I. If scientific impartiality and calm judgment are necessary in the study of moral phenomena, they are much more indispensable when we have to account for facts depending upon religious feeling. Unfortunately this condition is too rarely fulfilled. Passion, with lamentable facility, becomes involved in whatever resembles a religious question. Many other causes, easy to mention, join passion in leading our judgment astray, and it is not difficult to explain how, under these several influences, it has been possible, honestly to ignore manifestations of religion in the more or less important divisions of mankind.
The most frequent cause of error to which I feel myself bound to call attention, has its origin in the high opinion which the European has of himself, in the habitual contempt which is the most striking feature of his relation with other populations, and especially to those which, with greater or less reason, he treats as barbarians or savages. For example, a traveller who, as a general rule, speaks the language of the country very badly, interrogates a few individuals upon the delicate questions of the Deity, future life, etc., and his interlocutors, not understanding him, make a few signs of doubt or denial, which have no reference to the questions asked. The European in his turn mistakes their meaning. Having, in the first instance, merely regarded them as beings of the lowest type, incapable of any conception however trifling, he concludes without hesitation that these peoples have no idea either of God or of another life; and hisassertion, soon repeated, is at once accepted as true by readers who share his opinions about populations unacquainted with our civilization. The history of travel would furnish us with many examples of this fact. Kaffirs, Hottentots, etc., have often been spoken of as atheists, while we now know that this is by no means the case.
Should the traveller, moreover, speak the language of the country with ease, he is still liable to fall into error. Religious belief forms part of the most hidden depths of our nature; the savage does not willingly expose his heart to a stranger whom he fears, whose superiority he feels, and whom he has often seen ready to ignore or ridicule what he has always regarded as most worthy of veneration. The difficulty which a Parisian experiences in France in understanding the superstitions of the Basque sailor, or of the Bas-Breton peasant, should make him able to appreciate those which he would find in giving an explanation of similar subjects in connection with Kaffirs or Australians. Campbell had great trouble in obtaining from Makoum the avowal that the Bosjesman admitted the existence of a male god and of a female god, of a good and evil principle. He left many other, and much more important discoveries to be made by MM. Arbousset and Daumas. Wallis, after a month’s intimacy with the Tahitians, declared that they possessed no form of worship, whilst it entered, so to speak, into their most trivial actions. He had seen nothing beyond a cemetery in the Moraï, those venerated temples, of which no woman might even touch the sacred ground.
The lively faith of a missionary is, again, often a cause of error. Whatever the Christian communion may be to which he belongs, he generally arrives in the midst of the people whom he wishes to convert, with a hatred of their objects of belief, which are to him works of the devil. Too often he neither seeks to account for them, nor even to become acquainted with them; his sole endeavour is to destroy them. I could here mention one of these too zealous apostles, who sees nothing in the Brahminical religion but the utmost barbarismunited with the utmost absurdity. It is clear that the much more rudimentary belief of a Kaffir or of an Australian could not be areligionin the opinion of such a judge as this. He expresses and publishes his ideas, and another name is added to the list of atheist populations.
Fortunately amongst lay Europeans there are some who, permanently settled in the midst of these populations, become initiated into their customs and manners, so as to understand them and to fathom mysteries, which would by others be passed over on account of offensive or curious forms. Among missionaries there are some who, more indulgent, because they are more enlightened, can recognise the religious conception, however feeble it may be, or however it may have been transformed. Little by little the light has appeared, and the result has been that Australians, Melanesians, Bosjesmans, Hottentots, Kaffirs, and Bechuanas, have, in their turn, been withdrawn from the list of atheist nations and recognised asreligious.
II. Can the justice of this conclusion be denied? Can anyone refuse to allow a religion, properly so called, to these peoples, to recognise as true divinities beings who receive a tribute of affection or terror, homage and prayers on the part of populations, who either fear or trust in them? It is possible. Here again our European pride seems to me to have often led to false conclusions. Believers or unbelievers, freethinkers or zealous Christians, savants and philosophers have been too much under the influence of the idea of the Deity as conceived by our most cultivated classes. Often when this idea is even slightly degraded or modified, they no longer acknowledge its existence; when the conclusions drawn from it upon the origin, nature, and destiny of man or of the universe, differ even slightly from those which they admit themselves, or have been accustomed to hear, they refuse them the name ofreligion.
I can only explain in this manner the judgment passed upon a very considerable portion of mankind by a number of savants and eminent thinkers, amongst whom we mustreckon the illustrious Orientalist Burnouf. In his opinion Buddhism is true atheism. In a work which has been deservedly successful, M. Barthélemy Saint-Hilaire has supported this view with incontestable talent and learning. He has, moreover, placed on an equality with Buddhist beliefs, and perhaps even below them, those which had preceded them among the Mongols, Chinese, and Japanese. Thus, in the opinion of this eminent writer, nearly all the yellow races, much more than the third of mankind, areatheists.
