This is the view of Dr.
Edward Westermarck and apparently of Professor Eugen Mogk. 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.
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:
1770
1771
1772
1773
1774
1775
1776
1777
1778
1779
1780
1781
1782
1783
1784
1785
1786
1787
1788
1789
1790
1791
1792
1793
1794