{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_12353/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_12353","id":"gutenberg_12353","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/12353","summary":null,"tags":["Category: Archaeology & Anthropology","Category: History - Religious","Category: Psychiatry/Psychology","Category: Religion/Spirituality","Religion","Religion -- History","Spiritualism"],"text":"THE MAKING OF RELIGION\n\nBY\nANDREW LANG\n\nM.A., LL.D. ST ANDREWS\n\nHONORARY FELLOW OF MERTON COLLEGE OXFORD\nSOMETIME GIFFORD LECTURER IN THE UNIVERSITY OF ST ANDREWS\n\nSECOND EDITION\n1900\n\n\n\n\n_TO THE PRINCIPAL\nOF THE\nUNIVERSITY OF ST. ANDREWS\n\n\nDEAR PRINCIPAL DONALDSON,\n\nI hope you will permit me to lay at the feet of the University of St.\nAndrews, in acknowledgment of her life-long kindnesses to her old pupil,\nthese chapters on the early History of Religion. They may be taken as\nrepresenting the Gifford Lectures delivered by me, though in fact they\ncontain very little that was spoken from Lord Gifford's chair. I wish they\nwere more worthy of an Alma Mater which fostered in the past the leaders\nof forlorn hopes that were destined to triumph; and the friends of lost\ncauses who fought bravely against Fate--Patrick Hamilton, Cargill, and\nArgyll, Beaton and Montrose, and Dundee.\n\nBelieve me\n\nVery sincerely yours,\n\nANDREW LANG_.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nPREFACE TO THE NEW EDITION\n\nBy the nature of things this book falls under two divisions. The first\neight chapters criticise the current anthropological theory of the origins\nof the belief in _spirits._ Chapters ix.-xvii., again, criticise the\ncurrent anthropological theory as to how, the notion of _spirit_ once\nattained, man arrived at the idea of a Supreme Being. These two branches\nof the topic are treated in most modern works concerned with the Origins\nof Religion, such as Mr. Tyler's \"Primitive Culture,\" Mr. Herbert\nSpencer's \"Principles of Sociology,\" Mr. Jevons's \"Introduction to the\nHistory of Religion,\" the late Mr. Grant Allen's \"Evolution of the Idea of\nGod,\" and many others. Yet I have been censured for combining, in this\nwork, the two branches of my subject; and the second part has been\nregarded as but faintly connected with the first.\n\nThe reason for this criticism seems to be, that while one small set of\nstudents is interested in, and familiar with the themes examined in the\nfirst part (namely the psychological characteristics of certain mental\nstates from which, in part, the doctrine of spirits is said to have\narisen), that set of students neither knows nor cares anything about the\nmatter handled in the second part. This group of students is busied with\n\"Psychical Research,\" and the obscure human faculties implied in alleged\ncases of hallucination, telepathy, \"double personality,\" human automatism,\nclairvoyance, and so on. Meanwhile anthropological readers are equally\nindifferent as to that branch of psychology which examines the conditions\nof hysteria, hypnotic trance, \"double personality,\" and the like.\nAnthropologists have not hitherto applied to the savage mental conditions,\nout of which, in part, the doctrine of \"spirits\" arose, the recent\nresearches of French, German, and English psychologists of the new school.\nAs to whether these researches into abnormal psychological conditions do,\nor do not, indicate the existence of a transcendental region of human\nfaculty, anthropologists appear to be unconcerned. The only English\nexception known to me is Mr. Tylor, and his great work, \"Primitive\nCulture,\" was written thirty years ago, before the modern psychological\nstudies of Professor William James, Dr. Romaine Newbold, M. Richet, Dr.\nJanet, Professor Sidgwick, Mr. Myers, Mr. Gurney, Dr. Parish, and many\nothers had commenced.\n\nAnthropologists have gone on discussing the trances, and visions, and\nso-called \"demoniacal possession\" of savages, as if no new researches into\nsimilar facts in the psychology of civilised mankind existed; or, if they\nexisted, threw any glimmer of light on the abnormal psychology of savages.\nI have, on the other hand, thought it desirable to sketch out a study of\nsavage psychology in the light of recent psychological research. Thanks to\nthis daring novelty, the book has been virtually taken as two books;\nanthropologists have criticised the second part, and one or two Psychical\nResearchers have criticised the first part; each school leaving one part\nseverely alone. Such are the natural results of a too restricted\nspecialism.\n\nEven to Psychical Researchers the earlier division is of scant interest,\nbecause witnesses to _successful_ abnormal or supernormal faculty in\nsavages cannot be brought into court and cross-examined. But I do not give\nanecdotes of such savage successes as evidence to _facts;_ they are only\nillustrations, and evidence to _beliefs and methods_ (as of crystal gazing\nand automatic utterances of \"secondary personality\"), which, among the\nsavages, correspond to the supposed facts examined by Psychical Research\namong the civilised. I only point out, as Bastian had already pointed out,\nthe existence of a field that deserves closer study by anthropologists\nwho can observe savages in their homes. We need persons trained in\nthe psychological laboratories of Europe and America, as members of\nanthropological expeditions. It may be noted that, in his \"Letters from\nthe South Seas,\" Mr. Louis Stevenson makes some curious observations,\nespecially on a singular form of hypnotism applied to himself with\nfortunate results. The method, used in native medicine, was novel; and\nthe results were entirely inexplicable to Mr. Stevenson, who had not been\namenable to European hypnotic practice. But he was not a trained expert.\n\nAnthropology must remain incomplete while it neglects this field, whether\namong wild or civilised men. In the course of time this will come to be\nacknowledged. It will be seen that we cannot really account for the origin\nof the belief in spirits while we neglect the scientific study of those\npsychical conditions, as of hallucination and the hypnotic trance, in\nwhich that belief must probably have had some, at least, of its origins.\n\nAs to the second part of the book, I have argued that the first dim\nsurmises as to a Supreme Being need not have arisen (as on the current\nanthropological theory) in the notion of spirits at all. (See chapter xi.)\nHere I have been said to draw a mere \"verbal distinction\" but no\ndistinction can be more essential. If such a Supreme Being as many savages\nacknowledge is _not_ envisaged by them as a \"spirit,\" then the theories\nand processes by which he is derived from a ghost of a dead man are\ninvalid, and remote from the point. As to the origin of a belief in a\nkind of germinal Supreme Being (say the Australian Baiame), I do not, in\nthis book, offer any opinion. I again and again decline to offer an\nopinion. Critics, none the less, have said that I attribute the belief to\nrevelation! I shall therefore here indicate what I think probable in so\nobscure a field.\n\nAs soon as man had the idea of \"making\" things, he might conjecture as to\na Maker of things which he himself had not made, and could not make. He\nwould regard this unknown Maker as a \"magnified non-natural man.\" These\nspeculations appear to me to need less reflection than the long and\ncomplicated processes of thought by which Mr. Tylor believes, and probably\nbelieves with justice, the theory of \"spirits\" to have been evolved. (See\nchapter iii.) This conception of a magnified non-natural man, who is a\nMaker, being given; his Power would be recognised, and fancy would clothe\none who had made such useful things with certain other moral attributes,\nas of Fatherhood, goodness, and regard for the ethics of his children;\nthese ethics having been developed naturally in the evolution of social\nlife. In all this there is nothing \"mystical,\" nor anything, as far as I\ncan see, beyond the limited mental powers of any beings that deserve to be\ncalled human.\n\nBut I hasten to add that another theory may be entertained. Since this\nbook was written there appeared \"The Native Tribes of Central Australia,\"\nby Professor Spencer and Mr. Gillen, a most valuable study.[1] The\nauthors, closely scrutinising the esoteric rites of the Arunta and other\ntribes in Central Australia, found none of the moral precepts and\nattributes which (according to Mr. Howitt, to whom their work is\ndedicated), prevail in the mysteries of the natives of New South Wales and\nVictoria. (See chapter x.) What they found was a belief in 'the great\nspirit, _Twanyirika_,' who is believed 'by uninitiated boys and women'\n(but, apparently, not by adults) to preside over the cruel rites of tribal\ninitiation.[2] No more is said, no myths about 'the great spirit' are\ngiven. He is dismissed in a brief note. Now if these ten lines contain\n_all_ the native lore of Twanyirika, he is a mere bugbear, not believed in\n(apparently) by adults, but invented by them to terrorise the women and\nboys. Next, granting that the information of Messrs. Spencer and Gillen is\nexhaustive, and granting that (as Mr. J.G. Frazer holds, in his essays in\nthe 'Fortnightly Review,' April and May, 1899) the Arunta are the most\nprimitive of mortals, it will seem to follow that the _moral_ attributes\nof Baiame and other gods of other Australian regions are later accretions\nround the form of an original and confessed bugbear, as among the\nprimitive Arunta, 'a bogle of the nursery,' in the phrase repudiated by\nMaitland of Lethington. Though not otherwise conspicuously more civilised\nthan the Arunta (except, perhaps, in marriage relations), Mr. Howitt's\nSouth Eastern natives will have improved the Arunta confessed 'bogle'\ninto a beneficent and moral Father and Maker. Religion will have its\norigin in a tribal joke, and will have become not '_diablement_,' but\n'_divinement_,' '_chang\u00e9e en route_.' Readers of Messrs. Spencer and\nGillen will see that the Arunta philosophy, primitive or not, is of a high\ningenuity, and so artfully composed that it contains no room either for a\nSupreme Being or for the doctrine of the survival of the soul, with a\nfuture of rewards and punishments; opinions declared to be extant among\nother Australian tribes. There is no creator, and every soul, after death,\nis reincarnated in a new member of the tribe. On the other hand (granting\nthat the brief note on Twanyirika is exhaustive), the Arunta, in their\nisolation, may have degenerated in religion, and may have dropped, in the\ncase of Twanyirika, the moral attributes of Baiame. It may be noticed\nthat, in South Eastern Australia, the Being who presides, like Twanyirika,\nover initiations is _not_ the supreme being, but a son or deputy of his,\nsuch as the Kurnai Tundun. We do not know whether the Arunta have, or have\nhad and lost, or never possessed, a being superior to Twanyirika.\n\nWith regard, to all such moral, and, in certain versions, creative Beings\nas Baiame, criticism has taken various lines. There is the high a priori\nline that savage minds are incapable of originating the notion of a moral\nMaker. I have already said that the notion, in an early form, seems to be\nwell within the range of any minds deserving to be called human. Next, the\nfacts are disputed. I can only refer readers to the authorities cited.\nThey speak for tribes in many quarters of the world, and the witnesses\nare laymen as well as missionaries. I am accused, again, of using a\nmisleading rhetoric, and of thereby covertly introducing Christian or\nphilosophical ideas into my account of \"savages guiltless of Christian\nteaching.\" As to the latter point, I am also accused of mistaking for\nnative opinions the results of \"Christian teaching.\" One or other charge\nmust fall to the ground. As to my rhetoric, in the use of such words as\n'Creator,' 'Eternal,' and the like, I shall later qualify and explain it.\nFor a long discussion between myself and Mr. Sidney Hartland, involving\nminute detail, I may refer the reader to _Folk-Lore_, the last number of\n1898 and the first of 1899, and to the Introduction to the new edition of\nmy 'Myth, Ritual, and Religion' (1899).\n\nWhere relatively high moral attributes are assigned to a Being, I have\ncalled the result 'Religion;' where the same Being acts like Zeus in\nGreek fable, plays silly or obscene tricks, is lustful and false, I have\nspoken of 'Myth.'[3] These distinctions of Myth and Religion may be, and\nindeed are, called arbitrary. The whole complex set of statements about\nthe Being, good or bad, sublime or silly, are equally Myths, it may be\nurged. Very well; but one set, the loftier set, is fitter to survive, and\ndoes survive, in what we still commonly call Religion; while the other\nset, the puerile set of statements, is fairly near to extinction, and is\nusually called Mythology. One set has been the root of a goodly tree: the\nother set is being lopped off, like the parasitic mistletoe.\n\nI am arguing that the two classes of ideas arise from two separate human\nmoods; moods as different and distinct as lust and love. I am arguing\nthat, as far as our information goes, the nobler set of ideas is as\nancient as the lower. Personally (though we cannot have direct evidence)\nI find it easy to believe that the loftier notions are the earlier. If man\nbegan with the conception of a powerful and beneficent Maker or Father,\nthen I can see how the humorous savage fancy ran away with the idea of\nPower, and attributed to a potent being just such tricks as a waggish and\nlibidinous savage would like to play if he could. Moreover, I have\nactually traced (in 'Myth, Ritual, and Religion') some plausible processes\nof mythical accretion. The early mind was not only religious, in its way,\nbut scientific, in its way. It embraced the idea of Evolution as well as\nthe idea of Creation. To one mood a Maker seemed to exist. But the\ninstitution of Totemism (whatever its origin) suggested the idea of\nEvolution; for men, it was held, developed out of their Totems-animals and\nplants. But then, on the other hand, Zeus, or Baiame, or Mungun-ngaur, was\nregarded as their Father. How were these contradictions to be reconciled?\nEasily, thus: Zeus _was_ the Father, but, in each case, was the Father by\nan amour in which he wore the form of the Totem-snake, swan, bull, ant,\ndog, or the like. At once a degraded set of secondary erotic myths cluster\naround Zeus.\n\nAgain, it is notoriously the nature of man to attribute every institution\nto a primal inventor or legislator. Men then, find themselves performing\ncertain rites, often of a buffooning or scandalous character; and, in\norigin, mainly magical, intended for the increase of game, edible plants,\nor, later, for the benefit of the crops. _Why_ do they perform these\nrites? they ask: and, looking about, as usual, for a primal initiator,\nthey attribute what they do to a primal being, the Corn Spirit, Demeter,\nor to Zeus, or to Baiame, or Manabozho, or Punjel. This is man's usual way\nof going back to origins. Instantly, then, a new set of parasitic myths\ncrystallises round a Being who, perhaps, was originally moral. The savage\nmind, in short, has not maintained itself on the high level, any more than\nthe facetious mediaeval myths maintained themselves, say, on the original\nlevel of the conception of the character of St. Peter, the keeper of the\nkeys of Heaven.\n\nAll this appears perfectly natural and human, and in this, and in other\nways, what we call low Myth may have invaded the higher realms of\nReligion: a lower invaded a higher element. But reverse the hypothesis.\nConceive that Zeus, or Baiame, was _originally_, not a Father and\nguardian, but a lewd and tricky ghost of a medicine-man, a dancer of\nindecent dances, a wooer of other men's wives, a shape-shifter, a\nburlesque droll, a more jocular bugbear, like Twanyirika. By what means\ndid he come to be accredited later with his loftiest attributes, and with\nregard for the tribal ethics, which, in practice, he daily broke and\ndespised? Students who argue for the possible priority of the lowest, or,\nas I call them, mythical attributes of the Being, must advance an\nhypothesis of the concretion of the nobler elements around the original\nwanton and mischievous ghost.\n\nThen let us suppose that the Arunta Twanyirika, a confessed bugbear,\ndiscredited by adults, and only invented to keep women and children in\norder, was the original germ of the moral and fatherly Baiame, of South\nEastern Australian tribes. How, in that case, did the adults of the tribe\nfall into their own trap, come to believe seriously in their invented\nbugbear, and credit him with the superintendence of such tribal ethics as\ngenerosity and unselfishness? What were the processes of the conversion of\nTwanyirika? I do not deny that this theory may be correct, but I wish to\nsee an hypothesis of the process of elevation.\n\nI fail to frame such an hypothesis. Grant that the adults merely chuckle\nover Twanyirika, whose 'voice' they themselves produce; by whirling the\nwooden tundun, or bull-roarer. Grant that, on initiation, the boys learn\nthat 'the great spirit' is a mere bogle, invented to mystify the women,\nand keep them away from the initiatory rites. How, then, did men come to\nbelieve in _him_ as a terrible, all-seeing, all-knowing, creative, and\npotent moral being? For this, undeniably, is the belief of many Australian\ntribes, where his 'voice' (or rather that of his subordinate) is produced\nby whirling the tundun. That these higher beliefs are of European origin,\nMr. Howitt denies. How were they evolved out of the notion of a confessed\nartificial bogle? I am unable to frame a theory.\n\nFrom my point of view, namely, that the higher and simple ideas may well\nbe the earlier, I have, at least, offered a theory of the processes by\nwhich the lower attributes crystallised around a conception supposed\n(_argumenti gratia_) to be originally high. Other processes of degradation\nwould come in, as (on my theory) the creed and practice of Animism, or\nworship of human ghosts, often of low character, swamped and invaded the\nprior belief in a fairly moral and beneficent, but not originally\nspiritual, Being. My theory, at least, _is_ a theory, and, rightly or\nwrongly, accounts for the phenomenon, the combination of the highest\ndivine and the lowest animal qualities in the same Being. But I have yet\nto learn how, if the lowest myths are the earliest, the highest attributes\ncame in time to be conferred on the hero of the lowest myths. Why, or how,\ndid a silly buffoon, or a confessed 'bogle' arrive at being regarded as a\npatron of such morality as had been evolved? An hypothesis of the\nprocesses involved must be indicated. It is not enough to reply, in\ngeneral, that the rudimentary human mind is illogical and confused. That\nis granted; but there must have been a method in its madness. What that\nmethod was (from my point of view) I have shown, and it must be as easy\nfor opponents to set forth what, from their point of view, the method was.\n\nWe are here concerned with what, since the time of the earliest Greek\nphilosophers, has been the _crux_ of mythology: why are infamous myths\ntold about 'the Father of gods and men'? We can easily explain the nature\nof the myths. They are the natural flowers of savage fancy and humour.\nBut wherefore do they crystallise round Zeus? I have, at least, shown some\nprobable processes in the evolution.\n\nWhere criticism has not disputed the facts of the moral attributes, now\nattached to, say, an Australian Being, it has accounted for them by a\nsupposed process of borrowing from missionaries and other Europeans. In\nthis book I deal with that hypothesis as urged by Sir A.B. Ellis, in West\nAfrica (chapter xiii.). I need not have taken the trouble, as this\ndistinguished writer had already, in a work which I overlooked, formally\nwithdrawn, as regards Africa, his theory of 'loan-gods.' Miss Kingsley,\ntoo, is no believer in the borrowing hypothesis for West Africa, in\nregard, that is, to the highest divine conception. I was, when I wrote,\nunaware that, especially as concerns America and Australia, Mr. Tylor had\nrecently advocated the theory of borrowing ('Journal of Anthrop.\nInstitute,' vol. xxi.). To Mr. Tylor's arguments, when I read them, I\nreplied in the 'Nineteenth Century,' January 1899: 'Are Savage Gods\nBorrowed from Missionaries?' I do not here repeat my arguments, but await\nthe publication of Mr. Tylor's 'Gifford Lectures,' in which his hypothesis\nmay be reinforced, and may win my adhesion.\n\nIt may here be said, however, that if the Australian higher religious\nideas are of recent and missionary origin, they would necessarily be known\nto the native women, from whom, in fact, they are absolutely concealed by\nthe men, under penalty of death. Again, if the Son, or Sons, of Australian\nchief Beings resemble part of the Christian dogma, they much more closely\nresemble the Apollo and Hermes of Greece.[4] But nobody will say that the\nAustralians borrowed them from Greek mythology!\n\nIn chapter xiv., owing to a bibliographical error of my own, I have done\ninjustice to Mr. Tylor, by supposing him to have overlooked Strachey's\naccount of the Virginian god Ahone. He did not overlook Ahone, but\nmistrusted Strachey. In an excursus on Ahone, in the new edition of 'Myth,\nRitual, and Religion,' I have tried my best to elucidate the bibliography\nand other aspects of Strachey's account, which I cannot regard as\nbaseless. Mr. Tylor's opinion is, doubtless, different, and may prove more\npersuasive. As to Australia, Mr. Howitt, our best authority, continues to\ndisbelieve in the theory of borrowing.\n\nI have to withdraw in chapters x. xi. the statement that 'Darumulun never\ndied at all.' Mr. Hartland has corrected me, and pointed out that, among\nthe Wiraijuri, a myth represents him as having been destroyed, for his\noffences, by Baiame. In that tribe, however, Darumulun is not the highest,\nbut a subordinate Being. Mr. Hartland has also collected a few myths in\nwhich Australian Supreme Beings _do_ (contrary to my statement) 'set the\nexample of sinning.' Nothing can surprise me less, and I only wonder that,\nin so savage a race, the examples, hitherto collected, are so rare, and so\neasily to be accounted for on the theory of processes of crystallisation\nof myths already suggested.\n\nAs to a remark in Appendix B, Mr. Podmore takes a distinction. I quote his\nremark, 'the phenomena described are quite inexplicable by ordinary\nmechanical means,' and I contrast this, as illogical, with his opinion\nthat a girl 'may have been directly responsible for all that took place.'\nMr. Podmore replies that what was 'described' is not necessarily identical\nwith what _occurred_. Strictly speaking, he is right; but the evidence was\ncopious, was given by many witnesses, and (as offered by me) was in part\n_contemporary_ (being derived from the local newspapers), so that here Mr.\nPodmore's theory of illusions of memory on a large scale, developed in the\nfive weeks which elapsed before he examined the spectators, is out of\ncourt. The evidence was of contemporary published record.\n\nThe handling of fire by Home is accounted for by Mr. Podmore, in the same\nchapter, as the result of Home's use of a 'non-conducting substance.'\nAsked, 'what substance?' he answered, 'asbestos.' Sir William Crookes,\nagain repeating his account of the performance which he witnessed, says,\n'Home took up a lump of red-hot charcoal about twice the size of an egg\ninto his hand, on which certainly no asbestos was visible. He blew into\nhis hands, and the flames could be seen coming out between his fingers,\nand he carried the charcoal round the room.'[5] Sir W. Crookes stood close\nbeside Home. The light was that of the fire and of two candles. Probably\nSir William could see a piece of asbestos, if it was covering Home's\nhands, which he was watching.\n\nWhat I had to say, by way of withdrawal, qualification, explanation, or\notherwise, I inserted (in order to seize the earliest opportunity) in the\nIntroduction to the recent edition of my 'Myth, Ritual, and Religion'\n(1899). The reader will perhaps make his own kind deductions from my\nrhetoric when I talk, for example, about a Creator in the creed of low\nsavages. They have no business, anthropologists declare, to entertain so\nlarge an idea. But in 'The Journal of the Anthropological Institute,'\nN.S. II., Nos. 1, 2, p. 85, Dr. Bennett gives an account of the religion\nof the cannibal Fangs of the Congo, first described by Du Chaillu. 'These\nanthropophagi have some idea of a God, a superior being, their _Tata_\n(\"Father\"), _a bo mam merere_ (\"he made all things\"), Anyambi is their\n_Tata_ (Father), and ranks above all other Fang gods, because _a'ne yap_\n(literally, \"he lives in heaven\").' This is inconsiderate in the Fangs. A\nset of native cannibals have no business with a creative Father who is in\nheaven. I say 'creative' because 'he made all things,' and (as the bowler\nsaid about a 'Yorker') 'what else can you call him?' In all such cases,\nwhere 'creator' and 'creative' are used by me, readers will allow for the\nimperfections of the English language. As anthropologists say, the savages\nsimply cannot have the corresponding ideas; and I must throw the blame on\npeople who, knowing the savages and their language, assure us that they\n_have_. This Fang Father or _Tata_ 'is considered indifferent to the wants\nand sufferings of men, women, and children.' Offerings and prayers are\ntherefore made, not to him, but to the ghosts of parents, who are more\naccessible. This additional information precisely illustrates my general\ntheory, that the chief Being was not evolved out of ghosts, but came to be\nneglected as ghost-worship arose. I am not aware that Dr. Bennett is a\nmissionary. Anthropologists distrust missionaries, and most of my evidence\nis from laymen. If the anthropological study of religion is to advance,\nthe high and usually indolent chief Beings of savage religions must be\ncarefully examined, not consigned to a casual page or paragraph. I have\nfound them most potent, and most moral, where ghost-worship has not\nbeen evolved; least potent, or at all events most indifferent, where\nghost-worship is most in vogue. The inferences (granting the facts) are\nfatal to the current anthropological theory.\n\nThe phrases 'Creator,' 'creative,' as applied to Anyambi, or Baiame,\nhave been described, by critics, as rhetorical, covertly introducing\nconceptions of which savages are incapable. I have already shown that I\nonly follow my authorities, and their translations of phrases in various\nsavage tongues. But the phrase 'eternal,' applied to Anyambi or Baiame,\nmay be misleading. I do not wish to assert that, if you talked to a savage\nabout 'eternity,' he would understand what you intend. I merely mean what\nMariner says that the Tongans mean as to the god T\u00e1-li-y Tooboo. 'Of his\norigin they had no idea, rather supposing him to be eternal.' The savage\ntheologians assert no beginning for such beings (as a rule), and no end,\nexcept where Unkulunkulu is by some Zulus thought to be dead, and\nwhere the Wiraijuris declare that their Darumulun (_not_ supreme) was\n'destroyed' by Baiame. I do not wish to credit savages with thoughts more\nabstract than they possess. But that their thought can be abstract is\nproved, even in the case of the absolutely 'primitive Arunta,' by\ntheir myth of the _Ungambikula_, 'a word which means \"out of nothing,\"\nor \"self-existing,\"' say Messrs. Spencer and Gillen.[6] Once more,\nI find that I have spoken of some savage Beings as 'omnipresent'\nand 'omnipotent.' But I have pointed out that this is only a modern\nmetaphysical rendering of the actual words attributed to the savage: 'He\ncan go everywhere, and do everything.' As to the phrase, also used, that\nBaiame, for example, 'makes for righteousness,' I mean that he sanctions\nthe morality of his people; for instance, sanctions veracity and\nunselfishness, as Mr. Howitt distinctly avers. These are examples of\n'righteousness' in conduct. I do not mean that these virtues were\nimpressed on savages in some supernatural way, as a critic has daringly\naverred that I do. The strong reaction of some early men against the\ncosmical process by which 'the weakest goes to the wall,' is, indeed, a\ncurious moral phenomenon, and deserves the attention of moralists. But I\nnever dreamed of supposing that this reaction (which extends beyond the\nlimit of the tribe or group) had a 'supernatural' origin! It has been\nargued that 'tribal morality' is only a set of regulations based on the\nconvenience of the elders of the tribe: is, in fact, as the Platonic\nThrasymachus says, 'the interest of the strongest.' That does not appear\nto me to be demonstrated; but this is no place for a discussion of the\norigin of morals. 'The interest of the strongest,' and of the nomadic\ngroup, would be to knock elderly invalids on the head. But Dampier says,\nof the Australians, in 1688, 'Be it little, or be it much they get, every\none has his part, as well the young and tender, and the old and feeble,\nwho are not able to go abroad, as the strong and lusty.' The origin of\nthis fair and generous dealing may be obscure, but it is precisely the\nkind of dealing on which, according to Mr. Howitt, the religion of the\nKurnai insists (chapter x.). Thus the Being concerned does 'make for\nrighteousness.'\n\nWith these explanations I trust that my rhetorical use of such phrases as\n'eternal,' 'creative,' 'omniscient,' 'omnipotent,' 'omnipresent,' and\n'moral,' may not be found to mislead, or covertly to import modern or\nChristian ideas into my account of the religious conceptions of savages.\n\nAs to the evidence throughout, a learned historian has informed me that\n'no anthropological evidence is of any value.' If so, there can be no\nanthropology (in the realm of institutions). But the evidence that I\nadduce is from such sources as anthropologists, at least, accept, and\nemploy in the construction of theories from which, in some points, I\nventure to dissent.\n\nA.L.\n\n[Footnote 1: Macmillans, 1899.]\n\n[Footnote 2: Op. cit. p. 246, note.]\n\n[Footnote 3: See the new edition of _Myth, Ritual, and Religion_,\nespecially the new Introduction.]\n\n[Footnote 4: See Introductions to my _Homeric Hymns_. Allen. 1899.]\n\n[Footnote 5: _Journal S.P.R._, December 1890, p. 147.]\n\n[Footnote 6: _Native Tribes of Central Australia_, p. 388.]\n\n\n\n\nPREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION\n\n'The only begetter' of this work is Monsieur Lef\u00e9bure, author of 'Les\nYeux d'Horus,' and other studies in Egyptology. He suggested the writing\nof the book, but is in no way responsible for the opinions expressed.\n\nThe author cannot omit the opportunity of thanking Mr. Frederic Myers for\nhis kindness in reading the proof sheets of the earlier chapters and\nsuggesting some corrections of statement. Mr. Myers, however, is probably\nnot in agreement with the author on certain points; for example, in\nthe chapter on 'Possession.' As the second part of the book differs\nconsiderably from the opinions which have recommended themselves to most\nanthropological writers on early Religion, the author must say here, as he\nsays later, that no harm can come of trying how facts look from a new\npoint of view, and that he certainly did not expect them to fall into the\nshape which he now presents for criticism.\n\nST. ANDREWS: _April 3, 1898._\n\n\n\n\nCONTENTS\n\nI. INTRODUCTORY CHAPTER\nII. SCIENCE AND 'MIRACLES'\n\nIII. ANTHROPOLOGY AND RELIGION\nIV. 