But, in formulating this conclusion, the learned author ofBuddahchiefly consulted his own reason and conceptions. “Buddhists,” he says, “may without any injustice be regarded as atheists. I do not mean that they profess atheism, that they glory in their incredulity with that boasting of which more than one example might be quoted amongst ourselves; I only mean that these nations have not been able to rise in their noblest thoughts to the conception of God.”
In these few lines the idea of the book and the cause of the disagreement which separates me from M. Barthélemy Saint-Hilaire is clearly evident. The Buddhists, who everywhere give a place togodsin their legends, who have everywhere raised temples consecrated to these deities, who fear and worship them, who have made prayer an institution, who admit the dogma of future life and of remuneration, have not formed that idea ofGodto which we have all more or less attained; they are therefore atheists. This is evidently the prepossession under the influence of which this work has been written, which, however, should be read by all who are desirous of gaining correct impressions concerning some of the grave questions so hotly disputed at the present day.
The savant who considered Buddhism as atheism would with still greater reason make the same estimate of the ancient beliefs of Japan, China, and Mongolia. Nevertheless, there was in this case also a belief in numerous divinities, always subordinated to one supreme, uncreated and creatingGod. In Japan, we are told by Siebolt, there were counted no less than seven celestial gods, and eight million kamis, or spirits, of which 492 were superior gods. The inferior Kamis, to the number of 2640, were deified men. In China, the aim of the reform of Lao-tseu and of Khoung-tseu was, partly, the destruction of idolatry, and idolatry is not atheism. The populations of northern and central Asia have in almost all cases been accused by travellers especially of superstition, and not of atheism. They also have their idols. The case is similar with all northern populations. In the sacred island of Waygatz, near to the straits of the same name, the missionaries burnt, in 1827, 420 images collected upon the promontory of Haye-Salye alone. Throughout this vast area, the inhabitants believed, or still believe, inspiritsdwelling in rocks, trees, mountains, or the celestial bodies, and offered to them an interested homage.
Still, however, there was an universal belief in aSupreme God, who had created these very spirits, and was the Preserver of all living things. The Lapps and Samoyedes had, or still have on this point, the same conceptions as the ancient Chinese. TheirJubmel, and theirNumanswer exactly to theChang-tiof Khoung-tseu himself, while popular idioms show that they regard him as the first dispenser of all good.Num tad(may Num grant), andNum arka(thanks be to Num), are apparently of frequent occurrence in the language of the Samoyedes. This belief in a Supreme God and in secondaryspirits, of vast number, but still presenting a kind of hierarchy, is a very ancient one in China, for we find the emperor Chun 2225 years before our era “offering sacrifices to the Supreme Sovereign of Heaven, and the usual ceremonies to the six great spirits, as those usually offered to mountains, streams, and spirits in general.”
Possessing beliefs of this kind, attested and sanctioned by public acts, can they be regarded as atheists? If so, we must at least allow that this is a very different atheism from that which has been professed, and is still professed, by certain European schools of philosophy.
III. I might make similar observations upon the subject of the opinions published by Sir John Lubbock in the two works which have gained for him in anthropology a reputation equal to that which he already enjoyed as a naturalist. “It is difficult,” he says, “to suppose that savages so rude as not to be able to count their own fingers, should have acquired intellectual conceptions sufficiently advanced to possess a system of belief worthy of the name of religion.”
Leaving on one side what the author here says about numeration, which rests, I think, upon a false assumption, do not these words, “worthy of the name of religion,” show us that, like M. B. Saint-Hilaire, Sir John Lubbock takes his own conceptions in religious matters as a criterion of those of savages?
In the opinion of Sir John Lubbock, atheism is not “the negation of the existence of a God, but the absence of definite ideas upon this subject.” Here, like M. Barthélemy Saint-Hilaire, the English savant gives to the wordatheisma very different sense to that which it has held hitherto. Moreover, he quotes elsewhere without comment several passages, the sense of which clearly implies a negation of all divinity, and sometimes himself makes use of expressions which seem to prove that such is his conviction, at least with regard to certain savages. Thus, the testimony which he makes use of, and his own words, are often employed in the support of the opinion which denies any religion to certain human groups.
The choice, moreover, of the quotations in question seems to me liable to a serious objection. When the writers, against whom I am now arguing, have to choose between two evidences, the one attesting, the other denying the existence of religious belief in a population, it is always the latter which they seem to think should be accepted. More often than not, they do not even mention the contrary evidences, however definite, however authentic they may be.
Now it is evidently mucheasier not to seethan todiscoverthat which may be in so many ways rendered inappreciableto our eyes. When a traveller states that he has proved the existence of religious sentiments in a population, which by others had been declared to be destitute of them, when he gives precise details upon such a delicate question, he has unquestionably at least probability in his favour. I see nothing to authorize this rejection ofpositive evidenceand unconditional acceptance ofnegative evidence. This, however, is too often the case.
I might justify this imputation by taking, one by one, almost all the examples of so-called atheist populations pointed out by different authors. I shall confine myself to some of the most striking.
