Chapter 133

18Ibid.ii. 368.

19Ibid.ii. 435.

20Felkin, ‘Madi or Moru Tribe of Central Africa,’ inProceed. Roy. Soc. Edinburgh, xii. 336sq.

21Supra,ii. 210sq.Spencer and Gillen,Native Tribes of Central Australia, ch. vi.Iidem,Northern Tribes of Central Australia, ch. ix.sq.

Frazer has also called attention to various instances in which a man-god or divine king is put to death by his worshippers, and has suggested the following explanation of this custom:—Primitive people sometimes believe that their own safety and even that of the world is bound up with the life of one of these god-men or human incarnations of the divinity. They therefore take the utmost care of his life, out of a regard for their own. But no amount of care and precaution will prevent the divine king from growing old and feeble and at last dying. And in order to avert the catastrophes which may be expected from the enfeeblement of his powers and their final extinction in death, they kill him as soon as he shows symptoms of weakness, and his soul is transferred to a vigorous successor before it has been seriously impaired by the threatened decay. But some peoples appear to have thought it unsafe to wait for even the slightest symptom of decay and have preferred to kill the divine king while he is still in the full vigour of life. Accordingly, they have fixed a term beyond which hemay not reign, and at the close of which he must die, the term fixed upon being short enough to exclude the probability of his degenerating physically in the interval. Thus it appears that in some places the people could not trust the king to remain in full bodily and mental vigour for more than a year; whilst in Ngoio, a province of the ancient kingdom of Congo, the rule obtains that the chief who assumes the cap of sovereignty one day shall be put to death on the next.22

22Frazer,Golden Bough, ii. 5sqq.

Every reader ofThe Golden Boughmust admire the ingenuity, skill, and learning with which its author has worked out his theory, even though he may fail to find the argument in every point convincing. It is obvious that the supernatural power of divine kings is frequently supposed to be influenced by the condition of their bodies. In some cases it is also obvious that they are killed on account of some illness, corporal defect, or symptom of old age, and that the ultimate reason for this lies in the supposed connection between physical deterioration and waning divinity. But, as Frazer himself observes, in the chain of his evidence a link is wanting: he can produce no direct proof of the idea that the soul of the slain man-god is transmitted to his royal successor.23In the absence of such evidence I venture to suggest a some what different explanation, which seems to me more in accordance with known facts—to wit, that the new king is supposed to inherit, not the predecessor’s soul, but his divinity or holiness, which is looked upon in the light of a mysterious entity, temporarily seated in the ruling sovereign, but separable from him and transferable to another individual.

23Ibid.ii. 56.

This modification of Frazer’s theory is suggested by certain beliefs prevalent among the Moors. The Sultan of Morocco, who is regarded by the people as “the vicegerent of God,” appoints before his death some member of his family—by preference one of his sons—as his successor, and this implies that hisbaraka, or holiness, willbe transferred to the new sovereign. But his holiness may also be appropriated by a pretender during his lifetime, which proves that it is regarded as something quite distinct from his soul. Thus the people told me that the pretender Buḥamâra had come into possession of the Sultan’sbaraka, and that he would subsequently hand it over to one of the Sultan’s brothers, who was then denied his liberty. Like the sultans of Morocco, the divine Kafir kings of Sofala, who were put to death if afflicted with some disease, nominated their successors.24In ancient Bengal, again, whoever killed the king and succeeded in placing himself on the royal throne, was immediately acknowledged as king; the people said, “We are faithful to the throne, whoever fills the throne we are obedient and true to it.”25In the kingdom of Passier, on the northern coast of Sumatra, whose sacred monarch was not allowed by his subjects to live long, “the man who struck the fatal blow was of the royal lineage, and as soon as he had done the deed of blood and seated himself on the throne he was regarded as the legitimate king, provided that he contrived to maintain his seat peaceably for a single day.”26In these cases, it seems, the sanctity was considered to be inherent in the throne and to be partly communicated to persons who came into close contact with it.27

24Frazer,Golden Bough, ii. 10.

25Ibid.ii. 16.

26Ibid.ii. 16.

27Since the above was written, Sir J. G. Frazer himself has kindly drawn my attention to some statements in hisLectures on the Early History of the Kingship(p. 121sqq.) from which it appears that in some parts of the Malay region the regalia are regarded as wonder-working talismans or fetishes, the possession of which carries with it the right to the throne. Among the Yorubas of West Africa, a miraculous virtue seems to be attributed to the royal crown, and the king sometimes sacrifices sheep to it (ibid.p. 124, n. 1). Seeinfra,Additional Notes.

