted 
 many ages after the patriarchal period had ceased ; and, as we 
 have before observed, the work of Strabo is the most irrefrag- 
 able proof of our assertion. Let any one open it anywhere at 
 random, he will find that his geography is a mere tribal geog- 
 raphy. Yet Strabo lived under Augustus. Thus the Roman 
 Empire itself had not changed this state of things, nor had it 
 destroyed the primitive septs. It had only done what all pre- 
 vious empires had effected. It had aggregated living tribal 
 organizations into a huge administrative system. In fact, we 
 repeat, in going through the pages of universal history, the 
 reader has to come down to our own days before he reaches
 
 430 GENTILISM. 
 
 the great epoch of the absorption of tribes into huge bodies 
 called " nationalities," yea, more, centralized nationalities. 
 
 We know how Napoleon III. thought he had discovered a 
 great fact and had immortalized himself by the discovery 
 when he threw the word before Europe and mankind. The 
 fact is, the word was scarcely used before. Certainly it was 
 not understood in this its new sense ; and we conclude that 
 the latter times of polytheism had no advantage, in that 
 regard, over the patriarchal period. Tribal division existed 
 in both cases ; but this is not the question we are discussing. 
 The real question is of mental division, doctrinal antipathy, 
 religious animosity. There was nothing of the kind in prim- 
 itive times. All the tribes originally worshipped One God ; 
 had the same moral principles, the same traditions on creation, 
 providence, sin, expiation, aspirations towards a future which 
 would repair the evil. Pantheism, polytheism, idolatry, are 
 not coeval with the origin of man, in spite of what the new 
 " leaders of thought " may say. They came af terwards, and 
 brought on " sectarianism ;". that is, antagonism in mind, strife 
 in belief, division in hopes, confusion in worship, anarchy in 
 the spiritual world of man, and as the ultimate conclusion, the 
 frightful appearance of mere "individualism," which is rising 
 again in our days, after having been exorcised by Christianity. 
 
 Thus the physical globe itself, by which we began these con- 
 siderations, and to which we return at the end of them, was 
 altogether diverted from the primitive plan of God. The seas, 
 the rivers, the mountains, the deserts did not continue to be 
 mere geographical limits, to be subsequently overcome, and to 
 become some of them, at least a powerful means of inter- 
 communication. These limits did no more separate commu- 
 nities united in faith, and accepting all the same social and 
 religious principles, showing the unity of their origin by the 
 admission of the same great truths which lay at the bottom of 
 all minds. They, now, divided races dissociated by mutual
 
 GREEK AND LATIN POETS. 431 
 
 antipathies, religious, political, and social. They made the 
 globe, which we call " our Earth," intended, at first, to be the 
 dwelling of a universal family, having the same worship, the 
 same hopes and fears, the same eternal destiny and temporal 
 happiness they made it what? ' An agglomeration of dis- 
 tinct " small parks," each inclosed with a strong fence ; eac-h 
 containing a peculiar kind of wild beasts, growling at the bar- 
 barians outside, and intent finally on devouring each other, 
 after having tried to enslave or devour the " foreigners." And 
 this horrible state of things was caused chiefly by a frightful 
 departure from a primitive common faith, and by the adoption 
 of separate and degrading superstitions, all evidently originat- 
 ing from the Evil One, the great adversary of God and man, 
 wishing to be worshipped by senseless admirers, and to intro- 
 duce on earth the anarchy of hell. 
 
 And to show how the configuration of the globe, so evi- 
 dently made for an altogether different purpose, was taken ad- 
 vantage of by him, to divide and sub-divide mankind, we have 
 only to turn a moment to the physical geography of Greece, 
 since it is of Greece we are now speaking. 
 
 Look first at the southern peninsula called Peloponnesus, a 
 kind of miniature Switzerland, with its small central plateau, 
 celebrated under the name of Arcadia. The very word evokes 
 ideas of peaceful pastoral life, rural happiness, and never-fail- 
 ing abundance. Yet, from this central paradise radiate S3ven 
 short chains of mountains, which will divide effectually as 
 many tribes, if not more, all hostile to one another. The Tay- 
 getus, one of them, will interpose its rude peaks and impractic- 
 able valleys between the Laeonians and Messenians. In spite 
 of the apparently insurmountable obstacle, a relentless war will 
 be waged between the two tribes. And if, for many centuries, 
 the Messenians are reduced to " helotism," the spirit of mutual 
 hatred will never be extinguished, and Epaminondas, much 
 later, will think himself immortalized by a final revenge in 
 29
 
 432 GEXTILISM. 
 
 favor of the Messenians in vindicating the rights of his own 
 Bceotia. 
 
 Argolis, towards the east, will be so completely separated 
 from the rest of the peninsula by huge rocks, but chiefly by 
 the sea, that after the great renown of its primitive heroes 
 the Atridee it shall literally sleep for centuries in an inglorious 
 isolation from the rest of the world. The dramatic stage, how- 
 ever, will take good care to remind all posterity that the land 
 of Argos was stained at first by frightful crimes, the feast of 
 Atreus and Thyestes, the adultery of Clytemnestra, the murder 
 of Agamemnon by this she-wolf, dying herself finally under 
 the dagger of her own son, Orestes. With such an unenviable 
 renown, the Argives did well not to engage any more in strife. 
 But their subsequent obscurity is a strong proof of their com- 
 plete isolation, favored by an almost insular position on the 
 sea, and a complete want of intercourse with their nearest Pe- 
 loponnesian neighbors. 
 
 Elis, in the west of the peninsula, formed an exception there- 
 in, and remained at peace, owing to its sacred character, which 
 made it, really, with Delphi, the only spot of Greece where the 
 Hellenes really thought they had a common religion ; and on 
 this account Elis enjoyed happiness. 
 
 But with the Achseans, on the north-west, begin again the 
 spectacle we have already depicted. If there was anywhere 
 among the Hellenes a small compact body animated with the 
 feeling of opposition to all mankind, it was certainly to be found 
 in Achaia. This * egotistical disposition is admirably rendered 
 by the name of. League the Achaean league a combination of 
 twelve cities against all the rest. A great effort indeed of the 
 spirit of brotherhood ! To be able to combine twelve small 
 communities isolated from the rest of mankind by rocks on the 
 south, and the sea on the north, and to succeed in persuading 
 them that it was their interest all lonians as they were sur- 
 rounded by Dorians to form a league against the predominant
 
 GREEK A:N T D LATIX TOETS. 433 
 
 
 1 >oric race ! This is, indeed, a true picture of what we have 
 
 been all along insisting upon. This " league," however, must 
 not be confounded with the celebrated one, formed against the 
 power of Macedonia, and of Rome, and which embraced cities 
 outside of the small limits of Achaia. We speak of the primi- 
 tive and ancient league, composed only of the Ionian cities, 
 spread along the gulf of Corinth, and which is said to have 
 been first formed as early as eleven hundred years before Christ. 
 It was a compact of twelve towns Patras and Dyme were the 
 most important to stand together against the surrounding 
 world, and to threaten with retaliation anyone bold enough to 
 attack any one of them. It was the only means they had of 
 procuring for themselves quiet during a thousand years ; for 
 this was about the length of duration of the " league." It is a 
 perfect picture of what the world then was ; each small commu- 
 nity entrenched behind high mountains, large rivers, or the sea. 
 Was it for such a purpose that these bold land-marks had been 
 drawn on the surface of our globe ? 
 
 Finally, the whole Peloponnesian system of egotism culmi- 
 nated in the single city of Corinth, which formed a state by 
 herself, and bid defiance to both sides of the isthmus. Her 
 " Acropolis " blocked the land to the south ; and the waves of 
 the sea chafed at her -feet, all around to the north. 
 
 This short sketch of the smallest part of Greece its south- 
 ern peninsula is sufficient for our purpose. The same might 
 be done with respect to a similar geographico-historical de- 
 scription of Hellas. Thessaly, and its northernmost district, Ma- 
 cedonia, would bring us to the same conclusion ; but it would 
 scarcely render the picture more striking. Out of all, issues 
 in unmistakable character, that " individualism" of which we 
 spoke previously with regard to Rome, quoting a remarkable 
 passage of the " Antonins " of Mr. Franz de Champagny. 
 This last effect of the disintegration of religion amongst man- 
 kind in antiquity, deseived more than a passing notice, since
 
 434: GENTILISM. 
 
 it is the last and invariable step of the downward progress of 
 nations in their religious degeneracy, which it has been our 
 chief object to demonstrate. Besides, as that " individualism," 
 after producing the deplorable religious results which have 
 been all along the main subject of our investigations, was like- 
 wise the cause of national and civil disintegration, it was im- 
 portant to consider this apart for a moment, and to show it as 
 an outward symbol of a deep-seated and far worse interior evil. 
 It was for this reason we adduced this single illustration of the 
 whole subject. And that the more so, because it has become, 
 likewise, the great bane of our age, and threatens really 
 modern society with that social decomposition which would 
 inevitably be our lot, as it was that of the nations of antiquity, 
 if Christianity were not always in our midst to counteract the 
 mighty evil. It was foretold by some profound thinkers at 
 the very first outburst of Protestantism, and the terrible phan- 
 tom at last stares us in the face, so that no one but one reso- 
 lutely blind can fail to recognize its features. 
 
 The " London Westminster Review," if we may judge from 
 its number of October, 1873, does not appear to share our 
 horror of " individualism." They even consider it as a Mess- 
 ing and would deprecate the " cohesion " produced by " dog- 
 matic teaching" as an obstacle, probably, to expansion of 
 thought, and to the independence of the human mind. At 
 last these gentlemen are consistent, and proclaim openly what 
 their immediate predecessors would have shrunk from recog- 
 nizing, that the result of "modern thought," as of "ancient 
 polytheism," is to reduce mankind to "individuals," and to 
 throw the minds of all into revolt and anarchy. Would to 
 God that the mass of sensible people could perceive the ten- 
 dency of this monstrous admission ! We observe likewise that 
 the same " advanced thinkers " would not find it very reprehen- 
 sible if open persecution was declared against such a retrograde 
 body of men as the Catholic Church appears to be in their eyes.
 
 GREEK AXD LATIN POETS. 433 
 
 They consent, however, to be generous enough to grant to the 
 Church the " undeserved" advantage of a liberal "toleration." 
 The Church ought certainly to be thankful for such magnani- 
 mous forbearance. One reflexion, nevertheless, might open 
 their eyes to see where true strength is to be found. A*s they pro- 
 claim openly " individualism," in this number at least, if not in 
 others, and thus confess they are reduced to it ; and as unnum- 
 bered multitudes of the Catholic Church will always form one 
 " body," owing to her " dogmatic teaching," the same Church 
 will always be stronger than they are, abstracting even from 
 the promises of her Founder. Her faith will never cease from 
 among men, even though the number of members should be 
 
 o / o 
 
 reduced to something less than her actual two hundred 
 millions. Whilst the doctrine of the supporters of " indi- 
 vidualism," from their own confession, and from the very 
 nature of the principle they advocate, cannot ever be one ; 
 must ever be multitudinous, inorganic, disorderly, and weak ; 
 never 'agreeing with themselves, they must remain in the state 
 of disconnected atoms.
 
 CHAPTEK IX. 
 
 SUPPLEMENT ABY. 
 
 I. 
 
 ALL the nations that have hitherto passed in review before 
 us belong to the Aryan or Japhetic and to the Hamitic races. 
 Some of these last, as the Phoenicians, and the whole Semitic 
 branch of the human family, have been unnoticed, and contrib- 
 uted nothing to our conclusion. In the absence of these, can 
 we claim to have sustained our thesis? We think we can. 
 Because if the history of the best known and most important 
 portions of mankind completely demonstrates it, we may fairly 
 infer that that of the less important and less known will do 
 the same. Yet it will be good to say at least a word on the 
 subject. We will, therefore, conclude our undertaking with a 
 slight and brief investigation of what is known of this last- 
 named branch of the human family. It must, necessarily, be 
 only slight and brief, because the materials for investigation are 
 scanty, and do not supply us with anything like the copious 
 and varied materials afforded by the history of the descendants of 
 Japhet and Ham. Yet we may, perhaps, discover some traces, 
 even amongst the former, of a religion originally monotheistic 
 and pure ; and evidence sufficient to support the high proba- 
 bility of our general thesis, that amongst them, too, as well as 
 amongst the other races, it was only in subsequent ages that it 
 degenerated into the mass of corruption which we know sur- 
 passed in horror the foul dissoluteness of all other idolatries. 
 
 The chief of these races are those which have dwelt from time 
 immemorial in Mesopotamia, Syria, Phoenicia, Palestine, and 
 (436^
 
 SUPPLEMEXTAKY. 437 
 
 Arabia. The presence of the posterity of Abraham of the 
 true "people of God," the depository of the old traditions, and 
 the recipient of a new revelation, the most enlightened of all 
 ancient nations in religions matters in the midst of the most 
 superstitious, idolatrous, and morally impure of all peoples of 
 antiquity, will certainly surprise us, and furnish us with con- 
 siderations of no common interest. 
 
 It seems very probable that pantheism and idolatry prevailed 
 among those tribes, before it did anywhere else. And from 
 what the traditions of Asiatic nations tell us of Nimrod, so 
 soon after the dispersion of mankind, the period of pure wor- 
 ship, on the banks of the Euphrates and the Tigris, must have 
 been of a short duration ; and thus our task becomes serious 
 and difficult. Yet we do not think it is hopeless. 
 
 It will assist the object we have in view, to consider briefly 
 the mythology of those races and try to discover if there is 
 any similarity or analogy between them ; as we found it to be 
 the case between the Hindoos, the Bactrians, the Egyptians, 
 and the Greeks. And here we are met at the outset with a 
 striking fact, namely, that their polytheistic system when 
 they reached polytheism appears to be copied from a common 
 pattern, and must have come originally from the same source. 
 The religion of the Chaldseans, Assyrians, Babylonians* Syrians, 
 and Phoenicians, such as it was at the time of their splendor, 
 had common traits which argued clearly the same origin. There 
 exists a serious difficulty with regard to the primitive religion 
 of the Arabians, of which we shall have to speak. Yet the 
 few Arabic inscriptions which have been preserved from those 
 ancient times, seem to point to the same conclusion. 
 
 The small influence which the pure and perfect monotheism 
 of the Jews obtained over those anciently civilized, but ex- 
 tremely corrupt, nations, must ever be a subject of wonder. Yet, 
 we believe we shall be able to ascertain a real action of the 
 kind more effective than is generally supposed.
 
 438 GENTILISM. 
 
 II. 
 
 The most ancient of the Semitic peoples were certainly the 
 Chaldeans, who, at least, were first thought to belong to 
 the Semitic stock. Sir George Rawlinson, in his " First Mon- 
 narchy," has, we believe, sufficiently, proved that they were 
 Chushites, and consequently the posterity of Ham. Their race 
 spread itself not only in Southern Mesopotamia, and around the 
 head of the Persian Gulf, but also all through Southern Persia, 
 as far as the Indus ; but the Empire of Chaldsea embraced only 
 the countries along the Euphrates and the Tigris southward, 
 and at the head of the Persian Gulf. Nimrod, the mighty 
 hunter before the Lord, was the founder of this monarchy, and 
 the first of the Babylonian kings. This goes back to the 23d 
 or 24th century before Christ, and history does not penetrate 
 further. A large empire was thus early founded ; and it must 
 have been on the ruins of clans. 'Consequently, neither in 
 Southern Mesopotamia, in Assyria, nor even in Syria and Phoa- 
 nicia, do we see, in the highest antiquity, the primitive simple 
 manners of septs and tribes ; and this constitutes an exception 
 to the history of all other ancient countries. Yet to protest, as 
 it w-ere, against the establishment of a cruel despotism, patri- 
 archal manners remained 'firmly rooted amongst the posterity of 
 Abraham in Palestine, a great part of south-western Chaldsea 
 proper, and in the whole immense peninsula of Arabia, where 
 it still prevails. 
 
 But, apart from these general considerations, we must ex- 
 amine briefly the primitive Chaldaean religion. 
 
 Sir George Rawlinson says (page 110, and sec. 9), that 
 " From the earliest times to which the monuments carry us 
 back, it was, in its outward aspect, a polytheism of a very elabo- 
 rate character." But he tells us likewise that " the subject is 
 but partially worked out by cuneiform scholars ; the difficulties
 
 SUPPLEMENTARY. 439 
 
 in the way of understanding it are great ; and in many portions 
 to which special attention has been paid, it is strangely per- 
 plexing and bewildering." The meaning evidently is that the 
 " polytheism " itself is extremely obscure, and nothing certain 
 can yet be said of it. 
 
 But, in coming to page 112, the same, learned writer begins 
 the grouping of the principal Chaldaean deities as follows : " At 
 the head of the Pantheon stands a god, II or Ra, of whom but 
 little is known." Then Mr. Rawlinsou enumerates Triad after 
 Triad " better known," we suppose, because the Supreme God 
 having been early forgotten and set aside, the false gods set up 
 in His place became in course of time the only divinities of the 
 nation who consequently knew them alone. 
 
 The important question for us, therafore, is to consider who 
 is that II or Ra ? And we are prompted to ask it precisely 
 because He is " little known." We must first discard the name 
 JRa, for this very reason, that Sir G. Rawlinson (page 114) 
 states " that it represents probably the native Chaldaean name 
 of this deity, while 77 is the Semitic equivalent. The Chal- 
 dseans were not Semites the very erudite author of the " Five 
 Monarchies " is fully persuaded of it yet, on their monuments 
 the name of their first god is H (a Semitic expression), as often 
 surely, and perhaps oftener we have no means of ascertain- 
 ing it than Ra, the Chaldaean word. What does it mean ? In 
 our opinion this surely : that the idolatrous Chushites of Chal- 
 daea had retained a single golden thread of the primitive tradi- 
 tions better preserved by their brethren of the Semitic rae, 
 and this thread was the true nams of God, to which they tried 
 to find an equivalent in their language, and so they called Him 
 Ra. But for us, as we said previously, the word 11 -is of ex- 
 treme importance, and we shall soon be convinced of it. 
 
 " II, of course," says Rawlinson, " is but a variant of El, 
 the root of the well-known Biblical Elohim, as well as of the 
 Arabic Allah. It is this name which Diodoras represents
 
 440 GENTILISM. 
 
 under the form of Elus ('HAog), and Sanchoniaton, or rather 
 Philo-Byblius, under that of Ilus ( T ZAof). The meaning of the 
 word is simply ' God,' or, perhaps, * the god ' emphatically. 
 Jta, the Chushite equivalent, must be considered to have had 
 
 the same force originally It formed an element in the 
 
 native name of Babylon, which was Ka-ra, the Chushite equiv- 
 alent of the Semitic .Bab-il, an expression signifying ' the gate 
 of God.' " 
 
 In these few words, Sir G. Rawlinson has satisfactorily 
 proved that, originally, the Chaldseans were monotheists ; and 
 as he is certainly an unexceptionable witness, we rest satisfied 
 with his testimony, and pass on. For we do not intend to en- 
 ter into an examination of the abominable naturalism which 
 soon became prevalent at Babylon, although it would be a 
 striking example of a rapid degeneracy, more rapid certainly 
 than among any other people of antiquity. 
 
 The next nation coming under our observation is the As- 
 syrian, comprised likewise in the Chaldsean Empire, having a 
 mythology in appearance somewhat different from that of 
 Chaldsea, yet, in fact, almost identical. Mr. F. Lenormant 
 ("Ancient History of the East," torn. i.,'p. 462) will tell us in a 
 fe<v words in what it consisted : " The skilful explorations of 
 the last twenty-five years in the countries bordering on the 
 Tigris and Euphrates, have given us much more correct ideas 
 on the subject of the Assyro-Babylonian mythology than had 
 been handed down by the Greeks. Nevertheless many points 
 still remain in obscurity as to the religion common, with a few 
 exceptions, to the two great Semitic cities of Mesopotamia. 
 .... When we penetrate beneath the surface of gross polythe- 
 ism it had acquired from popular superstition, and revert to 
 the original and higher conceptions, we shall find the whole 
 based on the idea of the unity of the Deity, the last relic of 
 the primitive revelation, disfigured by and lost in the mon- 
 strous ideas of pantheism
 
 SUPPLEMENT AEY. 441 
 
 " The Supreme God, the first and sole principle from whom 
 all other deities were derived, was Ilu, whose name signifies 
 God by excellence. Their idea of Him was too comprehensive, 
 too vast, to have any determined, external form, or, conse- 
 quently, to receive in general the adoration of the people 
 
 At Nineveh, and generally throughout Assyria, He received 
 the peculiar national name of Asshur (whence was derived the 
 name of the country, Mat Asshur) ; and this itself seems 
 derived from the Aryan name of the Supreme Deity, Asura. 
 "With this title He was the great God of the land, the especial 
 protector of the Assyrians, and gave victory to their arms. 
 The inscriptions designate Him as ' Master, or Chief of the 
 Gods.' " 
 
 Mr. F. Lenormant may be mistaken in the derivation of 
 the name. That of the Supreme God in Central Asia was 
 Ahura, not Asura, although we think that occasionally Asura 
 is used. But what is fatal to such a derivation, is that there is 
 Ashur, or Assur, a man certainly who, according to Genesis 
 (x. 11), " sedificavit Kiniven, et plateas civitatis, et Chale." 
 But whatever may have been the real derivation of the word 
 Asslmr, its identification with Ilu or II, the Supreme God of 
 the Chaldaeans, appears certain. The two mythologies of 
 Chaldaea and Assyria were almost identical ; they were com- 
 posed of the same Triads almost, and each Triad originated 
 almost identical deities, etc. ; the starting-point of the two sys- 
 tems must have been the same, and thus Asshur was certainly 
 the same as II. 
 
 Rawlinson admits that " each of the systems .... com- 
 mences with the same pre-eminence of a single deity ; which 
 is followed by the same groupings of identically the same 
 divinities ; and, after that, by a multitudinous polytheism, 
 which is chiefly of a local character." 
 
 According to the same distinguished author, the usual 
 titles of Asshur are " the great Lord," " the King of all the
 
 442 GENTILISM. 
 
 Gods," '' He who rules supreme over the Gods." .... " His 
 
 place is always first in invocations He places the mon- 
 
 archs upon their thrones, etc., etc." We wonder, after this^ 
 at his assertion that this religious system was " without any 
 real monotheism." "We wonder particularly at the reason he 
 gives for it in a note. " Though II in Chaldaea," he says, 
 " and Asshur in Assyria, were respectively chief gods ; they 
 were in no sense sole gods. Not only are the other deities 
 viewed as really distinct beings, but they are, in many 
 cases, self -originated, and always supreme in their several 
 spheres." 
 
 This certainly was the case in after ages, subsequently to the 
 corruption of the primitive religion. Eut the immenss dis- 
 tance which always in Chaldaea and Assyria separated II and 
 Asshur on one side, from the gods on the other, shows that 
 evidently, in primitive times, these were far inferior gods ; not 
 self -originated, but created ; not supreme, but delegated, as our 
 Angels and Archangels. Their distinctness from the Supreme 
 Being, recognized by Rawlinson, proves, at least, that there 
 was originally no pantheism ; and thus the very words of the 
 author of the " Five Monarchies " are so many proofs of our 
 conclusions. 
 
 Passing on to Phoenicia and Palestine, inhabited originally 
 by the Canaanites, and remembering that both peoples belonged 
 to the same race and were Hamites, we are struck by the 
 remarkable fact that their religion which was, perhaps, th3 
 most corrupt and barbarous of all ancient religions had evi- 
 dently a monotheistic origin, even more clearly than that of 
 Chaldsea and Assyria. For besides Moloch, and Baal, and the 
 other demons to whom they sacrificed human beings with the 
 most atrocious rites, they admitted, over and far above these 
 infernal deities, a Superior Being, called by them some- 
 timeb El, " the God," and occasionally look, " the being," 
 " ths eternal ; " both names absolutely the same with those of
 
 SUPPLEMENTARY. 443 
 
 Elohiin and Jehovah, the God of the Bible, the true and 
 supreme God of Jews and Christians. 
 
 It is true that, according to Mr. F. Lenormant, these two 
 appellations " were of a mysterious character, arid rarely used ; 
 the usual name, and the one generally employed was Baal, 
 ' the lord.' ' : But this mystery about the name of the true God 
 was a universal fact among all other nations of antiquity ; and 
 we know that the Jews themselves never dared to pronounse 
 the "ineffable" name, " Jehovah." 
 
