CHAPTER L

103Rivers,Todas, pp. 450, 453.

104Tallqvist, ‘Die assyrische Beschwörungsserie Maqlû,’ inActa Soc. Scient. Fennicæ, xx. 22.

105Oldenberg,op. cit.p. 311sqq.Hopkins,op. cit.p. 149. Roth, ‘Brahma und die Brahmanen,’ inZeitschr. d. Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellsch.i. 67, 71. Darmesteter,Essais orientaux, p. 132.

106Atharva-Veda, xi. 5. 5. Barth,op. cit.p. 38.

107Roth,loc. cit.p. 66sqq.Barth,op. cit.p. 38. Darmesteter,Ormazd et Ahriman, p. 101.

108Rig-Veda, vi. 51. 8.

109Barth,op. cit.p. 15sq.Roth,loc. cit.p. 71.

110Monier-Williams,Brāhmanism and Hindūism, p. 201sq.

111See Geiger,Civilization of the Eastern Irānians, i. 71.

112Yasts, xiii. 92; xvii. 16.

113Maspero,Études de mythologie et archéologie égyptiennes, i. 163.

114See Usener,Götternamen, p. 335sq.

115Cf.von Lasaulx,Der Fluch bei Griechen und Römern, p. 6. So also the Manx wordgweemeans both prayer and curse (Rhys,Celtic Folklore, i. 349).

116Renan,Hibbert Lectures on the Influence of the Institutions, &c. of Rome on Christianity, p. 10sq.Cf.Jevons, in Plutarch’sRomane Questions, p. xxviii.; Granger,Worship of the Romans, p. 158.

Whilst an ordinary curse readily develops into a prayer when the name of a god is brought in for the purpose of giving magic efficacy to the curse, a prayer may contrariwise assume a magic character by being addressed to a god—just as a sacrifice becomes endowed with magic energy in consequence of its contact or communion with the supernatural being to which it is offered; and the constraining force in the prayer or sacrifice may then be directed even against the god himself. But there can be little doubt that the extreme importance which the magic element in the cult attained among the nations of ancient civilisation was chiefly due to the prevalence of a powerful priesthood or class of persons well versed in sacred texts. A successful incantation presupposes a certain knowledge in him who utters it. The words of the formulæ are fixed and may not suffer the slightest modification under penalty of losing their potency. Right intonation is equally important.117The Brahmanic mantras “must be pronounced according to certain mystic forms and with absolute accuracy, or their efficacy is destroyed”; nay, if in the repetition of a mantra the slightest mistake is made, either by omission of a syllable or defective pronunciation, the calamity which it was intended to bring down on an enemy will inevitably recoil on the head of the repeater.118The potency of the incantation largely lies in the voice, which is the magical instrumentpar excellence.119A Buddhist priest who was asked what advantage he could expect to derive from merely repeating a number of words with the sense of which he was entirely unacquainted, gave the answer that the advantage of often repeating the sounds was incalculable, infinite;120and a Muhammedan writer argues that prayers which are offered in any other language thanArabic are profane and useless, because “the sounds of this language”—whether understood or not—“illuminate the darkness of men” and “purify the hearts of the faithful.”121Ideas of this sort are of course most strongly advocated by those who derive the greatest profit from them—priests or scribes. And it is easy to understand that with their increasing influence among a superstitious and credulous people the magic significance which is so readily ascribed to a religious act also has a tendency to grow in importance.

117Maspero,Études, i. 109;Idem,Dawn of Civilization, pp. 146, 213 (ancient Egyptians). Sayce,Hibbert Lectures on the Religion of the Andent Babylonians, p. 319. Darmesteter,Ormazd et Ahriman, p. 9. Sell,Faith of Islám, pp. 53, 79, 334, 341.

118Monier-Williams,Brāhmanism and Hindūism, p. 199.

119Yasts, iv. 5. Maspero,Études, ii. 373sq.;Idem,Dawn of Civilization, p. 146 (ancient Egyptians). Sell,op. cit.p. 318 (Muhammedans).

120Indo-Chinese Gleaner, iii. 145.

121Indo-Chinese Gleaner, iii. 146.

