agreement between Hellas and {xii} Babylonia--Points of difference, Babylonian confessional--Value of Homer’s evidence concerning early Hellenic purification--Babylonian magic in general contrast with Greek--Astrologic magic--Magic value of numbers, of the word--Babylonian exorcism--Magic use of images--No severance in Mesopotamia between magic and religion--Babylonian and Hellenic divination CHAPTER XIV. Summary of Results. INDEX OF NAMES AND SUBJECTS. ENDNOTES. GREECE AND BABYLON. {1} CHAPTER I. Inaugural Lecture. The newly-elected holder of a University professorship or lectureship, before embarking on the course of special discussion that he has selected, may be allowed or expected to present some outlined account of the whole subject that he represents, and to state beforehand, if possible, the line that he proposes to pursue in regard to it. This is all the more incumbent on me, as I have the honour to be the first Wilde Lecturer in Natural and Comparative Religion--the first, that is, who has been officially charged by the University to give public teaching in the most modern and one of the most difficult fields of study, one that has already borne copious fruit, and will bear more in the future. I appreciate highly the honour of such a charge, and I take this opportunity of expressing my deep sense of the indebtedness of our University and of all students of this subject to Dr. Wilde for his generous endowment of this branch of research, which as yet has only found encouragement in a few Universities of Europe, America, and Japan. I feel also the responsibility of my charge. Years of study have shown me the magnitude of the subject, the pitfalls that here--more, perhaps, {2} than in other fields--beset the unwary, and the multiplicity of aspects from which it may be studied. Having no predecessor, I cannot follow, but may be called upon rather to set, a precedent. One guidance, at least, I have--namely, the expressed wishes of the founder of this post. He has formulated them in regard to Comparative Religion in such a way that I feel precluded, in handling this part of the whole field, from what may be called the primitive anthropology of religion. I shall not, therefore, deal directly with the embryology of the subject, with merely savage religious psychology, ritual, or institutions. It is not that I do not feel myself the fascination of these subjects of inquiry, and their inevitableness for one who wishes wholly to understand the whole of any one of the higher world-religions.