中文系对外汉语专业外文文献doc

河南科技大学毕业论文附件

外文资料译文

姓名：唐艳丽

学院：人文学院

专业：对外汉语

禁忌的起源

禁忌和矛盾情感

塔布（Taboo）是波里尼西亚的一个字眼。我们找不到一个和它意义相近的译词，因为它表示一个早已不再被保存的观念。在古罗马流行的“Sacer”（被诅咒的、神圣的——译者注）一词即和波里尼西亚的“塔布”一词具有相似的意义。同时，希腊文字中“Oyos”和希伯来文字中的“Kadesh”（神秘的灭顶之灾和不可接近性——译者注）也可能代表了和“塔布”相似的意义。在美洲的许多民族里以及非洲（马达加斯加）以及北亚和中亚中，我们也不难发现相似的字眼。

“塔布”，就我们的理解，他代表了两种不同方面的意义。一方面，是“崇高的”、“神圣的”；另一方面，则是“神秘的”、“危险的”、“禁止的”、“不洁的”。塔布在波里尼西亚的反义词为“noa”，就是“通俗的”或“通常为可接近的”意思。所以，塔布即意指某种含有被限制或禁止而不可触摸等性质的东西的存在。我们通常所说的“神圣的人或物”，在意义上和塔布便有些相同。

塔布所代表的禁忌和宗教或道德上的戒律并不一样。它们并不建立在神圣的宗教仪式上，而建立在自己本身上。它与道德上的戒律所不同的方面，主要是在于它并没有明显的、可以观察到的禁忌声明，同时，也没有任何说明禁忌的理由。塔布，既没有理由也不知道它的起源。虽然，它们对我们来说是一种不理智的，甚至是迷信的，可是，对于那些在此统治下的人们来说，则成为当然的事情。

冯特（wandt，wilhelm）认为，塔布的形成比任何神的观念和宗教信仰的产生还要早，它是人类最远古的法律形式。

为了对解决进行精神分析学方面的研究，我们需对它进行公正的描述。我首先要将《大英百科全书》里关于禁忌的解释摘要记录下来，它的作者是人类学家托马斯（Northcote W.Thomas）。

“严格地讲，禁忌仅仅包括：1.属于人或物的神圣不可侵犯的（或邪恶的）性质。2.由这种性质所产生的禁忌作用。3.经由禁忌作用的破坏而产生的神圣性（或邪恶性）。禁忌在波里尼西亚的反义词是‘noa’，它的意义就是‘普遍的’或‘通俗的’。”

“就更广意义上讲：各种不同的禁忌都有某些特色：1.经由‘玛那’（mana，一种神秘的力量）依自然的或直接的方式，附在一个人或物身上所产生的结果。2.经由玛那以间接的或以传染的方式（如：后天的，或受僧侣领袖或其他人所注入）而产生的结果。3.中间的，也就是上述两种因素同时存在，就像一位妻子属于她的丈夫一样……”塔布这个词也可被应用到其他仪式上，不过，要是能通宗教禁制区分开来，我们最好避免将它和禁忌相混淆。

“禁忌的目的很多：1.达到直接禁忌的目的：（1）保护重要的人物（如领袖、僧侣等），以免于受到伤害。（2）保护弱小者（如妇女、小孩和通常包括一般民众）——不受领袖或僧侣的强劲玛那所伤害。（3）防止以手触摸或接触到死人尸体所引起的危险或误吃某些食物。（4）保护或避免有益于生命的重要行为（如生产、成人礼、婚姻和性功能等）收到干扰。（5）保护一般人不受神鬼的愤怒或其力量所伤害。2.禁忌可以防止一个人的财产、工具等被偷窃……”

在早期，破坏禁忌所遭受的惩罚，被一种精神上的或自发的力量来控制：即由被破坏的禁忌本身来执行报复。稍后，当神或鬼的观念产生以后，禁忌才开始和它们融合起来，而惩罚本身也就自动地附着在这种神秘的力量上了。正是由于这种观念的影响，对破坏者的惩罚才由团体来负责执行，因为这些破坏者的行为已对其他族民的安全产生了严重的伤害。因此，对于人类最早的刑罚体制，我们可以追溯到禁忌时代。

