PREFACE
By
the nature of things this book falls under two divisions. The first
eight chapters criticise the current anthropological theory of the
origins of the belief in
spirits. Chapters
ix.-xvii., again, criticise the current anthropological theory as to
how, the notion of
spirit once
attained, man arrived at the idea of a Supreme Being. These two
branches of the topic are treated in most modern works concerned with
the Origins of Religion, such as Mr. Tyler's "Primitive
Culture," Mr. Herbert Spencer's "Principles of Sociology,"
Mr. Jevons's "Introduction to the History of Religion," the
late Mr. Grant Allen's "Evolution of the Idea of God," and
many others. Yet I have been censured for combining, in this work,
the two branches of my subject; and the second part has been regarded
as but faintly connected with the first.The
reason for this criticism seems to be, that while one small set of
students is interested in, and familiar with the themes examined in
the first part (namely the psychological characteristics of certain
mental states from which, in part, the doctrine of spirits is said to
have arisen), that set of students neither knows nor cares anything
about the matter handled in the second part. This group of students
is busied with "Psychical Research," and the obscure human
faculties implied in alleged cases of hallucination, telepathy,
"double personality," human automatism, clairvoyance, and
so on. Meanwhile anthropological readers are equally indifferent as
to that branch of psychology which examines the conditions of
hysteria, hypnotic trance, "double personality," and the
like. Anthropologists have not hitherto applied to the savage mental
conditions, out of which, in part, the doctrine of "spirits"
arose, the recent researches of French, German, and English
psychologists of the new school. As to whether these researches into
abnormal psychological conditions do, or do not, indicate the
existence of a transcendental region of human faculty,
anthropologists appear to be unconcerned. The only English exception
known to me is Mr. Tylor, and his great work, "Primitive
Culture," was written thirty years ago, before the modern
psychological studies of Professor William James, Dr. Romaine
Newbold, M. Richet, Dr. Janet, Professor Sidgwick, Mr. Myers, Mr.
Gurney, Dr. Parish, and many others had commenced.Anthropologists
have gone on discussing the trances, and visions, and so-called
"demoniacal possession" of savages, as if no new researches
into similar facts in the psychology of civilised mankind existed;
or, if they existed, threw any glimmer of light on the abnormal
psychology of savages. I have, on the other hand, thought it
desirable to sketch out a study of savage psychology in the light of
recent psychological research. Thanks to this daring novelty, the
book has been virtually taken as two books; anthropologists have
criticised the second part, and one or two Psychical Researchers have
criticised the first part; each school leaving one part severely
alone. Such are the natural results of a too restricted specialism.Even
to Psychical Researchers the earlier division is of scant interest,
because witnesses to
successful abnormal
or supernormal faculty in savages cannot be brought into court and
cross-examined. But I do not give anecdotes of such savage successes
as evidence to
facts; they are
only illustrations, and evidence to
beliefs and methods
(as of crystal gazing and automatic utterances of "secondary
personality"), which, among the savages, correspond to the
supposed facts examined by Psychical Research among the civilised. I
only point out, as Bastian had already pointed out, the existence of
a field that deserves closer study by anthropologists who can observe
savages in their homes. We need persons trained in the psychological
laboratories of Europe and America, as members of anthropological
expeditions. It may be noted that, in his "Letters from the
South Seas," Mr. Louis Stevenson makes some curious
observations, especially on a singular form of hypnotism applied to
himself with fortunate results. The method, used in native medicine,
was novel; and the results were entirely inexplicable to Mr.
Stevenson, who had not been amenable to European hypnotic practice.