With reference to the Americans, Robertson is quoted, who states that several tribes have been discovered in America possessing no conception of a Supreme Being and no religious ceremonies. No mention is made of the information, for which we are indebted to D’Orbigny, although it is very precise. The author ofl’Homme Américaindeserves this neglect the less, since he directly contradicts the opinions held upon this subject by several writers, and by Robertson himself. “Although several authors,” he says, “have denied all religion to certain Americans, it is evident in our opinion that all the nations, even the most barbarous, possessed one of some kind.” D’Orbigny develops this opinion by giving details of the dogmas accepted by all the races of South America, and he proves in all the belief in another life, as attested by their funeral ceremonies. Is not this of more importance than the simple negative assertion borrowed from a traveller?
It may be objected that D’Orbigny spoke only of the tribes of South America, and that the atheist populations must be sought in the northern portion of this continent. The Californians have, in fact, been quoted, upon the authority of P. Baegert, as having neither government, religion, idols, temples, nor form of worship. But nothing is said of the facts observed by M. de Mofras, which directly contradict this assertion. The Californians, this traveller tells us,believe in a superior God. “This God has had neither father nor mother. His origin is entirely unknown; they believe that He is omnipresent; that He sees everything, even in the middle of the darkest nights; that He is invisible to all eyes; that He is the Friend of the good, and that He punishes the wicked.” The Californians build ovaltemples, or, perhaps, ratherchapels, from 10 to 12 ft. in diameter, which are regarded as asylums, even in case of murder. Clearly, the Californians must be erased from the list of atheist populations, the conception which they have formed of their superior God being, on the contrary, a remarkably elevated one. In this respect these poor savages greatly surpassed the Greeks and Romans.
The Californians rank amongst those human tribes which are least elevated in the social scale; but there are some which are considered to stand far below them, the Mincopies, for example. Some writers, adopting the ideas of Mouat, regard them as atheists. They make no mention of the evidence of Major Michael Symes and Mr. Day. The former relates the information which he received from Captain Stocker, who lived for several years in the midst of these islanders; the latter relates what he saw. From their combined evidence, it appears that the Mincopies worshipped the sun as the primal source of all good; the moon as a secondary power; the genii of the woods, rivers, and mountains as agents of the first divinities. They believe that a malevolent spirit raises tempests, and they sometimes endeavour to pacify it by songs, sometimes menace it with their arrows. These Mincopies believe in another life, and keep a lighted fire under the platform which bears the corpse of a chief to appease hispowerful spirit.
The evidence of Le Vaillant is accepted with reference to the absence of all religion in the Hottentots. No notice is taken of the contrary opinion held by Kolben, the accuracy and truth of which, though formerly doubted, are now placed above suspicion by the inquiry instituted by Walkenaer.Kolben, moreover, only confirmed the statements of his predecessors Saar, Tachard, and Boeving. He had also the advantage of having studied the aborigines before they were subdued and dispersed by the Europeans. Now Kolben tells us that the Hottentots believed in a God, the creator of all existing things, doing no harm to anyone, and living beyond the moon. They called HimGounja Ticquoa, that is to say, God of Gods. They also recognized an evil divinity, calledTouquôa. The moon was, in their opinion, an inferior gounja. They believed, moreover, in another life, for they were afraid of ghosts, and rendered a sort of adoration to their great men, by dedicating to them a field, a mountain, or a river, to which they made, in passing, some sign of respect. These details, given by the old Prussian traveller, agree with those which Campbell received from the lips of a Hottentot chief.
Burchell, it is stated, could discover no religion in the Bachapine Kaffirs. Nevertheless, and Lubbock allows it himself elsewhere, we find in the writings of this traveller that the Bachapines believed in a malevolent being calledMouliimo, to whom they attribute everything of an unpleasant nature which happens to them. To defend themselves against him they cover themselves with amulets, and they hold many other superstitions. It is evident that Burchell was not acquainted with everything which the Bachapines believed, either because he did not attach great importance to the investigation, or because he was prevented by the difficulty which Kolben has mentioned, and which I have pointed out above.
Thus the Bachapines believe in a superior, but evil being, in akind of devil. It would be very singular if they did not believe in aspecies of God. Schweinfurth believes he has discovered something similar among the Bongos; but he himself insists several times upon the difficulty of determining exactly what to believe in questions of this kind. Let us admit, however, that this may be true in the case of these Negroes as also in that of the Bachapines. We can onlyregard it as an accidental and local phenomenon, and in no way as a character of race. I shall return later to the Negroes; I will now only add a few words with reference to the Bachapines.
This population is only a portion of the Bechuana Kaffir race. Now, thanks to Livingstone, M. Cazalis, and others, we have, upon the subject of the religious beliefs of these tribes in general, details which are very minute and of incontestable authenticity. The Basutos have their legends, their cosmogony, and their rudimentary mythology. They admit the existence of a being whodestroys by thunder, they give to him the name ofMorena, literally,Intelligent Being who is above, they have, moreover,Molimos, a kind of household gods, to whom they offer prayers and sacrifices, and in whose honour they purify themselves; they believe in another life, in another world situated in the centre of the earth, which they callthe abyss which is never filled. The Bechuanas believe so strongly in ghosts that the fierce Dingan dare not go out in the evening, for fear of meeting the spectre of Chaka, whom he had assassinated.
