human sacrifices, which were formerly practised in India." We have expressly declined to speak about "primeval antiquity," as we have scarcely any evidence as to the myths and mental condition, for example, even of palæolithic man; but we may so far agree with Dr. Haug as to affirm that the fundamental idea of the Purusha Sukta, namely, the creation of the world or portions of the world out of the fragments of a fabulous anthropomorphic being is common to Chaldean, Iroquois, Egyptians, Greeks, Tinnehs, Mangaians, and Aryan Indians. This is presumptive proof of the antiquity of the ideas which Dr. Muir and Mr. Max Müller think relatively modern. The savage and brutal character of the invention needs no demonstration. Among very low savages, for example, the Tinnehs of British North America, not a man, not a god, but a dog, is torn up, and the fragments are made into animals.[1] On the Paloure River a beaver suffers in th e manner of Purusha. We may, for these reasons, regard the chief idea of the myths as extremely ancient—infinitely more ancient than the diction of the hymn. As to the mention of the castes, supposed to be a comparatively modern institution, that is not an essential part of the legend. When the idea of creation out of a living being was once received it was easy to extend the conception to any institution, of which the origin was forgotten. The Teutonic race had a myth which explained the origin of the classes eorl, ceorl, and thrall (earl, churl, and slave). A South American people, to explain the