'OPENING THE GATES OF DISTANCE'\nV. CRYSTAL VISIONS, SAVAGE AND CIVILISED\nVI. ANTHROPOLOGY AND HALLUCINATIONS\nVII. DEMONIACAL POSSESSION\nVIII. FETISHISM AND SPIRITUALISM\nIX. EVOLUTION OF THE IDEA OF GOD\nX. HIGH GODS OF LOW RACES\nXI. SUPREME GODS NOT NECESSARILY DEVELOPED OUT OF 'SPIRITS'\nXII. SAVAGE SUPREME BEINGS\nXIII. MORE SAVAGE SUPREME BEINGS\nXIV. AHONE. TI-RA-W\u00c1. N\u00c0-PI. PACHACAMAC. TUI LAGA. TAA-ROA\nXV. THE OLD DEGENERATION THEORY\nXVI. THEORIES OF JEHOVAH\nXVII. CONCLUSION\n\nAPPENDICES.\n\nA. OPPOSITIONS OF SCIENCE\nB. THE POLTERGEIST AND HIS EXPLAINERS\nC. CRYSTAL-GAZING\nD. CHIEFS IN AUSTRALIA\n\nINDEX\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nTHE MAKING OF RELIGION\n\nI\n\n_INTRODUCTORY CHAPTER_\n\nThe modern Science of the History of Religion has attained conclusions\nwhich already possess an air of being firmly established. These\nconclusions may be briefly stated thus: Man derived the conception of\n'spirit' or 'soul' from his reflections on the phenomena of sleep, dreams,\ndeath, shadow, and from the experiences of trance and hallucination.\nWorshipping first the departed souls of his kindred, man later extended\nthe doctrine of spiritual beings in many directions. Ghosts, or other\nspiritual existences fashioned on the same lines, prospered till they\nbecame gods. Finally, as the result of a variety of processes, one of\nthese gods became supreme, and, at last, was regarded as the one only God.\nMeanwhile man retained his belief in the existence of his own soul,\nsurviving after the death of the body, and so reached the conception of\nimmortality. Thus the ideas of God and of the soul are the result of early\nfallacious reasonings about misunderstood experiences.\n\nIt may seem almost wanton to suggest the desirableness of revising a\nsystem at once so simple, so logical, and apparently so well bottomed on\nfacts. But there can never be any real harm in studying masses of evidence\nfrom fresh points of view. At worst, the failure of adverse criticism must\nhelp to establish the doctrines assailed. Now, as we shall show, there are\ntwo points of view from which the evidence as to religion in its early\nstages has not been steadily contemplated. Therefore we intend to ask,\nfirst, what, if anything, can be ascertained as to the nature of the\n'visions' and hallucinations which, according to Mr. Tylor in his\ncelebrated work 'Primitive Culture,' lent their aid to the formation of\nthe idea of 'spirit.' Secondly, we shall collect and compare the accounts\nwhich we possess of the High Gods and creative beings worshipped or\nbelieved in, by the most backward races. We shall then ask whether these\nrelatively Supreme Beings, so conceived of by men in very rudimentary\nsocial conditions, can be, as anthropology declares, mere developments\nfrom the belief in ghosts of the dead.\n\nWe shall end by venturing to suggest that the savage theory of the soul\nmay be based, at least in part, on experiences which cannot, at present,\nbe made to fit into any purely materialistic system of the universe. We\nshall also bring evidence tending to prove that the idea of God, in its\nearliest known shape, need not logically be derived from the idea of\nspirit, however that idea itself may have been attained or evolved. The\nconception of God, then, need not be evolved out of reflections on dreams\nand 'ghosts.'\n\nIf these two positions can be defended with any success, it is obvious\nthat the whole theory of the Science of Religion will need to be\nreconsidered. But it is no less evident that our two positions do not\ndepend on each other. The first may be regarded as fantastic, or\nimprobable, or may be 'masked' and left on one side. But the strength of\nthe second position, derived from evidence of a different character, will\nnot, therefore, be in any way impaired. Our first position can only be\nargued for by dint of evidence highly unpopular in character, and, as a\ngeneral rule, condemned by modern science. The evidence is obtained by\nwhat is, at all events, a legitimate anthropological proceeding. We may\nfollow Mr. Tylor's example, and collect savage _beliefs_ about visions,\nhallucinations, 'clairvoyance,' and the acquisition of knowledge\napparently not attainable through the normal channels of sense. We may\nthen compare these savage beliefs with attested records of similar\n_experiences_ among living and educated civilised men. Even if we attain\nto no conclusion, or a negative conclusion, as to the actuality and\nsupernormal character of the alleged experiences, still to compare data of\nsavage and civilised psychology, or even of savage and civilised illusions\nand fables, is decidedly part, though a neglected part, of the function of\nanthropological science. The results, whether they do or do not strengthen\nour first position, must be curious and instructive, if only as a chapter\nin the history of human error. That chapter, too, is concerned with no\nmean topic, but with what we may call the X region of our nature. Out of\nthat region, out of miracle, prophecy, vision, have certainly come forth\nthe great religions, Christianity and Islam; and the great religious\ninnovators and leaders, our Lord Himself, St. Francis, John Knox, Jeanne\nd'Arc, down to the founder of the new faith of the Sioux and Arapahoe. It\ncannot, then, be unscientific to compare the barbaric with the civilised\nbeliefs and experiences about a region so dimly understood, and so fertile\nin potent influences. Here the topic will be examined rather by the method\nof anthropology than of psychology. We may conceivably have something to\nlearn (as has been the case before) from the rough observations and hasty\ninferences of the most backward races.\n\nWe may illustrate this by an anecdote:\n\n'The Northern Indians call the _Aurora Borealis_ \"Edthin,\" that is \"Deer.\"\nTheir ideas in this respect are founded on a principle one would not\nimagine. Experience has shown them that when a hairy deer-skin is briskly\nstroked with the hand on a dark night, it will emit many sparks of\nelectrical fire.'\n\nSo says Hearne in his 'Journey,' published in 1795 (p. 346).\n\nThis observation of the Red Men is a kind of parable representing a part\nof the purport of the following treatise. The Indians, making a hasty\ninference from a trivial phenomenon, arrived unawares at a probably\ncorrect conclusion, long unknown to civilised science. They connected the\nAurora Borealis with electricity, supposing that multitudes of deer\nin the sky rubbed the sparks out of each other! Meanwhile, even in\nthe last century, a puzzled populace spoke of the phenomenon as 'Lord\nDerwentwater's Lights.' The cosmic pomp and splendour shone to welcome the\nloyal Derwentwater into heaven, when he had given his life for his exiled\nking.\n\nNow, my purpose in the earlier portion of this essay is to suggest that\ncertain phenomena of human nature, apparently as trivial as the sparks\nrubbed out of a deer's hide in a dark night, may indicate, and may be\nallied to a force or forces, which, like the Aurora Borealis, may shine\nfrom one end of the heavens to the other, strangely illumining the\ndarkness of our destiny. Such phenomena science has ignored, as it so long\nignored the sparks from the stroked deer-skin, and the attractive power of\nrubbed amber. These trivial things were not known to be allied to the\nlightning, or to indicate a force which man could tame and use. But just\nas the Indians, by a rapid careless inference, attributed the Aurora\nBorealis to electric influences, so (as anthropology assures us) savages\neverywhere have inferred the existence of soul or spirit, intelligence\nthat\n\n  'Does not know the bond of Time,\n  Nor wear the manacles of Space,'\n\nin part from certain apparently trivial phenomena of human faculty. These\nphenomena, as Mr. Tylor says, 'the great intellectual movement of the last\ntwo centuries has simply thrown aside as worthless.'[1] I refer to alleged\nexperiences, merely odd, sporadic, and, for commercial purposes, useless,\nsuch as the transference of thought from one mind to another by no known\nchannel of sense, the occurrence of hallucinations which, _prima facie_,\ncorrespond coincidentally with unknown events at a distance, all that is\ncalled 'second sight,' or 'clairvoyance,' and other things even more\nobscure. Reasoning on these real or alleged phenomena, and on other quite\nnormal and accepted facts of dream, shadow, sleep, trance, and death,\nsavages have inferred the existence of spirit or soul, exactly as the\nIndians arrived at the notion of electricity (not so called by them, of\ncourse) as the cause of the Aurora Borealis. But, just as the Indians\nthought that the cosmic lights were caused by the rubbing together of\ncrowded deer in the heavens (a theory quite childishly absurd), so the\nsavage has expressed, in rude fantastic ways, his conclusion as to the\nexistence of spirit. He believes in wandering separable souls of men,\nsurviving death, and he has peopled with his dreams the whole inanimate\nuniverse.\n\nMy suggestion is that, in spite of his fantasies, the savage had possibly\ndrawn from his premises an inference not wholly, or not demonstrably\nerroneous. As the sparks of the deer-skin indicated electricity, so the\nstrange lights in the night of human nature may indicate faculties which\nscience, till of late and in a few instances, has laughed at, ignored,\n'thrown aside as worthless.'\n\nIt should be observed that I am not speaking of 'spiritualism,' a word of\nthe worst associations, inextricably entangled with fraud, bad logic, and\nthe blindest credulity. Some of the phenomena alluded to have, however,\nbeen claimed as their own province by 'spiritists,' and need to be rescued\nfrom them. Mr. Tylor writes:\n\n'The issue raised by the comparison of savage, barbaric, and civilised\nspiritualism is this: Do the Red Indian medicine-man, the Tatar\nnecromancer, the Highland ghost-seer, and the Boston medium, share the\npossession of belief and knowledge of the highest truth and import,\nwhich, nevertheless, the great intellectual movement of the last two\ncenturies has simply thrown aside as worthless?'\n\n_Distinguo!_ That does not seem to me to be the issue. In my opinion the\nissue is: 'Have the Red Indian, the Tatar, the Highland seer, and the\nBoston medium (the least reputable of the menagerie) observed, and\nreasoned wildly from, and counterfeited, and darkened with imposture,\ncertain genuine by-products of human faculty, which do not _prima facie_\ndeserve to be thrown aside?'\n\nThat, I venture to think, is the real issue. That science may toss aside\nas worthless some valuable observations of savages is now universally\nadmitted by people who know the facts. Among these observations is the\nwhole topic of Hypnotism, with the use of suggestion for healing purposes,\nand the phenomena, no longer denied, of 'alternating personalities.' For\nthe truth of this statement we may appeal to one of the greatest of\nContinental anthropologists, Adolf Bastian.[2] The missionaries, like\nLivingstone, usually supposed that the savage seer's declared ignorance--\nafter his so-called fit of inspiration--of what occurred in that state,\nwas an imposture. But nobody now doubts the similar oblivion of what has\npassed that sometimes follows the analogous hypnotic sleep. Of a\nremarkable cure, which the school of the Salp\u00eatri\u00e8re or Nancy would\nascribe, with probable justice, to 'suggestion,' a savage example will be\ngiven later.\n\nSavage hypnotism and 'suggestion,' among the Sioux and Arapahoe, has been\nthought worthy of a whole volume in the Reports of the Ethnological Bureau\nof the Smithsonian Institute (Washington, U.S., 1892-98). Republican\nGovernments publish scientific matter 'regardless of expense,' and the\nessential points might have been put more shortly. They illustrate the\nfact that only certain persons can hypnotise others, and throw light on\nsome peculiarities of _rapport._[3] In brief, savages anticipated us in\nthe modern science of experimental psychology, as is frankly acknowledged\nby the Society for Experimental Psychology of Berlin. 'That many mystical\nphenomena are much more common and prominent among savages than among\nourselves is familiar to everyone acquainted with the subject. The\n_ethnological_ side of our inquiry demands penetrative study.'[4]\n\nThat study I am about to try to sketch. My object is to examine some\n'superstitious practices' and beliefs of savages by aid of the comparative\nmethod. I shall compare, as I have already said, the ethnological evidence\nfor savage usages and beliefs analogous to thought-transference,\ncoincidental hallucinations, alternating personality, and so forth, with\nthe best attested modern examples, experimental or spontaneous. This\nraises the question of our evidence, which is all-important. We proceed to\ndefend it. The savage accounts are on the level of much anthropological\nevidence; they may, that is, be dismissed by adversaries as 'travellers'\ntales.' But the best testimony for the truth of the reports as to actual\nbelief in the facts is the undesigned coincidence of evidence from all\nages and quarters.[5] When the stories brought by travellers, ancient and\nmodern, learned and unlearned, pious or sceptical, agree in the main, we\nhave all the certainty that anthropology can offer. Again, when we find\npractically the same strange neglected sparks, not only rumoured of\nin European popular superstition, but attested in many hundreds of\ndepositions made at first hand by respectable modern witnesses, educated\nand responsible, we cannot honestly or safely dismiss the coincidence of\nreport as indicating a mere 'survival' of savage superstitious belief, and\nnothing more.\n\nWe can no longer do so, it is agreed, in the case of hypnotic phenomena. I\nhope to make it seem possible that we should not do so in the matter of\nthe hallucinations provoked by gazing in a smooth deep, usually styled\n'crystal-gazing.' Ethnologically, this practice is at least as old as\nclassical times, and is of practically world-wide distribution. I shall\nprove its existence in Australia, New Zealand, North America, South\nAmerica, Asia, Africa, Polynesia, and among the Incas, not to speak of\nthe middle and recent European ages. The universal idea is that such\nvisions may be 'clairvoyant.' To take a Polynesian case, 'resembling the\nHawaiian _wai harru_.' When anyone has been robbed, the priest, after\npraying, has a hole dug in the floor of the house, and filled with water.\nThen he gazes into the water, 'over which the god is supposed to place the\nspirit of the thief.... The image of the thief was, according to their\naccount, reflected in the water, and being perceived by the priest, he\nnamed the individual, or the parties.'[6] Here the statement about the\n'spirit' is a mere savage philosophical explanation. But the fact that\nhallucinatory pictures can really be seen by a fair percentage of educated\nEuropeans, in water, glass balls, and so forth, is now confirmed by\nfrequent experiment, and accepted by opponents, 'non-mystical writers,'\nlike Dr. Parish of Munich.[7] I shall bring evidence to suggest that the\nvisions may correctly reflect, as it were, persons and places absolutely\nunknown to the gazer, and that they may even reveal details unknown to\nevery one present. Such results among savages, or among the superstitious,\nwould be, and are, explained by the theory of 'spirits.' Modern science\nhas still to find an explanation consistent with recognised laws of\nnature, but 'spirits' we shall not invoke.\n\nIn the same way I mean to examine all or most of the 'so-called mystical\nphenomena of savage life.' I then compare them with the better vouched for\nmodern examples. To return to the question of evidence, I confess that I\ndo not see how the adverse anthropologist, psychologist, or popular\nagnostic is to evade the following dilemma: To the anthropologist we say,\n'The evidence we adduce is your own evidence, that of books of travel in\nall lands and countries. If _you_ may argue from it, so may we. Some\nof it is evidence to unusual facts, more of it is evidence to singular\nbeliefs, which we think not necessarily without foundation. As raising a\npresumption in favour of that opinion, we cite examples in which savage\nobservations of abnormal and once rejected facts, are now admitted by\nscience to have a large residuum of truth, we argue that what is admitted\nin some cases may come to be admitted in more. No _a priori_ line can here\nbe drawn.'\n\nTo the psychologist who objects that our modern instances are mere\nanecdotes, we reply by asking, 'Dear sir, what are _your_ modern\ninstances? What do you know of \"Mrs. A.,\" whom you still persistently\ncite as an example of morbid recurrent hallucinations? Name the German\nservant girl who, in a fever, talked several learned languages, which she\nhad heard her former master, a scholar, declaim! Where did she live? Who\nvouches for her, who heard her, who understood her? There is, you know, no\nevidence at all; the anecdote is told by Coleridge: the phenomena are said\nby him to have been observed \"in a Roman Catholic town in Germany, a year\nor two before my arrival at G\u00f6ttingen.... Many eminent physiologists and\npsychologists visited the town.\" Why do you not name a few out of the\ndistinguished crowd?'[8] This anecdote, a rumour of a rumour of a\nProtestant explanation of a Catholic marvel, was told by Coleridge at\nleast twenty years after the possible date. The psychologists copy it,[9]\none after the other, as a flock of sheep jump where their leader has\njumped. An example by way of anecdote may be permitted.\n\nAccording to the current anthropological theory, the idea of soul or\nspirit was suggested to early men by their experiences in dreams. They\nseemed, in sleep, to visit remote places; therefore, they argued,\nsomething within them was capable of leaving the body and wandering about.\n\nThis something was the soul or spirit. Now it is obvious that this opinion\nof early men would be confirmed if they ever chanced to acquire, in\ndreams, knowledge of places which they had never visited, and of facts as\nto which, in their waking state, they could have no information. This\nexperience, indeed, would suggest problems even To Mr. Herbert Spencer, if\nit occurred to him.\n\nConversing on this topic with a friend of acknowledged philosophical\neminence, I illustrated my meaning by a story of a dream. It was reported\nto me by the dreamer, with whom I am well acquainted, was of very recent\noccurrence, and was corroborated by the evidence of another person, to\nwhom the dream was narrated, before its fulfilment was discovered. I am\nnot at liberty to publish the details, for good reasons, but the essence\nof the matter was this: A. and B. (the dreamer) had common interests. A.\nhad taken certain steps about which B. had only a surmise, and a vague\none, that steps had probably been taken. A. then died, and B. in an\nextremely vivid dream (a thing unfamiliar to him) seemed to read a mass of\nunknown facts, culminating in two definite results, capable of being\nstated in figures. These results, by the very nature of the case, could\nnot be known to A., so that, before he was placed out of B.'s reach by\ndeath, he could not have stated them to him, and, afterwards, had\nassuredly no means of doing so.\n\nThe dream, two days after its occurrence, and after it had been told to\nC., proved to be literally correct. Now I am not asking the reader's\nbelief for this anecdote (for that could only be yielded in virtue of\nknowledge of the veracity of B. and C.), but I invite his attention to the\npsychological explanation. My friend suggested that A. had told B. all\nabout the affair, that B. had not listened (though his interests were\nvitally concerned), and that the crowd of curious details, naturally\nunfamiliar to B., had reposed in his subconscious memory, and had been\nrevived in the dream.\n\nNow B.'s dream was a dream of reading a mass of minute details, including\nnames of places entirely unknown to him. It may be admitted, in accordance\nwith the psychological theory, that B. might have received all this\ninformation from A., but, by dint of inattention--'the malady of not\nmarking'--might never have been _consciously_ aware of what he heard. Then\nB.'s subconscious memory of what he did not _consciously_ know might break\nupon him in his dream. Instances of similar mental phenomena are not\nuncommon. But the general result of the combined details was one which\ncould not possibly be known to A. before his death; nor to B. could it be\nknown at all. Yet B.'s dream represented this general result with perfect\naccuracy, which cannot be accounted for by the revival of subconscious\nmemory in sleep. Neither asleep nor awake can a man remember what it is\nimpossible for him to have known. The dream contained no _prediction_ for\nthe results were now fixed; but (granting the good faith of the narrator)\nthe dream did contain information not normally accessible.\n\nHowever, by way of psychological explanation of the dream, my friend cited\nColeridge's legend, as to the German girl and her unconscious knowledge of\ncertain learned languages. 'And what is the evidence for the truth of\nColeridge's legend?' Of course, there is none, or none known to all the\npsychologists who quote it from Coleridge. Neither, if true, was the\nlegend to the point. However, psychology will accept such unauthenticated\nnarratives, and yet will scoff at first baud, duly corroborated testimony\nfrom living and honourable people, about recent events.\n\nOnly a great force of prejudice can explain this acceptance, by\npsychologists, of one kind of marvellous tale on no evidence, and this\nrejection of another class of marvellous tale, when supported by first\nhand, signed and corroborated evidence, of living witnesses. I see only\none escape for psychologists from this dilemma. Their marvellous tales are\n_possible_, though unvouched for, because they have always heard them and\nrepeated them in lectures, and read and repeated them in books. _Our_\nmarvellous tales are impossible, because the psychologists know that they\nare impossible, which means that they have not been familiar with them,\nfrom youth upwards, in lectures and manuals. But man has no right to have\n'clear ideas of the possible and impossible,' like Faraday, _a priori_,\nexcept in the exact sciences. There are other instances of weak evidence\nwhich satisfies psychologists.\n\nHamilton has an anecdote, borrowed from Monboddo, who got it from Mr. Hans\nStanley, who, 'about twenty-six years ago,' heard it from the subject of\nthe story, Madame de Laval. 'I have the memorandum somewhere in my\npapers,' says Mr. Stanley, vaguely. Then we have two American anecdotes by\nDr. Flint and Mr. Rush; and such is Sir William Hamilton's equipment of\nodd facts for discussing the unconscious or subconscious. The least\ncredible and worst attested of these narratives still appears in popular\nworks on psychology. Moreover, all psychology, except experimental\npsychology, is based on anecdotes which people tell about their own\nsubjective experiences. Mr. Galton, whose original researches are well\nknown, even offered rewards in money for such narratives about visualised\nrows of coloured figures, and so on.\n\nClearly the psychologist, then, has no _prima facie_ right to object to\nour anecdotes of experiences, which he regards as purely subjective. As\nevidence, we only accept them at first hand, and, when possible, the\nwitnesses have been cross-examined personally. Our evidence then, where it\nconsists of travellers' tales, is on a level with that which satisfies the\nanthropologist. Where it consists of modern statements of personal\nexperience, our evidence is often infinitely better than much which is\naccepted by the nonexperimental psychologist. As for the agnostic writer\non the Non-Religion of the Future, M. Guyau actually illustrates the\nResurrection of our Lord by an American myth about a criminal, of whom a\nhallucinatory phantasm appeared to each of his gaol companions, separately\nand successively, on a day after his execution! For this prodigious fable\nno hint of reference to authority is given.[10] Yet the evidence appears\nto satisfy M. Guyau, and is used by him to reinforce his argument.\n\nThe anthropologist and psychologist, then, must either admit that their\nevidence is no better than ours, if as good, or must say that they only\nbelieve evidence as to 'possible' facts. They thus constitute themselves\njudges of what is possible, and practically regard themselves as\nomniscient. Science has had to accept so many things once scoffed at as\n'impossible,' that this attitude of hers, as we shall show in chapter ii.,\nceases to command respect.\n\nMy suggestion is that the trivial, rejected, or unheeded phenomena\nvouched for by the evidence here defended may, not inconceivably, be of\nconsiderable importance. But, stating the case at the lowest, if we are\nonly concerned with illusions and fables, it cannot but be curious to note\ntheir persistent uniformity in savage and civilised life.\n\nTo make the first of our two main positions clear, and in part to justify\nourselves in asking any attention for such matters, we now offer an\nhistorical sketch of the relations between Science and the so-called\n'Miraculous' in the past.\n\n[Footnote 1: _Primitive Culture_, i. 156. London, 1891.]\n\n[Footnote 2: _Ueber psychische Beobachiungen bei Naiurv\u00fclkern_. Leipzig,\nGunther, 1890.]\n\n[Footnote 3: See especially pp. 922-926. The book is interesting in other\nways, and, indeed, touching, as it describes the founding of a new Red\nIndian religion, on a basis of Hypnotism and Christianity.]\n\n[Footnote 4: Programme of the Society, p. iv.]\n\n[Footnote 5: Tylor, _Primitive Culture_, i, 9, 10.]\n\n[Footnote 6: Ellis, _Polynesian Researches_, ii. p. 240.]\n\n[Footnote 7: _Hallucinations and Illusions_, English edition, pp. 69-70,\n297.]\n\n[Footnote 8: Sir William Hamilton's _Lectures_, i. 345.]\n\n[Footnote 9: Maudsley, Kerner, Carpentor, Du Prel, Zangwill.]\n\n[Footnote 10: Coleridge's mythical maid (p. 10) is set down by Mr. Samuel\nLaing to an experiment of Braid's! No references are given.--Laing:\n_Problems of the Future._]\n\n\n\n\nII\n\nSCIENCE AND 'MIRACLES'\n\n_Historical Sketch_\n\nResearch in the X region is not a new thing under the sun. When Saul\ndisguised himself before his conference with the Witch of Endor, he made\nan elementary attempt at a scientific test of the supernormal. Croesus,\nthe king, went much further, when he tested the clairvoyance of the\noracles of Greece, by sending an embassy to ask what he was doing at a\ngiven hour on a given day, and by then doing something very _bizarre_. We\ndo not know how the Delphic oracle found out the right answer, but various\neasy methods of fraud at once occur to the mind. However, the procedure of\nCroesus, if he took certain precautions, was relatively scientific.\nRelatively scientific also was the inquiry of Porphyry, with whose\nposition our own is not unlikely to be compared. Unable, or reluctant, to\naccept Christianity, Porphyry 'sought after a sign' of an element of\nsupernormal truth in Paganism. But he began at the wrong end, namely at\nPagan spiritualistic _s\u00e9ances_, with the usual accompaniments of darkness\nand fraud. His perplexed letter to Anebo, with the reply attributed to\nIamblichus, reveal Porphyry wandering puzzled among mediums, floating\nlights, odd noises, queer dubious 'physical phenomena.' He did not begin\nwith accurate experiments as to the existence of rare, and apparently\nsupernormal human faculties, and he seems to have attained no conclusion\nexcept that 'spirits' are 'deceitful.'[1]\n\nSomething more akin to modern research began about the time of the\nReformation, and lasted till about 1680. The fury for burning witches led\nmen of sense, learning, and humanity to ask whether there was any reality\nin witchcraft, and, generally, in the marvels of popular belief. The\ninquiries of Thyraeus, Lavaterus, Bodinus, Wierus, Le Loyer, Reginald\nScot, and many others, tended on the whole to the negative side as regards\nthe wilder fables about witches, but left the problems of ghosts and\nhaunted houses pretty much where they were before. It may be observed that\nLavaterus (circ. 1580) already put forth a form of the hypothesis of\ntelepathy (that 'ghosts' are hallucinations produced by the direct action\nof one mind, or brain, upon another), while Thyraeus doubted whether the\nnoises heard in 'haunted houses' were not mere hallucinations of the sense\nof hearing. But all these early writers, like Cardan, were very careless\nof first-hand evidence, and, indeed, preferred ghosts vouched for by\nclassical authority, Pliny, Plutarch, or Suetonius. With the Rev. Joseph\nGlanvil, F.R.S. (circ. 1666), a more careful examination of evidence came\ninto use. Among the marvels of Glanvil's and other tracts usually\npublished together in his 'Sadducismus Triumphatus' will be found letters\nwhich show that he and his friends, like Henry More and Boyle, laboured to\ncollect first-hand evidence for second sight, haunted houses, ghosts, and\nwraiths. The confessed object was to procure a 'Whip for the Droll,' a\nreply to the laughing scepticism of the Restoration. The result was to\nbring on Glanvil a throng of bores--he was 'worse haunted than Mr.\nMompesson's house,' he says-and Mr. Pepys found his arguments 'not very\nconvincing.' Mr. Pepys, however, was alarmed by 'our young gib-cat,'\nwhich he mistook for a 'spright.' With Henry More, Baxter, and Glanvil\npractically died, for the time, the attempt to investigate these topics\nscientifically, though an impression of doubt was left on the mind of\nAddison. Witchcraft ceased to win belief, and was abolished, as a crime,\nin 1736. Some of the Scottish clergy, and John Wesley, clung fondly\nto the old faith, but Wodrow, and Cotton Mather (about 1710-1730) were\nsingularly careless and unlucky in producing anything like evidence for\ntheir narratives. Ghost stories continued to be told, but not to be\ninvestigated.\n\nThen one of the most acute of philosophers decided that investigation\nought never to be attempted. This scientific attitude towards X phenomena,\nthat of refusing to examine them, and denying them without examination,\nwas fixed by David Hume in his celebrated essay on 'Miracles.' Hume\nderided the observation and study of what he called 'Miracles,' in the\nfield of experience, and he looked for an _a priori_ argument which would\nfor ever settle the question without examination of facts. In an age of\nexperimental philosophy, which derided _a priori_ methods, this was Hume's\ngreat contribution to knowledge. His famous argument, the joy of many an\nhonest breast, is a tissue of fallacies which might be given for exposure\nto beginners in logic, as an elementary exercise. In announcing his\ndiscovery, Hume amusingly displays the self-complacency and the want of\nhumour with which we Scots are commonly charged by our critics:\n\n'I flatter myself that I have discovered an argument which, if just,\nwill, with the wise and learned, be an everlasting check to all kinds\nof superstitious delusions, and consequently will be useful as long as\nthe world endures.'\n\nHe does not expect, however, to convince the multitude. Till the end of\nthe world, 'accounts of miracles and prodigies, I suppose, will be found\nin all histories, sacred and profane.' Without saying here what he\nmeans by a miracle, Hume argues that 'experience is our only guide in\nreasoning.' He then defines a miracle as 'a violation of the laws\nof nature.' By a 'law of nature' he means a uniformity, not of all\nexperience, but of each experience as he will deign to admit; while he\nexcludes, without examination, all evidence for experience of the absence\nof such uniformity. That kind of experience cannot be considered. 