Part 21 (2/2)
It is not easy to see any explanation, if we reject the hypothesis that this is an old, fallen form of faith, 'with scarcely a temple.' The other unborn immortals are mythical warriors and adulterers, like the popular deities of Greece. Yet Ndengei receives prayers through two sons of his, mediating deities. The priests are possessed, or inspired, by spirits and G.o.ds. One is not quite clear as to whether Ndengei is an inspiring G.o.d or not; but that prayers are made to him is inconsistent with the belief in his eternal inaction. A priest is represented as speaking for Ndengei, probably by inspiration. 'My own mind departs from me, and then, when it is truly gone, my G.o.d speaks by me,' is the account of this 'alternating personality' given by a priest.[22]
After informing us that Ndengei is starved, Mr. Williams next tells about offerings to him, in earlier days, of hundreds of hogs.[23] He sends rain on earth. Animals, men, stones, may all be _Kalou_. There is a Hades as fantastic as that in the Egyptian 'Book of the Dead,' and second sight flourishes.
The mysteries include the sham raising of the dead, and appear to be directed at propitiatory ghosts rather than at Ndengei. There are scenes of license; 'particulars of almost incredible indecency have been privately forwarded to Dr. Tylor.'[24]
Suppose a religious reformer were to arise in one of the many savage tribes who, as we shall show, possess, but neglect, an Eternal Creator.
He would do what, in the secular sphere, was done by the Mikado of j.a.pan.
The Mikado was a political Dendid or Ndengei--an awful, withdrawn, impotent potentate. Power was wielded by the Tyc.o.o.n. A Mikado of genius a.s.serted himself; hence arose modern j.a.pan. In the same way, a religious reformer like Khuen Ahten in Egypt would preach down minor G.o.ds, ghosts and sacred beasts, and proclaim the primal Maker, Ndengei, Dendid, Mtanga.
'The king shall hae his ain again.' Had it not been for the Prophets, Israel, by the time that Greece and Rome knew Israel, would have been wors.h.i.+pping a horde of little G.o.ds, and even beasts and ghosts, while the Eternal would have become a mere name--perhaps, like Ndengei and Atahocan and Unkulunkulu, a jest. The Old Testament is the story of the prolonged effort to keep Jehovah in His supreme place. To make and to succeed in that effort was the _differentia_, of Israel. Other peoples, even the lowest, had, as we prove, the germinal conception of a G.o.d--a.s.suredly not demonstrated to be derived from the ghost theory, logically in no need of the ghost theory, everywhere explicitly contrasted with the ghost theory.
'But their foolish heart was darkened.'
It is impossible to prove, historically, which of the two main elements in belief--the idea of an Eternal Being or Beings, or the idea of surviving ghosts--came first into the minds of men. The idea of primeval Eternal Beings, as understood by savages, does not depend on, or require, the ghost theory. But, as we almost always find ghosts and a Supreme Being together, where we find either, among the lowest savages, we have no historical ground for a.s.serting that either is prior to the other. Where we have no evidence to the belief in the Maker, we must not conclude that no such belief exists. Our knowledge is confused and scanty; often it is derived from men who do not know the native language, or the native sacred language, or have not been trusted with what the savage treasures as his secret. Moreover, if anywhere ghosts are found without G.o.ds, it is an inference from the argument that an idea familiar to very low savage tribes, like the Australians, and falling more and more into the background elsewhere, though still extant and traceable, might, in certain cases, be lost and forgotten altogether.
To take an example of half-forgotten deity. Mr. Im Thurn, a good observer, has written on 'The Animism of the Indians of British Guiana.' Mr. Im Thurn justly says: 'The man who above all others has made this study possible is Mr. Tylor.' But it is not unfair to remark that Mr. Im Thurn naturally sees most distinctly that which Mr. Tylor has taught him to see--namely, Animism. He has also been persuaded, by Mr. Dorman, that the Great Spirit of North American tribes is 'almost certainly nothing more than a figure of European origin, reflected and transmitted almost beyond recognition on the mirror of the Indian mind,' That is not my opinion: I conceive that the Red Indians had their native Eternal, like the Australians, Fijians, Andamanese, d.i.n.kas, Yao, and so forth, as will be shown later.
Mr. Im Thurn, however, dilates on the dream origin of the ghost theory, giving examples from his own knowledge of the difficulty with which Guiana Indians discern the hallucinations of dreams from the facts of waking life. Their waking hallucinations are also so vivid as to be taken for realities.[25] Mr. Im Thurn adopts the hypothesis that, from ghosts, 'a belief has arisen, but very gradually, in higher spirits, and, eventually, in a Highest Spirit; and, keeping pace with the growth of these beliefs, a habit of reverence for and wors.h.i.+p of spirits.' On this hypothesis, the spirit latest evolved, and most wors.h.i.+pful, ought, of course, to be the 'Highest Spirit.' But the reverse, as usual, is the case. The Guiana Indians believe in the continued, but not in the everlasting, existence of a man's ghost.[26] They believe in no spirits which were not once tenants of material bodies.[27]
The belief in a Supreme Spirit is only attained 'in the highest form of religion'--Andamanese, for instance--as Mr. Im Thurn uses 'spirit' where we should say 'being.' 'The Indians of Guiana know no G.o.d.'[28]
'But it is true that various words have been found in all, or nearly all, the languages of Guiana which have been supposed to be names of a Supreme Being, G.o.d, a Great Spirit, in the sense which those phrases bear in the language of the higher religions.'
