The Religion and Philosophy of the Veda and Upanishads v1.c13.s2.29

v1.c13.s2.29

These are scanty enough remains of fetishism, and we cannot assert that, even such as they are, they are proofs of a wider extension of the concept at an earlier period. The fire ritual, which is richest in them, is precisely that part of the religion of the Veda which is most completely sacerdotalized: the use of the horse and the goat may not in the slightest degree be original elements of the ritual, but may be deliberately introduced by the priests who were the most devoted admirers of symbolism, and who not only found symbolism in every conceivable rite, but were quite capable of inventing the rite to contain the symbol. The Çūlagava ritual, which, as belonging to the simpler household ritual, might be supposed to be earlier in conception, is only recorded at the very end of the Vedic period, and at a time when the priests had completely brought the household ritual under their own control: its symbolism is entirely in accord with their modes of thought. Nor *a priori* is there any ground, if we do not accept animism as the first step in religious life, to ascribe fetishism to the beginnings of religious thought, and still less to hold that animal fetishism is especially primitive. It is clearly derived from theriomorphism, which we find in the Rigveda: whether animal fetishes were known in the period of that Veda, as we know fetishes of lifeless objects were known, must remain undecided in the absence of conclusive positive evidence and the impossibility of satisfactory conclusions from reasoning *a priori*. It is, of course, often contended that in fetishism we must expect to find, and so far as records are available, do find, a chronological progression from the inanimate fetish through the animal form, to a half human, half animal form, and finally to the human form proper.¹ This view corresponds with the theory, already mentioned, under which it is held that the first conceptions of deities are animatistic, then theriomorphic, and only later anthropomorphic, so that, for instance, the sun is first represented by a wheel fetish, then by a horse and chariot, and only later by a man seated in a chariot or alone. The theory seems, however, to lack any definite foundation; once the animatistic stage is passed, or even in this stage, whether man conceived his deities in animal or human forms appears to permit of no absolute reply; there seems no ground for refusing to admit the contemporaneousness of both ideas; we certainly cannot feel that Indra was pictured by primitive imagination as a bull more readily than as a man of superhuman prowess. As we have seen, in the Rigveda we have a definite suggestion of the existence of a primitive idol inspired Muni or medicine man is known as early as the Rigveda,¹ but it is not suggested that such a man was divine. In the later literature is found the idea of the divinity of kings: a king, even if but a child, is not to be despised, Manu tells us, since in him is incorporate a great divinity; but in the Veda if there are gods in earth they are normally the Brahmans, a view which may even be as old as the Rigveda, and which does not allow us to do more than believe that the priests felt themselves as in high degree sanctified by their close relations with the gods. The conception that the worship of gods at all was born from the worship paid on earth to the inspired medicine man² is not in itself a probable one, but at any rate it is wholly opposed to the Vedic religion as we have it.