Now, as we have noticed before, holiness is generally held to be exceedingly susceptible to any polluting influence,28and this would naturally suggest the idea that, in order to remain unimpaired, it has to be removed from a body which is defiled by disease or blemish. Such an idea may be supposed to underlie those cases in whicheven the slightest bodily defect is a sufficient motive for putting the divine king to death. It is of the greatest importance for the community that the holiness on which its welfare depends should not be attached to an individual whose organism is no longer a fit receptacle for it, and who is consequently unable to fulfil the duties incumbent upon a divine monarch; and it may be thought that the only way of removing the holiness from him is to kill him. The same explanation would seem to apply to the killing of kings or magicians who have actually proved incapable of bringing about the benefits expected from them, such as rain or good crops,29although in these instances the murderous act may also be a precaution against the revenge they might otherwise take for being deposed, or it may be a punishment for their failure,30or have the character of a sacrifice to a god.31Moreover, the disease, weakness, or physical deterioration of the king might cause his death; and, owing to the extremely polluting effect ascribed to natural death, this would be the greatest catastrophe which could happen to the holiness seated in him. The people of Congo believed that if their pontiff, the Chitomé, were to die a natural death, the world would perish, and the earth, which he alone sustained by his power and merit, would immediately be annihilated; hence, when he fell ill and seemed likely to die, the man who was destined to be his successor entered the pontiff’s house with a rope or a club and strangled or clubbed him to death.32Similar motives may also have induced people to kill their divine king after a certain period, as everybody is sooner or later liable to fall ill or grow weak and die. But I can also imagine another possible reason for this custom. Supernaturalenergy is sometimes considered so sensitive to external influences that it appears to wear away almost by itself in the course of time. I have heard from Arabs in Morocco that a pretender’s holiness usually lasts only for half a year. And it may be that some of the divine kings mentioned by Frazer were exposed to a similar fatality and therefore had to be slain in time.

28See especiallysupra,ii. 294-296,352,353,415sqq.

29Frazer,Golden Bough, i. 158sq.Landtman,Origin of Priesthood, p. 144sqq.

30Landtman,op. cit.p. 144. Divine animals are sometimes treated in a similar way. In ancient Egypt, if the sacred beasts could not, or would not, help in emergency, they were beaten; and if this measure failed to prove efficacious, then the creatures were punished with death (Wiedemann,Religion of the Ancient Egyptians, p. 178;Idem,Herodots zweites Buch, p. 428sq.).

31Suprai. 443.

32Frazer,Golden Bough, ii. 8.

As the right to life, generally granted to gods, is thus in certain circumstances abrogated for the benefit of their worshippers, so their right to bodily integrity may be suspended if their behaviour does not answer the expectations of their devotees. Men punish their gods as they punish their fellow men. Among the Amazulu, when it thunders or, as they say, “the heaven is coming badly,” the doctors go out and scold it; “they take a stick and say they are going to beat the lightning of heaven.”33The negro cudgels his fetish unmercifully to make it submissive.34The Samoyede flogs his idol or throws it away if he does not succeed in his doings.35The idols of the Typees, in the Marquesas Islands, “received more hard knocks than supplications.”36When his guardian spirit proves stubborn, the Hudson Bay Eskimo deprives it of food, or strips it of its garments.37

33Callaway,Religious System of the Amazulu, p. 404.

34Bastian,Afrikanische Reisen, p. 61.

35von Struve, inAusland, 1880 p. 795.

36Melville,Typee, p. 261.

37Turner, ‘Ethnology of the Ungava District,’ inAnn. Rep. Bur. Ethn.xi. 194.

In normal circumstances men regard it as a duty, not only to refrain from killing or injuring their gods, but positively to promote their existence and comfort. According to early beliefs, supernatural beings are subject to human needs. The gods of the heathen Siberians laboured for their subsistence, engaged in hunting and fishing, and laid up provisions of roots against times of dearth.38When the heavens appear checkered with white clouds on a blue surface, the Maoris of New Zealand say that the god is planting his potatoes andother divine edibles.39The Fijian gods are described as enormous eaters.40The Vedic gods wore clothes, were great drunkards, and suffered from constant hunger;41I need only refer to the numerous passages in the Rig-Veda where mention is made of the appetite or thirst of Indra and the pleasure he has in filling his belly.42An Egyptian god cannot be conceived without his house in which he lives, in which his festivals are solemnised, and which he never leaves except on professional days. His dwelling has to be cleaned, and he is assisted at his toilet by his attendants; the priest has to dress and serve his god, and places every day on his table offerings of food and drink.43So also the Chaldean gods had to be nourished, clothed, and amused; and the stone or wooden statues erected to them in the sanctuaries furnished them with bodies which they animated with their breath.44

38Georgi,Russia, iii. 259.