'There\nmust be a uniform experience against every miraculous event, otherwise the\nevent would not merit that appellation.' If there be any experience in\nfavour of the event, that experience does not count. A miracle is counter\nto universal experience, no event is counter to universal experience,\ntherefore no event is a miracle. If you produce evidence to what Hume\ncalls a miracle (we shall see examples) he replies that the evidence is\nnot valid, unless its falsehood would be more miraculous than the fact.\nNow no error of human evidence can be more miraculous than a 'miracle.'\nTherefore there can be no valid evidence for 'miracles.' Fortunately,\nHume now gives an example of what he means by 'miracles.' He says:--\n\n'For, first, there is _not to be found_, in _all history_, any miracle\nattested by a _sufficient number_ of men, of such unquestioned _good\nsense, education_, and _learning_, as to secure us against all delusion\nin themselves; of such undoubted _integrity_, as to place them beyond\nall suspicion of any design to deceive others; of such credit and\nreputation in the eyes of mankind, as to have a great deal to lose in\ncase of their being detected in any falsehood; and at the same time\nattesting facts performed in such a _public manner_, and in so\n_celebrated a part of the world_, as to render the detection\nunavoidable; all which circumstances are requisite to give us a full\nassurance in the testimony of men.'[2]\n\nHume added a note at the end of his book, in which he contradicted every\nassertion which he had made in the passage just cited; indeed, be\ncontradicted himself before he had written six pages.\n\n'There surely never was a greater number of miracles ascribed to one person\nthan those which were lately said to have been wrought in France upon the\ntomb of Abb\u00e9 Paris, the famous Jansenist, with whose sanctity the people\nwere so long deluded. The curing of the sick, giving hearing to the deaf,\nand sight to the blind, were everywhere talked of as the usual effects of\nthat holy sepulchre. But what is more extraordinary, many of the miracles\nwere _immediately proved upon the spot, before judges of unquestioned\nintegrity_, attested by _witnesses of credit and distinction_, in _a\nlearned age_, and on the most _eminent theatre_ that is _now in the\nworld_. Nor is this all. A relation of them was published and dispersed\neverywhere; nor were the Jesuits, though a learned body, supported\nby the civil magistrate, and determined enemies to those opinions,\nin whose favour the miracles were said to have been wrought, ever able\n_distinctly to refute or detect them_. Where shall we find such a number\nof circumstances, agreeing to the corroboration of one fact? And what\nhave we to oppose to such a cloud of witnesses, but the absolute\n_impossibility, or miraculous nature_ of the events which they relate?\nAnd this, surely, in the eyes of all reasonable people, will alone be\nregarded as a sufficient refutation.'\n\nThus Hume, first denies the existence of such evidence, given in such\ncircumstances as he demands, and then he produces an example of that very\nkind of evidence. Having done this, he abandons (as Mr. Wallace observes)\nhis original assertion that the evidence does not exist, and takes refuge\nin alleging 'the absolute impossibility' of the events which the evidence\nsupports. Thus Hume poses as a perfect judge of the possible, in a kind of\nomniscience. He takes his stand on the uniformity of all experience that\nis not hostile to his idea of the possible, and dismisses all testimony to\nother experience, even when it reaches his standard of evidence. He is\nremote indeed from Virchow's position 'that what we call the laws of\nnature must vary according to our frequent new experiences.'[3] In his\nnote, Hume buttresses and confirms his evidence for the Jansenist\nmiracles. They have even a martyr, M. Montgeron, who wrote an account of\nthe events, and, says Hume lightly, 'is now said to be somewhere in a\ndungeon on account of his book.' 'Many of the miracles of the Abb\u00e9 Paris\nwere proved immediately by witnesses before the Bishop's court at Paris,\nunder the eye of Cardinal Noailles....' 'His successor was an enemy to the\nJansenists, yet twenty-two _cur\u00e9s_ of Paris ... pressed him to examine\nthese miracles ... _But he wisely forbore_.' Hume adds his testimony to\nthe character of these _cur\u00e9s_. Thus it is wisdom, according to Hume, to\ndismiss the most public and well-attested 'miracles' without examination.\nThis is experimental science of an odd kind.\n\nThe phenomena were cases of healing, many of them surprising, of\ncataleptic rigidity, and of insensibility to pain, among visitors to the\ntomb of the Abb\u00e9 Paris (1731). Had the cases been judicially examined (all\nmedical evidence was in their favour), and had they been proved false, the\ncause of Hume would have profited enormously. A strong presumption would\nhave been raised against the miracles of Christianity. But Hume applauds\nthe wisdom of not giving his own theory this chance of a triumph. The\ncataleptic seizures were of the sort now familiar to science. These have,\ntherefore, emerged from the miraculous. In fact, the phenomena which\noccurred at the tomb of the Abb\u00e9 Paris have emerged almost too far, and\nnow seem in danger of being too readily and too easily accepted. In 1887\nMM. Binet and F\u00e9r\u00e9, of the school of the Salp\u00eatri\u00e8re, published in English\na popular manual styled 'Animal Magnetism.' These authors write with great\ncaution about such alleged phenomena as the reading, by the hypnotised\npatient, of the thoughts in the mind of the hypnotiser. But as to the\nphenomena at the tomb of the Abb\u00e9 Paris, they say that 'suggestion\nexplains them.'[4] That is, in the opinion of MM. Binet and F\u00e9r\u00e9\nthe so-called 'miracles' really occurred, and were worked by 'the\nimagination,' by 'self-suggestion.'\n\nThe most famous case--that of Mlle. Coirin--has been carefully examined by\nDr. Charcot.[5]\n\nMlle. Coirin had a dangerous fall from her horse, in September 1716, in\nher thirty-first year. The medical details may be looked for in Dr.\nCharcot's essay or in Montgeron.[6] 'Her disease was diagnosed as cancer\nof the left breast,' the nipple 'fell off bodily.' Amputation of the\nbreast was proposed, but Madame Coirin, believing the disease to be\nradically incurable, refused her consent. Paralysis of the left side set\nin (1718), the left leg shrivelling up. On August 9, 1731, Mlle. Coirin\n'tried the off chance' of a miracle, put on a shift that had touched the\ntomb of Paris, and used some earth from the grave. On August 11, Mlle.\nCoirin could turn herself in bed; on the 12th the horrible wound 'was\nstaunched, and began to close up and heal.' The paralysed side recovered\nlife and its natural proportions. By September 3, Mlle. Coirin could go\nout for a drive.\n\nAll her malady, says Dr. Charcot, paralysis, 'cancer,' and all, was\n'hysterical;' 'hysterical oedema,' for which he quotes many French\nauthorities and one American. 'Under the physical [psychical?] influence\nbrought to bear by the application of the shift ... the oedema, which was\ndue to vaso-motor trouble, disappeared almost instantaneously. The breast\nregained its normal size.'\n\nDr. Charcot generously adds that shrines, like Lourdes, have cured\npatients in whom he could not 'inspire the operation of the faith cure.'\nHe certainly cannot explain everything which claims to be of supernatural\norigin in the faith cure. We have to learn the lesson of patience. I am\namong the first to recognise that Shakespeare's words hold good to-day:\n\n  'There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,\n   Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.'\n\nIf Dr. Charcot had believed in what the French call _suggestion mentale_--\nsuggestion by thought-transference (which I think he did not)--he could\nhave explained the healing of the Centurion's servant, 'Say the word,\nLord, and my servant shall be healed,' by suggestion & distance\n(telepathy), and by premising that the servant's palsy was 'hysterical.'\nBut what do we mean by 'hysterical'? Nobody knows. The 'mind,' somehow,\ncauses gangrenes, if not cancers, paralysis, shrinking of tissues; the\nmind, somehow, cures them. And what is the 'mind'? As my object is to give\nsavage parallels to modern instances better vouched for. I quote a\nsingular Red Indian cure by 'suggestion.' Hearne, travelling in Canada, in\n1770, met a native who had 'dead palsy,' affecting the whole of one side.\nHe was dragged on a sledge, 'reduced to a mere skeleton,' and so was\nplaced in the magic lodge. The first step in his cure was the public\nswallowing by a conjurer of a board of wood, 'about the size of a\nbarrel-stave,' twice as wide across as his mouth. Hearne stood beside the\nman, 'naked as he was born,' 'and, notwithstanding I was all attention, I\ncould not detect the deceit.' Of course, Hearne believes that this was\nmere legerdemain, and (p. 216) mentions a most suspicious circumstance.\nThe account is amusing, and deserves the attention of Mr. Neville\nMaskelyne. The same conjurer had previously swallowed a cradle! Now\nbayonet swallowing, which he also did, is possible, though Hearne denies\nit (p. 217).\n\nThe real object of these preliminary feats, however performed, is,\nprobably, to inspire _faith_, which Dr. Charcot might have done by\nswallowing a cradle. The Indians explain that the barrel staves apparently\nswallowed are merely dematerialised by 'spirits,' leaving only the forked\nend sticking out of the conjurer's mouth. In fact, Hearne caught the\nconjurer in the act of making a separate forked end.\n\nFaith being thus inspired, the conjurer, for three entire days, blew,\nsang, and danced round 'the poor paralytic, fasting.' 'And it is truly\nwonderful, though the strictest truth, that when the poor man was taken\nfrom the conjuring house ... he was able to move all the fingers and toes\nof the side that had been so long dead.... At the end of six weeks he went\na-hunting for his family' (p. 219). Hearne kept up his acquaintance, and\nadds, what is very curious, that he developed almost a secondary\npersonality. 'Before that dreadful paralytic stroke, he had been\ndistinguished for his good nature and benevolent disposition, was entirely\nfree from every appearance of avarice,... but after this event he was the\nmost fractious, quarrelsome, discontented, and covetous wretch alive'\n(p. 220).\n\nDr. Charcot, if he had been acquainted with this case, would probably have\nsaid that it 'is of the nature of those which Professor Russell Reynolds\nhas classified under the head of \"paralysis dependent on idea.\"'[7]\nUnluckily, Hearne does not tell us how his hunter, an untutored Indian,\nbecame 'paralysed by idea.'\n\nDr. Charcot adds: 'In every case, science is a foe to systematic negation,\nwhich the morrow may cause to melt away in the light of its new triumphs.'\nThe present 'new triumph' is a mere coincidence with the dicta of our\nLord, 'Thy faith hath made thee whole.... I have not found so great faith,\nno, not in Israel.' There are cures, as there are maladies, caused 'by\nidea.' So, in fact, we had always understood. But the point is that\nscience, wherever it agrees with David Hume, is not a foe, but a friend to\n'systematic negation.'\n\nA parallel case of a 'miracle,' the stigmata of St. Francis, was, of\ncourse, regarded by science as a fable or a fraud. But, now that blisters\nand other lesions can be produced by suggestion, the fable has become a\nprobable fact, and, therefore, not a miracle at all.[8] Mr. James remarks:\n'As so often happens, a fact is denied till a welcome interpretation\ncomes with it. Then it is admitted readily enough, and evidence quite\ninsufficient to back a claim, so long as the Church had an interest\nin making it, proves to be quite sufficient for modern scientific\nenlightenment the moment it appears that a reputed saint can thereby be\nclaimed as a case of \"hystero-epilepsy.\"'[9]\n\nBut the Church continues to have an interest in the matter. As the class\nof facts which Hume declined to examine begins to be gradually admitted by\nscience, the thing becomes clear. The evidence which could safely convey\nthese now admittedly possible facts, say from the time of Christ, is so\nfar proved to be not necessarily mythical--proved to be not incapable of\ncarrying statements probably correct, which once seemed absolutely\nfalse. If so, where, precisely, ends its power of carrying facts? Thus\nconsidered, the kinds of marvellous events recorded in the Gospels,\nfor example, are no longer to be dismissed on _a priori_ grounds as\n'mythical.' We cannot now discard evidence as necessarily false because\nit clashes with our present ideas of the possible, when we have to\nacknowledge that the very same evidence may safely convey to us facts\nwhich clashed with our fathers' notions of what is possible, but which\nare now accepted. Our notions of the possible cease to be a criterion of\ntruth or falsehood, and our contempt for the Gospels as myths must\nslowly die, as 'miracle' after 'miracle' is brought within the realm of\nacknowledged law. With each such admission the hypothesis that the Gospel\nevidence is mythical must grow weaker, and weaker must grow the negative\ncertainty of popular science.\n\nThe occurrences which took place at and near the tomb of Paris were\nattested, as Hume truly avers, by a great body of excellent evidence. But\nthe wisdom which declined to make a judicial examination has deprived us\nof the best kind of record. Analogous if not exactly similar events now\nconfessedly take place, and are no longer looked upon as miraculous. But\nas long as they were held to be miraculous, not to examine the evidence,\nsaid Hume, was the policy of 'all reasonable people.' The result was to\ndeprive Science of the best sort of record of facts which she welcomes as\nsoon as she thinks she can explain them.[10] Examples of the folly of\n_a priori_ negation are common. The British Association refused to hear\nthe essay which Braid, the inventor of the word 'hypnotism,' had written\nupon the subject. Braid, Elliotson, and other English inquirers of the\nmid-century, were subjected to such persecutions as official science could\ninflict. We read of M. Deslon, a disciple of Mesmer, about 1783, that he\nwas 'condemned by the Faculty of Medicine, without any examination of the\nfacts.' The Inquisition proceeded more fairly than these scientific\nobscurantists.\n\nAnother curious example may be cited. M. Guyau, in his work 'The\nNon-Religion of the Future,' argues that Religion is doomed. 'Poetic\ngenius has withdrawn its services,' witness Tennyson and Browning! 'Among\northodox Protestant nations miracles do not happen.'[11] But 'marvellous\nfacts' _do_ happen.[12] These 'marvellous facts,' accepted by M. Guyau,\nare what Hume called 'miracles,' and advised the 'wise and learned' to\nlaugh at, without examination. They were not facts, and could not be, he\nsaid. Now to M. Guyau's mind they _are_ facts, and therefore are not\nmiracles. He includes 'mental suggestion taking place even at a distance.'\nA man 'can transmit an almost compulsive command, it appears nowadays, by\na simple tension of his will.' If this be so, if 'will' can affect matter\nfrom a distance, obviously the relations of will and matter are not what\npopular science tells us that they are. Again, if this truth is now\nestablished, and won from that region which Hume and popular science\nforbid us to investigate, who knows what other facts may be redeemed from\nthat limbo, or how far they may affect our views of possibilities? The\nadmission of mental action, operative _\u00e0 distance_, is, of course,\npersonal only to M. Guyau, among friends of the new negative tradition.\n\nWe return to Hume. He next argues that the pleasures of wonder make all\naccounts of 'miracles' worthless. He has just given an example of the\nequivalent pleasures of dogmatic disbelief. Then Religion is a disturbing\nforce; but so, manifestly, is irreligion. 'The wise and learned are\ncontent to deride the absurdity, without informing themselves of the\nparticular facts.' The wise and learned are applauded for their scientific\nattitude. Again, miracles destroy each other, for all religions have their\nmiracles, but all religions cannot be true. This argument is no longer of\nforce with people who look on 'miracles' as = 'X phenomena,' not as divine\nevidences to the truth of this or that creed. 'The gazing populace\nreceives, without examination, whatever soothes superstition,' and\nHume's whole purpose is to make the wise and learned imitate the gazing\npopulace by rejecting alleged facts 'without examination.' The populace\ninvestigated more than did the wise and learned.\n\nHume has an alternative definition of a miracle--'a miracle is a\ntransgression of a law of nature by a particular volition of the Deity, or\nby the interposition of some invisible agent.' We reply that what\nHume calls a 'miracle' may result from the operation of some as yet\nunascertained law of nature (say self-suggestion), and that our business,\nat present, is to examine such events, not to account for them.\n\nIt may fairly be said that Hume is arguing against men who wished to make\nso-called 'miracles' a test of the truth of Jansenism, for example, and\nthat he could not be expected to answer, by anticipation, ideas not\ncurrent in his day. But he remains guilty of denouncing the investigation\nof apparent facts. No attitude can be less scientific than his, or more\ncommon among many men of science.\n\nAccording to the humorous wont of things in this world, the whole question\nof the marvellous had no sooner been settled for ever by David Hume than\nit was reopened by Emanuel Swedenborg. Now, Kant was familiar with certain\nof the works of Hume, whether he had read his 'Essay on Miracles' or not.\nFar from declining to examine the portentous 'visions' of Swedenborg, Kant\ninterested himself deeply in the topic. As early as 1758 he wrote his\nfirst remarks on the seer, containing some reports of stories or legends\nabout Swedenborg's 'clairvoyance.' In the true spirit of psychical\nresearch, Kant wrote a letter to Swedenborg, asking for information at\nfirst hand. The seer got the letter, but he never answered it. Kant,\nhowever, prints one or two examples of Swedenborg's successes. Madame\nHarteville, widow of the Dutch envoy in Stockholm, was dunned by a\nsilversmith for a debt of her late husband's. She believed that it had\nbeen paid, but could not find the receipt. She therefore asked Swedenborg\nto use his renowned gifts. He promised to see what he could do, and, three\ndays later, arrived at the lady's house while she was giving a tea, or\nrather a coffee, party. To the assembled society Swedenborg remarked, 'in\na cold-blooded way, that he had seen her man, and spoken to him.' The late\nM. Harteville declared to Swedenborg that he had paid the bill, seven\nmonths before his decease: the receipt was in a cupboard upstairs. Madame\nHarteville replied that the cupboard had been thoroughly searched to no\npurpose. Swedenborg answered that, as he learned from the ghost, there was\na secret drawer behind the side-plank within the cupboard. The drawer\ncontained diplomatic correspondence, and the missing receipt. The whole\ncompany then went upstairs, found the secret drawer, and the receipt among\nthe other papers. Kant adds Swedenborg's clairvoyant vision, from\nGothenburg, of a great fire at Stockholm (dated September 1756). Kant\npined to see Swedenborg himself, and waited eagerly for his book, 'Arcana\nCoelestia.' At last he obtained this work, at the ransom, ruinous to Kant\nat that time, of 7\u00a3. But he was disappointed with what he read, and in\n'Tr\u00e4ume eines Geistersehers,' made a somewhat sarcastic attempt at a\nmetaphysical theory of apparitions.\n\n  'Velut aegri somnia vanae\n  Finguntur species'\n\nis his motto.\n\nKant's real position about all these matters is, I venture to say, almost\nidentical with that of Sir Walter Scott. A Scot himself, by descent, Kant\nmay have heard tales of second-sight and bogles. Like Scott, he dearly\nloved a ghost-story; like Scott he was canny enough to laugh, publicly, at\nthem and at himself for his interest in them. Yet both would take trouble\nto inquire. As Kant vainly wrote to Swedenborg and others--as he vainly\nspent 7\u00a3. on 'Arcana Coelestia,' so Sir Walter was anxious to go to Egypt\nto examine the facts of ink-gazing clairvoyance. Kant confesses that each\nindividual ghost-story found him sceptical, whereas the cumulative mass\nmade a considerable impression.[13]\n\nThe first seventy pages of the 'Tribune' are devoted to a perfectly\nserious discussion of the metaphysics of 'Spirits.' On page 73 he\npleasantly remarks, 'Now we shall understand that all said hitherto is\nsuperfluous,' and he will not reproach the reader who regards seers _not_\nas citizens of two worlds (Plotinus), but as candidates for Bedlam.\n\nKant's irony is peculiarly Scottish. He does not himself know how far he\nis in earnest, and, to save his self-respect and character for canniness,\nhe 'jocks wi' deeficulty.' He amuses himself with trying how far he can\ncarry speculations on metaphysics (not yet reformed by himself) into the\nrealm of the ghostly. He makes admissions about his own tendency to think\nthat he has an immaterial soul, and that these points are, or may be, or\nsome day will be, scientifically solved. These admissions are eagerly\nwelcomed by Du Prel in his 'Philosophy of Mysticism;' but they are only\npart of Kant's joke, and how far they are serious, Kant himself does not\nknow. If spiritualists knew their own business, they would translate and\npublish Kant's first seventy pages of 'Tr\u00e4ume.' Something like telepathy,\naction of spirit, even discarnate, on spirit, is alluded to, but the idea\nis as old as Lavaterus at least (p. 52). Kant has a good deal to say, like\nScott in his 'Demonology,' on the physics of Hallucination, but it is\nantiquated matter. He thinks the whole topic of spiritual being only\nimportant as bearing on hopes of a future life. As speculation, all is 'in\nthe air,' and as in such matters the learned and unlearned are on a level\nof ignorance, science will not discuss them. He then repeats the\nSwedenborg stories, and thinks it would be useful to posterity if some one\nwould investigate them while witnesses are alive and memories are fresh.\n\nIn fact, Kant asks for psychical research.\n\nAs for Swedenborg's so costly book, Kant laughs at it. There is in it no\nevidence, only assertion. Kant ends, having pleased nobody, he says, and\nas ignorant as when he began, by citing _cultivons notre jardin_.\n\nKant returned to the theme in 'Anthropologische Didaktik.' He discusses\nthe unconscious, or sub-conscious, which, till Sir William Hamilton\nlectured, seems to have been an absolutely unknown topic to British\npsychologists. 'So ist das Feld dunkler Vorstellungen das gr\u00f6sste in\nMenschen.' He has a chapter on 'The Divining Faculty' (pp. 89-93). He will\nnot hear of presentiments, and, unlike Hegel, he scouts the Highland\nsecond-sight. The 'possessed' of anthropology are epileptic patients.\nMystics (Swedenborg) are victims of _Schw\u00e4rmerei_.\n\nThis reference to Swedenborg is remarked upon by Schubert in his preface\nto the essay of Kant. He points out that 'it is interesting to compare the\ncircumspection, the almost uncertainty of Kant when he had to deliver a\njudgment on the phenomena described by himself and as to which he had made\ninquiry [i.e. in his letter _re_ Swedenborg to Mlle. de Knobloch], and the\nvery decided opinions he expressed forty years later on Swedenborg and\nhis companions' [in the work cited, sections 35-37. The opinion in\nparagraph 35 is a general one as to mystics. There is no other mention of\nSwedenborg].\n\nOn the whole Kant is interested, but despairing. He wants facts, and no\nfacts are given to him but the book of the Prophet Emanuel. But, as it\nhappened, a new, or a revived, order of facts was just about to solicit\nscientific attention. Kant had (1766) heard rumours of healing by\nmagnetism, and of the alleged effect of the magnet on the human frame. The\nsubject was in the air, and had already won the attention of Mesmer, about\nwhom Kant had information. It were superfluous to tell again the familiar\nstory of Mesmer's performances at Paris. While Mesmer's theory of\n'magnetism' was denounced by contemporary science, the discovery of the\nhypnotic sleep was made by his pupil, Puys\u00e9gur. This gentleman was\npersuaded that instances of 'thought-transference' (not through known\nchannels of sense) occurred between the patient and the magnetiser, and he\nalso believed that he had witnessed cases of 'clairvoyance,' 'lucidity,'\n_vue \u00e0 distance_, in which the patient apparently beheld places and events\nremote in space. These things would now be explained by 'unconscious\nsuggestion' in the more sceptical schools of psychological science. The\nRevolution interrupted scientific study in France to a great degree, but\n'somnambulism' (the hypnotic sleep) and 'magnetism' were eagerly examined\nin Germany. Modern manuals, for some reason, are apt to overlook these\nGerman researches and speculations. (Compare Mr. Vincent's 'Elements of\nHypnotism,' p. 34.) The Schellings were interested; Ritter thought he had\ndetected a new force, 'Siderism.' Mr. Wallace, in his preface to Hegel's\n'Philosophie des Geistes,' speaks as if Ritter had made experiments in\ntelepathy. He may have done so, but his 'Siderismus' (T\u00fcbingen, 1808)\nis a Report undertaken for the Academy of Munich, on the doings of an\nItalian water-finder, or 'dowser.' Ritter gives details of seventy-four\nexperiments in 'dowsing' for water, metals, or coal. He believes in the\nfaculty, but not in 'psychic' explanations, or the Devil. He talks\nabout 'electricity' (pp. 170, 190). He describes his precautions to\navoid vulgar fraud, but he took no precautions against unconscious\nthought-transference. He reckoned the faculty 'temperamental' and useful.\n\nAmoretti, at Milan, examined hundreds of cases of the so-called Divining\nRod, and Jung Stilling became an early spiritualist and 'full-welling\nfountain head' of ghost stories.\n\nProbably the most important philosophical result of the early German\nresearches into the hypnotic slumber is to be found in the writings of\nHegel. Owing to his peculiar use of a terminology, or scientific language,\nall his own, it is extremely difficult to make Hegel's meaning even\nmoderately clear. Perhaps we may partly elucidate it by a similitude of\nMr. Frederic Myers. Suppose we compare the ordinary everyday consciousness\nof each of us to a _spectrum_, whose ends towards each extremity fade out\nof our view.\n\nBeyond the range of sight there may be imagined a lower or physiological\nend: for our ordinary consciousness, of course, is unaware of many\nphysiological processes which are eternally going on within us. Digestion,\nso long as it is healthy, is an obvious example. But hypnotic experiment\nmakes it certain that a patient, in the _hypnotic_ condition, can\nconsciously, or at least purposefully, affect physiological processes to\nwhich the _ordinary_ consciousness is blind--for example, by raising a\nblister, when it is suggested that a blister must be raised. Again\n(granting the facts hypothetically and merely for the sake of argument),\nat the _upper_ end of the spectrum, beyond the view of ordinary everyday\nconsciousness, knowledge may be acquired of things which are out of the\nview of the consciousness of every day. For example (for the sake of\nargument let us admit it), unknown and remote people and places may be\nseen and described by clairvoyance, or _vue \u00e0 distance_.\n\nNow Hegel accepted as genuine the facts which we here adduce merely for\nthe sake of argument, and by way of illustrations. But he did not regard\nthe clairvoyant consciousness (or whatever we call it) which, _ex\nhypothesi_, is untrammelled by space, or even by time, as occupying what\nwe style the _upper_ end of the psychical spectrum. On the contrary, he\nplaced it at the _lower_ end. Hegel's upper end 'loses itself in light;'\nthe lower end, _qui voit tant de choses_, as La Fontaine's shepherd says,\nis _not_ 'a sublime mental phase, and capable of conveying general\ntruths.' Time and space do not thwart the consciousness at Hegel's _lower_\nend, which springs from 'the great soul of nature.' But that lower end,\nthough it may see for Jeanne d'Arc at Valcouleurs a battle at Rouvray, a\nhundred leagues away, does not communicate any lofty philosophic\ntruths.[14] The phenomena of clairvoyance, in Hegel's opinion, merely\nindicate that the 'material' is really 'ideal,' which, perhaps, is as much\nas we can ask from them. 'The somnambulist and clairvoyant see without\neyes, and carry their visions directly into regions where the waiting\nconsciousness of orderly intelligence cannot enter' (Wallace). Hegel\nadmits, however, that 'in ordinary self-possessed conscious life' there\nare traces of the 'magic tie,' 'especially between female friends of\ndelicate nerves,' to whom he adds husband and wife, and members of the\nsame family. He gives (without date or source) a case of a girl in Germany\nwho saw her brother lying dead in a hospital at Valladolid. Her brother\nwas at the time in the hospital, but it was another man in the nest bed\nwho was dead. 'It is thus impossible to make out whether what the\nclairvoyants really see preponderates over what they deceive themselves\nin.'\n\nAs long as the facts which Hegel accepted are not officially welcomed by\nscience, it may seem superfluous to dispute as to whether they are\nattained by the lower or the higher stratum of our consciousness. But\nperhaps the question here at issue may be elucidated by some remarks of\nDr. Max Dessoir. Psychology, he says, has proved that in every conception\nand idea an image or group of images must be present. These mental images\nare the recrudescence or recurrence of perceptions. We see a tree, or a\nman, or a dog, and whenever we have before our minds the conception or\nidea of any of these things the original perception of them returns,\nthough of course more faintly. But in Dr. Dessoir's opinion these revived\nmental images would reach the height of actual hallucinations (so that the\nman, dog, or tree would seem visibly present) if other memories and new\nsensations did not compete with them and check their development.\n\nSuppose, to use Mlle. Ferrand's metaphor, a human body, living, but with\nall its channels of sensation hitherto unopened. Open the sense of sight\nto receive a flash of green colour, and close it again. Apparently,\nwhenever the mind informing this body had the conception of green (and it\ncould have no other) it would also have an hallucination of green, thus\n\n  'Annihilating all that's made,\n  To a green thought in a green shade.'\n\nNow, in sleep or hypnotic trance the competition of new sensations and\nother memories is removed or diminished, and therefore the idea of a man,\ndog, or tree once suggested to the hypnotised patient, does become an\nactual hallucination. The hypnotised patient sees the absent object which\nhe is told to see, the sleeper sees things not really present.\n\nOur primitive state, before the enormous competition of other memories and\nnew sensations set in, would thus be a state of hallucination. Our normal\npresent condition, in which hallucination is checked by competing memories\nand new sensations, is a suppression of our original, primitive, natural\ntendencies. Hallucination represents 'the main trunk of our psychical\nexistence.'