“触犯禁忌的人，本身也将成为禁忌……”经由触犯禁忌所产生的危险可以用赎罪或净化的方式来避免。

禁忌的来源是因为附着在人或鬼身上的一种特殊的神奇力量（玛那），它们能够利用无生命的物质作为媒介而加以传播。“被视为禁忌的人或物可以用带电体来加以比喻，他们乃是那种可经由接触而传递可怕力量的容纳地方，同时如果被激发放电的这种生物体本身太脆弱而无法抗拒这种激发时，则将产生破坏作用。触犯禁忌所产生的后果，一方面要看附于成为禁忌的人或物其神秘力量的大小；另一方面要看触犯者所具有的反玛那力量的大小来决定。例如，国王和领袖们具有无上的权力，其臣民中有敢于直面相陈者，必死无疑。但是，大臣或比其他黎民百姓更具玛那者，则可接近他们而不受伤害。同时地位更低者也不可冒任何风险地接近这些大臣或高贵者。这种情况可以依照他们身份的递减而逐渐失去其危险性……所以，间接的接近也将视拥有它们的人所具有的神秘力量的大小而定。如果他们是领袖或僧侣，则他们将具有较一般人更厉害的力量……”

因此，禁忌的传递性可以说明一种企图，那就是尝试用适当的净化仪式来消除禁忌。

禁忌有长久性的，也有暂时性的。长久性的禁忌包括冒犯领袖、僧侣或死者尸体及其他具备厉害力量的人或物。暂时性的禁忌则是冒犯了某一种特殊的环境情况，例如：女人的月经期和分娩期，战士们在出征前后，或者钓鱼和狩猎等的特殊活动。一种通俗的禁忌（就像天主教的教令）可以被加诸于整个地区，而且，也可以持续某一段长久的时间。

如果我对读者的感受没有判断错的话，那么我可以很坦然地说，尽管他们到现在已听到了很多关于禁忌的阐述，可是，我们对于这个词所代表的真正意义和在他们思想中所占有的地位仍是知之甚少。无可否认，这是因为我所搜集的资料不够充分，同时我也省略了禁忌和迷信之间的关系、鬼魂的信仰和宗教等问题讨论的原因。不过，从另外一个角度来说，我是怕对禁忌再展开详述的话，可能会导致读者更大的混乱，因为我可以很肯定地说，这个词所代表的论题本身是极其扑所迷离的。

接下来，我们将开始讨论一些原始民族所遵守的禁忌。长期以来，有些事物一直被强烈禁止着，可是他们从来不去考虑其中的原因，或者提出任何怀疑。相反，他们屈服于这种禁忌就像它们都是理所当然的事情一样，同时深信任何对禁忌的破坏行为将导致自取惩罚。我们可以从多方面证实这种触犯禁忌而遭受惩罚的例子。例如，一位无辜的触犯者，他可能仅仅为了食用了被进食的动物，便陷入极端的精神不安，在预期死亡的阴影中，他终于因恐惧而死。这些禁忌主要是反对享乐和思想上的自由。某些禁忌则常具有智慧上的意义，而且很清楚地指向禁酒、禁贪欲以及名利上的自制等方面。可是，仍有某些禁忌，它们的主题则令人十分费解。它们包含了琐碎的细节，使整个内容看起来就像是一种纯粹的庆祝或宗教仪式。

在所有这些禁忌的后面都隐藏了一些必须且自然的理论。因为，某些人或物（如领袖、僧侣或不祥物等）被附上了危险的力量，而这些危险的力量竟能如某些传染性疾病一样经由接触来传递。我们应该注意的是，这些危险性质的力量也扮演了一部分角色。某些人或物具有较其他人更高的力量，而他们的危险性也与其所带力量的高低成正比。一个人触犯了禁忌中的任何一条时，他本身即得到那一种成为禁忌的特性，而使自己成为禁忌——就像整个危险的电荷都传导到他身上。这种神秘而危险的力量几乎隐藏在所有特殊人物的身上，如国王、僧侣或初生的婴孩；也附着在所有特殊的情况，如生理上的月经期、青春期或生产期。至于怪诞的事物，如疾病、死亡以及所有经由传染而与这些力量有关的事情也都附上了这种神秘力量。