39Polack,Manners and Customs of the New Zealanders, i. 244.

40Williams and Calvert,Fiji, pp. 184, 195.

41Oldenberg,Religion des Veda, pp. 304, 366sqq.Barth,Religions of India, p. 36, n. 2.

42Rig-Veda, ii. 11. 11; viii. 4. 10; viii. 17. 4; viii. 78. 7; x. 86. 13sqq.

43Erman,op. cit.pp. 273, 275, 279. Maspero,op. cit.p. 110.

44Ball, ‘Glimpses of Babylonian Religion,’ inProceed. Soc. Biblical Archæology, xiv. 153sqq.Maspero,op. cit.p. 679.

The idea that supernatural beings have human appetites and human wants leads to the practice of sacrifice. Whatever means they may have of earning their livelihood, they are certainly not indifferent to gifts offered by men. If such offerings fail them they may even suffer want and become feeble and powerless. The Egyptian gods, says M. Maspero, “were dependent upon the gifts of mortals, and the resources of each individual deity, and consequently his power, depended on the wealth and number of his worshippers.”45We meet with the same idea at every step in the Vedic hymns.46Should sacrifices cease for an instant to be offered, the gods would cease to send rain,to bring back at the appointed hour Aurora and the sun, to raise and ripen harvests—not only because they would be unwilling, but because they would be unable to do so.47It was by sacrifice that the gods delivered the world from chaos, and it is by sacrifice that man prevents it from lapsing back into the same state;48in the ‘Laws of Manu’ it is said that sacrifices support “both the movable and the immovable creation.”49The Zoroastrian books likewise represent the sacrifice as an act of assistance to the gods, by which they become victorious in their combats with the demons.50When not strengthened by offerings they fly helpless before their foes. Overcome by the demon Apaosha, the bright and glorious Tistrya cries out in distress:—“Woe is me, O Ahura Mazda!… Men do not worship me with a sacrifice in which I am invoked by my own name…. If men had worshipped me with a sacrifice in which I had been invoked by my own name, as they worship the other Yazatas with sacrifices in which they are invoked by their own names, I should have taken to me the strength of ten horses, the strength of ten camels, the strength of ten bulls, the strength of ten mountains, the strength of ten rivers.”51

45Maspero,op. cit.p. 302.Cf.Wiedemann,Ancient Egyptian Doctrine of the Immortality of the Soul, p. 19.

46Rig-Veda, ii. 15. 2; x. 52. 5sq.; x. 121. 7.Cf.Atharva-Veda, xi. 7. 14sq.; Hopkins,Religions of India, p. 149; Kaegi,Rigveda, p. 31; Darmesteter,Ormazd et Ahriman, p. 329.

47Barth,op. cit.p. 36.

48Rig-Veda, x. 130. Barth,op. cit.p. 37.

49Laws of Manu, iii. 75sqq.

50See Darmesteter,Ormazd et Ahriman, p. 327;Idem, inSacred Books of the East(1st edit.), iv. p. lxviii.

51Yasts, viii. 23sq.

Men are induced by various motives to offer sacrificial gifts to supernatural beings. In early religion the most common motive is undoubtedly a desire to avert evils; and we have reason to believe that such a desire was the first source of religious worship. In spite of recent assertions to the contrary, the old saying holds true that religion was born of fear. Those who maintain that the savage is little susceptible to this emotion,52and that he for the most part takes his gods joyously,53show ignoranceof facts. One of his characteristics is great nervous susceptibility,54and he lives in constant apprehension of danger from supernatural powers. We are told of the Samoyedes that a sudden blow on the outside of a tent will sometimes throw the occupants into spasms. “The Indian,” says Parkman, “lived in perpetual fear. The turning of a leaf, the crawling of an insect, the cry of a bird, the creaking of a bough, might be to him the mystic signal of weal or woe.”55From all quarters of the uncivilised world we hear that terror or fear is the predominant element in the religious sentiment, that savages are more inclined to ascribe evil than good to the influence of supernatural agents, that their sacrifices and other acts of worship more frequently have in view to avert misfortunes than to procure positive benefits, or that, even though benevolent deities are believed in, much more attention is paid to malignant ones.56And even among peoples who have passed beyond the stage ofsavagery fear still remains a prominent factor in their religion. The great bulk of Homeric cult-operations lay in propitiatory rites in avoidance of evil.57“No one,” says Sir Monier-Williams, “who has ever been brought into close contact with the Hindūs in their own country can doubt the fact that the worship of at least ninety per cent. of the people of India in the present day is a worship of fear.”58In one of the Pahlavi texts we read that “he is not to be considered as faithful who has no fear of the sacred beings.”59The Egyptian Amon Râ, who is praised as “the beautiful and beloved god, who giveth life by all manner of warmth, by all manner of fair cattle,” is at the same time styled “Lord of fear, great one of terror.”60The Psalmist says that “the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom,”61and, as Nöldeke points out, “the fear of God” was used in its literal sense.62Although the Koran has much to tell about the loving kindness of God, the god of Islam evokes much more fear than love. Faith is said by Muhammedan theologians to “stand midway between hope and fear.”63