[15] In Dr. Dessoir's theory this condition of hallucination\nis man's original and most primitive condition, but it is not a _higher_,\nrather a lower state of spiritual activity than the everyday practical\nunhallucinated consciousness.\n\nThis is also the opinion of Hegel, who supposes our primitive mental\ncondition to be capable of descrying objects remote in space and time. Mr.\nMyers, as we saw, is of the opposite opinion, as to the relative dignity\nand relative reality of the present everyday self, and the old original\nfundamental Self. Dr. Dessoir refrains from pronouncing a decided opinion\nas to whether the original, primitive, hallucinated self within us does\n'preside over powers and actions at a distance,' such as clairvoyance; but\nhe believes in hypnotisation at a distance. His theory, like Hegel's, is\nthat of 'atavism,' or 'throwing back' to some very remote ancestral\ncondition. This will prove of interest later.\n\nHegel, at all events, believed in the fact of clairvoyance (though deeming\nit of little practical use); he accepted telepathy ('the magic tie'); he\naccepted interchange of sensations between the hypnotiser and the\nhypnotised; he believed in the divining rod, and, unlike Kant, even in\n'Scottish second-sight.' 'The intuitive soul oversteps the conditions of\ntime and space; it beholds things remote, things long past, and things to\ncome.'[16]\n\nThe pendulum of thought has swung back a long way from the point whither\nit was urged by David Hume. Hegel remarks: 'The facts, it might seem,\nfirst of all call for verification. But such verification would be\nsuperfluous to those on whose account it was called for, since they\nfacilitate the inquiry for themselves by declaring the narratives,\ninfinitely numerous though they be, and accredited by the education and\ncharacter of the witnesses, to be mere deception and imposture. Their _a\npriori_ conceptions are so rooted that no testimony can avail against\nthem, and they have even denied what they have seen with their own eyes,'\nand reported under their own hands, like Sir David Brewster. Hegel, it\nwill be observed, takes the facts as given, and works them into his\ngeneral theory of the Sensitive Soul (_f\u00fchlende Seele_). He does not try\nto establish the facts; but to establish, or at least to examine them, is\nthe first business of Psychical Research. Theorising comes later.\n\nThe years which have passed between the date of Hegel's 'Philosophy of\nMind' and our own time have witnessed the long dispute over the existence,\nthe nature, and the causes of the hypnotic condition, and over the reality\nand limitations of the phenomena. Thus the Academy of Medicine in Paris\nappointed a Committee to examine the subject in 1825. The Report on\n'Animal Magnetism,' as it was then styled, was presented in 1831. The\nAcademy lacked the courage to publish it, for the Report was favourable\neven to certain of the still disputed phenomena. At that time, in\naccordance with a survival of the theory of Mesmer, the agent in hypnotic\ncases was believed to be a kind of efflux of a cosmic fluid from the\n'magnetiser' to the patient. There was 'a magnetic connection.'\n\nThough no distinction between mesmerism and hypnotism is taken in popular\nlanguage, 'mesmerism' is a word implying this theory of 'magnetic' or\nother unknown personal influence. 'Hypnotism,' as will presently be seen,\nimplies no such theory. The Academy's Report (1831) attested the\ndevelopment, under 'magnetism,' of 'new faculties,' such as clairvoyance\nand intuition, also the production of 'great changes in the physical\neconomy,' such as insensibility, and sudden increase of strength. The\nReport declared it to be 'demonstrated' that sleep could be produced\n'without suggestion,' as we say now, though the term was not then in use.\n'Sleep has been produced in circumstances in which the persons could not\nsee or were ignorant of the means employed to produce it.'\n\nThe Academy did its best to suppress this Report, which attests the\nphenomena that Hegel accepted, phenomena still disputed. Six years later\n(1837), a Committee reported against the pretensions of a certain Berna,\na 'magnetiser.' No person acted on both Committees, and this Report was\naccepted. Later, a number of people tried to read a letter in a box, and\nfailed. 'This,' says Mr. Vincent, 'settled the question with regard to\nclairvoyance;' though it might be more logical to say that it settled the\npretensions of the competitors on that occasion. The Academy now decided\nthat, because certain persons did not satisfy the expectations raised by\ntheir preliminary advertisements, therefore the question of magnetism was\ndefinitely closed.\n\nWe have often to regret that scientific eminence is not always accompanied\nby scientific logic. Where science neglects a subject, charlatans and\ndupes take it up. In England 'animal magnetism' had been abandoned to this\nclass of enthusiasts, till Thackeray's friend, Dr. Elliotson, devoted\nhimself to the topic. He was persecuted as doctors know how to persecute;\nbut in 1841, Braid, of Manchester, discovered that the so-called 'magnetic\nsleep' could be produced without any 'magnetism,' He made his patients\nstare fixedly at an object, and encouraged them to expect to go to sleep.\nHe called his method 'Hypnotism,' a term which begs no question. Seeming\nto cease to be mysterious, hypnotism became all but respectable, and was\nbeing used in surgical operations, till it was superseded by chloroform.\nIn England, the study has been, and remains, rather _suspect_, while on\nThe Continent hypnotism is used both for healing purposes and in the\ninquiries of experimental psychology. Wide differences of opinion still\nexist, as to the nature of the hypnotic sleep, as to its physiological\nconcomitants, and as to the limits of the faculties exercised in or out of\nthe slumber. It is not even absolutely certain that the exercise of the\nstranger faculties--for instance, that the production of anaesthesia and\nrigidity--are the results merely of 'suggestion' and expectancy. A\nhypnotised patient is told that the middle finger of his left hand will\nbecome rigid and incapable of sensation. This occurs, and is explained by\n'suggestion,' though _how_ 'suggestion' produces the astonishing effect\nis another problem. The late Mr. Gurney, however, made a number of\nexperiments in which no suggestion was pronounced, nor did the patients\nknow which of their fingers was to become rigid and incapable of pain. The\npatient's hands were thrust through a screen; on the other side of which\nthe hypnotist made passes above the finger which was to become rigid. The\nlookers-on selected the finger, and the insensibility was tested by a\nstrong electric current. The effect was also produced _without_ passes,\nthe operator merely pointing at the selected finger, and 'willing' the\nresult. If he did not 'will' it, nothing occurred, nor did anything occur\nif he willed without pointing. The proximity of the operator's hand\nproduced no effect if he did not 'will,' nor was his 'willing' successful\nif he did not bring his hand near that of the patient. Other people's\nhands, similarly situated, produced no effect.\n\nExperiments in transferring taste, as of salt, sugar, cayenne pepper, from\noperator to subject, were also successful. Drs. Janet and Gibert also\nproduced sleep in a woman at a distance, by 'willing' it, at hours which\nwere selected by a system of drawing lots.[17] These facts, of course,\nrather point to an element of truth in the old mesmeric hypothesis of some\nspecific influence in the operator. They cannot very well be explained by\nsuggestion and expectancy. But these facts and facts of clairvoyance and\nthought-transference will be rejected as superstitious delusions by people\nwho have not met them in their own experience. This need not prevent us\nfrom examining them, because _all_ the facts, including those now\nuniversally accepted by Continental and scarcely impeached by British\nscience, have been noisily rejected again and again on Hume's principles.\n\nThe rarer facts, as Mr. Gurney remarks, 'still go through the hollow form\nof taking place.' Here is an example of the mode in which these phenomena\nare treated by popular science. Mr. Vincent says that 'clairvoyance and\nphrenology were Elliotson's constant stock in trade.' (Phrenology was\nalso Braid's stock in trade.) 'It is a matter of congratulation to have\nbeen so soon delivered from what Dr. Lloyd Tuckey has well called \"a mass\nof superincumbent rubbish.\"'[18] Clairvoyance is part of a mass of\nrubbish, on page 57. On page 67, Mr. Vincent says: 'There are many\ninteresting questions, such as telepathy, thought-reading, clairvoyance,\nupon which it would be perhaps rash to give any decided opinion.... All\nthese strange psychical conditions present problems of great interest,'\nand are only omitted because 'they have not a sufficient bearing on the\nnormal states of hypnosis....' Thus what was 'rubbish' in one page\n'presents problems of great interest' ten pages later, and, after offering\na decided opinion that clairvoyance is rubbish, Mr. Vincent thinks it rash\nto give any decided opinion. It is rather rash to give a decided opinion,\nand then to say that it is rash to do so.[19]\n\nThis brief sketch shows that science is confronted by certain facts,\nwhich, in his time, Hume dismissed as incredible miracles, beneath the\ncontempt of the wise and learned. We also see that the stranger and rarer\nphenomena which Hegel accepted as facts, and interwove with his general\nphilosophy, are still matters of dispute. Admitted by some men of science,\nthey are doubted by others; by others, again, are denied, while most of\nthe journalists and authors of cheap primers, who inspire popular\ntradition, regard the phenomena as frauds or fables of superstition. But\nit is plain that these phenomena, like the more ordinary facts of\nhypnotism, _may_ finally be admitted by science. The scientific world\nlaughed, not so long ago, at Ogham inscriptions, meteorites, and at\npalaeolithic weapons as impostures, or freaks of nature. Now nobody has\nany doubt on these matters, and clairvoyance, thought-transference, and\ntelepathy may, not inconceivably, be as fortunate in the long run as\nmeteorites, or as the more usual phenomena of hypnotism.\n\nIt is only Lord Kelvin who now maintains, or lately maintained, that in\nhypnotism there is nothing at all but fraud and malobservation. In years\nto come it may be that only some similar belated voice will cry that in\nthought-transference there is nothing but malobservation and fraud. At\npresent the serious attention and careful experiment needed for the\nestablishment of the facts are more common among French than among English\nmen of science. When published, these experiments, if they contain any\naffirmative instances, are denounced as 'superstitious,' or criticized\nafter what we must charitably deem to be a very hasty glance, by the\nguides of popular opinion. Examples of this method will be later quoted.\nMeanwhile the disputes as to these alleged facts are noticed here, because\nof their supposed relation to the Origin of Religion.\n\n[Footnote 1: See Mr. Myers's paper on the 'Ancient Oracles,' in _Classical\nEssays_, and the author's 'Ancient Spiritualism,' in _Cock Lane and Common\nSense_.]\n\n[Footnote 2: The italics here are those of Mr. Alfred Russell Wallace, in\nhis _Miracles and Modern Science_. Mr. Huxley, in his exposure of Hume's\nfallacies (in his Life of Hume), did not examine the Jansenist 'miracles'\nwhich Hume was criticising.]\n\n[Footnote 3: Moll, _Hypnotism_, p. 357.]\n\n[Footnote 4: _Animal Magnetism_, p. 355.]\n\n[Footnote 5: A translation of his work was published in the _New Review_,\nJanuary 1693.]\n\n[Footnote 6: _La V\u00e9rit\u00e9 des Miracles_, Cologne, 1747, Septi\u00e8mo\nD\u00e9monstration.]\n\n[Footnote 7: See Dr. Russell Reynolds's paper in _British Medical\nJournal_, November 1869.]\n\n[Footnote 8: James, _Principles of Psychology_, ii. 612. Charcot,\nop. cit.]\n\n[Footnote 9: I do not need to be told that Dr. Maudsley denied the fact in\n1886. I am prepared with the evidence, if it is asked for by some savant\nwho happens not to know it.]\n\n[Footnote 10: I am not responsible, of course, for the scientific validity\nof Dr. Charcot's theory of healing 'by idea.' My point merely is that\ncertain experts of no slight experience or mean reputation do now admit,\nas important certainties within their personal knowledge, exactly the\nphenomena which Hume asks the wise and learned to laugh at, indeed, but\nnever to investigate.]\n\n[Footnote 11: Pp. 353-356.]\n\n[Footnote 12: P. 93.]\n\n[Footnote 13: _Tr\u00e4ume_, p. 76.]\n\n[Footnote 14: Hegel accepts the clairvoyance of the Pucelle.]\n\n[Footnote 15: See Dr. Dessoir, in _Das Doppel Ich,_ as quoted by Mr.\nMyers, _Proceedings_, vol. vi. 213.]\n\n[Footnote 16: _Philosophie des Geistes, Werke,_ vol. vii. 179. Berlin.\n1845. The examples and much of the philosophising are in the _Zus\u00e4tze_,\nnot translated in Mr. Wallace's version, Oxford, 1894.]\n\n[Footnote 17: _Proceedings_, S.P.R., vol. ii. pp. 201-207, 390-392.]\n\n[Footnote 18: _Elements of Hypnotism_, p. 67.]\n\n[Footnote 19: Possibly Mr. Vincent only means that Elliotson's\nexperiments, 'little more than sober footing' (p. 57), with the sisters\nOkey, were rubbish. But whether the sisters Okey were or were not honest\nis a question on which we cannot enter here.]\n\n\n\n\nIII\n\nANTHROPOLOGY AND RELIGION\n\nAmong the various forms of science which are reaching and affecting the\nnew popular tradition, we have reckoned Anthropology. Pleasantly enough,\nAnthropology has herself but recently emerged from that limbo of\nthe unrecognised in which Psychical Research is pining. The British\nAssociation used to reject anthropological papers as 'vain dreams based on\ntravellers' tales.' No doubt the British Association would reject a paper\non clairvoyance as a vain dream based on old wives' fables, or on\nhysterical imposture. Undeniably the study of such themes is hampered by\nfable and fraud, just as anthropology has to be ceaselessly on its guard\nagainst 'travellers' tales,' against European misunderstandings of savage\nideas, and against civilised notions and scientific theories unconsciously\nread into barbaric customs, rites, traditions, and usages. Man, _ondoyant\net divers_, is the subject alike of anthropology and of psychical\nresearch. Man (especially savage man) cannot be secluded from disturbing\ninfluences, and watched, like the materials of a chemical experiment in a\nlaboratory. Nor can man be caught in a 'primitive' state: his intellectual\nbeginnings lie very far behind the stage of culture in which we find the\nlowest known races. Consequently the matter on which anthropology works is\nfluctuating; the evidence on which it rests needs the most sceptical\ncriticism, and many of its conclusions, in the necessary absence of\nhistorical testimony as to times far behind the lowest known savages, must\nbe hypothetical.\n\nFor these sound reasons official science long looked askance on\nAnthropology. Her followers were not regarded as genuine scholars, and,\nperhaps as a result of this contempt, they were often 'broken men,'\nintellectual outlaws, people of one wild idea. To the scientific mind,\nanthropologists or ethnologists were a horde who darkly muttered of\nserpent worship, phallus worship, Arkite doctrines, and the Ten Lost\nTribes that kept turning up in the most unexpected places. Anthropologists\nwere said to gloat over dirty rites of dirty savages, and to seek reason\nwhere there was none. The exiled, the outcast, the pariah of Science, is,\nindeed, apt to find himself in odd company. Round the camp-fire of\nPsychical Research too, in the unofficial, unstaked waste of Science,\nhover odd, menacing figures of Esoteric Buddhists, _Satanistes_,\nOccultists, Christian Scientists, Spiritualists, and Astrologers, as the\nArkites and Lost Tribesmen haunted the cradle of anthropology.\n\nBut there was found at last to be reason in the thing, and method in the\nmadness. Evolution was in it. The acceptance, after long ridicule, of\npalaeolithic weapons as relics of human culture, probably helped to bring\nAnthropology within the sacred circle of permitted knowledge. Her topic\nwas full of illustrations of the doctrine of Mr. Darwin. Modern writers on\nthe theme had been anticipated by the less systematic students of the\neighteenth century--Goguet, de Brosses, Millar, Fontenelle, Lafitau,\nBoulanger, or even Hume and Voltaire. As pioneers these writers answer to\nthe early mesmerists and magnetists, Puys\u00e9gur, Amoretti, Ritter,\nElliotson, Mayo, Gregory, in the history of Psychical Research. They\nwere on the same track, in each case, as Lubbock, Tylor, Spencer,\nBastian, and Frazer, or as Gurney, Richet, Myers, Janet, Dessoir, and Von\nSchrenck-Notzing. But the earlier students were less careful of method and\nevidence.\n\nEvidence! that was the stumbling block of anthropology. We still hear, in\nthe later works of Mr. Max M\u00fcller, the echo of the old complaints.\nAnything you please, Mr. Max M\u00fcller says, you may find among your useful\nsavages, and (in regard to some anthropologists) his criticism is just.\nYou have but to skim a few books of travel, pencil in hand, and pick out\nwhat suits your case. Suppose, as regards our present theme, your theory\nis that savages possess broken lights of the belief in a Supreme Being.\nYou can find evidence for that. Or suppose you want to show that they have\nno religious ideas at all; you can find evidence for that also. Your\ntestimony is often derived from observers ignorant of the language of the\npeople whom they talk about, or who are themselves prejudiced by one or\nother theory or bias. How can you pretend to raise a science on such\nfoundations, especially as the savage informants wish to please or to\nmystify inquirers, or they answer at random, or deliberately conceal their\nmost sacred institutions, or have never paid any attention to the subject?\n\nTo all these perfectly natural objections Mr. Tylor has replied.[1]\nEvidence must be collected, sifted, tested, as in any other branch of\ninquiry. A writer, 'of course, is bound to use his best judgment as to\nthe trustworthiness of all authors he quotes, and, if possible, to obtain\nseveral accounts to certify each point in each locality.' Mr. Tylor then\nadduces 'the test of recurrence,' of undesigned coincidence in testimony,\nas Millar had already argued in the last century.[2] If a mediaeval\nMahommedan in Tartary, a Jesuit in Brazil, a Wesleyan in Fiji, one may add\na police magistrate in Australia, a Presbyterian in Central Africa, a\ntrapper in Canada, agree in describing some analogous rite or myth in\nthese diverse lands and ages, we cannot set down the coincidence to chance\nor fraud. 'Now, the most important facts of ethnography are vouched for in\nthis way.'\n\nWe may add that even when the ideas of savages are obscure, we can\noften detect them by analysis of the institutions in which they are\nexpressed.[3]\n\nThus anthropological, like psychical or any other evidence, must be\nsubmitted to conscientious processes of testing and sifting. Contradictory\ninstances must be hunted for sedulously. Nothing can be less scientific\nthan to snatch up any traveller's tale which makes for our theory, and to\nignore evidence, perhaps earlier, or later, or better observed, which\nmakes against it. Yet this, unfortunately, in certain instances (which\nwill be adduced) has been the occasional error of Mr. Huxley and Mr.\nSpencer.[4] Mr. Spencer opens his 'Ecclesiastical Institutions' by the\nremark that 'the implication [from the reported absence of the ideas of\nbelief in persons born deaf and dumb] is that the religious ideas of\ncivilised men are not innate' (who says they are?), and this implication\nMr. Spencer supports by 'proofs that among various savages religious ideas\ndo not exist.' 'Sir John Lubbock has given many of these.' But it would be\nwell to advise the reader to consult Roskoff's confutation of Sir John\nLubbock, and Mr. Tylor's masterly statement.[5] Mr. Spencer cited Sir\nSamuel Baker for savages without even 'a ray of superstition' or a trace\nof worship. Mr. Tylor, twelve years before Mr. Spencer wrote, had\ndemolished Sir Samuel Baker's assertion,[6] as regards many tribes, and so\nshaken it as regards the Latukas, quoted by Mr. Spencer. The godless\nDinkas have 'a good deity and heaven-dwelling creator,' carefully recorded\nyears before Sir Samuel's 'rash denial.' We show later that Mr. Spencer,\nrelying on a single isolated sentence in Brough Smyth, omits all his\nessential information about the Australian Supreme Being; while Mr.\nHuxley--overlooking the copious and conclusive evidence as to their\nethical religion--charges the Australians with having merely a non-moral\nbelief in casual spirits. We have also to show that Mr. Huxley, under the\ndominance of his theory, and inadvertently, quotes a good authority as\nsaying the precise reverse of what he really does say.\n\nIf the facts not fitting their theories are little observed by authorities\nso popular as Mr. Huxley and Mr. Spencer; if _instantiae contradictoriae_\nare ignored by them, or left vague; if these things are done in the green\ntree, we may easily imagine what shall be done in the dry. But we need not\nwar with hasty _vulgarisateurs_ and headlong theorists.\n\nEnough has been said to show the position of anthropology as regards\nevidence, and to prove that, if he confines his observations to certain\nanthropologists, the censures of Mr. Max M\u00fcller are justified. It is\nmainly for this reason that the arguments presently to follow are strung\non the thread of Mr. Tylor's truly learned and accurate book, 'Primitive\nCulture.'\n\nThough but recently crept forth, _vix aut ne vix quidem_, from the chill\nshade of scientific disdain, Anthropology adopts the airs of her elder\nsisters among the sciences, and is as severe as they to the Cinderella of\nthe family, Psychical Research. She must murmur of her fairies among the\ncinders of the hearth, while they go forth to the ball, and dance with\nprovincial mayors at the festivities of the British Association. This is\nungenerous, and unfortunate, as the records of anthropology are rich in\nunexamined materials of psychical research. I am unacquainted with any\nwork devoted by an anthropologist of renown to the hypnotic and kindred\npractices of the lower races, except Herr Bastian's very meagre tract,\n'\u00dcber psychische Beobachtungen bei Naturv\u00f6lkern.'[7] We possess, none the\nless, a mass of scattered information on this topic, the savage side of\npsychical phenomena, in works of travel, and in Mr. Tylor's monumental\n'Primitive Culture.' Mr. Tylor, however, as we shall see, regards it as a\nmatter of indifference, or, at least, as a matter beyond the scope of his\nessay, to decide whether the parallel supernormal phenomena believed\nin by savages, and said to recur in civilisation, are facts of actual\nexperience, or not.\n\nNow, this question is not otiose. Mr. Tylor, like other anthropologists,\nMr. Huxley, Mr. Herbert Spencer, and their followers and popularisers,\nconstructs on anthropological grounds, a theory of the Origin of Religion.\n\nThat origin anthropology explains as the result of early and fallacious\nreasonings on a number of biological and psychological phenomena, both\nnormal and (as is alleged by savages) supernormal. These reasonings led to\nthe belief in souls and spirits. Now, first, anthropology has taken for\ngranted that the Supreme Deities of savages are envisaged by them as\n'spirits.' This, paradoxical as the statement may appear, is just what\ndoes not seem to be proved, as we shall show. Next, if the supernormal\nphenomena (clairvoyance, thought-transference, phantasms of the dead,\nphantasms of the dying, and others) be real matters of experience, the\ninferences drawn from them by early savage philosophy may be, in some\ndegree, erroneous. But the inferences drawn by materialists who reject the\nsupernormal phenomena will also, perhaps, be, let us say, incomplete.\nReligion will have been, in part, developed out of facts, perhaps\ninconsistent with materialism in its present dogmatic form. To put it less\ntrenchantly, and perhaps more accurately, the alleged facts 'are not\nmerely dramatically strange, they are not merely extraordinary and\nstriking, but they are \"odd\" in the sense that they will not easily fit in\nwith the views which physicists and men of science generally give us of\nthe universe in which we live' (Mr. A.J. Balfour, President's Address,\n'Proceedings,' S.P.R. vol. x. p. 8, 1894).\n\nAs this is the case, it might seem to be the business of Anthropology, the\nScience of Man, to examine, among other things, the evidence for the\nactual existence of those alleged unusual and supernormal phenomena,\nbelief in which is given as one of the origins of religion.\n\nTo make this examination, in the ethnographic field, is almost a new\nlabour. As we shall see, anthropologists have not hitherto investigated\nsuch things as the 'Fire-walk' of savages, uninjured in the flames, like\nthe Three Holy Children. The world-wide savage practice of divining by\nhallucinations induced through gazing into a smooth deep (crystal-gazing)\nhas been studied, I think, by no anthropologist. The veracity of\n'messages' uttered by savage seers when (as they suppose) 'possessed' or\n'inspired' has not been criticised, and probably cannot be, for lack of\ndetailed information. The 'physical phenomena' which answer among savages\nto the use of the 'divining rod,' and to 'spiritist' marvels in modern\ntimes, have only been glanced at. In short, all the savage parallels\nto the so-called 'psychical phenomena' now under discussion in England,\nAmerica, Germany, Italy, and France, have escaped critical analysis and\ncomparison with their civilised counterparts.\n\nAn exception among anthropologists is Mr. Tylor. He has not suppressed the\nexistence of these barbaric parallels to our modern problems of this kind.\nBut his interest in them practically ends when he has shown that the\nphenomena helped to originate the savage belief in 'spirits,' and when he\nhas displayed the 'survival' of that belief in later culture. He does not\nask 'Are the phenomena real?' he is concerned only with the savage\nphilosophy of the phenomena and with its relics in modern spiritism and\nreligion. My purpose is to do, by way only of _\u00e9bauche_, what neither\nanthropology nor psychical research nor psychology has done: to put the\nsavage and modern phenomena side by side. Such evidence as we can give for\nthe actuality of the modern experiences will, so far as it goes, raise a\npresumption that the savage beliefs, however erroneous, however darkened\nby fraud and fancy, repose on a basis of real observation of actual\nphenomena.\n\nAnthropology is concerned with man and what is in man--_humani nihil\na se alienum putat_. These researches, therefore, are within the\nanthropological province, especially as they bear on the prevalent\nanthropological theory of the Origin of Religion. By 'religion' we mean,\nfor the purpose of this argument, the belief in the existence of an\nIntelligence, or Intelligences not human, and not dependent on a material\nmechanism of brain and nerves, which may, or may not, powerfully control\nmen's fortunes and the nature of things. We also mean the additional\nbelief that there is, in man, an element so far kindred to these\nIntelligences that it can transcend the knowledge obtained through the\nknown bodily senses, and may possibly survive the death of the body. These\ntwo beliefs at present (though not necessarily in their origin) appear\nchiefly as the faith in God and in the Immortality of the Soul.\n\nIt is important, then, to trace, if possible, the origin of these two\nbeliefs. If they arose in actual communion with Deity (as the first at\nleast did, in the theory of the Hebrew Scriptures), or if they could be\nproved to arise in an unanalysable _sensus numinis_, or even in 'a\nperception of the Infinite' (Max M\u00fcller), religion would have a divine, or\nat least a necessary source. To the Theist, what is inevitable cannot but\nbe divinely ordained, therefore religion is divinely preordained,\ntherefore, in essentials, though not in accidental details, religion is\ntrue. The atheist, or non-theist, of course draws no such inferences.\n\nBut if religion, as now understood among men, be the latest evolutionary\nform of a series of mistakes, fallacies, and illusions, if its germ be a\nblunder, and its present form only the result of progressive but\nunessential refinements on that blunder, the inference that religion is\nuntrue--that nothing actual corresponds to its hypothesis--is very easily\ndrawn. The inference is not, perhaps, logical, for all our science itself\nis the result of progressive refinements upon hypotheses originally\nerroneous, fashioned to explain facts misconceived. Yet our science is\ntrue, within its limits, though very far from being exhaustive of the\ntruth. In the same way, it might be argued, our religion, even granting\nthat it arose out of primitive fallacies and false hypotheses, may yet\nhave been refined, as science has been, through a multitude of causes,\ninto an approximate truth.\n\nFrequently as I am compelled to differ from Mr. Spencer both as to facts\nand their interpretation, I am happy to find that he has anticipated me\nhere. Opponents will urge, he says, that 'if the primitive belief' (in\nghosts) 'was absolutely false, all derived beliefs from it must be\nabsolutely false?' Mr. Spencer replies: 'A germ of truth was contained in\nthe primitive conception--the truth, namely, that the power which\nmanifests itself in consciousness is but a differently conditioned form of\nthe power which manifests itself beyond consciousness.' In fact, we find\nMr. Spencer, like Faust as described by Marguerite, saying much the same\nthing as the priests, but not quite in the same way. Of course, I allow\nfor a much larger 'germ of truth' in the origin of the ghost theory than\nMr. Spencer does. But we can both say 'the ultimate form of the religious\nconsciousness is' (will be?) 'the final development of a consciousness\nwhich at the outset contained a germ of truth obscured by multitudinous\nerrors.'[8]\n\n  'One God, one law, one element,\n  And one far-off divine event,\n  To which the whole creation moves.'\n\nComing at last to Mr. Tylor, we find that he begins by dismissing the idea\nthat any known race of men is devoid of religious conceptions. He\ndisproves, out of their own mouths, the allegations of several writers who\nhave made this exploded assertion about 'godless tribes.' He says:\n'The thoughts and principles of modern Christianity are attached to\nintellectual clues which run back through far pre-Christian ages to the\nvery origin of human civilisation, _perhaps even of human existence_.'[9]\nSo far we abound in Mr. Tylor's sense. 'As a minimum definition of\nreligion' he gives 'the belief in spiritual beings,' which appears\n'among all low races with whom we have attained to thoroughly intimate\nrelations.' The existence of this belief at present does not prove that no\nraces were ever, at any time, destitute of all belief. But it prevents us\nfrom positing the existence of such creedless races, in any age, as a\ndemonstrated fact. We have thus, in short, no opportunity of observing,\n_historically_, man's development from blank unbelief into even the\nminimum or most rudimentary form of belief. We can only theorise and make\nmore or less plausible conjectures as to the first rudiments of human\nfaith in God and in spiritual beings. We find no race whose mind, as to\nfaith, is a _tabula rasa_.