“塔布”一词指代所有作为这一神秘特性的载体或源泉的事物，既可指人，也可指一个地方、一样东西或者一种短暂的状态。它还可以指具有神秘特性的禁忌。最后，这个词还具有“神圣的”和“超出寻常的”及“危险的”、“不洁的”和“怪诞的”等含义。

这个词和它所表现的内涵，似乎代表了一种远超出我们想象范围外的心理的态度和思想。但是，当我们对这些原始文化的特质和对鬼神的信仰做一番透彻的研究之后，我们就可以接触到它们的核心所在了。

此刻，我们不禁要问，为什么要这么关心禁忌之谜呢？我认为，并不仅是它本身可以解答出任何心理上的难题，它同时也具有其他的意义。我们将慢慢地了解到，波里尼西亚蒙昧人的禁忌并不像我们刚开始时所想象的离我们那么遥远。因为在我们的日常生活中一直在发挥其作用的道德上和传统上的禁忌，在本质上仍然具有和这些原始禁忌相似的地方。而对原始禁忌的解释，可能有助于我们对自己所谓的那些“神圣诫命”的神秘来源做出解释。

因此，我们对冯特所发表的有关禁忌的观点才能保持高度的兴趣，尤其当他承诺“对禁忌观念的来源做彻底的追踪”时。

冯特形容禁忌为“对某种物体产生了一种与宗教信仰有关的畏惧心理的本能”。

冯特接着开始解释，为什么对于禁忌本质的探讨，由澳大利亚土著人的原始情况入手较更进化的波里尼西亚土人更为恰当。他将澳大利亚土著人的禁忌依照他们对动物、人类或其他东西的影响而分为三种。第一类禁忌是针对于动物的，在本质上是禁止捕杀和食用它们，

这也是构成图腾崇拜的核心。第二类禁忌是针对人类而设的，是一种和前述完全不同的方式。它们一开始就局限于一定的场合。在这些场合中，受禁忌影响的人会感到自己身在特殊情境之中。就像年轻人在转变为成年人时所举行的礼仪上，月经期间或将分娩时的妇女本身，这都成为一种禁忌；同样的，初生婴孩、病人，尤其是死人也构成了禁忌。一个人经常使用的物体对其他人来讲将永远是一种禁忌：他的衣服、工具或武器，等等。在澳大利亚土著人中，一位男人个人最严密的事情是他在成年仪式上被赋予的新命名。它是一种禁忌，同时也必须严加保密。第三类禁忌则是附在树木、植物、房屋或某一地区上，通常所附的东西不一定。不过，它们大部分都依照了同样一个规律，即任何怪异或是能令人恐惧的事物都将成为禁忌的目标。

冯特所省略的对于文化素质较高的波里尼西亚和马来群岛土著人禁忌的讨论，其实也并不深奥。这些民族中最明显的社会差异是，领袖、国王和僧侣们常利用一种特殊而有效的也很容易为之附身的禁忌。

可是冯特继续讨论道，禁忌的本质是深藏在这些特权阶层的利益下面：“它们起源于一种最原始且保留最久的本能——对‘魔鬼’力量的恐惧。”“禁忌只不过是一种存在于禁忌物体内‘对魔鬼力量的恐惧’之具体化罢了。禁忌可以防止任何放出这种力量和命令的物体产生的作用（因为它具有隔离作用），若果它们遭受破坏，不管是有意或无意的，则对于魔鬼的报复必须加以躲避或转移。”

禁忌随着文化形态的不断转变，逐渐形成为一种有它自己特性的力量，同时也慢慢地远离了魔鬼迷信而独立。它逐渐发展成为一种习惯、传统，而最后则变成了法律。“虽然，随着时间和环境的转变，对所有包含于禁忌里的各种力量及其特性造成了很大的转变，可是它们的起源仅仅只有一个，即：‘当心魔鬼的愤怒！’”

