“Now, if they acknowledged such beings, they, no doubt, had a name for them, similar in general import to the ‘fairy, elf,’ and so on among the inhabitants of Britain for beings of a quasi-spiritual nature. I may observe there is a complete analogy in the state of Burmese belief in the existence of such beings and that which prevailed formerly in Europe, and some remnants of which may be found even now existing among the uneducated. I mean that before the Anglo-Saxon tribes were converted to Christianity the belief in fairies and elfs was universal. With Christianity came a belief in a different order of spiritual beings, and with that a new name derived from the Latin, angel. This is somewhat analogous to the state of things among the Burmese before and after their conversion to Buddhism. “But to return to the Burmese. They, when they received Buddhism, appear to have generally retained their vernacular name for the beings called in Pali _Dewa_. Why this should be done is certainly not apparent. Why have the English and all Teutonic nations retained the ancient name _Evil_, and spirits, though they adopted with Christianity a new term for good spirits generally? I allude to the term _Devil_, which, there is no doubt, is philologically connected with that Pali word Dew-a or _Dev_-a. “Regarding the meaning of the word _Nat_ in Pali, I have no Pali dictionary, but I have the ordinary Oordoo Dictionary, which includes all ordinary Sanscrit words. I find there the Sanscrit word ‘Nath,’ and the meaning rendered ‘master, husband, lord.’ There is nothing to show that it refers to any supernatural being, but is only a term of respect. As such it might in Pali be made applicable to Nats. In Burmese, the people who _believe_ in Nats seldom use that word, but some honorific phrase. Some fishermen I knew quarrelled about their shares in a pool of water. In the case they constantly referred to the share of the ‘Ashing-gyee,’ who was no other than the presiding Nat of the said pool.” FOOTNOTES