52Gruppe,Die griechischen Culte und Mythen, p. 244sq.

53Grant Allen,Evolution of the Idea of God, p. 347.

54See Brinton,Religions of Primitive Peoples, p. 14.

55Parkman,Jesuits in North America, p. lxxxiv.

56Dorman,Origin of Primitive Superstitions, p. 391 (American Indians generally). Müller,Geschichte der Amerikanischen Urreligionen, pp. 84, 171, 214, 260. von Spix and von Martius,Travels in Brazil, ii. 243 (Coroados). Brett,Indian Tribes of Guiana, p. 361sq.; Im Thurn,Among the Indians of Guiana, p. 367sq.Dunbar, ‘Pawnee Indians,’ inMagazine of American History, viii. 736. McGee, ‘Siouan Indians,’ inAnn. Rep. Bur. Ethn.xv. 184. Murdoch, ‘Ethn. Results of the Point Barrow Expedition,’ibid.ix. 432 (Point Barrow Eskimo). Ross, ‘Eastern Tinneh,’ inSmithsonian Report, 1866, p. 306. Radloff,Schamanenthum, p. 15 (Turkish tribes of the Altai). Fawcett,Saoras, p. 57. Campbell,Wild Tribes of Khondistan, p. 163sq.Hunter,Annals of Rural Bengal, i. 181sq.(Santals). Mouhot,Travels in the Central Parts of Indo-China, ii. 29 (Bannavs of Cambodia). Man, ‘Aboriginal Inhabitants of the Andaman Islands,’ inJour. Anthr. Inst.xii. 157. Wilken,Het animisme bij de volken van den Indischen Archipel, p. 207sq.St. John,Life in the Forests of the Far East, i. 69, 70, 178; Low,Sarawak, p. 253; Selenka,Sonnige Welten, p. in (Dyaks). von Brenner,Besuch bei den Kannibalen Sumatras, p. 216. Kubary, ‘Die Palau-Inseln,’ inJour. des Museum Godeffroy, iv. 44 (Pelew Islanders). Williams and Calvert,Fiji, p. 189. Percy Smith, ‘Uea,’ inJour. Polynesian Soc.i. 114. Turner,Samoa, p. 21. Ellis,Polynesian Researches, i. 336 (Tahitians). Taylor,Te Ika a Maui, pp. 104, 148; Yate,Account of New Zealand, p. 141; Polack,op. cit.i. 244 (Maoris). Fritsch,Die Eingeborenen Süd-Afrika’s, pp. 338, 339, 341 (Hottentots). Decle,Three Years in Savage Africa, p. 153 (Matabele). Livingstone,Missionary Travels, p. 435 (peoples inhabiting the country north of the Zambesi). Monrad,Skildring af Guinea-Kysten, p. 2 (Negroes of Accra). See also Karsten,Origin of Worship, p. 44sqq.;infra,p. 665sqq.

57Cf.Keller,Homeric Society, p. 115sq.

58Monier-Williams,Brāhmanism and Hindūism, p. 230.

59Dînâ-î Maînôg-î Khirad, xxxix. 33.

60Wiedemann,Religion of the Ancient Egyptians, p. 111sq.

61Psalms, cxi. 10.

62Nöldeke, inArchiv für Religionswissenschaft, i. 362.

63Sell,Faith of Islám, p. 165.