\n\nTo the earliest faith Mr. Tylor gives the name of _Animism_, a term not\nwholly free from objection, though 'Spiritualism' is still less desirable,\nhaving been usurped by a form of modern superstitiousness. This Animism,\n'in its full development, includes the belief in souls and in a future\nstate, in controlling deities and subordinate spirits.' In Mr. Tylor's\nopinion, as in Mr. Huxley's, Animism, in its lower (and earlier) forms,\nhas scarcely any connection with ethics. Its 'spirits' do not 'make for\nrighteousness.' This is a side issue to be examined later, but we may\nprovisionally observe, in passing, that the ethical ideas, such as they\nare, even of Australian blacks are reported to be inculcated at the\nreligious mysteries (_Bora_) of the tribes, which were instituted by and\nare performed in honour of the gods of their native belief. But this topic\nmust be reserved for our closing chapters.\n\nMr. Tylor, however, is chiefly concerned with Animism as 'an ancient and\nworld-wide philosophy, of which belief is the theory, and worship is the\npractice.' Given Animism, then, or the belief in spiritual beings, as the\nearliest form and minimum of religious faith, what is the origin of\nAnimism? It will be seen that, by Animism, Mr. Tylor does not mean the\nalleged early theory, implicitly if not explicitly and consciously held,\nthat all things whatsoever are animated and are personalities.[10] Judging\nfrom the behaviour of little children, and from the myths of savages,\nearly man may have half-consciously extended his own sense of personal and\npotent and animated existence to the whole of nature as known to him. Not\nonly animals, but vegetables and inorganic objects, may have been looked\non by him as persons, like what he felt himself to be. The child (perhaps\nmerely because _taught_ to do so) beats the naughty chair, and all objects\nare persons in early mythology. But this _feeling_, rather than theory,\nmay conceivably have existed among early men, before they developed the\nhypothesis of 'spirits,' 'ghosts,' or souls. It is the origin of _that_\nhypothesis, 'Animism,' which Mr. Tylor investigates.\n\nWhat, then, is the origin of Animism? It arose in the earliest traceable\nspeculations on 'two groups of biological problems:\n\n(1) 'What is it that makes the difference between a living body and a\ndead one; what causes waking, sleep, trance, disease, and death?'\n\n(2) 'What are those human shapes which appear in dreams and\nvisions?'[11]\n\nHere it should be noted that Mr. Tylor most properly takes a distinction\nbetween sleeping 'dreams' and waking 'visions,' or 'clear vision.' The\ndistinction is made even by the blacks of Australia. Thus one of the\nKurnai announced that his _Yambo_, or soul, could 'go out' during sleep,\nand see the distant and the dead. But 'while any one might be able to\ncommunicate with the ghosts, _during sleep_, it was only the wizards who\nwere able to do so in waking hours.' A wizard, in fact, is a person\nsusceptible (or feigning to be susceptible) when awake to hallucinatory\nperceptions of phantasms of the dead. 'Among the Kulin of Wimmera River a\nman became a wizard who, as a boy, had seen his mother's ghost sitting at\nher grave.'[12] These facts prove that a race of savages at the bottom of\nthe scale of culture do take a formal distinction between normal dreams in\nsleep and waking hallucinations--a thing apt to be denied.\n\nThus Mr. Herbert Spencer offers the massive generalisation that savages do\nnot possess a language enabling a man to say 'I dreamed that I saw,'\ninstead of 'I saw' ('Principles of Sociology,' p. 150). This could only be\nproved by giving examples of such highly deficient languages, which Mr.\nSpencer does not do.[13] In many savage speculations there occur ideas as\nsubtly metaphysical as those of Hegel. Moreover, even the Australian\nlanguages have the verb 'to see,' and the substantive 'sleep.' Nothing,\nthen, prevents a man from saying 'I saw in sleep' (_insomnium_,\n[Greek: enupnion]).\n\nWe have shown too, that the Australians take an essential distinction\nbetween waking hallucinations (ghosts seen by a man when awake) and the\ncommon hallucinations of slumber. Anybody can have these; the man who sees\nghosts when awake is marked out for a wizard.\n\nAt the same time the vividness of dreams among certain savages, as\nrecorded in Mr. Im Thurn's 'Indians of Guiana,' and the consequent\nconfusion of dreaming and waking experiences, are certain facts. Wilson\nsays the same of some negroes, and Mr. Spencer illustrates from the\nconfusion of mind in dreamy children. They, we know, are much more\naddicted to somnambulism than grown-up people. I am unaware that\nspontaneous somnambulism among savages has been studied as it ought to be.\nI have demonstrated, however, that very low savages can and do draw an\nessential distinction between sleeping and waking hallucinations.\n\nAgain, the crystal-gazer, whose apparently telepathic crystal pictures are\ndiscussed later (chap. v.), was introduced to a crystal just because she\nhad previously been known to be susceptible to waking and occasionally\nveracious hallucinations.\n\nIt was not only on the dreams of sleep, so easily forgotten as they are,\nthat the savage pondered, in his early speculations about the life and the\nsoul. He included in his materials the much more striking and memorable\nexperiences of waking hours, as we and Mr. Tylor agree in holding.\n\nReflecting on these things, the earliest savage reasoners would decide:\n(1) that man has a 'life' (which leaves him temporarily in sleep, finally\nin death); (2) that man also possesses a 'phantom' (which appears to\nother people in their visions and dreams). The savage philosopher would\nthen 'combine his information,' like a celebrated writer on Chinese\nmetaphysics. He would merely 'combine the life and the phantom,' as\n'manifestations of one and the same soul.' The result would be 'an\napparitional soul,' or 'ghost-soul.'\n\nThis ghost-soul would be a highly accomplished creature, 'a vapour, film,\nor shadow,' yet conscious, capable of leaving the body, mostly invisible\nand impalpable, 'yet also manifesting physical power,' existing and\nappearing after the death of the body, able to act on the bodies of other\nmen, beasts, and things.[14]\n\nWhen the earliest reasoners, in an age and in mental conditions of which\nwe know nothing historically, had evolved the hypothesis of this\nconscious, powerful, separable soul, capable of surviving the death of the\nbody, it was not difficult for them to develop the rest of Religion, as\nMr. Tylor thinks. A powerful ghost of a dead man might thrive till, its\noriginal owner being long forgotten, it became a God. Again (souls once\ngiven) it would not be a very difficult logical leap, perhaps, to conceive\nof souls, or spirits, that had never been human at all. It is, we may say,\nonly _le premier pas qui co\u00fbte_, the step to the belief in a surviving\nseparable soul. Nevertheless, when we remember that Mr. Tylor is\ntheorising about savages in the dim background of human evolution, savages\nwhom we know nothing of by experience, savages far behind Australians and\nBushmen (who possess Gods), we must admit that he credits them with great\ningenuity, and strong powers of abstract reasoning. He may be right in his\nopinion. In the same way, just as primitive men were keen reasoners, so\nearly bees, more clever than modern bees, may have evolved the system of\nhexagonal cells, and only an early fish of genius could first have hit\non the plan, now hereditary of killing a fly by blowing water at it.\n\nTo this theory of metaphysical genius in very low savages I have no\nobjection to offer. We shall find, later, astonishing examples of savage\nabstract speculation, certainly not derived from missionary sources,\nbecause wholly out of the missionary's line of duty and reflection.\n\nAs early beasts had genius, so the earliest reasoners appear to have been\nas logically gifted as the lowest savages now known to us, or even as some\nBiblical critics. By Mr. Tylor's hypothesis, they first conceived the\nextremely abstract idea of Life, 'that which makes the difference between\na living body and a dead one.'[15] This highly abstract conception must\nhave been, however, the more difficult to early man, as, to him, all\nthings, universally, are 'animated.'[16] Mr. Tylor illustrates this\ntheory of early man by the little child's idea that 'chairs, sticks, and\nwooden horses are actuated by the same sort of personal will as nurses and\nchildren and kittens.... In such matters the savage mind well represents\nthe childish stage.'[17]\n\nNow, nothing can be more certain than that, if children think sticks are\nanimated, they don't think so because they have heard, or discovered, that\nthey possess souls, and then transfer souls to sticks. We may doubt, then,\nif primitive man came, in this way, by reasoning on souls, to suppose\nthat all things, universally, were animated. But if he did think all\nthings animated--a corpse, to his mind, was just as much animated as\nanything else. Did he reason: 'All things are animated. A corpse is not\nanimated. Therefore a corpse is not a thing (within the meaning of my\nGeneral Law)'?\n\nHow, again, did early man conceive of Life, before he identified Life\n(1) with 'that which makes the difference between a living body and a dead\none' (a difference which, _ex hypothesi_, he did not draw, _all_ things\nbeing animated to his mind) and (2) with 'those human shapes which appear\nin dreams and visions'? 'The ancient savage philosophers probably reached\nthe obvious inference that every man had two things belonging to him, a\nlife and a phantom.' But everything was supposed to have 'a life,' as far\nas one makes out, before the idea of separable soul was developed, at\nleast if savages arrived at the theory of universal animation as children\nare said to do.\n\nWe are dealing here quite conjecturally with facts beyond our experience.\n\nIn any case, early man excogitated (by the hypothesis) the abstract idea\nof Life, _before_ he first 'envisaged' it in material terms as 'breath,'\nor 'shadow.' He next decided that mere breath or shadow was not only\nidentical with the more abstract conception of Life, but could also take\non forms as real and full-bodied as, to him, are the hallucinations of\ndream or waking vision. His reasoning appears to have proceeded from the\nmore abstract (the idea of Life) to the more concrete, to the life first\nshadowy and vaporous, then clothed in the very aspect of the real man.\n\nMr. Tylor has thus (whether we follow his logic or not) provided man with\na theory of active, intelligent, separable souls, which can survive the\ndeath of the body. At this theory early man arrived by speculations on the\nnature of life, and on the causes of phantasms of the dead or living\nbeheld in 'dreams and visions.' But our author by no means leaves out of\nsight the effects of alleged supernormal phenomena believed in by savages,\nwith their parallels in modern civilisation. These supernormal phenomena,\nwhether real or illusory, are, he conceives, facts in that mass of\nexperiences from which savages constructed their belief in separable,\nenduring, intelligent souls or ghosts, the foundation of religion.\n\nWhile we are, perhaps owing to our own want of capacity, puzzled by what\nseem to be two kinds of early philosophy--(1) a sort of instinctive or\nunreasoned belief in universal animation, which Mr. Spencer calls\n'Animism' and does not believe in, (2) the reasoned belief in separable\nand surviving souls of men (and in things), which Mr. Spencer believes in,\nand Mr. Tylor calls 'Animism'--we must also note another difficulty. Mr.\nTylor may seem to be taking it for granted that the earliest, remote,\nunknown thinkers on life and the soul were existing on the same psychical\nplane as we ourselves, or, at least, as modern savages. Between modern\nsavages and ourselves, in this regard, he takes certain differences, but\ntakes none between modern savages and the remote founders of religion.\n\nThus Mr. Tylor observes:\n\n'The condition of the modern ghost-seer, whose imagination passes on\nsuch slight excitement into positive hallucination, is rather the rule\nthan the exception among uncultured and intensely imaginative tribes,\nwhose minds may be thrown off their balance by a touch, a word, a\ngesture, an unaccustomed noise.'[18]\n\nI find evidence that low contemporary savages are _not_ great ghost-seers,\nand, again, I cannot quite accept Mr. Tylor's psychology of the 'modern\nghost-seer.' Most such favoured persons whom I have known were steady,\nunimaginative, unexcitable people, with just one odd experience. Lord\nTennyson, too, after sleeping in the bed of his recently lost father on\npurpose to see his ghost, decided that ghosts 'are not seen by imaginative\npeople.'\n\nWe now examine, at greater length, the psychical conditions in which,\naccording to Mr. Tylor, contemporary savages differ from civilised men.\nLater we shall ask what may be said as to possible or presumable psychical\ndifferences between modern savages and the datelessly distant founders of\nthe belief in souls. Mr. Tylor attributes to the lower races, and\neven to races high above their level, 'morbid ecstasy, brought on by\nmeditation, fasting, narcotics, excitement, or disease.' Now, we may\nstill 'meditate'--and how far the result is 'morbid' is a matter for\npsychologists and pathologists to determine. Fasting we do not practise\nvoluntarily, nor would we easily accept evidence from an Englishman as to\nthe veracity of voluntary fasting visions, like those of Cotton Mather.\nThe visions of disease we should set aside, as a rule, with those of\n'excitement,' produced, for instance, by 'devil-dances.' Narcotic and\nalcoholic visions are not in question.[19] For our purpose the _induced_\ntrances of savages (in whatever way voluntarily brought on) are analogous\nto the modern induced hypnotic trance. Any supernormal acquisitions of\nknowledge in these induced conditions, among savages, would be on a par\nwith similar alleged experiences of persons under hypnotism.\n\nWe do not differ from known savages in being able to bring on non-normal\npsychological conditions, but we produce these, as a rule, by other\nmethods than theirs, and such experiments are not made on _all_ of us, as\nthey were on all Red Indian boys and girls in the 'medicine-fast,' at\nthe age of puberty.\n\nFurther, in their normal state, known savages, or some of them, are more\n'suggestible' than educated Europeans at least.[20] They can be more\neasily hallucinated in their normal waking state by suggestion. Once more,\ntheir intervals of hunger, followed by gorges of food, and their lack of\nartificial light, combine to make savages more apt to see what is not\nthere than are comfortable educated white men. But Mr. Tylor goes too far\nwhen he says 'where the savage could see phantasms, the civilised man has\ncome to amuse himself with fancies.'[21] The civilised man, beyond all\ndoubt, is capable of being _enfantosm\u00e9_.\n\nIn all that he says on this point, the point of psychical condition, Mr.\nTylor is writing about known savages as they differ from ourselves. But\nthe savages who _ex hypothesi_ evolved the doctrine of souls lie beyond\nour ken, far behind the modern savages, among whom we find belief not\nonly in souls and ghosts, but in moral gods. About the psychical condition\nof the savages who worked out the theory of souls and founded religion we\nnecessarily know nothing. If there be such experiences as clairvoyance,\ntelepathy, and so on, these unknown ancestors of ours may (for all that we\ncan tell) have been peculiarly open to them, and therefore peculiarly apt\nto believe in separable souls. In fact, when we write about these far-off\nfounders of religion, we guess in the dark, or by the flickering light of\nanalogy. The lower animals have faculties (as in their power of finding\ntheir way home through new unknown regions, and in the ants' modes of\nacquiring and communicating knowledge to each other) which are mysteries\nto us. The terror of dogs in 'haunted houses' and of horses in passing\n'haunted' scenes has often been reported, and is alluded to briefly by Mr.\nTylor. Balaam's ass, and the dogs which crouched and whined before Athene,\nwhom Eumaeus could not see, are 'classical' instances.\n\nThe weakness of the anthropological argument here is, we must repeat, that\nwe know little more about the mental condition and experiences of the\nearly thinkers who developed the doctrine of Souls than we know about\nthe mental condition and experiences of the lower animals. And the more\nfirmly a philosopher believes in the Darwinian hypothesis, the less, he\nmust admit, can he suppose himself to know about the twilight ages,\nbetween the lower animal and the fully evolved man. What kind of creature\nwas man when he first conceived the germs, or received the light,\nof Religion? All is guess-work here! We may just allude to Hegel's\ntheory that clairvoyance and hypnotic phenomena are produced in a\nkind of temporary _atavism_, or 'throwing hack' to a remotely ancient\ncondition of the 'sensitive soul' (_f\u00fcklende Seele_). The 'sensitive'\n[unconditioned, clairvoyant] faculty or 'soul' is 'a disease when it\nbecomes a state of the self-conscious, educated, self-possessed human\nbeing of civilisation.'[22] 'Second sight,' Hegel thinks, was a product\nof an earlier day and earlier mental condition than ours.\n\nApproaching this almost untouched subject--the early psychical condition\nof man--not from the side of metaphysical speculations like Hegel, but\nwith the instruments of modern psychology and physiology, Dr. Max Dessoir,\nof Berlin, following, indeed, M. Taine, has arrived, as we saw, at\nsomewhat similar conclusions. 'This fully conscious life of the spirit,'\nin which we moderns now live, 'seems to rest upon a substratum of reflex\naction of a hallucinatory type.' Our actual modern condition is _not_\n'fundamental,' and 'hallucination represents, at least in its nascent\ncondition, the main trunk of our psychical existence.'[23]\n\nNow, suppose that the remote and unknown ancestors of ours who first\ndeveloped the doctrine of souls had not yet spread far from 'the main\ntrunk of our psychical existence,' far from constant hallucination. In\nthat case (at least, according to Dr. Dessoir's theory) their psychical\nexperiences would be such as we cannot estimate, yet cannot leave, as a\npossibility influencing religion, out of our calculations.\n\nIf early men were ever in a condition in which telepathy and clairvoyance\n(granting their possibility) were prevalent, one might expect that\nfaculties so useful would be developed in the struggle for existence. That\nthey are deliberately cultivated by modern savages we know. The Indian\nfoster-mother of John Tanner used, when food was needed, to suggest\nherself into an hypnotic condition, so that she became _clairvoyante_ as\nto the whereabouts of game. Tanner, an English boy, caught early\nby the Indians, was sceptical, but came to practise the same art, not\nunsuccessfully, himself.[24] His reminiscences, which he dictated on his\nreturn to civilisation, were certainly not feigned in the interests of any\ntheories. But the most telepathic human stocks, it may be said, ought,\n_ceteris paribus_, to have been the most successful in the struggle\nfor existence. We may infer that the _cetera_ were not _paria_, the\nclairvoyant state not being precisely the best for the practical business\nof life. But really we know nothing of the psychical state of the earliest\nmen. They may have had experiences tending towards a belief in 'spirits,'\nof which we can tell nothing. We are obliged to guess, in considerable\nignorance of the actual conditions, and this historical ignorance\ninevitably besets all anthropological speculation about the origin of\nreligion.\n\nThe knowledge of our nescience as to the psychical condition of our first\nthinking ancestors may suggest hesitation as to taking it for granted that\nearly man was on our own or on the modern savage level in 'psychical'\nexperience. Even savage races, as Mr. Tylor justly says, attribute\nsuperior psychical knowledge to neighbouring tribes on a yet lower level\nof culture than themselves. The Finn esteems the Lapp sorcerers above his\nown; the Lapp yields to the superior pretensions of the Samoyeds. There\nmay be more ways than one of explaining this relative humility: there is\nHegel's way and there is Mr. Tylor's way. We cannot be certain, _a\npriori_, that the earliest man knew no more of supernormal or apparently\nsupernormal experiences than we commonly do, or that these did not\ninfluence his thoughts on animism.\n\nIt is an example of the chameleon-like changes of science (even of\n'science falsely so called' if you please) that when he wrote his book, in\n1871, Mr. Tylor could not possibly have anticipated this line of argument.\n\n'Psychical planes' had not been invented; hypnotism, with its problems,\nhad not been much noticed in England. But 'Spiritualism' was flourishing.\nMr. Tylor did not ignore this revival of savage philosophy. He saw very\nwell that the end of the century was beholding the partial rehabilitation\nof beliefs which were scouted from 1660 to 1850. Seventy years ago, as Mr.\nTylor says, Dr. Macculloch, in his 'Description of the Western Islands of\nScotland,' wrote of 'the famous Highland second sight' that 'ceasing to be\nbelieved it has ceased to exist.'[25]\n\nDr. Macculloch was mistaken in his facts. 'Second sight' has never\nceased to exist (or to be believed to exist), and it has recently been\ninvestigated in the 'Journal' of the Caledonian Medical Society. Mr. Tylor\nhimself says that it has been 'reinstated in a far larger range of\nsociety, and under far better circumstances of learning and prosperity.'\nThis fact he ascribes generally to 'a direct revival from the regions of\nsavage philosophy and peasant folklore,' a revival brought about in great\npart by the writings of Swedenborg. To-day things have altered. The\nstudents now interested in this whole class of alleged supernormal\nphenomena are seldom believers in the philosophy of Spiritualism in the\nAmerican sense of the word.[26]\n\nMr. Tylor, as we have seen, attributes the revival of interest in this\nobscure class of subjects to the influence of Swedenborg. It is true, as\nhas been shown, that Swedenborg attracted the attention of Kant. But\nmodern interest has chiefly been aroused and kept alive by the phenomena\nof hypnotism. The interest is now, among educated students, really\nscientific.\n\nThus Mr. William James, Professor of Psychology in the University of\nHarvard, writes:\n\n'I was attracted to this subject (Psychical Research) some years ago by\nmy love of fair play in Science.'[27]\n\nMr. Tylor is not incapable of appreciating this attitude. Even the\nso-called 'spirit manifestations,' he says, 'should be discussed on their\nmerits,' and the investigation 'would seem apt to throw light on some most\ninteresting psychological questions.' Nothing can be more remote from the\nlogic of Hume.\n\nThe ideas of Mr. Tylor on the causes of the origin of religion are\nnow criticised, not from the point of view of spiritualism, but of\nexperimental psychology. We hold that very probably there exist human\nfaculties of unknown scope; that these conceivably were more powerful\nand prevalent among our very remote ancestors who founded religion; that\nthey may still exist in savage as in civilised races, and that they may\nhave confirmed, if they did not originate, the doctrine of separable\nsouls. If they _do_ exist, the circumstance is important, in view of the\nfact that modern ideas rest on a denial of their existence.\n\nMr. Tylor next examines the savage and other _names_ for the ghost-soul,\nsuch as shadow (_umbra_), breath (_spiritus_), and he gives cases in\nwhich the _shadow_ of a man is regarded as equivalent to his _life_. Of\ncourse, the shadow in the sunlight does not resemble the phantasm in a\ndream. The two, however, were combined and identified by early thinkers,\nwhile _breath_ and _heart_ were used as symbols of 'that in men which\nmakes them live,' a phrase found among the natives of Nicaragua in 1528.\nThe confessedly symbolical character of the phrase, 'it is _not_\nprecisely the heart, but that in them which makes them live,' proves that\nto the speaker life was _not_ 'heart' or 'breath,' but that these terms\nwere known to be material word-counters for the conception of life.[1]\nWhether the earliest thinkers identified heart, breath, shadow, with life,\nor whether they consciously used words of material origin to denote an\nimmaterial conception, of course we do not know. But the word in the\nlatter case would react on the thought, till the Roman inhaled (as his\nlife?) the last breath of his dying kinsman, he well knowing that the\nManes of the said kinsman were elsewhere, and not to be inhaled.\n\nSubdivisions and distinctions were then recognised, as of the Egyptian\n_Ka_, the 'double,' the Karen _kelah_, or 'personal life-phantom'\n(_wraith_), on one side, and the Karen _thah_, 'the responsible moral\nsoul,' on the other. The Roman _umbra_ hovers about the grave, the _manes_\ngo to Orcus, the _spiritus_ seeks the stars.\n\nWe are next presented with a crowd of cases in which sickness or lethargy\nis ascribed by savages to the absence of the patient's spirit, or of one\nof his spirits. This idea of migratory spirit is next used by savages to\nexplain certain proceedings of the sorcerer, priest, or seer. His soul,\nor one of his souls is thought to go forth to distant places in quest of\ninformation, while the seer, perhaps, remains lethargic. Probably, in the\nstruggle for existence, he lost more by being lethargic than he gained by\nbeing clairvoyant!\n\nNow, here we touch the first point in Mr. Tylor's theory, where a critic\nmay ask, Was this belief in the wandering abroad of the seer's spirit a\ntheory not only false in its form (as probably it is), but also wholly\nunbased on experiences which might raise a presumption in favour of the\nexistence of phenomena really supernormal? By 'supernormal' experiences I\nhere mean such as the acquisition by a human mind of knowledge which could\nnot be obtained by it through the recognised channels of sensation. Say,\nfor the sake of argument, that a person, savage or civilised, obtains in\ntrance information about distant places or events, to him unknown, and,\nthrough channels of sense, unknowable. The savage will explain this by\nsaying that the seer's soul, shadow, or spirit, wandered out of the body\nto the distant scene. This is, at present, an unverified theory. But\nstill, for the sake of argument, suppose that the seer did honestly\nobtain this information in trance, lethargy, or hypnotic sleep, or any\nother condition. If so, the modern savage (or his more gifted ancestors)\nwould have other grounds for his theory of the wandering soul than any\nground presented by normal occurrences, ordinary dreams, shadows, and so\nforth. Again, in human nature there would be (if such things occur) a\npotentiality of experiences other and stranger than materialism will admit\nas possible. It will (granting the facts) be impossible to aver that there\nis _nihil in intellectu quod non prius in sensu_. The soul will be not\n_ce qu'un vain peuple pense_ under the new popular tradition, and the\nsavage's theory of the spirit will be, at least in part, based on other\nthan normal and every-day facts. That condition in which the seer acquires\ninformation, not otherwise accessible, about events remote in space, is\nwhat the mesmerists of the mid-century called 'travelling clairvoyance.'\n\nIf such an experience be _in rerum natura_, it will not, of course,\njustify the savage's theory that the soul is a separable entity, capable\nof voyaging, and also capable of existing after the death of the body. But\nit will give the savage a better excuse for his theory than normal\nexperiences provide; and will even raise a presumption that reflection on\nmere ordinary experiences--death, shadow, trance--is not the sole origin\nof his theory. For a savage so acute as Mr. Tylor's hypothetical early\nreasoner might decline to believe that his own or a friend's soul had been\nabsent on an expedition, unless it brought back information not normally\nto be acquired. However, we cannot reason, _a priori_, as to how far the\nlogic of a savage might or might not go on occasion.\n\nIn any case, a scientific reasoner might be expected to ask: 'Is this\nalleged acquisition of knowledge, _not_ through the ordinary channels of\nsense, a thing _in rerum natura_?' Because, if it is, we must obviously\nincrease our list of the savage's reasons for believing in a soul: we\nmust make his reasons include 'psychical' experiences, and there must be\nan X region to investigate.\n\nThese considerations did not fail to present themselves to Mr. Tylor. But\nhis manner of dealing with them is peculiar. With his unequalled knowledge\nof the lower races, it was easy for him to examine travellers' tales about\nsavage seers who beheld distant events in vision, and to allow them what\nweight he thought proper, after discounting possibilities of falsehood and\ncollusion. He might then have examined modern narratives of similar\nperformances among the civilised, which are abundant. It is obvious and\nundeniable that if the supernormal acquisition of knowledge in trance is a\n_vera causa_, a real process, however rare, Mr. Tylor's theory needs\nmodifications; while the character of the savage's reasoning becomes more\ncreditable to the savage, and appears as better bottomed than we had been\nasked to suppose. But Mr. Tylor does not examine this large body of\nevidence at all, or, at least, does not offer us the details of his\nexamination. He merely writes in this place:\n\n'A typical spiritualistic instance may be quoted from Jung-Stilling, who\nsays that examples have come to his knowledge of sick persons who,\nlonging to see absent friends, have fallen into a swoon, during which\nthey have appeared to the distant objects of their affection.'[29]\n\nJung-Stilling (though he wrote before modern 'Spiritualism' came in) is\nnot a very valid authority; there is plenty of better evidence than his,\nbut Mr. Tylor passes it by, merely remarking that 'modern Europe has kept\nclosely enough to the lines of early philosophy.' Modern Europe has indeed\ndone so, if it explains the supernormal acquisition of knowledge, or the\nhallucinatory appearance of a distant person to his friend by a theory of\nwandering 'spirits.' But facts do not cease to be facts because wrong\ninterpretations have been put upon them by savages, by Jung-Stilling, or\nby anyone else. The real question is, Do such events occur among lower and\nhigher races, beyond explanation by fraud and fortuitous coincidence? We\ngladly grant that the belief in Animism, when it takes the form of a\ntheory of 'wandering spirits,' is probably untenable, as it is assuredly\nof savage origin. But we are not absolutely so sure that in this aspect\nthe theory is not based on actual experiences, not of a normal and\nordinary kind. If so, the savage philosophy and its supposed survivals in\nbelief will appear in a new light. And we are inclined to hold that an\nexamination of the mass of evidence to which Mr. Tylor offers here so\nslight an allusion will at least make it wise to suspend our judgment,\nnot only as to the origins of the savage theory of spirits, but as to the\nmaterialistic hypothesis of the absence of a psychical element in man.