The gluttony of savages and their views on it, p. 290 sq.–At higher stages of

culture intemperance often subject to censure, p. 291.–Views on pleasures of

the table, p. 291 sq.-Fasting as a means of having supernatural converse or

acquiring supernatural powers, p. 292 sq.-Abstinence from food before or

in connection with the performance of a magical or religious ceremony,

pp. 293-298.–Fasting prevents pollution, pp. 294-296.-Sacrificial victims

should be clean, and may therefore have to fast, p. 295 sq.-Fasting before

the performance of a sacrifice may be due to the idea that it is dangerous or

improper for the worshipper to partake of food before the god has had his

share, pp. 296–298. -- Fasting after a death, pp. 298–308.-Observed only in

the daytime, p. 299 sq.--Abstinence from certain victuals only, pp. 300-302.

- Various attempts to explain the custom of fasting after a death, p. 302 sq.-

Mourners fast for fear of being polluted by the food, pp. 303-306. --Or

because they, by eating a piece of food, might pollute all victuals belonging

to the same species, p. 306 sq.-Or because they are supposed to be in a

delicate condition imposing upon them restrictions in their diet, p. 307 sq.-

Or because grief is accompanied by a loss of appetite, p. 308.— The Lent fast,

p. 308 sq.- Fasts connected with astronomical changes, pp: 309–325. -Among

ihe Jews, pp. 310-312.- Among the Harranians and Manichæans, p. 312 sq.

The Muhammedan fast of Ramadân, pp. 313-315.–Fasting as a form of

penance, pp. 315-318.-As a survival of an expiatory sacrifice, pp. 316-318.-

Fasting and almsgiving, ibid. -- Fasting “the beginning of chastity,” p. 318.

Certain kinds of food forbidden to certain classes of persons, pp. 319-324. -

To young persons, p. 319 sq.-To women, p. 320 sq.-To men, p. 321 sq:

-To priests or magicians, p. 322.- Restrictions in diet connected with

totemism, p. 323 sq.--Abstinence from animals which excite disgust by their

appearance, p. 324 sq.-From reptiles, p. 324.- From fish, p. 324 sq. — From

fowl, p. 325.-From eggs, p. 325 sq.-From milk, ibid.-From animals which

are regarded with disgust on account of their filthy habits or the nasty food

on which they live, pp. 326-328.– From pork, ibid.- From foreign animals,

P. 327.-From animals which are supposed to be metamorphosed ancestors or

which resemble men, p. 328 sq.- From animals which excite sympathy, pp.

329-331.---From beef, p. 330 sq.--Restrictions in diet due to the disinclina-

tion to kill certain animals for food or, generally, to reduce the supply of a

certain kind of victuals, pp. 330-332. — Abstinence from domestic animals

which are regarded as sacred, p. 331 sq.- From food which is believed to

injure him who partakes of it, pp. 332-334.—The sources to which the

general avoidance of certain kinds of food may be traced, p. 334 sq.--The

moral disapproval of eating certain kinds of food, p. 335.— The moral prohibi-

tion sanctioned by religion, ibid. — Vegetarianism, pp. 335-338.—Among many

peoples drunkenness so common that it can hardly be looked upon as a vice,

pp. 338-341.-Sobriety or total abstinence from intoxicating liquors insisted

upon by Eastern religions, p. 341 sq.-Explanation of the moral ideas con-

cerning drunkenness and the use of alcoholic drink, pp. 342–345.-Wine or

spirituous liquor inspires mysterious fear, p. 344 sq.-The Muhammedan

prohibition of wine, p. 345.


Definition of the term “marriage,” p. 364. —The horror of incest well-nigh

universal in the human race, pp. 364-366.- The prohibited degrees as a

rule more numerous among peoples unaffected by modern civilisation than in

more advanced communities, p. 366.—The violation of the prohibitory rules

regarded by savages as a most heinous crime, p. 366 sq.- The horror of incest

among nations that have passed beyond savagery and barbarism, p. 367 sq.-

Attempt to explain the prohibition of marriage between near kin, pp. 368–

371.-Refutation of various objections raised against the author's theory, pp.

