Page:The New International Encyclopædia 1st ed. v. 09.djvu/273

* GREEK RELIGION. 239 GREEK RELIGION. been advanced, only to be discredited. Two views were lon^' prom incut. One saw in the Greek religiuii only a corruption of an original revela- tion, and much inycnuily was displayed in trac- ing biblical teachings in the Hellenic myths. The other bore some relation to this in that it as- sumed that the Greek mythology and the jiopular beliefs were but the symbolic forms in which the priests clothed the most profound truths which were too deep for the jjopular mind. The great cx])onent of this theory was Fr. Creuzer (Symbolik und Mi/thologic do- alien VulKcr, '2i ed., Dannstadl, 1820-24; Fr. ed.. enlarged by Gui- gnianl, Faris, 1825-51 ), but it exercised a power- ful inlluencc during the first half of the nine- teenth century, especially in the explanation of the Greek vases and other works of art. With the growth of the science of comparative philol- ogy and a clearer recognition of the connection between the Indo-European peoples, a flood of liglit W'as thrown on the names of many of the Greek gods: and as etymological identity with Vedic and sometimes northern deities seemed ob- vious in many cases, it was naturally believed that here at last was the key to unlock the past. Many of the Vedic deities are clearly personifica- tions of the powers of nature, and this is doubt- less true of some of the Greek gods, but the attempt to resolve the Greek religion into a pure nature-worship has been unsuccessful. One diffi- culty is that original identity of name docs not mean later identity in the conception of the deity to whom the name is attached. Dyaus and Xeus may be the same word, but the former is only a shadow in the Vedic mythologv'. while the latter is the greatest of the gods. Explana- tion has also been sought, with very good results, through tile researches of anthropology into the primitive ideas of savage tribes and the sur- vivals of primitive customs and superstitions among more civilized races. These studies have led to the theory which finds in (niii)iisin. or worship of spirits, usually malevolent, the kernel of all religion, and traces its development by a strict process of evolution. This undoubtedly ex- plains much in Greek religious rites and concep- tions, but it cannot be regarded as completely satisfactory. It so'cms as though the solution, if it can ever be reached, nust be sought by a com- bination of these various lines. The names of the gods must be studied by the aid of compara- tive philologj^ that the original conception em- bodied therein may be brought to light. Local cults, ritual usages, and superstitions must be collected and compared with similar rites among kindred or primitive peoples, and the history and development of the several myths examined. It is necessary, also, to consider the problem of foreign intlucnce and contamination by the union of originally diverse conceptions under a com- mon Tiame. At one time the tendency was to explain everything as an importation : and in the rcaeti(m against this extravagance K. O. Jliiller and his followers doubtless went too far in their claim that all was autochthonous unless there is historical proof of foreign origin. Lately, the tendency has been to admit a larger share of foreign influence, though it must not be forgotten that the Greeks assimilated and transformed whatever they derived from their intercourse with otli£r nations. In conclusion, it may be well to call attention to certain phases of Greek religion, preserving apparently primitive elements which were forced into the background by the more higldy developed cults. Prominent among these are the traces of fetishism in the mimerous cases of .sacred stones, which are sometimes called images of definite gods, as the pyramidal Zeus at Phlius, or the rough stones called Charitcs at the lia-otian Orchonienus, but are sometimes unnamed, like the Omphalos at Delphi. Tlic worship of trees has in most cases been transfiu'med into the con- secration of the Iree to some god, as the olive to" .thena, and the laurel to Apollo. (Compare Biit- ficher, lidKiiilidUis dcr Hcllrncn, 1S5G; Frazer, The Golden Bough, 2d ed., London, 1!)00.) The numerous cases of animals sacred to a god seem also to contain reminiscences of an animal worship, of which there are, perhaps, in- dications in tlic Mycena'an Age, but the pru(jfs of primitive totemism in Greece are as yet very scanty. The worship of the souls of the dead, or, at any rate, their jiropitiation by oll'erings, was a large part of Greek religion, though it was less prominent than the more public rites. Greek ideas about the soul and the other world were indefinite, but it w-as certainly the popular belief tliat the soul survived the body, and either hovered about the tontb or departed to a shadowy region, where it led a melancholy existence in need of the ofTerings brought by surviving rela- tives. It was evidently believed to have power to inflict injury, and it is also certain that proper funeral rites for the body w'ere needed to insure its peace. In some cases the State paid divine honors to a departed soul, usually as a 'Heros' {ijpui), as the .Athenians honored Sophocles. This worship is, of course, important from the point of view of the animistic theories. It is fullv discussed by E. Rohde, in Psyche (2d ed., Freiburg, 1808). BiBi.iOGRAPiTY. The number of works is enor- mous, but most of those published before 1850 are antiquated, and many later works can be safely neglected. The following works treat the general subject with detail: Preller, flricrhischc My- ihologie (Leipzig, 1854; 4th ed., vol. i. liy Tvobert, Berlin, 1887-04). The second volume, containing the Heroes, is still tuipublished. Tliis is probably the best single work, (icrhard, Orirrhhrhc My- llwlofiie (Berlin. 1854-55), still useful for the material therein collected: Wclckcr. Grirclusche ilijtterlehrc (Bonn, 1857-03), a work which was (he culmination of a life of study covering the whole poetry and art of the Greeks, as the source for a correct understanding of their religious licliefs; Decharme, Mythologie de la Grcce an- iujue (2d ed.. Paris, 1880). of value from its references to the treatment of mythology in art. There is no thoroughly good work in English. The lectures of !Max Muljcr and the W(U'ks of Andrew Lang discuss some phases of Greek re- ligion. The former is the corvph;cus of the 'com- parative niythologists,' while the latter writes from the anthropological point of view. Gruppe, in dricchifichr Kulte vnd Mythcti. vol. i. (1887), and in his "Griechische Slythologie," in Miiller, lliiiidbuch drr klassiscJien AIt<'rthiim.'<trif!scnf:ch<ift (Munich, 1807, 1902), has revived the promi- nence of foreign influence, and collected much in- formation on the religions of the ncigliboring Tieoplcs. The material is collected most com- pletely in Koscher. T/rxilcon drr (jrirrhischeti und riimisrhen Mytholof/ir (Leipzig, 1884 et seq.), and the mythological articles in Pauly-Wissowa,