冯特让我们知道，禁忌是一种原始民族对“魔鬼力量”信仰的变异方式。稍后，他又告诉我们，它们已从这些基础中自己解救出来了，可是，因为它们本身曾经是一种力量（即魔鬼的力量），所以经过一种心灵的保存作用后，在本质上仍然保留有这种力量。经过不断演变之后，它们也就变成了我们的道德准则和法律的基础了。虽然这种主张并不曾造成矛盾，可是我认为冯特的解释颇令人失望，相信有许多读者将会赞同我的观点。因为冯特的理论实际上并没有真正地追溯到禁忌的原始原因，或者发掘出它的根源。

“恐惧”或“魔鬼”在心理上并不能被认为是最早的东西，也就是说一种无法考证的东西，除非魔鬼的存在是真实的。可是，我们知道，像上帝一样，它们都不过是人类心灵的创造物：它们由某种东西所形成，然后又超越出这种东西（即人类创造了魔鬼，而后又将魔鬼的概念抽离出人世）。

冯特已经有了一种关于禁忌的双重特性的重要研究了，虽然并不曾清楚地指出它们来。依照他的说法，“神圣的”和“邪恶的”两种意义在禁忌的原始中并不加以区别。这些观念在初期里不具有明显的特性，它们之所以成为相对的观念，只能说是在后天形成的了。为禁

忌所附身的动物、人类或地区是一种“似魔鬼的”，既不是“神圣的”，也不是后来所说的“邪恶的”。严格地讲，这个处于中立的意义——“似魔鬼的”或“不能触犯的事物”——已由“禁忌”这个词恰当地表达出来，因为它强调出一种“神圣的”或“邪恶的”事物所共同具有的特征：与它们接触的恐惧。然而，这种重要共同特征的延续，证明出这两个不同的意义在起源上是相同的，它们只不过是由于后来的不断受影响而逐渐分化，最后终于对立。

根据冯特的说法，这种禁忌的原始特性——相信在某种物体中具有一种“魔鬼的”力量，如果这种物体被触犯或非法地使用，那么它将对触犯者发出一种魔力（或咒语）作为报复——这仍然完全且惟一地保持着“实体化的恐惧”。这种恐惧尚未分化成它后来所形成的两种形式：崇拜和恐惧。

然而，这种分裂是如何发生的呢？冯特认为是这样的：禁忌的习俗由魔鬼的领域转换到信仰上帝的领域里。“神圣的”和“邪恶的”之间的对立呼应了神话学中两个阶段的接替。当第二阶段到达时，第一个阶段里的思想并不完全消失，而是以一种较劣势或为人忽视的形态继续存在。他说，神话学上的一个规律是：为另一更高级阶段所征服和超越的那个阶段，虽然算是过去了，但是它仍将以低级的形式与后继阶段并存，这样原来的崇拜对象随即变成了恐怖的对象了。

冯特余下的讨论是把禁忌的观念与净化和牺牲之间的关系加以阐明。

选自佛洛伊德的《图腾与禁忌》禁忌和矛盾情感

THE ORIGIN OF THE TABOO

TABOO AND THE AMBIVALENCE OF EMOTIONS

Taboo is a Polynesian word, the translation of which provides difficulties for us because we no longer possess the idea which it connotes. It was still current with the ancient Romans: their word “sacer” was the same as the taboo of the Polynesians. The “[Greek]” of the Greeks and the “Kodaush” of the Hebrews must also have signified the same thing which the Polynesians express through their word taboo and what many races in America, Africa (Madagascar), North and Central Asia express through analogous designations.

For us the meaning of taboo branches off into two opposite directions. On the one hand it means to us sacred, consecrated: but on the other hand it means, uncanny, dangerous, forbidden, and unclean. The opposite for taboo is designated in Polynesian by the word noa and signifies something ordinary and generally accessible. Thus something like the concept of reserve inheres in taboo; taboo expresses itself essentially in prohibitions and restrictions. Our combination of “holy dread” would often express the meaning of taboo.