371-378.— Incestuous unions stigmatised by religion, p. 375 sq.-Endoga-

mous rules of various kinds, pp. 378-382.- Marriage by capture, p. 382.

Marriage by purchase, pp. 382-384.—The disappearance of marriage by

purchase, p. 384 sq.-The morning gift, p. 385.—The marriage portion, p. 385

sq.—The form of marriage influenced by the numerical proportion between

the sexes, p. 387 sq.-- Polyandry, p. 387.-Group marriage of the Toda

type, ibid. - The causes of polygyny, pp. 387–389:--Of monogamy, p. 389. --

Polygyny less prevalent at the lowest stages of civilisation than at somewhat

higher stages, pp. 389-391.-Civilisation in its higher forms leads to mono-

gamy, p. 391. — The moral valuation of the various forms of marriage, p. 392. —

The assumed prevalence of group marriage in Australia, pp. 392-396. - The

duration of marriage and the laws of divorce, pp. 396-398.

Homosexual practices among the lower animals, p. 456. — Among various races

of men, pp. 456-464.- Between women, p. 464 sq.—The causes of homo-

sexual practices, pp. 465-471.-Congenital sexual inversion, p. 465 sq.-

Absence of the other sex or lack of accessible women, p. 466 sq.-

Acquired inversion, pp. 467-470.- Homosexuality in ancient Greece partly

due to the methods of training the youth, p. 469 sq.-Partly due to the

great gulf which mentally separated the sexes, p. 470 sq.--Causes of pederasty

in China and Morocco, p. 471.-Moral ideas concerning homosexual

practices, pp. 471-489.-- Among uncivilised peoples, pp. 471-475.-Among

ihe ancient Peruvians, p. 473 sq.--Among the ancient Mexicans, Mayas,

and Chibchas, p. 474.- Among Muhammedans, p. 475 sq.--Among the

Hindus, p. 476. - In China, p. 476 sq.- In Japan, p. 477.--Among the

ancient Scandinavians, - p. 477 sq.-In ancient Greece, p. 478 sq.-In Zoro-

astrianism, p. 479 sq.- Among the ancient Hebrews, p. 480.-In early

Christianity, p. 480 sq.- In Pagan Rome, ibid.-In Christian Rome, p.

481.--- European legislation regarding homosexual practices during the

Middle Ages and later, p. 481 54.-Modern legislation on the subject, p. 482

59.-Moral ideas concerning it in present Europe, p. 483.-Why homo-

sexual practices are frequently subject to censure, p. 483 sq.-Criticism of

Dr. Havelock Ellis's suggestion as to the popular attitude towards homo.

sexuality, pp. 484-486.— The excessive sinfulness attached to homosexual

practices by Zoroastrianism, llebrewism, and Christianity, due to the fact

that such practices were intimately associated with unbelief, idolatry, or

heresy, pp. 486-489.

[ocr errors]

p. 516.- The dead considered to bave rights very similar to those they had

whilst alive, pp. 516-520.—The soul must not be killed or injured, p. 516 sq.

