ent a much earlier state of language than
anything that we find, for example, in the oldest Hebrew or Sanskrit
texts. 'For this reason,' he says, {218} 'the study of what I call
_nomad_ languages, as distinguished from _State_ languages, becomes so
instructive. We see in them what we can no longer expect to see even in
the most ancient Sanskrit or Hebrew. We watch the childhood of language
with all its childish freaks.' Yes, adds the anthropologist, and for
this reason the study of savage religions, as distinguished from State
religions, becomes so instructive. We see in them what we can no longer
expect to see even in the most ancient Sanskrit or Hebrew faiths. We
watch the childhood of religion with all its childish freaks. If this
reasoning be sound when the Kaffir tongue is contrasted with ancient
Sanskrit, it should be sound when the Kaffir faith is compared with the
Vedic faith. By parity of reasoning, the religious beliefs of peoples as
much less advanced than the Kaffirs as the Kaffirs are less advanced than
the Vedic peoples, should be still nearer the infancy of faith, still
'nearer the beginning.'

We have been occupied, perhaps, too long with De Brosses and our apology
for De Brosses. Let us now examine, as shortly as possible, Mr. Max
Muller's reasons for denying that fetichism is 'a primitive form of
religion.' The negative side of his argument being thus disposed of, it
will then be our business to consider (1) his psychological theory of the
subjective element in religion, and (2) his account of the growth of
Indian religion. The conclusion of the essay will be concerned with
demonstrating that Mr. Max Muller's system assigns little or no place to
the superstitious beliefs without which, in other countries than India,
society could not have come into organised existence.

* * * * *

In his polemic against Fetichism, it is not always very easy to see
against whom Mr. Muller is contending. It is one thing to say that
fetichism is a 'primitive form of religion,' and quite another to say
that it is 'the very beginning of all religion.' Occasionally he attacks
the 'Comtian theory,' which, I think, is not now held by many people who
study the history of man, and which I am not concerned to defend. He
says that the Portuguese navigators who discovered among the negroes 'no
other trace of any religious worship' except what they called the worship
of feiticos, concluded that this was the whole of