It is to be remarked that, while this branch of the inquiry is practically omitted by Mr. Spencer, Mr. Tylor can spare for it but some twenty pages out of his large work. He arranges the probable germs of the savage idea of a Supreme Being thus: A G.o.d of the polytheistic crowd is simply raised to the primacy, which, of course, cannot occur where there is no polytheism. Or the principle of Manes worship may make a Supreme Deity out of "a primeval ancestor" say Unkulunkulu, who is so far from being supreme, that he is abject. Or, again, a great phenomenon or force in Nature-worship, say Sun, or Heaven, is raised to supremacy. Or speculative philosophy ascends from the Many to the One by trying to discern through and beyond the universe a First Cause. Animistic conceptions thus reach their utmost limit in the notion of the Anima Mundi. He may acc.u.mulate all powers of all polytheistic G.o.ds, or he may "loom vast, shadowy, and calm ... too benevolent to need human worship ... too merely existent to concern himself with the petty race of men."[14] But he is always animistic.
Now, in addition to the objections already noted in pa.s.sing, how can we tell that the Supreme Being of low savages was, in original conception, _animistic_ at all? How can we know that he was envisaged, originally, as _Spirit_? We shall show that he probably was not, that the question "spirit or not spirit" was not raised at all, that the Maker and Father in Heaven, prior to Death, was merely regarded as a deathless _Being_, no question of "spirit" being raised. If so, Animism was not needed for the earliest idea of a moral Eternal. This hypothesis will be found to lead to some very singular conclusions.
It will be more fully stated and ill.u.s.trated, presently, but I find that it had already occurred to Dr. Brinton.[15] He is talking specially of a heaven-G.o.d; he says "it came to pa.s.s that the idea of G.o.d was linked to the heavens _long ere man asked himself, Are the heavens material and G.o.d spiritual_?" Dr. Brinton, however, does not develop his idea, nor am I aware that it has been developed previously.
The notion of a G.o.d about whose spirituality n.o.body has inquired is new to us. To ourselves, and doubtless or probably to barbarians on a certain level of culture, such a Divine Being _must_ be animistic, _must_ be a "spirit." To take only one case, to which we shall return, the Banks Islanders (Melanesia) believe in ghosts, "and in the existence of Beings who were not, and never had been, human. All alike might be called spirits," says Dr. Codrington, but, _ex hypothesi_, the Beings "who never were human" are only called "spirits," by us, because our habits of thought do not enable us to envisage them _except_ as "spirits." They never were men, "the natives will always maintain that he (the _Vui_) was _something different_, and deny to him the fleshly body of a man," while resolute that he was not a ghost.[16]
This point will be amply ill.u.s.trated later, as we study that strangely neglected chapter, that essential chapter, the Higher beliefs of the Lowest savages. Of the existence of a belief in a Supreme Being, not as merely "alleged," there is as good evidence as we possess for any fact in the ethnographic region.
It is certain that savages, when first approached by curious travellers, and missionaries, have again and again recognised our G.o.d in theirs.
The mythical details and fables about the savage G.o.d are, indeed, different; the ethical, benevolent, admonishing, rewarding, and creative aspects of the G.o.ds are apt to be the same.[17]
"There is no necessity for beginning to tell even the most degraded of these people of the existence of G.o.d, or of a future state, "the facts being universally admitted."[18]
"Intelligent men among the Bakwains have scouted the idea of any of them ever having been without a tolerably clear conception of good and evil, G.o.d and the future state; Nothing we indicate as sin ever appeared to them as otherwise," except polygamy, says Livingstone.
Now we may agree with Mr. Tylor that modern theologians, familiar with savage creeds, will scarcely argue that "they are direct or nearly direct products of revelation" (vol. ii. p. 356). But we may argue that, considering their nascent ethics (denied or minimised by many anthropologists) and the distance which separates the high G.o.ds of savagery from the ghosts out of which they are said to have sprung; considering too, that the relatively pure and lofty element which, _ex hypothesi_, is most recent in evolution, is also, _not_ the most honoured, but often just the reverse; remembering, above all, that we know nothing historically of the mental condition of the founders of religion, we may hesitate to accept the anthropological hypothesis _en ma.s.se_. At best it is conjectural, and the facts are such that opponents have more justification than is commonly admitted for regarding the bulk of savage religion as degenerate, or corrupted, from its own highest elements. I am by no means, as yet, arguing positively in favour of that hypothesis, but I see what its advocates mean, or ought to mean, and the strength of their position. Mr. Tylor, with his unique fairness, says "the degeneration theory, no doubt in some instances with justice, may claim such beliefs as mutilated and perverted remains of higher religion"
(vol. ii. p. 336).
I do not pretend to know how the lowest savages evolved the theory of a G.o.d who reads the heart and "makes for righteousness," It is as easy, almost, for me to believe that they "were not left without a witness,"
as to believe that this G.o.d of theirs was evolved out of the maleficent ghost of a dirty mischievous medicine-man.
