Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

The Religion and Philosophy of the Veda and Upanishads v1.c15: Chapter 7. The Interrelation of the Gods

The Religion and Philosophy of the Veda and Upanishads v1.c15

Language
English

Chapter 7. The Interrelation of the Gods

v1.c15.2

THE Rigveda recognizes the number of the gods as 33, a figure given also in the Iranian tradition, and these it further divides into three groups of 11, connected with the heaven, the earth, and the waters of the air: more often the connexion of the gods with these three regions is mentioned without any precise statement of number. Of this 33 no explanation in detail can be gathered from the Rigveda: it is certain that it is not exhaustive, for other gods are mentioned in addition to the 33. The absence of any established tradition is shown by the Brāhmaṇas which recognize the 33 gods, and agree in making them out to include 8 Vasus, 11 Rudras, and 12 Ādityas, but differ as to the remaining two: the Çatapatha¹ gives either Dyaus and Pṛthivī, with a thirty-fourth in Prajāpati, or Indra and Prajāpati, while the Aitareya² adds Prajāpati and the Vaṣaṭ call, a technical introduction from the sacrifice which is manifestly not primitive.³ It is not unnatural, therefore, that Hopkins should have sought to find the origin of the number in an older 10, but there is, as we have seen, no tolerable evidence in tradition of an older set of ten gods either in India or in any other Indo-European religion.

v1.c15.3

¹ iv. 5. 7. 2; xi. 6. 3. 5.

v1.c15.4

² ii. 18. 8. Cf. PB. vi. 2. 5; TS. iii. 4. 9. 7.

v1.c15.5

³ Von Schroeder (*Arische Religion*, i. 429) suggests an original group of nine superior gods of Indo-Iranian unity, Dyaus Pitṛ, Asura, Varuna, Mitra, Aryaman, Aṅça, Bhaga, Dakṣa (Dhātṛ or Dātṛ), Parjanya; but this is quite unproved, and rests on the false views as to the number nine; cf. G. Hüsing, *Die iranische Überlieferung und das arische System* (1909); W. Schultz, *Mitteil. der Anthropol. Ges. in Wien*, xl. 101–50; A. Kaegi, *Die Neunzahl bei den Ostariern* (1891).

v1.c15.6

The triple division is adopted by Yāska in his Nirukta,⁴ where he divides the gods into those whose place is the earth, those whose place is the atmosphere, and those whose place is the heaven, and he records that in the opinion of the school of Nairuktas the whole of the deities could be reduced to three, Agni on earth, Vāyu in the air, or, in place of Vāyu, Indra, and Sūrya in the heaven. The doctrine may have owed its origin to such passages as the Rigveda⁵ verse ‘May Sūrya protect us from heaven, Vāta from air, Agni from the earthly regions’, or the declaration of the Maitrāyaṇī Saṁhitā⁶ that Agni, Vāyu, and Sūrya are the children of Prajāpati, while the presence of Indra as a variant for Vāyu may be due to his affinity in one aspect to Vāyu, and still more to the fact that, if a god were to be chosen to represent the atmosphere, it was hardly possible without absurdity to omit Indra. It should, however, be noted that Yāska does not himself accept the theory of the reduction of all the gods of the several spheres to forms of one god only, and in the Naighaṇṭuka, the text on which his Nirukta comments, the lists of gods given are not based on the principle of identity adopted by the Nairuktas. Nor can the list be regarded as having any special value or authority, though in the main the assignment of the gods to the three spheres is in accordance with the indications of the Rigveda itself. Where a god has different activities, his name is repeated in more than one sphere: thus Tvaṣṭṛ and Pṛthivī appear in all three divisions, Agni and Uṣas in the terrestrial and the aerial, and Varuṇa, Yama, and Savitṛ in the aerial and the celestial.

v1.c15.7

⁴ vii. 5.

v1.c15.8

⁵ x. 158. 1.

v1.c15.9

⁶ iv. 2. 12.