But he was not a trained expert.Anthropology
must remain incomplete while it neglects this field, whether among
wild or civilised men. In the course of time this will come to be
acknowledged. It will be seen that we cannot really account for the
origin of the belief in spirits while we neglect the scientific study
of those psychical conditions, as of hallucination and the hypnotic
trance, in which that belief must probably have had some, at least,
of its origins.As
to the second part of the book, I have argued that the first dim
surmises as to a Supreme Being need not have arisen (as on the
current anthropological theory) in the notion of spirits at all. (See
chapter xi.) Here I have been said to draw a mere "verbal
distinction" but no distinction can be more essential. If such a
Supreme Being as many savages acknowledge is
not envisaged by
them as a "spirit," then the theories and processes by
which he is derived from a ghost of a dead man are invalid, and
remote from the point. As to the origin of a belief in a kind of
germinal Supreme Being (say the Australian Baiame), I do not, in this
book, offer any opinion. I again and again decline to offer an
opinion. Critics, none the less, have said that I attribute the
belief to revelation! I shall therefore here indicate what I think
probable in so obscure a field.As
soon as man had the idea of "making" things, he might
conjecture as to a Maker of things which he himself had not made, and
could not make. He would regard this unknown Maker as a "magnified
non-natural man." These speculations appear to me to need less
reflection than the long and complicated processes of thought by
which Mr. Tylor believes, and probably believes with justice, the
theory of "spirits" to have been evolved. (See chapter
iii.) This conception of a magnified non-natural man, who is a Maker,
being given; his Power would be recognised, and fancy would clothe
one who had made such useful things with certain other moral
attributes, as of Fatherhood, goodness, and regard for the ethics of
his children; these ethics having been developed naturally in the
evolution of social life. In all this there is nothing "mystical,"
nor anything, as far as I can see, beyond the limited mental powers
of any beings that deserve to be called human.But
I hasten to add that another theory may be entertained. Since this
book was written there appeared "The Native Tribes of Central
Australia," by Professor Spencer and Mr. Gillen, a most valuable
study.[1] The authors, closely scrutinising the esoteric rites of the
Arunta and other tribes in Central Australia, found none of the moral
precepts and attributes which (according to Mr. Howitt, to whom their
work is dedicated), prevail in the mysteries of the natives of New
South Wales and Victoria. (See chapter x.) What they found was a
belief in 'the great spirit,
Twanyirika,' who is
believed 'by uninitiated boys and women' (but, apparently, not by
adults) to preside over the cruel rites of tribal initiation.[2] No
more is said, no myths about 'the great spirit' are given. He is
dismissed in a brief note. Now if these ten lines contain
all the native lore
of Twanyirika, he is a mere bugbear, not believed in (apparently) by
adults, but invented by them to terrorise the women and boys. Next,
granting that the information of Messrs. Spencer and Gillen is
exhaustive, and granting that (as Mr. J.G. Frazer holds, in his
essays in the 'Fortnightly Review,' April and May, 1899) the Arunta
are the most primitive of mortals, it will seem to follow that the
moral attributes of
Baiame and other gods of other Australian regions are later
accretions round the form of an original and confessed bugbear, as
among the primitive Arunta, 'a bogle of the nursery,' in the phrase
repudiated by Maitland of Lethington. Though not otherwise
conspicuously more civilised than the Arunta (except, perhaps, in
marriage relations), Mr. Howitt's South Eastern natives will have
improved the Arunta confessed 'bogle' into a beneficent and moral
Father and Maker. Religion will have its origin in a tribal joke, and
will have become not 'diablement,'
but 'divinement,'
'changée en route.'
Readers of Messrs. Spencer and Gillen will see that the Arunta
philosophy, primitive or not, is of a high ingenuity, and so artfully
composed that it contains no room either for a Supreme Being or for
the doctrine of the survival of the soul, with a future of rewards
and punishments; opinions declared to be extant among other
Australian tribes. There is no creator, and every soul, after death,
