314 TEE POPULAR SCIENCE MONTHLY. 



Space permitting I might add evidence furnished by Sir Alfred Lyall, 

 who, in his valuable papers published in the " Fortnightly Review " 

 years ago on religion in India, has given the results of observations 

 made there. Writing to me from the North-West provinces under 

 date August 1, in reference to the controversy between Mr. Harrison 

 and myself, he incloses copies of a letter and accompanying memoran- 

 dum from the magistrate of Gorakhpur, in verification of the doctrine 

 that ghost-worship is the " chief source and origin " of religion. Not, 

 indeed, that I should hope by additional evidence to convince Mr. 

 Harrison. When I point to the high authority of Dr. Tylor as on 

 the side of the ghost-theory, Mr. Harrison says—" If Dr. Tylor has 

 finally adopted it, I am sorry." And now I suppose that when I cite 

 these further high authorities on the same side, he will simply say 

 again " I am sorry," and continue to believe as before. 



In respect of the fetichism distinguishable as nature-worship, Mr. 

 Harrison relies much on the Chinese. He says : — 



The case of China is decisive. There we have a religion of vast antiquity and 

 extent, perfectly clear and well ascertained. It rests entirely on worship of 

 Heaven, and Earth, and objects of Nature, regarded as organized beings, and 

 not as the abode of human spirits. 



Had I sought for a case of " a religion of vast antiquity and extent, 

 perfectly clear and well ascertained," which illustrates origin from the 

 ghost-theory, I should have chosen that of China ; where the State- 

 religion continues down to the present day to be an elaborate ancestor- 

 worship, where each man's chief thought in life is to secure the due 

 making of sacrifices to his ghost after death, and where the failure of 

 a first wife to bear a son who shall make these sacrifices, is held a 

 legitimate reason for taking a second. But Mr. Harrison would, I 

 suppose, say that I had selected facts to fit my hypothesis. I there- 

 fore give him, instead, the testimony of a bystander. Count D'Al- 

 viella has published a brochure concerning these questions on which 

 Mr. Harrison and I disagree.* In it he says on page 15 : — 



La these de M. Harrison, au contraire, — que rhomme aurait commenc6 par 

 I'adoration d'objets mat^riels "franchement regardes comme tels," — nous parait 

 absolument contraire au raisonnement et a I'observation. 1\ cite, a titre d'ex- 

 eraple, I'antique religion de la Chine, " entierement basee sur la veneration de 

 la Terre, du Ciel et des Ancetres, consideres objectivement et non comme la 

 residence d'etres immateriels." [This sentence is from Mr. Harrison's first ar- 

 ticle, not from his second.] C'est la jouer de malheur, car, sans meme insister 

 sur ce que peuvent 6tre des Ancetres "consideres objectivement," il se trouve 

 pr6cis6ment que la religion de I'ancien empire Chinois est le type le plus parfait 

 de I'animisme organise et qu'elle regarde meme les objets materiels, dont elle 

 fait ses dieux, comme la manifestation inseparable, I'enveloppe ou meme le corps 

 d'esprits invisibles. [Here in a note Count D'AIviella refers to authorities, 



* " Harrison contra Spencer sur la Valeur Religicuse de L'Inconnaissable," par le 

 Cte. Goblet D'Alviella. Paris, Ernest Leroux. 



