" Some twelve years since we read Mr. Tylor's well-known and able work on Primitive Culture, and were much impressed with the evident fair-mindedness and courageous impartiality which distinguished the author so notably from the Clodds, the Allens, the Laings, and other popularizers of the uncertain results of evolution-philosophy.

This further light has been to some extent supplied to us by Mr. Andrew Lang's Making of Religion, which deals mainly with that theory of animism which is propounded by Mr. Tylor, and unhesitatingly accepted, dogmatically preached, and universally assumed, by the crowd of sciolists who follow like jackals in the lion's wake.

Without denying the value of our conceptions of God and of the human soul, Mr. Tylor believes that these conceptions, however true in themselves, originated on the part of primitive man in fallacious reasoning from the data of dreams and of like states of illusory vision.

During sleep Mr. Tylor himself is as much a prey to delusion as the most primitive savage; but the criteria by which on waking we condemn most of our dreams as illusions, seem really as accessible and obvious to the child or savage as to the philosopher; though the former through carelessness or poverty of language will perhaps say: "I saw," instead of: "I dreamt I saw.

There are two senses in which we can understand an evolution of this idea of God; first, as Mr. Tylor understands it, in the sense of a development by accretion from a simple germ, from the idea of a phantasm nowise a god, to that of a spirit still lacking divinity, thence to that of a Supreme Spirit in whom first the essential definition of God is somewhat fulfilled.

While Mr. Tylor asserts "that no savage tribe of monotheists has ever been known," but that all ascribe the attributes of deity to other beings than the Almighty Creator, it appears in fact that many of the rudest savages "are as monotheistic as some Christians.

C. [60] Tylor (Anahuac 227) says that this word is derived from the Mexican petlatl, a mat.

"Among ourselves," as Tylor remarks, "the guise which was so terrific in the Red Indian warrior has comedown to make the circus clown a pattern of folly," Regarding Canadian Indians we read that "some may be seen with blue noses, but with cheeks and eyebrows black; others mark forehead, nose, and cheeks with lines of various colors; one would think he beheld so many hobgoblins.

"The genuine Turkish skull," says Tylor (Anth., 240), "is of the broad Tatar form, while the natives of Greece and Asia Minor have oval skulls, which gives the reason why at Constantinople it became the fashion to mould the babies' skulls round, so that they grew up with the broad head of the conquering race.

"Various tribes," says Tylor (Anthr. 240), "grind their front teeth to points, or cut them away in angular patterns, so that in Africa and elsewhere a man's tribe is often known by the cut of his teeth.

This passage is quoted from the original by (Sir) Edward B. Tylor, Researches into the Early History of Mankind, Third Edition (London, 1878), pp.

181 sq. (Sir) Edward B. Tylor, Researches into the Early History of Mankind, Third Edition (London, 1878), pp. 237

On the belief in were-wolves in general; see W. Hertz, Der Werwolf (Stuttgart, 1862); J. Grimm, Deutsche Mythologie* i. 915 sqq.; (Sir) Edward B. Tylor, Primitive Culture (London, 1873), i. 308 sqq.; R. Andree, Ethnographische Parallelen und Vergleiche (Stuttgart, 1878), pp.

(Sir) Edward B. Tylor, Primitive Culture* (London, 1873), i. 314.

But it would be well to advise the reader to consult Roskoff's confutation of Sir John Lubbock, and Mr. Tylor's masterly statement.

Mr. Tylor, twelve years before Mr. Spencer wrote, had demolished Sir Samuel Baker's assertion, as regards many tribes, and so shaken it as regards the Latukas, quoted by Mr. Spencer.

While we are, perhaps owing to our own want of capacity, puzzled by what seem to be two kinds of early philosophy(1) a sort of instinctive or unreasoned belief in universal animation, which Mr. Spencer calls 'Animism' and does not believe in, (2) the reasoned belief in separable and surviving souls of men (and in things), which Mr. Spencer believes in, and Mr. Tylor calls 'Animism'we must also note another difficulty.

Mr. Tylor may seem to be taking it for granted that the earliest, remote, unknown thinkers on life and the soul were existing on the same psychical plane as we ourselves, or, at least, as modern savages.

Lord Tennyson, too, after sleeping in the bed of his recently lost father on purpose to see his ghost, decided that ghosts 'are not seen by imaginative people.' We now examine, at greater length, the psychical conditions in which, according to Mr. Tylor, contemporary savages differ from civilised men.

' Jung-Stilling (though he wrote before modern 'Spiritualism' came in) is not a very valid authority; there is plenty of better evidence than his, but Mr. Tylor passes it by, merely remarking that 'modern Europe has kept closely enough to the lines of early philosophy.'

What Mr. Tylor calls 'Animism' Mr. Spencer believes in, but he calls it the 'Ghost Theory.']

Mr. Tylor also adds folk-lore practices of ghost-seeing, as on St. John's Eve.

Mr. Tylor treats of waking hallucinations in much the same manner as he deals with 'travelling clairvoyance.'

It is with that opinion, with Animism in its hallucinatory origins, that Mr. Tylor is concerned, not with the hallucinations themselves or with the evidence for their veridical existence.

On the theory of savage philosophy, as explained by Mr. Tylor himself, a man's soul may leave his body and become visible to others, not at death only, but on many other occasions, in dream, trance, lethargy.