\n\nI may seem to have outrun already the limits of permissible hypothesis. It\nmay appear absurd to surmise that there can exist in man, savage or\ncivilised, a faculty for acquiring information not accessible by the known\nchannels of sense, a faculty attributed by savage philosophers to the\nwandering soul. But one may be permitted to quote the opinion of\nM. Charles Richet, Professor of Physiology in the Faculty of Medicine\nin Paris. It is not cited because M. Richet is a professor of physiology,\nbut because he reached his conclusion after six years of minute\nexperiment. He says: 'There exists in certain persons, at certain moments,\na faculty of acquiring knowledge which has no _rapport_ with our normal\nfaculties of that kind.'[30]\n\nInstances tending to raise a presumption in favour of M. Richet's idea may\nnow be sought in savage and civilised life.\n\n[Footnote 1: _Primitive Culture,_ i. 9, 10.]\n\n[Footnote 2: _Origin of Ranks._]\n\n[Footnote 3: I may be permitted to refer to 'Reply to Objections' in the\nappendix to my _Myth, Ritual, and Religion,_ vol. ii.]\n\n[Footnote 4: Spencer, _Ecclesiastical Institutions_, pp. 672, 673.]\n\n[Footnote 5: _Primitive Culture_, i. 417-425. Cf. however _Princip. Of\nSociol._, p. 304.]\n\n[Footnote 6: Op. cit. i. 423, 424.]\n\n[Footnote 7: Published for the Berlin Society of Experimental Psychology,\nG\u00fcnther, Leipzig, 1890.]\n\n[Footnote 8: _Ecclesiastical Institutions_, 837-839.]\n\n[Footnote 9: _Primitive Culture_, i. 421, chapter xi.]\n\n[Footnote 10: This theory is what Mr. Spencer calls 'Animism,' and does\nnot believe in. What Mr. Tylor calls 'Animism' Mr. Spencer believes in,\nbut he calls it the 'Ghost Theory.']\n\n[Footnote 11: _Primitive Culture_, i. 428.]\n\n[Footnote 12: Howitt, _Journal of Anthropological Institute_, xiii.\n191-195.]\n\n[Footnote 13: The curious may consult, for savage words for 'dreams,' Mr.\nScott's _Dictionary of the Mang'anja Language_, s.v. 'Lots,' or any\nglossary of any savage language.]\n\n[Footnote 14: _Prim. Cult._ i. 429.]\n\n[Footnote 15: _Prim. Cult._ i. 428.]\n\n[Footnote 16: Ibid. i. 285.]\n\n[Footnote 17: Ibid. i. 285, 286.]\n\n[Footnote 18: _Primitive Culture_, i. 446.]\n\n[Footnote 19: See, however, Dr. Von Schrenck-Notzing, _Die Beobachtung\nnarcolischer Mittel f\u00fcr den Hypnotismus_, and S.P.R. _Proceedings_, x.\n292-899.]\n\n[Footnote 20: _Primitive Culture_, i. 306-316.]\n\n[Footnote 21: i. 315.]\n\n[Footnote 22: _Phil. des Geistes_, pp. 406, 408.]\n\n[Footnote 23: See also Mr. A.J. Balfour's Presidential Address to the\nSociety for Psychical Research, _Proceedings_, vol. x. See, too, Taine,\n_De l'Intelligence_, i. 78, 106, 139.]\n\n[Footnote 24: Tanner's _Narrative_, New York, 1830.]\n\n[Footnote 25: _Primitive Culture_, i. 143.]\n\n[Footnote 26: As 'spiritualism' is often used in opposition to\n'materialism,' and with no reference to rapping 'spirits,' the modern\nbelief in that class of intelligences may here be called spiritism.]\n\n[Footnote 27: _The Will to Believe_, preface, p. xiv.]\n\n[Footnote 28: _Primitive Culture_, i. 432,433. Citing Oviedo, _Hist. De\nNicaragua,_ pp. 21-51.]\n\n[Footnote 29: _Primitive Culture_, i. 440. Citing Stilling after Dale Owen,\nand quoting Mr. Alfred Russel Wallace's _Scientific Aspect of the\nSupernatural_, p. 43. Mr. Tylor also adds folk-lore practices of\nghost-seeing, as on St. John's Eve. St. Mark's Eve, too, is in point, as\nfar as folk-lore goes.]\n\n[Footnote 30: _Proceedings_, S.P.R. v. 167.]\n\n\n\n\nIV\n\n'OPENING THE GATES OF DISTANCE'\n\n'To open the Gates of Distance' is the poetical Zulu phrase for what is\ncalled clairvoyance, or _vue \u00e0 distance_. This, if it exists, is the\nresult of a faculty of undetermined nature, whereby knowledge of remote\nevents may be acquired, not through normal channels of sense. As the Zulus\nsay: '_Isiyezi_ is a state in which a man becomes slightly insensible. He\nis awake, but still sees things which he would not see if he were not in a\nstate of ecstasy (_nasiyesi_).'[1] The Zulu description of _isiyezi_\nincludes what is technically styled 'dissociation.' No psychologist or\npathologist will deny that visions of an hallucinatory sort may occur in\ndissociated states, say in the _petit mal_ of epilepsy. The question,\nhowever, is whether any such visions convey actual information not\notherwise to be acquired, beyond the reach of chance coincidence to\nexplain.\n\nA Scottish example, from the records of a court of law, exactly\nillustrates the Zulu theory. At the moment when the husband of Jonka\nDyneis was in danger six miles from her house in his boat, Jonka 'was\nfound, and seen standing at her own house wall in a trance, and being\ntaken, she could not give answer, but stood as bereft of her senses, and\nwhen she was asked why she was so moved, she answered, \"If our boat be not\nlost, she was in great hazard.\"' (October 2, 1616.)[2]\n\nThe belief in opening the Gates of Distance is, of course, very widely\ndiffused. The gift is attributed to Apollonius of Tyana, to Plotinus, to\nmany Saints, to Catherine de' Medici, to the Rev. Mr. Peden,[3] and to\nJeanne d'Arc, while the faculty is the stock in trade of savage seers in\nall regions.[4]\n\nThe question, however, on which Mr. Tylor does not touch, is, _Are any of\nthe stories true?_ If so, of course they would confirm in the mind\nof the savage his theory of the wandering soul. Now, to find anything\nlike attested cases of successful clairvoyance among savages is a\ndifficult task. White men either scout the idea, or are afraid of seeming\nsuperstitious if they give examples, or, if they do give examples, are\naccused of having sunk to the degraded level of Zulus or Red Indians. Even\nwhere travellers, like Scheffer, have told about their own experiences,\nthe narratives are omitted by modern writers on savage divination.[5] We\nmust therefore make our own researches, and it is to be noted that\nthe stories of successful savage clairvoyance are given as illustrations\nmerely, not as evidence to facts, for we cannot cross-examine the\nwitnesses.\n\nMr. Tylor dismisses the topic in a manner rather cavalier:\n\n'Without discussing on their merits the accounts of what is called\n\"second sight,\"[6] it may be pointed out that they are related among\nsavage tribes, as when Captain Jonathan Carver obtained from a Cree\nmedicine-man a true prophecy of the arrival of a canoe with news next\nday at noon; or when Mr. J. Mason Brown, travelling with two _voyageurs_\non the Copper Mine River, was met by Indians of the very band he was\nseeking, these having been sent by their medicine-man, who, on\nenquiry, stated that \"he saw them coming, and heard them talk on their\njourney.\"'[7]\n\nNow, in our opinion, the 'merits' of stories of second sight need\ndiscussion, because they may, if well attested, raise a presumption that\nthe savage's theory has a better foundation than Mr. Tylor supposes. Oddly\nenough, though Mr. Tylor does not say so, Dr. Brinton (from whom he\nborrows his two anecdotes) is more or less of our opinion.\n\n'There are,' says Dr. Brinton, 'statements supported by unquestionable\ntestimony, which ought not to be passed over in silence, and yet I cannot\nbut approach them with hesitation. They are so revolting to the laws of\nexact science, so alien, I had almost said, to the experience of our\nlives. Yet is this true, or are such experiences only ignored and put\naside without serious consideration?'\n\nThat is exactly what we complain of; the alleged facts are 'put aside\nwithout serious consideration.'\n\nWe, at least, are not slaves to the idea that 'the laws of exact science'\nmust be the only laws at work in the world. Science, however exact, does\nnot pretend to have discovered all 'laws.'\n\nTo return to actual examples of the alleged supernormal acquisition of\nknowledge by savages: Dr. Brinton gives an example from Charlevoix and\nGeneral Mason Brown's anecdote.[8] In General Mason Brown's instance the\nmedicine-man, at a great distance, bade his emissaries 'seek three whites,\nwhose horses, arms, attire, and personal appearance he minutely described,\nwhich description was repeated to General Brown by the warriors _before\nthey saw his two companions.'_ General Brown assured Dr. Brinton of 'the\naccuracy of this in every particular.' Mr. Tylor has certainly not\nimproved the story in his condensed version. Dr. Brinton refers to 'many'\ntales such as these, and some will be found in 'Among the Zulus,' by Mr.\nDavid Leslie (1875).\n\nMr. Leslie was a Scottish sportsman, brought up from boyhood in\nfamiliarity with the Zulus. His knowledge of their language and customs\nwas minute, and his book, privately printed, contains much interesting\nmatter. He writes:\n\n'I was obliged to proceed to the Zulu country to meet my Kaffir\nelephant-hunters, the time for their return having arrived. They were\nhunting in a very unhealthy country, and I had agreed to wait for them\non the North-East border, the nearest point I could go to with safety.\nI reached the appointed rendezvous, but could not gain the slightest\nintelligence of my people at the kraal.\n\n'After waiting some time, and becoming very uneasy about them, one of\nmy servants recommended me to go to the doctor, and at last, out of\ncuriosity and _pour passer le temps_, I did go.\n\n'I stated what I wanted--information about my hunters--and I was met by\na stern refusal. \"I cannot tell anything about white men,\" said he, \"and\nI know nothing of their ways.\" However, after some persuasion and\npromise of liberal payment, impressing upon him the fact that it was not\nwhite men but Kaffirs I wanted to know about, he at last consented,\nsaying \"he would _open the Gate of Distance_, and would travel through\nit, even although his body should lie before me.\"\n\n'His first proceeding was to ask me the number and names of my hunters.\nTo this I demurred, telling him that if he obtained that information\nfrom me he might easily substitute some news which he may have heard\nfrom others, instead of the \"spiritual telegraphic news\" which I\nexpected him to get from his \"familiar.\"\n\n'To this he answered: \"I told you I did not understand white men's ways;\nbut if I am to do anything for you it must be done in my way--not\nyours.\" On receiving this fillip I felt inclined to give it up, as I\nthought I might receive some rambling statement with a considerable\ndash of truth, it being easy for anyone who knew anything of hunting to\ngive a tolerably correct idea of their motions.\n\n'However, I conceded this point also, and otherwise satisfied him.\n\n'The doctor then made eight little fires--that being the number of my\nhunters; on each he cast some roots,[9] which emitted a curious sickly\nodour and thick smoke; into each he cast a small stone, shouting, as he\ndid so, the name to which the stone was dedicated; then he ate some\n\"medicine,\" and fell over in what appeared to be a trance for about ten\nminutes, during all which time his limbs kept moving. Then he seemed to\nwake, went to one of the fires, raked the ashes about, looked at the\nstone attentively, described the man faithfully, and said: \"This man has\ndied of the fever, and your gun is lost.\"\n\n'To the next fire as before: \"This man\" (correctly described) \"has\nkilled four elephants,\" and then he described the tusks. The next: \"This\nman\" (again describing him) \"has been killed by an elephant, but your\ngun is coming home,\" and so on through the whole, the men being minutely\nand correctly described; their success or non-success being equally so.\nI was told where the survivors were, and what they were doing, and that\nin three months they would come out, but as they would not expect to\nfind me waiting on them there so long after the time appointed, they\nwould not pass that way.\n\n'I took a particular note of all this information at the time, and to my\nutter amazement _it turned out correct in every particular_.\n\n'It was scarcely within the bounds of possibility that this man could\nhave had ordinary intelligence of the hunters; they were scattered about\nin a country two hundred miles away.'\n\nMr. Leslie could discover no explanation, nor was any suggested by friends\nfamiliar with the country and the natives whom he consulted. He gives\nanother example, which may be explained by 'suggestion.' A parallel case\nfrom Central Africa will be found in the 'Journal of the Anthropological\nInstitute,' November 1897, p. 320, where 'private information,' as usual,\nwould explain the singular facts.\n\nThe Zulus themselves lay claim to a kind of clairvoyance which looks like\nthe result of intense visualising power, combined with the awakening of\nthe subconscious memory.[10]\n\n'There is among black men a something which is divination within them.\nWhen anything valuable is lost, they look for it at once; when they\ncannot find it, each one begins to practise this inner divination,\ntrying to feel where the thing is; for, not being able to see it, he\nfeels internally a pointing, which tells him if he will go down to such\na place it is there, and he will find it. At length it says he will find\nit; at length he sees it, and himself approaching it; before he begins\nto move from where he is, he sees it very clearly indeed, and there is\nan end of doubt. That sight is so clear that it is as though it was not\nan inner sight, but as if he saw the very thing itself, and the place\nwhere it is; so he quickly arises and goes to the place. If it is a\nhidden place he throws himself into it, as though there was something\nthat impelled him to go as swiftly as the wind; and, in fact, he finds\nthe thing, if he has not acted by mere head-guessing. If it has been\ndone by real inner divination, he really sees it. But if it is done by\nmere head-guessing and knowledge that he has not gone to such a place\nand such a place, and that therefore it must be in such another place,\nhe generally misses the mark.'\n\nOther Zulu instances will be given under the heads 'Possession' and\n'Fetishism.'\n\nTo take a Northern people: In his 'History of the Lapps'[11] Scheffer\ndescribes mechanical modes of divination practised by that race, who use a\ndrum and other objects for the purpose. These modes depend on more\ntraditional rules for interpreting the accidental combinations of lots.\nBut a Lapp confessed to Scheffer, with tears, that he could not help\nseeing visions, as he proved by giving Scheffer a minute relation 'of\nwhatever particulars had happened to me in my journey to Lapland. And he\nfurther complained that he know not how to make use of his eyes, since\nthings altogether distant were presented to them.' This Lapp was anxious\nto become a Christian, hence his regret at being a 'rare and valuable'\nexample of clairvoyance. Torfaeus also was posed by the clairvoyance of a\nSamoyed, as was Regnard by a Lapp seer.[12]\n\nThe next case is of old date, and, like the other savage examples, is\nmerely given for purposes of illustration.\n\n  '_25e Lettre_.[13]\n\n  '\"_Suite des Traditions des Sauvages._\"\n\n  'Au Fort de la Rivi\u00e8re de St. Joseph, ce 14 Septembre 1721.\n\n  '\"_Des Jongleurs_\"-- ... Vous ayez vu \u00e0 Paris Madame de Marson, & elle\n  y est encore; voici ce que M. le Marquis de Vaudreuil son Gendre,\n  actuellement notre Gouverneur G\u00e9n\u00e9ral, me raconta cet Hyver, & qu'il a\n  s\u00e7\u00fb de cette Dame, qui n'est rien mo\u00edns qu'un esprit foible. Elle etoit\n  un jour fort inquiette an sujet de M. de Marson, son Mari, lequel\n  commandoit dans un Poste, que nous avions en Accadie; et etoit absent, &\n  le tems qu'il avoit marqu\u00e9 pour son retour, etoit pass\u00e9.\n\n  'Une Femme Sauvage, qui vit Madame de Marson en peine, lui en demanda la\n  cause, & l'ayant apprise, lui dit, apr\u00e8s y avoir un peu r\u00eav\u00e9, de ne plus\n  se chagriner, que son Epoux reviendroit tel jour et \u00e0 telle heure,\n  qu'elle lui marqua, avec un chapeau gris sur la t\u00eate. Comme elle\n  s'apper\u00e7ut que la Dame n'ajoutoit point foi \u00e0 sa pr\u00e9diction, au jour & \u00e0\n  l'heure, qu'elle avoit assign\u00e9e, elle rotourna chez elle, lui demanda si\n  elle ne vouloit pas venir voir arriver son Mari, & la pressa de telle\n  sorte de la suivre, qu'elle l'entra\u00eena au bord de la Rivi\u00e8re.\n\n  'A peine y eto\u00edent-elles arriv\u00e9es, que M. de Marson parut dans un Canot,\n  un chapeau gris sur la t\u00eate; & ayant appris ce qui s'etoit pass\u00e9, ass\u00fbra\n  qu'il ne pouvoit pas comprendre comment la Sauvagesse avoit p\u00fb s\u00e7avoir\n  l'heure & le jour de son arriv\u00e9e.'\n\nIt is unusual for European travellers and missionaries to give anecdotes\nwhich might seem to 'confirm the delusions of benighted savages.' Such\nanecdotes, again, are among the _arcana_ of these wild philosophers, and\nare not readily communicated to strangers. When successful cases are\nreported, it is natural to assert that they come through Europeans who\nhave sunk into barbarous superstition, or that they may be explained by\nfraud and collusion. It is certain, however, that savage proficients\nbelieve in their own powers, though no less certainly they will eke them\nout by imposture. Seers are chosen in Zululand, as among Eskimos and\nSamoyeds, from the class which in Europe supplies the persons who used to\nbe, but are no longer the most favourite hypnotic subjects, 'abnormal\nchildren,' epileptic and hysterical. These are subjected to 'a long and\nmethodical course of training.'[14] Stoll, speaking of Guatemala, says\nthat 'certainly most of the induced and spontaneous phenomena with which\nwe are familiar occur among savages,' and appeals to travellers for\nobservations.[15] Information is likely to come in, as educated travellers\ndevote attention to the topic.\n\nDr. Callaway translates some Zulu communications which indicate the\namount of belief in this very practical and sceptical people. Amusing\nillustrations of their scepticism will be quoted later, under\n'Possession,' but they do accept as seers certain hysterical patients.\nThese are tested by their skill in finding objects which have been\nhidden without their knowledge. They then behave much like Mr. Stuart\nCumberland, but have not the advantage of muscular contact with the\nperson who knows where the hidden objects are concealed. The neighbours\neven deny that they have hidden anything at all. 'When they persist in\ntheir denial ... he finds all the things that they have hidden. They see\nthat he is a great _inyanga_ (seer) when he has found all the things they\nhave concealed.' No doubt he is guided, perhaps in a super-sensitive\ncondition, by the unconscious indications of the excited spectators.\n\nThe point is that, while the savage conjurer will doubtless use fraud\nwherever he can, still the experience of low races is in favour of\nemploying as seers the class of people who in Europe were, till recently,\nsupposed to make the best hypnotic subjects. Thus, in West Africa, 'the\npresiding elders, during your initiation to the secret society of your\ntribe, discover this gift [of Ebumtupism, or second sight], and so select\nyou as \"a witch doctor.\"'[15] Among the Karens, the 'Wees,' or prophets,\n'are nervous excitable men, such as would become mediums,'[16] as mediums\nare diagnosed by Mr. Tylor.\n\nIn short, not to multiply examples, there is an element of actual\nobservation and of _bona fides_ entangled in the trickery of savage\npractice. Though the subjects may be selected partly because of the\nphysical phenomena of convulsions which they exhibit, and which\nfavourably impress their clients, they are also such subjects as\noccasionally yield that evidence of supernormal faculty which is\ninvestigated by modern psychologists, like Richet, Janet, and William\nJames.\n\nThe following example, by no means unique, shows the view taken by savages\nof their own magic, after they have become Christians. Catherine Wabose, a\nconverted Red Indian seeress, described her preliminary fast, at the age\nof puberty. After six days of abstention from food she was rapt away to an\nunknown place, where a radiant being welcomed her. Later a dark round\nobject promised her the gift of prophecy. She found her natural senses\ngreatly sharpened by lack of food. She first exercised her powers when her\nkinsfolk in large numbers were starving, a medicine-lodge, or 'tabernacle'\nas Lufitau calls it, was built for her, and she crawled in. As is well\nknown, these lodges are violently shaken during the magician's stay within\nthem, which the early Jesuits at first attributed to muscular efforts by\nthe seers. In 1637 P\u00e8re Lejeune was astonished by the violent motions of a\nlarge lodge, tenanted by a small man. One sorcerer, with an appearance of\ncandour, vowed that 'a great wind entered boisterously,' and the Father\nwas assured that, if he went in himself, he would become clairvoyant. He\ndid not make the experiment. The Methodist convert, Catherine, gave the\nsame description of her own experience: 'The lodge began shaking violently\nby supernatural means. I knew this by the compressed current of air above,\nand the noise of motion.' She had been beating a small drum and singing,\nnow she lay quiet. The radiant 'orbicular' spirit then informed her that\nthey 'must go westwards for game; how short-sighted you are!' 'The\nadvice was taken and crowned by instant success.' This established her\nreputation.[17] Catherine's conversion was led up to by a dream of her\ndying son, who beheld a Sacred Figure, and received from Him white\nraiment. Her magical songs tell how unseen hands shake the magic lodge.\nThey invoke the Great Spirit that\n\n    'Illumines earth\n    Illumines heaven!\n  Ah, say what Spirit, or Body, is this Body,\n    That fills the world around,\n    Speak, man, ah say\n  What Spirit, or Body, is this Body?'\n\nIt is like a savage hymn to Hegel's _f\u00fchlende Seele_: the all-pervading\nSensitive Soul. We are reminded, too, of 'the doctrine of the Sanscrit\nUpanishads: There is no limit to the knowing of the Self that knows.'[18]\n\nUnluckily Catherine was not asked to give other examples of what she\nconsidered her successes.\n\nAcosta, who has not the best possible repute as an authority, informs us\nthat Peruvian clairvoyants 'tell what hath passed in the furthest parts\nbefore news can come. In the distance of two or three hundred leagues\nthey would tell what the Spaniards did or suffered in their civil wars.' To\nDu Pont, in 1606, a sorcerer 'rendered a true oracle of the coming of\nPoutrincourt, saying his Devil had told him so.'[19]\n\nWe now give a modern case, from a scientific laboratory, of knowledge\napparently acquired in no normal way, by a person of the sort usually\nchosen to be a prophet, or wizard, by savages.\n\nProfessor Richet writes:[20]\n\n'On Monday, July 2, 1888, after having passed all the day in my\nlaboratory, I hypnotised L\u00e9onie at 8 P.M., and while she tried to make\nout a diagram concealed in an envelope I said to her quite suddenly:\n\"What has happened to M. Langlois?\" L\u00e9onie knows M. Langlois from\nhaving seen him two or three times some time ago in my physiological\nlaboratory, where he acts as my assistant.--\"He has burnt himself,\"\nL\u00e9onie replied,--\"Good,\" I said, \"and where has he burnt himself?\"--\"On\nthe left hand. It is not fire: it is--I don't know its name. Why does he\nnot take care when he pours it out?\"--\"Of what colour,\" I asked, \"is the\nstuff which he pours out?\"--\"It is not red, it is brown; he has hurt\nhimself very much--the skin puffed up directly.\"\n\n'Now, this description is admirably exact. At 4 P.M. that day M.\nLanglois had wished to pour some bromine into a bottle. He had done this\nclumsily, so that some of the bromine flowed on to his left hand, which\nheld the funnel, and at once burnt him severely. Although he at once put\nhis hand into water, wherever the bromine had touched it a blister was\nformed in a few seconds--a blister which one could not better describe\nthan by saying, \"the skin puffed up.\" I need not say that L\u00e9onie had not\nleft my house, nor seen anyone from my laboratory. Of this I am\n_absolutely certain,_ and I am certain that I had not mentioned the\nincident of the burn to anyone. Moreover, this was the first time for\nnearly a year that M. Langlois had handled bromine, and when L\u00e9onie saw\nhim six months before at the laboratory he was engaged in experiments\nof quite another kind.'\n\nHere the savage reasoner would infer that L\u00e9onie's spirit had visited M.\nLanglois. The modern inquirer will probably say that L\u00e9onie became aware\nof what was passing in the mind of M. Richet. This supranormal way of\nacquiring knowledge was observed in the last century by M. de Puys\u00e9gur in\none of his earliest cases of somnambulism. MM. Binet and F\u00e9r\u00e9 say: 'It is\nnot yet admitted that the subject is able to divine the thoughts of the\nmagnetiser without any material communication;' while they grant, as a\nminimum, that 'research should be continued in this direction.'[21] They\nappear to think that L\u00e9onie may have read 'involuntary signs' in the\naspect of M. Richet. This is a difficult hypothesis.\n\nHere follows a case recorded in his diary by Mr. Dobbie, of Adelaide,\nAustralia, who has practised hypnotism for curative purposes. He explains\n(June 10, 1884) that he had mesmerised Miss ---- on several occasions to\nrelieve rheumatic pain and sore throat. He found her to be clairvoyant.\n\n'The following is a verbatim account of the second time I tested her\npowers in this respect, April 12, 1884. There were four persons present\nduring the _s\u00e9ance_. One of the company wrote down the replies as they\nwere spoken.\n\n'Her father was at the time over fifty miles away, but we did not know\nexactly where, so I questioned her as follows: \"Can you find your father\nat the present moment?\" At first she replied that she could not see him,\nbut in a minute or two she said, \"Oh, yes; now I can see him, Mr.\nDobbie.\" \"Where is he?\" \"Sitting at a large table in a large room, and\nthere are a lot of people going in and out.\" \"What is he doing?\"\n\"Writing a letter, and there is a book in front of him.\" \"Whom is he\nwriting to?\" \"To the newspaper.\" Here she paused and laughingly said,\n\"Well, I declare, he is writing to the A B\" (naming a newspaper). \"You\nsaid there was a book there. Can you tell me what book it is?\" \"It has\ngilt letters on it.\" \"Can you read them, or tell me the name of the\nauthor?\" She read, or pronounced slowly, \"W.L.W.\" (giving the full\nsurname of the author). She answered several minor questions _re_ the\nfurniture in the room, and I then said to her, \"Is it any effort or\ntrouble to you to travel in this way?\" \"Yes, a little; I have to think.\"\n\n'I now stood behind her, holding a half-crown in my hand, and asked her\nif she could tell me what I had in my hand, to which she replied, \"It is\na shilling.\" It seemed as though she could see what was happening miles\naway easier than she could see what was going on in the room.\n\n'Her father returned home nearly a week afterwards, and was perfectly\nastounded when told by his wife and family what he had been doing on\nthat particular evening; and, although previous to that date he was a\nthorough sceptic as to clairvoyance, he frankly admitted that my\nclairvoyant was perfectly correct in every particular. He also informed\nus that the book referred to was a new one, which he had purchased after\nhe had left his home, so that there was no possibility of his daughter\nguessing that he had the book before him. I may add that the letter in\ndue course appeared in the paper; and I saw and handled the book.'\n\nA number of cases of so-called 'clairvoyance' will be found in the\n'Proceedings of the Society for Psychical Research.'[22] As the authors of\nthese essays remark, even after discounting, in each case, fraud,\nmalobservation, and misreporting, the residue of cases can seldom justify\neither the savage theory of the wandering soul (which is not here\nseriously proposed) or Hegel's theory that the _f\u00fchlende Seele_ is\nunconditioned by space. For, if thought transference be a fact, the\napparent clairvoyant may only be reading the mind of a person at a\ndistance. The results, however, when successful, would naturally suggest\nto the savage thinker the belief in the wandering soul, or corroborate it\nif it had already been suggested by the common phenomena of dreaming.\n\nTo these instances of knowledge acquired otherwise than by the recognised\nchannels of sense we might add the Scottish tales of 'second sight.' That\nphrase is merely a local term covering examples of what is called\n'clairvoyance'--views of things remote in space, hallucinations of sight\nthat coincide with some notable event, premonitions of things future, and\nso on. The belief and hallucinatory experiences are still very common in\nthe Highlands, where I have myself collected many recent instances. Mr.\nTylor observes that the examples 'prove a little too much; they vouch not\nonly for human apparitions, but for such phantoms as demon dogs, and for\nstill more fanciful symbolic omens.' This is perfectly true. I have found\nno cases of demon dogs; but wandering lights, probably of meteoric or\nmiasmatic origin, are certainly regarded as tokens of death. This is\nobviously a superstitious hypothesis, the lights being real phenomena\nmisconstrued. Again, funerals are not uncommonly seen where no funeral is\ntaking place; it is then alleged that a real funeral, similar and\nsimilarly situated, soon afterwards occurred. On the hypothesis of\nbelievers, the percipients somehow behold\n\n  'Such refraction of events\n    As often rises ere they rise.'\n\nEven the savage cannot account for this experience by the wandering of the\nsoul in space; nor do I suggest any explanation. I give, however, one or\ntwo instances. They are published in the 'Journal of the Caledonian\nMedical Society,' 1897, by Dr. Alastair Macgregor, on the authority of the\nMSS. of his father, a minister in the island of Skye.\n\n'He once told me that when he first went to Skye he scoffed at the idea of\nsuch a power as second sight being genuine; but he said that, after having\nbeen there for some years as a clergyman, he had been so often consulted\n_beforehand_ by people who said they had seen visions of events which\nsubsequently occurred, to my father's knowledge, in exact accordance with\nthe form and details of the vision as foretold, that he was compelled to\nconfess that some folks had, apparently at least, the unfortunate faculty.\n\n'As my father expressed it, this faculty was \"neither voluntary nor\nconstant, and was considered rather annoying than agreeable to the\npossessors of it. The gift was possessed by individuals of both sexes, and\nits fits came on within doors and without, sitting and standing, at night\nand by day, and at whatever employment the votary might chance to be\nengaged.\"'\n\nHere follows a typical example of the vision of a funeral:\n\n'The session clerk at Dull, a small village in Perthshire, was ill, and\nmy grandfather, clergyman there at the time, had to do duty for him. One\nfine summer evening, about 7 o'clock, a young man and woman came to get\nsome papers filled up, as they were going to be married. My grandfather\nwas with the couple in the session clerk's room, no doubt attending to\nthe papers, when suddenly _all three_ saw through the window a funeral\nprocession passing along the road. From their dress the bulk of the\nmourners seemed to be farm labourers--indeed the young woman recognised\nsome of them as natives of Dull, who had gone to live and work near\nDunkeld. Remarks were naturally made by my grandfather and the young\ncouple about the untimely hour for a funeral, and, hastily filling in\nthe papers, my grandfather went out to get the key of the churchyard,\nwhich was kept in the manse, as, without the key, the procession\ncould not get into God's acre. Wondering how it was that he had received\nno intimation of the funeral, he went to the manse by a short cut, got\nthe key, and hurried down to the churchyard gate, where, of course, he\nexpected to find the cort\u00e8ge waiting. _Not a soul was there_ except the\nyoung couple, who were as amazed as my grandfather!