The taboo restrictions are different from religious or moral prohibitions. They are not traced to a commandment of a god but really they themselves impose their own prohibitions; they are differentiated from moral prohibitions by failing to be included in a system which declares abstinences in general to be necessary and gives reasons for this necessity. The taboo prohibitions lack all justification and are of unknown origin. Though incomprehensible to us they are taken as a matter of course by those who are under their dominance.

Wundt 1 calls taboo the oldest unwritten code of law of humanity. It is generally assumed that taboo is older than the gods and goes back to the pre-religious age.

As we are in need of an impartial presentation of the subject of taboo before subjecting it to psychoanalytic conside ration I shall now cite an excerpt from the article “Taboo” in the Encyclopedia Britannica written by the anthropologist Northcote W. Thomas, “Properly speaking taboo includes only a) the sacred (or unclean) character of persons or things, b) the kind of prohibition which results from this character, and c) the sanctity (or uncleanliness) which results from a violation of the prohibition.The converse of taboo in Polynesia is …noa? and allied forms which mean …general? or …common?…

“Various classes of taboo in the wider sense may be distinguished: 1. natural or direct, the result of …mana? (mysterious power) inherent in a person or thing; 2. communicated or indirect, equally the result of …mana? but (a) acquired or (b) imposed by a priest, chief or other pers on; 3.

intermediate, where both factors are present, as in the appropriation of a wife to her husband. The term taboo is also applied to ritual prohibitions of a different nature; but its use in these senses is better avoided. It might be argued that the term should be extended to embrace cases in which the sanction of the prohibition is the creation of a god or spirit, i.e., to religious interdictions as distinguished from magical, but there is neither automatic action nor contagion in such a case, and a better term for it is religious interdiction.

“The objects of taboo are many: 1. direct taboos aim at (a) protection of important persons—chiefs, priests, etc.—and things against harm; (b) safeguarding of the weak—women, children and common people generally—from the powerful mana (magical influence) of chiefs and priests; (c) providing against the dangers incurred by handling or coming in contact with corpses, by eating certain food, etc.; (d) guarding the chief acts of life—births, initiation, marriage and sexual functions—against interference; (e) securing human beings against the wrath or power of gods and spirits; 3 (f) securing unborn infants and young children, who stand in a specially sympathetic relation with their parents, from the consequence of certain actions, and more especially from the communication of qualities supposed to be derived from certain foods. 2. Taboos are imposed in order to secure against thieves the property of an individual, his fields, tools, etc.”

Other parts of the article may be summarized as follows. Originally the punishment for the violation of a taboo was probably left to an inner, automatic arrangement. The violated taboo avenged itself. Wherever the taboo was related to ideas of gods and demons an automatic punishment was expected from the power of the godhead. In other cases, probably as a result of a further development of the idea, society took over the punishment of the offender, whose action has endange red his companions. Thus man?s first systems of punishment are also connected with taboo.

“The violation of a taboo makes the offender himself taboo.” The author goes on to say that certain dangers resulting from the violation of a taboo may be exercised through acts of penance and ceremonies of purification.

A peculiar power inherent in persons and ghosts, which can be transmitted from them to inanimate objects is regarded as the source of the taboo. This part of the article reads as follows: “Persons or things which are regarded as taboo may be compared to objects charged with electricity; they are the seat of tremendous power which is transmissible by contact, and may be liberated with destructive effect if the organisms which provoke its discharge are too weak to resist it; the result of a violation of a taboo depends partly on the strength of the magical influence inherent in the taboo object or person, partly on the strength of the opposing mana of the violator

of the taboo. Thus, kings and chiefs are possessed of great power, and it is death for their subjects to address them directly; but a minister or other person of greater mana than common, can approach them unharmed, and can in turn be approached by their inferiors without risk…. So, too, indirect taboos depend for their strength on the mana of him who opposes them; if it is a chief or a priest, they are more powerful than those imposed by a common person.”