v1.c15.10

The identifications made by the Nairuktas were not unnatural and point to a marked similarity prevailing among the great Vedic gods. They are all, as we have seen,¹ conceived as anthropomorphic, mention is made in connexion with many of them of the head, face, mouth, hair, arms, hands, feet, and other members. They wear garments, that of Dawn being marked out by its brilliance, and the gods often are represented as wearing coats of mail, and bearing weapons such as the bow, the spear, the battle-axe: it is a rare thing when one is so specially marked out as is Indra by his constant association with the thunderbolt. All the gods too have luminous chariots, and only in one or two cases have we mention of any but normal steeds to draw them. Pūṣan is associated with the goat, the Açvins with birds, the Maruts with spotted deer as well as with horses, and Uṣas has cows as well as horses. They live together in the highest heaven, and together they come when invoked to the offering strew in their chariots, or, remaining in the heaven, they receive the oblations which are brought to them by the god Agni, the messenger between men and the gods. Their food is the same, milk, butter, barley, oxen, goats, and sheep, though some gods have special predilections for food; so Indra prefers bulls, which are therefore offered to him in hecatombs, and Pūṣan eats mush and has no teeth. They enjoy together the Soma drink, by which they won immortality. Their relations are those of peace and friendship: Indra alone breaks the harmony of heaven: he shattered the chariot of the Dawn, he even slew his own father, he warred against the gods, and an interesting hymn shows to us a dispute between Indra and the faithful followers, the Maruts, whom he threatens to slay, until his anger is appeased. But, generally speaking, the gods share the same attributes of might, light, goodness, and wisdom.

v1.c15.11

¹ Part II, Chap. 5, § 1 (*a*).

v1.c15.12

Further considerations help to diminish the differences which might be expected to exist between deities whose natural basis is different. On the analogy of the pair of gods, Mitra and Varuṇa, whose union is in all probability Indo-Iranian, were formed other pairs,² in which Indra usually formed one member. The attribution to the pair of gods of the feats of either naturally and inevitably led to the association of one god with feats which were not his in the beginning. Again the gods were assimilated in consequence of their possessing the same power though exercising it in different forms. Thus Agni by the fire repels demons, but Indra performs the same feat with the thunderbolt, and the two gods, agreeing in part, come to agree in whole. Agni, therefore, is given the thunderbolt of Indra: he is styled slayer of Vṛtra, he wins the cows and the waters, the sun and the dawns. The task of extending the earth and of propping the air and the sky is one which is attributed to very varied gods: it can as easily be performed by Varuṇa as by Indra or by Viṣṇu, by the first as the upholder of the physical order of the universe, by the second as the great active god, and by Viṣṇu as the strider through the worlds. The tendency to syncretism is also increased by the close connexion of the elements in nature: thus the water is on the one hand divine in itself, but from the waters of the clouds springs forth the fire of the lightning, and that fire in its descent to earth enters into the water: the water contains, therefore, always an element of fire, and Agni himself is accordingly the son of the waters, thus commingling in his nature two very diverse elements. But Agni is not merely the fire on earth or the lightning in the air, he is also the sun in the sky, and thus Agni is closely and intimately related to Sūrya. But the sun is placed in the sky or produced or given a path to go in by about a dozen different gods. Other gods, again, are essentially akin by the reason of their being aspects merely of the same natural phenomenon.

v1.c15.13

² In the Mitanni list Indra and Našatia appear together, and the Rigveda (viii. 26. 8) has actually the compound word Indra-Nāsatyā, but the case is isolated.

v1.c15.14

The result was that the tendency was certainly steadily growing throughout the period of the Rigveda to regard the gods as closely related, rather than as in Greece to devise from time to time individual characteristics. Thus a poet¹ can say: ‘Thou, at birth, O Agni, art Varuṇa: when kindled thou dost become Mitra; in thee, O son of strength, all gods are centred; to the worshipper thou dost become Indra.’ From this view a further step is taken in the express assertion,² which carries us from Vedic religion to the beginnings of philosophy, ‘In many ways the priests speak of that which is but one; they call it Agni, Yama, Mātariçvan’, or ‘The bird that is one priest and poets with words make into many’.³ The reduction to unity of the divine nature carries with it as a consequence the further conception of the unity of the whole universe: thus Aditi is declared to be identical with all the gods, with men, with all that has been and is to be,⁴ and Prajāpati is given the same position.⁵ But this is characteristic of the latest stage of the poetry of the Rigveda.

v1.c15.15

¹ RV. v. 3. 1.

v1.c15.16

² RV. i. 164. 46.

v1.c15.17

³ RV. x. 114. 5.

v1.c15.18

⁴ RV. i. 89. 10.

v1.c15.19

⁵ RV. x. 121.