\n\n'Well, at the same hour in the evening of the same day in the following\nweek the funeral, this time in reality, arrived quite unexpectedly. The\nfacts were that a boy, a native of Dull, had got gored by a bull at\nDunkeld, and was so shockingly mangled that his remains were picked\nup and put into a coffin and taken without delay to Dull. A grave was\ndug as quickly as possible--the poor lad having no relatives--and the\nremains were interred. My grandfather and the young couple recognised\nseveral of the mourners as being among those whom they had seen out of\nthe session clerk's room, exactly a week previously, in the phantom\ncort\u00e8ge. The young woman knew some of them personally, and related to\nthem what she had seen, but they of course denied all knowledge of the\naffair, having been then in Dunkeld.'\n\nI give another example, because the experience was auditory, as well as\nvisual, and the prediction was announced before the event.\n\n'The parishioners in Skye were evidently largely imbued with the\nRomanist-like belief in the powers of intercession vested in their\nclergyman; so when they had a \"warning\" or \"vision\" they usually consulted\nmy father as to what they could do to prevent the coming disaster\nbefalling their relatives or friends. In this way my father had the\nopportunity of noting down the minutiae of the \"warning\" or \"vision\"\ndirectly it was told him. Having had the advantage of a medical, previous\nto his theological, training, he was able to note down sound facts,\nunembellished by superadded imagination. Entering into this method of\ncase-taking with a mind perfectly open, except for a slight touch of\nscepticism, he was greatly surprised to discover how very frequently\nrealisations occurred exactly in conformance with the minutiae of the\nvision as detailed in his note-book. Finally, he was compelled to\ndiscard his scepticism, and to admit that some people had undoubtedly\nthe uncanny gift. Almost the first case he took (Case X.) was that of a\nwoman who had one day a vision of her son falling over a high rock at Uig,\nin Skye, with a sheep or lamb.\n\n'CASE X.--She heard her son exclaim in Gaelic, \"This is a fatal lamb for\nme.\" As her son lived several miles from Uig, and was a fisherman,\nrealisation seemed to my father very unlikely, but one month afterwards\nthe realisation occurred only too true. Unknown to his mother, who had\nwarned him against having anything to do with sheep or lambs, the son\none day, instead of going out in his boat, thought he would take a\nholiday inland, and went off to Uig, where a farmer enlisted his\nservices in separating some lambs from the ewes. One of the lambs ran\naway, and the fisher lad ran headlong after it, and not looking where he\nwas going, on catching the lamb was pulled by it to the edge of one of\nthe very picturesque but exceedingly dangerous rocks at Uig. Too late\nrealizing his critical position, he exclaimed, \"This is a fatal lamb for\nme,\" but going with such an impetus he was unable to bring himself up in\ntime, and, along with the lamb, fell over into the ravine below, and\nwas, of course, killed on the spot. The farmer, when he saw the lad's\ndanger, ran to his assistance, but was only in time to hear him cry out\nin Gaelic before disappearing over the brink of the precipice. This was\npredicted by the mother a month before. Was this simply a coincidence?'\n\nDr. Macgregor's remarks on the involuntary and unwelcome nature of the\nvisions is borne out by what Scheffer, as already quoted, says concerning\nthe Lapps.\n\nIn addition to visions which thus come unsought, contributing knowledge of\nthings remote or even future, we may glance at visions which are provoked\nby various methods. Drugs (_impepo_) are used, seers whirl in a wild\ndance till they fall senseless, or trance is induced by various kinds of\nself-suggestion or 'auto-hypnotism.' Fasting is also practised. In modern\nlife the self-induced trance is common among 'mediums'--a subject to which\nwe recur later.\n\nSo far, it will be observed, our evidence proves that precisely similar\n_beliefs_ as to man's occasional power of opening the gates of distance\nhave been entertained in a great variety of lands and ages, and by races\nin every condition of culture.[23] The alleged experiences are still\nsaid to occur, and have been investigated by physiologists of the eminence\nof M. Richet. The question cannot but arise as to the residuum of fact in\nthese narrations, and it keeps on arising.\n\nIn the following chapter we discuss a mode of inducing hallucinations\nwhich has for anthropologists the interest of universal diffusion. The\nwidth of its range in savage races has not, we believe, been previously\nobserved. We then add facts of modern experience, about the authenticity\nof which we, personally, entertain no doubt; and the provisional\nconclusion appears to be that savages have observed a psychological\ncircumstance which has been ignored by professed psychologists, and which,\ncertainly, does not fit into the ordinary materialistic hypothesis.\n\n[Footnote 1: Callaway, _Religion of the Zulus_, p. 232.]\n\n[Footnote 2: Graham Dalzell, _Darker Superstitions of Scotland_, p. 481.]\n\n[Footnote 3: See good evidence in _Ker of Kersland's Memoirs_.]\n\n[Footnote 4: Autus Gellius, xv. 18, Dio Cassius, lxvii., Crespet, _De la\nHaine du Diable, Proc\u00e8s de Jeanne d'Arc_.]\n\n[Footnote 5: See 'Shamanism in Siberia,' _J.A.I._, November 1894,\npp. 147-149, and compare Scheffer. The article is very learned and\ninteresting.]\n\n[Footnote 6: Williams mentions second sight in Fiji, but gives no\nexamples.]\n\n[Footnote 7: _Primitive Culture,_ i. 447. Mr. Tylor cites Dr. Brinton's\n_Myths of the New World,_ p. 269. The reference in the recent edition is\np. 289. Carver's case is given under the head 'Possession' later.]\n\n[Footnote 8: _Journal Historique_ p. 362; _Atlantic Monthly_, July 1866.]\n\n[Footnote 9: Probably _impepo_, eaten by seers, according to Callaway.]\n\n[Footnote 10: Callaway's _Religion of the Amazulu_, p. 358.]\n\n[Footnote 11: Oxford, 1674.]\n\n[Footnote 12: _Voyages_.]\n\n[Footnote 13: From Charlevoix, _Journal Historique_, p. 362.]\n\n[Footnote 14: Bastian, _Ueber psych. Beobacht_. p.21.]\n\n[Footnote 14: Op. cit. p.26.]\n\n[Footnote 15: Miss Kingsley, _Travels in West Africa_, p. 460.]\n\n[Footnote 16: _Primitive Culture_, ii, 181; Mason's _Burmah_, p. 107.]\n\n[Footnote 17: Schoolcraft, i. 394.]\n\n[Footnote 18: Brinton's _Religions of Primitive Peoples_, p. 57.]\n\n[Footnote 19: Purchas, p. 629.]\n\n[Footnote 20: S.P.R. _Proceedings_, vol. vi. 69.]\n\n[Footnote 21: Binet and F\u00e9r\u00e9, _Animal Magnetism_, p. 64.]\n\n[Footnote 22: Vol. vii. Mrs. Sidgwick, pp. 30, 356; vol. vi. p. 66,\nProfessor Richet, p. 407, Drs. Dufay and Azam.]\n\n[Footnote 23: The examples in the Old Testament, and in the _Life of St.\nColumba_ by Adamnan, need only be alluded to as too familiar for\nquotation.]\n\n\n\n\nV\n\nCRYSTAL VISIONS, SAVAGE AND CIVILISED\n\nAmong savage methods of provoking hallucinations whence knowledge may be\nsupernormally obtained, various forms of 'crystal-gazing' are the most\ncurious. We find the habit of looking into water, usually in a vessel,\npreferably a glass vessel, among Red Indians (Lejeune), Romans (Varro,\ncited in _Civitas Dei_, iii. 457), Africans of Fez (Leo Africanus); while\nMaoris use a drop of blood (Taylor), Egyptians use ink (Lane), and\nAustralian savages employ a ball of polished stone, into which the seer\n'puts himself' to descry the results of an expedition.[1]\n\nI have already given, in the Introduction, Ellis's record of the\nPolynesian case. A hole being dug in the door of his house, and filled\nwith water, the priest looks for a vision of the thief who has carried off\nstolen goods. The Polynesian theory is that the god carries the spirit of\nthe thief over the water, in which it is reflected. Lejeune's Red Indians\nmake their patients gaze into the water, in which they will see the\npictures of the things in the way of food or medicine that will do them\ngood. In modern language, the instinctive knowledge existing implicitly\nin the patient's subconsciousness is thus brought into the range of his\nordinary consciousness.\n\nIn 1887 the late Captain J. T. Bourke, of the U.S. Cavalry, an original\nand careful observer, visited the Apaches in the interests of the\nEthnological Bureau. He learned that one of the chief duties of the\nmedicine-men was to find out the whereabouts of lost or stolen property.\nNa-a-cha, one of these _jossakeeds_, possessed a magic quartz crystal,\nwhich he greatly valued. Captain Bourke presented him with a still finer\ncrystal. 'He could not give me an explanation of its magical use, except\nthat by looking into it he could see everything he wanted to see,'\nCaptain Bourke appears never to have heard of the modern experiments in\ncrystal-gazing. Captain Bourke also discovered that the Apaches, like the\nGreeks, Australians, Africans, Maoris, and many other, races, use the\nbull-roarer, turndun, or _rhombos_--a piece of wood which, being whirled\nround, causes a strange windy roar--in their mystic ceremonies. The wide\nuse of the rhombos was known to Captain Bourke; that of the crystal was\nnot.\n\nFor the Iroquois, Mrs. Erminie Smith supplies information about the\ncrystal. 'Placed in a gourd of water, it could render visible the\napparition of a person who has bewitched another.' She gives a case in\nEuropean times of a medicine-man who found the witch's habitat, but\ngot only an indistinct view of her face. On a second trial he was\nsuccessful.[2] One may add that treasure-seekers among the Huille-che\n'look earnestly' for what they want to find 'into a smooth slab of black\nstone, which I suppose to be basalt.'[3]\n\nThe kindness of Monsieur Lef\u00e9bure enables me to give another example from\nMadagascar.[4] Flacourt, describing the Malagasies, says that they\n_squillent_ (a word not in Littr\u00e9), that is, divine by crystals, which\n'fall from heaven when it thunders,' Of course the rain reveals the\ncrystals, as it does the flint instruments called 'thunderbolts' in many\ncountries. 'Lorsqu'ils squillent, ils ont une de ces pierres au coing de\nleurs tablettes, disans qu'elle \u00e0 la vertu de faire faire operation \u00e0 leur\nfigure de geomance.' Probably they used the crystals as do the Apaches. On\nJuly 15 a Malagasy woman viewed, whether in her crystal or otherwise, two\nFrench vessels which, like the Spanish fleet, were 'not in sight,' also\nofficers, and doctors, and others aboard, whom she had seen, before their\nreturn to France, in Madagascar. The earliest of the ships did not arrive\ntill August 11.\n\nDr. Callaway gives the Zulu practice, where the chief 'sees what will\nhappen by looking into the vessel.'[5] The Shamans of Siberia and Eastern\nRussia employ the same method.[6] The case of the Inca, Yupanqui, is very\ncurious. 'As he came up to a fountain he saw a piece of crystal fall into\nit, within which he beheld a figure of an Indian in the following\nshape ... The apparition then vanished, while the crystal remained. The\nInca took care of it, and they say that he afterwards saw everything he\nwanted in it.'[7]\n\nHere, then, we find the belief that hallucinations can be induced by one\nor other form of crystal-gazing, in ancient Peru, on the other side of the\ncontinent among the Huille-che, in Fez, in Madagascar, in Siberia, among\nApaches, Hurons, Iroquois, Australian black fellows, Maoris, and in\nPolynesia. This is assuredly a wide range of geographical distribution. We\nalso find the practice in Greece (Pausanias, VII. xxi. 12), in Rome\n(Varro), in Egypt, and in India.\n\nThough anthropologists have paid no attention to the subject, it was of\ncourse familiar to later Europe. 'Miss X' has traced it among early\nChristians, in early Councils, in episcopal condemnations of _specularii_,\nand so to Dr. Dee, under James VI.; Aubrey; the Regent d'Orl\u00e9ans\nin St. Simon's Memoirs; the modern mesmerists (Gregory, Mayo) and the\nmid-Victorian spiritualists, who, as usual, explained the phenomena, in\ntheir prehistoric way, by 'spirits[8].' Till this lady examined the\nsubject, nobody had thought of remarking that a belief so universal had\nprobably some basis of facts, or nobody if we except two professors of\nchemistry and physiology, Drs. Gregory and Mayo. Miss X made experiments,\nbeginning by accident, like George Sand, when a child.\n\nThe hallucinations which appear to her eyes in ink, or crystal, are:\n\n  1. Revived memories 'arising thus, and thus only, from the subconscious\n  strata;'\n\n  '2. Objectivation of ideas or images--(a) consciously or (b)\n  unconsciously--in the mind of the percipient;\n\n  '3. Visions, possibly telepathic or clairvoyant, implying acquirement of\n  knowledge by supernormal means.'[9]\n\nThe examples given of the last class, the class which would be so useful\nto a priest or medicine-man asked to discover things lost, are of very\nslight interest.[10]\n\nSince Miss X drew attention to this subject, experiments have proved\nbeyond doubt that a fair percentage of people, sane and healthy, can see\nvivid landscapes, and figures of persons in motion, in glass balls and\nother vehicles. This faculty Dr. Parish attributes to 'dissociation,'\npractically to drowsiness. But he speaks by conjecture, and without\nhaving witnessed experiments, as will be shown later. I now offer a series\nof experiments with a glass ball, coming under my own observation, in\nwhich knowledge was apparently acquired in no ordinary way. Of the absence\nof fraud I am personally convinced, not only by the characters of all\nconcerned, but by the nature of the circumstances. That adaptive memory\ndid not later alter the narratives, as originally told, I feel certain,\nbecause they were reported to me, when I was not present, within less than\na week, precisely as they are now given, except in cases specially noted.\n\nEarly in the present year (1897) I met a young lady who told me of three\nor four curious hallucinatory experiences of her own, which were\nsufficiently corroborated. She was innocent of psychical studies, and\npersonally was, and is, in perfect health; the pale cast of thought being\nremote from her. I got a glass ball, and was present when she first looked\ninto it. She saw, I remember, the interior of a house, with a full-length\nportrait of a person unknown. There were, I think, one or two other fancy\npictures of the familiar kind. But she presently (living as she was, among\nstrangers) developed a power of 'seeing' persons and places unknown to\nher, but familiar to them. These experiences do seem to me to be good\nexamples of what is called 'thought transference;' indeed, I never before\ncould get out of a level balance of doubt on that subject, a balance which\nnow leans considerably to the affirmative side. There may be abundance of\nbetter evidence, but, knowing the persons and circumstances, and being\npresent once at what seemed to me a crucial example, I was more inclined\nto be convinced. This attitude appears, to myself, illogical, but it is\nnatural and usual.\n\nWe cannot tell what indications may be accidentally given in experiments\nin thought transference. But, in these cases of crystal-gazing, the detail\nwas too copious to be conveyed, by a looker-on, in a wink or a cough. I do\nnot mean to say that success was invariable. I thought of Dr. W.G. Grace,\nand the scryer saw an old man crawling along with a stick. But I doubt if\nDr. Grace is very deeply seated in that mystic entity, my subconscious\nself. The 'scries' which came right were sometimes, but not always, those\nof which the 'agent' (or person scried for) was consciously thinking. But\nthe examples will illustrate the various kinds of occurrences.\n\nHere one should first consider the arguments against accepting recognition\nof objects merely described by another person. The crystal-gazer may know\nthe inquirer so intimately as to have a very good guess at the subject of\nhis meditation. Again, a man is likely to be thinking of a woman, and a\nwoman of a man, so the field of conjecture is limited. In answer to the\nfirst objection I may say that the crystal-gazer was among strangers, all\nof whom, myself included, she now saw for the first time. Nor could she\nhave studied their histories beforehand, for she could not know (normally)\nwhen she left home, that she was about to be shown a glass ball, or whom\nshe would meet. The second objection is met by the circumstance that\nladies were _not_ usually picked out for men, nor men for women. Indeed,\nthese choices were the exceptions, and in each case were marked by\nminutely particular details. A third objection is that credulity, or the\nlove of strange novelties, or desire to oblige, biases the inquirers, and\nmakes them anxious to recognise something familiar in the scryer's\ndescriptions. In the same way we know how people recognise faces\nin the most blurred and vague of spiritist photographs, or see family\nresemblances in the most rudimentary doughfaced babies. Take descriptions\nof persons in a passport, or in a proclamation sketching the personal\nappearance of a criminal. These fit the men or women intended, but they\nalso fit a crowd of other people. The description given by the scryer then\nmay come right by a fortuitous coincidence, or may be too credulously\nrecognised.\n\nThe complex of coincidences, however, could not be attributed to chance\nselection out of the whole possible field of conjecture. We must remember,\ntoo, that a series of such hits increases, at an enormous rate, the odds\nagainst accidental conjecture. Of such mere luck I may give an example. I\nwas writing a story of which the hero was George Kelly, one of the 'Seven\nMen of Moidart.' A year after composing my tale, I found the Government\ndescription of Mr. Kelly (1736). It exactly tallied with my purely\nfanciful sketch, down to eyes, and teeth, and face, except that I made my\nhero 'about six feet,' whereas the Government gave him five feet ten. But\nI knew beforehand that Mr. Kelly was a clergyman; his curious career\nproved him to be a person of great activity and geniality--and he was of\nIrish birth. Even a dozen such guesses, equally correct, could not\nsuggest any powers of 'vision,' when so much was known beforehand about\nthe person guessed at. I now give cases in the experience of Miss Angus,\nas one may call the crystal-gazer. The first occurred the day after she\ngot the glass ball for the first time. She writes:\n\n'I.--A lady one day asked me to scry out a friend of whom she would\nthink. Almost immediately I exclaimed \"Here is an old, old lady looking\nat me with a triumphant smile on her face. She has a prominent nose and\nnut-cracker chin. Her face is very much wrinkled, especially at the\nsides of her eyes, as if she were always smiling. She is wearing a\nlittle white shawl with a black edge. _But!_ ... she _can't_ be old as\nher hair is quite brown! although her face looks so very very old.\" The\npicture then vanished, and the lady said that I had accurately described\nher friend's _mother_ instead of himself; that it was a family joke that\nthe mother must dye her hair, it was so brown and she was eighty-two\nyears old. The lady asked me if the vision were distinct enough for me\nto recognise a likeness in the son's photograph; next day she laid\nseveral photographs before me, and in a moment, without the slightest\nhesitation I picked him out from his wonderful likeness to my vision!'\n\nThe inquirer verbally corroborated all the facts to me, within a week, but\nleaned to a theory of 'electricity.' She has read and confirms this\naccount.\n\n'II.--One afternoon I was sitting beside a young lady whom I had never\nseen or heard of before. She asked if she might look into my crystal,\nand while she did so I happened to look over her shoulder and saw a ship\ntossing on a very heavy choppy sea, although land was still visible in\nthe dim distance. That vanished, and, as suddenly, a little house\nappeared with five or six (I forget now the exact number I then counted)\nsteps leading up to the door. On the second step stood an old man\nreading a newspaper. In front of the house was a field of thick\nstubbly grass where some _lambs_, I was going to say, but they were more\nlike very small sheep.. were grazing.\n\n'When the scene vanished, the young lady told me I had vividly described\na spot in Shetland where she and her mother were soon going to spend a\nfew weeks.'\n\nI heard of this case from Miss Angus within a day or two of its\noccurrence, and it was then confirmed to me, verbally, by the other lady.\nShe again confirms it (December 21, 1897). Both ladies had hitherto been\nperfect strangers to each other. The old man was the schoolmaster,\napparently. In her MS., Miss Angus writes 'Skye,' but at the time both she\nand the other lady said Shetland (which I have restored). In Shetland the\nsheep, like the ponies, are small. Fortuitous coincidence, of course, may\nbe invoked. The next account is by another lady, say Miss Rose.\n\n'III.--Writes Miss Rose--My first experience of crystal gazing was not\na pleasant one, as will be seen from the following which I now relate as\nexactly as I can remember. I asked my friend, Miss Angus, to allow me to\nlook in her crystal, and, after doing so for a short time, gave up,\nsaying it was very unsatisfactory, as, although I saw a room with a\nbright fire in it and a bed all curtained and people coming and going,\nI could not make out who they were, so I returned the crystal to Miss\nAngus, with the request that she might look for me. She said at once,\n\"I see a bed with a man in it looking very ill and a lady in black\nbeside it.\" Without saying any more Miss Angus still kept looking, and,\nafter some time, I asked to have one more look, and on her passing the\nball back to me, I received quite a shock, for there, perfectly clearly\nin a bright light, I saw stretched out in bed an old man apparently\ndead; for a few minutes I could not look, and on doing so once more\nthere appeared a lady in black and out of dense darkness a long black\nobject was being carried and it stopped before a dark opening overhung\nwith rocks. At the time I saw this I was staying with cousins,\nand it was a Friday evening. On Sunday we heard of the death of the\nfather-in-law of one of my cousins; of course I knew the old gentleman\nwas very ill, but my thoughts were not in the least about him when\nlooking in the crystal. I may also say I did not recognise in the\nfeatures of the dead man those of the old gentleman whose death I\nmention. On looking again on Sunday, I once more saw the curtained bed\nand some people.'\n\nI now give Miss Angus's version of this case, as originally received from\nher (December 1897). I had previously received an oral version, from a\nperson present at the scrying. It differed, in one respect, from what Miss\nAngus writes. Her version is offered because it is made independently,\nwithout consultation, or attempt to reconcile recollections.\n\n'At a recent experience of gazing, for the first time I was able to make\nanother see what _I_ saw in the crystal. Miss Rose called one afternoon,\nand begged me to look in the ball for her. I did so, and immediately\nexclaimed, \"Oh! here is a bed, with a man in it looking very ill [I saw\nhe was dead, but refrained from saying so], and there is a lady dressed\nin black sitting beside the bed.\" I did not recognise the man to be\nanyone I knew, so I told her to look. In a very short time she called\nout, \"Oh! I see the bed too! But, oh! take it away, the man is _dead_!\"\nShe got quite a shock, and said she would never look in it again. Soon,\nhowever, curiosity prompted her to have one more look, and the scene at\nonce came back again, and slowly, from a misty object at the side of the\nbed, the lady in black became quite distinct. Then she described\nseveral people in the room, and said they were carrying something all\ndraped in black. When she saw this, she put the ball down and would not\nlook at it again. She called again on Sunday (this had been on Friday)\nwith her cousin, and we teased her about being _afraid_ of the crystal,\nso she said she would just look in it once more. She took the ball, but\nimmediately laid it down again, saying, \"No, I won't look, as the bed\nwith the awful man in it is there again!\"\n\n'When they went home, they heard that the cousin's father-in-law had\ndied that afternoon,[11] but to show he had never been in our thoughts,\nalthough we _all_ knew he had not been well, _no one_ suggested him; his\nname was never mentioned in connection with the vision.'\n\n'Clairvoyance,' of course, is not illustrated here, the corpse being\nunrecognised, and the coincidence, doubtless, accidental.\n\nThe next case is attested by a civilian, a slight acquaintance of Miss\nAngus's, who now saw him for the second time only, but better known to her\nfamily.\n\n'IV.--On Thursday, March --? 1897, I was lunching with my friends the\nAnguses, and during luncheon the conversation turned upon crystal balls\nand the visions that, by some people, can be seen in them. The subject\narose owing to Miss Angus having just been presented with a crystal ball\nby Mr. Andrew Lang. I asked her to let me see it, and then to try and\nsee if she could conjure up a vision of any person of whom I might\nthink.... I fixed my mind upon a friend, a young trooper in the\n[regiment named], as I thought his would be a striking and peculiar\npersonality, owing to his uniform, and also because I felt sure that\nMiss Angus could not possibly know of his existence. I fixed my mind\nsteadily upon my friend, and presently Miss Angus, who had already seen\ntwo cloudy visions of faces and people, called out, \"Now I see a man on\na horse most distinctly; he is dressed most queerly, and glitters all\nover--why, it's a soldier! a soldier in uniform, but it's not an\nofficer.\" My excitement on hearing this was so great that I ceased to\nconcentrate my attention upon the thought of my friend, and the vision\nfaded away and could not afterwards be recalled.--December 2, 1897.'\n\nThe witness gives the name of the trooper, whom he had befriended in a\nsevere illness. Miss Angus's own account follows: she had told me the\nstory in June 1897.\n\n'Shortly after I became the happy possessor of a \"crystal\" I managed to\nconvert several very decided \"sceptics,\" and I will here give a short\naccount of my experiences with two or three of them.\n\n'One was with a Mr. ----, who was so determined to baffle me, he said he\nwould think of a friend it would not be _possible_ for me to describe!\n\n'I had only met Mr. ---- the day before, and knew utmost nothing about\nhim or his personal friends.\n\n'I took up the ball, which immediately became misty, and out of this\nmist gradually a crowd of people appeared, but too indistinctly for me\nto recognise anyone, until suddenly a man on horseback came galloping\nalong. I remember saying, \"I can't describe what he is like, but he is\ndressed in a very queer way--in something so bright that the sun shining\non him quite dazzles me, and I cannot make him out!\" As he came nearer I\nexclaimed. \"Why, it's a _soldier_ in shining armour, but it's not an\n_officer_, only a soldier!\" Two friends who were in the room said\nMr. ----'s excitement was intense, and my attention was drawn from the\nball by hearing him call out, \"It's wonderful! it's perfectly true! I\nwas thinking of a young boy, a son of a crofter, in whom I am deeply\ninterested, and who is a trooper in the ---- in London, which would\naccount for the crowd of people round him in the street!\"'\n\nThe next case is given, first in the version of the lady who was\nunconsciously scried for, and next in that of Miss Angus. The other lady\nwrites:\n\n'V.--I met Miss A. for the first time in a friend's house in the south\nof England, and one evening mention was made of a crystal ball, and our\nhostess asked Miss A. to look in it, and, if possible, tell her what was\nhappening to a friend of hers. Miss A. took the crystal, and our hostess\nput her hand on Miss A.'s forehead to \"will her.\" I, not believing in\nthis, took up a book and went to the other side of the room. I was\nsuddenly very much startled to hear Miss A., in quite an agitated way,\ndescribe a scene that had most certainly been very often in my thoughts,\nbut of which I had never mentioned a word, She accurately described a\nrace-course in Scotland, and an accident which happened to a friend of\nmine only a week or two before, and she was evidently going through the\nsame doubt and anxiety that I did at the time as to whether he was\nactually killed or only very much hurt. It really was a most wonderful\nrevelation to me, as it was the very first time I had seen a crystal.\nOur hostess, of course, was very much annoyed that she had not been able\nto influence Miss A., while I, who had appeared so very indifferent,\nshould have affected her.--November 28, 1897.'\n\nMiss Angus herself writes:\n\n'Another case was a rather interesting one, as I somehow got inside the\nthoughts of _one_ lady while _another_ was doing her best to influence\nme!\n\n'Miss ----, a friend in Brighton, has strange \"magnetic\" powers, and\nfelt quite sure of success with me and the ball.\n\n'Another lady, Miss H., who was present, laughed at the whole thing,\nespecially when Miss ---- insisted on holding my hand and patting her\nother hand on my forehead! Miss H. in a scornful manner took up a book,\nand, crossing to the other side of the room, left us to our folly.\n\n'In a very short time I felt myself getting excited, which had never\nhappened before, when I looked in the crystal. I saw a crowd of people,\nand in some strange way I felt I was in it, and we all seemed to be\nwaiting for something. Soon a rider came past, young, dressed for\nracing. His horse ambled past, and he smiled and nodded to those he\nknew in the crowd, and then was lost to sight.\n\n'In a moment we all seemed to feel as if something had happened, and I\nwent through great agony of suspense trying to see what seemed _just_\nbeyond my view. Soon, however, two or three men approached, and carried\nhim past before my eyes, and again my anxiety was intense to discover if\nhe were only very badly hurt or if life were really extinct. All this\nhappened in a few moments, but long enough to have left me so agitated\nthat I could not realise it had only been a vision in a glass ball.\n\n'By this time Miss H. had laid aside her book, and came forward quite\nstartled, and told me that I had accurately described a scene on a\nrace-course in Scotland which she had witnessed just a week or two\nbefore--a scene that had very often been in her thoughts, but, as we\nwere strangers to each other, she had never mentioned. She also said I\nhad exactly described her own feelings at the time, and had brought it\nall back in a most vivid manner.\n\n'The other lady was rather disappointed that, after she had concentrated\nher thoughts so hard, I should have been influenced instead by one who\nhad jeered at the whole affair.'\n\n[This anecdote was also told to me, within a few days of the occurrence,\nby Miss Angus. Her version was that she first saw a gentleman rider going\nto the post and nodding to his friends. Then she saw him carried on a\nstretcher through the crowd. She seemed, she said, to be actually present,\nand felt somewhat agitated. The fact of the accident was, later, mentioned\nto me in Scotland by another lady, a stranger to all the persons.