 There is only a word to add on Arabia and the Arabs, whose 
 real religion in ancient times has been, until our days, almost en- 
 tirely unknown. Few researches have yet been made to throw 
 light on the subject, on account of the almost absolute impossibili- 
 ty of penetrating the country, and the entire absence of monu- 
 ments, except in the mountains of the north bordering on 
 Syria and Mesopotamia. The late investigations of Comte de 
 Vogue, however, have iirst, now in our own days, begun to 
 penetrate the thick darkness which obscures the religious state 
 of this country in ancient times ; and all the discoveries made 
 so far establish an almost literal identity of it with Syria and 
 Chaldsea. This seems to be true, not only of Arabia Petraea, 
 but even of the Hedjaz and Yemen. Al or El in Arabia Pe- 
 treea, Allah in Hedjaz, and Hu or H in Yemen, was, in the 
 highest antiquity that we can reach, the name of God in the 
 three great divisions of the peninsula ; and in many parts of it 
 the religious polytheist system which followed the first mono- 
 theistic epoch, bears a close analogy with that of Chaldasa and 
 Syria. This short sketch must suffice in the incipient stage of 
 our knowledge on the subject. But the testimony of all those 
 countries is so alike, indeed unanimous, that it is not possible 
 that subsequent discoveries should change substantially the 
 result. It is more probable that they will serve only to confirm 
 the previous conclusions, and carry them finally to a complete 
 demonstration.
 
 444 GENTILISM. 
 
 After this compendious account of the primitive religion of 
 all the countries we now examine, and which form so distinct 
 a group, different in appearance from that of Aryan nations, 
 yet identical in the conclusions resulting from it, we shall be 
 better able to appreciate the observations of Max Miiller 
 on the same subject, as they are given in his " Lectures on the 
 Science of Religion." 
 
 " The Semitic languages, like the Aryan, possess a number of 
 names of the Deity in common." Mr. Muller, we think, classi- 
 fies the Phoenicians with the Semites " which must have 
 existed before the Southern or Arabic, the Northern or Ara- 
 maic, the Middle or Hebraic branches became permanently 
 separated, and which, therefore, allow us an insight into the 
 religious conceptions of the once united Semitic race, long be- 
 fore Jehovah was worshipped by Abraham, or Baal was invok- 
 ed in Phoenicia, or Bel in Babylon." Then follows a long 
 dissertation on those various names of God, which Mr. Muller 
 concludes in these words : " Whether we include or exclude 
 the name of Jehovah " we do positively exclude it for the 
 present " we have, I think, sufficient witnesses to establish 
 what we wished to establish, namely, that there was a period 
 during which the ancestors of the Semitic family had not yet 
 been divided, whether in language or in religion. That period 
 transcends the recollection of every one of the Semitic races 
 in the same way as neither Hindoos, Greeks, nor Romans have 
 any recollection of the time when they spoke a common lan- 
 guage, and worshipped their Father in heaven by a name that 
 was as yet neither Sanscrit, nor Greek, nor Latin. But I do 
 not hesitate to call this prehistoric period historical in the best 
 sense of the word. It was a- real period, because unless it was 
 real, all the realities of the Semitic languages, and the Semitic 
 religions, such as we find them after their separation, would be 
 unintelligible. Hebrew, Syriac, and Arabic point to a common 
 source, as much as Sanscrit, Greek, and Latin ; and unless we
 
 SUPPLEMENTARY. 445 
 
 can bring ourselves to doubt that the Hindoos, the Greeks, the 
 Romans, and the Teutons derived the -worship of their prin- 
 cipal deity from their common Aryan sanctuary, W3 shall not 
 be able to deny that there was likewise a primitive religion of 
 the whole Semitic race, and that EL, * the strong one in Heaven,' 
 was invoked by the ancestors of all the Semitic races, before 
 there were Babylonians in Babylon, Pho3iiicians in Sidon and 
 Tyre, before there were Jews in Mesopotamia or Jerusalem. 
 The evidence of the Semitic is the same as that of the Aryan 
 languages ; the conclusion cannot be different." The deduction 
 from all these considerations is clear, and no further discovery 
 can shake it. 
 
 III. 
 
 But we have excluded the Hebrew evidence for several 
 strong reasons. First, it is an evidence quite apart from all 
 the others ; it stands by itself ; inasmuch as that people were, 
 throughout their history, under the direct action of divine 
 Providence, who guided them, chastised them, or rewarded 
 them ; governed them, in short, as their king and ruler. The 
 Jewish people, consequently, can be compared to no other. 
 Their national history has a special significance of its own ; 
 and remains always far above as it is essentially different from 
 all other facts of history. 
 
 Secondly, it looks like desecration to rank the Mosaic relig- 
 ion amongst the other cults of antiquity, because they all soon 
 became so corrupt as to provoke the abhorrence of every one 
 of only decent propriety of morals. Especially is this true of 
 those of Chaldaea, Syria, and Phoanicia, whose degrading rites 
 must be ascribed to the direct influence of the Evil one. To 
 state, without a clear explanation, that the God of the Jews 
 was the same, originally, as the god of the Tynans, might lead 
 the unwary to imagine that all religions are alike, and d( serve
 
 446 GENTILISM. 
 
 the like commendation from all. Nothing could be further 
 from the thought of a Christian. 
 
 Thirdly, the constant distinctness of the pure monotheistic 
 idea among the Jews, during so many ages of their national 
 existence, was positively intended by Almighty God as a per- 
 manent protest against the corrupt worship and abominable 
 rites of all the surrounding nations, sunk, during all that time, 
 in the mire of a devilish idolatry ; and we have the whole of 
 the Old Testament for vouchers of this assertion. 
 
 It is proper, therefore, to consider alone, and apart from all 
 other religions, 'the grand individuality of the Mosaic theology, 
 at least with respect to the belief in one God, as the typical 
 form which all cults would have assumed if they had not de- 
 viated from their original purity ; and these considerations will 
 appropriately close our protracted investigations on the subject 
 of Gentilism. 
 
 And first, the name given to Almighty God in the Bible is 
 the most exact, the least subject to false interpretations, the 
 completest in every respect, that can be imagined ; we mean 
 the tetragra/mmaton. It is true that, besides this ineffable 
 name, there were, according to St. Jerome (Epist. 136, ad Mar- 
 cellam), quoted by Corn, a Lapide (Ex. vi.,) ten other appella- 
 tions to denominate God. And it is remarkable that those 
 various names of the Deity never became, among the Jews, an 
 occasion of idolatry, as was certainly the case among other 
 nations, whose polytheism was often the result of the different 
 terms used to express their idea of the divine nature. The 
 reason was probably the pre-eminence in Judea of that other 
 name which the Israelites knew expressed most perfectly the 
 essence of the Deity. Numbers of dissertations have been writ- 
 ten on it. We will merely refer to two involved in them : The 
 four letters composing it arejod, he, vau, saidjod. Many see in 
 their combination the meaning of the latin words : Qui erat, est, 
 et crit / and among other reasons, bring forward the passage
 
 SUPPLEMENTARY. 447 
 
 of the Apocalypse, where God is said to be : Qui erat, qui est, 
 et qui venturus est. We know that in Ilindostan and Egypt 
 the knowledge of this attribute of the Supreme Being led the 
 people to believe that not only He included in His essence all 
 times, but likewise all things; and thus it became a fertile 
 cause of pantheism among them. Yet, as believed in by ths 
 Jews, nothing of the kind ever happened. Even this meaning, 
 therefore, proved harmless in Judea. But the greatest number 
 of Catholic exegetists understand the tetragrammaton very dif- 
 ferently. Cornelius a Lapide, who refers to them at length (in 
 Exodum), and likewise (in Apocalypsim) shows that the real 
 meaning, is simply Qui est, indicating the self -existence of 
 God, and showing Him to be the First Cause of all things ; and 
 he concludes a long dissertation by these remarkable words : 
 "Dico hoc nomen tetragrammaton Jeheva" thus he spells it 
 " significare essentiam Dei, ipsam que essentiag divinge abys- 
 suin, et pelagus immensum ; hoc enirn significat nomen qui est." 
 In a second place, it is easy to prove that from this name of 
 God all the divine attributes strictly follow. The unity of es- 
 sence is certainly included in it, since the reality of being be- 
 longing only to God, if a second God, different from the first, 
 possessed it, the other could not be said to have it entire, and 
 consequently in a god-like manner, that is fo say, to have it at 
 all. It follows likewise, from it, that God must be all-perfect, 
 most simple, infinite, independent, immutable, eternal, omnipo- 
 tent, the Cause of all things which exist, which shall exist, 
 which are possible, etc., etc. Never any name so comprehen- 
 sive, exact, complete, has been given to the Supreme Being by 
 the religious belief of any other people. 
 
 But among the Jews the unity of God was especially insisted 
 on, because; when once its sacredness was. in the least infringed 
 upon, immediately the flood of polytheism, to which all nations 
 were so powerfully inclined, broke through and brought with 
 
 it the most devastating errors and delusions. Thus it was not 
 30
 
 448 GENTILISM. 
 
 only tliis divine name which kept th3 Jews from idolatry, but 
 also to render its effect more sure, the great and terrible voice 
 heard from Mount Sinai proclaiming the divine law, amidst 
 thunder and lightning : " Non Jidbebis deos alienos coram me. 
 Non fades tibi sculptile .... Non advrabis ea neque coles : 
 Ego sum Dominus tuus fortis^Zelotes, etc" 
 
 Thus was polytheism most effectually warded off. But 
 how is it that the Jews, so often inclined to pure idolatry, never 
 showed the least tendency to pantheism, which was everywhere 
 else the beginning of error ? The reason is plain : From the 
 very fir&t page of their sacred books, and from so many utter- 
 ances of their prophets and wise men, they knew that He was 
 the Creator in the very sense we attach to the word. The 
 error of emanation could not occur even to their mind, after 
 having been distinctly taught how the visible world had come 
 into existence. It was not in a state of unconsciousness, and 
 during sleep, that the author of ah 1 things had generated the 
 exterior world, as the writers of the Yedas and of the Hermetic 
 books had dreamed. It was in all the majesty of the Godhead 
 that He had uttered His great Fiat; and His creation, although 
 immense, brilliant, apparently without limits, was to remain 
 for ever not only distinct from, but infinitely below, Him. 
 
 We begin already to understand how the monotheism of the 
 Jews differed from that of the Hindoos and the Egyptians. 
 How much more profoundly would this phenomenon impress 
 us could we go thi ough all the effusions of the truly inspired 
 writers of that sublime book we call the Bible. Could we 
 bring forward ah 1 the texts in which the holiness of the Lord 
 is proclaimed, together with His providence, His love for man, 
 requiring love in return ; and asking in positive terms to be 
 loved by His intelligent creatures ! The guardianship of the 
 dogmas was thus given over to the sacredness of love ; and man 
 felt the necessity of never deviating from truth in his worship, 
 precisely because he was bound to love Him, and could not des- *
 
 SUPPLEMENTARY. 449 
 
 pise the One he loved, by communicating His attributes to any- 
 other. "Dili yes Dominum Deum tuum ex toto corde tuo, et 
 ex tota anima tua, et ex tota fortitudine tua " (Deut. vi., 5). 
 No other religious code ever spoke with that plainness and 
 pointedness ; although St. Clement of Alexandria thought the 
 Egyptians were enjoined the same kind of worship through 
 love, and expressed it by giving to the Sphinx the face of a 
 woman. Supposing his interpretation true which in our 
 opinion is very problematical is it possible to place both proc- 
 lamations of the same divine law on the same footing ? Yet 
 the Mosaic dispensation was designed rather to inspire fear than 
 promote love. And this is chiefly visible in the thirty-second 
 chapter of Deuteronomy, which is full of threats, and foretells 
 to the Jewish people the most fearful evils as the punishment 
 of any future rebellion and idolatry. In the same chapter, 
 however, what a picture of the tender 'predilection of God for 
 his " people !" "Ihvenit eum in terra deserta, in loco horroris 
 et va#t<j& solitudinis : circumd uxit eum et docuit / et custodivit 
 quasi pupillam oculi sui. Sicut aquila provooans ad volan- 
 dum pullos suos, et super eos volitans, expandit alas suas, et 
 assumpsit eum, atque portavit in humeris suis, Dominus solus 
 dux ejus fuit, et non erat cum eo Deus alienus." These were 
 the noble and love-breathing ideas which the true religion gave 
 to the Jews of the God they were to worship. The sublime 
 mission of Moses in announcing them, proclaiming them, and 
 giving them their sanction, shows itself infinitely superior to 
 the self-imposed task of those Hindoo rishis, the authors of the 
 finest upanishads of the Yedas. This fact alone affords confirm- 
 atory evidence that his authority could only have been de- 
 rived but from God. It is this which places the Hebrew mo- 
 notheism far above the purest belief of other nations, unless 
 we go back to their very origin, of which we have no certain 
 record, when they received it from God himself speaking to 
 Noah and his children.
 
 450 G 
 
 But it is time we chould try to discover tlie influents of this 
 sublime doctrine on surrounding nations. This requires of us 
 to examine the relations the Jews had ; 1st. With the great 
 nations of antiquity ; 2d. With their immediate neighbors in 
 Palestine and Syria ; and we shall find that this influence was 
 far greater than is generally imagined. 
 
 I. It is remarkable that, throughout the time of their long his- 
 tory, the Jews had intimate relations with the various peoples 
 who had successfully swayed the destinies of mankind, namely, 
 with the Assyrians and Chaldeeans, the Egyptians, the Persians, 
 the Greeks, and the Romans ; relations of social and religious 
 
 t f O 
 
 intercourse, of war, of alliances, of commerce even and inter- 
 change of commodities. Of no other nation of antiquity can 
 the same be said to the same extent. In the Old Testament 
 we see all these complications of interests between Israel and 
 the Gentiles brought forward, sometimes mentioned briefly, 
 occasionally with many details. This testimony of Holy Scrip- 
 ture has often been derided, and the " people of God " have 
 been contemptuously represented as an insignificant, rude, and 
 almost barbarous tribe. It has, however, been amply vindi- 
 cated, in these days, of inquiiy, by the learned men who have 
 studied deeply the antiquities of Assyria, Chaldsea, Egypt, Per- 
 sia, Greece, and Rome. The Jews cannot be any more treated 
 with ridicule, and their sacred books ignored or disowned, after 
 the labors of so many interpreters of cuneiform inscriptions, 
 and hieroglyphic or demotic papyri as well as of classical 
 writers. 
 
 But, at first sight, it seems that this long-continued inter- 
 course of the Israelites witrj, the various Gentile empires or re- 
 publics, had very little influence on the religious thoughts of 
 these foreign nations. The universal flood of idolatry and 
 superstition does not seem to have been checked in the least by all 
 the sublime truths revealed in the books" of the Old Testament. 
 We do' not hear of a single village having renounced its gods,
 
 PPLEMEXTAEY. . 451 
 
 to embrace the worship of the Supreme and Sole God of 
 the Jews. "When Xaanian, the Syrian, converted by his mira- 
 culous cure, embraced Judaism and became a proselyte, he did 
 not appear to hope that he could bring any of his nation to the 
 IG belief; and he merely asked of the prophet, if he could 
 in conscience accompany his master to an idolatrous temple, 
 whenever requested to do so as a requirement of his office. 
 "When the Moabite Ruth consented to renounce Chamos of 
 Moab, to adore the God of Noemi, she did not speak of trying 
 to bring to her new religion any of her former friends and fel- 
 low-idolaters. 
 
 Yet we cannot supposs that the pre3en2e of the Jews in the 
 midst of so many Gentile peoples, during so many ages, had no 
 influence whatever in checking idolatry, and inspiring many 
 men with the thought of a holier belief and a purer morality. 
 "We might take, for example, at the very outeet, the instance 
 of the patriarch of the nation, Abraham, and show what in- 
 fluence he must have had not only in Chaldaea, where he was 
 born, not only in Mesopotamia, where he spent the greatest , 
 part of his life, but likewise in Egypt, where he travelled, and 
 became intimately acquainted with the Pharaoh himself. Much 
 might be written on the wonderful story of Joseph in Egypt. 
 But a most remarkable fact, long subsequent to Abraham, is 
 sufficient to correct in our minds many false ideas on the sub- 
 ject under consideration. It is the preaching of Jonah in 
 Nineveh. The whole of this strange narrative looks, indeed, 
 like a primitive example of any successful mission by a Catholic 
 apostle even in our modern times. Does not Jonah among 
 the Xinevites appear like a Francis Xavier in Marava or in 
 Japan ? And can we imagine that it was an altogether ex- 
 ceptional case, never repeated by any other prophet or man 
 of God ? The Old Bible does no more contain everything that 
 happened in those times, than the New Testament relates all 
 the events of the life of our Lord.
 
 452 GENTILISM. 
 
 The Assyrian captivity of the Samaritans under Salmanasar, 
 is another fact on which men do not sufficiently reflect. The 
 kingdom of Israel, it is true, was already in great part idol- 
 atrous ; yet many families preserved faithfully the true wor- 
 ship of God ; and all, without exception, maintained a due 
 respect for the Pentateuch, which certainly they carried with 
 them to Assyria and Media. The simple, idyllic, and so truth- 
 ful history of Tobias shows us that the zeal for the spread of 
 the true religion among infidels had not altogether died out. 
 The words of the holy man are clear (Tob. xiii. 4) : " Dispersit 
 vos (Deus) inter gentes, quce, ignorant eum, ut vos enarretis 
 mirabUia ejus, etfaciatig scire eos, quia non est alius Deus om- 
 nipotens prceter eum." What Tobias himself thought, must 
 have likewise been impressed on the minds of many of his 
 countrymen, of all pious people, in fact. And can we calcu- 
 late the effect of so many words of instruction and exhorta- 
 tion on the pagans of Northern Mesopotamia and Armenia ? 
 
 But we see this more clearly still in the Babylonish captiv- 
 ity; when not Samaritans only, men of the ten separated 
 tribes, but true Jews of the tribes of Judah and Benjamin, 
 were transferred to Babylon and the neighborhood of the ' 
 Persian Gulf. We should have to quote many prophecies of 
 Ezechiel and all the history of Daniel, and allude, at least, to 
 the position he occupied in the palace of the king, to give the 
 reader aome idea of the influence he must have exerted on the 
 corrupt worship and the most corrupt manners of the Baby- 
 lonians. He could not, certainly, prevent the catastrophe im- 
 pending on the dynasties of the second Chaldaean Empire. It 
 cannot be believed, however, that such a powerful interpreter 
 of the oracles of God as Daniel certainly was, did not produce 
 any impression on the idolaters of Babylon, since they believed 
 so implicitly his interpretations, even when contrary to all 
 their interests and hopes. 
 
 But it is chiefly under the Persian dynasty which immedi-
 
 SUPPLEMENTARY. 453 
 
 ately succeeded, that the religious and moral influence of the 
 Jews appears pre-eminent. Cyrus* edict for their return to 
 Jerusalem and the rebuilding of the temple, is the most 
 remarkable proof of it. Why is it that not only the great 
 founder of the Persian Empire, but all his immediate successors, 
 furnished pecuniary and military aid for the restoration of 
 the great edifice, erected from the beginning, arid continuing 
 through ages as a proclamation to the whole world of the 
 existence of One only God, worshipped in one only place, and 
 by unique rites and sacrifices ? In all the other countries 
 which the Persian armies either annexed to Iran or devastated 
 and ravaged, their first care was to wage war on religion, to 
 disperse the priesthoods, burn the temples, and break to pieces 
 the idols. This Cambyses did in Egypt and Xerxes in Greece. 
 In Jerusalem alone did they show their respect for the God 
 worshipped within its walls. They inaugurated the great cus- 
 tom continued afterwards under all the political powers on 
 which Judea depended ; for after the Persians, the Macedoni- 
 ans, under the leadership of Alexander, the Greek successors of 
 the youthful hero, the Romans even afterwards appropriated a 
 yearly tribute to the ceremonies and sacrifices appointed by the 
 Mosaic law for the service of the true God. Some Syrian 
 tyrants alone, like Antiochus, not only refused the tribute, but 
 proscribed the worship, closed or injured the edifices, and per- 
 secuted the nation. With this single exception, it is a very 
 strange, yet absolutely undeniable, fact, that, from the family 
 of the Achemenidae down to Pompey, and, later, Titus, all the 
 various political powers holding Palestine under their sway 
 followed the practice introduced by the Persian kings, and 
 wished that the true God should be invoked in their behalf 
 every day, morning and evening, by sacrifice and prayer. Can 
 a stronger -proof be given that the true and only revealed 
 religion of antiquity possessed a great moral influence over the 
 pagan mind of the period ? *
 
 454 GEXTILIS3I. 
 
 Bat this is not all. "Whatever may have been the circum- 
 stances which brought about the translation of the Holy Scrip- 
 tures in Greek, it is certain that the Septuagint version existed 
 from the fourth century before Christ, since the most probable 
 opinion, supported by St. Cleine::t of Alexandria, attributes it 
 to the care of Ptolemy Lagus, the first king of Egypt after 
 Alexander. The translation was intended for the library of 
 Alexandria, which then became, we may say, the intellectual 
 centre of the world. ' The revealed word of God, containing 
 the principles of the true religion, together with the annals of 
 mankind, and the private records of the Jewish nation, then 
 became accessible to all, as they were no more hidden under 
 the Hebrew text, which so few could road, but were exposed 
 to the knowledge of all in the Hellenic idiom, the most uni- 
 versally spread at the time, and intelligible from the Atlantic 
 Ocean to the confines of "India. Printing, it is true, could not 
 multiply the copies, yet we know how extensively manuscripts 
 circulated among educated people. 
 
 We have alluded to only a few well-known facts, in order to 
 show that the Hebrew monotheism must have exerted a power- 
 ful influence all over the ancient woild. We have not been 
 able to more than touch upon a subject which, fully developed, 
 would be full of interest. It remains to make a few remarks 
 on the more direct action of the true religion on the people 
 immediately surrounding the Jews in Palestine. 
 
 II. It is a truth, as curious as sad, that the Semitic race, 
 which was not alone to keep the truth, and worship tlie only 
 God, but to give, in fact, the Saviour to mankind, went almost 
 altogether astray in the matters of religion and morality, and 
 exhibited the greatest debasement in worship, and the blindest 
 superstition in manners and customs. Many branches of tnat 
 great race, for which chiefly the Old Testament was written, 
 were, from avery early age, addicted to all the vices naturally 
 fostered by the moe-t direful errors. We cannot penetrate the
 
 SUPPLEMENTARY. 455 
 
 special designs of Providence in placing the Jews in tin- midst 
 of Phoenicians, Canaanites, and Syrians, all of them, at the 
 time, worshipping, in fact, the Satanic powers under the name 
 of gods and goddesses, and given ovr to the most brutalizing 
 immorality and superstition. The more the details of that 
 abominable worship are studied and become known through 
 the deep researches of orientalists in our days, the more we 
 cease to wonder at the mission clearly given to the Israelites 
 in the Pentateuch, to destroy them if they refused to give up 
 their idolatry, and to occupy a territory long before promised 
 to Abraham. AVe see the straggle fully described in the Book 
 of Judges and in the first of Kings. The sure key to the 
 proper understanding of this part of Holy Scripture is the com- 
 parison between the gloomy idolatry of the Canaanites, and the 
 purity of the Mosaic religious law which was to replace it in 
 Palestine. The Israelites are always defeated when they forget 
 the admonitions of the divine law, and always successful when 
 they return to it. The Canaanites are their enemies because 
 they are, by their idolatry, the enemies of the Lord. It is 
 throughout a religious conflict between the worship of One 
 true God and the impious rites of barbarous divinities. 
 
 But after this protracted .straggle, after the short reign of 
 Saul, the first Jewish king, comes the long one of David, who, 
 by many battles and nearly as many victories, conquered peace 
 at last, and restored to his nation the possession of a land given 
 first to Abraham, pointed out by Moses, conquered at first by 
 Joshua, but, after this first of the Judges, disputed a long time 
 by many idolatrous nations, until it was at last, as we have said, 
 conquered by David, who at length bestowed the peaceful pos- 
 
 -ion of it on his people. But how ? If we look to the mere 
 narrative of events, David is simply a skilful and successful 
 general, who gains his kingly crown by the greatness of his 
 mind and the strength of his arm. But should we stop at this 
 interpretation of his powerful individuality, we should not truly
 
 456 GEXTILISM. 
 
 understand it. The key to his history and to that of his people 
 is contained in his Psalms. And what do those sublime pro- 
 ductions proclaim ? The greatness of God and the utter de- 
 pravity of polytheism. It was impossible to denounce with 
 more power the abominable rites celebrated all around him; 
 impossible to assert more forcibly the success of God against 
 Satan in his own victories. With justice and conscious un- 
 worthiness he exclaimed: "Non nobis, Domine, non nobis; 
 sed nomini tuo da gloriam." 
 
 But it is a fact that, when he wrote his psalms, and had them 
 chanted before the tabernacle by thousands of human voices, 
 the language in which they were written was not intelligible to 
 his people alone, but to all those veiy tribes which he had con- 
 quered, over which he had triumphed. Could a better way 
 have been devised of impressing them with the glory of the 
 God of Israel ? How many idolaters were converted by those 
 sublime hymns, we have no means of ascertaining. But to 
 suppose that they converted nobody, and that the surrounding 
 idolatry was not influenced for good by the circulation of those 
 divine melodies, would be to misunderstand altogether human 
 nature. Especially when under the son and successor of 
 David, the magnificent Temple of the true God rose on the 
 hill of Sion, when, under its majestic architecture, the noble 
 rites of the only true worship of the Deity performed on earth 
 were consummated in the presence of so many Gentiles, to 
 whom an extensive area inside of the building was assigned, 
 who will be bold enough to say that no previous worshipper of 
 Baal, no adorer of Melitta, no sacrificer to Astaroth, was im- 
 pressed so as to surrender his superstition, and proclaim himself 
 a true proselyte of the divine law promulgated on mount Sinai, 
 and given to Moses with such awful solemnity ? 
 