is reincarnated in a new member of the tribe. On the other hand
(granting that the brief note on Twanyirika is exhaustive), the
Arunta, in their isolation, may have degenerated in religion, and may
have dropped, in the case of Twanyirika, the moral attributes of
Baiame. It may be noticed that, in South Eastern Australia, the Being
who presides, like Twanyirika, over initiations is
not the supreme
being, but a son or deputy of his, such as the Kurnai Tundun. We do
not know whether the Arunta have, or have had and lost, or never
possessed, a being superior to Twanyirika.With
regard, to all such moral, and, in certain versions, creative Beings
as Baiame, criticism has taken various lines. There is the high a
priori line that savage minds are incapable of originating the notion
of a moral Maker. I have already said that the notion, in an early
form, seems to be well within the range of any minds deserving to be
called human. Next, the facts are disputed. I can only refer readers
to the authorities cited. They speak for tribes in many quarters of
the world, and the witnesses are laymen as well as missionaries. I am
accused, again, of using a misleading rhetoric, and of thereby
covertly introducing Christian or philosophical ideas into my account
of "savages guiltless of Christian teaching." As to the
latter point, I am also accused of mistaking for native opinions the
results of "Christian teaching." One or other charge must
fall to the ground. As to my rhetoric, in the use of such words as
'Creator,' 'Eternal,' and the like, I shall later qualify and explain
it. For a long discussion between myself and Mr. Sidney Hartland,
involving minute detail, I may refer the reader to
Folk-Lore, the last
number of 1898 and the first of 1899, and to the Introduction to the
new edition of my 'Myth, Ritual, and Religion' (1899).Where
relatively high moral attributes are assigned to a Being, I have
called the result 'Religion;' where the same Being acts like Zeus in
Greek fable, plays silly or obscene tricks, is lustful and false, I
have spoken of 'Myth.'[3] These distinctions of Myth and Religion may
be, and indeed are, called arbitrary. The whole complex set of
statements about the Being, good or bad, sublime or silly, are
equally Myths, it may be urged. Very well; but one set, the loftier
set, is fitter to survive, and does survive, in what we still
commonly call Religion; while the other set, the puerile set of
statements, is fairly near to extinction, and is usually called
Mythology. One set has been the root of a goodly tree: the other set
is being lopped off, like the parasitic mistletoe.I
am arguing that the two classes of ideas arise from two separate
human moods; moods as different and distinct as lust and love. I am
arguing that, as far as our information goes, the nobler set of ideas
is as ancient as the lower. Personally (though we cannot have direct
evidence) I find it easy to believe that the loftier notions are the
earlier. If man began with the conception of a powerful and
beneficent Maker or Father, then I can see how the humorous savage
fancy ran away with the idea of Power, and attributed to a potent
being just such tricks as a waggish and libidinous savage would like
to play if he could. Moreover, I have actually traced (in 'Myth,
Ritual, and Religion') some plausible processes of mythical
accretion. The early mind was not only religious, in its way, but
scientific, in its way. It embraced the idea of Evolution as well as
the idea of Creation. To one mood a Maker seemed to exist. But the
institution of Totemism (whatever its origin) suggested the idea of
Evolution; for men, it was held, developed out of their
Totems-animals and plants. But then, on the other hand, Zeus, or
Baiame, or Mungun-ngaur, was regarded as their Father. How were these
contradictions to be reconciled? Easily, thus: Zeus
was the Father,
but, in each case, was the Father by an amour in which he wore the
form of the Totem-snake, swan, bull, ant, dog, or the like. At once a
degraded set of secondary erotic myths cluster around Zeus.Again,
it is notoriously the nature of man to attribute every institution to
a primal inventor or legislator. Men then, find themselves performing
certain rites, often of a buffooning or scandalous character; and, in
origin, mainly magical, intended for the increase of game, edible
plants, or, later, for the benefit of the crops.
Why do they perform
these rites? they ask: and, looking about, as usual, for a primal
initiator, they attribute what they do to a primal being, the Corn
Spirit, Demeter, or to Zeus, or to Baiame, or Manabozho, or Punjel.
