The essence of that new religion was, as will later be shown, the belief that man could become god: the new ritual feature it introduced, a feature wholly lacking in the old uneaten ‘sacrifices,’ was mystical communion by the eating of the body of the god. But, because man was mortal, there was mortality to be purged away; and hence, although with a new faith and hope, men reverted to the old ritual of purification. So much by anticipation; but before we come to the study of the new impulse it is necessary to leave ritual and turn to theology, which is in fact mythology: the rites have been considered, and now in the next three chapters something must be said of the beings worshipped,—at first in vague shifting outlines as ghosts and sprites,—later crystallized into clear shapes as goddesses and gods. CHAPTER V. THE DEMONOLOGY OF GHOSTS AND SPRITES AND BOGEYS. ‘ὦ μεγάλαυχοι καὶ φθερσιγενεῖς Κῆρες Ἐρινύες.’ In the preceding chapters the nature of Greek ritual has been discussed. The main conclusion that has emerged is that this ritual in its earlier phases was mainly characterized by a tendency to what the Greeks called ἀποτροπή, i.e. the turning away, the _aversion_ of evil. This tendency was however rarely quite untouched by an impulse more akin to our modern notion of worship, the impulse to θεραπεία, i.e. the induction, the fostering of good influences. Incidentally we have of course gathered something of the nature of the objects of worship. When the ritual was not an attempt at the direct impulsion of nature, we have had brief uncertain glimpses of sprites and ghosts and underworld divinities. It now remains to trace with more precision these vague theological or demonological or mythological outlines, to determine the character of the beings worshipped and something of the order of their development. In theology facts are harder to seek, truth more difficult to formulate than in ritual. Ritual, i.e. what men _did_, is either known or not known; what they meant by what they did—the connecting link between ritual and theology—can sometimes be certainly known, more often precariously inferred. Still more hazardous is the attempt to determine how man thought of the objects or beings to whom his ritual was addressed, in a word what was his theology, or, if we prefer the term, his mythology.