 But besides the conversion of many individuals, there can be 
 no doubt that the degradation of polytheism, such as it was 
 practised previously in Palestine, was arrested by the presence
 
 SUPPLEMENTARY. 457 
 
 of the faithful Israelites in the midst of the country, and in- 
 stead of sinking deeper, and deeper, and deeper, as it did in 
 other parts of the world, in Hindostan, in Egypt, in Greece, 
 the Syrian superstitions were in a great measure mitigated and 
 modified by the near presence of the Holy of Holies, and the 
 constant spectacle of the solemn ceremonies of a pure worship. 
 
 Palestine, it is true, whatever may be the caue of it, has 
 always been a hot-bed of errors, and a gloomy field of contend- 
 ing superstitions or heresies. It is so even in our time ; and 
 there is scarcely a spot on earth where, at this moment, may be 
 seen more contention and strife in religious matters. The 
 august presence of the only true Temple of God, in former 
 ages was, and the moving spectacle of the sepulchre of our 
 Lord, in our times, still is, unable to produce harmony among 
 men, and bring all to be of 6ne mind and one heart. Yet, 
 since our present investigations have been limited to a long- 
 past epoch, what has been urged will, we trust, go far towards 
 convincing the reader that the Mosaic monotheism must have 
 not been without a great influence on the surrounding errors. 
 
 It is true, therefore, that divine Providence always left to 
 former pagan nations many means of acknowledging the >u- 
 preme God, and of coming back to Him, after having so long 
 wandered in the labyrinth of false religions. And the Mosaic 
 law, given only to a small nation, was thus able to serve to 
 many as a means of reflection and salvation. We do 
 not speak here of its typical character, so remarkable certainly, 
 and so well calculated to satisfy all the cravings of the heart 
 for a future restoration of true religion upon earth ; cravings and 
 anticipations which we know did exist, and to which many myths, 
 poems, legends, or real prophecies bear witness. Our subject 
 did not admit of our touching, even, on that most interesting 
 topic. But the little we have said on the monotheism of the 
 Jews was absolutely required in treating of what was real in the 
 monotheism of the Gentiles.
 
 458 GENTILISM. 
 
 IY. 
 
 The early documents of the Semitic, as well as of the Aryan 
 races, have been proved to agree in representing mankind at 
 first civilized, monotheistic, and morally pure. If the annals 
 of the posterity of Sem are not so abundant and decisive as 
 those of the children of Japhet, they have on the other side a 
 superiority over these, by embracing within their ethnologic 
 precincts the wonderful posterity of Abraham. With respect 
 to the Hebrew people, there can be no hesitation, no possible 
 contradiction. The patriarchal system is evidently the origin 
 of their social state ; the belief in one God is emphatically 
 their creed ; the morality they professed was contained in the 
 decalogue, which has always been justly considered as the clear 
 and undisturbed source of the purest ethical codes ever 
 adopted. If the other branches of the Semitic family offer us 
 in their subsequent history the very reverse of this picture : 
 despotism'- in society, rank idolatry in religion, debasement in 
 moral principles it could not have been so at the origin, since 
 they had enjoyed the privilege of claiming the same ancestral 
 patriarchs as those of the Hebrew people, the same belief in 
 one God, the same pure law certainly anterior to that of Mount 
 Sinai. 
 
 But it seems that, after all, our demonstration is not com- 
 plete. There is that great, universal, primeval Turanian race, 
 of which not a word has been said, and to which, nevertheless, 
 must be awarded the priority in human history. Is it not in 
 that wonderful ^tcvdiajios, so celebrated among the most reliable 
 writers of ancient Asiatic history, that we will find that archaic 
 barbarism which all modern researches bring forward as the 
 first state of man on earth ? The spread of that degraded 
 family of races, as extensive as the globe itself, the uncouth 
 manners, so emphatically expressed in the very word
 
 SUPPLEMENTARY. 450 
 
 the total absence of any religious emblems among the scattered 
 relies which remain to us of that far-distant age ; everything, 
 in fact, seems to proclaim that mankind did not begin bv the 
 golden age, but, on the contrary, by an un doubtful inferiority 
 and debasement. 
 
 It is, in fact, surprising that the earnest advocates of early 
 barbarism have not yet entoned a paean of triumph on the oc- 
 casion of the late discoveries in this field of ethnology. It is 
 already more than forty years ago that Dr. Prichard showed 
 the wide-spread existence of what he called the "Allophylian 
 races." Several modern ethnologists of high renown have 
 studied this question, in which they saw the germ of great and 
 interesting findings. Geo. Rawlinson, among others, has, in a 
 few solid pages, brought to bear an immense erudition on the 
 subject. All the great leaders in true science are agreed that 
 the Allophylian, or Turanian, or Hamitic family of nations 
 spread anteriorly to the Semitic or Aryan branches of man- 
 kind, and were of a type far inferior to the more favored races 
 which followed them. Yet nothing has been said of this by 
 those modern authors who are all along taking advantage of 
 the least important items of information tending to prove that 
 man was at first a brute. ]S"ay, more, if these same writers 
 speak of it, it is with a marked diffidence, as did lately some 
 unknown contributor to the " Westminster Review." Those 
 gentlemen seem to hesitate ; they are afraid of committing 
 themselves, being fully aware that Prichard, Rawlinson, Max 
 Miiller, Quatrefages, and other authors of the same school, are 
 not precisely in favor of assigning the gorilla as the true ances- 
 tor of man. They are perfectly wise, and, with justice, our 
 Saviour called them " prudentwres fliis lucis in generations 
 #ua." There is visible, in fact, in the way they speak and 
 write on the subject, a kind of awe and fear, lest, by raising 
 the question, they burn their fingers and have to drop it in- 
 stantly as too hot for their flimsy, dry, and combustible theories.
 
 460 GENTILISM. 
 
 Has not Rawlinson already hinted that in the Aryan, Semitic, 
 and Turanian families we can perceive the posterity of the 
 three sons of Noah ? And, indeed, we are confident the same 
 shall be proved before long, as so many other biblical facts 
 have been ascertained by independent inquirers after truth. A 
 few words have been said anteriorly on the subject in our 
 second chapter, to which we refer. It suffices us to repeat 
 that two consequences are to be undoubtedly derived from the 
 great fact of OKvdiopog, namely, first, that its anteriority was 
 one of expansion, not of origin ; second, that it ought to be 
 included within the historic period, and cannot be made to sup- 
 port the theory of prehistoric times ; and thus the belief in 
 primeval barbarism cannot find any help in the subject under 
 consideration. Nay, as hinted previously, the Turanian race 
 being evidently identical with the Hamitic, and the best ethno- 
 graphers of our age seeming more and more disposed to adopt 
 this conclusion, the whole bent of the question leans only to 
 the admission of the debasement of the children of Ham, in- 
 cluding the curse, the most unpalatable, certainly, of all biblical 
 assertions. All this being duly considered, there is no great 
 reason to be surprised that the supporters of the new theories 
 hesitate in taking advantage of the Allophylian system of 
 races. 
 
 But it is time to come to the religious and moral question in 
 this most obscure subject, and to ask ourselves if we can prove, 
 at least by implication, that the old Turanians -led a patriarchal 
 life, and believed in one God, like their Aryan and Semitic 
 brethren. 
 
 First, there is ; the great, we may say stupendous, fact of the 
 trilingual inscriptions found still everywhere in Asia, whose 
 most remarkable details are referred to by Kawlinson. They 
 are written in cuneiform characters, and consequently must be 
 ascribed to the earliest times of the. settlement of man in those 
 countries. They are called trilingual because they invariably
 
 SUPPLEMENTABY. 461 
 
 proclaim the same facts in three different tongues the Semitic, 
 Aryan, and Turanian dialects. Many of them were certainly 
 engraved under the Persian kings of the Achemenidae family ; 
 and as Herodotus informs us that in his own time there were 
 yet a large Scythian population spread in Asia among the 
 more recent and cultivated races which then ruled the country, 
 it becomes evident that all over that great continent the pos- 
 terity of the three sons of Noah lived together, but spoke dif- 
 ferent dialects, reducible to three original languages, which our 
 modern philologists can now read in the precious inscriptions 
 we are for the moment discussing. 
 
 No complete list of them has been made, as far as we are 
 informed. It is very probable that a few only are known, and 
 the great majority of them are lost to civilized man over those 
 rude steppes of Central Asia. In the supposition, consequently, 
 that in the few inscriptions that have reached us nothing is said 
 that would convey to us a sufficiently clear information of the 
 Turanian religion in those primitive ages, it cannot be con- 
 cluded that these people had no knowledge of God or were 
 merely degraded fetichists. In fact, no conclusion whatever 
 can be drawn ; and the best for us would seem to be to wait 
 until more monuments of the kind have been discovered and 
 deciphered. 
 
 Still what is already known is not without its value. The 
 mere insertion of the Turanian line in those documents en- 
 graved on the hard rocks, prove that the Persian or Median 
 kings considered their Turanian subjects as real men, not as 
 pure slaves ; they were evidently reckoned as an integral part 
 of the commonwealth ; they could read, certainly, since, un- 
 doubtedly, it was for their particular benefit that the third line 
 existed in those inscriptions. They were not, therefore, bar- 
 barians, and must be considered as sharing in the civilization 
 of their more favored brethren living among and ruling over 
 them.
 
 462 GENTILISM. 
 
 Onr friend Zarathustra speaks, it is true, of Turun as of a 
 country of darkness, in opposition to Iran, the country of light ; 
 and the very name indicates the races on which we now are 
 expatiating. But the details given by the friend of Gustasp in 
 his ' Vendidad" show conclusively enough that the people of 
 Turan were not savages. Against the people of the south, the 
 great Bactrian reformer complained of idolatry ; they had in- 
 troduced the worship of the devas in a primitively pure relig- 
 ion ; they had abjured the monotheism of their ancestors to fall 
 prostrate at the feet of inferior beings. This was for Zaratlius- 
 tra a cause of unrelenting war. He had nothing of the kind 
 to allege against the people of Turan. The great complaint 
 Zaratliustra makes of them is, that they did not lead a sedentary 
 life like the happy subjects of the good and great Gustasp ; 
 ttiey did not apply themselves to agriculture, to the planting 
 of gardens, or paradises, as they were called later on in Persia. 
 Those beings, truly wretched in the estimation of the author of 
 the Gathas, were mere nomads, travelling from place to place 
 with immense herds and flocks, considering as their own prop- 
 erty all the pasture-grounds they met on their way ; and thus, 
 when they ventured south of the fortieth parallel, the well- 
 cultivated plantations of Gustasp's country suffered somewhat 
 from the roving habits of the Turanians. That is all ! 
 
 But this, indeed, is a great deal ! It shows that the Tu- 
 ranians led the life of Abraham, of Jacob, of the Arabian Job, 
 of many Hindoo Rishis, and Pelasgian rovers. These habits 
 have a strange perfume of patriarchal manners ; and if the 
 Turanians had left us some of their books, as we now possess 
 some of those of Zarathustra, it is very possible that we would 
 have heard a different story ; and the rude, nomadic manners of 
 the north might have met with some indulgence on our part, 
 since, to us, modern people, belongs evidently the right of 
 judging and deciding on everything connected with barbarism 
 or civilization. The speech of the " paysan du Danube," in
 
 SUPPLEMENTARY. 463 
 
 the celebrated fable of Lafontaine, is certainly pointed enough, 
 and shows some of the fallacies of an overgrown culture, at 
 the same time that it establishes forcibly the claims of a simple 
 and inoffensive freedom for the most unsophisticated part of 
 mankind. But that " paysan " is just a Scythian, a Turanian, 
 an Allophylian, anything you choose, except a refined Aryan 
 or Semite. The author of the fable, it is true, supposes him 
 to be a German and an agriculturist ; but Lafontaine lived in 
 an age when ethnplogy was unknown ; had he been born a 
 couple of centuries later, he would have made him come from 
 Turan, and extoll the advantages of a nomadic life, as a true 
 Cossack of the Danube" or the Don is in duty bound to do. 
 
 But pleasantry apart, it is seriously true that the roving 
 habits of the ancient Scythian race, as it was called by the 
 Greek authors, did not suppose a state of barbarism and sav- 
 agery. We see in Persian history, when their country was in- 
 vaded by Darius, how coolly, systematically, and successfully 
 they opposed an army of seven hundred thousand men by the 
 only strategy which could def e it the enemy. They did exactly 
 what the Russians did in our age to overthrow Napoleon. 
 They retired into the interior of their wild country, driving 
 back their herds before them, destroying all the crops which 
 could furnish food to the Persians, and filling ifp the wells 
 where the enemy could have obtained pure water. In a few 
 months, Darius, the Mede, had to return with a poor remnant 
 of his former splendid and numerous troops, and, perhaps, not 
 one of his soldiers would have returned if the Athenian gen- 
 eral, left in charge of the bridges over the Danube, had not 
 kept faith with the Persian monarch, and waited, according to 
 promise, for the falling back of the defeated army. In this 
 occurrence the Turanian races of Northern Europe the least 
 advanced of all the tribes of the same stock, according to 
 public opinion showed a foresight, a sturdy energy, a well- 
 sustained perseverance worthy only of very civilized people. 
 31 .
 
 464 GENTILISM. 
 
 After agriculturist nations, the pastoral tribes are certainly 
 to be accounted the most civilized ; they are, in that regard, far 
 in advance of the hunting and fishing hordes. Every eth- 
 nologist admits this view of the matter, and classifies the races 
 of mankind according to this standard. But in the estimation 
 of all well-informed men, the Turanian tribes are mostly in- 
 cluded among the pasture-graziers, stock-raising, and cattle- 
 feeding people. They were primitively all nomads ; and if 
 some of them have been agriculturists for many ages as the 
 Chinese, who certainly belong to that class of nations the 
 great majority of them, to the present day, are yet nomad and 
 pastoral people. All the Tartar nations, so numerous and far- 
 spread in point of territory, are' of this category. The Arabs, 
 almost without exception, were formerly of the same charac- 
 ter, and many Arabian tribes continue to be the same to this 
 day. The Turanians, therefore, even those of the earliest age, 
 partook of the general characteristics of many Semitic tribes ; 
 and we know that Baron Larrey considers the Syro-Arabian 
 type of man as the highest in existence, placing- it, as he does, 
 directly above the Hellenic and Caucasian. To be sure, the 
 physical characters of all Semites are of a higher order than the 
 same features of any Turanian stock ; but the habits of both 
 classes of men being essentially the same, namely, pastoral 
 and rural, indicate almost the same degree of civilization. 
 
 The conclusion to be drawn from all these considerations is 
 plain and forcible : the Turanians have never been savages, 
 and many of them have attained a high state of culture. But 
 we must come to the real difficulty, included in the very simple 
 question, What of their religion ? 
 
 For the solution of it we have no books, sacred or profane, 
 belonging to the whole race ; no general traditions current 
 among them except, undoubtedly, flood traditions no narra- 
 tive of migrations connecting them with higher races ; nothing 
 that can be extracted from their language which is of a quite
 
 SUPPLE MENTABY. 465 
 
 different character from that of the Aryans or Semites. Nay, 
 their tongues are rather a real stumbling-block in our wav, since 
 they never had an alphabet, and scarcely ever rose to the hiero- 
 glyphic character, or, worse still, to picture-writing. How can, 
 we hope to know which God they worshipped, which code of 
 morality they followed, what social principles they had primi- 
 tively adopted ? There is only one way left us to come out of 
 this labyrinth ; but it is, after all, a simple and easy one. It 
 will directly open itself to us if we merely ask the secondary 
 question : Are there yet Turanian nations in existence, and 
 what are they in point of religion and morality ? Their 
 present status may unveil to a great extent their mysterious 
 origin. 
 
 All the ethnographers of our age are agreed upon this: 
 that the Chinese belong to the universally-spread Turanian 
 race. This seems to be a settled point ; and this finally clears 
 up a great deal of the mystery which, till our days, hung as a 
 thick mist on the origin of this extraordinary nation. There 
 are other actual races of men which likewise can claim the 
 same starting-point ; among them the pure Tartars, and the 
 Siberian tribes ; but as their history is less known than that of 
 the native inhabitants of the Celestial empire, and as we are 
 limited in the space left us for these last investigations, we 
 must confine ourselves to the single line of inquiry suggested 
 by the real antiquities of China. 
 
 It may be considered as certain that the same race of inhabit- 
 ants has lived in this extreme part of Asia since the first mi- 
 gration of man from his original centre. They must have come 
 from frhe West ; and if the general opinion about them* is cor- 
 rect, and they are Hamites, they must have started either from 
 Africa or from that part of western Asia which is contiguous 
 to it. They have annals going back to the year 2637 before 
 Christ; but the followers of Lao-tseu speak of interminable 
 dynasties reaching, finally, up to the first monarch, Pankou,
 
 466 GENTILISM. 
 
 whose surname, Hoen-tun (primordial chaos), indicates the 
 purely mythological character of the history. It is known. 
 moreover, that the spread of the Hamites was anterior to that 
 of the Aryans and Semites. 
 
 In order to determine their primitive religion the only 
 thing of real importance here the first step must be to con- 
 sider their public worship since the Europeans became in con- 
 tact with them. At the time of the landing of the Portuguese 
 on their coast the beginning of the sixteenth century the 
 religious aspect of the country was precisely what it is at this 
 moment, with the exception of a few hundred thousand Chris- 
 tians existing at present, who have been with great difficulties 
 converted to the true faith. The great mass of the common 
 people was then, and is yet, Buddhist ; and as the founder of 
 the sect, Gautama, is not older than six hundred years before 
 Christ, we cannot consider this system of atheistic idolatry as 
 having any connection with the primeval worship of the Chi- 
 nese. This element ought, therefore, to be set aside, and there 
 is no need of making any future allusion to it. The remainder 
 of the population is composed of followers of Lao-tseu, and of 
 Confucius, and it is among these two branches of religious 
 opinion that we may be able to discover the original worship 
 of the Chinese. The first of these philosophers was born in 
 604 before Christ, half a century previous to Confucius. He 
 founded the religion of the Tao (supreme reason), which, he 
 pretended, is anterior to, and the source of, the divinities I, Hi, 
 Wei. But he did not reject the worship of these divinities. 
 He, on the contrary, taught openly the belief in the existence 
 of a spiritual world, giving rise to spiritual manifestations 
 among men, and connected with a whole system of migration 
 of souls after death. The religion of Lao-tseu, therefore, is 
 not altogether an atheistic system ; far from it ; and, conse- 
 quently, a great number of common people in China still fol- 
 low it. Its priests live in temples and small communities with
 
 SUPPLEMENTARY. 467 
 
 their families, " deriving," it is said, "a precarious liveliliood 
 from the sale of charms." 
 
 The sect of Confucius, who appeared directly after Lao- 
 tseu, is of a very different character. It embraces only rich 
 men, or officials of the government called Mandarins. It is 
 merely a system of moral philosophy clothed in a fantastical 
 symbolism ; the four cardinal virtues : piety, morality, justice, 
 and wisdom, coming into combination with mere physical 
 beings or attributes of matter, such as moistuess, fire, winds, 
 water, mountains, thunder, earth. Heaven and earth with 
 man become, as it were, the heads of three series, called king- 
 doms. The only question is to know if Heaven Tien, or 
 Shanti is merely the material heaven, or the God of heaven. 
 Everyone is acquainted with the long controversy which arose 
 in China last century among the Catholic missionaries ; a con- 
 troversy which ended by a Pontifical decree forbidding to allow 
 the Chinese converts to use the native rites, chiefly to Tien, or 
 Shanti ; as evidently in the modern Chinese religion, the 
 direct object of those rites is only what is generally called 
 " the vault of heaven," and not God himself. The system of 
 Confucius is, therefore, positively an atheistic system ; and it 
 is not in it that we can find the primeval religion of China, if 
 it was monotheistic. Our only hope, consequently, must turn, 
 toward the actually despised religion of Tao, to which belongs 
 a great number of people of the lowest class. 
 
 A remark, however, on what has just been said of Confu- 
 cius' system, cannot be deprived of interest. We find in it, 
 together with cardinal virtues, physical entities which are not ' 
 entirely foreign to our previous acquaintance with Hindostan. 
 Moistness is probably the moist atmosphere, and must be the 
 Indra of the Vedas ; fire is certainly Agni ; winds must be 
 the meruts of India, etc. Who knows if primitively Heaven 
 was not Brahma neuter, or the invisible (Jrod ; and Earth, Brah- 
 ma male, or the visible universe ? For the Pontifical decision
 
 468 GENTILISM. 
 
 of the question affected only actual times and circumstances ; 
 the object of Rome was to prevent actual Chinese Christians 
 from performing really superstitious, if not positively idola- 
 trous, rites. But the consideration of the primitive religion of 
 China did not, and could not enter into the mind of the Su- 
 preme Pontiff. We are at liberty, therefore, to ask ourselves 
 if originally the religious ideas of the Chinese were not very 
 different from what they are actually, and if there has not been 
 a decline in their belief, as it has been found out- was the case 
 with the Indians, Egyptians, and Greeks ? And on the thres- 
 hold of this investigation we are surprised to see the nomencla- 
 ture of Confucius' preternatural beings coincide in many points 
 with that of the Yedic devatas. 
 
 It is, however, in the primitive system of Lao-tseu that we 
 are more likely to find what interests us at this moment ; and 
 we must consider more closely what is called the Tao religion 
 in China. G. Pauthier and Abel de Re'musat in France have, 
 it may be said, profoundly studied the question. The first 
 published a " Memoir on the origin and propagation of the 
 doctrine of Tao," and illustrated it with a commentary drawn 
 from Sanscrit books, and from the Tao-te-king of Lao-tseu ; the 
 whole followed by the translation of two Vedic Upanishads, 
 having a visible reference to the Tao doctrine. The book ap- 
 peared in Paris in 1831. 
 
 From the publication of this important work, it became 
 evident that the primeval belief of the Chinese was not com- 
 pletely isolated from that of other primitive races ; and a new 
 and important link was established between the Turanian 
 family of nations and their Aryan brethren. But it is chiefly 
 the text itself of the Chinese author which was found full of 
 philosophical and religious considerations which few men in- 
 deed could have expected. The general opinion of all those 
 who are acquainted with modern China is. that apart from the 
 Buddhist votaries given over to the senseless superstitions re-
 
 SUPPLEMENTARY. 469 
 
 placing for the vulgar the open atheism advocated by the chiefs 
 of the sect, apart, we say, for the degrading idolatry of the 
 worshippers of Fo or Buddha, the remainder of the nation, 
 the upper classes of society in particular, are left absolutely 
 without a religion of any kind, except the worship of ancestors ; 
 do not believe neither in a personal God, nor in the immor- 
 tality of the soul ; live brutally in this world, and die with a 
 complete indifference, as expecting no other. This is the uni- 
 versal, and for aught we know, the correct opinion of all well- 
 informed people. 
 
 But the books called Kings come here counter to that idea, 
 and certify that it has not always been so in that devoted coun- 
 try. Before the age of Lao-tseu, the Y-King existed already, 
 and was attributed to Fo-hi, identified by many learned men 
 with ^oah himself. But whatever may be thought of this 
 pretension, it is sure that in the Y-King there is question of a 
 real God appearing at the origin of this visible creation, the 
 corner-stone of it, and evidently its regulator at least ; since He 
 is called Ly and Too, that is, Law and Reason. This is, in- 
 deed, as cold and dry as the Chinese character ; and the exuber- 
 ance of fancy of other cosmologists, chiefly in Hindostan and 
 Greece, is poorly replaced at the extreme end of the Asiatic 
 continent ; yet Ly and Tao is, at least, as imaginative as the 
 primu-m mobile of Aristotle ; and the writer of the Y-King in- 
 tended certainly to strike the mind of his readers and call 
 their attention to the mighty Governor of the world. 
 
 But we must carefully examine the chief supernatural expres- 
 sions contained in the Kings attributed to Lao-tseu ; for this 
 philosopher wrote several of them, particularly one of great 
 importance. Those which are supposed to be the .work of Con- 
 fucius would poorly reward us for our trouble, as the great 
 moralist of China seems not to have had the least idea of a real 
 God ; and, on this account, have we already set aside his doc- 
 trine,- which we leave without regret to the meditations of the
 
 470 GENTILISM. 
 
 Mandarins. The Tao-te-King seems to be really the work of 
 Lao-tseu ; and it will be sufficient to confine our investigations 
 within the circle of this extraordinary work. Since the " Me- 
 moir " published by Pauthier in 1831, Stanislas Julien, another 
 French sinologue, gave from the manuscripts of his confrere a 
 translation of the whole Tao-te-King, which appeared in Paris 
 in 1842. 
 