Among all sins there is none which gods resent more severely than disobedience to their commandments. Mr. Macdonald says of the Efatese, in the New Hebrides, that no people under the sun is more obedient to what they regard as divine mandates than these savages, who believe that an offence against a spiritual being means calamity and death.122The Chaldeans had a lively sense of the risks entailed upon the sinner by disobedience to the gods.123According to the Bible disobedience was the first sin committed by man, and death was introduced into the world as its punishment. “Rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, and stubbornness is as iniquity and idolatry.”124On the history of morals this demand of obedience has exercised considerable influence. It gives emphasis to moral rules which are looked upon as divine injunctions, and it helps to preserve such rules after the conditions from which they sprang have ceased to exist. The fact that they have become meaningless does not render them less binding; on the contrary, the mystery surrounding them often increases their sanctity. The commandments of a god must be obeyed independently of their contents, simply because disobedience to him is a sin. Acts totally different in character, crimes of the worst description andpractices by themselves perfectly harmless, are grouped together as almost equally offensive to the deity because they have been forbidden by him.125And moral progress is hampered by a number of precepts which, though rooted in obsolete superstitions or antiquated ideas about right and wrong, have an obstinate tendency to persist on account of their supposed divine origin.126

122Macdonald,Oceania, p. 201.

123Maspero,Dawn of Civilization, p. 682. Delitzsch,Wo lag das Paradies?p. 86.

1241 Samuel, xv. 23. Schultz,Old Testament Theology, ii. 286. For other instances seeRig-Veda, vii. 89. 5; Geiger,Civilization of the Eastern Irānians, i. p. li.; Schmidt,Die Ethik der alten Griechen, ii. 51sq.

125Cf.supra,i. 193sqq.

126Cf.Pollock,Essays on Jurisprudence and Ethics, p. 306sq.

Duties to gods are in the first place based on prudential considerations. Supernatural beings, even when on the whole of a benevolent disposition, are no less resentful than men, and, owing to their superhuman power, much more dangerous. On the other hand, they may also bestow wonderful benefits upon those who please them. The general rule that prudence readily assumes a moral value holds particularly true of religious matters, where great individual interests are at stake. Waterland says in his Sermon on Self-love:—“The wisest course for any man to take is to secure an interest in the life to come…. He may love himself, in this instance, as highly and as tenderly as he pleases. There can be no excess of fondness, or self-indulgence, in respect of eternal happiness. This is loving himself in the best manner, and to the best purposes. All virtue and piety are thus resolvable into a principle of self-love…. It is with reference to ourselves, and for our own sakes, that we love even God himself.”127

127Waterland, ‘On Self-Love,’ inThe English Preacher, i. 101 sq.Cf.Paley’s definition of virtue in hisPrinciples of Moral and Political Philosophy, i. 7 (Complete Works, ii. 38;supra,i. 300).

At the same time it may be not only in people’s own interests, but in the interests of their fellow men as well, for them to be on friendly terms with supernatural beings. These beings often visit the iniquity of fathers or forefathers upon children or descendants, or punish the community for the sins of one of its members;128and, on the other hand, they reward the whole family or group for the virtues of a single individual.129So also, when themembers of a community join in common acts of worship, each worshipper promotes not only his own welfare, but the welfare of his people. In early religion it is of the utmost importance for the tribe or nation that the established cult should be strictly observed. This is a fact which cannot be too much emphasised when we have to explain how conduct which is pleasing to a god has come to be regarded as a moral duty; for, if the latest stages of religious development be excepted, the relations between men and their gods are communal rather than individual in character. Ahura Mazda said, “If men sacrifice unto Verethraghna, made by Ahura, if the due sacrifice and prayer is offered unto him just as it ought to be performed in the perfection of holiness, never will a hostile horde enter the Aryan countries, nor any plague, nor leprosy, nor venomous plants, nor the chariot of a foe, nor the uplifted spear of a foe!”130Thus the duties to gods are at the same time social duties of the first order, owing to the intensely social character of religious relationships.

128Supra,i. 48sqq.

129Supra,i. 96sqq.

130Yasts, xiv. 48.