v1.c15.20

It is a question of some interest to ascertain exactly what was the view of the poets in their exaggerated invocations of the minor deities with declarations of their power which would make them the greatest of gods. Are we to suppose that the poet actually for the time being dismissed from his mind the other gods, and as a psychological fact felt his heart go out to the god, to whom his hymn was directed, in an outpouring of admiration and belief in him as really the supreme deity? This is the theory which has been called Henotheism or Kathenotheism,¹ and which, invented by Max Müller, has in this form hardly survived criticism. The key to the view of the poets is perhaps more surely provided by the fact that in the Atharvaveda ² a late poet, celebrating the mystic virtues of Darbha grass for magical purposes, attributes to it the properties of having extended the earth and supported the sky and the heaven. The idea that a Vedic poet could for a moment even shut from his mind the other figures of the pantheon seems incredible: apart from the hymns to the All-gods which were frequently used at the sacrifice, and in which the various gods find mention in close conjunction, the majority of the hymns even of the Rigveda were composed, without doubt, for definite use at the Soma ritual, in which a large number of gods found their definite allotted places, so that the poet knew precisely for what point in the ritual his poem was composed. Moreover, the practice of the invocation of pairs of gods or groups of gods was constant, and naïve statements ³ like ‘Agni alone, like Varuṇa, is lord of wealth’ show clearly enough the real value to be put upon assertions of unique authority or power. If, therefore, we add to the natural tendency of the poet to magnify the god to whom for the moment his worship was addressed—just as the panegyrist magnified the king whose bounty he was celebrating above all other kings—the indefiniteness of the outlines of the Vedic gods, and the constant tendency to confuse the characteristic nature of the deities, there is provided a satisfactory explanation of the facts of the Rigveda. For this stage of view the term Henotheism may survive, though it cannot be accepted in the precise interpretation given to it by its author.⁴

v1.c15.21

¹ Max Müller, *Phys. Rel.*, pp. 180 ff.

v1.c15.22

² xix. 32. 9.

v1.c15.23

³ Macdonell, *Ved. Myth.*, p. 17.

v1.c15.24

⁴ Whitney, PAOS. Oct. 1881; Hopkins, *Class. Stud. in honour of Drisler*, pp. 75 ff.

v1.c15.25

In the Rigveda this tendency to assimilation, which may be called in some degree monotheistic, but with a pronounced tendency to pantheism, practically excludes the growth of any real hierarchy among the gods. The Rigveda,⁵ indeed, expressly says of the gods that some are great, some small, some young, some old, and there is no reason to doubt that this was a view widely held: the mere fact that another poet ⁶ assures the gods that they are none of them small or young, but all great, is rather proof of the prevalence of the contrary view than an indication that the assurance which he gives was generally accepted as correct. Moreover, there is the patent fact that, when all allowances are made for the nature of the subject-matter, two Vedic deities do appear as being of much greater importance than the others, Indra as the great ruler, and Varuṇa as the lord of physical and moral order. In the Avesta, on the other hand, Indra is only to be discerned dimly as a demon, and Varuṇa has his counterpart in the glorious and righteous Ahura Mazdāh. It is therefore natural enough to imagine that the original great god of the Aryans was Varuṇa and that it was in India that Indra was made up to the stature of Varuṇa, and even overthrew his prominence. In the alternative it has even been maintained, as by Jacobi,¹ that the Avesta did not know Indra at all as a god, and that he is really of Indian origin.

v1.c15.26

⁵ i. 27. 13.

v1.c15.27

⁶ RV. viii. 30. 1.

v1.c15.28

¹ JRAS. 1910, pp. 457, 458.