 The word Too itself is somewhat obscure. Taken materially 
 it means only a way, a road. But Lao-tseu was a metaphysical 
 and religious writer, and from the context of the whole book 
 it is clear that it means a road to lead to reason ; and the word 
 reason, from the same context, must receive a high interpreta- 
 tion, and designates certainly primordial reason, the mind 
 which created the world, and which governs it as the soul gov- 
 erns the body. It is thus somewhat akiii to the A6yo<; of the 
 Greek schools, with, it is true, something of the pantheism 
 of the Hindoo " Universal Soul." 
 
 From the investigations of Pauthier and of Remusat, the 
 word Tao has, in fact, three significations, which Lao-tseu em- 
 braced, or rather supposed were contained, at the same time, 
 in this short expression. It means, first, reason, properly so 
 called ; then, speech finally, the Supreme Reason of God ; 
 exactly as Aoyof in Greek, which also is susceptible of these 
 three meanings. 
 
 In a celebrated passage of the Tao-te-King, it is said that 
 this " reason has no name, in some respect, and in another 
 respect, it has a name ; " and a Chinese commentator on these 
 words of Lao-tseu expresses himself in this wise : " By itself and 
 in its essence Reason cannot have a name, since it existed pre- 
 vious to all beings (before names were required to distinguish 
 them); but when primordial motion began, and being suc- 
 ceeded to no-being, it could receive a name." 
 
 It is impossible not to remark here almost an identity with 
 the Vedas of Hindostan and the Hermaic books of Egypt.
 
 SUPPLEMENTARY. 471 
 
 In the twenty-first chapter of the Taote-King there is men- 
 tion made of a kind of cosmogony; when to the indistinctness 
 of primordial chaos, in which all beings were confused, imper- 
 ceptible, indefinite invisible, consequently succeeded their 
 actual state of order, perceptibility, explicitness, and, in conse- 
 quence, visibility. This is, no doubt, the Egyptian doctrine of 
 the visible Universe, son of the invisible God ; but in the doc- 
 trine of Lao-tsen, the very first expression is pure pantheism. 
 This ought not to surprise, since, at that very epoch, the sixth 
 century before Christ, it was thus likewise in Egypt. 
 
 The forty-second chapter contains the following remarkable 
 apophthegm : " Reason produced one ; one produced two ; 
 two, three ; three, everything. The Universe is based on an 
 obscure principle (matter) ; it is embraced by a lucid principle 
 (heaven); a tepid afflatus harmonizes the whole." Out of 
 this vague and indefinite sentence Christian truths can be de- 
 duced, as well as pantheistic and l^eoplatonist errors. 
 
 But the most remarkable passage, perhaps, of the whole 
 book, is the following : " What you look at and do not see, is 
 I ; what you listen to and do not hear, is Hi ; what you try to 
 touch and cannot is WEI three beings which cannot be under- 
 stood and form but One. The first of them is neither brighter 
 
 nor more obscure than the last Whoever can conceive 
 
 a right idea of the primitive state of reason (the non-existence 
 of beings before creation) can know the principle, and holds 
 in his hand the chain of reason." 
 
 Many Catholic missionaries saw in these words an almost 
 clear expression of the Trinity. This holy dogma is certainly 
 more positively asserted in this passage than in any Platonist 
 sentence which the Fathers of the Church understood as con- 
 taining it. The most striking part of it is undoubtedly the 
 nomenclature of the successive letters I, H, Y, which reproduce 
 almost exactly the Hebrew tetragraminaton IHY Jehova 
 and which many learned men have recognized in the lao of
 
 472 GENTILISM. 
 
 the Greeks, the Jov. of the Latins, and the Jub. or Juba of the 
 Mauritanians. 
 
 The individual life of Lao-tseu presents many analogies with 
 that of Pythagoras. He is said to have travelled in the west, 
 towards Hindostan consequently ; he pretended also to have 
 passed through several successive transformations. His doc- 
 trine is as redolent of Pythagorism, and of Platonisrn in theory, 
 as of Stoicism in ethics. All these particularities are, no 
 doubt, totally unknown to his actual votaries in China, who 
 belong to the most ignorant classes of society ; nay, the priests 
 of the sect he founded, who are known chiefly in this age 
 for their vulgarity, and the sordid inclination which prompts 
 them to sell charms, and live at the expense of the people, 
 know probably no'thing of the elevated doctrines of the Tao-te- 
 King yet the book exists, and Europe is indebted for the 
 knowledge of it to Pauthier, Julien, and Remusat. To these 
 gentlemen we owe the advantage of a positive acquaintance 
 with primitive China, and consequently with more than half 
 the Turanian world. Owing to this we have acquired the cer- 
 tainty that the ancient SuvOionog was not a state of barbarism. 
 All the details which have just passed under review prove, on 
 the contrary, that, as with respect to the Aryan and Semitic 
 families of nations, so likewise with regard to these, the higher 
 we go in point of time the more enlightened the Turanians 
 were ; and we have a right to assert that as the Tao-te-King of 
 Lao-tseu was a compilation of only the sixth century before 
 Christ, it was not the very text of the books which existed 
 anteriorly, and out of which the founder of the Tao-sse formed 
 his system. The original work must have been much more 
 clear and emphatic in regard to the Unity, Infinity, Almighti- 
 ness of the Creator, chiefly in regard to His personality and 
 Infinite power over the world. A new proof, if it were need- 
 ed, that at the beginning all races of men enjoyed a high relig- 
 ious and moral knowledge,
 
 SUPPLEMENTARY. 473 
 
 Another very important remark is derived from the palpable 
 and most evident character of the Tao-te-King. It is altogeth- 
 er a dry and metaphysical composition. It almost reproduces in 
 China the peculiarities of the Sankya philosophy in Ilindo- 
 stun. As the writers of this Indian school indulged in abstruse 
 theoretical speculations, which changed altogether the scope of 
 the elevated compositions of the Vedas, and introduced a thor- 
 ough and consistent pantheism, whilst in the previous upan- 
 ishads this error was contained only in germ, and was counter- 
 acted by many clear and emphatic utterances of the primitive 
 doctrine, so likewise the work of Lao-tseu presents to our 
 intellect a series of most abstract apophthegms and considera- 
 tions, all merging in a dry pantheism, as absolute and rigorous 
 as that of the Sankya philosophy. There is not, therefore, any 
 rashness in supposing that this erroneous and strict system of 
 the Chinese philosopher was derived from a previous, far supe- 
 rior doctrine, of which the human mind had not been the sole 
 expounder, but which can be, by analogy at least, attributed to 
 that primitive revelation whose vestiges we have encountered 
 everywhere in the ancient world. From all previous considera- 
 tions the idea that all ancient religions began by pantheism 
 must by this time be exploded. 
 
 The few discoveries lately made in Turanian antiquities have 
 not thus been altogether barren of interesting results. It is a 
 field which has just been opened these last few years. When 
 more is known of it, and men of true science and impartial 
 mind, like Prichard and Rawlinson, have collected new facts, 
 analyzed and classified them, the conclusions which we begin 
 to foresee, and which already, to a certain extent, can be de- 
 duced and enunciated, will be much more precise, and, in our 
 firm conviction, complete the demonstration which, at the pres- 
 ent time, can be but given with some diffidence and hesitation. 
 It is, however, already a strict conclusion from facts lately 
 known, that the most primitive times of mankind were not
 
 474 GENTILISM. 
 
 universally given over to barbarism, and to manners akin to 
 those of the bmte. This, at least, is strictly deduced from 
 what is positively known of those early times. 
 
 A last reflection on China as an index of the Turanian 
 period, is naturally inferred from the government and social 
 state of this extraordinary country. It subsists yet under 
 the patriarchal polity ; and although the Emperor is in fact a 
 despot, he preserves at least, pro forma, in all his decrees, the 
 original language of a father. A multitude of details in legis- 
 lation, social customs, and inveterate habits, find their best ex- 
 planation in the origin of government on the clan pattern. 
 Henry Sumner Maine has lately demonstrated that the laws of 
 ancient Rome, and those of modern England, are clearly refer- 
 able to the same source ; but he might have found a still more 
 striking example of his theory in modern China. The book on 
 "Ancient Law" deserves, however, to be read by all men desir- 
 ous of obtaining an exact knowledge of primitive times.* And 
 nothing more appropriate and confirmatory of the views advo- 
 cated all along by us, could have been published at this time. 
 "We only regret not to have known the book except at this last 
 moment of our present writing. 
 
 It is evidently one of the most important branches of archae- 
 ological study, to dive in the few remains existing in Asia and 
 northern Europe, of what has been called the Turanian period. 
 Inscriptions, monuments, fragments of the human body, skulls 
 particularly, such as those studied by Dr. Pruner-Bey in the 
 north of France, everything even of the least importance ap- 
 parently, ought to be collected with care, compared, examined 
 attentively, and explained with respect to their bearings on the 
 religion, customs, and civilization of those primitive times. 
 This is, in our opinion, the most sure means of dispelling and 
 exorcising the phantom of barbarism, evoked with such perse- 
 
 * In Appendix II., at the end of this volume, the reader will find some 
 reflections on Mr. Maine's " Ancient Law."
 
 SUPPLEMENTARY. 475 
 
 verance by a multitude of modern writers. If our first progen- 
 itors were barbarians we will surely find the proofs of it in 
 Turanian relics. But let the inquirer ascertain first, that what- 
 ever he chooses for the basis of his investigations is really an- 
 cient and primeval ; let him not, like Sir John Lubbock, look 
 eagerly after the fish-hooks, stone-hatchets, oaken clubs of some 
 modern degraded islanders, and conclude forthwith that these 
 were the tools of primitive man ; let him not collect all the 
 senseless tales, obscene details, and brutish narratives related 
 by travellers of actually living tribes on the extreme verge of 
 poor degraded humanity, and exclaim at once that this is 
 always the first phase of human history, and the first inklings 
 of " early civilization." But let the impartial inquirer ascer- 
 tain positively that whatever he has found and collected, is of 
 a real antiquity, appertains to the primitive Turanian epoch, 
 can be proved to be referable to the early oicvdiopos of Epi- 
 phanius and Herodotus ; and the sure conclusion will be that 
 even then men were civilized, adored the true God, and had a 
 code of morality akin to ours. 
 
 The circle at last is, we think, completed, the curve is closed, 
 and no link is missing in the long chain. The Aryan family of 
 nations has spoken with unanimity, in an unmistakable lan- 
 guage, and has appeared before us in its native grandeur and 
 solemn aspect. The Semitic races seemed at first to frustrate 
 our hopes, and stand in judgment against our conclusions ; but 
 a more close attention has brought even them in accord with 
 their Japhetic brethren, and the Hebrew branch of that great 
 family has made amends for previous misconceptions, and given 
 back to the whole stock the precious boon which they seemed 
 to have lost. Nothing could give a stronger confirmation to the 
 assertions of our first chapter, and bring more in relief the 
 primitive plfn of God in the creation of the human species.
 
 476 GENTILISM. 
 
 The Turanians, finally, although still somewhat doubtfully, are 
 gradually brought back to a dignified level with their more 
 favored brethren ; and this uncertain utterance in their voice 
 agrees precisely with what we conceive to be the necessity of 
 the case with respect to the descendants of Ham, the inheritors 
 of the curse of Canaan. 
 
 But, together with the primeval unanimity of the whole 
 human race in expressing the same truths, and exhibiting the 
 same conscientious morality, the subsequent history of all the 
 branches of mankind has manifested with clearness, and with 
 an unfortunate accord, the great law of degeneracy which can 
 be pointed out everywhere on earth during the thousands of 
 years which preceded Christianity. Hindostan, Central Asia, 
 Egypt, Greece, Italy, and the whole anterior Turanian world 
 have spoken the same language, and demonstrated the same 
 fact. Only, it is true, a few broad and bold features of it have 
 been brought forward, and formed the chain of the argument. 
 But to this were we reduced by the limits of our plan. The 
 reader must be, by this time, persuaded that an indefinite num- 
 ber of * details could easily be adduced to strengthen the same 
 conclusions. Yolumes of notes, taken from the annals of an- 
 cient nations, and scarcely ever contradicted by other facts of a 
 dissimilar character, could without difficulty be printed culled 
 in reading, with pen in hand, from the innumerable books 
 which daily issue from the press of all nations, in all languages, 
 and of all schools, even of the one most opposed to our view of 
 the case. 
 
 This ancient law of degeneracy must, by this time, be con- 
 sidered as strictly demonstrated, and it is to be wondered at 
 that there are yet assertors of the " continuous progress " of 
 mankind. 
 
 Yet a strong objection meets us here with regard to the 
 entire tone of this volume, an objection which unfortunately 
 becomes every day more emphatic and outspoketi, although*it
 
 SUPPLEMENTARY. * 477 
 
 saps the foundation of society, and opposes, with its stem re- 
 solve, all the leanings of the human race in all ages, if we 
 except the small band of materialists, and atheists more active 
 now than ever. 
 
 The objection is this : The plan of history you draw sup- 
 poses in your primitive revelation a direct intervention of God 
 which is not proved, and you are reduced to represent man as 
 unable to develop his own destiny by his own efforts, con-* 
 stantly in struggle with his Master, yet finally conquering even 
 Him, to fall directly a prey to his own degraded passions. In 
 our age science requires that the moral world should be ex- 
 plained without a deus ex machina, but merely by the play of 
 human agency and human power. 
 
 This is the proud arid, we may say, awful dictum of many 
 writers of our age, in the opinion of whom God, if lie exists, 
 does not condescend to care for His creatures, but leaves them 
 to their fate, even in the supposition that He gave them exist- 
 ence. Apuleius himself would have explained : " Can we be 
 left without the thought, and the hope of heaven ?" To declare 
 that everything supernatural ought to be rejected at once, by 
 the very fact that it is above nature ; to disconnect consequently 
 the history of man from the designs of a Creator and Master ; 
 to abandon us to an unknown destiny, and condemn us to a 
 perpetual ignorance of our origin and our end, is the most ter- 
 rible sentence which can be pronounced against humanity. 
 "With numberless aspirations towards a supreme happiness, and 
 owing to this, always dissatisfied with what the earth can afford, 
 claiming by all the aims of our soul kindred with God himself, 
 and in our inmost consciousness infinitely superior to the whole 
 earth on which we tread, we are told that all these longing de- 
 sires are deceptions, and that this irresistible attraction towards 
 heaven is a folly. The whole of mankind protests against this 
 condemnation to self-abasement, and a condemnation, too, pro- 
 nounced by a few theorists who pretend that their only aim is
 
 478 GENTILISM. 
 
 to restore to mankind its rights. Away with such rights which 
 end in dishonor and nothingness ! We know better, since the 
 hand of God has imprinted in our very hearts, together with 
 His law, the promise of the reward due to its observance, 
 namely, the possession of heaven and of Himself. 
 
 Who is base enough to advise us to reject what our nature 
 aspires to with all its energy, and embrace what cannot be but 
 'loathsome to a noble soul ? Yet all this pretension, that science 
 must set God and His revelation aside, in order to have our 
 mind enlightened with regard to our origin and destiny, comes 
 finally to this : that we are not placed oft a higher level than 
 the beasts of the field, and like them are destined to perish for 
 ever. Since if you take away our heavenly aspirations and 
 call them folly, you take away our title-deeds, and leave us de- 
 prived of inheritance, the most forlorn and miserable of mere 
 animal's fated to enjoy life a moment and sink down for ever 
 into nothingness. But, indeed, this is to ignore completely our 
 very nature ; and thus to remove from us the sphere of the 
 supernatural is to deny the highest prerogatives of human kind. 
 
 Nay, we cannot remain even here, and be satisfied with so suf- 
 ficient an answer to the pretended objection previously record- 
 ed. We answer again with more emphasis : Our assertion with 
 respect to a primitive communication of heaven with man we 
 have proved by facts and texts, and the same facts and texts have 
 disproved yours. If the history of man is not such as we de- 
 scribed, it may be, we confess, such as you depict. But is there 
 a line in this volume which does not contradict your positions ? 
 and is the whole amount of facts it contains assailable by any- 
 thing you can bring forward ? More, you falsely pretend that 
 you have science on your side ; it is on ours undoubtedly ; for 
 nearly all, if not all, the facts recorded in these pages, are either 
 the direct result of impartial scientific inquiry into the annals 
 of primitive nations, or the evident consequences drawn from 
 those inquiries. The supernatural question is, therefore, de-
 
 SUPPLEMENTARY. 479 
 
 cided even scientifically ; and the more these questions into 
 the origin of man will be studied, the nearer will the con- 
 clusion come to our Bible records ; then there will be a perfect 
 agreement as it is proper it should be between science an I 
 revelation. 
 
 But, besides these individual researches of some learned men 
 of great erudition and impartiality, our own decision of the 
 question, such as we have briefly attempted it, rests likewise on 
 the universal assent of all nations, among whom the great 
 dogma, that God created man, spoke to him, directs him, is the 
 fountain of truth, and the rewarder of virtue, has, primi- 
 tively at least, been admitted everywhere. This book, after 
 all, is but the humble index of the thoughts of mankind. In 
 it man himself speaks and acts ; and humanity has always re- 
 jected with scorn any religion which is not supernatural. Men 
 have said that it was a human religion, and this was sufficient 
 for its condemnation. It was reserved to our age to proclaim 
 religion as not coming from God ; and to reject whatever bears 
 His holy name, as unscientific unscientific, because permit- 
 ting us to explain the existence of the world by a superhuman 
 agency ; as if it were not the height of folly to pretend to give 
 the reason of it without a Maker and a Master, that is, without 
 a Cause and a Lawgiver ! 
 
 But if such a pretension is, and has always been, considered 
 as the abjuration of common sense ; if it is a strong proof, on 
 the contrary, of a well-balanced mind, to acknowledge that this 
 world must have had a Creator, and man a Heavenly Father ; 
 then the assertion of a primitive revelation is but a natural 
 consequence of this belief, and the very fact of it must be con- 
 sidered as proved. For how can we prove that God has spoken 
 to man, except, first, by the unanimous consent of mankind on 
 the subject ; second, by the doctrine itself communicated to 
 man primitively, and evidently worthy of God ; third, by the 
 innate consciousness of each of us, that if God has made us, 
 32
 
 480 GENTILISM. 
 
 He must take care of us, and intimate to us His holy will that 
 we may not go counter to it ? Our arguments are directed 
 here to non-Christians ; the children of the Church have the 
 word* of their Mother. 
 
 But the objection states further, that, in this case, man, un- 
 able to develop his own destin;f by his own efforts, is con- 
 stantly and naturally engaged in a struggle with his Master, 
 yet finally conquers Him, to fall directly a prey to his own 
 degraded passions. This, as usual with rationalistic thinkers, 
 represents human history under a false light by merely giving 
 an absurd correlation to the two great agents of its develop- 
 ment. 
 
 Undoubtedly there are two real agents in it, God and Man. 
 The rationalist and evolutionist philosophers suppress one of 
 the terms, God, and think they have admirably simplified the 
 problem, and given to the second term, Man, a sublime position 
 on earth, making him independent of any Master, and the only 
 manager of his own destiny. "We have sufficiently spoken of 
 this " proud elevation." But we complain that God and man 
 are spoken of by the evolutionists as if we made them equal 
 agents in the history of the world, and each independent of 
 the other; struggling together, alternately victorious or con- 
 quered. This is not the view we have taken of human history 
 in this volume. 
 
 Man, in our mind, has a sublime position on earth. He is, 
 even after his fall, the true king of creation, and has yet do- 
 minion over all inferior creatures; he is, moreover, a free 
 agent ; and the consciousness of this eminent prerogative 
 obliges him to call himself constantly to a strict accountability 
 for all his actions. For both his dominion over the world, and 
 his high endowment of a free will, he must own himself in- 
 debted to a Superior Being, with whom it would be sacrilegious 
 in him to claim any sort of equality. His own conscience 
 teaches him that he will have to give an account of himself,
 
 SUPPLEMENT AEY. 481 
 
 and show what use he made of his own superiority over other 
 creatures, and of his freedom of choice in all his actions. 
 Both are immense prerogatives granted him by his Maker ; 
 they give him an almost absolute power over the world, and 
 by them, we may say, the history of this globe and of its in- 
 habitants is left to him. 'When he follows the will of God in 
 the proper use of these .two eminent attributions, he rises in 
 true civilization, aiid preserves the gifts he had originally 
 received. Should he, on the contrary, abuse his power, he is 
 not ' victorious over God,' who always remain infinitely above 
 him ; but he only ' resists God/ and in doing so he degrades 
 himself, and would fall gradually to the level of the brute, if 
 God had not pity of him and did not raise him again every 
 time he stumbles. 
 
 Thus the Creator had been infinitely good to him at the be- 
 ginning, and continues to help him all along, even when he 
 least deserves it. This help the theologians call divine grace 
 which is never denied in this life, and which is derived for us 
 from the merits of a Redeemer who died for all, even for 
 those that lived before His coming, or who refuse His help. 
 
 This is the only " struggle " we can admit between God and 
 Man in the drama of human history ; a struggle of infinite 
 mercy on one side, of 'repeated ingratitude on the other ; end- 
 ing always in a higher boon on the part of God, when man has 
 reached the lowest depth of misery. This was seen first after 
 the flood, when the patriarchal religion and civilization were 
 granted anew to the only human family that remained ; 
 secondly, at the call of Abraham, when a nation was taken 
 apart to preserve intact the great truths required absolutely 
 for the existence of man as a superior being. The Mosaic law 
 was given later to last until a more profound degeneracy should 
 require a more potent remedy. This, fourthly, brought from 
 heaven the only One to whom the inheritance of the nations 
 had been promised from the beginning.
 
 482 GEISTTILISM. 
 
 This is the way Christians have always understood the action 
 of both God and Man in the world ; and this action supposes, 
 necessarily, a supernatural relation between both ; supernatural, 
 we mean, on the part of man who had, from his own, no title 
 to such a favor, to a divine help so constant, so universal, so 
 adequate to all his needs. 
 
 Gentilism has proved this with respect to the original mercy 
 of God in granting to all men the really supernatural boon of 
 true religion and morality. And it has proved it, likewise, 
 with respect to the law of degeneracy, as we called it, on the 
 part of man, unable or unwilling to keep in their purity the 
 primitive gifts he had received, and constantly falling down 
 deeper and deeper, until real religion almost disappeared, and 
 moral corruption nearly totally destroyed human conscience. 
 
 Then, indeed, the need of heavenly help was greater than 
 ever ; and it was given also more abundantly than at any pre- 
 vious epoch. If the all-merciful action of God on human his- 
 tory was undeniable in the facts recorded in these pages, it be- 
 came at once overwhelmingly manifest in the establishment of 
 Christianity and the sudden destruction of idolatry. Considered 
 only as a turning-point in human history, Christianity cannot 
 be explained without an influence far higher than that of man. 
 In the supposition that this world has been left altogether 
 to human agency, that no action of a superior being is re- 
 quired to understand the totality of its annals, that science 
 ought to clear up every difficulty, and to show independently 
 of a heavenly power how every change has taken place on 
 earth, at any period of its history, It can be maintained that 
 the task would be perfectly hopeless when it is question of the 
 conversion of mankind to God. What contributes to deceive 
 people in this regard, is that they imagine the character of 
 Christ can be reduced to the level of a merely human character. 
 All those who have undertaken to do so have falsified the his- 
 tory of the Incarnate Son of God. His divinity is as clear as
 
 SUPPLEMENTARY. 483 
 
 the raid-day sunlight, and from it the mission of His apostles 
 and their success becomes undeniable and really supernatural. 
 But this is not the place to develop these few thoughts. All 
 that needs be said is that the divine action in the primitive 
 revelation granted to man is evident from the long subsequent 
 revelation of God through Christ ; for both are so intimately 
 connected as to form a perfect whnle, whose parts cannot be 
 dissociated. 
 
 If the traditions so often mentioned in this volume, as uni- 
 versal among ah 1 primitive nations, had any value, and be- 
 longed to the history of the race, they recorded facts, dating 
 from the very beginning of mankind; among others, a fall 
 from original innocence, a state of sin and bondage inducing a 
 curse from which man could not be disenthralled, except by 
 a future liberator ; and all this was to come from the infinite 
 mercy of God. The bonds of union between the Creator and 
 man, as revealed in those traditions, had been violently broken 
 asunder, and the links of the chain could not be bound up 
 together again except by a heavenly intervention. All nations, 
 at the time of Christ, were in truth waiting for a Redeemer, 
 and their expectation included an interposition from above. In 
 the copy of those ancient records which Virgil possessed, it was 
 "Virgin Astrsea who would c:me down from heaven, and bring 
 back on earth the former golden age. It is evident that this 
 last state would be supernatural, and raise man to a higher posi- 
 tion than he could ever have expected, if left to his own 
 earthly condition. The end of the series, supposing thus the 
 intervention of God, the whole of it belonged to a world higher 
 than this ; and consequently the essential character of the prim- 
 itive traditions was of a supernatural nature, and cannot be 
 inclosed within the limits of what is now called science. But 
 what is more, the objection raised against the scheme of revela- 
 tion, could thus be turned against the scientists with a tenfold 
 greater force, and we might tell them : Your knowledge of
 
 484 GENTILISM. 
 
 man supposes only physics and zoology to explain his origin 
 and destiny ; yet all the annals, traditions, beliefs of the race 
 proclaim a much high r range of qualities for both, and all its 
 aspirations protest against such a low estimate of its worth as 
 this. Without a heavenly term at the beginning of the series, 
 and a much brighter one at the end, man remains an enigma, 
 and cannot be explained at all. Therefore, by the very act of 
 rejecting the supernatural in taking a serious account of him, 
 you commit suicide as scientists, and deprive yourselves of the 
 only means of judging rightly of our humanity. 
 
