The coincidence may be an accidental one, but similar substitutions through a confusion of names can be counted by the hundred. Thus the Germanic Wild Huntsman Herla, and the Frankish and French Hellekin, or Hellequin, have their names in all likelihood from Hel, the Mistress of the Nether World. Yet Hellequin, through mispronunciation, afterwards suddenly becomes 'Charles Quint!'-Charles V. Again, the name of the Shaksperian Herne, who is represented with horns, has been traced to Hel-unless, as I suspect, his name is identical with that of his female counterpart, Hörn-Freia," or Holda, the Wild Huntress, whose connection with the cow-headed Isis and Here I have explained in another essay.18

Wodan, in his quality as the Wild Hunter, has in folk-lore been converted from Woden' or 'Wod,' into a Wold' Hunter, and even into a World-Hunter! This latter substitution, by a mispronunciation of the name, is all the more remarkable because the myth, in spite of its decay, has thus been accidentally brought round again to the original higher idea, which conceived Wodan as the Ruler of the Winds and the stormy Breath of the Universe. So also Arthur, the valiant hero, may, by a vague similarity of name, have slid into the array of Odin-Atriðr, the Battle-Rider.

There are many more possibilities of such a transformation of names through corrupt speech, at which none will wonder who has given any attention to kindred cases. Mr. Arthur Laurenson, whom I asked a question about the Shetland Spell-song against NightMares, writes to me:

The fore-name 'Arthur' is common in Shetland now, but I rather think it is only a seventeenth or eighteenth century corrupt form of the Old Northern 'Ottar.' Last century, 'Otto,' or 'Otho,' or 'Ottie,' was a frequent fore-name here; and now no case of it occurs. In our North Isles it has even been Judaïsed into 'Hosea,' so that 'Otto Ottoson' was transmuted into Hosea Hoseason '-so written, but pronounced' Osie Osieson.'

6

A transition from Ottar' to Arthur would have been a most easy one, assuming that 'Ottar Knight' had been the original name in the Incantation. I may bring to recollection here that Freyja, the leader of the Valkyrs, or Mares, has in the Edda a young companion or knight attendant and favourite, called Ottar. He is evidently a substitute, in form, as well as in name, of Odhur, Freyja's husband, who had forsaken her and gone to distant paths, when she wept golden tears after him, and disconsolately sought him through many lands. This Ottar, Oddr, or Odhur, is but a transfiguration of Odhin, Odin, Wodan, or Wuotan. All these names come from the same root (O. N. vadha; O. S. wadan; 0. H. G. watan).

Incidentally it may be mentioned that in the Orvar-Oddr Saga we come upon a figure connected with many love adventures. OrvarGylfaginning, 35.

18 The Boar's Head Dinner at Oxford, and a Germanic Sun-God.

Oddr means 'Odhur with the Arrows.' The opinion has therefore been advanced that Norse mythology has had a Cupid form similar to the classic one. In this case, Orvar-Oddr also would have to be looked upon as a branching off from the original figure of Odin, the male principle of all-pervading life and fertility.

Freyja, on her part, is originally the same as Frigg, Odin's wife. The process of mythology shows a continual splitting up of divine figures into new forms, which latter retain many of their earlier characteristics. The original identity of Odhin and Frigg with Odhur Ottar and Freyja comes out clearly in the German folk-lore tale about Woud and Freid. It is not a little remarkable that in the Eddic Song of Hyndla-who herself is but a Titanic counterpart and more vulgar reflection of Freyja-the Goddess of Love goes at night with Ottar to her giant sister, proposing to ride to Walhalla on her golden-bristled boar. A nocturnal ride of Orvar-Oddr or Ottar Arthur with golden spur and candle-light, made for the object of calling in Freyja's stray night-mares or Valkyrs, suggests itself naturally in this connection.

=

In any case we come, on this supposition also, upon an Odinic origin of the apparently Arthurian myth. There can certainly be no doubt, whatever the explanation of the change of names may be, that the Lord of the Mares, in the Shetland charm-saw, is a transfiguration of the great Germanic god.

In half romantic, half boorish form, an Odinic myth is thus preserved in this Night-mare incantation—even as in the Unst Lay. The vitality of those ancient tales is wonderful indeed. Overlaid with a mass of matter foreign to them, they still breathe out their spirit of weirdness. Asgard and Walhalla have had their downfall long ago. The all-nourishing Tree of the Teutonic creed has been twined round with tongues of consuming fire. But in the smouldering ashes we still get glimpses of the hammer of Thor, of Odin's glittering helmet and spear, of Freyja's shining necklace-ay, of the spectral horses of the Valkyrs that perished on the pyre.

KARL BLIND.

STATE SOCIALISM.

THE European interest which has arisen in State Socialism is not, as yet, very intelligent. Feudality is not out of the bones of people in England, even now. Free workmen still expect from employers something of the gifts and care of vassalage, though they no longer render vassal service. Landlords still look for the allegiance of their tenants, notwithstanding that they charge them rent for their lands. In other countries, despotism, tempered by paternal government, trains the people to look for State redress and State management. Thus the mass of the people everywhere regard the State as the source of evil or of good. State Socialism is one of the diseases of despotism, whose policy it is to encourage dependence. Only free men, who intelligently understand freedom, are prepared to owe their prosperity to themselves, and elect to do it, regard State dependence as the malady of subjection, or incompetence.