IV. The result of my investigations is exactly the opposite of that to which Sir John Lubbock and M. Saint-Hilaire have arrived. Obliged, in my course of instruction, to review all human races, I have sought atheism in the lowest as well as in the highest. I have nowhere met with it, except in individuals, or in more or less limited schools, such as those which existed in Europe in the last century, or which may still be seen at the present day.
Can it be that analogous facts have occurred elsewhere, and that some American tribes, some Polynesian or Melanesian populations, some hordes of Bedouins may have entirely lost the conception of the divinity and another life? It is certainly possible that it may be so. But side by side with these tribes dwell other tribes, other populations, ofprecisely the same race, which still possess a religious faith. Such is indeed the result of the examples quoted by Lubbock.
This is the great point. We nowhere meet, with atheismexcept in anerratic condition. In every place, and at all times, the mass of populations have escaped it; we nowhere find either a great human race, or even a division however unimportant of that race, professing atheism.
Such is the result of an inquiry which I am justified in calling conscientious, and which commenced before I assumed the anthropological professorship. It is true that in these researches I have proceeded and have formed my conclusions, not as a thinker, a believer, or as a philosopher, who are all more or less under the influence of an ideal which they accept or oppose, but exclusivelyas a naturalist, whose chief aim is to seek for and statefacts.
In the scientific study of religions we must avoid acting in the manner of the physiologist, who, having experimented upon the vertebrata alone, refused to recognise the characteristic functions of animal life in the lower animals, because they were in those cases simpler and more obscure. Here, more perhaps than elsewhere, we should imitate modern naturalists, who have traced the fundamental functions even in the lowest molluscs and zoophytes, where all special organization is often wanting.
The physiologist does not deny the existence of a phenomenon because it occurs in a place, and by methods, different to those to which he is accustomed. In almost all animals, even to the lowest, chymification takes place in the interior of the body. In the Physalia the same physiological act is performed externally, by the numerous appendages which serve for both arms and mouth to these singular zoophytes. In spite of the strangeness of the process, the function has neither disappeared, nor changed its nature in the eyes of the scientific man.
The naturalist who studies the history of man, that is to say, the anthropologist, should neither act nor judge otherwise. However simple or incomplete, however naïve and childish, however absurd it may be, a belief should not lose its character in his eyes, if it has any connection with that element which is common and essential to all religions.
Now, whatever the dogmas and doctrines of the latter may be, we may accept as a general formula, which embraces them all, the two following points: a belief in beings superior to man and capable of exercising a good or evil influence upon his destiny; and the conviction that the existence of man is not limited to the present life, but that there remains for him a future beyond the grave.
Every people, every man, believing these two things, isreligious, and observation shows more and more clearly every day the universality of this character.
Like intelligence and morality, religious feeling has, moreover, its several degrees and manifestations. To seek for these manifestations, to determine their nature and intensity in the various human groups, must be the task of the anthropologist. In order to be faithful to the modern method, he must neglect nothing. Sometimes the most rudimentary religion will have for him a greater interest than one which is fully developed, because it exposes more clearly the primary religious elements. In their progressive development, in the harmony or discord existing between this development and that of the intelligence or morality, he will find many characteristic features suitable for distinguishing races, and sometimes their sub-divisions.
V. The point of view taken by the naturalist differs, then, in certain respects, from that which has hitherto been adopted by the greater number of eminent men, who have endeavoured to establish theScience of religions. Even M. Émile Burnouf, who has so clearly characterised this new science, who has shown so admirably in what respects it differs from theology, who has so justly insisted upon the necessity of enlarging the area of studies of this kind, and of no longer confining ourselves to the beliefs of ancient and modern Europeans, seems to me to have yielded to the prejudices which he opposes.
In fact, this author divides religions intogreatandsmall. The former in his opinion are: Christianity, Judaism, Mahomedanism, Brahmanism, and Buddhism. He turns hisattention to these only, leaving all others in the background. M. Burnouf may, it is true, argue from the relative number of adherents.
The following are, in fact, from the latest researches of M. Hubner, the general religious statistics of the globe.
The same author gives about one thousand as the number of the religions or sects into which mankind is divided. The majority is unquestionably greatly on the side of the small religions, which present, at least in certain respects, a variety of conception equal, if not superior, to all that has been observed in the great. M. Burnouf acts, therefore, like the naturalist, who would form his judgment upon the animal kingdom from the vertebrata alone, and would neglect all the rest, that is to say, three-fourths of the fundamental, and a very considerable number of the secondary types.
Without even mentioning Christianity, the great religions of M. Burnouf are doubtless of interest to us in many respects, on account of the relations which many of them present with the beliefs of almost all Europeans, and also from the historical, social, and political importance of the nations by whom they are professed. But considerations of this kind are far from being everything in science. Mammifers are of much more use to us than worms or zoophytes: yet the zoologist takes as much interest in the latter as in the former; and it becomes more evident every day how useful, and often how necessary the study of these simplifiedorganisms is, for the better understanding of the more complex organisms of higher animals.