 This is so evident that it is an easy task to compare patri- 
 archal religion, as we have called it, with Christianity, and to see 
 the perfect analogy of both, on account precisely of their super- 
 natural character, without which both the ancient and modern 
 history of the race remain inexplicable. 
 
 First, the primitive religion of mankind was, in essentials, 
 the same for all nations, and would have kept the human fam- 
 ily united, if pantheism and idolatry had not supervened, and 
 multiplied to the last degree the seeds of division already sown 
 by diversity of language, of race, and of private interests. 
 Unity in religion, if it had lasted, would have counteracted all the 
 other sources of contention among men ; at least, they would nev- 
 er have forgotten altogether that they were the children of com- 
 mon parents, had they continued to worship at the same altars, 
 and to adore the same God. This primitive unity of belief, 
 such as it was, prevented, at least for many ages, the flood, of 
 moral corruption, and of dark superstition from deluging the 
 world ; and it was only when division had been carried to its 
 last limits that the total dissolution of society was threatened 
 by the excess of the evil then existing. This has been proved. 
 
 In our modern times we see the Church, universal also, and 
 prescribing to her children the same faith and the same rites. 
 We thus contemplate a strict moral society in which men are 
 united more strongly than by the bonds of politics or temporal
 
 SUPPLEMENTARY. 485 
 
 interests. The various nations which compose the population 
 of the globe furnish to the time faith a greater or a smaller 
 number of firm adherents, so as to exhibit the elements of a 
 really universal society, and fulfilling to a ceitain degree the 
 promises of old seers who have announced the reconstruction 
 of primitive unity in the human family. Catholicity, or uni- 
 versality, becomes thus a characteristic mark of regenerated hu- 
 manity, both in the patriarchal period and in our Christian 
 times. But in the one as in the other this mark partakes of a 
 supernatural character, and cannot be even imagined if man is 
 left to his own efforts, without the co-operation of heaven. It 
 is, in fact, by this co-operation alone that it is secured. 
 
 Secondly, in those ancient times, which it has been a pleasure 
 for us to study, we have universally admired a pure morality 
 go constant, and exalted, that it has become a part of public 
 opinion if we may use that expression to attach to a patri- 
 archal state of society the idea of purity of manners and holiness 
 of life. In the Christian Church, likewise, we admire the gift 
 of sanctity which all the calumnies of men cannot take away 
 from her. But this also supposes, on the part of God, a super- 
 natural assistance, to keep up constarftly the character of Holi- 
 ness. This the history of the Church can prove. 
 
 Finally, in a third place, a struggle, constant, terrible, preg- 
 nant with the most serious consequences for humanity, has 
 been witnessed going on in the patriarchal period, between 
 Truth as coming from God and derived from heaven, and 
 Error as suggested by the Evil One, and embraced by deluded 
 idolaters. In the modern Church a constant hostility, also, is re- 
 marked as developed throughout all ages, showing the Church 
 standing in front of a hostile world, and conquering the more 
 that she is the more assailed. The parallel between both 
 periods could not be perfectly sustained, as the first had not 
 received any promise of sure victory. But it has been granted 
 to the Christian Church, which thus enjoys the privilege of
 
 486 GENTILISM. 
 
 perpetuity. In both certainly, as long as the struggle lasts, 
 the intervention and help of heaven is required ; and thus in 
 whatever aspect we may look at the question, the supernatural 
 character comes uppermost, and refuses to be separated from it. 
 This, of course, would require most ample considerations and 
 developments. 
 
 Nothing, however, is so manifest as the truth that human 
 history is enacted by a mechanism which requires -a double 
 spring of action, that of God and that of man. Take away 
 either of them, human history is impossible to narrate. Take 
 away God for instance, and this world is reduced almost to a 
 puppet-show. The strings, no doubt, are not merely made of 
 hemp or wire ; they belong really to the native energy of the 
 puppets who act from their own impulse, and ssem to be 
 enacting a powerful drama. But, be sure of it, dear reader, 
 only those who propose to themselves to do the will of their 
 Father in heaven, who act in conformity with it, and place 
 themselves altogether under His guidance, are real men, and 
 not puppets. For, the drama in reality is planned in the upper 
 regions, and God himself directs it. He has not left this little 
 globe to the mercy of mad people or of fools. He has given 
 free will to these, it is true, and allows them to play occasion- 
 ally so as " to make angels weep," as a great poet has said. 
 But when they go too far in their absurd antics, He knows 
 how to bring them to reason. He sends the Goths or the Tar- 
 tars on their devastating career, and a new, and bright, and 
 truly civilized world comes out of the ashes of the previous 
 corrupt one. And the old Egyptian priest was not, after all, 
 altogether wrong when he said that " when the gods, to purify 
 the earth, deluge its surface with water .... then cities are 
 hurried away to the sea by the impetuosity of the waters . . . ." 
 And sometimes, "periodically, a current from heaven rushes 
 on nations like a pestilence, which at once destroys them and 
 their annals."
 
 APPENDIX I. 
 
 ON THE SIMILARITY OF THE INSTITUTIONS IN PRIMITIVE HINDOSTAN AND 
 THE FORMER CELTIC COUNTRIES REFERRED TO AT PAGE 79.
 
 APPENDIX I. 
 
 ON THE SIMILARITY OP THE INSTITUTIONS IN PRIMITIVE HINDOSTAN AND 
 THE FORMER CELTIC COUNTRIES, REFERRED TO AT PAGE 79. 
 
 IT is extremely curious and pregnant with a deep interest to 
 consider two countries so wide apart as Hindostan, and the ex- 
 treme west of Europe, yet existing for many ages under the 
 same institutions, .although the peoples themselves differed so 
 totally in character. The conclusion forces itself directly upon 
 the mind that mankind must have been one at first, chiefly 
 when a deeper study still shows that the intervening nations 
 exhibited in ancient times a great approach to the same social 
 state. 
 
 And, first, the three superior castes in India, namely : 
 the Brahmins, the Cshastriyas, and the Vaysias, present them- 
 selves at once as the prototypes of the Druids, the warrior 
 class, and the common clansmen in Celtic countries. The 
 Sudras in Hindostan, were evidently, chiefly in old times, real 
 outcasts not belonging strictly to the nation because not re- 
 generated, and answering, to a certain extent, to the slaves of 
 the Celts. The Pariahs were then called Chandalas, the most 
 degraded of human beings, excluded almost from the thoughts 
 of the Hindoos. 
 
 But this general outlook might be the result of chance, and 
 would not suffice certainly to establish a general theory on the 
 primitive social state of man. It must be worked out in de- 
 tail to bring conviction ; and this we intend to do, as briefly 
 as possible, in this short Appendix. 
 
 Our chief authority for the side of the picture which con- 
 
 (489)
 
 490 GENTILISM. 
 
 cerns Hindostan, shall be the venerable Institutes or Laws of 
 Menu ; the other side is naturally supplied by the knowledge 
 now universal almost of the social state of the Celts. 
 
 As some of our readers may be altogether unacquainted with 
 the Menu Code, it is proper to say first a few words on the 
 subject. The Hindoos firmly believed that the work was the 
 production of Menu generally it is now spelt Manu ; we keep 
 the orthography to which we have been for a long time accus- 
 tomed. This great lawgiver is said, of course, by the Hindoos 
 to have been the son or grandson of Brahrna, the first of created 
 beings, a god himself, and the progenitor of mankind. Manu 
 in fact means man. We may consider him if we wish to 
 identify ourselves with Hindoo feeling as Adam, the father of 
 the human race. It is of course a mistake on the part of the 
 Indians ; Menu, the author of the Code, is not so ancient. Sir 
 William Jones examines, if he is not the same as the fabulous 
 Minos of Crete, or the Egyptian Mneues, the first lawgiver 
 according to Diodorus. 
 
 That the book is of great antiquity there can be no doubt. 
 It is written in the archaic Sanscrit of the first three Vedas ; 
 and it is supposed by modern critics to have been composed a 
 few centuries after those celebrated books. Sir William Jones 
 makes it 300 years posterior to the Yajur Yeda, which he thinks 
 may have been written 1580 years before Christ. But Hindoo 
 chronology has been found to be perfectly unsafe ; and those 
 conjectures are now discarded. The English translation, pub- 
 lished at the beginning of this century by the founder of the 
 Asiatic Society of Calcutta, is still considered as sure and re- 
 liable, and we will use it. 
 
 The caste, or rather class, of Brahmins, as it is called by 
 Menu, had, at least in primitive times, 'so many characters alike 
 to those of the Druids in Gaul and Britain, and of the Ollamhs 
 in Ireland, that with the least acquaintance with both of these, 
 one is struck at once as if they were almost identical.
 
 APPENDIX I. 491 
 
 1st. Tp become a Druid or an Ollamh, required from six- 
 teen to twenty years ; let us now hear Menu, Chap. Ill, 1 : 
 
 " The discipline of a student (for the Brahminical order) 
 may be continued for thirty-six years in the house of his pre- 
 ceptor ; or for half that time (eighteen years), or for a quarter 
 of it."' Many other passages concur with this. 
 
 2d. The Celtic student had to receive the oral teaching of 
 an ordained 'Druid or Ollamh, as the sacred books in Celtic 
 countries were not written, but committed to memory and 
 transmitted through tradition. In primitive Hindostan the 
 law of Menu declared, II., 116 : 
 
 " The student who shall acquire a knowledge of the Vedas 
 without the assent of his preceptor, incurs the guilt of stealing 
 the Scriptures." The result in both cases was the same : au- 
 thorized teaching, safety from heterodox interpretation. 
 
 3d. The attestation of " purity " in various things required 
 of an Ollamh, or of a learned man in an inferior degree, is 
 well known to anyone versed in Celtic lore. In the Code of 
 Menu nothing is so remarkable as the insistence on the moral 
 purity of every degree required of a Brahmin, or of a student 
 for the Braminical order, II. 88 : " In restraining the organs, 
 which run wild among ravishing sensualities, a wiseman " it 
 is question here of Brahmins " will apply diligent care, like a 
 charioteer in managing restive horses." What are those or- 
 gans ? The author explains in the following paragraphs that 
 they are those of sense the five senses of the body and those 
 of action, besides the heart. Then he goes on to say : 97 : " To a 
 man contaminated by sensuality neither the Yedas, nor liber- 
 ality, nor sacrifices, nor strict observances, nor pious austerities, 
 ever procure felicity ;" and 100 : " Having kept all his mem- 
 bers of sense and action under control, and obtained also com- 
 mand over his heart, he will enjoy every advantage, even 
 though he reduce not his body by religious austerities." 104 : 
 " Xear pure water, with his organs holden under control, and
 
 492 GENTILISM. 
 
 retiring to some unfrequented place, let him pronounce the gay- 
 atri, performing daily ceremonies." The reader will remember 
 that the Ollamh in Ireland, had to prove for himself purity of 
 mouth, purity of hand, purity of conjugal union, and purity of 
 body. 
 
 4th. What was the course of studies for the Brahmin, and 
 
 
 
 was it analogous to that of the Celtic Druid ? Many passages 
 of the laws of Menu conclusively show that it was comprised 
 in the " universal " Yedas. ' These included the mantras and 
 brahmanas, an immense collection of many diversified rites 
 and prayers for the worship of God; the upanishads, long 
 treatises of cosmology and philosophy ; and the Vedangas, or 
 books on grammar, prosody, astronomy, mathematics, etc. 
 These last, it is true, did not belong to the Yedas properly so 
 called : yet they were as ancient as these, and formed also an es- 
 sential part of the studies of Brahmins, since the laws of Menu, 
 II., 105, say: " In reading the Vedangas, or even such parts 
 of the Vedas as ought constantly to be read, there is no prohibi- 
 tion of particular days, nor obligation to pronounce the texts 
 appointed for oblations to fire." It may, therefore, only be 
 said, that they were not of so sacred a character as the parts of 
 the holy books, which could npt be read on .certain days, nor 
 during storms, etc. We know from J. Caesar that the curri- 
 culum of the Druidic schools in Gaul was exactly the same, 
 although certainly the religious rites were not so various and 
 minute, and the prayers probably were not so long and diver- 
 sified. The copy of the Yedas preserved in the British Mu- 
 seum forms eleven very large volumes, brought from India by 
 the Swiss Col. Polier. The text delivered, orally, by the 
 Druid teachers to their pupils may not have been so volumi- 
 nous, but it comprised exactly the same course of studies : re- 
 ligion, cosmogony, physics, astronomy, and grammar. 
 
 The comparison could be carried on further, and a great deal 
 more could be said on the authority both the Brahmins and the
 
 APPENDIX I. 493 
 
 Druids had in the State, chiefly on account of their influence, 
 through religion, over the rulers and kings. Many very strik- 
 ing texts of the laws of Menu could be brought forward, and 
 the conviction of the reader would be thereby strengthened, 
 but our limits forbid it ; and we must be content, on this 
 first point, to remark, in general that the genius of oriental and 
 southern people, being so different from that of western and 
 northern races, an immense number of details contained in 
 Hindoo literature appear on the surface completely at variance 
 with what we know of the old Celtic stock ; but the difference 
 lies only on the surface ; a deeper insight into the thing itself 
 cannot but strike an intelligent reader and show him a large 
 number of analogies which certainly prove an almost identity 
 of primitive institutions. One of the most remarkable dif- 
 ferences, however, must be mentioned in a few words, and can 
 easily be proved not to conclude in the least against our posi- 
 tion. It is this : The Celts had a great number of historians *_ 
 from the oldest times, and their poetry itself was history in 
 verse ; the Hindoos never had a single historian, but all their 
 writers may be said to have been poets. Yet the truth is, the 
 Hindoos thought they were writing history when they com- 
 posed those immense epic poems of which we have spoken. 
 Their exuberant imagination colored everything, and rendered 
 them also incapable of attending to chronology ; but both Celts 
 and Hindoos were profoundly traditional people, and in this 
 consists the true spirit of history. The difference, therefore, is 
 not a real one, and our opinion remains intact. 
 
 It will become yet considerably stronger by the consideration 
 of the Cshastriya caste compared with the analogous class in 
 Celtic countries. 
 
 And first, the very title of the seventh chapter of the laws 
 of Menu which treats of the subject, is extremely suggestive 
 and appropriate. It reads : " On Government and Public ' 
 Law ; or, on the Military Class." The clear meaning of it
 
 494 GENTILISM. 
 
 is that the " government " of the people was in the hands of 
 " the military class." Hence the first order, that of the 
 Brahmins, had nothing to do with " government " except in- 
 directly by their immense influence, the necessary result of 
 their learned and religious character. The leading of the na- 
 tion was, in fact, in the hands of the "warriors," called, in 
 Hindostan, " Cshastriya." It was precisely the same in Celtic 
 countries ; the kings, rulers, chieftains, whatever the reader 
 may please to call .them, were first of all " warriors ; " their 
 duty was to defend their clan by the force of arms. The Druids, 
 so influential in every other respect, had nothing to do with 
 the commanding of armed troops. The chieftains chose to 
 help them, their knights of the red branch, their Fenian war- 
 riors, the boldest and nimblest of their clansmen, and these 
 formed the military class ; the sacerdotal order remained com- 
 pletely outside of warlike organizations. 
 
 In Hindostan, the fact is most striking that although the 
 Brahmin class is everywhere represented so far above all the 
 others, that it was said to have proceeded from the very mouth 
 of Brahma, yet we doubt if ever a Brahmin, in full orders, 
 ambitioned the high station of king and attained the object of 
 his ambition. We know only that some few kings, after hav- 
 ing ruled the State, left the throne through piety and asked to 
 be received in the Brahminical order. But these very rare ex- 
 ceptions show the strictness of the rule. Those who ruled the 
 nation were invariably chosen among the Cshastriya class. We 
 never hear of a Brahmin aspiring to it. The same was cer- 
 tainly the case in Celtic countries. 
 
 Many details contained in the laws of Menu contribute to 
 render the analogy more striking. At first sight it seems, from 
 many texts, that the Hindoo Rajah, or king, was a despotic 
 ruler, which the Celtic chieftain was not ; but a closer exami- 
 nation shows that the difference is only apparent. Both had a 
 great power in the State ; but their authority was not despotic ;
 
 APPENDIX I. 495 
 
 far from it it was limited on both sides by the influence of 
 the sacerdotal class, and likewise by the obligation, often 
 repeated in the laws of Menu, to regard their subordinates as 
 their " people," never their subjects, and to " defend " it the 
 people at the expense of their life. The Celtic exclama- 
 tion of the clansman to his chieftain is well known : " Eat me, 
 but defend me ! " 
 
 But many prescriptions of the Hindoo law, with respect 
 to the private life of the Rajah, place the subject yet in a 
 stronger light. Let us hear some of them. Chapter vii. 69 : 
 " Let him the king fix his abode in a district of a champaign 
 country, abounding with grain, inhabited chiefly by the vir- 
 tuous, not infected with maladies, beautiful to the sight, sur- 
 rounded by submissive mountaineers, foresters, or other neigh- 
 bors ; a country in which the subject may live at ease." No 
 better description could be given of the Irish rath. The fol- 
 lowing texts complete the description : " 73L Foes hurt not a 
 king who has taken refuge in his durga, or place of difficult 
 access." " 74. One bowman placed in a wall is a match in war 
 for a hundred enemies, etc." " 75. Let that fort be supplied 
 with weapons, with money, with grain, with beasts, with Brah- 
 mins, with artificers, with engines, with grass, and with 
 water." " 76. In the centre of it let him raise his own palace, 
 well finished in all its parts, completely defended, habitable in 
 every season, .... surrounded with water and trees." " 80. 
 Plis annual revenue he may receive from his whole dominion 
 through his collectors ; but let him in this world observe the 
 divine ordinances ; let him act as a father to his people" 
 
 Is not the whole of this picture Celtic as well as Hindoo ? 
 and if these laws do not rule any more Hindostan, for how 
 many ages did they not flourish ? The " Eamayana," I., 107, 
 and III., 92, describes an Indian court filled with poets, pane- 
 gyrists, Brahmins, and attendant officers of every description, 
 and the whole of it almost could be transferred to Erin in the 
 33
 
 496 . GENTILISM. 
 
 brilliant times of her Ard Highs without violating any pro- 
 priety. 
 
 Ko doubt many details of which we do not speak presented 
 a very different aspect in each of the two countries ; the 
 climate, the wealth, the internal commerce of the immense 
 peninsula of Hindostan could not but offer a scene with which 
 no Celtic country could compete ; but our object is to show 
 that both were ruled primitively by the same patriarchal man- 
 ners, and we think we have said enough to prove it. 
 
 A word on the two last Hindoo castes will complete the dem- 
 onstration. 
 
 The Yaiysia class was composed of merchants and agricul- 
 turists. The merchants of India dealt certainly in richer com- 
 modities than those of Celtic countries. Yet it is very remark- 
 able that in both cases their trade was altogether interior to the 
 country ; they seldom ventured on ships of their own to 
 foreign territories. The exterior trade of Hindostan, chiefly in 
 the primitive ages, was, according to Heeren, altogether in the 
 hands of Arabians and Phoenicians ; and it is well known that 
 the same kind of commerce in the West of Europe was entirely 
 carried on by Phoenicians, Carthaginians, the Greeks of Mas- 
 silia, and later on the Scandinavians, never by the Celts them- 
 selves. The coincidence is truly striking. 
 
 With respect to the agriculturists and graziers, the similarity 
 is almost perfect. There is, on the subject, a most remarkable 
 passage in Strabo's Geography (Book xv., Chap, i., 49), which 
 deserves certainly to be quoted. The author derived his infor- 
 mation from the works composed by the companions of Alex- 
 ander. That information was often unreliable, on account of 
 the short time they had remained in the country, which did not 
 allow them to understand perfectly the institutions of a people 
 so different from the Greeks and even the Persians. But on 
 the present occasion it was question only of facts, patent to all, 
 and which they witnessed everywhere in the country. There
 
 APPENDIX I. 497 
 
 was no need of a deep study to understand them ; eye-sight 
 was all-sufficient. Strabo says: "The caste of husbandmen 
 constitute the majority of natives ; and they are a most mild 
 and gentle people, as they are exempted from military service, 
 and cultivate their land free from alarm ; they do not resort to 
 cities, either to transact private business or take part in public 
 tumults. It therefore frequently happens that, at the same 
 time, and in the same part of the country, one body of men 
 are in battle array, and engaged in contests with the enemy, 
 while others are ploughing or digging in security, having these 
 soldiers to-protect them." And the sixty-sixth section contain? 
 the following remarkable words : "Among some tribes the 
 ground is cultivated by families and in common ; when the 
 produce is collected, each takes what is sufficient for his sub- 
 sistence during the year." Everybody has read exactly similar 
 facts of old Erin. 
 
 In Celtic countries the husbandmen, as all clansmen, might 
 be called for military service, but this was, no doubt, the excep- 
 tion : in general the chieftain was surroundsd with his knights^ 
 his heroes, his nobles, who fought when the agriculturist 
 ploughed, sowed, and reaped. The remainder of the descrip- 
 tion is perfect in its application to Western Europe in former 
 times. 
 
 What is said by Strabo of cities requires a short and general 
 remark. There is no doubt that, even in primitive times, 
 Hindostan differed considerably from the West of Europe in 
 the number, extent, and wealth of her cities. But was there 
 not a visible cause for this difference \ Could the first inhab- 
 itants of Eastern India live apart in farm-houses, with the 
 country swarming with ferocious animals and venomous ser- 
 pents \ Was it not absolutely required of those who first 
 settled in the country, to live in large groups for self-protec- 
 tion I Yet we see by the passage of Strabo just quoted that 
 there was in fact, for long ages, a disinclination in the people
 
 498 GEKTILISM. 
 
 for city life, since in the time of Alexander's invasion the ma- 
 jority of the natives did not resort to cities even to transact 
 business, so much did they like country life. This preference 
 continues even to this day, as all modern travellers have 
 remarked. 
 
 Another apparent dissimilarity must be briefly mentioned. 
 We know that music had become in Celtic nations a State in- 
 stitution, and that the fourth order of Druids was composed of 
 the v\ivr]~ai. In Hindostan, on the contrary, the love of music 
 was considered, according to the laws of Menu, as a vice to be 
 discouraged as well as intemperance, gambling, etc. But the 
 reason might be only the effect naturally produced on human 
 passions by soft music in such a climate as that of the East 
 Indies. That such was probably the case can be inferred from 
 the fact that the whole Third Yeda the Samaua was com- 
 posed of mantras and brahmanas, to be sung by the officiating 
 Brahmin. So that there was really in Hindostan a class of 
 vpvrjTcu as in the fourth order of Braids, and singing accom- 
 panied probably with musical instruments composed a great 
 part of the religious service. To this day it is well known 
 that, chiefly in the southern part of the great peninsula, where 
 primitive usages have been less interfered with by the numer- 
 ous foreign invasions, the processions, the religious festivals are 
 always accompanied with deafening instruments, which may 
 not be precisely agreeable to European tastes but which are 
 said to produce real harmony for the devotees of Yishnu and 
 of Chrishna ; and the Catholic Church had to allow the intro- 
 duction of such orchestras in her temples. Of the Sudras and 
 men of no caste, as Pariahs and Chandalas, the only thing 
 our space allows us to say is, that they replaced in old Hindo- 
 stan the class of slaves existing in ancient Celtic countries. But 
 they were not properly slaves, so that strict slavery and 6ven 
 serfdom have never formed a part of the institutions of India 
 the same as among Celtic tribes.
 
 APPENDIX I. 490 
 
 It remains now to say a word of tlie greatest and less easily 
 explained dissimilarity in the institutions of both countries. 
 In Hindostan there were strict castes, which continue to this 
 day, and oppose an almost insurmountable obstacle to the identi- 
 fication of Hindoo manners with those of Europeans. This has 
 never existed in Celtic countries. 
 
 What was the origin of castes in Egypt and India? Have 
 they been in force in those countries from the very beginning? 
 It is difficult to answer these questions. It seems there were 
 no strict castes In Hindostan when the Vedas were written. 
 There is only a slight indication of them in one of the last 
 prayers of the Atharvan Yeda, and it is conceded that this 
 fourth part of the sacred Hindoo books is altogether of a dif- 
 ferent class and later written than the three first. !No castes 
 in the Vedic period. But the " Institutes of Menu " suppose 
 them constantly. Their origin, consequently, must be placed iu 
 the interval between the composition of the three first Yedas 
 and the publication of the Menu work. That interval is gener- 
 ally supposed to have been of three hundred years, but it might 
 have been more. 
 
