New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1890-02-09

panded form, originally delivered at Aberdeen
at the invitation of the trustees OF the burnett
Fund the scope of the sublect-matter being stated
as 1.-THE Primitive Religions of the Semitic Peo-
pies, viewed in relation TO other ancient religions
and to the spiritual religion of the Old Testament
and of Christianity" The present volume In
cludes only the first course and treats of funda-
mental principles. Professor Robertson Smith
proceeds upon the sound principle that the COM
parative study of the primitive Semitic religion
is indispensable to a clear and full understanding
Of the latter faiths. Neither Judaism, lsamism
nor Christianity can be rightly comprchended
without a knowledge Of their foundations and
these are to be sought not alone in the history
and traditions of Israel. but in the history and
traditions Of the group OF kindred nations ncIud-
ing the Arabs. Phocnicians. Arameans. Babyoniaus
and Assyrians The subject here, however, Is not
the history of each religion that has had Semitic
origin, but Semitic religion as whole In us
common features and general type" In the be-
ginning of the inquiry Professor Smith points 10
the necessity of reversing some modern views IN
analyzing the early religions For example, IN
examining Christianity the subject of first i'm
pOrtance is dogma, and the explanation oil rtual
is sought through that But in primitive times
this method could not have been applied for then
ritual was of the first importance, and dogma ala
not exist
The ancient rites were rigidly fixed, but the
meaning and Interpretation Of them were vague
and elastic In ancient Greece. for example
certain things were done at temple. and people
were agreed that it would he impous not to DO
them But if you had asked why they were DONE
YOU would probably have had several mutually
contradictory explanations from different persons
and no one would have thought it a matter OF the
least religious importance which Of them You
chose to adopt. Indeed the explanations offered
would not have been of kind 10 stir any strong
feeling for in most cases they would have Dcen
merely different stories as 10 the circumstances
under which the rite first came 70 be eStobhShcd.
The rite in short. was connected not with
dogma but with myth" This is the case WIN
all the antique religions; that IS. the sacre!
lore of priests and people, so far as IT does NOT
consist of mere rules for the performance oil re-
ligiOus acts. assumes the form Of stories ahout
the gods; and these stories afford the only eN-
PLANTATION that is offered of the preccpts Of re-
Igion and the prescribed rules Of ritual
Strictly speaking. however, this mythology was
not an essential part of ancient religion, " for
it had no sacred sanction and no binding force
on the worshippers. The myths connected with
individual sanctuareS and ceremonies were merely
to excite the fancy and sustain tie interest Of
the worshipper: but he was often offered a choice
of several accounts of the same thing, and pro-
vided that he fulfilled the ritual with accuracy
no one cared what he believed about its origin.
Belief in a certain series Of myths neither
obligatory as a part Of true religion. nor was ];
supposed that. by believing. a man acquired re-
hgious merit and conciliated the favor of the
gods. What was obligatory OF meritorous was
the exact performance Of certain sacred acts
prescribed by religious tradition
1t follows from this that far too prominent a
place has generally been assigned to mythology
in the study of ancient faiths. Professor Smith
further aiiirms that this method is the more mis-
leading because =" in almost every case tie myth
was derived from the ritual and not the ritual
from the myth" and the making OF such myths
in most cases presupposes tie falling into OBJ
livion of the original meaning Of the rite il IS
invented to explain. In this way tie employ
ment of a wrong method Of inquiry tends to
spread error instead of truth. for il IS obvious
that il operates 10 thrust more and more into
the background the only evidence which can
really explain tie origins Of ritual, while II
vitiates the whole view of ancient religions by
confOunding cause and effect. 1t IS Professor
Smiths object in these lectures TO 20 back 10
first principles; 10 ascertain 50 far as is possible
the genesis Of ritual in the Semitic religions and
thus to secure trustworthy foundation for the
prosecution of further research into the later
forms and faiths He therefore takes his
hearers very far back. to those misty times when
the Semitic group of peoples did not vet eNisi as
distinct nations; when society WAS inchoate
when the tribe and the clan was all and tie
individual nothing; when religion, such as it was
remained a tribal affair and authropomorpiism
governed every conception Of the gods. In this
part of his work Professor Smith goes over ground
already covered by Renan in his History Of the
People of Israel" and between the conclusions Of
the two eminent scholars much accord VIII be
found. The analysis of the primitive position Of
the tribal deity is o mastery piece Of analytic
work and here Professor Smith has punctured
another prevalent error.
The worship of stocks and stones has al
ways been regarded. popularity al least, as evil
dence of the most backward state Of the human
mind conceivable But according TO Professor
Smith this view is not warranted. In the dawn
of civilization the mind of man was filed with
wonder and fear One Of his earliest differences
must have been the prediction OF life similar To
that which he felt in himself in whatever seemed
capable of motion. Nothing was more natural
or. indeed inevitable, than that he should fail TO
draw distinctions between himself and the beasts
birds. reptiles and fishes; and here we have the
germ of all the folklore stories about animals
who talk and act like men, about men who can
change themselves into animals las in the were
wolf superstition, and also Of the whole totem
system This branch Of anthropology may be
studied TO great advantage in the history OF our
Indian tribes Grinnells d" Pawnec Legends, re-
viewed recently in these columns, contains much
IN. ,l,a Of
and above all, of supernatural power, in various
animals Man could not understand the animals
then. He saw that they had peculiar ways lie
could not communicate with them; and he feared
whatever he could not understand. II was natu-
raj too that he should invest trees with a life OF
their own; that is. life similar to his for he
saw them move in the wind, and whisper and
rustic and shake their leaves. Nor was IL difficult
for him Una ninn lie In rocks and SfnneS for