Here one may repeat that while the "quaint or majestic foreshadowings"
of a Supreme Being, among very low savages, are only sketched lightly by Mr. Tylor; in Mr. Herbert Spencer"s system they seem to be almost omitted. In his "Principles of Sociology" and "Ecclesiastical Inst.i.tutions" one looks in vain for an adequate notice; in vain for almost any notice, of this part of his topic. The watcher of conduct, the friendly, creative being of low savage faith, whence was he evolved? The circ.u.mstance of his existence, as far as I can see; the chast.i.ty, the unselfishness, the pitifulness, the loyalty to plighted word, the prohibition of even extra-tribal homicide, enjoined in various places on his worshippers, are problems that appear somehow to have escaped Mr. Spencer"s notice. We are puzzled by endless difficulties in his system: for example as to how savages can forget their great-grandfathers"
very names, and yet remember "traditional persons from generation to generation," so that "in time any amount of expansion and idealisation can be reached,"[19]
Again, Mr. Spencer will argue that it is a strange thing if "primitive men had, as some think, the consciousness of a Universal Power whence they and all other things proceeded," and yet "spontaneously performed to that Power an act like that performed by them to the dead body of a fellow savage"--by offerings of food.[20]
Now, first, there would be nothing strange in the matter if the crude idea of "Universal Power" came _earliest_, and was superseded, in part, by a later propitiation of the dead and ghosts. The new religious idea would soon refract back on, and influence by its ritual, the older conception.
And, secondly, it is precisely this "Universal Power" that is _not_ propitiated by offerings of food, in Tonga, (despite Mr. Huxley) Australia, and Africa, for example. We cannot escape the difficulty by saying that there the old ghost of Universal Power is regarded as dead, decrepit, or as a _roi-faineant_ not worth propitiating, for that is not true of the punisher of sin, the teacher of generosity, and the solitary sanction of faith between men and peoples.
It would appear then, on the whole, that the question of the plain man to the anthropologist, "Having got your idea of spirit into the savage"s mind, how does he develop out of it what I call G.o.d?" has not been answered. G.o.d cannot be a reflection from human kings where there have been no kings; nor a president elected out of a polytheistic society of G.o.ds where there is as yet no polytheism; nor an ideal first ancestor where men do not worship their ancestors; while, again, the spirit of a man who died, real or ideal, does not answer to a common savage conception of the Creator. All this will become much more obvious as we study in detail the highest G.o.ds of the lowest races.
Our study, of course, does not pretend to embrace the religion of all the savages in the world. We are content with typical, and, as a rule, well-observed examples. We range from the creeds of the most backward and worst-equipped nomad races, to those of peoples with an aristocracy, hereditary kings, houses and agriculture, ending with the Supreme Being of the highly civilised Incas, and with the Jehovah of the Hebrews.
[Footnote 1: _Journal Anthrop. Inst._ xi. 874. We shall return to this pa.s.sage.]
[Footnote 2: Vol. i. p. 389, 1892.]
[Footnote 3: Payne, i. 458.]
[Footnote 4: _Prim. Cult._ vol. ii. p. 381; _Science and Hebrew Tradition_, pp. 346, 372.]
[Footnote 5: _Prim. Cult_. vol. ii. p. 109.]
[Footnote 6: Ibid. vol. ii. p. 110.]
[Footnote 7: Ibid. vol. ii. p. 113.]
[Footnote 8: _Prim. Cult_. vol. ii. pp. 115, 116, citing Callaway and others.]
[Footnote 9: The Zulu religion will be a.n.a.lysed later.]
[Footnote 10: _Prim. Cult_. vol. ii. pp. 130-144.]
[Footnote 11: Ibid. vol. ii. p. 248.]
[Footnote 12: And very few civilised populations, if any, are monotheistic in this sense.]
[Footnote 13: _Prim. Cult_. vol. ii. pp. 332, 333.]
[Footnote 14: _Prim. Cult_. vol. ii. pp. 335, 336.]
[Footnote 15: _Myths of the New World_, 1868, p. 47.]
[Footnote 16: I observed this point in _Myth, Ritual, and Religion_, while I did not see the implication, that the idea of "spirit" was not necessarily present in the savage conception of the primal Beings, Creators, or Makers.]
[Footnote 17: See one or two cases in _Prim. Cult_. vol. ii. p. 340.]
[Footnote 18: Livingstone, speaking of the Bakwain, _Missionary Travels_, p. 168.]
[Footnote 19: _Principles of Sociology_, vol. i. p. 450.]
[Footnote 20: Op. cit. vol. i. p. 302.]
X
HIGH G.o.dS OF LOW RACES
To avoid misconception we must repeat the necessary cautions about accepting evidence as to high G.o.ds of low races. The missionary who does not see in every alien G.o.d a devil is apt to welcome traces of an original supernatural revelation, darkened by all peoples but the Jews. We shall not, however, rely much on missionary evidence, and, when we do, we must now be equally on our guard against the anthropological bias in the missionary himself. Having read Mr. Spencer and Mr. Tylor, and finding himself among ancestor-worshippers (as he sometimes does), he is apt to think that ancestor-worship explains any traces of a belief in the Supreme Being. Against each and every bias of observers we must be watchful.