The fact that a taboo is transmissible has surely given rise to the effort of removing it through expiatory ceremonies.

The author states that there are permanent and temporary taboos. The former comprise priest and chiefs as well as the dead and everything that has belonged to them. Temporary taboos attach themselves to certain conditions such as menstruation and child-bed, the status of the warrior before and after the expedition, the activities of fishing and of the chase, and similar activities. A general taboo may also be imposed upon a large district like an ecclesiastical interdict, and may then last for years.

If I judge my readers? impressions correctly I dare say that after hearing all that was said about taboo they are far from knowing what to understand by it and where to store it in their minds. This is surely due to the insufficient information I have given and to the omission of all discussions concerning the relation of taboo to superstition, to belief in the soul, and to religion. On the other hand, I fear that a more detailed description of what is known about taboo would be still more confusing; I can therefore assure the reader that the state of affairs is really far from clear. We may say, however, that we deal with a series of restrictions which these primitive races impose upon themselves; this and that is forbidden without any apparent reason; nor does it occur to them to question this matter, for they subject themselves to these restrictions as a matter of course and are convinced that any transgression will be punished automatically in the most severe manner. There are reliable reports that innocent transgressions of such prohibitions have actually been punished automatically. For instance, the innocent offender who had eaten from a forbidden animal became deeply depressed, expected his death and then actually died. The prohibitions mostly concern matters which are capable of enjoyment such as freedom of movement and unrestrained intercourse; in some cases they appear very ingenious, evidently representing abstinences and renunciations; in other cases their content is quite incomprehensible, they seem to concern themselves with trifles and give the impression of ceremonials. Something like a theory seems to underlie all these prohibitions, it seems as if these prohibitions are necessary because some persons and objects possess a dangerous power which is transmitted by contact with the object so charged, almost like a contagion. The quantity of this dangerous property is also taken into consideration. Some persons or things have more of it than others and the danger is precisely

in accordance with the charge. The most peculiar part of it is that any one who has violated such a prohibition assumes the nature of the forbidden object as if he had absorbed the whole dangerous charge. This power is inherent in all persons who are more or less prominent, such as kings, priests and the newly born, in all exceptional physical states such as menstruation, puberty and birth, in everything sinister like illness and death and in everything connected with these conditions by virtue of contagion or dissemination.

However, the term “taboo” includes all persons localities, objects and temporary conditions which are carriers or sources of this mysterious attribute. The prohibition derived from this attribute is also designated as taboo, and lastly taboo, in the literal sense, includes everything that is sacred, above the ordinary, and at the same time dangerous, unclean and mysterious.

Both this word and the system corresponding to it express a fragment of psychic life which really is not comprehensible to us. And indeed it would seem that no understanding of it could be possible without entering into the study of the belief in spirits and demons which is so characteristic of these low grades of culture.

Now why should we take any interest at all in the riddle of taboo? Not only, I think, because every psychological problem is well worth the effort of investigation for its own sake, but for other reasons as well. It may be surmised that the taboo of Polynesian savages is after all not so remote from us as we were at first inclined to believe; the moral and customary prohibitions which we ourselves obey may have some essential relation to this primitive taboo the explanation of which may in the end throw light upon the dark origin of our own “categorical imperative.”

We are therefore inclined to listen with keen expectations when an investigator like W. Wundt gives his interpretation of taboo, especially as he promises to “go back to the very roots of the taboo concepts.”

Wundt states that the idea of tab oo “includes all customs which express dread of particular objects connected with cultic ideas or of actions having reference to them.”

On another occasion he says: “In accordance with the general sense of the word we understand by taboo every prohibition laid down in customs or manners or in expressly formulated laws, not to touch an object or to take it for one?s own use, or to make use of certain proscribed words…” Accordingly there would not be a single race or stage of culture which had escaped the injurious effects of taboo.