-Its living friends must positively contribute to its comfort and subsistence,

p. 517 sq. --The right of ownership does not cease with death, p. 518 sq.-

Robbery or violation committed at a tomb severely condemned, ibid. -Respect

must be shown for the honour and self-regarding pride of the dead, p. 519. -

The dead demand obedience, p. 519 sq. —The sacredness attached to a will,

p. 519.–The rigidity of ancestral custom, p. 519 59.---Duties to the dead that

arise from the fact of death itself, pp. 520-524.—The funeral, the rites con-

nected with it, and the mourning customs, largely regarded as duties to the

dead, ibid.—The duties to the dead influenced by the relationship between

the parties, p. 524 sq.- By the age and sex of the departed, pp. 525-527.--

By class distinctions, p. 527.-By moral distinctions, p. 527 sq.-—The causes
from which the duties to the dead have sprung, pp. 528-549. - These duties
partly based on sympathetic resentment, p. 528.--The dead regarded as
guardians of their descendants, p. 529 sq. -- But the ancestral guardian spirit
does not bestow his favours for nothing, p. 530 sq.—The dead more commonly
regarded as enemies than friends, pp. 531-534.- Explanation of the belief
in the irritable or malevolent character of the dead, p. 534 sq.–The fear of

death and the fear of the dead, pp. 535-538.— The conduct of the survivors

influenced by their beliefs regarding the character, activity, and polluting

influence of the dead, pp. 538-546. —The origin of funeral and mourning

customs, pp. 541-547.-

Why practices connected with death which originally

sprang from self-regarding motives have come to be enjoined as duties,

p. 547 sq.-Why the duties to the dead are rarely extended to strangers,

p. 548 sq.--Explanation of the differences in the treatment of the dead which

depend upon age, sex, social position, and moral distinctions, p. 549. - The

duties to the departed become less stringent as time goes on, p. 549 sq.- The

duties to the dead affected by progress in intellectual culture, pp. 550-552.

The funeral sacrifice continued as a mark of respect or affection, p. 550.--

Offerings made to the dead become alms given to the poor, pp. 550 552.

The prevalence of cannibalism, p. 553:- Various forms of it, p. 554.-- Cannibal-

ism due to scarcity or lack of animal food, p. 555.—To gourmandise, pp.

555-557.–To revenge, pp. 557-559.-- The practice of eating criminals, p.

558 sq.-Cannibalism a method of making a dangerous individual harmless

after death, p. 559 sq. ---Due to the idea that the cannibal, by eating the

supposed seat of a certain quality in a person, incorporates it with his own

system, pp. 560-562.-Cannibalism in connection with human sacrifice, p.

562 sq.- The eating of man-gods, p. 563 sq.-Other instances in which a super-

natural or medicinal effect is ascribed to human flesh or blood, pp: 564-566. —

Cannibalism as a covenant rite, p. 566 sq.-Special reasons given for the

practice of eating relatives or friends, pp. 567-569. —The cannibalism of

modern savages represented as the survival of an ancient practice which was

once universal in the human race, p. 569 sq.-Criticism of this theory, pp.

570-580.-Savages who feel the greatest dislike of cannibalism, p. 570 sq.

Cannibals often anxious to deny that they are addicted to this practice, p.

572.—The rapid extinction of it among certain savages, p. 572 sq.-Even

among peoples very notorious for cannibalism there are individuals who abhor

it, p. 573. —The aversion to cannibalism may be due to sympathy for the dead,
p. 574.- In the first instance it is probably an instinctive feeling akin to those
feelings which regulate the diet of the various animal species, ibid.—The
eating of human flesh regarded with superstitious dread, pp. 574-576.—The
feeling of reluctance may be overcome by other motives and may be

succeeded by a taste for human flesh, p. 577 sq.--Early man probably not

addicted to cannibalism, pp. 578-580.-Cannibalism much less prevalent

among the lowest savages than among races somewhat more advanced in

culture, p. 578 sq.-Among some savages cannibalism known to be of
modern origin or to have spread in recent times, p. 579 sq. --The moral
valuation of cannibalism, p. 580 sq.

Definition of the term "god," p. 602.-Gods have the rights to life and bodily

integrity, pp. 602-604.-Not necessarily considered immortal, p. 602 sq.-
The killing of totemic animals, p. 603 sq.--Divine animals killed as a religi-
ous or magical ceremony, pp. 604-606.—The killing of man-gods or divine
kings, pp. 606-610. — The right to bodily integrity granted to gods occasionally

« ͹˹Թõ