Another circumstance which has contributed to the moral condemnation of offences against gods is that people are anxious to punish such offences in order to prevent the divine wrath from turning against themselves;131for punishment, as we have seen, easily leads to moral disapproval. But although prudential considerations of some kind or other be the chief cause of the obligatory character attached to men’s conduct towards their gods, they are not the only cause. We must also remember that gods are regarded with genuine reverence by their worshippers; and where this is the case offences against religion naturally excite sympathetic resentment in the latter, whilst great piety calls forth sympathetic approval and is praised as a virtue.

131Supra,i. 194.

I have here spoken of duties which men consider they owe to their gods, not of duties to supernatural beings in general. This distinction, though not always easy tofollow in detail, is yet of vital importance. People may no doubt be afraid to offend and even anxious to please other spirits besides their gods, but religious duties chiefly arise where there are established relationships between men and supernatural beings; indeed, it may even be a duty to refrain from worshipping or actually to persecute other spirits, as is the case in monotheistic religions. Men depend for their welfare on their gods more than on any other members of the spiritual world. They select as their gods those supernatural beings from whom they think they have most to fear or most to hope. Hence it is generally in the relations to them only that those factors, prudential and reverential, are to be found which lead to the establishment of religious duties.

ASmen are concerned about the conduct of their fellow men towards their gods, so gods are in many cases concerned about men’s conduct towards one another—disapproving of vice and punishing the wicked, approving of virtue and rewarding the good. But this is by no means a universal characteristic of gods. It is a quality attributed to certain deities only and, as it seems, in most instances slowly acquired.

We are told by competent observers that the supernatural beings of savage belief frequently display the utmost indifference to all questions of worldly morality. According to Messrs. Spencer and Gillen, the Central Australian natives, though they assume the existence of both friendly and mischievous spirits, “have not the vaguest idea of a personal individual other than an actual living member of the tribe who approves or disapproves of their conduct, so far as anything like what we call morality is concerned.”1The Society Islanders maintained that “the only crimes that were visited by the displeasure of their deities were the neglect of some rite or ceremony.”2The religious belief of the Gonds of Central India is said to be wholly unconnected with any idea of morality; a moral deity demanding righteous conduct from his creatures, our informant adds, is a religiousconception far beyond the present capacity either of the Indian savage or the ordinary Hindu.3Of theEw̔e-,Yoruba-,and Tshi-speaking peoples of the West African Slave and Gold Coasts Major Ellis writes:—“Religion, at the stage of growth in which we find it among these three groups of tribes, has no connection with morals, or the relations of men to one another. It consists solely of ceremonial worship, and the gods are only offended when some rite or ceremony has been neglected or omitted…. Murder, theft, and all offences against the person or against property, are matters in which the gods have no immediate concern, and in which they take no interest, except in the case when, bribed by a valuable offering, they take up the quarrel in the interests of some faithful worshipper.”4So also among the Bambala, a Bantu tribe in the Kasai, south of the River Congo, “there is no belief that the gods or spirits punish wrong-doing by afflicting the criminal or his family, nor are the acts of a man supposed to affect his condition after death.”5The Indians of Guiana, says Sir E. F. Im Thurn, observe an admirable code of morality, which exists side by side with a simple animistic form of religion, but the two have absolutely no connection with one another.6With reference to the Tarahumares of Mexico Dr. Lumholtz states that the only wrong towards the gods of which an Indian may consider himself guilty is that he does not dance enough. “For this offence he asks pardon. Whatever bad thoughts or actions toward man he may have on his conscience are settled between himself and the person offended.”7In the primitive Indian’s conception of a god,” Mr. Parkman observes, “the idea of moral goodhas no part. His deity does not dispense justice for this world or the next.”8

1Spencer and Gillen,Northern Tribes of Central Australia, p. 491.

2Ellis,Polynesian Researches, i. 397.

3Forsyth,Highlands of Central India, p. 145. See also Hodgson,Miscellaneous Essays, i. 124 (Bódo and Dhimáls); Caldwell,Tinnevelly Shanars, p. 36; Lyall,Asiatic Studies, p. 45; Radloff,Das Schamanenthum, p. 13 (Turkish tribes of the Altai).

4Ellis,Yoruba-speaking Peoples of the Slave Coast, p. 293.Idem,Tshi-speaking Peoples of the Gold Coast, p. 10. The Ew̔e god Mawu is represented as an exception to this rule (infra,p. 686).

5Torday and Joyce, ‘Ethnography of the Ba-Mbala,’ inJour. Anthr. Inst.xxxv. 415.