v1.c15.29

The discovery among the gods of the Mitanni of the names of Indra as well as of Mitra and Varuṇa is on the whole decidedly in favour of the view that the Iranians knew of Indra as a god equally with Varuṇa. If so, then the history of the two gods in Iran has been determined by a long development culminating in the state of religion preserved in the reforms of Zoroaster, and we cannot draw any conclusion from Iran as to the earlier history of the gods. In India there is no evidence to show that even in the earliest times known to us there was any priority of Varuṇa over Indra, and the greatness of Indra and his close association with the ideals of the Vedic Indian suggest that he was from the earliest times of which we have knowledge a great Indian god. The same remark, however, applies to Varuṇa for the whole of the early period of the Rigveda, and the practical equality of the two gods for this period seems to be established by the very hymn² which has often been adduced as showing the supersession of the older by the younger god. In it Varuṇa claims for himself the kingship, on the ground that all the immortals obey him, that he rules over the highest heaven, that he has established the earth, the air, and the sky, and has made the waters to flow. Indra replies that he is the irresistible one, on whom men call in time of conflict, and that the worlds tremble when the praise of men and the draughts of Soma have evoked his great powers. In the mere argument Indra would seem to have the worse rather than the better part, but the end of the hymn asserts that the wife of Purukutsa honoured both the gods, and received from them in reward the son Trasadasyu, who is one of the most famous of the kings of the Rigveda. But at the same time it must be admitted that in the later period of the Rigveda Varuṇa’s popularity seems to be declining: the argument from the fact that in the tenth book he has no hymn addressed to himself alone, while Indra has forty-five, is not conclusive, because the number of hymns addressed to Indra even in books ii and iii amounts to forty-five and Varuṇa has no hymn in iii and but one in ii; but it is true that Varuṇa is comparatively seldom mentioned in book x, and, what is far more important, by the time of the Atharvaveda he is already reduced to a very inferior position, while Indra is deliberately placed above all the gods, including Mitra and Varuṇa.³

v1.c15.30

² RV. iv. 42. The meaning of x. 124, which is taken by some as showing the decline of Varuṇa, is obscure; Oldenberg, *Rel. des Veda*², pp. 95 ff.; Hillebrandt, *Ved. Myth.* iii. 67–71, who distinguishes Varuṇa from the father Asura here mentioned, but see Güntert, *Der arische Weltkönig*, p. 207.

v1.c15.31

³ xx. 106. Hillebrandt (*Ved. Myth.*, pp. 82, 131), while accepting Hoernle and Grierson’s views of two strata of immigration, wisely does not connect the two with Indra and Varuṇa.

v1.c15.32

This shows clearly that the nature of Varuṇa failed to satisfy the needs of the specifically Indian character which must have been developing during the period, which divides the earlier parts of the Rigveda from the later, and the practical equality of the gods in the middle period of the Rigveda was to be decisively upset in favour of Indra.

v1.c15.33

The case of Indra and Varuṇa indicates faintly the existence of different standpoints among the tribes which shared in greater or less degree the Vedic civilization. That there was uniformity of belief among the tribes it would be absurd to expect; we hear of their struggles, especially of the great battle of the ten kings, and we need not assume that accusations of being without gods, without sacrifice, without Indra, necessarily always apply to non-Aryan foes. It is reasonable also to believe that families of priests had special affections for certain deities. What, however, is the fact is that in the Rigveda as we have it, it is hard to discover any certain evidence of preferences, tribal or otherwise. Hillebrandt's failure to elicit any secure results of much importance illustrates this proposition. The view¹ that book vi of the Rigveda places the Bharadvāja family in Arachosia, while iii and vii show the Viçvāmitras and the Vasiṣṭhas in the Punjab, under Sudās, a descendant of the Divodāsa celebrated by the Bharadvājas, cannot successfully be maintained, and much of his evidence for preferences is founded on equally inadequate foundations. It is, however, interesting to note² that Tvaṣṭṛ, in whose service the Neṣṭṛ priest stands, has but a slight hold in the Rigveda, while the ceremonial rituals in connexion with fertility magic in which this priest engages and his connexion with the Surā, not the Soma, suggest that the god was derived from a different *milieu*, not necessarily un-Aryan, from the bulk of the text. Again, the Gandharva, normally a friendly creature, is in two hymns of the eighth book treated as hostile, while in the Atharvaveda we find a distinctly different conception of the Gandharvas.³ The connexion of Indra with the Maruts⁴ as his aiders is distinctly conspicuous in book iii, of the Viçvāmitra family; in book v the Atris seem rather to treat the Maruts in the guise of priestly adorers of the god, while they are on Hillebrandt's view marked out also by preferring to regard Çuṣṇa as the chief foe of Indra in lieu of Vṛtra. Save for one hymn (66) the Bharadvājas of book vi take little note of the Maruts or Rudra, the Vasiṣṭhas of book vii make little of the Indra legend or the Maruts, Vṛtra appears normally merely as a generic term for a foe, and Indra is united with the Vasus in one place instead of with the Rudras. The Ṛbhus are most prominent in book iv.⁵ The Bharadvājas are markedly less interested in Varuṇa than the Vasiṣṭhas, as is natural since Vasiṣṭha claims descent from Mitra and Varuṇa.⁶ The pale figure of Aryaman is hardly recognized in the Family books, especially iii and viii.⁷ The Viçvāmitras are marked by offering food to Indra’s bays,¹ the Bharadvājas lay stress on the worship of Pūṣan,² the Vasiṣṭhas take more note of Viṣṇu than normally.³ The Gṛtsamadas of book ii and the Bharadvājas seem comparatively indifferent to the Açvins, who on the other hand are favoured by the Atris and the Vasiṣṭhas.⁴ The latter family seems to have been less addicted to the Soma cult than the others, possibly under the influence of devotees of the Surā⁵ from the eastern lands, who favoured the cult of the Surā-drinking Açvins. The Çatapatha Brāhmaṇa⁶ assures us that Rudra was styled Çarva among the eastern folk, Bhava among the Bāhīkas of the west, and in the Pāli⁷ texts we have adequate evidence of the contrast between east and west which is already attested in the Vedic tradition by the dislike of the man from Magadha.