It may be needful, too, to point out once again another weak point in all reasoning about savage religion, namely that we cannot always tell what may have been borrowed from Europeans. Thus, the Fuegians, in 1830-1840, were far out of the way, but one tribe, near Magellan"s Straits, worshipped an image called Cristo. Fitzroy attributes this obvious trace of Catholicism to a Captain Pelippa, who visited the district some time before his own expedition. It is less probable that Spaniards established a belief in a moral Deity in regions where they left no material traces of their faith. The Fuegians are not easily proselytised. "When discovered by strangers, the instant impulse of a Fuegian family is to run off into the woods." Occasionally they will emerge to barter, but "sometimes nothing will induce a single individual of the family to appear." Fitzroy thought they had no idea of a future state, because, among other reasons not given, "the evil spirit torments them in _this_ world, if they do wrong, by storms, hail, snow, &c." Why the evil spirit should punish evil deeds is not evident. "A great black man is supposed to be always wandering about the woods and mountains, who is certain of knowing every word and every action, who cannot be escaped and who influences the weather according to men"s conduct."[1]
There are no traces of propitiation by food, or sacrifice, or anything but conduct. To regard the Deity as "a magnified non-natural man" is not peculiar to Fuegian theologians, and does not imply Animism, but the reverse. But the point is that this ethical judge of perhaps the lowest savages "makes for righteousness" and searches the heart. His morality is so much above the ordinary savage standard that he regards the slaying of a stranger and an enemy, caught redhanded in robbery, as a sin. York"s brother (York was a Fuegian brought to England by Fitzroy) killed a "wild man" who was stealing his birds. "Rain come down, snow come down, hail come down, wind blow, blow, very much blow. Very bad to kill man. Big man in woods no like it, he very angry." Here be ethics in savage religion.
The Sixth Commandment is in force. The Being also prohibits the slaying of flappers before they can fly. "Very bad to shoot little duck, come wind, come rain, blow, very much blow."[2]
Now this big man is not a deified chief, for the Fuegians "have no superiority of one over another ... but the doctor-wizard of each party has much influence." Mr. Spencer disposes of this moral "big man" of the Fuegians as "evidently a deceased weather-doctor."[3] But, first, there is no evidence that the being is regarded as ever having died. Again, it is not shown that Fuegians are ancestor-worshippers. Next, Fitzroy did not think that the Fuegians believed in a future life. Lastly, when were medicine-men such notable moralists? The worst spirits among the neighbouring Patagonians are those of dead medicine-men. As a rule everywhere the ghost of a "doctor-wizard," shaman, or whatever he may be called, is the worst and wickedest of all ghosts. How, then, the Fuegians, who are not proved to be ancestor-worshippers, evolved out of the malignant ghost of an ancestor a being whose strong point is morality, one does not easily conceive. The adjacent Chonos "have great faith in a good spirit, whom they call Yerri Yuppon, and consider to be the author of all good; him they invoke in distress or danger." However starved they do not touch food till a short prayer has been muttered over each portion, "the praying man looking upward."[4] They have magicians, but no details are given as to spirits or ghosts. If Fuegian and Chono religion is on this level, and if this be the earliest, then the theology of many other higher savages (as of the Zulus) is decidedly degenerate. "The Bantu gives one accustomed to the negro the impression that he once had the same set of ideas, _but has forgotten half of them_," says Miss Kingsley.[5]
Of all races now extant, the Australians are probably lowest in culture, and, like the fauna of the continent, are nearest to the primitive model. They have neither metals, bows, pottery, agriculture, nor fixed habitations; and no traces of higher culture have anywhere been found above or in the soil of the continent. This is important, for in some respects their religious conceptions are so lofty that it would be natural to explain them as the result either of European influence, or as relics of a higher civilisation in the past. The former notion is discredited by the fact that their best religious ideas are imparted in connection with their ancient and secret mysteries, while for the second idea, that they are degenerate from a loftier civilisation, there is absolutely no evidence.
It has been suggested, indeed, by Mr. Spencer that the singularly complex marriage customs of the Australian blacks point to a more polite condition in their past history. Of this stage, as we said, no material traces have ever been discovered, nor can degeneration be recent. Our earliest account of the Australians is that of Dampier, who visited New Holland in the unhappy year 1688. He found the natives "the miserablest people in the world. The Hodmadods, of Mononamatapa, though a nasty people, yet for wealth are gentlemen to these: who have no houses, sheep, poultry, and fruits of the earth.... They have no houses, but lie in the open air."
Curiously enough, Dampier attests their _unselfishness_: the main ethical feature in their religious teaching. "Be it little or be it much they get, every one has his part, as well the young and tender as the old and feeble, who are not able to go abroad, as the strong and l.u.s.ty." Dampier saw no metals used, nor any bows, merely boomerangs ("wooden cutla.s.ses"), and lances with points hardened in the fire. "Their place of dwelling was only a fire with a few boughs before it" (the _gunyeh_).
This description remains accurate for most of the unsophisticated Australian tribes, but Dampier appears only to have seen ichthyophagous coast blacks.