The examination of thesmall religionswill render an analogous service to the science of thegreatreligions. It will be, perhaps, amongst the former that we shall be forced to seek the origin of those beliefs which now include so many millions of men; under one form or another, we shall, doubtless, often meet with traces of them side by side with, or even in the midst of the most fully developed religions, and those which are apparently most widely separated from them. Upon these two points our opinions will not I think clash with those of M. Burnouf and Sir John Lubbock.
VI. The latter, in hisOrigins of Civilization, has, in fact, endeavoured to trace the gradual development of religion in the inferior human races. Unfortunately, he seems to me to have, as a rule, undervalued the greater number of these conceptions, and to have ignored the remarkably elevated character which many of them exhibit. This alone may have led him to consider religion as proportional to civilization, and developing only with the latter. I cannot share this view; and the disagreement between Lubbock and myself is also due in a great measure to the importance which I have attached to certain evidences which seem to have escaped the notice of the English savant. A few examples will justify these observations.
Of all the peoples, concerning whose beliefs we possess an almost sufficient amount of information, the Australians certainly take the first place. Upon this point I am entirely agreed with Sir John Lubbock. But I cannot hold with him, that these populations do not believe in a god of any kind; that they never offer prayers; that they have no form of worship at all.
In support of his opinion my eminent colleague quotes Eyre, Collins, and MacGillivray; but he forgets Cunningham, Dawson, Wilkes, Salvado, and Stanbridge. In comparing the information obtained by these travellers in different parts ofNew Holland, we everywhere observe a similar foundation in the beliefs, which well deserve to be termedreligious.
The Australians admit a good principle, called, according to the locality,Coyan, Motogon, Pupperimbul, who is sometimes spoken of by them as a kind of giant, at others as a kind of spirit. Coyan is beneficent, and regards the recovery of lost children as almost his special duty. To obtain his favour, darts are offered to him. If the child is not found, it is supposed that he is angry. In New-Nursie, Motogon is the creator. He had only to cry: Earth, appear! Water, appear! and to breathe in order to give birth to all things that exist. Without being so precise, the natives of Tyrril Lake ascribe the creation of the sun to Pupperimbul, who belonged to a class of beings resembling men, but who had been transported to heaven before the appearance of the present race. In south-east Australia, Coyan watches over theevil principle, calledPotoyan, Wandong, Cienga, who roams about at night to devour men as well as children, and against whom they protect themselves by fire. The moon, again, is, in the opinion of the Australians, a malevolent being, whose evil influence is counteracted by the sun. Several good and evil genii,BalumbalsandWanguls, complete this rudimentary mythology, which has also its fabulous monsters, its great serpents hidden in deep rivers, etc. The Australians believe, moreover, in a kind of immortality of the soul, which passes successively from one body to another. But before finding a new abode, the spirits of the dead wander for a certain length of time in the forests, and the natives very often affirm that they have been seen or heard.
True, these are not very noble beliefs. There is, however, here something of a very different nature from what Sir John Lubbock’s view of the matter would lead us to expect. The idea of creation by the word and breath of a powerful being is a noble conception, and appears distinctly in several tribes: oblations and prayer have been proved in others. In all we observe the germ of that belief indualism, that antagonism of benevolent and malevolent super-humanpowers, which is found inthe greatest religions, and which is the basis even of Christianity. As to the belief in another life, no one has of late, I believe, denied the possession of it to the Australians.
In treating of the religion of the Polynesians, Lubbock quotes chiefly Mariner, Williams, and Sir George Grey. These authorities are unexceptional as regards their statement upon what they have discovered. But their silence upon certain points does not justify us in concluding that there are real gaps in those cases. Other travellers have gone much further than they went, known what they were ignorant of, and have imparted the knowledge to us. Moerenhout was the first, I believe, to publish original documents upon the most ancient Tahitian traditions. Others followed; and, thanks to favourable circumstances, I have been able to profit by these researches. In the work which I published eight years before that of Lubbock, I reviewed and discussed the principal documents for which we are indebted to Captain Lavaud, General Ribourt, the missionary Orsmond, M. Gaussin, and others. All these documents, obtained from chiefs belonging to the most ancient families and well versed in the traditions of their ancestors, have the appearance of incontestable authenticity, and throw an entirely fresh light upon the early history of religion, at least in Tahiti. I believe I have defined with sufficient clearness what these religious beliefs were, and established beyond a doubt that, side by side with notions arising entirely from superstition, the Tahitians had attained conceptions remarkable for their purity and elevation.
Let us first prove that in the island where Wallis declared he had not been able to discover the least trace of religious worship, this worship was, on the contrary, mixed up with the most trivial acts of life. It was even productive of melancholy consequences.Formalismreigned supreme-Trusting in his religious observances, in the prayers of his priests, and in the indulgence of his gods, the Tahitian thought himself at liberty to do almost anything. Hecombined the strongest and most simple faith with manners remarkable for their violence and licentiousness. But does not all Europe of the Middle Ages, and, even at the present time, do not many provinces, which in other respects are by no means behind the age, present phenomena of a similar nature.