 It seems likewise that the Sanscrit word used for caste means 
 literally " color ;" color consequently must have heen the chief 
 distinction at first ; it is well known that to this day the Brah- 
 mins are nearly white and the Sudras of a very dark tint, al- 
 though there are exceptions to this rule. This difference in 
 color may have been in many cases the result of their various 
 pursuits in life, but sometimes also arose from their being of 
 different race. It is generally supposed.-that the Pariahs, called 
 Chandalas in many places, were originally a conquered race, re- 
 duced to the state of outcasts rather than to that of slaves. 
 The Institutes of Menu often attribute a sensible degradation 
 in the human form to a simple mixture of class ; and perhaps 
 the institution of castes may have arisen simply from the de- 
 eire of keeping the blood of the nation pure. Hence the im-
 
 500 GENTILISM. 
 
 mense number of enactments in the Hindoo law to regulate all 
 the details of marriage. It looks as if all the attention of the 
 lawgiver was directed to that exclusiveness which is likewise 
 so visible, in modern times, in the English nation, among whom 
 the same result is obtained by native repugnance and not by 
 legal enactments. 
 
 In Celtic countries nothing of the kind existed, because the 
 blood of the various septs was supposed to be of equal purity ; 
 hence the general features remained there merely clannish ; in 
 Hindostan they were impregnated with the exclusiveness of 
 caste ; but we can easily understand that each may have con- 
 tinued to be a primitive and patriarchal people, both having 
 so many things in common that the remarkable difference in- 
 troduced by the attention to purity of blood in one of them, 
 may not have prevented them from living truly under primeval 
 and in all other respects similar institutions.
 
 APPENDIX II. 
 
 THE PATKIAKCHAL ORIGIN OF SOCEETT PROVED BY THE HISTORY OF 
 JURISPRUDENCE, OR ANCIENT LAW.
 
 APPE]ST>IX II. 
 
 THE PATRIAKCHAL ORIGIN OP SOCIETY PROVED BY THE HISTORY OP 
 JURISPRUDENCE, OR ANCIENT LAW. 
 
 THE very remarkable work of Henry Siimner Maine on 
 " Ancient Law," is a powerful confirmation of our conclusions 
 from general history. It may be said to carry them up to the 
 height of demonstration. For the fact of the same laws govern- 
 ing all nations at their origin, and of their being evidently de- 
 rived from the nature of the family, shows more conclusively 
 that mankind began by clanship, than any amount of particular 
 facts of history pointing to the same inference. Law is a 
 most essential part of the life of nations, and proves what 
 they were a great deal more strictly than any amount of par- 
 ticular circumstances from their annals or traditions. On this 
 account the book of Mr. Maine is of extreme importance, and 
 will render an immense service to the cause of truth, at an 
 epoch when the most subversive doctrines on the origin of 
 man, and on the primitive institutions that governed him, are 
 openly advocated. When people are fully aware that, every- 
 where on earth, the first human societies were tribal, organized 
 on -the same pattern, and having the same laws ; they will con- 
 clude naturally that mankind came from a single pair; and 
 when, moreover, these ancient laws are shown to be of such a 
 character that those of old Rome and of modern England can 
 be proved to be derived from them, it must be admitted that 
 they were not made for barbarians. Yet this is the open ob- 
 ject of the greatest part of the book on "Ancient Law " by 
 Mr. Maine. 
 
 There are considerations in the same work which it cannot 
 
 (503)
 
 504 GENTILISM. 
 
 be our purpose to discuss ; they are addressed to lawyers, and 
 we are not the proper judge of them. ' Particularly the low 
 opinion the author seems to entertain of " canon law " is start- 
 ling for us, and runs counter tt> some of our most settled con- 
 victions. The idea, likewise, that law did not come origi- 
 nally from any fixed principles, but grew gradually from the 
 decisions of kings or chieftains, who were alone invested with 
 the judiciary power, seems to us opposed to the opinion of the 
 greatest thinkers of all ages on the same subject. But, we re- 
 peat it again, these discussions would be entirely foreign to 
 our purpose ; and the author did not surely intend to adopt 
 bluntly ideas sapping at the very foundation of any system of 
 jurisprudence. He knew as well as any jurist of ancient or 
 modern times that anteriorly to any law on earth there is the 
 " eternal law " comprehending all the axioms of right, and 
 without which all the decisions of judges would be either the 
 blind stroke of fatality, or the irresponsible dictate of despot- 
 ism. Mr. Maine intended probably to convey to his readers 
 the exact doctrine on the subject when he said, that " When 
 a king decided a dispute by a sentence, the judgment was as- 
 sumed to be the result of direct inspiration. The divine agent, 
 suggesting judicial awards to kings or to gods, the greatest of 
 kings was Themis. The peculiarity of the conception is 
 brought out by the use of the plural. Themistes, Themises, 
 the plural of Themis, are the awards themselves, divinely dic- 
 tated to the judge." Mr. Maine had thus found in Homer the 
 right conception of the basis of law ; but he might have devel-. 
 oped it with more details in the very first pages of his book, 
 and thus he would have left nothing obscure on so important a 
 subject. The " inspiration" of judges was but a metaphor. 
 
 This, however, does not lie within the purpose of our own 
 investigations ; but when the author of " Ancient Law '' comes 
 to speak of what is really of interest to us, then there is scarcely 
 any obscurity in his doctrine, and we have only to register down
 
 APPENDIX II. 505 
 
 what his great knowledge of the history of jurisprudence has 
 found out, and left as a legacy to men less deeply informed. 
 He seems even to us to intimate that his discovery was ob- 
 tained almost reluctantly, and could not be very popular, on 
 account of the support it affords to Christian truth. On this 
 subject his very words must be quoted from his fifth chapter : 
 " The effect of the evidence derived from comparative juris- 
 prudence is to establish that view of the primeval condition of 
 the human race which is known as the Patriarchal Theory. 
 There is no doubt, of course, that this theory was or ginally 
 based on the Scriptural history of the Hebrew patriarchs in 
 Lower Asia ; but its connection with Scripture rather militated 
 than otherwise against its reception as a complete theory, since 
 the majority of the inquirers who, till recently, addressed them- 
 selves with most earnestness to the colligation of social phenom- 
 ena, were either influenced by the strongest prejudice against 
 Hebrew antiquities, or by the strongest desire to construct their 
 systems without the assistance of religious records " let our 
 readers remark this naif acknowledgment, as a Frenchman 
 would say : " Even now there is perhaps a disposition to un- 
 dervalue these accounts, or rather to decline generalizing from 
 them, as forming part of the traditions of a Semitic people. It 
 is to be noted, however, that the legal testimony comes nearly 
 exclusively from the institutions of societies belonging to the 
 Hindoo-European stock, the Romans, Hindoos, and Sclavo- 
 iiians supplying the greater part of it; and indeed the diffi- 
 culty, at the present stage of the inquiry, is to know where to 
 stop, to say of what races of men it is not allowable to lay 
 down that the society in which they are united was originally 
 organized on the patriarchal model." 
 
 This is certainly a very remarkable and comprehensive state- 
 ment, which, in fact, would suffice for our purpose, and allow 
 us to consider our conclusions on the subject as perfectly dem- 
 onstrated. Yet it will become of a more satisfactory character
 
 506 GEETILISM. 
 
 still by entering into some details, and following the author of 
 " Ancient Law " in his very interesting discussion ; allowing 
 ourselves, however, the liberty of appending our remarks when 
 occasion shall require. 
 
 The description given first, of a patriarchal family, accord- 
 ing to Holy Scripture, is so well-known that it needs not being 
 reported in extenso : The eldest male parent absolutely supreme 
 over his children as over his slaves; the relations of sonship 
 and serfdom scarcely differing beyond the capacity of the child 
 in blood becoming one day the head of a family ; the posses- 
 sions of the father held in a representative rather than in a 
 proprietary character, equally divided at his death among his 
 children the eldest son receiving a double share under the 
 name of birthright ; finally, the State or commonwealth orig- 
 inating from the family either by the separation of two chil- 
 dren of the same father forming two nations, as Jacob and 
 Esau; or the families of all the children of the same father 
 becoming one people, as it happened with respect to Jacob's 
 posterity. Let us see, for the sake of comparison, what the 
 history of other nations, outside of Judaism, tells us of their 
 origin ; and here we must render the very words of Mr. Maine. 
 After having quoted three lines from the Odyssey of Homer, 
 lie comments upon them : 
 
 " These verses condense in themselves the sum of the hints 
 which are given us by legal authorities. Men are first seen 
 distributed in perfectly insulated groups, held together by 
 obedience to the parent. Law is the parent's word, but it is 
 not yet in the condition of those themistes which were analyzed 
 in the first chapter of this work. When we go forward to the 
 state of society in which these early legal conceptions show 
 themselves as formed, we find that they still partake of the 
 mystery and spontaneity which must have seemed to character- 
 ize a despotic father's commands, but that at the same time, 
 inasmuch as they proceed from a Sovereign, they presuppose a
 
 APPENDIX II. 507 
 
 union of family groups in some wider organization. The next 
 <|uestion is, What is the nature of this union and the degree of 
 intimacy which it involves ? It is just here that archaic law 
 renders us one of the greatest of its services, and fills up a gap 
 which otherwise could only have been bridged by conjecture. 
 It is full, in all its provinces, of the clearest indications that 
 society in primitive times was not what it is assumed to be at 
 present, a collection of VtodividuaU. In fact, and in view of 
 the men who composed it, it was an aggregation of families. 
 The contrast may be most forcibly expressed by saying that the 
 unit of an ancient society was the Family, of a modern society 
 the Individual. We must be prepared to find in ancient law 
 all the consequences of this difference." 
 
 Mi 1 . Maine then shows how far these " consequences " went ; 
 and particularly how the moral elevation and the moral debase- 
 ment of the individual appear to be confounded with, or post- 
 poned to, the merits and offenses of the group to which the 
 individual belongs ; and he pretends that " one step in .the 
 transition from the ancient and simple view of the matter to 
 the theological and metaphysical explanation of later days, is 
 marked by the early Greek notion of an inherited curse." Holy 
 Scripture is as emphatic on this subject as any " early Greek 
 notion," and we see clearly in the Bible that in the various 
 primitive societies there described, the unit was not the Indi- 
 vidual, but the Family ; and, consequently, " the hints given us 
 by legal authorities," in this regard, are exactly reproduced in 
 Holy Scripture ; but it is not perfectly exact to say that " the 
 ancient and simple view of the matter." differed in the least 
 from " the theological and metaphysical explanation of later 
 days," since it is perfectly clear to an attentive reader of anti- 
 quity that the higher we go in it the stronger we find 
 those " theological and metaphysical explanations," or rather 
 suggestions ; so that the " notion of an inherited curse " is not 
 " one step down in the transition " from the ncient to the
 
 508 GENTILISM. 
 
 more recent, but, in fact, is the very starting-point from which 
 all the following " consequences " were derived. But apart 
 from this observation which the interests of truth required of 
 us, the statements of Mr. Maine are perfectly fair and certainly 
 full of a deep interest. We do not know of any other author 
 who has analyzed so exactly this feature of all ancient societies, 
 and a few sentences which we must yet quote are certainly very 
 remarkable, although the text itself alone can give a true idea of 
 the whole. " Corporations," he says, " never die, and accordingly 
 primitive law considers the entities with which it deals, i.e., the 
 patriarchal or family group, as perpetual and inextinguishable. 
 This view is closely allied to the peculiar aspect under which, 
 in very ancient times, moral attributes present themselves. . . . 
 ... If the community sins, its guilt is much more than the 
 sum of the offenses committed by its members ; the crime is a 
 corporate act, and extends in its consequences to many more 
 persons than have shared in its actual perpetration. If, on the 
 otljer hand, the individual is conspicuously guilty, it is his 
 children, his kinsfolk, his tribesmen, or his fellow-citizens, who 
 suffer with him, and sometimes for him." 
 
 This short passage throws a flood of light on many points of 
 the early history of mankind, and of the Jewish people, con- 
 tained in the Bible. It gives a full answer to many objections 
 against several passages of the Pentateuch in particular, and 
 thus the " holy " indignation of Voltaire and his imitators 
 against the destruction of some Canaanite tribes in Palestine, 
 is proved to be merely an effect of the profound ignorance of 
 the notorious French .writer with regard to antiquity of any 
 kind, but particularly to religious antiquity. 
 
 But the work of Mr. Maine ought to be read attentively in 
 that part of his fifth chapter where he treats of the old Greek, 
 and chiefly Roman Jurisprudence. To many a student of law 
 the Roman code particularly is full of obscurity on many 
 points ; and the commentaries of the beet jurists have scarcely
 
 APPENDIX II. 509 
 
 helped, until this time, to clear up some of the chief difficul- 
 ties. Mr. Maine has, therefore, rendered an immense service 
 to those who wish to have a clear view of the laws of Rome, 
 which are always, after all, at the bottom of modem lesral en- 
 
 v * ' O 
 
 actments. But in our eyes the service he has rendered to 
 ancient history, and consequently to .the vindication of the 
 right principles concerning human origin and primitive man- 
 ners, is yet far more to be appreciated and gratefully acknowl- 
 edged. We cannot render justice to this part of his work by 
 a few quotations ; yet it is impossible not to mention some of 
 the chief traits of the discussion. 
 
 " In most of the Greek States," he says, " and in Rome, 
 there long remained the vestiges of an ascending series of 
 groups, out of which the State was at first constituted. The 
 Family, House, and Tribe of the Romans may be taken as the 
 type of them, and they are so described to us that we can 
 scarcely help conceiving them as a system of concentric circles 
 which have gradually expanded from the same point. The 
 elementary group is the Family, connected by common subjec- 
 tion to the highest male ascendant. The aggregation of 
 Families form the Gens, or House. The aggregation of Hous3S 
 makes the Tribe. The aggregation of Tribes constitutes the 
 Commonwealth. Are we at liberty to follow these indications, 
 and to lay down that the commonwealth is a collection of per- 
 sons united by common descent from the progenitor of an 
 original family ? Of this, we may, at least, be certain, that all 
 ancient societies regarded themselves as having proceeded from 
 one original stock, and even labored under an incapacity for 
 comprehending any reason, except this, for their holding to- 
 gether in political union." 
 
 The author then proceeds to show how adoption came in to 
 replace those members of the State who had either abandoned 
 it or been expelled from it ; but adoption itself confirmed the 
 universal idea of the family, as it was merely an extension of
 
 510 GENTILISM. 
 
 it by mere incorporation. From this he explains the origin of 
 aristocracies, much more clearly and rationally than Yico ever 
 did in his Scienza Nuova, ; but these various branches of the 
 subject not being of paramount importance in our actual inves- 
 tigations, we cannot follow Mr. Maine in his learned discussions. 
 We cannot, even, do any justice to his high philosophical views 
 of the constitution of the ancient family in Rome, a subject 
 so important to us. He shows that, " older, probably, than the 
 House and the Tribe, it left traces of itself on private law 
 long after the House and the Tribe had been forgotten, and 
 long after consanguinity had ceased to be associated with the 
 composition of States. It will be found to have stamped it- 
 self on all the great departments of jurisprudence, and may be 
 detected, I think, as the true source of many of their most 
 important and most durable characteristics." 
 
 But it is chiefly in the long discussion on the Patria Po- 
 testas, and on the nature of Agnation and Cognation among 
 the Romans, that Mr. Maine explains the whole constitution of 
 the Family as it was understood in Rome, with the successive 
 variations of the idea, as it was modified by circumstances, 
 and particularly by the conquests of the republic, and the an- 
 nexation of many countries to which was gradually extended 
 the right of citizenship. We cannot attempt to analyze this 
 learned and brilliant generalization ; we would but spoil it ; and 
 it ought to be read in the book itself. But no stronger proof 
 could be given of the truth advocated in Gentilism, that in 
 primitive times the family tie is seen everywhere as the first 
 constituent element of tribes and nations. No one, certainly, 
 before Mr. Maine, had showed so clearly its influence over all 
 the state and social institutions of Rome ; and no one expected 
 before the appearance of his book, to see the patriarchal state 
 of society as influencing so powerfully the most extensive, 
 rational, consistent, and admirable system of jurisprudence that 
 has ever been planned by the genius of man, at any time of the
 
 APPENDIX II. 511 
 
 world's history. For the boast of the Latin poet, that the dis- 
 tinctive mark of Rome was to govern the world, Tu regere itn- 
 perio populos (^En. vi., 851), referred evidently more to her 
 laws than to her armies ; and every one is aware how far the 
 modern codes of all European nations are impregnated with 
 the maxims of the Roman jurisprudence. 
 
 The only thing to which we feel constrained to object is the 
 very few words Mr. Maine thinks proper to write in dispraise 
 of canon law, chiefly on the subject of marriage. But the 
 learned author shows the small importance he attached here to 
 his observations by the off-hand way he speaks of it, and the 
 care he takes not to attempt any discussion of it. This dis- 
 crepancy of our views, with his own, does not affect, in the 
 least, the opinion we entertain of the author's merit with 
 regard to the origin and history of law. It is true that in his 
 book the details he gives" concern chiefly Rome ; and it was 
 most important he should do so, since no one before had seen 
 so clearly the patriarchal origin of Roman law ; but here and 
 there he alludes to the Hindoos, the Sclavonians, and the Celts, 
 and the few remarks he makes on the subject of those nations 
 are always most forcible and clear. He could speak of Ilin- 
 dostan with authority, as he had been for a number of years " a 
 member of the Supreme Council of India ; " and his profound 
 knowledge, not only of jurisprudence, but also of history, en- 
 titles him to be listened to when speaking of those subjects. 
 Consequently, although he develops his ideas chiefly with 
 respect to one great nation, he must be believed when he says 
 that " the difficulty, at the present stage of the inquiry, is to 
 know where to stop, to say of what races of men it is not 
 allowable to lay down that the society in which they are united 
 was originally organized on the patriarchal model." 
 
 Although this work on "Ancient Law " has already passed 
 through five editions in London and three in the United States, 
 it had not been our good fortune to meet with it before Gen- 
 34
 
 512 GENTILISM. 
 
 tilism was more than half in types. We could not but rejoice 
 at this new confirmation of previous well-settled ideas, and at 
 the opportunity offered us to refer to it at the end of this 
 volume.
 
 INDEX. 
 
 A. 
 
 ABSORPTION IN GOD. 
 
 Leading 1 to pantheism, 148. 
 ACADEMIC SCHOOL. See Plato. 
 
 .35SCHYL08. 
 
 Did not understand the myth of 
 Prometheus, 395. 
 
 Obscured noble traditions by his 
 polytheism, ibid. 
 
 High moral doctrines of. 401, sq. 
 
 Opposed to Pericles' innovations, 402 
 
 Favorable to antiquity, 403, 403. 
 
 Doctrine of, on expiation. 403-407. 
 
 On transmission of sin, 406, 407. 
 
 On contrition, ibid. 
 
 On the law of suffering, 412-415. 
 
 Admitted a Supreme God, 413. 
 AGNI. See Devatas. 
 AHURA MAZDA. 
 
 Why the Supreme God was called 
 in Bactria, not Brahma, 181, 182. 
 
 Attributes of. 183, 184. 
 ALLOPHYLIAN RACE, ;~ee Races. 
 AMUX. 
 
 The most ancient temple of, was at 
 Aleroe in Ethiopia, 227. 
 
 The God of all Africa, ibid. 
 
 Had no human history, ibid. 
 
 Belief in. of great antiquity, 228. 
 
 No obscene emblem connected with 
 the worship of. 229. 
 
 A part of the culture of Egypt de- 
 rived from the worship of, 229, 
 230. 
 
 Was not Amun-Ra, 231. 
 
 The Supreme God of Africa and of 
 India, ibid. 
 
 Meant " hidden," 232. 
 
 Could not be the visible universe, 
 233 
 
 Identified with Brahma, 233. 
 
 The idea of, degraded by subsequent 
 superstition, 263, 264" 
 
 Grandeur of the myth of, 264. 
 
 The myth of, obscured by myth- 
 ology, 329. 
 
 AMTTN-RA. 
 
 The origin of idolatry In Egypt, 252. 
 ANIMAL, WORSHIP. 
 
 Not a part of primeval religion, 259. 
 
 2GO. 
 
 Explained by the introduction of 
 pantheism in India and E^ypt, 
 260, 261. 
 No sign of, on old monuments in 
 
 Egypt, 261, 262. 
 
 Dating from the last Egyptian dy- 
 nasties, ibid. 
 
 Strange examples of. 263, 263. 
 Proofs of, lately dis-overed 263. 
 Prevalent in Egypt, Greece, Syria, 
 
 etc.. 357. 
 In Indostau, 171. 
 ANTIQUITY OP MAN. 
 
 Pretended proot of, in Egypt, Pref. 
 
 v, note. 
 
 Reconcilable with the Bible, 63, 64. 
 Various estimates of, 76, 77. 
 Calculations on, unreliable, 77, 73. 
 Kot proved from the stone period, 81. 
 Not proved from the drift, 85, 86. 
 Disproved from the drift, 87, sq. 
 APOLLO. See Myths. 
 ARABIANS. 
 
 Primitive religion of.scarcel v known, 
 
 437. 
 
 The, were at first monotheists, 443. 
 ARCHITECTURE OF INDIA. 
 First examples of. 158, 159, 166. 
 Oldest monuments of, 167. 
 At Ellora, subsequent, 168. 
 In Egypt, various styles, 261, 262. 
 The most primitive, the best, 2U1, 
 
 262. 
 
 ARCHYTAS. 
 Correspondence of Plato with, 375- 
 
 380. 
 ARHIMAN. 
 
 Opposed to Mithra, 191. 
 Not without the reach of Ormuzd 169 
 ARYAN MIGRATIONS. 
 Identified with Japhetic migrations, 
 273. 
 
 (513)
 
 514 
 
 INDEX. 
 
 ARYAN RACES. See Races. 
 ASSUTJR. 
 
 The chief God in Assyria, 441. 
 
 Identified with the II of Chaldsea, 
 ibid. 
 
 ASSTHIANS. 
 
 Originally monotheists, 440, 441. 
 No pantheism originally among the, j 
 
 442. 
 
 ATHENE. S^e Myths. 
 AVATARS. 
 
 Origin of the idea of, 165. 
 The, of Vishnu in opposition to Siva- 
 ism, 166. 
 Epoch of the, 167, 168. 
 
 B. 
 
 BABEL, TOWER OF. 
 Ruins of, yet in existence, 42-44. 
 The best explanation of ihe multi- 
 tude of languages, 45, 46. 
 At, pride punished by division, 56. ! 
 A proof of primitive civilization 260. : 
 Not the starting-point of migrations, 
 
 275. 
 BARBARISM. 
 
 Not the first state of man Pref. ix. 
 Not the index of the elan system, 52. 
 Not the result of want of comfort, 
 
 but of moral degradation, 67, 68. 
 Concluded from a parte facts. 62. 
 The use of stone no sign of, 69. 
 Not proved by western facts, 75. 
 The supposed unconsciousness of, a 
 
 false supposition, 98, 99. 
 Not the consequence of the want of 
 
 the writing art, 100. 
 No mention of, in Central Asia, 
 
 under Zoroaster, 201. 
 Of Grecian tribes caused by the 
 
 hardships of migration, 278, 279. 
 Of Heroic Greece. See Heroic Greece, j 
 Clanship no proof of, in Greece,3 19,sg 
 Disproof of, in Greece, 325. 
 The Greek drama no proof of, 325, 
 
 326. 
 
 Supposed, of the Turanians, 458, 459. 
 Of the Turanians derived from the 
 
 curse, 460. 
 Real, of the Turanians disproved, 
 
 463. 
 Disproved by the whole of Gentil- 
 
 ism, 475, 476. 
 Reduced to the law of degeneracy, 
 
 476. 
 
 BRAHMA. 
 
 The male, a modern invention, 137 
 138. 
 
 The neuter, really tbe Supreme, 139. 
 
 Anterior to creation, 140. 
 
 Had many names. 140, 141. 
 
 Called Varuna, 141. 
 
 Called Dyaus, 143. 
 
 Meaning of this name of, 144. 
 
 Absorption in, 147. 
 BRAHMANAS. See Vedas. 
 BRONZE AGE. See Periods. 
 BUDDHISM. 
 
 Origin of, 156. 
 
 Really idolatrous for the common 
 people, 157, 161, 162. 
 
 Connected with Sivaism, 158, 159. 
 
 Sway of, ibid. 
 
 Advocacy of charity and other vir- 
 tues in, 160, 161. 
 
 Hold of, on the peopK 162. 
 
 Advocacy of atheism and annihila- 
 tion in, 163. 
 
 The Athenians had nothing to do 
 with, 279. 
 
 C. 
 
 CASTES. 
 
 In Hindostan were at first only 
 
 classes, 115. 
 
 Intermarriage allowed between va- 
 rious, ibid. 
 In Egypt, 245. 
 The, of both countries alike, 245, 
 
 246. 
 In Hindostan analogous to social 
 
 classes in Celtic countries, 489- 
 
 498. 
 Origin of, in India and Egypt, 499, 
 
 500. 
 
 CENTRAL ASIA. See Mazdeism. 
 CHALDEANS. 
 
 The, were Cushites, 438. 
 
 Clanship early destroyed among, 
 
 ibid. 
 