This is man's usual way of going back to origins. Instantly, then, a
new set of parasitic myths crystallises round a Being who, perhaps,
was originally moral. The savage mind, in short, has not maintained
itself on the high level, any more than the facetious mediaeval myths
maintained themselves, say, on the original level of the conception
of the character of St. Peter, the keeper of the keys of Heaven.All
this appears perfectly natural and human, and in this, and in other
ways, what we call low Myth may have invaded the higher realms of
Religion: a lower invaded a higher element. But reverse the
hypothesis. Conceive that Zeus, or Baiame, was
originally, not a
Father and guardian, but a lewd and tricky ghost of a medicine-man, a
dancer of indecent dances, a wooer of other men's wives, a
shape-shifter, a burlesque droll, a more jocular bugbear, like
Twanyirika. By what means did he come to be accredited later with his
loftiest attributes, and with regard for the tribal ethics, which, in
practice, he daily broke and despised? Students who argue for the
possible priority of the lowest, or, as I call them, mythical
attributes of the Being, must advance an hypothesis of the concretion
of the nobler elements around the original wanton and mischievous
ghost.Then
let us suppose that the Arunta Twanyirika, a confessed bugbear,
discredited by adults, and only invented to keep women and children
in order, was the original germ of the moral and fatherly Baiame, of
South Eastern Australian tribes. How, in that case, did the adults of
the tribe fall into their own trap, come to believe seriously in
their invented bugbear, and credit him with the superintendence of
such tribal ethics as generosity and unselfishness? What were the
processes of the conversion of Twanyirika? I do not deny that this
theory may be correct, but I wish to see an hypothesis of the process
of elevation.I
fail to frame such an hypothesis. Grant that the adults merely
chuckle over Twanyirika, whose 'voice' they themselves produce; by
whirling the wooden tundun, or bull-roarer. Grant that, on
initiation, the boys learn that 'the great spirit' is a mere bogle,
invented to mystify the women, and keep them away from the initiatory
rites. How, then, did men come to believe in
him as a terrible,
all-seeing, all-knowing, creative, and potent moral being? For this,
undeniably, is the belief of many Australian tribes, where his
'voice' (or rather that of his subordinate) is produced by whirling
the tundun. That these higher beliefs are of European origin, Mr.
Howitt denies. How were they evolved out of the notion of a confessed
artificial bogle? I am unable to frame a theory.From
my point of view, namely, that the higher and simple ideas may well
be the earlier, I have, at least, offered a theory of the processes
by which the lower attributes crystallised around a conception
supposed (argumenti
gratia) to be
originally high. Other processes of degradation would come in, as (on
my theory) the creed and practice of Animism, or worship of human
ghosts, often of low character, swamped and invaded the prior belief
in a fairly moral and beneficent, but not originally spiritual,
Being. My theory, at least,
is a theory, and,
rightly or wrongly, accounts for the phenomenon, the combination of
the highest divine and the lowest animal qualities in the same Being.
But I have yet to learn how, if the lowest myths are the earliest,
the highest attributes came in time to be conferred on the hero of
the lowest myths. Why, or how, did a silly buffoon, or a confessed
'bogle' arrive at being regarded as a patron of such morality as had
been evolved? An hypothesis of the processes involved must be
indicated. It is not enough to reply, in general, that the
rudimentary human mind is illogical and confused. That is granted;
but there must have been a method in its madness. What that method
was (from my point of view) I have shown, and it must be as easy for
opponents to set forth what, from their point of view, the method
was.We
are here concerned with what, since the time of the earliest Greek
philosophers, has been the
crux of mythology:
why are infamous myths told about 'the Father of gods and men'? We
can easily explain the nature of the myths. They are the natural
flowers of savage fancy and humour. But wherefore do they crystallise
round Zeus? I have, at least, shown some probable processes in the
evolution.Where
criticism has not disputed the facts of the moral attributes, now
attached to, say, an Australian Being, it has accounted for them by a
supposed process of borrowing from missionaries and other Europeans.
In this book I deal with that hypothesis as urged by Sir A.B. Ellis,
in West Africa (chapter xiii.). I need not have taken the trouble, as
this distinguished writer had already, in a work which I overlooked,
formally withdrawn, as regards Africa, his theory of 'loan-gods.'
Miss Kingsley, too, is no believer in the borrowing hypothesis for
West Africa, in regard, that is, to the highest divine conception. I
was, when I wrote, unaware that, especially as concerns America and
Australia, Mr. Tylor had recently advocated the theory of borrowing
('Journal of Anthrop. Institute,' vol. xxi.). To Mr. Tylor's
arguments, when I read them, I replied in the 'Nineteenth Century,'
January 1899: 'Are Savage Gods Borrowed from Missionaries?' I do not
here repeat my arguments, but await the publication of Mr. Tylor's
'Gifford Lectures,' in which his hypothesis may be reinforced, and
may win my adhesion.It
may here be said, however, that if the Australian higher religious
ideas are of recent and missionary origin, they would necessarily be
known to the native women, from whom, in fact, they are absolutely
concealed by the men, under penalty of death. Again, if the Son, or
Sons, of Australian chief Beings resemble part of the Christian
dogma, they much more closely resemble the Apollo and Hermes of
Greece.[4] But nobody will say that the Australians borrowed them
from Greek mythology!In
chapter xiv., owing to a bibliographical error of my own, I have done
injustice to Mr. Tylor, by supposing him to have overlooked
Strachey's account of the Virginian god Ahone. He did not overlook
Ahone, but mistrusted Strachey. In an excursus on Ahone, in the new
edition of 'Myth, Ritual, and Religion,' I have tried my best to
elucidate the bibliography and other aspects of Strachey's account,
which I cannot regard as baseless. Mr. Tylor's opinion is, doubtless,
different, and may prove more persuasive. As to Australia, Mr.