6Im Thurn,Indians of Guiana, p. 342.

7Lumholtz,Unknown Mexico, i. 332.

8Parkman,Jesuits in North America, p. lxxviii. See also Eastman,Dacotah, p. xx.; Schoolcraft,Indian Tribes of the United States, ii. 195 (Dacotahs).

That many savage gods are so thoroughly selfish as to care about nothing else than what concerns their own interests, may also be inferred from the character attributed to them. We have seen that the altruistic sentiment is the chief source from which moral emotions spring, and of the gods of various uncivilised peoples we hear not only that they are totally destitute of benevolent feelings, but that they are of a malicious nature and mostly intent on doing harm to mankind.9

9See Meiners,Geschichte der Religionen, i. 405; Tylor,Primitive Culture, ii. 329; Avebury,Origin of Civilisation, p. 232sqq.; Roskoff,Geschichte des Teufels, i. 20sq.; Frazer,Golden Bough, iii. 40sqq.; Karsten,Origin of Worship, p. 46sqq.

The Maoris of New Zealand regarded their deities as the causes of pain, misery, and death, as mighty enemies from whom nobody ever thought of getting any aid or good, but who were to be rendered harmless by means of charms or spells or by sacrifices offered to appease their wrath.10The Tahitians “supposed their gods were powerful spiritual beings, in some degree acquainted with the events of this world, and generally governing its affairs; never exercising any thing like benevolence towards even their most devoted followers, but requiring homage and obedience, with constant offerings; denouncing their anger, and dispensing destruction on all who either refused or hesitated to comply.”11The Fijians “formed no idea of any voluntary kindness on the part of their gods, except the planting of wild yams, and the wrecking of strange canoes and foreign vessels on their coast”;12and that some of these beings were conceived as positively wicked is indicated by the names given them—“the adulterer,” “the rioter,” “the murderer,” and so forth.13The people of Aneiteum, in the New Hebrides, maintained that “earth and air and ocean were filled with natmasses, spiritual beings, but all malignant, who ruled over everything that affected the human race…. Their deities, like themselves, wereall selfish and malignant; they breathed no spirit of benevolence.”14

10Taylor,Te Ika a Maui, pp. 104, 148. Colenso,Maori Races of New Zealand, p. 62.Cf.Dieffenbach,Travels in New Zealand, ii. 118.

11Ellis,Polynesian Researches, i. 336.

12Williams and Calvert,Fiji, p. 195.

13Ibid.p. 185.

14Inglis,In the New Hebrides, pp. 30, 32.

The Santal of India believes in no god from whose benignity he may expect favour, but in “a multitude of demons and evil spirits, whose spite he endeavours by supplications to avert.” Even his family god “represents the secret principle of evil, which no bolts can shut out, and which dwells in unseen but eternally malignant presence beside every hearth.”15The Kamchadales do not seem to have hoped for anything good from their deities; Kutka himself, the creator of the universe and the greatest of the gods, was once caught in adultery and castrated.16

15Hunter,Annals of Rural Bengal, i. 181sq.

16Klemm,Cultur-Geschichte der Menschheit, ii. 318sq.Steller,Beschreibung von Kamtschatka, p. 264.

According to the beliefs of the Koksoagmyut, or Hudson Bay Eskimo, all the minor spirits are under the control of the great spirit whose name is Tung ak, and this being “is nothing more or less than death, which ever seeks to torment and harass the lives of people that their spirits may go to dwell with him.”17Nay, even the special guardian spirit by which each person is supposed to be attended is malignant in character and ever ready to seize upon the least occasion to work harm upon the individual whom it accompanies; its good offices can be obtained by propitiation only.18Among the Nenenot, or Indians of Hudson Bay, “the rule seems to be that all spirits are by nature bad, and must be propitiated to secure their favour.”19Of various Brazilian tribes we are likewise told that they do not believe in the existence of any benevolent spirits. Thus the Coroado Indian acknowledges only an evil principle, which sometimes meets him in the form of a lizard or a crocodile or an ounce or a man with the feet of a stag, sometimes transforms itself into a swamp, and leads him astray, vexes him, brings him into difficulty and danger, and even kills him.20The Mundrucus of the Cuparí have no notion of a good supreme being, but believe in an evil spirit, regarded merely as a kind of hobgoblin, who is at the bottom of all their little failures and gives them troubles in fishing, hunting, and so forth.21The Uaupés, says Mr. Wallace, “appear to have no definite idea of a God…. They have much more definite ideas of a bad spirit, ‘Juruparí,’ or Devil, whom they fear andendeavour through theirpagés[or medicine men] to propitiate. When it thunders, they say the ‘Juruparí’ is angry, and their idea of natural death is that the ‘Juruparí’ kills them.”22