v1.c15.34

¹ *Ved. Myth.* i. 85 ff.

v1.c15.35

² *Ibid.* i. 262, 514; ii. 16.

v1.c15.36

³ RV. viii. 1. 11; 77. 5; *Ved. Myth.* i. 438 ff. Cf. Chap. 11, § 2.

v1.c15.37

⁴ *Ved. Myth.* iii. 312 ff.

v1.c15.38

⁵ *Ibid.* iii. 135 f.

v1.c15.39

⁶ *Ibid.* iii. 63.

v1.c15.40

⁷ *Ibid.* iii. 87.

v1.c15.41

¹ *Ved. Myth.* iii. 214 ff.

v1.c15.42

² *Ibid.* iii. 367.

v1.c15.43

³ *Ibid.* iii. 347.

v1.c15.44

⁴ *Ibid.* iii. 394 ff.

v1.c15.45

⁵ On the contrast of Surā and Soma cf. *Ved. Myth.* i. 250, 253, but against exaggerated views, see Oldenberg, *Rel. des Veda*², pp. 91 ff.; GN. 1915, pp. 373 ff.

v1.c15.46

⁶ i. 7. 3. 8.

v1.c15.47

⁷ Oldenberg, *Buddha*¹, Excursus I.

v1.c15.48

We must doubtless also see signs of tribal and family differences in the multiplication of forms of the same deity; the sun, for instance, might be revered in one place as Sūrya, in another Pūṣan might be held in special honour, in yet another Savitṛ; Vāyu and Vāta represent in diverse ways the wind, while the Maruts are especially the storm winds; Viṣṇu we may suspect of having been the aspect of the sun especially adored by one clan. Unfortunately it is difficult to proceed beyond such general speculations in view of the available material, in which local and tribal distinctions have been largely removed by syncretism. The process has clearly gone far even in the Rigveda; if we reckon in the Atharvaveda and the other Saṁhitās, we can discern clearly further syncretisms in progress, which give us such forms as those of Rudra and Viṣṇu in the rank of great gods, and show us new aspects of the natures of such deities as Yama, the Maruts, and the Gandharvas. In cases such as these we need not see efforts of the priests of the Rigveda to elevate crude conceptions or transform deities of the underworld to celestial rank,⁸ for it is easier and more plausible to accept the view that we have contamination, sometimes of divergent Aryan views, sometimes of Aryan and un-Aryan conceptions.

v1.c15.49

⁸ e. g. Arbman, *Rudra*, p. 307.