Howitt, our best authority, continues to disbelieve in the theory of
borrowing.I
have to withdraw in chapters x. xi. the statement that 'Darumulun
never died at all.' Mr. Hartland has corrected me, and pointed out
that, among the Wiraijuri, a myth represents him as having been
destroyed, for his offences, by Baiame. In that tribe, however,
Darumulun is not the highest, but a subordinate Being. Mr. Hartland
has also collected a few myths in which Australian Supreme Beings
do (contrary to my
statement) 'set the example of sinning.' Nothing can surprise me
less, and I only wonder that, in so savage a race, the examples,
hitherto collected, are so rare, and so easily to be accounted for on
the theory of processes of crystallisation of myths already
suggested.As
to a remark in Appendix B, Mr. Podmore takes a distinction. I quote
his remark, 'the phenomena described are quite inexplicable by
ordinary mechanical means,' and I contrast this, as illogical, with
his opinion that a girl 'may have been directly responsible for all
that took place.' Mr. Podmore replies that what was 'described' is
not necessarily identical with what
occurred. Strictly
speaking, he is right; but the evidence was copious, was given by
many witnesses, and (as offered by me) was in part
contemporary (being
derived from the local newspapers), so that here Mr. Podmore's theory
of illusions of memory on a large scale, developed in the five weeks
which elapsed before he examined the spectators, is out of court. The
evidence was of contemporary published record.The
handling of fire by Home is accounted for by Mr. Podmore, in the same
chapter, as the result of Home's use of a 'non-conducting substance.'
Asked, 'what substance?' he answered, 'asbestos.' Sir William
Crookes, again repeating his account of the performance which he
witnessed, says, 'Home took up a lump of red-hot charcoal about twice
the size of an egg into his hand, on which certainly no asbestos was
visible. He blew into his hands, and the flames could be seen coming
out between his fingers, and he carried the charcoal round the
room.'[5] Sir W. Crookes stood close beside Home. The light was that
of the fire and of two candles. Probably Sir William could see a
piece of asbestos, if it was covering Home's hands, which he was
watching.What
I had to say, by way of withdrawal, qualification, explanation, or
otherwise, I inserted (in order to seize the earliest opportunity) in
the Introduction to the recent edition of my 'Myth, Ritual, and
Religion' (1899). The reader will perhaps make his own kind
deductions from my rhetoric when I talk, for example, about a Creator
in the creed of low savages. They have no business, anthropologists
declare, to entertain so large an idea. But in 'The Journal of the
Anthropological Institute,' N.S. II., Nos. 1, 2, p. 85, Dr. Bennett
gives an account of the religion of the cannibal Fangs of the Congo,
first described by Du Chaillu. 'These anthropophagi have some idea of
a God, a superior being, their
Tata ("Father"),
a bo mam merere
("he made all things"), Anyambi is their
Tata (Father), and
ranks above all other Fang gods, because
a'ne yap
(literally, "he lives in heaven").' This is inconsiderate
in the Fangs. A set of native cannibals have no business with a
creative Father who is in heaven. I say 'creative' because 'he made
all things,' and (as the bowler said about a 'Yorker') 'what else can
you call him?' In all such cases, where 'creator' and 'creative' are
used by me, readers will allow for the imperfections of the English
language. As anthropologists say, the savages simply cannot have the
corresponding ideas; and I must throw the blame on people who,
knowing the savages and their language, assure us that they
have. This Fang
Father or Tata
'is considered indifferent to the wants and sufferings of men, women,
and children.' Offerings and prayers are therefore made, not to him,
but to the ghosts of parents, who are more accessible. This
additional information precisely illustrates my general theory, that
the chief Being was not evolved out of ghosts, but came to be
neglected as ghost-worship arose. I am not aware that Dr. Bennett is
a missionary. Anthropologists distrust missionaries, and most of my
evidence is from laymen. If the anthropological study of religion is
to advance, the high and usually indolent chief Beings of savage