Wundt then shows why he finds it more practical to study the nature of taboo in the primitive states of Australian savages rather than in the higher culture of the Polynesian races. In the case of the Australians he divides taboo prohibitions into three classes according as they concern animals, persons or other objects. The animal taboo, which consists essentially of the taboo against killing

and eating, forms the nucleus of Totemism. 6 The taboo of the second class, which has human beings for its object, is of an essentially different nature. To begin with it is restricted to conditions which bring about an unusual situation in life for the person tabooed. Thus young men at the feast of initiation, women during menstruation and immediately after delivery, newly born children, the diseased and especially the dead, are all taboo. The constantly used property of any person, such as his clothes, tools and weapons, is permanently taboo for everybody else. In Australia the new name which a youth receives at his initiation into manhood becomes part of his most personal property, it is taboo and must be kept secret. The taboos of the third class, which apply to trees, plants, houses and localities, are more variable and seem only to follow the rule that anything which for any reason arouses dread or is mysterious, becomes subject to taboo.

Wundt himself has to acknowledge that the changes which taboo undergoes in the richer culture of the Polynesians and in the Malayan Archipelago are not very profound. The greater social differentiation of these races manifests itself in the fact that chiefs, kings and priests exercise an especially effective taboo and are themselves exposed to the strongest taboo compulsion.

But the real sources of taboo li e deeper than in the interests of the privileged classes: “They begin where the most primitive and at the same time the most enduring human impulses have their origin, namely, in the fear of the effect of demonic powers.”“The taboo, which originally was nothing more than the objectified fear of the demonic power thought to be concealed in the tabooed object, forbids the irritation of this power and demands the placation of the demon whenever the taboo has been knowingly or unknowingly violated.”

The taboo then gradually became an autonomous power which has detached itself from demonism. It becomes the compulsion of custom and tradition and finally of the law. “But the commandment concealed behind taboo prohibitions which differ materially according to place and time, had originally the meaning: Beware of the wrath of the demons.”

Wundt therefore teaches that taboo is the expression and evolution of the belief of primitive races in demonic powers, and that later taboo has dissociated itself from this origin and has remained a power simply because it was one by virtue of a kind of a psychic persistence and in this manner it became the root of our customs and laws. As little as one can object to the first part of this statement I feel, however, that I am only voicing the impression of many of my readers if I call Wundt?s explanation disappointing. Wundt?s explanation is far from going back to the sources of taboo concepts or to their deepest roots. For neither fear nor demons can be accepted in psychology as finalities defying any further deduction. It would be different if demons really existed; but we know that, like gods, they are only the product of the psychic powers of man; they

have been created from and out of something.

Wundt also expresses a number of important though not altogether clear opinions about the double meaning of taboo. According to him the division between sacred and unclean does not yet exist in the first primitive stages of taboo. For this reason these conceptions entirely lack the significance which they could only acquire later on when they came to be contrasted. The animal, person, or place on which there is a taboo is demonic, that is, not sacred and therefore not yet, in the later sense, unclean. The expression taboo is particularly suitable for this undifferentiated and intermediate meaning of the demonic, in the sense of something which may not be touched, since it emphasizes a characteristic which finally adheres both to what is sacred and to the unclean, namely, the dread of contact. But the fact that this important characteristic is permanently held in common points to the existence of an original agreement here between these two spheres which gave way to a differentiation only as the result of further conditions through which both finally developed into opposites.

The belief associated with the original taboo, according to which a demonic power concealed in the object avenges the touching of it or its forbidden use by bewitching the offender was still an entirely objectified fear. This had not yet separated into the two forms which it assumed at a more developed stage, namely, awe and aversion.

How did this separation come about? According to Wundt, this was done through the transference of taboo prohibitions from the sphere of demons to that of theistic conceptions. The antithesis of sacred and unclean coincides with the succession of two mythological stages the first of which did not entirely disappear when the second was reached but continued in a state of greatly lowered esteem which gradually turned into contempt. It is a general law in mythology that a preceding stage, just because it has been overcome and pushed back by a higher stage, maintains itself next to it in a debased form so that the objects of its veneration become objects of aversion.

Wundt?s further elucidations refer to the relation of taboo to lustration and sacrifice