Yet the Tahitians believed in another life, in rewards and punishment after death. Their paradise, of which they gave an enticing description, was reserved for the chiefs, and for those who had made sufficient offerings to the gods, that is to say, to the priests. Was not, and is not this still, the object of pious donations?
The souls of the remainder, whose life had been regular, went at once into Po, into obscurity, a kind oflimbo, where there seems to have been neither pain nor pleasure of a very decided nature. But guilty souls were condemned to undergo a certain number of times,a scratching of the flesh upon every bone. Their sins expiated, they too were admitted into Po. The Tahitians thus admit a kind of purgatory and no hell. It should also be observed that the punishment inflicted upon the guilty supposes a kind of materiality of the soul. But is not this also the case with those torments which nearly all our Christian populations still believe to be reserved for the sinner cast into theflames of hell.
We find in the pantheon of the Tahitians a hierarchy equal to, but much exceeding in number that of the Greeks and Romans. At the lowest extremity of the scale we find innumerableTiis, whose duty it was to preside in every place over the smallest actions, the smallest movements of the soul, even to thewishes of day and night. Above the latter come theOromotouas, who represented the domestic gods, the Lares and Manes of the ancients. Theinferior Atouas, dwelling upon the earth, inhabiting rivers, woods, valleys, and mountains, answer very fairly to the Fauns, Sylvans, Dryads, Oreads, &c. Moreover, it is from among the divinities of this class that the various professions choose their patrons. Thesingers, choreographers, and doctors hadfour, sailors twelve, and agriculturists thirteen. The gods of the first rank wereAtouas properly so called. They also were equally numerous. But nine of them, created (oriori) directly by Taaroa, before the formation of man, composed, correctly speaking, thedivine family.
Finally, above all those divinities, stood the Supreme God. There can be no doubt as to the conception which the Tahitians formed of the latter. Traditions, collected at different times by different persons, and from equally different sources, agree perfectly upon this point. The song received by Moerenhout from the lips of aharepobegan thus: “He was; Taaroa was his name; he existed in space; no earth, no heaven, no men.” The manuscript of General Ribourt describes him astoïvi, having had no parents, and existing from time immemorial. The sacred song translated by M. Goussin begins with the following declaration: “Taaroa the great orderer, is the origin of the earth. Taaroa is toïvi; he has no father, no posterity.”
The Tahitians regarded this uncreated God, moreover, as almost a pure spirit, and he was undoubtedly so in the estimation of the more enlightened islanders. Certain traditions represent him witha body; but, says General Ribourt’s manuscript, this body isinvisible, and further it is merely, “a shell which is frequently renewed, and which the God loses, as a bird its feathers.” In Moerenhout’s song, it is he who changes himself into the universe; but “the great and sacred universe is only the shell of Taaroa.” In that of M. Gaussin, Taaroa raises his head out of his covering, which disappears and becomes the earth. In the magnificent dialogue, also translated by M. Gaussin, and in which Taaroa calls, so to speak, upon all the different parts of the universe, who in turn answer him, it is said: “The soul of Taaroa remained God.” Unfortunately, after the creation was finished, this God seems to have reassumed his state of repose, and to have left to the inferior deities the government of this world.
We see here, again, that as far as the first conception isconcerned, we are far above the Zeus of the Greeks, or the Jupiter of the Romans. And yet who would dream of comparing the Tahitian civilization with the civilization or the intellectual productions of the Greeks? It is one of the many facts which show the independence of the phenomena of the intelligence and those of the religious feeling.
It is not in Tahiti alone that this elevated spiritualism has been observed, though concealed under very different appearances. The rude images, thetoosplaced in themoraïhave been regarded by almost all travellers as statues of atouas. They are, in reality, nothing more thantabernacleshollow within, and destined to receive different objects, oblations, etc. A priest of the Sandwich Islands told Byron that, when a child, it happened that he eat something which had been deposited in the sacred images. Surprised and reprimanded by his father, he excused himself by saying that he had found out by various experiments that these gods of wood neither saw nor heard. The old priest then said to him in a severe tone: “My son, the wood, it is true, neither sees nor hears; but the spirit which is above sees and hears all, and punishes wicked actions.”
Do many among ourselves draw such a clear distinction between thespiritand thewood?
A remarkable feature of the Tahitian religion is, that we find in it no trace of Manicheism. They have, in fact, onlygods, and nodevils. It is true that the priests spoke in the name of the Atouas, and that thesorcerers, hated and feared in Tahiti as elsewhere, addressed themselves solely to the Tiis. But the latter were not in any way considered as antagonistic to the Atouas. Moerenhout tells us that their images might be seen as guardians at the entrance of the moraï and sacred enclosures.
