December 13, 1900] 



NATURE 



151 



of the gymnospertns, which the author appears to regard 

 as derived partly from the Ferns and partly from the 

 Lycopods. 



As regards the book, viewed as a whole, it is impossible 

 not to feel that, in spite of — perhaps partly in conse- 

 quence of —its extraordinary wealth of illustration, it does 

 not help us much farther towards a more general con- 

 ception of the value and wider relations of organography 

 as a whole. But, nevertheless, the experimental line of 

 inquiry in this field, which Goebel himself has so ably 

 pursued, is one which will certainly prove a fruitful one, 

 judging from the results which have even yet accrued. 

 And for the clear indication of this, as well as for the 

 bringing together such a vast store of facts, the author 

 has thoroughly earned the gratitude of his fellow-workers. 

 It is just because there is so much of good in the book 

 that it is difficult to avoid giving expression to that kind 

 of gratitude which still hopes for something yet more 

 satisfying. J. B. Farmer. 



THE HISTORY OF THE DEVIL. 

 The History of the Devil and the Idea of Evil. By Dr. 

 Paul Carus. 8vo. pp. xvi4-488. (London : Kegan Paul 

 and Co., Ltd. Chicago : The Open Court Publishing 

 Company, 1900.) 

 'X*HE volume before us is one of considerable interest, 

 but we must say at once that we think the history 

 of the Devil and of the idea of evil should have been 

 treated in a manner different from that which has been 

 adopted by Dr. Paul Carus. The discussion of the idea 

 of evil is a matter for the philosophical thinker, it seems 

 to us, and the subject cannot be threshed out in detail in 

 a single volume by any writer, however able he may be ; 

 the history of the manner in which the Devil, i.e.^ the 

 personification of evil, has been depicted by various 

 peoples at various times in various places over the earth, 

 is quite a different subject, and is, likewise, one which 

 cannot be treated adequately in a single small volume. 

 Dr. Carus, however, has tried to deal with both sides of 

 this complex subject in one volume, and, it must be con- 

 fessed, he will, in consequence, not satisfy either the 

 philosopher or the iconographer. His book is well 

 printed and well illustrated — though we certainly do not 

 admire the shadowy "ghost" pictures printed in a 

 sickly green colour on several of the pages — and to many 

 readers it will be of interest, and probably of use also, 

 for it may stimulate them to investigate the subject for 

 themselves. In eighteen chapters, which vary consider- 

 ably in length, the history of the Devil and the idea of 

 evil are discussed in connection with the evidence derived 

 from pictures, reliefs, &c., from Egypt, Akkad, Babylonia, 

 Persia, Judea, India, China, Europe, and other countries, 

 but Dr. Carus has not collected all the facts which he 

 ought to have gathered together, and his deductions 

 from those he gives are hardly correct. We do not think 

 that " the belief in good spirits tended towards the form- 

 ation of the doctrine of Monotheism," or that " the belief 

 in evil spirits led naturally to the acceptance of a single 

 supreme evil deity." Prehistoric man peopled all earth 

 air, sea and sky with spirits, some of whom were sup- 

 posed to be hostile to him, and others benevolent ; and 

 he regarded a spirit as good or evil according to whether 

 NO. 1624, VOL. 631 



it did him good or evil. When a series of good harvests 

 came to him, or he was singularly fortunate in love, or 

 the chase, or war, he made up his mind that the good 

 spirits had succeeded in destroying the power of those 

 who were evil. In process of time, to certain evil and to 

 certain good spirits extraordinary powers were ascribed, 

 and eventually the idea of the existence of a prince of evil, 

 as well as of a prince of good, was formulated ; terror 

 and ignorance were the chief constituents in the worship 

 of primitive man, and physical and moral attributes, as 

 well as cause and effect, were often confounded by him. 



Dr. Carus regards the old Egyptian god Set as the 

 equivalent of the Devil of the later peoples of the West, 

 but this is only partly true. He was a nature power and 

 was the twin brother of Osiris according to one legend, 

 and the twin brother of Horus the Elder according to 

 another. He was the male counterpart of Nephthys 

 who, as is well known, was not hostile to Osiris, and he 

 must not be confounded with Apep, the mighty enemy of 

 Ra, the Sun-god ; Set and Horus together held up the 

 ladder whereby the deceased entered heaven, and both 

 gods gave him a helping hand in mounting it. Dr. Carus 

 is mistaken when he says that Set " was converted into 

 Satan with the rise of the worship of Osiris." We know 

 nothing about the rise of the worship of Osiris, but we 

 learn from the Pyramid Texts that in the fifth dynasty, 

 when the worship of Osiris was universal in Egypt, Set 

 was regarded as a benevolent god and a friend of the 

 deceased. In speaking of Akkad and the early Semites, 

 Dr. Carus is either credulous or rash, for, after saying 

 that the Babylonians " possessed several legends which 

 have been received into the Old Testament," he mentions 

 a legend of the Tower of Babel and of the " destruction 

 of corrupt cities by a rain of fire," reminding us of Sodom 

 and Gomorrah. The text on which he relies for the 

 legend of the Tower of Babel is, of course, K. 3657 in 

 the British Museum, but a recent examination of the 

 tablet proves that it has nothing to do with the Tower of 

 Babel ; as for the legend of the cities which were 

 destroyed by " a rain of fire," we cannot imagine what 

 the authority can be. We may mention, in passing, that 

 many of Dr. Carus's authorities are altogether obsolete, 

 and it is possible that one of them has led him astray on 

 this point. His interpretations of Babylonian scenes, too, 

 are not always correct. Thus on p. 40 the " Chaldean 

 Trinity" is not blessing the tree of life, but is merely 

 appearing above the conventionalised representation of 

 the palm tree to the priest who is worshipping before the 

 image of the god ; similarly, the statement (p. 46) that 

 the bronze tablet of the de Clercq Collection is a repre- 

 sentation of " the world in the clutches of an evil demon ' 

 is erroneous. Any account of the demonology of the 

 Assyrians and Babylonians which does not take into 

 account the Shunpu and Maklu series of magical tablets 

 which have been recently published by Tallquist and 

 Zimmern must of necessity be most incomplete, and we 

 are not a little surprised that Dr. Carus should have 

 undertaken the task without doing so. The demonology 

 of the Israelites is dismissed in nine pages, and this section 

 of the book is most disappointing ; in recent years many 

 workers have investigated the Hebrew side of the subject 

 of devil-lore, and an extremely interesting chapter might 

 have been compiled from their writings. The famous 



