So saith the 'Satapatha Brahmana.'[196] FOOTNOTES: [187] Turner's _Samoa_, pp. 77, 119. [188] See examples in 'A Far-travelled Tale,' 'Cupid and Psyche,' and 'The Myth of Cronus.' [189] Trübner, 1881. [190] Hahn, p. 23. [191] _Ibid._, p. 45. [192] _Expedition_, i. 166. [193] Dr. Hahn (p. 27) gives _/ava_, or _/ana_, as Hottentot for 'red,' derived from _/au_, 'to bleed.' [194] Hahn himself (p. 91) mentions a Hottentot god daubed with red earth, and noticed as long ago as 1691. [195] See 'Fetichism and the Infinite'. [196] _Sacred Books of the East_, xii. 130, 131. _FETICHISM AND THE INFINITE._ What is the true place of Fetichism, to use a common but unscientific term, in the history of religious evolution? Some theorists have made fetichism, that is to say, the adoration of odds and ends (with which they have confused the worship of animals, of mountains, and even of the earth), the first moment in the development of worship. Others, again, think that fetichism is 'a corruption of religion, in Africa, as elsewhere.' The latter is the opinion of Mr. Max Müller, who has stated it in his _Hibbert Lectures_, on 'The Origin and Growth of Religion, especially as illustrated by the Religions of India.' It seems probable that there is a middle position between these two extremes. Students may hold that we hardly know enough to justify us in talking about the _origin_ of religion, while at the same time they may believe that Fetichism is one of the earliest traceable steps by which men climbed to higher conceptions of the supernatural. Meanwhile Mr. Max Müller supports his own theory, that fetichism is a 'parasitical growth,' a 'corruption' of religion, by arguments mainly drawn from historical study of savage creeds, and from the ancient religious documents of India.