 Monotheism among, 439, 440. 
 Rapid decline of religion among 
 
 the. 440. 
 CHINESE. 
 
 Buddhism not the original religion 
 
 of the, 446. 
 
 Confucius' system atheistic, 467, 468. 
 Lao-tseu alone kept some principles 
 
 of primeval religion among.468 sq 
 Primeval religion of, as expressed 
 
 in the Taj te-king, 470, sq.
 
 INDEX. 
 
 515 
 
 Primeval religion of, not discon- 
 nected from that of other ancient 
 nations, 468, sq. 
 
 Some type of the Trinity among, 
 471. 
 
 Monotheism of, ibid. 
 
 Philosophy of, analogous to that of 
 India, 473. 
 
 Patriarchal manners of, 474. 
 CHKONOLOGY. 
 
 Of the Bible elastic. Pref. v. 
 
 Of ancient nations no more an ob- 
 jection, Pref. vi. 
 CLANSHIP. 
 
 Mankind began by, 36-39, 57, 429. 
 
 Not barbarism, 39, 40. 
 
 Inducing division, 52, 57. 
 
 Inducing religious schism, 53. 
 
 In India at the time of Alexander, 
 113. 114 
 
 Strict, had existed in India from the 
 beginning, 114-116. 
 
 Proved in India by the organization 
 of villages, 116, 117. 
 
 Replaced by empire in India, 1G9, 
 170. 
 
 In Egypt, 258. 
 
 Proved by Str'abo. 258. 259. 
 
 In Greece, 315-319. 
 
 No barbarism in Grecian, 319, 320. 
 
 In primitive times did not suppose 
 disintegration, 429, 430. 
 
 Xo, anciently among most of the 
 Semitic races, 438. 
 
 See Patriarchal Society. 
 CLIMATE. 
 
 A source of division, 53, 54. 
 C0HTJ. See Devatas. 
 
 D. 
 
 DELUGE. 
 
 Indicated by the facts of the quar- 
 ternary period, 81-83. 
 
 Admitted by scientists, 83, 84. 
 DESIGN. 
 
 Apparent in Holy Scriptures, 
 
 15, sq* 
 DEVATAS. 
 
 Were the, gods ? 133. 
 
 Were Agni, Cuhu, Indra, all gods? 
 133, 134. 
 
 The meaning of the Hindoo, ex- 
 plained by the Rites of the Catho- 
 lic Church, 135, 136. 
 
 The same as the devas of Zoroaster, 
 181, 184. 
 
 The consecration of, in Mazdeism the 
 same as in the Catholic Church, 
 185. 
 
 DODONA. 
 
 Oracle of, established by the Pelas- 
 
 gians, 282. 
 
 Priestesses of the oracle of, 285. 
 DRIFT. 
 
 Phenomena of, 72. 
 The remains of man found only in 
 
 the, 77. 
 The, no proof of a great antiquity 
 
 for man, 85, 86. 
 DUALISM. 
 
 In the religion of Zoroaster. See 
 
 Zarathustra and Mazdeism. 
 The pretended, of Zoroaster a real 
 
 argument against atheists, 194, 
 
 195. 
 DURGA. 
 
 Female energy of Siva, 173. 
 
 E. 
 
 EARTH. 
 
 The, according to Scripture, 3, sq. 
 
 Suspended in space, 8. 
 
 Spherical, 9. 
 
 The atmosphere of the, 10. 
 
 The ocean of the, 11, 12. 
 
 The seas of the. as highways. 18, sq. 
 
 The mountains of the, 21, 22. 
 
 The configuration of the, a subse- 
 quent source of division, 50,431,*^. 
 EGYPT. 
 
 The land of mystery, 205. 
 
 The mystery of, cleared up by our 
 
 knowledge of India, 206, 207. 
 EGYPTIANS. 
 
 To what race did the, belong? 202, 
 203. 
 
 The, civilized from the start, 203, 
 204. 
 
 Date of the origin of, 204, 205. 
 Several kinds of alphabets and writ- 
 ings among the, 206, 207. 
 
 Ancient autnors" o- inion about the 
 doctrine of the, 224, 233. 
 
 The, doctrine contained the beHet 
 in creation, 224, 225, 235. 236. 
 
 The belief in the immortality of the 
 soul, 225, 236. 
 
 The belief in one God, ibid. 
 
 What Christian writers thought, of 
 the, doctrine. 225, 226, 233, 234. 
 
 The religion of the ancient, monothe- 
 istic, 226, 227, 238.
 
 516 
 
 INDEX. 
 
 The monotheism of the, proved by 
 
 the monuments, 234, 235. 
 The, believed in a judgment after 
 
 death, 236, 237. 
 
 Opinion of Mariette on the, 239. 
 Origin of pantheism among the. 240. 
 Decline of religion among the, 241, 
 . 242, sq, 250-252. 
 Identity of God and the world in 
 
 the subsequent, doctrine, 241, 242. 
 Doctrine of transmigration among 
 
 the, 243. 
 Differences of character between the, 
 
 and the Hindoos, 246. 
 Pantheism, idolatry, etc., of the. 
 
 See Religion. 
 
 Esoteric religion among the, 265. 
 Coarseness of the religion of the, 
 
 266, 267. 
 
 Religion deteriorating, 267, 268. 
 Religion becoming unintelligible, 
 
 268, 269. 
 Religion exemplified by the funereal 
 
 ritual, 269. 
 Decline of, religion cause of national 
 
 degeneracy, 269, 270. 
 Doctrine contained in Plato. 297,298. 
 The crudest idolatry taught by the 
 
 Egyptian books, 350, sq. 
 ESOTERIC DOCTRINE. 
 
 What we know of the, of the Egyp- 
 tians, 237. 
 Knowledge of the Supreme God a, 
 
 among Egyptians, 239. 
 What Eusebius taught of the, of 
 
 Egypt, 251. 
 
 Often puerile in Egypt, 265, 266. 
 ETHIOPIA. 
 
 The great seat of the worship of 
 
 Amun. 227. 
 
 The origin of a part of the civiliza- 
 tion of Egypt, 229, 230. 
 EUROPE. 
 
 The population of, came from Asia, 
 
 272, 273. 
 
 EVOLUTION. 
 
 Not proved for man, Pref. viii. 
 As taught by Moses, 14. 
 Of language, 28. 
 Consequences of, 36-38. 
 Disproved by geology, 61. 
 Opposed to science, 88, 89. 
 Disproved by history, 347. 348. 
 Disproved by the necessity of the 
 
 supernatural. See Supernatural. 
 EXPIATION. 
 
 Doctrine of .?Eschylus on, 403, sq. 
 
 Harsh doctrines on, in Heroic Greece 
 403-407. 
 
 Some crimes thought to be incapa- 
 ble of, 404-406, 410, sq. 
 
 Modification of the Old Testament 
 doctrine on, 410, 411. 
 
 F. 
 
 FEMALE DEITIES. 
 
 Origin of, in India, 173. 
 
 No, originally in the creed of < any 
 
 nation, 243. 
 
 Origin of, in Egypt, 254. 
 FOOT-PAN. 
 
 The foot-pan of Amasis, a proof of 
 tlie strict idolatry of the ancients, 
 348-350. 
 
 G. 
 
 GATHAS. 
 
 Oldest books of the Zends, 178, 183, 
 
 185. 
 GAYATRY. 
 
 More eminent than any other devo- 
 tion, 134. 
 
 Definition of the, ibid. 
 GREECE, HEROIC. 
 
 Thought to have been barbarous, 
 
 312. 
 From what authors a true picture 
 
 of, can be obtained, 313-315. 
 In, no republics existed but mon- 
 archies, 317, 318. 
 
 In, real clanship prevailed, 318, 319. 
 Description of a house in, 322. 
 Farm labor in, 323. 
 Metals in the houses of, 323. 
 The principles imbibed in, the chief 
 
 cause of resistance to subsequent 
 
 corruption, 334. 
 Differences between, and subsequent 
 
 Hellas, 365, 366. 
 GREECE. 
 
 The first population of, came from 
 
 Central Asia. 275, 276. 
 No priesthood in, 810. 
 Rapid decline of pure doctrine in, 
 
 326. 
 Decline of morality in, caused by 
 
 idolatry, 345. 
 Last stage of religion in, 351, 352, 
 
 357. 
 National disruption introduced by 
 
 religion in, 353, 354.
 
 INDEX. 
 
 517 
 
 Culture reconcilable with supersti- 
 tion in, 361. 
 
 National disintegration in, 431- 
 
 433. 
 GREEKS. 
 
 Called Javans in Scripture, Javanas 
 in Sanscrit, 274, 275. 
 
 The, had not the Vedas. 276. 
 
 The, had an alphabet, ibid. 
 
 The language of the, modified by 
 the tribes through which they 
 travelled, 276, 277. 
 
 Hardships encountered by the, in 
 their migrations, 277, 278. 
 
 The migration of the, misunder- 
 stood by the author of " India in 
 Greece," 278, 279. 
 
 The, derived from the Pelasgians, 
 281. 
 
 Monotheism of the, anterior to phi- 
 losophy, 283, 284. 
 
 The, not traditionalists, 298, 299,300. 
 Degeneracy of the, in religious 
 doctrine, 309. 
 
 H. 
 
 HAMITIC RACE. See Races. 
 HEAVENS. 
 
 Light of the, 4, 5, sq. 
 Stars in the, 6. 
 Meteorology of the, 7. 
 HEBREWS. 
 
 Providential mission of the, 56. 
 The, placed at the centre of the Old 
 
 World, 56. 
 Monotheism of the, peculiar to them, 
 
 445,446. 
 Excellence of the name of God 
 
 among the, 446, 447. 
 Meaning of the tetragrammaton 
 
 among the, ibid. 
 All the divine attributes derived 
 
 from it among the, 447, 448. 
 The, inclined to idolatry not to pan- 
 theism, 448. 
 The worship of God among the, 
 
 placed under the guardianship of 
 
 love, 448, 449. 
 
 The, no more subject to ridicule, 450. 
 Influence of the religion of the, over 
 
 powerful nations, 451-454. 
 Influence of the religion of the, over 
 
 surrounding nations, 454-457. 
 HELLAS. See Greece. 
 HELLENES. See Greeks. 
 
 HERMETIC BOOKS. 
 
 What were the? 211, 212. 
 
 Enumerated by Clement of Alexan- 
 dria, 212, 213. 
 
 Were the Vedas of Egypt. 214. 
 
 How did the, perish, 214, 215. 
 
 False, 215. 
 
 The, supposed divine, 216. 
 
 Two kinds of, 216, 217. 
 
 Attributed to Thoth, ibid. 
 
 False Neoplatonist. 217-219. 
 
 False Christian, ibid 
 
 Time of appearance of the false, 220. 
 
 The false, contained something of 
 the genuine, 221. 
 
 Christian false, in particular, 226. 
 
 Reliability of the, 244 
 
 Perhaps caine from India, 248-2->0. 
 
 The, literature has the characters 
 of the Orphic literature in Greece, 
 288, 289. 
 HERODOTUS. 
 
 Reliable as an historian, 315. 
 
 Strabo's appreciation of, ibid. 
 
 Description of the primitive state 
 of Europe and Asia by, 316, 317. 
 
 A witness of the* mining art in his 
 
 time, 324. 
 HIEROGLYPHS. 
 
 Different kinds of, 207-209. 
 
 Not likely to give information on 
 the Egyptian religion, 208-211. 
 
 Later than idolatry, 210. 
 
 Supposed alphabet in the, 210, 211. 
 HINDOO INSTITUTIONS. 
 
 Analogous to those of Celtic coun- 
 tries, 489^98. 
 HINDOO PHILOSOPHY. 
 
 The Mimansa and Vedanta of, nearly 
 free of error, 154. 
 
 Pantheism advocated in the Sank- 
 hya of, ibid. 
 
 The Yoga of, 156. 
 
 Buddhist atheism originating from 
 the Sankhya of, 157. 
 
 The source of many religions in 
 
 Asia, 182. 
 HINDOO RELIGION. 
 
 Deteriorating, 153, 159, 160. 
 
 Passing from monotheism to pan- 
 theism, 151-155. 
 
 Passing to idolatry, 164. 
 
 Morally degraded. 166, 170-173. 
 
 General view of, 176. 
 
 Individualism in, 176, 177. 
 
 Coincidence of the, with the Egyp- 
 tian, 241-244.
 
 518 
 
 INDEX. 
 
 The doctrine of Universal Soul the 
 chief cause of pantheism in, 260. 
 
 Modern, coarse and vulgar. 266. 
 
 The source of all the religions of 
 
 Asia, 182. 
 HISTORIANS IN INDIA. . 
 
 No, at first sight, 164. 
 
 Epic poets real, 164, 165. 
 HOMA. See Soma. 
 HOMER. 
 
 Reliable for facts, 313, sq. 
 
 Strabo's appreciation of, ibid. 
 
 Description of the heroic age in, 316. 
 
 Cities in the heroic age in, 319, 320. 
 
 Not in opposition to Hesiod, 321, 
 322. 
 
 Description of houses in, 322-324. 
 
 Doubts about the existence of, 332. 
 
 Cause of the belief iu the anthropo- 
 morphism of the gods,' 332, sq. 
 
 Possible cause of the alteration of 
 the religious language of the 
 Greeks, 310, 311. 
 HITMAN SOCIETY, PRIMITIVE. 
 
 At first parcelled in small groups, 
 51, 52. 
 
 The same in India at the time of 
 Alexander, 112. 
 
 The same in Mazdeism, 200, 201. 
 
 The same in Egypt, 256, sq. 
 
 Of a high grade of civilization at 
 the beginning, 259, 260. 
 
 See Patriarchal Society. 
 
 I. 
 
 IDOLATRY. 
 
 Origin of, 109, 110. 
 
 Origin of, in India, 165. 
 
 First confined to Sivaism, 1G6. 
 
 Vishnu, more recent, 166, 167. 
 
 Not introduced by long poems in 
 Egypt, 253. 
 
 Poems connected with, in Egvpt, 
 253, 254, 256. 
 
 Origin of art in Egypt, 254. 
 
 In Egypt offers the gods in groups, 
 254. 
 
 Presents female deities as in Hin- 
 dostan, 254, 255. 
 
 Local as to the worship of particu- 
 lar gods, 255. 
 
 In Greece caused by Homer, 332, sq. 
 
 Reconcilable with refinement in In- 
 dia, Enrypt, Greece, 335, 336. 
 
 What kind of refinement was 
 brought on by, 336, 337. 
 
 Not sufficiently opposed by philoso- 
 phers, 337. 
 
 In Greece as a source of art, 338, 339. 
 
 Source of the nude in art, 340-342. 
 
 Imitation of tLe gods in, a source of 
 immorality, 344, 345. 
 
 Strict, in Egypt under Amasis, 348- 
 350. 
 
 Theory of lamblichus on, 350. 
 
 Theory of Apuleius on, 351. 
 
 The crudest, proclaimed by Hermes 
 Trismegistus, 351, 352. 
 
 Origin of female deities in, 173. 
 
 Before, God was known to be a^evo- 
 6r/hve, 243. 
 
 Origin of female deities in the, of 
 Egypt, 254. 
 
 Open flood-tide of, in Greece and 
 
 Italy, 423-425. 
 INCARNATIONS. 
 
 Origin of the belief in, in India, 165, 
 166. 
 
 When, were imagined, 167, 168. 
 
 See Avatars. 
 INDIVIDUALISM. 
 
 Cause of, in religion in Greece, 358, 
 359. 
 
 In Rome, 359, 360. 
 
 Source of superstition, ibid. 
 
 Embracing atheism and supersti- 
 tion at the same time, ibid. 
 
 Addicted to dream and the consulta- 
 tion of oracle?, 369, 361. 
 
 In Greece, 433, 434. 
 
 In modern times, 434, 435. 
 INDRA. See Devatas. 
 Io. 
 
 Myth of, see Myths. 
 ITALIC SCHOOL. See Pythagoras and 
 Plato 
 
 J. 
 
 JAVANS. See Greeks. 
 JUPITER. 
 
 Original belief of the Romans on 
 the subject of, 304, 305. 
 
 KINGS. 
 
 Of China. See Chinese. 
 
 L. 
 
 LANGUAGE. 
 One at first, 27, 29, note.
 
 INDEX. 
 
 519 
 
 Not evolved, 28. 
 
 Difference of, fostering division, 42, 
 43, 45. 
 
 Origin of sacred and popular, 44. 
 
 No tribe without. 99. 
 
 Egyptian, 207, 2(8, ?. 
 
 A multitude of. in the country con- 
 necting Europe with Asia, 276,277. 
 LIXUAM. 
 
 First appears in Buddhist and Siva- 
 
 ist temples, 158. 
 LrruKTius. 
 
 The work of, an exception in Latin 
 poetry, 419, 420. 
 
 M. 
 
 MAGIANS. 
 
 The obscurity of the doctrine of the, 
 
 removed in great part, 197. 
 MAGIC. 
 
 Of the Tantras, 174, 175. 
 Of Greece and Rome, 352, 353. 
 MAHABHARATA. See Poetry and 
 
 Id'tlatry. 
 MAX. 
 
 Adaptability of, to the whole globe, 
 
 17, 18. 
 
 Unity of species in, 26. 
 Unity of language for, 27, sq. 
 Primitive, better known by history 
 than bv zoology or geology, 106- 
 108. 
 MAXETHO." 
 
 The dynasties of, not all successive, 
 
 857. 
 MAXICHEISM. 
 
 Not the offspring of Mazdeism, 196.. 
 MANTRAS. See Vedas. 
 MAZDETSM. 
 
 Free at first from dualism, 189. 
 Dualism suspected to have been con- 
 tained in, 189. 
 Real dualism introduced only much 
 
 later on, 189. 190, 196. 
 Reasons for not admitting dualism 
 ' in primitive, 190. 191. 
 Dualism contradictory to other doc- 
 trines of, 191-193. 
 No real dualism in, 194. 
 The i rue, only antagonistic to athe- 
 ism, li)5. 
 Had nothing common with Mani- 
 
 cheism, 196, 197. 
 Other exalted doctrines contained 
 
 in, 197. 
 Decline of, 198-200. 
 
 Never passed to idolatry, 199. 
 
 The worship of fire in, was only 
 
 emblematical, 200. 
 See Zarathustra. 
 MENU CODE. 
 On creation, 149. 
 On marriaae, 121-123. 
 On chastity, 123, 124. 
 On transmigration, 149. 
 No doctrine of absorption in the,150. 
 On pure love, 151. 
 Highly poetical, 164. 
 METALS. 
 
 Used in Heroic Greece, 323-325. 
 Always in use in Africa, 67. 
 MIGRATION. 
 
 Of Aryan Races. See Aryan Mi- 
 gration. 
 Of Celts, 274. 
 Of Teutons, ibid . 
 Of Greeks and Italians, ibid. 
 Of Slavonic tribes, ibid. 
 Of Medes, Persians, e'c., ibid. 
 Hardships of Hellenic, 277, 27& 
 MIMAXSA PHILOSOPHY. See Hindoo 
 
 Philosophy. 
 MIRACLES. 
 
 Are the best explanation >f many 
 
 facts, 41. 
 MITHRA. 
 
 Opposed to Ahriman, 191. 
 Character of, 192. 
 Sublimity of the personality of, 197, 
 
 198. 
 MONOTHEISM. 
 
 Of the Hebrews, 110. 
 
 Of the Hebrews to be distinguished 
 
 from that of other nations, 445- 
 
 449. 
 
 Universal at first, 111. 
 Acknowledged as the religion of 
 
 primitive India, 125, 126. 
 In Greece anterior to philosophy, 
 
 283, 284, 305. 
 In Central Asia. See Mazdeism and 
 
 Zends. 
 
 In Ejrvpt. See Amun. 
 In the Greek poets, 413-418. 
 In Chaldaea, 439, 440. 
 In Assyria, 441. 
 In Phoenicia, 442, 443. 
 In Semitic races, 444, 445. 
 Among the Turanians, 471, 472. 
 MORALITY. 
 
 Of the primitive Indians, 118-124. 
 For youih in the saint country, 123, 
 
 134.
 
 520 
 
 INDEX. 
 
 In Mazdeism, 200. 
 
 In Heroic Greece. See Heroic Greece. 
 The causes of a harsh moral doc- 
 trine in Heroic Greece, 403-407. 
 MYSTERIES. 
 
 Instituted in Greece by Orpheus and 
 
 Pythagoras, 294. 
 At first promotive of good morals, 
 
 294, 295. 
 MYTHS. 
 
 Original, degraded into fables in 
 
 E;rypt, 263. 
 Noble, of Amun, 264. 
 Of Apollo and Athene, 389, 390. 
 Of Prometheus, 394, 395. 
 Of Prometheus understood of Adam, 
 
 396, 397. 
 Of Prometheus understood of Christ, 
 
 397-401. 
 Of lo, 400, 401. 
 Of Phaeton, 299. 
 MYTHOLOGY. 
 
 Idolatrous, alluring to the Greets, 
 
 300. 
 
 Meaning of the word myth, 328. 
 Historical, source of error, 329. 
 Physical phenomena turned into,330. 
 Multiplicity of gods the result of the 
 
 multiplicity of fables in, ibid. 
 History turned into, cause of the 
 
 apotheosis of men, 331. 
 Only four centuries old. at the time 
 
 of Herodotus, 331, 332. 
 Anthropomorphism of the gods 
 
 through, 333-335. 
 Anterior to and cause of idolatry, 
 
 332, 333. 
 Anthropomorphism in, not derived 
 
 from the belief in the Incarnation, 
 
 333. 
 
 Anthropomorphism in Greek, infe- 
 rior to the Avatars of Vishnu, ibid. 
 Not the source of the culture of the 
 
 Greeks, 334, 335, sq. 
 Localized and confused, 354-356. 
 Greek, compared to the Egyptian, 
 
 356, 357. 
 
 N. 
 
 NATIONAL BELIGION. 
 
 Introduced everywhere by panthe- 
 ism and idolatry, 353, 354. 
 
 Introduced in Greece by Homer, 354. 
 
 Tending always to become local, 
 354, 355, sq. 
 
 Disappearing entirely to become 
 
 local, 355, 356. 
 In Greece, at last completely local. 
 
 426. 
 NATIONALITY. 
 
 Never compact in Greece, 426, 
 
 427. 
 Why, was not compact in Greece, 
 
 427-429. 
 
 In modern times, 430. 
 NEOPLATONISM. 
 Chief object of, 219. 
 The origin of the false Hermetic 
 
 books, 215-220. 
 General scope of, 221-223. 
 NIRVANA. 
 
 Last result of Hindoo philosophy, 
 
 157. 
 The consequence of the belief in 
 
 transmigration, 149. 
 In Buddhism, 160-163. 
 
 NOMES. 
 
 Meaning of the word, 257. 
 Number of, in Egypt, ibid. 
 Hostile to each other, 258. 
 NUDE FORMS. 
 
 Originating with the Greeks from 
 
 their mythology, 340. 
 Rejected by all ancient nations, 340 
 
 341. 
 Love for, spread by the Greeks 
 
 among other nations, 342. 
 
 O. 
 
 OCELLUS LUCANUS. 
 . Was a lawgiver as well as a philoso- 
 pher, 380. 
 
 ORMUZD. See Ahura Mazda. 
 ORPHEUS. 
 
 Sacred image of, 282. 
 
 A Pelasgian, 285. 
 
 Fabulous history of, ibid. 
 
 An Aryan, at least had come from 
 
 the East, 286. 
 Ideas of the ancients with respect 
 
 to, 286, 287. 
 
 The doctrine of, Vedic, 287. 
 Connected with other Vedic persbn- 
 
 ages, 287, 288. 
 
 Literature from, objected to, 288. 
 Literature from, has the same char- 
 acter as the Herrnaic, 288, 289. 
 Examples of literature from, shows 
 it to be Vedic, 289, 290; and Egyp- 
 'tian, 291., 293.
 
 INDEX. 
 
 521 
 
 The literature from, older than 
 Pythagoras, 292, 293, 296. 
 
 Interpolated by Onomacritus, 293. 
 
 Doctrines of, 294, 295. 
 
 Had received the ri^es of initiation 
 in Egypt, 295. 
 
 Analogous to the Egyptian Hermes, 
 296. 
 
 Quoted by Plato, 296, 297. 
 
 Poetry of, admitted by Plato in his 
 republic, 297. 
 
 What, thought of the name of Zeus, 
 302-304. 
 
 The first cause of decline in doctrine 
 for the Greeks, 326, 327. 
 
 School of, adopted by Pythagoras, 
 370. 
 
 Proof of the antiquity of the poetry 
 
 of, from JSschylus, 415. 
 OSIRIS. 
 
 History of described on the monu- 
 ments, 261. 
 
 Dissolute ceremonies in the sacri- 
 fices to, 267. 
 
 Judge of the dead, 268. 
 
 History of, probably the subject of 
 poems, 253, 254, 256. 
 
 Was the same as Dionysus, 295. 
 
 PALAEOLITHIC AGE 
 
 Facts of the, in Western Europe, 
 71, 72. 
 
