【導(dǎo)讀】塔布是波里尼西亞的一個字眼。我們找不到一個和它意義相近的譯詞，因為。它表示一個早已不再被保存的觀念。在古羅馬流行的“Sacer”（被詛咒的、神圣的——譯者。注）一詞即和波里尼西亞的“塔布”一詞具有相似的意義?！八肌?，就我們的理解，他代表了兩種不同方面的意義。一方面，是“崇高的”、“神。圣的”；另一方面，則是“神秘的”、“危險的”、“禁止的”、“不潔的”。反義詞為“noa”，就是“通俗的”或“通常為可接近的”意思。所以，塔布即意指某種含有。被限制或禁止而不可觸摸等性質(zhì)的東西的存在。上和塔布便有些相同。塔布所代表的禁忌和宗教或道德上的戒律并不一樣。它們并不建立在神圣的宗教儀式。塔布，既沒有理由也不知道。治下的人們來說，則成為當(dāng)然的事情。以免于受到傷害。經(jīng)由觸犯禁忌所產(chǎn)生的危險可以用贖罪或凈。長久性的禁忌包括冒犯領(lǐng)袖、僧侶或死者尸體及其他。僧侶或初生的嬰孩；也附著在所有特殊的情況，如生理上的月經(jīng)期、青春期或生產(chǎn)期。

　　

【正文】 ich apply to trees, plants, houses and localities, are more variable and seem only to follow the rule that anything which for any reason arouses dread or is mysterious, bees subject to taboo. Wundt himself has to acknowledge that the changes which taboo undergoes in the richer culture of the Polynesians and in the Malayan Archipelago are not very profound. The greater social differentiation of these races manifests itself in the fact that chiefs, kings and priests exercise an especially effective taboo and are themselves exposed to the strongest taboo pulsion. But the real sources of taboo lie deeper than in the interests of the privileged classes: “They begin where the most primitive and at the same time the most enduring human impulses have their origin, namely, in the fear of the effect of demonic powers.” “The taboo, which originally was nothing more than the objectified fear of the demonic power thought to be concealed in the tabooed object, forbids the irritation of this power and demands the placation of the demon whenever the taboo has been knowingly or unknowingly violated.” The taboo then gradually became an autonomous power which has detached itself from demonism. It bees the pulsion of custom and tradition and finally of the law. “But the mandment concealed behind taboo prohibitions which differ materially according to place and time, had originally the meaning: Beware of the wrath of the demons.” Wundt therefore teaches that taboo is the expression and evolution of the belief of primitive races in demonic powers, and that later taboo has dissociated itself from this origin and has remained a power simply because it was one by virtue of a kind of a psychic persistence and in this manner it became the root of our customs and laws. As little as one can object to the first part of this statement I feel, however, that I am only voicing the impression of many of my readers if I 11 call Wundt?s explanation disappointing. Wundt?s explanation is far from going back to the sources of taboo concepts or to their deepest roots. For neither fear nor demons can be accepted in psychology as finalities defying any further deduction. It would be different if demons really existed。 but we know that, like gods, they are only the product of the psychic powers of man。 they have been created from and out of something. Wundt also expresses a number of important though not altogether clear opinions about the double meaning of taboo. According to him the division between sacred and unclean does not yet exist in the first primitive stages of taboo. For this reason these conceptions entirely lack the significance which they could only acquire later on when they came to be contrasted. The animal, person, or place on which there is a taboo is demonic, that is, not sacred and therefore not yet, in the later sense, unclean. The expression taboo is particularly suitable for this undifferentiated and intermediate meaning of the demonic, in the sense of something which may not be touched, since it emphasizes a characteristic which finally adheres both to what is sacred and to the unclean, namely, the dread of contact. But the fact that this important characteristic is permanently held in mon points to the existence of an original agreement here between these two spheres which gave way to a differentiation only as the result of further conditions through which both finally developed into opposites. The belief associated with the original taboo, according to which a demonic power concealed in the object avenges the touching of it or its forbidden use by bewitching the offender was still an entirely objectified fear. This had not yet separated into the two forms which it assumed at a more developed stage, namely, awe and aversion. How did this separation e about? According to Wundt, this was done through the transference of taboo prohibitions from the sphere of demons to that of theistic conceptions. The antithesis of sacred and unclean coincides with the succession of two mythological stages the first of which did not entirely disappear when the second was reached but continued in a state of greatly lowered esteem which gradually turned into contempt. It is a general law in mythology that a preceding stage, just because it has been overe and pushed back by a higher stage, maintains itself next to it in a debased form so that the objects of its veneration bee objects of aversion. Wundt?s further elucidations refer to the relation of taboo to lustration and sacrifice