250 W. THALBITZER. 
person or his family the greater expense of calling in the angakok. 
This holds good of no. 55, for example, where the escaped souls of 
the sick person are exhorted to return, and of their own free will 
re-attach themselves. Otherwise, the guardian spirits of the angakok 
must be set in motion, in order to fetch them, but the angakok is 
expensive to call in. 
The form of most magic prayers is identical as regards position, 
character, and repetition of the words, and as regards the pitch and 
tempo of the voice. The length (the number of lines) is somewhat 
variable. Apart from one exception, they all begin with the ever re- 
peated refrain: éà; éà, with a marked pause between each éa (cf. p.276). 
The word has two distinctly separated short sounds of the usual 
phonetic value, [е] a little more strongly stressed than the [а]. Here- 
upon follows the first “strophe,” consisting of only one or two words 
often expressing a question, and said twice, with a slight pause be- 
tween each line. Then, again, follows the refrain, with the same pitch 
and solemnity as at first. Then the next strophe, constructed exactly 
like the first, and often giving an oracular answer to the question, 
and in such a way that the answer is repeated with a slight pause. 
Again comes ва; ва, after which comes the next strophe. Finally, 
and yet again, the refrain. — In no. 83 the refrain is not éa, but the 
equally mystic word qula. The meaning of these words are unknown. 
— 4 4 4 (x) x 2 wa 
| @ + | ® + nee ren J | г we wa “4 — wH + — we wm ww T Eg 
2 bg AE EI M ea ea ilana pujortor 
The refrain and the strophes are neither shouted, nor sung, nor 
whispered. The voice keeps a controlled tempo and medium strength, 
and a peculiarly impressive and mystic tone, as if the prayer were 
meant to be heard by one who is quite near and need not be sum- 
moned. 
Linguistically, the formula has not always the form of a prayer. 
In many of the formulae the verb is not in the optative or impera- 
tive mood, but in the indicative. But the enunciation of the fact 
itself is a paraphrase of the wish that it shall be so, the formula 
being in reality meant optatively. When the hunter, in his kaiak, 
murmurs or recites: “I ness the ness, I round the ness, what will 
it give me? A bear it will give me,” then he means: I wish I might 
see (get) a bear when I have rounded the ness. Or when he enchants: 
“the seal is compliant, it comes to meet me, it comes right up to 
my tent” — or “I pat the cheeks and tusks of the walrus, it becomes 
compliant and tame” — then he means: would that it might happen 
thus. In the same way, when moving into his winter house in the 
autumn: “The evil spirit moves past me, regardless of me, I remain 
healthy” — which means: would that he might pass me without 
heeding me, and would I may not be ill! 
The symbology in the prayers is, no doubt, more apparent than 
real. We are accustomed to see symbology and poetry in such utter- 
ances. In reality, the Eskimo thinks of something more substantial 
when he says: “I breathe with the lung of the caterpillar and the 
bat (по. 49),” or “I wish that the bat inside me might disappear 