 Unfairly called Quaternary, 72, 73. 
 
 Fauna of the, 73,. 
 
 Climate during the, 78- 
 
 The, very violent, 78, 79. 
 
 Violence of the, proved by the ir- 
 regular strata, 80, 81. 
 
 Human remains of the, 87, sq. 
 
 Objects of art in the, ibid. 
 PANTHEISM. 
 
 Origin of, 109. 
 
 Origin of, in India, 151, 152. 
 
 Advocated in the Sankhya philoso- 
 phy, 154, 1")5. 
 
 Origm of, in Egypt, 240, sq, 251, sq. 
 
 Genesis of, in E^ypt, 250-252, 
 
 Of Orpheus in Greece, 3.6, 327, sq, 
 passim. 
 
 No inclination to, among the Jews, 
 
 447, 448. 
 PATRIARCHAL SOCIETY. 
 
 Some examples of, 62, 63. 
 
 Other examples of, 68. 
 
 The rulers in, 131. 
 
 In Egypt, 262. 
 
 Description of, in Greece, 816,317, sq. 
 
 Adverse to war, 321. 
 
 Simple manners of, in Greece, 323, 
 
 ' 325. 
 
 In other places, 346, 347. 
 
 Unity of religion in, 353. 
 
 Universal at first, 503-512. 
 
 Proved by " Ancient Law," 504-512. 
 
 Consequences of, 507, 508. 
 . In Rome, 509-511. 
 PELASGIANS. 
 
 Chief characteristics of the, 280, 281. 
 
 Language of the, ibid. 
 
 The, merging into the Hellenes, 281 
 
 The, not idolaters at first, 281, 282. 
 
 No, inscriptions remain, 284. 
 
 Orpheus must have been a, 285. 
 
 The, superior to the Hellenes in 
 point of religion and morality, 
 300, 301. 
 
 The, analogous to the Hindoos, ibid. 
 
 The, were Javanas in India, 301. 
 
 The doctrine of the. analogous to 
 that of Hindostan, ibid. 
 
 The primitive conception of Jupiter 
 essentially, 305. 
 
 The, were not barbarous, 306, 307. 
 
 The, must have passed into the Hel- 
 lenes, 307, 308. 
 
 Description of the houses of the, 
 321-323. 
 
 The, did not worship the Nature- 
 Powers, 308, 309. 
 
 The, Zeus above the Olympian, ibid. 
 
 The, had a real priesthood, 310. 
 
 Names of religious ideas, 310. 311. 
 . The, subsequently adored the Na- 
 ture-Powers, 308, 327, 328. 
 
 Interest of Plato for, antiquity, 380. 
 PELOPONNESUS. 
 
 An'ipathies and divisions of Greeks 
 
 in the, 431-433. 
 PERIODS. 
 
 Stone, bronze, iron, contradicted by 
 facts, 64. 6r>. 
 
 Simultaneity of the various, exist- 
 ing in all ages, 66. 
 PHAETON. 
 
 Myth of, according to the Egyptian 
 
 priests, 299. 
 PHILOSOPHERS. 
 
 The, did not sufficiently oppose 
 idolatry, 337. 
 
 Opposition of, to sophists not suf- 
 ficient to save Greece, 338.
 
 522 
 
 INDEX. 
 
 PHILOSOPHY. 
 
 Greek, different from that of India, 
 363. 
 
 Rationalism in, ibid. 
 
 Usual branches of, 363, 364. 
 
 Two great questions of, in Greece, 
 364. 
 
 Those questions of, settled by the 
 Vedas in Hindostan, ibid. 
 
 AtheLtic systems of, in Greece, 
 364. 
 
 Ethics in Greek, 365. 
 
 What account religion made of, in 
 Greece. 365. 
 
 Satisfied with State religion in 
 Greece, 366-368. 
 
 Open atheism of Greek, 368. 
 
 Traditional, in Greece, 369. 
 
 Traditional, in Greece analogous to 
 many doctrines of the Old Testa- 
 ment, 386-892. 
 
 Mosaic derivation of, in Greece ac- 
 knowledged by Gladstone, 388- 
 392. 
 
 PH(ENICIA. 
 
 Primitive monotheism in, 442, 443. 
 PLATO. 
 
 Doctrine of, on the name of Zeus, 
 301-304. 
 
 Doctrines of, not all traditional, 372, 
 373. 
 
 Proved the unity of God from the 
 sensible beautiful, 373. 
 
 A traditionalist philosopher, 374. 
 
 Doctrines of, in metaphysics derived 
 from others, 374, 375. 
 
 Doctrines of, chiefly derived from 
 Pythagoras, 375, 376. 
 
 Intercourse of, with the Pythago- 
 reans, 377. 
 
 Intercourse of, with Archytas, 379, 
 380. 
 
 Interest, took in Pelasgic antiquity, 
 380. 
 
 Expenses, incurred for obtaining an- 
 cient information, 381. 
 
 Derived his philosophy from " sa- 
 cred accounts of old time," 382. 
 
 Received thus doctrines fail of Chris- 
 tian feeling, 383-385. 
 
 Forgiveness of injury taught by, 
 
 384, 385. 
 POETRY. 
 
 Egyptian, characterized, 253, 254. 
 
 Repudiated by Plato, 297. 
 
 Sometimes encouraged by Plato, 
 ibid. 
 
 POETRY, HINDOO. 
 Examples of, 141. 142. 
 More like our own than that of 
 
 Greece and Rome, 143. 
 Antiquity of, 164. 
 Age of the Mahabharata. 168. 
 Age of the Ramayana, 169. 
 Character of the, of the Ramayana, 
 
 169. 
 
 Character of the, of the Mahabha- 
 rata, 170. 
 POETS, GREEK. 
 
 Inspired according to Plato, 394. 
 On the doctrine of expiation. 
 Why the doctrine of, on expiation 
 
 was harsh, 40J5-407. 
 Why, thought some sins inexpiable, 
 
 404-410. 
 
 Monotheism of, 413-418. 
 See jEschylus and Hoiner. 
 POETS, LATIN. 
 
 Derived many things from Greek 
 
 poets, 418. 
 Primitive traditions kept by, 419, 
 
 420. 
 Lucretius an exception ataong the 
 
 420. 
 The, announced their doctrine as 
 
 ancient, 
 The old traditions kept by, form an 
 
 under-current of literature, 420- 
 
 423. 
 POLYGAMY IN INDIA. 
 
 How, was understood, 123. 
 PROGRESS. 
 
 Not continuous in history, Pref. x, 
 
 and passim thiyugh the book. 
 A gap in, in the palaeolithic age, 74. 
 Going backwards, 122, 128, 148, and 
 
 passim. 
 PROMETHEUS. 
 
 Was a Pelasgian of the first migra- 
 tion, 278. 
 
 Supposed to have rescued the Hel- 
 lenes from barbarism, 279, 280. 
 The myth of, misunderstood by 
 
 many, 394, 395. 
 The myth of, understood of* A dam, 
 
 396, 397. 
 The myth of, understood of Christ, 
 
 396-401. 
 See JSschylus. 
 PURANAS 
 Old, 172. 
 
 Age of the existing, ibid 
 The, very inferior to the'Vedas, 172, 
 
 173.
 
 INDEX. 
 
 523 
 
 Purport of the, 173. 
 PYTHAGORAS. 
 
 A traditional philosopher, 369. 
 
 Had travelled, ibid. 
 
 Had received the doctrine of others, 
 
 370. 
 Connected with Orphic traditions, 
 
 ibid. 
 The philosophy of, a protest against 
 
 rationalism, ibid. 
 Errors of. 371. 
 Admits one God, yet conforms to 
 
 the State religion, 371, 372. 
 Decline in the school of, ibid. 
 
 QUATERNARY EPOCH. 
 
 lithic Age. 
 
 See Palreo- 
 
 RACES. 
 
 Diversity of, source of division, 46, 
 48, 49. 
 
 Origin of the diversity of, 47, 49, 104. 
 
 Diversity of, influenced by climate, 
 54.55. 
 
 Turanian, degraded by a curse, 89- 
 91, 95, 96. 
 
 Turanian, called Allophylian, 90. 
 
 Uniformity of the Turanian, proved 
 by linguistic, 90-93. 
 
 Proved by ancient writers, 93. 
 
 Priority of the Turanian, to the 
 Aryan and Semitic, 93-94. 
 
 Hamitic. identified with the Tura- 
 nian. 93-95. 
 
 Mongolian, identified with the Ha- 
 mitic, 96. 
 
 The Turanian, not savage, 97. 
 
 High and low, co-existing every- 
 where together, disprove the uni- 
 versal existence of primitive bar- 
 barism, 103. 104. 
 
 Elevation of, impossible without ex- 
 terior help, 104, 105. 
 
 Origin of Aryan, according to Strabo, 
 111. 
 
 See Turanians and Semites. 
 RAMAYANA. See Poetry, Hindoo. 
 RATIONALISM. 
 
 In Greece, 363. 
 RELIGION. 
 
 Coincidence between the Hindoo 
 and Egyptian, 341-244. 
 
 Did the Egyptians receive their, 
 
 from India or the reverse, 245- 
 249. 
 
 Individualism in the Hindoo, 176, 
 177. 
 
 Individualism in the Egyptian, 265. 
 
 Esoteric, in Egypt, 265, sq. 
 
 All exterior among idolatrous na- 
 tions, 265, 2(i6. 
 
 Degeneracy of, in Hindostan. See 
 Hindoo Religion. 
 
 Degeneracy of, in Egypt. See Egyp- 
 tians. 
 
 Degeneracy of, in Greece. See 
 Greece. 
 
 Primitive. See the same previous 
 
 articles, and Semites. 
 REVELATION. 
 
 Primitive, 29-31. . 
 
 Weakened by differences of race, 
 48, 49. 
 
 Deprived of a centre, 55, 56. 
 
 The cause in Egypt of prosperity 
 and civilization' 269, 270. 
 
 Anterior to philosophy, 283, 284. 
 
 Forming always an under-current 
 in Greece and Italy, 362, sq, 420- 
 423. 
 
 In Turanian countries, 
 RISHIS. 
 
 Who were the? 130, 131. 
 RITUAL. 
 
 Considerations on the, of ^ancient 
 
 and modern religions, 186-188. 
 RITUAL, FUNEREAL. 
 
 Description of the, of the Egyptians, 
 268, 269. 
 
 Immortality of the soul proved by 
 the, of Egypt, 236. 
 
 Quotations from, 236. 337. 
 
 Decline of religion in Egypt proved 
 
 by the, ibid. 
 ROME. 
 
 Was the first to think of establish- 
 ing unity in her empire, 57, 354. 
 
 S. 
 
 SCHfENI. 
 
 Were measures of distance, 258. 
 Differed in various districts in Egypt, 
 
 25S, 2~). 
 SECTS IN INDIA.. 
 
 Sect of Vishnu in opposition o that 
 
 of Siva in Hindostan, 168, 167. 
 SEMITES. 
 
 The, furnish pcnnty materials to 
 primitive religious history, 430.
 
 524 
 
 INDEX. 
 
 Idolatry prevailed among the, very 
 
 early. 437. 
 The polytheism of the, races alike 
 
 in many points, ibid. 
 No clanship in, countries, except 
 
 among the Jews and Arabs, 438. 
 Originally all the, adored the same 
 
 God, 444, 445. 
 The idolatry of the, worse than that 
 
 of other nations, 454, 455. 
 The, religiously influenced by the 
 
 Mosaic rites, 456, sq. 
 The debasement of the, could not 
 
 have existed from the beginning, 
 
 458. 
 SIVA. 
 
 First origin of idolatry in. Hindo- 
 
 stan, 166. 
 
 Opposed to Vishnu, 167. 
 Epoch of the cult of, 168, sq. 
 See Trimourti. 
 
 SOMA. 
 
 Was the gacred liquor of India, 120, 
 121. 
 
 The horse associated with, in Hin- 
 doo sacrifices, 136. 
 
 Consecrated also in the religion of 
 
 Zoroaster, 185. 
 STATE RELIGION. 
 
 Origin of, in Greece, 365. 
 
 A consequence of freedom of inquiry 
 in Greece, 366, 367. 
 
 Universal in Greece, ibid. 
 STONE PERIOD. 
 
 Discussed and disproved,64,65,66,s<?. 
 
 See Periods and Palaeolithic Age. 
 SUPERNATURAL. 
 
 The, denied in our age, 477-479. 
 
 The, proved by human aspirations, 
 477, 478. 
 
 The, proved by facts, 478, 479. 
 
 A, agent necessary for the under- 
 standing of human history, 480,-^. 
 
 What " struggle " does the, suppose, 
 481, 482. 
 
 The, of primitive times proved by 
 that of Christianity, 482-486. 
 
 T. 
 
 TANTKAS. 
 
 Object of the, 174, 175. 
 
 Magic of the, ibid. 
 TIIOTH. See Hermetic Books. 
 TRADITIONS. 
 
 Primitive dogmas contained in the 
 original, 30. 
 
 Facts transmitted by the, 31. 
 
 Rites prescribed by the, 32. 
 
 Universal. 33, 34, ill. . 
 
 Becoming we;tk, 48. 49. 
 
 Oral, replacing writing with- advan- 
 tage, 100. 
 
 Contained in history and monuments 
 more reliable than natural history 
 for understanding primitive man, 
 106, 107. 
 
 Rites of old religions transmitted 
 by, 187. 
 
 On a Redeemer, on expiation, on the 
 law of suffering, etc., in Greek 
 poets. See /Eschylus. 
 
 Tet the Greeks in general were de- 
 prived of, 300. 
 
 Primitive, kept by Latin poets, 418- 
 420. 
 
 Kept by Greek philosophers. See 
 Plato, Pythagoras, and Philoso- 
 phy. 
 
 Kept in Greece and Italy formed an 
 under-current of an old literature, 
 420-423. 
 
 The under-current of oH, underrated 
 by modern critics, 421, 422. 
 
 TR AN SMIGR ATION. 
 
 Was one of the first Hindoo aberra- 
 
 ti-ms, 147. 
 Never mentioned in the Rig- Veda, 
 
 147, 148. 
 
 Was an exaggeration of truth, 149. 
 Excesses of the belief in, 149. 
 Belief in, anterior to that of absorp- 
 tion in God, 150. 
 TRIMOURTI. 
 
 Source of the subsequent idolatry 
 
 in Hindostan, 132. 
 Origin of the, 138, 165. 
 The, flourished later than the sixth 
 
 century before Christ, 168, 169. 
 TRISMEGISTUS. See Hermetic Books. 
 TURANIANS. 
 
 The, appear to have been at first 
 
 barbarous, 458, 459. 
 The, identified with the Hamites, 
 
 460. 
 Trilingual inscriptions of the, 460, 
 
 461. 
 Opposition of Zarathustra to the, 
 
 462. 
 
 The, were merely nomads, 462, 463. 
 The, enjoyed patriarchal manners, 
 
 ibid. 
 The. belonged to the pastoral tribes, 
 
 464.
 
 IXDEX. 
 
 525 
 
 The religion of the, can be known 
 from Chinese annals, 466. 
 
 The religion of the, as known from 
 the Chinese books, 466-472. 
 
 Philosophy of the, analogous to Hin- 
 doo philosophy, 473. 
 
 The, antiquities scarcely yet studied, 
 478-475. 
 
 The proper way to study antiqui- 
 ties, ibid. 
 
 See Palaeolithic Period and Chinese. 
 
 UNIVERSAL SOUL. 
 The doctrine of the, the cause of 
 
 pantheism in India and Egypt,260. 
 UPANISHADS. 
 
 The, a part of the Vedas, 127. 
 The, not more recent than the other 
 
 parts of the Vedas, 127. 
 Distinction between the old and 
 
 new, 129. 
 No discrimination to be made be 
 
 tween the, and the other parts of 
 
 the Vedas, 130. 
 The best, not free from error, 146, 
 
 149. 
 Extracts from the, ibid, passim. 
 
 V. 
 
 VEDAS. 
 
 First study of the, 125. 
 
 Synoptic view of the, 127. 
 
 Authors of the, 130. 
 
 The, supposed to be revealed, 130. 
 
 The, written before idolatry, 132. 
 
 Mixture of truth and error in the) 
 
 152. 
 
 Progress of error in the, 153. 
 VEDANTA. 
 
 Philosophy. See Hindoo Philoso- 
 phy- 
 VILLAGES. 
 
 Primitive, in India, 116-118. 
 VISHNU. See Sects in India. 
 VISTACPA. 
 
 King of the country of Zarathustra, 
 179. 
 
 W. 
 
 WOMAN. 
 
 State of, in primitive India, 120, 
 121, sq. 
 
 WRITING. 
 
 Not absolutely necessary for civili- 
 zation, 100, 103. 
 
 Many nations of the highest antiqui- 
 ty acquainted with, 100, 102. 
 
 Not so necessary to ancient nations 
 as to us, 103. 
 
 Among the Egyptians, 207, 208. 
 
 The demotic, more recent, 208. 
 
 Primitively, was always in veree.314. 
 
 Y. 
 
 YACNA. 
 
 The, a part of the Zends containing 
 the Gathas, 185. 
 
 Z. 
 
 ZARATHUSTRA. 
 Real age of, 179, 180. 
 The doctrine of. a reform, 180-186. 
 The doctrine of, was not the source 
 
 of Judaism, Christianity, nor of 
 
 Mohammedanism, 182. 
 The doctrine of, not so easily cor- 
 rupted as that ol the Vedas, 183. 
 The doctrine of, called Mazdeism. 
 
 See Mazdeism. 
 Never raised to godship, 190. 
 ZARVANIAN DOCTRINE. 
 Character of the. 198, 199. 
 Origin of the, 199. 
 ZEXDS. 
 Zarathustra author of the oldest 
 
 part of the, 178. 
 
 The, not Persian books, 178, 179. 
 The, at first considered as spurious 
 
 books, 180. 
 
 The style of the, Vedic, 180, 181. 
 Monotheism taught in the, 181-185. 
 The, have contributed nothing to 
 
 Judaism or Christianity, 198. 
 ZEUS. 
 
 Signification of the name of, 301. 
 Plato derived the signification of 
 
 the name of, from Orpheus, 302- 
 
 304. 
 No essential difference between the 
 
 original Greek, and the Roman 
 
 Jupiter, 304, 305.
 
 J3Y THE AME AUTHOR. 
 
 THE IRISH RACE, 
 
 IN THE 
 
 PAST AND THE PRESENT. 
 
 BY 
 
 REV. AUG. J. THEBAUD, S. J. 
 One Volume 8vo, Cloth Extra, - $3.5O. 
 
 OPINIONS OF THE PRESS. 
 
 4i TO-DAY we give welcome to one of the most remarkable and powerful 
 books on Ireland and the Irish people which it has been our fortune at 
 
 any time to peruse Reviewing the whole past history of the Irish 
 
 race, in connexion with their present condition and probable future, it 
 endeavors to grasp the larger and higher meaning and point the moral of 
 their peculiar history. "With some of the ideas which receive eloquent 
 expression from the reverend author we do not find ourselves in complete 
 agreement ; but this does not affect our estimate of the general merits of 
 what is really a noble work, and one of the highest tributes ever paid to 
 the viitues and the heroism of the Irish race. The key-note of the whole 
 volume may be found in the extract from Dr. Newman's essay on the office 
 and work of universities, printed by Father Thebaud on the title-page of his 
 
 work. The words are not unfamiliar to Irish readers It is so loving 
 
 and so bright a vision of Ireland that shines before the eyes of the authpr, 
 
 and tempers every page of the volume under our notice We can only 
 
 say in conclusion, that we believe the book well calculated to render true 
 service to that race whose past history the writer has studied so sympa- 
 thetically, and in whose future he has manifested so loving an interest."- 
 DubMn Nation. 
 
 " From many passages in this volume it is pretty evident by what 
 standard Father Thebaud judges the Irish, and what rank among races 
 he gives them. A nation is great precisely in so far as it is heroically and 
 heartily Catholic; Ireland is greatest because her Catholicity is the noblest 
 and most heroic that the ages have seen. Father Thebaud does not 
 mince matters nor stop half-way. His estimate of Ireland is as high ns 
 Mr. Aubrey de Vere's. For him she is not -merely Christian as*a matter 
 
 of fact, but Christian as a matter of predestination The idea is not 
 
 a new one, but the author expands it with such a vastness of learning, aud
 
 illumines it with such a brilliancy of thought, that he may be fairly con- 
 sidered as having made it its own We must express our admiration 
 
 for the masterly manner with which the task is achieved Perhaps 
 
 we, who are Irish, feel a kind of regret that Ireland's most triumphant 
 justification is not the work of an Irishman. But the regret is scarcely 
 reasonable. In loyalty to the Church, and in sacrifice for the Church's 
 honor, the Irish people and the society of Jesus are as brethren ; and Ire- 
 land can afford to receive a favor from a child of that gallant nation for 
 which she spared not her own blood at Fontenoy." Brooklyn's Catholic 
 Review. 
 
 "It is refreshing to meet, in these days of superficiality and flippancy, 
 with a book from an author who thinks, and has mastered his subject. 
 Father Thebaud has here given us a genuine book, solid and erudite, 
 really profound and instructive, full of intense interest to many millions 
 of American citizens, and of the greatest value to the philosophy of history. 
 At last something like justice has been done to the Irish character by a 
 writer not of Irish birth or descent. The author has not indeed given us 
 a full history of the race or of Ireland, but he has given us the key to* Irish 
 history, and introduced order into what has seemed to us hitherto a 
 chaotic mass of dry details, by setting forth clearly and distinctly the 
 principles and causes in which they originate, and which explain them. 
 .... Aside from a few questions, we agree with the author. His book is 
 a great book, of solid and conscientious learning, gravely and chastely 
 written. We have been both charmed and instructed by it." Brown- 
 son's Review. 
 
 " In its higher philosophical and analytical relations this book displays 
 
 great ingenuity, thorough research, and close thought The primitive 
 
 civilization of the race, its early reception of Christianity, its steadfast 
 adherence to Catholicity, its stubborn and successful resistance to the in- 
 solent power of England, are carefully reviewed and greatly glorified. 
 The author is proud of the fact that the Irish absorbed and assimilated 
 every race which invaded the soil except the Scotch, who established them- 
 selves in the North of Ireland, and whilst he is not blind to the defects in 
 the Irish character, and the weakness of the eailier clan system, he em- . 
 phasises the virtues of the rjce in warm terms. The Irish were not .a 
 nation until they were made such by their devotion to Catholicism. The 
 attempts jnf the English government to drive the Church from the soil, 
 knit the families together and healed the intestine feuds of the beautiful 
 island.
 
 "The chapter on 'Moral Force' is interesting, as showing the sole 
 means relied upon by the author to remedy even the greatest wrong. He 
 strongly opposes all revolutionary methods, and relies upon agitation and 
 the moral force of public sentiment alone, to redress the grievances ot 
 Ireland. 
 
 "Under the strong light of this volume, the Irish race display in strik- 
 ing relief the Christian virtues of fortitude, patience, and resignation ; 
 challenging our admiration of its noble qualities, and awakening our 
 sympathy by the rehearsal of terrible misfortunes consequent upon its 
 worse than enslaved condition." Albany Argus. 
 
 "This volume shows a vast amount of research in its preparation, and 
 evinces ripe scholarship. Its scope is more enlarged than a mere history. 
 .... The main facts which form the basis of discussion may be briefly 
 summed up : Ireland had an ancient history and literature which showed 
 the Irish race to be superior to others of Celtic origin. National charac- 
 teristics have been preserved without considerab'e change, by virtue of 
 inherent strength. Ireland resisted conquest except by Christian mission- 
 aries from Rome, down to the time of the wars with England. It re 'used 
 to adopt mediaeval feudalism. The philosophies of Greece and Rome 
 were kept from the schools of the nation, to the peace and great advan- 
 tage of the people. Ireland did not accept the revival of learning in 
 Europe, which resulted in a tendency towards Paganism. Finally it was the 
 firm champion of the Catholic Church against Protestantism, when all 
 of northern Europe was in rebellion. 
 
 " Says the author: 'The Irish was the only northern nation which, to a 
 man, opposed the terrible delusion, and, at the cost of all that is dear, 
 waged against it a relentless war.' 
 
 ". . . . The work is sure of a foremost place in church and secu'ar 
 history by virtue of its great ability in both a literary and historical point 
 of view." Troy Times. 
 
 " Very recently, through the kindness of a friend, we were permitted to 
 glance over Father Thebaud's late contribution to history and literature in 
 his ' Irish Race,' and we concluded, before reading other favorable notices, 
 that the Jesuit Father had given to the world the most admirable hi.<to-y 
 we have seen of the wonderful people whose character, sufferings, nnd 
 mission he has endeavored to portray." Louisville Catholic Advocate. 
 
 Sent by matt post-paid 011 receipt of the price. 
 
 For Sale by D. & J. SADLIER & CO, 31 Barclay St., New York.
 
 . - 
 
 1 ; V i*RK ' '--'-ft 
 
 mm 
 
 'Mw<m/<wwm 
 
 iVIAi/ij'^Ww 
 
 Wi9mM