Hope, indeed, forms an element in every religion, even the lowest. The assumed authors of painful or alarming events became objects of worship because they were conceived, not as mechanical causes, but as personal agencies which might be influenced by the regardful attitude of the worshipper. The savage is not so irrational as to make offerings to beings from whom he expects no benefits in return. And in proportion as the deities grew more benignant and their sphere of action was extended, their worshippers became more confident, expecting from them not only mercy but positive assistance.

We may suppose that already at an early stage ofculture man, occasionally, was struck by some unexpected fortunate event and ascribed it to the influence of a friendly spirit with which he was anxious to keep on amicable terms. Among the Tshi-speaking peoples of the Gold Coast worship is the result not only of fear, but also of the hope of obtaining some direct advantage or protection.64The pagans of Siberia accompanied their sacrifices with words like these:—“Behold what I bring you to eat; bring me then in return children, cattle, and a long life.”65The Point Barrow Eskimo, when he arrives at a river, throws into the air a small piece of tobacco, crying out, “Spirits, spirits, I give you tobacco, give me plenty of fish!”66Of the Sia Indians (Pueblos) Mrs. Stevenson writes that their religion is not mainly one of propitiation, but rather of supplication for favours and payment for the same—they “do the will of and thereby please the beings to whom they pray.”67We even hear of savages making thank-offerings to their gods. In Fiji, after successful fishing for turtle, or remarkable deliverance from danger in war or at sea, or recovery from sickness, a kind of thank-offering was sometimes presented to the deities.68When certain natives of Eastern Central Africa, after they have prayed for a successful hunting expedition, return home laden with venison or ivory, they know that they are indebted to “their old relative” for their good fortune, and give him a thank-offering.69We are told that in Northern Guinea, when a person has been repeatedly fortunate through the agency of a fetish, “he contracts a feeling of attachment and gratitude to it.”70Yet we have reason to suspect that the gratitude of the sacrificer is commonlyof the kind which La Rochefoucauld defined as “a secret desire to receive greater benefits in the future.”71Sometimes the thank-offering, if it may be called so, is expressly preceded by a vow. Among the Kansas the warrior, when going to war says, facing the East, “I wish to pass along the road to the foe! O Wakanda! I promise you a blanket if I succeed”; and turning to the West, “O Wakanda! I promise you a feast if I succeed.”72Even in religions of a higher type the offering of sacrificial gifts is mainly a sort of bargain with the god to whom they are offered. In the Vedic hymns the gods are addressed by phrases like these, “If you give me this, I shall give you that,” or, “As you have given me this, I shall give you that.”73The singer naïvely confesses, “I looked forth in spirit, seeking good, O Indra and Agni, to relations and kinsmen; but I have no other helper than you; therefore I have made you a powerful song.”74The Greeks expressed the idea connected with their sacrifices in the proverbial saying, δῶρα θεοὺς πείθει.75The ancient Hebrew view on the subject is illustrated by the vow of Jacob:—“If God will be with me, and will keep me in this way that I go, and will give me bread to eat, and raiment to put on, so that I come again to my father’s house in peace; then shall the Lord be my God: And this stone, which I have set for a pillar, shall be God’s house: and of all that thou shalt give me I will surely give the tenth unto thee.”76

64Ellis,Tshi-speaking Peoples of the Gold Coast, p. 17.Cf.Idem,Yoruba-speaking Peoples of the Slave Coast, p. 277.

65Georgi,Russia, iii. 284.

66Murdoch, inAnn. Rep. Bur. Ethn.ix. 433.

67Stevenson, ‘Sia,’ inAnn. Rep. Bur. Ethn.xi. 67.

68Williams and Calvert,op. cit.p. 195.

69Macdonald,Africana, i. 61. For other instances of thank-offerings see Shooter,Kafirs of Natal, p. 165; Smith, ‘Myths of the Iroquois,’ inAnn. Rep. Bur. Ethn.ii. 51. Jochelson, ‘Koryak Religion and Myth,’ inJesup North Pacific Expedition, vi. 25, 92. Leem,Beskrivelse over Finmarkens Lapper, p. 431 (Lapps).

70Wilson,Western Africa, p. 212.

71La Rochefoucauld,Maximes, 298.

72Dorsey, ‘Mourning and War Customs of the Kansas,’ inAmerican Naturalist, xix. 678.

73Müller,Physical Religion, p. 100. Oldenberg,Religion des Veda, pp. 302-326, 430sqq.

74Rig-Veda, i. 109. 1.Cf.ibid.i. 71. 7.

75Plato,Respublica, iii. 390.

Back to Index Next