Although not so clearly defined as those of the Tahitians, the religious beliefs of the Algonquin and Mingwe Red-Skins are very superior in some respects. TheirGreat Spirit, theMichabouof the Algonquins, theAgrescoueof the Iroquois, is the Father of all existing things. To him alonetrue worship is rendered in smoking the sacred calumet towards the four points of the horizon and the zenith. The Creator of all that exists, he is not so disinterested in his work as Taaroa. He himself, or his messengers, watch over children, and direct the events of the world. Again, it is to him, before all others, that the Red-Skin addressed his prayers when he asks, and his thanks when he has gained his demands. I might here multiply examples and quotations. I shall confine myself to reproducing in part the song of the Lenapes on the eve of their departure for war, as it has been preserved for us by Heckewelder. It is a national song, and of itself refutes many strange assertions frequently made with regard to the populations who once occupied the territory of the United States.
“Oh, poor me—who am just about to depart to fight the enemy—and know not if I shall return—to enjoy the embraces of my children and wife.”
“Oh, poor creature—who cannot order his own life—who has no power over his own body—but who tries to do his duty—for the happiness of his nation.”
“Oh, thou Great Spirit above—take pity upon my children—and upon my wife—keep them from sorrowing on my account—grant that I may succeed in my enterprise—that I may kill my enemy—and bring back trophies of war.”
“Give me strength and courage to fight my enemy—grant that I may return and see my children again—see my wife and my relations—have pity upon me and preserve my life—and I will offer to thee a sacrifice.”
It is true that, after the Great Spirit, we find the Red-Skins believing in an immense number ofManitous, one of whom, inhabiting the centre of the earth, is a kind of demon. But these beings, whether good or evil, although possessing an influence over the destiny of man, have nothing of the divine character. They are nothing more than a kind of genii, fairies, ogres, etc., more or less resembling those mentioned in Oriental tales, and all absolutely dependent uponthe Great Spirit. The latter alone is omnipotent, while the evil spirit is weak and his power is limited.
The belief in another life was, moreover, universal amongst these populations. Their ideas upon the other world, the transmigration of souls, the multiplicity of existences were vague enough; but in several legends, collected either by the first travellers, or in the present century by Schoolcraft, we find, given in the most explicit manner, the doctrine of recompense promised to the good, and the torments which await the wicked.
The Algonquins and Mingwes deserve to be regarded as monotheists as much as any other people we can mention, much more so than the Arabs before Mahomet. There is, moreover, no reason to think that these spiritual beliefs were due to the exceptional intelligence of an isolated individual who played the part of prophet after the manner of Mahomet. They have all the characters of a spontaneous manifestation of the instincts of the race itself. Now this fact is the more remarkable, as these Red-Skins, almost exclusively hunters, had scarcely advanced beyond the lowest stages of the social scale.
The Negroes of Guinea, much superior to the Algonquins and Mingwes, from a civilized point of view, are far inferior to them in religion. Still, to speak only of theirfetishism, would be doing them a great injustice. This is, in reality, only a form of superstition more or less intimately associated with a basis of far nobler beliefs. Here, again, the greater number of observers have stopped at what was immediately presented to the eye; others, however, have fortunately been found who have looked beneath these first appearances.
Numerous evidences, too unanimous to admit of doubt, prove that from Cape Verd to Cape Lopez the inhabitants believe in a Supreme God, who has created all existing things. The natives of Dahomey hold that this God is himself subject to a more elevated being, who, say these Negroes, is perhaps the God of the Whites. In most cases, it is true, this supremeDeity is regarded as governing the universe through the agency of his ministers; but often, also, direct intervention is attributed to him. Petitions, thanks, and prayers, are then addressed to him, with the formula of some of which we are acquainted. In that which D’Avezac received from the lips of Oche Fecoue, the Yebous request Obbâ-el-Orum (King of Heaven) to preserve them from illness and death. They add: “Orissa (God) give me prosperity and wisdom.”
We find that almost all the natives of Guinea, besides theirgood God, had theirevil spirit, also very powerful. Oblations are offered to appease him. The Negroes often think that they see or hear him in the night. We know too well, however, that the shores of Guinea are not the only place where such visions have been seen in imagination.
Then come the inferior gods, very numerous, and sometimes arranged in a hierarchy. It is they who are sent intoFetishesto watch over and protect man. The Fetish, according to the evidence of devout priests and Negroes, is not theGod himself, but only theabode of the God.
The natives of Guinea all believe in another life, but have very different ideas upon this subject. In general they regard it as almost similar to the present. Some have a confused idea of metempsychosis, or think they are born again in a child. The Issinois believe in the immortality of the soul, which, on leaving this earth, is born again in another world, situated in the centre of the globe, andvice versa. This is almost thealternating life, as conceived by Hyppolyte Renaud, a distinguished artillery officer, and one of those thinkers who have felt the want of an explanation of the destiny of man.
The idea of retribution is clearly defined by many Guinean tribes. In the opinion of many, the wise and the intelligent become the messengers of the gods; the wicked are drowned in passing a certain stream, and die for ever or become demons. Others hold that the souls of those who have led evil lives go to the evil spirit, but can be redeemed by oblations offered to the gods. Here, then, we find theNegro possessing the idea ofpurgatoryand ofredemption, together with that ofhell.