v1.c15.50

Syncretism is shown not merely in the complex form of the combination of different aspects into one deity, but in the union in the ritual of deities between whom there is no natural connexion. Thus we have the rather forced union of Indra and Varuṇa;⁹ the royal consecration appears in our sources either as a Varuṇa rite or the great consecration of Indra, for both gods are kings and claim the devotion of the ruling power. Kātyāyana bids the Kṣatriya perform the establishment of the sacred fire according to the rule of Varuṇa, the Rājanya according to that of Indra. The treatment of the Ṛbhus is possibly significant in this regard;¹ whatever their origin, they had come in considerable degree to be associated with the seasons, Ṛtus. In the ritual we find that the Ṛbhus are given a share in the Vaiçvadeva litany at the third pressing of the Soma sacrifice, while in the Gṛhya ritual² the Ṛtus appear in connexion with the Aṣṭakā offering, and along with the All-gods and the Fathers rank as deities of the Aṣṭakās. In the Çrauta ritual³ we find that there is care taken to avoid connexion between the Ṛtus and the Ṛbhus; where one set appears, the other is omitted, and the Ṛtus are not given full rank as sharers in the oblations; on the contrary, the gods are merely asked to drink with them the so-called Ṛtu cups. It is natural also to see syncretism in the arrangement which turns Indra and Agni⁴ into the deities of the new moon offerings, for to find in Agni here a designation of the moon while Indra denotes the sun, the two being united at ‘new moon’, i. e. when the moon disappears wholly, is a decided *tour de force*. Viṣṇu and Varuṇa again are by no means a natural pair. Similarly we find Pūṣan brought into connexion with Indra, while Viṣṇu is made to share in the defeat of Vṛtra. Pūṣan is also introduced into the legends connecting the Açvins and Sūryā, and Indra is made the guardian of the ordinances of Mitra and Varuṇa.

v1.c15.51

⁹ Hillebrandt, *Ved. Myth.*, pp. 82 f.

v1.c15.52

¹ Hillebrandt, *Ved. Myth.* iii. 146–50.

v1.c15.53

² GGS. iii. 10; AGS. ii. 4. 12.

v1.c15.54

³ ĀpÇS. xii. 26. 8 ff.; ÇÇS. vii. 8; ÇB. iv. 3. 1. 3 ff.

v1.c15.55

⁴ Hillebrandt, *Ved. Myth.* iii. 294–300.

v1.c15.56

There is throughout the Rigveda no trace of any consistent subordination of one god to another. The lack of system in this regard is clearly shown by such assertions as those made by both Indra and Varuṇa that they are obeyed by all the gods, and other passages tell us that Varuṇa and Sūrya are subject to Indra, that Varuṇa and the Açvins submit to the power of Viṣṇu, who otherwise is of comparatively little moment among the Vedic gods, and that Indra, Mitra and Varuṇa, Aryaman and Rudra cannot resist the ordinances of Savitṛ, who is not, after all, a very important deity. Nor are we in a position to estimate more precisely even the comparative importance of the great majority of the gods mentioned in the Rigveda, for the collection, being in large measure immediately connected with the Soma sacrifice, gives less than normal room to those deities who do not for whatever reason come into special contact with that sacrifice. Thus, on the numerical figures⁵ of frequency of mention of their names, the gods of the Rigveda can be arranged in five groups as (1) Indra, Agni, Soma; (2) Açvins, Maruts, Varuṇa; (3) Uṣas, Savitṛ, Bṛhaspati, Sūrya, Pūṣan; (4) Vāyu, Dyāvāpṛthivī, Viṣṇu, Rudra; (5) Yama, Parjanya. There can be no doubt of the importance of Agni and Soma to the priests, but we may doubt their popularity in equal degree with the people. The Açvins again were doubtless popular deities, but their prominence numerically is due to their connexion with the morning light and the offering of the sacrifice, while the Maruts are brought into a high place by their association with Indra. It follows, therefore, that any classification of the gods by their relative frequency of mention in the Rigveda would be futile, and the alternative of following the order of the origin of the mythological conception is open to the fatal objection that to determine this order no means are available.

v1.c15.57

⁵ Macdonell, *Ved. Myth.*, p. 20.

v1.c15.58

Any division of the subject-matter must therefore in the main be based on considerations of convenience. These considerations lead to the view that the most satisfactory order is to treat first of the greater gods as celestial (Chap. 8), aerial (Chap. 9), and terrestrial (Chap. 10), of the minor nature deities (Chap. 11), of the abstract deities (Chap. 12), and of the groups of divinities (Chap. 13). Then will follow the priests and heroes of old times, including some figures who may be suspected of being faded gods (Chap. 14). The demons will be treated together in the next chapter (15). In origin they are clearly in part derived from natural phenomena, as is the case with the chief enemies of the gods as opposed to the demons which afflict men: of the latter some may doubtless be derived from the conception of the spirits of the hostile dead, others are more vaguely animistic in origin, while yet others seem developed from a naturalistic or animatistic basis in the noxious or tricky forms of nature. The relations between the gods and their worshippers, apart from the sacrifice and the ritual, will be dealt with in Chap. 16, while the question of the spirits of the dead and the cult of ancestors, the Fathers, will be reserved for connected treatment in Part IV.

Linked texts (12)