religions must be carefully examined, not consigned to a casual page
or paragraph. I have found them most potent, and most moral, where
ghost-worship has not been evolved; least potent, or at all events
most indifferent, where ghost-worship is most in vogue. The
inferences (granting the facts) are fatal to the current
anthropological theory.The
phrases 'Creator,' 'creative,' as applied to Anyambi, or Baiame, have
been described, by critics, as rhetorical, covertly introducing
conceptions of which savages are incapable. I have already shown that
I only follow my authorities, and their translations of phrases in
various savage tongues. But the phrase 'eternal,' applied to Anyambi
or Baiame, may be misleading. I do not wish to assert that, if you
talked to a savage about 'eternity,' he would understand what you
intend. I merely mean what Mariner says that the Tongans mean as to
the god Tá-li-y Tooboo. 'Of his origin they had no idea, rather
supposing him to be eternal.' The savage theologians assert no
beginning for such beings (as a rule), and no end, except where
Unkulunkulu is by some Zulus thought to be dead, and where the
Wiraijuris declare that their Darumulun (not
supreme) was 'destroyed' by Baiame. I do not wish to credit savages
with thoughts more abstract than they possess. But that their thought
can be abstract is proved, even in the case of the absolutely
'primitive Arunta,' by their myth of the
Ungambikula, 'a
word which means "out of nothing," or "self-existing,"'
say Messrs. Spencer and Gillen.[6] Once more, I find that I have
spoken of some savage Beings as 'omnipresent' and 'omnipotent.' But I
have pointed out that this is only a modern metaphysical rendering of
the actual words attributed to the savage: 'He can go everywhere, and
do everything.' As to the phrase, also used, that Baiame, for
example, 'makes for righteousness,' I mean that he sanctions the
morality of his people; for instance, sanctions veracity and
unselfishness, as Mr. Howitt distinctly avers. These are examples of
'righteousness' in conduct. I do not mean that these virtues were
impressed on savages in some supernatural way, as a critic has
daringly averred that I do. The strong reaction of some early men
against the cosmical process by which 'the weakest goes to the wall,'
is, indeed, a curious moral phenomenon, and deserves the attention of
moralists. But I never dreamed of supposing that this reaction (which
extends beyond the limit of the tribe or group) had a 'supernatural'
origin! It has been argued that 'tribal morality' is only a set of
regulations based on the convenience of the elders of the tribe: is,
in fact, as the Platonic Thrasymachus says, 'the interest of the
strongest.' That does not appear to me to be demonstrated; but this
is no place for a discussion of the origin of morals. 'The interest
of the strongest,' and of the nomadic group, would be to knock
elderly invalids on the head. But Dampier says, of the Australians,
in 1688, 'Be it little, or be it much they get, every one has his
part, as well the young and tender, and the old and feeble, who are
not able to go abroad, as the strong and lusty.' The origin of this
fair and generous dealing may be obscure, but it is precisely the
kind of dealing on which, according to Mr. Howitt, the religion of
the Kurnai insists (chapter x.). Thus the Being concerned does 'make
for righteousness.'With
these explanations I trust that my rhetorical use of such phrases as
'eternal,' 'creative,' 'omniscient,' 'omnipotent,' 'omnipresent,' and
'moral,' may not be found to mislead, or covertly to import modern or
Christian ideas into my account of the religious conceptions of
savages.As
to the evidence throughout, a learned historian has informed me that
'no anthropological evidence is of any value.' If so, there can be no
anthropology (in the realm of institutions). But the evidence that I
adduce is from such sources as anthropologists, at least, accept, and
employ in the construction of theories from which, in some points, I
venture to dissent.A.L.[Footnote
1: Macmillans, 1899.][Footnote
2: Op. cit. p. 246, note.][Footnote
3: See the new edition of
Myth, Ritual, and Religion,
especially the new Introduction.][Footnote
4: See Introductions to my
Homeric Hymns.
Allen. 1899.][Footnote
5: Journal S.P.R.,
December 1890, p. 147.][Footnote
6: Native Tribes of
Central Australia,
p. 388.]