17Turner, ‘Ethnology of the Ungava District,’ inAnn. Rep. Bur. Ethn.xi. 272.

18Ibid.p. 194.

19Ibid.p. 193sq.

20von Spix and von Martius,Travels in Brazil, ii. 243.

21Bates,The Naturalist on the River Amazons, ii. 137.

22Wallace,Travels on the Amazon, p. 500.

In Eastern Africa, according to Burton, “the sentiment generally elicited by a discourse upon the subject of the existence of a Deity is a desire to see him, in order to revenge upon him the deaths of relatives, friends, and cattle.”23The only quality of a moral character which the Wanika are said to ascribe to the supreme being, Mulungu, is that of vindictiveness and cruelty.24To the Matabele the idea of a benevolent deity is utterly foreign, but they have a vague notion of a number of evil spirits always ready to do harm, and the chief among these are the spirits of their ancestors.25All the good the Bechuanas enjoy they ascribe to rainmakers, but “all the evil that comes they attribute to a supernatural being”;26of their principal god, Morimo, Mr. Moffat never once, in the course of twenty-five years spent in missionary labour, heard that he did good or was capable of doing so.27Among various other African peoples, travellers assure us, supernatural beings are supposed to exercise a potent influence for evil rather than for good, or beneficent spirits are, at any rate, almost unknown.28On the Gold Coast, according to Major Ellis, the majority of spirits are malignant, and every misfortune is ascribed to their action. “I believe,” he adds, “that originally all were conceived as malignant, and that the indifference, or the beneficence (when propitiated by sacrifice and flattery), which are now believed to be characteristics of some of these beings, are later modifications of the original idea.”29

23Burton,Lake Regions of Central Africa, ii. 348.

24New,Life, Wanderings, and Labours in Eastern Africa, p. 103sq.

25Decle,Three Years in Savage Africa, p. 153.

26Campbell,Second Journey in the Interior of South Africa, ii. 204.

27Moffat,Missionary Labours in Southern Africa(ed. 1842), p. 262.

28Rowley,Religion of the Africans, p. 55. Kingsley,Travels in West Africa, p. 443. Mockler-Ferryman,British Nigeria, p. 255sq.

29Ellis,Tshi-speaking Peoples, pp. 12, 18, 20.Cf.Cruickshank,Eighteen Years on the Gold Coast, ii. 134.

Of many savages it is reported that they have notions of good, as well as of evil spirits, but that they chiefly or exclusively worship the evil ones, since the others are supposed to be so good that they require no offerings or homage.30But adoration of supernatural beings which areconsidered at least occasionally beneficent is also very prevalent among uncivilised peoples.31The gods of the pagan Lapps were all good, although they took revenge upon those who offended them.32Among the Navaho Indians of New Mexico “the gods who are supposed to love and help men the most receive the greatest honour”; whereas the evil spirits are not worshipped except, rumour says, by the witches.33The belief in guardian or tutelary spirits of tribes, clans, villages, families, or individuals, is extremely widespread.34These spirits may be exacting enough—they are often greatly feared by their own worshippers, and sometimes described as distinctly malignantby nature;35but their general function is nevertheless to afford assistance to the person or persons with whom they are associated. At the same time it should be noticed that the goodness of many savage gods only consists in their readiness to help those who please them by offerings or adoration; and in no case does their benevolence prove that they take an active interest in morality at large. A friendly supernatural being is not necessarily a guardian of men’s behaviour towards their fellow men. In Morocco the patron saint of a town, village, or tribe is not in the least concerned about any kind of conduct which has not immediate reference to himself.36It is believed that even the robber may, by invoking a dead saint, secure his assistance in an unlawful enterprise.

Back to Index Next