VII. I think I have said enough thoroughly to establish a fact independent of all hypothesis, and which seems to me to be of serious importance. It is that we often find ideas of an extremely elevated nature, and resembling in a singular manner those which distinguish thegreat religions, existing in thesmall, though obscured by other notions of an inferior nature. Again, that we must almost everywhere, probably everywhere, distinguishreligionfromsuperstition. But before we can, in this case, recognise the gold in the midst of the surrounding dross, time is required, serious study, and a mind entirely free from prejudice.
I grant that religion and superstition are often, as it were, fused into the creeds of certain races, so that the priest and the sorcerer are confounded in one person. But this is not always the case; and, even where the connection forms an apparent confusion, we should unquestionably endeavour to distinguish the two elements. Now this task has been too often neglected in dealing with inferior races. Here again.
I remark at each step the prejudicial influence of European pride. The most careless writer would certainly not connect with Christianity, as it is understood at the present day in France, the dismal or ludicrous tales collected in the country districts by Villemarqué, Souvestre, and others. He would place them, with all their accompanying practices, in what may be called thepopular mythology. Should not also the man of science make a similar distinction, when trying to form a true estimation of the religion, properly so called, of barbarous or savage nations?
To those who ask how Fetishism came to be implanted in Guinea side by side with the conception of a Supreme Being, the creator and governor of all that exists? how northern populations could reconcile Shamanism with the belief in that God of whom Ghengis Khan had formed such a great and elevated idea? I ask again how the strangest superstitions came to be accepted in former times by all Christiansects? how it is that they still exist amongst us? True, in our enlightened classes, neither Protestant nor Catholic would enter upon a course of sorcery, of which there were so many instances but two or three centuries ago, and which were so often followed by condemnation and capital punishment. In our more remote country districts, however, the belief in sorcery is as strong as it was universal in the Middle Ages. The newspapers inform us from time to time of actions, proving that, if left to themselves, these populations would willingly burn the unfortunate victims suspected of havingtold fortunes; protect themselves againstwitchcraft, theevil eye, etc., these same populations have often had recourse to practices strongly resembling those signalized by travellers as the proof of inferiority in certain races. In reality, the amulets of our peasants are identical with thegrisgrisof the Negroes.
In all these respects and in many others, all Aryan Christians have believed in that which we proudly reproach the Negroes and Mongols with believing. All Christian communities have sanctioned, and sometimessanctified, these absurd superstitions.
The anthropologist, who has to do with science and not with theology, who has to seek the pure element in the inferior religions, ought not, on the other hand, to hesitate in pointing out that singular admixture of alloy in the superior religions, of which I have just quoted a familiar example.
From this double form of investigation, a general fact, to which I have often called attention, will, I think, be established in the minds of all, a fact which may be formulated in the following terms; great or small, religions are principally connected by the most elevated and the lowest element possessed by each; they are principally separated by intermediary forms and conceptions.
VIII. The following fact has, in several instances, been remarked, that a religion when replaced by another, leaves upon the latter more or less evident traces. Often also, thedivinities of the former, without entirely disappearing, will undergo a singular process of degradation, and find a place only in the region of popular superstition. Which of our readers will not call to mind the articles, at once so charming and so impressive, of M. Heine upon the poor gods of the Greek and Roman Olympus, passed into legendary characters? These representatives of classical mythology have, in the heart of popular beliefs, become associated with Germanic and Scandinavian divinities; but have not both had predecessors?
From Quaternary ages to the present time, many races have inhabited Europe. None, undoubtedly, have entirely passed away. They have been successively subjugated, and more or less absorbed. Can the beliefs even of our most remote ancestors be entirely lost? I think not. Undoubtedly, a portion has been forgotten, but very probable also a large part has survived, more or less modified by the additions of each fresh immigration. In this manner would be formed, little by little, that popular mythology which has resisted all official doctrines, and even found a place by their side.
What has happened in our own case cannot but have happened elsewhere. Future research will perhaps show this to be the cause of the common element of the religious beliefs of peoples, separated by their different degrees of civilization, as well as by geographical position.
IX. M. Burnouf has remarked that thescience of religiondoes not as yet exist. This is true, especially from the point of view to which I have just called attention. All general classification is, then, premature. Before attempting one, let us wait till we are at least fairly acquainted, not only with the great mass of doctrines supported by profound metaphysics, which have been accepted by civilized nations, but also with the simpler, more artless beliefs which preceded them, some of which are still in existence. Then only shall we be in a position to trace the general form and the sub-divisions of the several manifestations of the religious facultycommon to all human beings. Then, also, we shall be in a position to follow the development of this faculty, and to mark its stages, by a process similar to that of the embryogenist, who studies the different phases undergone by the same being before attaining its state of perfection.
Such as it is however, consisting at present of isolated facts only, or of facts merely collected into groups, the science of religions has already acquired a marked importance in anthropology. It leaves no doubt as to one of the fundamental characters of the human species; it furnishes facts of so independent a nature as to serve for the characterization of races; it reveals relations; it adds its testimony to that of philology in throwing light upon the filiation of certain races, in attesting the existence of ancient communications between nations long regarded as entirely separate. In these various aspects it should not be neglected by those who wish to consider the natural history of man as a whole.
THE END.