The Religion and Philosophy of the Veda and Upanishads v1.c11.s3.50

v1.c11.s3.50

An important practical result follows from the refusal to adopt as final and exclusive any of these theories of religion. It becomes impossible to adapt an order of exposition based on the different age of the religious phenomena presented, as for instance is done by Dr. Warde Fowler in his valuable exposition of Roman religion, in which he starts from survivals of the primitive magic, in which he sees the first expression of the relation of man to the mystery of the universe, and then proceeds to discuss the development of that attitude through the religion of the settled life of the agricultural family, and the faith of the city state, to its later development under Greek influence. Attractive as this method of procedure at first appears, it is perfectly clear that it cannot be justified as a scientific mode of exposition. The difficulty appears clearly when the figure of Jupiter comes under discussion. It is impossible for Dr. Warde Fowler to question the fact that he is a great god, a sky god, and a god who was not developed by the Roman people independently: indeed Dr. Fowler shows some disposition¹ to favour the view of Lang,² Jevons,³ and others who accept the primitive belief of many peoples in one great god, which is anterior to polytheism, and which is often held to be the origin of Chinese religion.⁴ But he never tries to connect this view with his other principle of the priority of magic to religion, nor to explain how the two ideas stand in relation to one another. It is, therefore, only possible in dealing with religion to indicate the diverse elements involved in it, and to trace the development of these several elements and their interaction and intermingling. To derive one element from the other is a task too difficult, too speculative, and ultimately too philosophical to be dealt with in the account of any individual faith, while to base on such theories the order of development of any individual religion is only misleading.