The working man, with no fortune save his capacity of industry, lives under the despotism of Trade, which, better than the despotism of Government, leaves him the freedom of opportunity, though without any certainty of opportunity occurring. He remains subject to the precariousness of hire. No wonder, therefore, that Labour, imprisoned in the cage of wages, and seeing no mode of self-extrication, is ready to follow any one who offers to open the door, utterly regardless of the chance of living outside.

State Socialism, so far as any taste for it exists in England, is a growth of Toryism. Absolutism in politics has always fostered a liking for paternal government in the people. Before what we know as Toryism arose, Ecclesiasticism did the same thing. Almsgiving on the part of the churches was partly kindness and partly policy, and is still kept up by the wealthier classes of laymen. The rich, as a class, are not averse to the dependence of the poor. Patronage is pleasing to them, and ministers to their influence. The extinction of pauperism, which they believe they desire, would fill them with dismay if it were likely to take place. They only object to charitable gifts when they become too expensive; but they have a permanent objection to enable the poor to obtain a position absolutely independent, and hesitate to afford them the means of becoming so, by

obtaining for them fair legal facilities of supporting themselves, which they fear would give the people the airs and importance of equals, when their education would be no longer regulated and limited by their superiors, and their politics and religion would cease to be dictated by their pastors and masters.' Practically untrained, therefore, in the aspiration of independence, little wonder that many of them are lame in their pursuit of it. Thus it comes to pass that one day they are prone to be beguiled by the professions, and next day liable to become the prey, of the Saviours of Society.'

6

The better sort of 'Saviours' have invented seductive phrases which have heretofore beguiled me into expressions of admiration, until more discernment taught me to distrust their tendency. One was that Property has its duties as well as its rights.' Property, honestly come by, is for security, pleasure, and power. It has no obligations save those dictated by its interests. All men have a right to an equitable chance of property for the ends of protection and enjoyment; and in a justly organised society there ought not to exist either the necessity or duty of parting with it, when rightly obtained. When something is required to be done for those who have no means of doing it for themselves, the richer people are now expected to assist in providing what is wanted. What is this but a humanitarian confiscation of the property of those from whom such help is exacted? What is this but industrial mendicancy on the part of those who receive it? Why should workmen need to stoop to this? Why should they not possess the means to provide themselves with what they need? A municipality of independence, desiring some improvement, does not beg; it assesses itself for the expenses. In the same manner, the working class anywhere needing an institution, or an advantage, should do the same-pass a levy upon themselves-not pass round the hat to their richer neighbours. Property has no intrinsic duties of charity. It is the poor who have duties, not the rich; and it is the first duty of the industrious poor not to be poor. Because of their helplessness now, the poor may accept the politic largesses of the rich, but they have no claim thereto. The obligation lies upon them always and everywhere to find out why riches accumulate in other hands and not in theirs, and to take immediate and persistent steps to amend the irregularity. The rich-if we except the out-door relief' to the aristocracy, which Mr. Bright considers is dispensed at the Horse Guards and Admiralty-do not ask for State Socialism; only men in mendicant condition or of mendicant spirit do that, or ever think of it.

6

The only persons in this country likely to be suspected of the State Socialistic craze are the working class co-operators, because they are the only class which has any capacity of understanding Socialism. Civil Service storemen are mere shopkeepers and are not to be counted. Their horizon being bounded by the till, they lack the dignity which

being subjects of suspicion implies. True co-operators are no State Socialists. English co-operators never borrow money, and never ask the State to lend them any. They save their own capital mainly by their stores. Mr. Owen, the modern founder of English Socialism, indeed, professed that the State ought to lend the capital which should found a community on a great scale; after which he believed that private capitalists would readily furnish it, when they saw the success which he believed would be sure to attend the first experiment. But he had small hope of any Liberal Government lending this kind of assistance. The instinct of Liberalism is that of self-help. Its principle is that the people should do everything for themselves; and that the province of Government is to afford equal facilities to all classes to do this, and afford nothing more. In several things Liberal Governments have afforded assistance where they thought the people could not help themselves, and where some assistance would clearly lead to their ultimately doing without it. The policy of Liberalism is to encourage the people to owe everything to themselves. The policy of Conservatism is exactly the reverse. It is to impress the people with the belief that they owe everything to their superiors. By giving back to the people some of the money of the State, these sort of rulers obtain the influence of donors, and conceal from the people that the money given them (and a great deal more) is first taken from them. If Mr. Owen did not perceive this policy he understood the fact, and to obtain money for his community scheme he danced attendance in the chambers of Tory ministers, and was a suppliant in the Courts of despotic monarchs. To do him justice, he was so devoted to his object, that he would have accepted assistance, with equal impartiality, from angel or fiend who would promote his views.

But we have among us a school who, had they the capacity of converting the populace, would soon spread the infection of State Socialism among the working class. The Comtists, who are influential in one way, and nominally few in numbers, have always been in favour of appeals to the public treasury. The Comtists are influential because they are on the side of despotic rulers. They are a secret force who work for Absolutism in the name of Humanity. They intend to rule well, but it is ruling which they intend; nor peradventure do they care much for the working class except as persons to be ruled. The number of persons in all parties willing to rule others is much greater than is supposed. The air of the State is always full of Political and Social Cuckoos, who lay the eggs of their self-importance in the nests of any party likely to hatch them. The few avowed Comtists are rendered influential beyond their apparent numbers by the sympathy of those who have their instinct without their method. In an early manifesto on the Labour Question' made by Mr. Congreve in 1861, he gave documents authorised personally by Auguste Comte which set forth that the State should