Being interpreted, these Guiana names mean--
_The Ancient One, The Ancient One in Sky-land, Our Maker, Our Father, Our Great Father._
'None of those in any way involves the attributes of a G.o.d.'
The Ancient of Days, Our Father in Sky-land, Our Maker, do rather convoy the sense of G.o.d to a European mind. Mr. Im Thurn, however, decides that the beings thus designated were supposed ancestors who came into Guiana from some other country, 'sometimes said to have been that entirely natural country (?) which is separated from Guiana by the ocean of the air.'[29]
Mr. Im Thurn casually observed (having said nothing about morals in alliance with Animism):
'The fear of unwittingly offending the countless visible and invisible beings ... kept the Indians very strictly within their own rights and from offending against the rights of others.'
This remark dropped out at a discussion of Mr. Im Thurn's paper, and clearly demonstrated that even a very low creed 'makes for righteousness.'[30]
Probably few who have followed the facts given here will agree with Mr. Im Thurn's theory that 'Our Maker,' 'Our Father,' 'The Ancient One of the Heaven,' is merely an idealised human ancestor. He falls naturally into his place with the other high G.o.ds of low savages. But we need much more information on the subject than Mr. Im Thurn was able to give.
His evidence is all the better, because he is a loyal follower of Mr.
Tylor. And Mr. Tylor says: 'Savage Animism is almost devoid of that ethical element which to the educated modern mind is the very mainspring of practical religion.'[31] 'Yet it keeps the Indians very strictly within their own rights and from offending the rights of others.' Our own religion is rarely so successful.[32]
In the Indians of Guiana we have an alleged case of a people still deep in the animistic or ghost-wors.h.i.+pping case, who, by the hypothesis, have not yet evolved the idea of a G.o.d at all.
When the familiar names for G.o.d, such as Maker, Father, Ancient of Days, occur in the Indian language, Mr. Im Thurn explains the neglected Being who bears these t.i.tles as a remote deified ancestor. Of course, when a Being with similar t.i.tles occurs where ancestors are not wors.h.i.+pped, as in Australia and the Andaman Islands, the explanation suggested by Mr. Im Thurn for the problem of religion in Guiana, will not fit the facts.
It is plain that, _a priori_, another explanation is conceivable. If a people like the Andamanese, or the Australian tribes whom we have studied, had such a conception as that of Puluga, or Baiame, or Mungan-ngaur and then, _later_, developed ancestor-wors.h.i.+p with its propitiatory sacrifices and ceremonies, ancestor-wors.h.i.+p, as the newest evolved and infinitely the most practical form of cult, would gradually thrust the belief in a Puluga, or Mungan-ngaur, or Cagn into the shade. The ancestral spirit, to speak quite plainly, can be 'squared' by the people in whom he takes a special interest for family reasons. The equal Father of all men cannot be 'squared,' and declines (till corrupted by the bad example of ancestral ghosts) to make himself useful to one man rather than to another. For these very intelligible, simple, and practical reasons, if the belief in a Mungan-ngaur came first in evolution, and the belief in a practicable bribable family ghost came second, the ghost-cult would inevitably crowd out the G.o.d-cult.[33] The name of the Father and Maker would become a mere survival, _nominis umbra_, wors.h.i.+p and sacrifice going to the ancestral ghost. That explanation would fit the state of religion which Mr. Im Thurn has found, rightly or wrongly, in British Guiana.
But, if the idea of a universal Father and Maker came last in evolution, as a refinement, then, of course, it ought to be the newest, and therefore the most fas.h.i.+onable and potent of Guianese cults. Precisely the reverse is said to be the case. Nor can the belief indicated in such names as Father and Maker be satisfactorily explained as a refinement of ancestor-wors.h.i.+p, because, we repeat, it occurs where ancestors are not wors.h.i.+pped.
These considerations, however unpleasant to the devotees of Animism, or the ghost theory, are not, in themselves, illogical, nor contradictory of the theory of evolution, which, on the other hand, fits them perfectly well. That G.o.d thrives best who is most suited to his environment. Whether an easy-going, hungry ghost-G.o.d with a liking for his family, or a moral Creator not to be bribed, is better suited to an environment of not especially scrupulous savages, any man can decide. Whether a set of not particularly scrupulous savages will readily evolve a moral unbribable Creator, when they have a serviceable family ghost-G.o.d eager to oblige, is a question as easily resolved.
<script>