This is the view of Dr. Edward Westermarck[799] and apparently of
Professor Eugen Mogk.[800] It may be called the purificatory theory.
Obviously the two theories postulate two very different conceptions of
the fire which plays the principal part in the rites. On the one view,
the fire, like sunshine in our latitude, is a genial creative power
which fosters the growth of plants and the development of all that makes
for health and happiness; on the other view, the fire is a fierce
destructive power which blasts and consumes all the noxious elements,
whether spiritual or material, that menace the life of men, of animals,
and of plants. According to the one theory the fire is a stimulant,
according to the other it is a disinfectant; on the one view its virtue
is positive, on the other it is negative.
[The two explanations are perhaps not mutually exclusive.]
Yet the two explanations, different as they are in the character which
they attribute to the fire, are perhaps not wholly irreconcilable. If we
assume that the fires kindled at these festivals were primarily intended
to imitate the sun's light and heat, may we not regard the purificatory
and disinfecting qualities, which popular opinion certainly appears to
have ascribed to them, as attributes derived directly from the
purificatory and disinfecting qualities of sunshine? In this way we
might conclude that, while the imitation of sunshine in these ceremonies
was primary and original, the purification attributed to them was
secondary and derivative.
Pages:
573
574
575
576
577
578
579
580
581
582
583
584
585
586
587
588
589
590
591
592
593
594
595
596
597