--A.L.]\n\nVI.--I may briefly add an experiment of December 21, 1897. A gentleman had\nrecently come from England to the Scottish town where Miss Angus lives. He\ndined with her family, and about 10.15 to 10.30 P.M. she proposed to look\nin the glass for a scene or person of whom he was to think. He called up a\nmental picture of a ball at which he had recently been, and of a young\nlady to whom he had there been introduced. The lady's face, however, he\ncould not clearly visualise, and Miss Angus reported nothing but a view of\nan empty ball-room, with polished floor and many lights. The gentleman\nmade another effort, and remembered his partner with some distinctness.\nMiss Angus then described another room, not a ball-room, comfortably\nfurnished, in which a girl with brown hair drawn back from her forehead,\nand attired in a high-necked white blouse, was reading, or writing\nletters, under a bright light in an unshaded glass globe. The description\nof the features, figure, and height tallied with Mr. ----'s recollection;\nbut he had never seen this Geraldine of an hour except in ball dress. He\nand Miss Angus noted the time by their watches (it was 10.30), and\nMr. ---- said that on the first opportunity he would ask the young lady\nhow she had been dressed and how employed at that hour on December 21. On\nDecember 22 he met her at another dance, and her reply corroborated the\ncrystal picture. She had been writing letters, in a high-necked white\nblouse, under an incandescent gas lamp with an unshaded glass globe. She\nwas entirely unknown to Miss Angus, and had only been seen once by\nMr. ----. Mr. ---- and the lady of the crystal picture corroborated all\nthis in writing.\n\nI now suggested an experiment to Miss Angus, which, after all, was clearly\nnot of a nature to establish a 'test' for sceptics. The inquirer was to\nwrite down, and inclose in an envelope, a statement of his thoughts; Miss\nAngus was to do the same with her description of the picture seen by her;\nand these documents were to be sent to me, without communication between\nthe inquirer and the crystal-gazer. Of course, this could in no way prove\nabsence of collusion, as the two parties might arrange privately\nbeforehand what the vision was to be.\n\nIndeed, nobody is apt to be convinced, or shaken, unless he is himself the\ninquirer and a stranger to the seeress, as the people in these experiments\nwere. Evidence interesting to _them_--and, in a secondary degree, to\nothers who know them--can thus be procured; but strangers are left to the\nsame choice of doubts as in all reports of psychological experiences,\n'chromatic audition,' views of coloured numerals, and the other topics\nillustrated by Mr. Galton's interesting researches.\n\nIn this affair of the envelopes the inquirer was a Mr. Pembroke, who had\njust made Miss Angus's acquaintance, and was but a sojourner in the land.\nHe wrote, before knowing what Miss Angus had seen in the ball:\n\n'VII.--On Sunday, January 23, 1898, whilst Miss Angus was looking in the\ncrystal ball, I was thinking of my brother, who was, I believe, at that\ntime, somewhere between Sabathu (Punjab, India) and Egypt. I was anxious\nto know what stage of his journey he had reached.'\n\nMiss Angus saw, and wrote, before telling Mr. Pembroke:\n\n'A long and very white road, with tall trees at one side; on the other,\na river or lake of greyish water. Blue sky, with a crimson sunset. A\ngreat black ship is anchored near, and on the deck I see a man lying,\napparently very ill. He is a powerful-looking man, fair, and very much\nbronzed. Seven or eight Englishmen, in very light clothes, are standing\non the road beside the boat.\n\n'January 28, 1898.'\n\n'A great black ship,' anchored in 'a river or lake,' naturally suggests\nthe Suez Canal, where, in fact, Mr. Pembroke's brother was just arriving,\nas was proved by a letter received from him eight days after the\nexperiment was recorded, on January 31. At that date Mr. Pembroke had not\nyet been told the nature of Miss Angus's crystal picture, nor had she any\nknowledge of his brother's whereabouts.\n\nIn February 1898, Miss Angus again came to the place where I was residing.\nWe visited together the scene of an historical crime, and Miss Angus\nlooked into the glass ball. It was easy for her to 'visualise' the\nincidents of the crime (the murder of Cardinal Beaton), for they are\nfamiliar enough to many people. What she did see in the ball was a tall,\npale lady, 'about forty, but looking thirty-five,' with hair drawn\nback from the brows, standing beside a high chair, dressed in a wide\nfarthingale of stiff grey brocade, without a ruff. The costume corresponds\nwell (as we found) with that of 1546, and I said, 'I suppose it is\nMariotte Ogilvy'--to whom Miss Angus's historical knowledge (and perhaps\nthat of the general public) did not extend. Mariotte was the Cardinal's\nlady-love, and was in the Castle on the night before the murder,\naccording to Knox. She had been in my mind, whence (on the theory of\nthought transference) she may have passed to Miss Angus's mind; but I had\nnever speculated on Mariotte's costume. Nothing but conjecture, of course,\ncomes of these apparently 'retrospective' pictures; though a most singular\nand picturesque coincidence occurred, which may be told in a very\ndifferent connection.\n\nThe next example was noted at the same town. The lady who furnishes it is\nwell known to me, and it was verbally corroborated by Miss Angus, to whom\nthe lady, her absent nephew, and all about her, were entirely strange.\n\n'VIII.--I was very anxious to know whether my nephew would be sent to\nIndia this year, so I told Miss Angus that I had thought of something,\nand asked her to look in the glass ball. She did so, but almost\nimmediately turned round and looked out of the window at the sea, and\nsaid, \"I saw a ship so distinctly I thought it must be a reflection.\"\nShe looked in the ball again, and said, \"It is a large ship, and it is\npassing a huge rock with a lighthouse on it. I can't see who are on the\nship, but the sky is very clear and blue. Now I see a large building,\nsomething like a club, and in front there are a great many people\nsitting and walking about. I think it must be some place abroad, for the\npeople are all dressed in very light clothes, and it seems to be very\nsunny and warm. I see a young man sitting on a chair, with his feet\nstraight out before him. He is not talking to anyone, but seems to be\nlistening to something. He is dark and slight, and not very tall; and\nhis eyebrows are dark and very distinctly marked.\"\n\n'I had not had the pleasure of meeting Miss Angus before, and she knew\nnothing whatever about my nephew; but the young man described was\nexactly like him, both in his appearance and in the way he was sitting.'\n\nIn this case thought transference may be appealed to. The lady was\nthinking of her nephew in connection with India. It is not maintained, of\ncourse, that the picture was of a prophetic character.\n\nThe following examples have some curious and unusual features. On\nWednesday, February 2, 1897, Miss Angus was looking in the crystal,\nto amuse six or seven people whose acquaintance she had that day made.\nA gentleman, Mr. Bissett, asked her 'what letter was in his pocket,'\nShe then saw, under a bright sky, and, as it were, a long way off,\na large building, in and out of which many men were coming and going.\nHer impression was that the scene must be abroad. In the little company\npresent, it should be added, was a lady, Mrs. Cockburn, who had\nconsiderable reason to think of her young married daughter, then at a\nplace about fifty miles away. After Miss Angus had described the large\nbuilding and crowds of men, some one asked, 'Is it an exchange?' 'It\nmight be,' she said. 'Now comes a man in a great hurry. He has a broad\nbrow, and short, curly hair;[12] hat pressed low down on his eyes. The\nface is very serious; but he has a delightful smile.' Mr. and Mrs.\nBissett now both recognised their friend and stockbroker, whose letter was\nin Mr. Bissett's pocket.\n\nThe vision, which interested Miss Angus, passed away, and was interrupted\nby that of a hospital nurse, and of a lady in a _peignoir_, lying on a\nsofa, _with bare feet_.[13] Miss Angus mentioned this vision as a bore,\nshe being more interested in the stockbroker, who seems to have inherited\nwhat was once in the possession of another stockbroker--'the smile of\nCharles Lamb.' Mrs. Cockburn, for whom no pictures appeared, was rather\nvexed, and privately expressed with freedom a very sceptical opinion\nabout the whole affair. But, on Saturday, February 5, 1897, Miss Angus was\nagain with Mr. and Mrs. Bissett. When Mrs. Bissett announced that she had\n'thought of something,' Miss Angus saw a walk in a wood or garden, beside\na river, under a brilliant blue sky. Here was a lady, very well dressed,\ntwirling a white parasol on her shoulder as she walked, in a curious\n'stumpy' way, beside a gentleman in light clothes, such as are worn in\nIndia. He was broad-shouldered, had a short neck and a straight nose, and\nseemed to listen, laughing, but indifferent, to his obviously vivacious\ncompanion. The lady had a 'drawn' face, indicative of ill health. Then\nfollowed a scene in which the man, without the lady, was looking on at a\nnumber of Orientals busy in the felling of trees. Mrs. Bissett recognised,\nin the lady, her sister, Mrs. Clifton, in India--above all, when Miss\nAngus gave a realistic imitation of Mrs. Clifton's walk, the peculiarity\nof which was caused by an illness some years ago. Mrs. and Mr. Bissett\nalso recognised their brother-in-law in the gentleman seen in both\npictures. On being shown a portrait of Mrs. Clifton as a girl, Miss Angus\nsaid it was 'like, but too pretty.' A photograph done recently, however,\nshowed her 'the drawn face' of the crystal picture.[14]\n\nNext day, Sunday, February 6, Mrs. Bissett received, what was not\nusual--a letter from her sister in India, Mrs. Clifton, dated January 20.\nMrs. Clifton described a place in a native State, where she had been at a\ngreat 'function,' in certain gardens beside a river. She added that they\nwere going to another place for a certain purpose, 'and then we go into\ncamp till the end of February.' One of Mr. Clifton's duties is to direct\nthe clearing of wood preparatory to the formation of the camp, as in Miss\nAngus's crystal picture.[15] The sceptical Mrs. Cockburn heard of these\ncoincidences, and an idea occurred to her. She wrote to her daughter, who\nhas been mentioned, and asked whether, on Wednesday, February 2, she had\nbeen lying on a sofa in her bed-room, with bare feet. The young lady\nconfessed that it was indeed so;[16] and, when she heard how the fact came\nto be known, expressed herself with some warmth on the abuse of glass\nballs, which tend to rob life of its privacy.\n\nIn this case the _prima facie_ aspect of things is that a thought\nof Mr. Bissett's about his stockbroker, _dulce ridentem_, somehow\nreflected itself into Miss Angus's mind by way of the glass ball, and\nwas interrupted by a thought of Mrs. Cockburn's, as to her daughter. But\nhow these thoughts came to display the unknown facts concerning the\ngarden by the river, the felling of trees for a camp, and the bare feet,\nis a question about which it is vain to theorise.[17]\n\nOn the vanishing of the jungle scene there appeared a picture of a man in\na dark undress uniform, beside a great bay, in which were ships of war.\nWooden huts, as in a plague district, were on shore. Mr. Bissett asked,\n'What is the man's expression?' 'He looks as if he had been giving a lot\nof last orders.' Then appeared 'a place like a hospital, with five or six\nbeds--no, berths: it is a ship. Here is the man again.' He was minutely\ndescribed, one peculiarity being the way in which his hair grew--or,\nrather, did not grow--on his temples.\n\nMiss Angus now asked, 'Where is my little lady?'--meaning the lady of the\ntwirling parasol and _staccato_ walk. 'Oh, I've left off thinking of her,'\nsaid Mrs. Bissett, who had been thinking of, and recognised in the\nofficer in undress uniform, her brother, the man with the singular hair,\nwhose face, in fact, had been scarred in that way by an encounter with a\ntiger. He was expected to sail from Bombay, but news of his setting\nforth has not been received (February 10) at the moment when this is\nwritten.[18]\n\nIn these Indian cases, 'thought transference' may account for the\ncorrespondence between the figures seen by Miss Angus and the ideas in the\nmind of Mr. and Mrs. Bissett. But the hypothesis of thought transference,\nwhile it would cover the wooden huts at Bombay (Mrs. Bissett knowing that\nher brother was about to leave that place), can scarcely explain the scene\nin the garden by the river and the scene with the trees. The incident of\nthe bare feet may be regarded as a fortuitous coincidence, since Miss\nAngus saw the young lady foreshortened, and could not describe her face.\n\nIn the Introductory Chapter it was observed that the phenomena which\napparently point to some unaccountable supernormal faculty of acquiring\nknowledge are 'trivial.' These anecdotes illustrate the triviality; but\nthe facts certainly left a number of people, wholly unfamiliar with such\nexperiments, under the impression that Miss Angus's glass ball was like\nPrince Ali's magical telescope in the 'Arabian Nights.'[19] These\nexperiments, however, occasionally touch on intimate personal matters,\nand cannot be reported in such instances.\n\nIt will be remarked that the faculty is freakish, and does not always\nrespond to conscious exertion of thought in the mind of the inquirer.\nThus, in Case I. a connection of the person thought of is discerned; in\nanother the mind of a stranger present seems to be read. In another\ncase (not given here) the inquirer tried to visualise a card for a\nperson present to guess, while Miss Angus was asked to describe an object\nwhich the inquirer was acquainted with, but which he banished from his\nconscious thought. The double experiment was a double-barrelled success.\n\nIt seems hardly necessary to point out that chance coincidence will not\ncover this set of cases, where in each 'guess' the field of conjecture\nis boundless, and is not even narrowed by the crystal-gazer's knowledge\nof the persons for whose diversion she makes the experiment. As\n'muscle-reading' is not in question (in the one case of contact between\ninquirer and crystal-gazer the results were unexpected), and as no\nunconsciously made signs could convey, for example, the idea of a cavalry\nsoldier in uniform, or an accident on a race-course in two _tableaux_, I\ndo not at present see any more plausible explanation than that of thought\ntransference, though how that is to account for some of the cases given I\ndo not precisely understand.\n\nAny one who can accept the assurance of my personal belief in the\ngood faith of all concerned will see how very useful this faculty of\ncrystal-gazing must be to the Apache or Australian medicine-man or\nPolynesian priest. Freakish as the faculty is, a few real successes, well\nexploited and eked out by fraud, would set up a wizard's reputation. That\na faculty of being thus affected is genuine seems proved, apart from\nmodern evidence, by the world-wide prevalence of crystal-gazing in the\nethnographic region. But the discovery of this prevalence had not been\nmade, to my knowledge, before modern instances induced me to notice the\ncircumstances, sporadically recorded in books of travel.\n\nThe phenomena are certainly of a kind to encourage the savage theory of\nthe wandering soul. How else, thinkers would say, can the seer visit the\ndistant place or person, and correctly describe men and scenes which, in\nthe body, he never saw? Or they would encourage the Polynesian belief\nthat the 'spirit' of the thing or person looked for is suspended by a god\nover the water, crystal, blood, ink, or whatever it may be. Thus, to\nanthropologists, the discovery of crystal-gazing as a thing widely\ndiffused and still flourishing ought to be grateful, however much they\nmay blame my childish credulity. I may add that I have no ground to\nsuppose that crystal-gazing will ever be of practical service to the\npolice or to persons who have lost articles of portable property. But I\nhave no objection to experiments being made at Scotland Yard.[20]\n\n[Footnote 1: Information, with a photograph of the stones, from a\ncorrespondent in West Maitland, Australia.]\n\n[Footnote 2: _Report Ethnol. Bureau_, 1887-88, p. 460; vol. ii. p. 69.\nCaptain Bourke's volume on _The Medicine Men of the Apaches_ may also be\nconsulted.]\n\n[Footnote 3: Fitzroy, _Adventure_, vol. ii. p. 389.]\n\n[Footnote 4: _L'Histoire de la grand Ile Madagascar_, par le Sieur de\nFlacourt. Paris, 1661, ch. 76. Veue de deux Navires de France predite par\nles Negres, avant que l'on en peust s\u00e7avoir des Nouvelles, &c.]\n\n[Footnote 5: _Religion of the Amazulu_, p. 341.]\n\n[Footnote 6: _J.A.I_., November 1894, p. 155. Ryckov is cited; _Zhurnal_,\np. 86.]\n\n[Footnote 7: _Rites and Laws of the Yncas_, Christoval de Molina, p. 12.]\n\n[Footnote 8: See Miss X's article, S.P.R. _Proceedings_, v. 486.]\n\n[Footnote 9: Op. cit. v. 505.]\n\n[Footnote 10: If any reader wishes to make experiments, he, or she, should\nnot be astonished if the first crystal figure represents 'the sheeted\ndead,' or a person ill in bed. For some reason, or no reason, this is\nrather a usual prelude, signifying nothing.]\n\n[Footnote 11: Sunday afternoon. It is not implied that the pictures on\nFriday were prophetic. Probably Miss Rose saw what Miss Angus had seen by\naid of 'suggestion.']\n\n[Footnote 12: Miss Angus could not be sure of the colour of the hair.]\n\n[Footnote 13: The position was such that Miss Angus could not see the face\nof the lady.]\n\n[Footnote 14: I saw the photographs.]\n\n[Footnote 15: I have been shown the letter of January 20, which confirmed\nthe evidence of the crystal pictures. The camp was formed for official\npurposes in which Mr. Clifton was concerned. A letter of February 9\nunconsciously corroborates.]\n\n[Footnote 16: The incident of the feet occurred at 4.30 to 7.30 P.M. The\ncrystal picture was about 10 P.M.]\n\n[Footnote 17: Miss Angus had only within the week made the acquaintance of\nMrs. Cockburn and the Bissetts. Of these relations of theirs at a distance\nshe had no knowledge.]\n\n[Footnote 18: I have seen a photograph of this gentleman, Major Hamilton,\nwhich tallies with the full description given by Miss Angus, as reported\nby Mrs. Bissett. All the proper names here, as throughout, are altered.\n\nThis account I wrote from the verbal statement of Mrs. Bissett. It\nwas then read and corroborated by herself, Mr. Bissett, Mr. Cockburn,\nMrs. Cockburn, and Miss Angus, who added dates and signatures.]\n\n[Footnote 19: The letters attesting each of these experiments are in my\npossession. The real names are in no case given in this account, by my own\ndesire, but (with permission of the persona concerned) can be communicated\nprivately.]\n\n[Footnote 20: The faculty of seeing 'fancy pictures' in the glass is\nfar from uncommon. I have only met with three other persons besides\nMiss Angus, two of them men, who had any success in 'telepathic'\ncrystal-gazing. In correcting 'revises' (March 16), I leant that the\nbrother of Mr. Pembroke (p. 105) wrote from Cairo on January 27. The\n'scry' of January 23 represented his ship in the Suez Canal. He was, as\nhis letter shows, in quarantine at Suez, at Moses's Wells, from January 25\nto January 26. Major Hamilton (pp. 109, 110), on the other hand, left\nBombay, indeed, but not by sea, as in the crystal-picture. See Appendix C.\nMr. Starr, an American critic, adds Cherokees, Aztecs, and Tonkaways to\nthe ranks of crystal gazers.]\n\n\n\n\nVI\n\nANTHROPOLOGY AND HALLUCINATIONS\n\nWe have been examining cases, savage or civilised, in which knowledge is\nbelieved to be acquired through no known channel of sense. All such\ninstances among savages, whether of the nature of clairvoyance simple,\nor by aid of gazing in a smooth surface, or in dreams, or in trance, or\nthrough second sight, would confirm if they did not originate the belief\nin the separable soul. The soul, if it is to visit distant places and\ncollect information, must leave the body, it would be argued, and must so\nfar be capable of leading an independent life. Perhaps we ought next to\nstudy cases of 'possession,' when knowledge is supposed to be conveyed by\nan alien soul, ghost, spirit, or god, taking up its abode in a man, and\nspeaking out of his lips. But it seems better first to consider the\nalleged super-normal phenomena which may have led the savage reasoner to\nbelieve that _he_ was not the only owner of a separable soul: that other\npeople were equally gifted.\n\nThe sense, as of separation, which a savage dreamer or seer would feel\nafter a dream or vision in which he visited remote places, would satisfy\nhim that _his_ soul, at least, was volatile. But some experience of what\nhe would take to be visits from the spirits of others, would be needed\nbefore he recognised that other men, as well as he, had the faculty of\nsending their souls a journeying.\n\nNow, ordinary dreams, in which the dreamer seemed to see persons who were\nreally remote; would supply to the savage reasoner a certain amount of\naffirmative evidence. It is part of Mr. Tylor's contention that savages\n(like some children) are subject to the difficulty which most of us may\nhave occasionally felt in deciding 'Did this really happen, or did I dream\nit?' Thus, ordinary dreams would offer to the early thinker some\nevidence that other men's souls could visit his, as he believes that his\ncan visit them.\n\nBut men, we may assume, were not, at the assumed stage of thought, so\nbesotted as not to take a great practical distinction between sleeping\nand waking experience on the whole. As has been shown, the distinction\nis made by the lowest savages of our acquaintance. One clear _waking_\nhallucination, on the other hand, of the presence of a person really\nabsent, could not but tell more with the early philosopher than a score of\ndreams, for to be easily forgotten is of the essence of a dream. Savages,\nindeed, oddly enough, have hit on our theory, 'dreams go by contraries.'\nDr. Callaway illustrates this for the Zulus, and Mr. Scott for the\nMang'anza. Thus they _do_ discriminate between sleeping and waking. We\nmust therefore examine _waking_ hallucinations in the field of actual\nexperience, and on such recent evidence as may be accessible. If these\nhallucinations agree, in a certain ratio, beyond what fortuitous\ncoincidence can explain, with real but unknown events, then such\nhallucinations would greatly strengthen, in the mind of an early\nthinker, the savage theory that a man at a distance may, voluntarily or\ninvoluntarily, project his spirit on a journey, and be seen where he is\nnot present.\n\nWhen Mr. Tylor wrote his book, the study of the occasional waking\nhallucinations of the sane and healthy was in its infancy. Much, indeed,\nhad been written about hallucinations, but these were mainly the chronic\nfalse perceptions of maniacs, of drunkards, and of persons in bad\nhealth such as Nicolai and Mrs. A. The hallucinations of persons of\ngenius--Jeanne d'Arc, Luther, Socrates, Pascal, were by some attributed\nto lunacy in these famous people. Scarcely any writers before Mr. Galton\nhad recognised the occurrence of hallucinations once in a life, perhaps,\namong healthy, sober, and mentally sound people. If these were known to\noccur, they were dismissed as dreams of an unconscious sleep. This is\nstill practically the hypothesis of Dr. Parish, as we shall see later.\nBut in the last twenty years the infrequent hallucinations of the sane\nhave been recognised by Mr. Galton, and discussed by Professor James,\nMr. Gurney, Dr. Parish, and many other writers.\n\nTwo results have followed. First, 'ghosts' are shown to be, when not\nillusions caused by mistaking one object for another, then hallucinations.\nAs these most frequently represent a living person who is not present, by\nparity of reason the appearance of a dead person is on the same level, is\nnot a space-filling 'ghost,' but merely an hallucination. Such an\nappearance can, _prima facie_, suggest no reasonable inference as to the\ncontinued existence of the dead. On the other hand, the new studies have\nraised the perhaps insoluble question, 'Do not hallucinations of the sane,\nrepresenting the living, coincide more frequently than mere luck can\naccount for, with the death or other crisis of the person apparently\nseen?' If this could be proved, then there would seem to be a causal\n_nexus_, a relation of cause and effect between the hallucination and the\ncoincident crisis. That connection would be provisionally explained by\nsome not understood action of the mind or brain of the person in the\ncrisis, on that of the person who has the hallucination. This is no new\nidea; only the name, Telepathy, is modern. Of course, if all this were\naccepted, it would be the next step to ask whether hallucinations\nrepresenting the dead show any signs of being caused by some action on the\nside of the departed. That is a topic on which the little that we have to\nsay must be said later.\n\nIn the meantime the reader who has persevered so far is apt to go no\nfurther. The prejudice against 'wraiths' and 'ghosts' is very strong; but,\nthen, our innocent phantasms are neither (as we understand their nature)\nghosts nor wraiths. Kant broke the edges of his metaphysical tools\nagainst, not these phantasms, but the logically inconceivable entities\nwhich were at once material and non-material, at once 'spiritual' and\n'space-filling.' There is no such difficulty about hallucinations, which,\nwhatever else may be said about them, are familiar facts of experience.\nThe only real objections are the statements that hallucinations are\nalways _morbid_ (which is no longer the universal belief of physiologists\nand psychologists), and that the alleged coincidences of a phantasm of a\nperson with the unknown death of that person at a distance are 'pure\nflukes.' That is the question to which we recur later.\n\nIn the meantime, the defenders of the theory, that there is some not\nunderstood connection of cause and effect between the death or other\ncrisis at one end and the perception representing the person affected by\nthe crisis at the other end, point out that such hallucinations, or other\neffects on the percipient, exist in a regular rising scale of potency and\nperceptibility. Suppose that 'A's' death in Yorkshire is to affect the\nconsciousness of 'B' in Surrey before he knows anything about the fact\n(suppose it for the sake of argument), then the effect may take place\n(1) on 'B's' emotions, producing a vague _malaise_ and gloom; (2) on his\nmotor nerves, urging him to some act; (3) or may translate itself into his\nsenses, as a touch felt, a voice heard, a figure seen; or (4) may render\nitself as a phrase or an idea.\n\nOf these, (1) the emotional effect is, of course, the vaguest. We may all\nhave had a sudden fit of gloom which we could not explain. People rarely\nact on such impressions, and, when they do, are often wrong. Thus a\nfriend of my own was suddenly so overwhelmed, at golf, with inexplicable\nmisery (though winning his match) that he apologised to his opponent and\nwalked home from the ninth hole. Nothing was wrong at home. Probably some\nreal ground of apprehension had obscurely occurred to his mind and\nexpressed itself in his emotion.\n\nBut one may illustrate what did look like a coincidence by the experience\nof the same friend. He inhabited, as a young married man, a flat in a\nhouse belonging to an acquaintance. The hall was covered by a kind of\nglass roof, over part of its extent. He was staying in the country\nwith his wife, and as they travelled home the lady was beset with an\nirresistible conviction that something terrible had occurred, _not_ to her\nchildren. On reaching their house they found that one of their maids had\nfallen through the glass roof and killed herself. They also learned that\nthe girl's sister had arrived at the house, immediately after the\naccident, explaining that she was driven to come by a sense that something\ndreadful had happened. The lawyer, too, who represented the owner of the\nhouse, had appeared, unsummoned, from a conviction, which he could not\nresist, that for some reason unknown he was wanted there.[1] Here, then,\nwas not an hallucination, but an emotional effect simultaneously reaching\nthe consciousness of three persons, and coinciding with an unknown\ncrisis.[2]\n\nCases in which a person feels urged to an act (2) are also recorded.\nIndeed, the lawyer's in our anecdote is such an instance. Not to trouble\nourselves (3) with 'voices,' hallucinations of sight, coinciding with a\ndistant unknown crisis, are traced from a mere feeling that somebody is in\nthe room, followed by a _mental_, or _mind's eye_ picture of a person\ndying at a distance, up to a kind of 'vision' of a person or scene, and so\non to hallucinations appealing, at once, to touch, sight, and hearing. As\nsome hundreds of these narratives of coincidental hallucinations in every\ndegree have been collected from witnesses at first hand, often personally\nknown, and usually personally cross-questioned, by the student, it is\ndifficult to deny that there is a _prima facie_ case for inquiry.[3]\n\nThere is here no question of 'spirits,' with all their physical and\nmetaphysical difficulties. Nor is there any desire to shirk the fact that\nmany 'presentiments' and hallucinations of the sane coincide with no\nascertainable fact. We only provisionally posit the possibility of an\ninfluence, in its nature unknown, of one mind on another at a distance,\nsuch influence translating itself into an hallucination. An inquiry into\nthis subject, in the ethnographic and modern fields, may be new but\ninvolves no 'superstition.'\n\nWe now return to Mr. Tylor, who treats of hallucinations among other\nexperiences which led early savage thinkers to believe in ghosts or\nseparable souls, the origin of religion.\n\nAs to the causes of hallucinations in general, Mr. Tylor has something to\nsay, but it is nothing systematic. 'Sickness, exhaustion, and excitement'\ncause savages to behold 'human spectres,' in 'the objective reality' of\nwhich they believe. But if an educated modern, not sick, nor exhausted,\nnor excited, has an hallucination of a friend's presence, he, too,\nbelieves that it is 'objective,' is his friend in flesh and blood, till\nhe finds out his mistake, by examination or reflection. As Professor\nWilliam James remarks, in his 'Principles of Psychology,' such solitary\nhallucinations of the sane and healthy, once in a life-time, are difficult\nto account for, and are by no means rare. 'Sometimes,' Mr. Tylor observes,\n'the phantom has the characteristic quality of not being visible to all of\nan assembled company,' and he adds 'to assert or imply that they are\nvisible sometimes, and to some persons, but not always, or to everyone,\nis to lay down an explanation of facts which is not, indeed, our usual\nmodern explanation, but which is a perfectly rational and intelligible\nproduct of early science.'\n\nIt is, indeed, nor has later science produced any rational and\nintelligible explanation of collective hallucinations, shared by several\npersons at once, and perhaps not perceived by others who are present. Mr.\nTylor, it is true, asserts that 'in civilised countries a rumour of some\none having seen a phantom is enough to bring a sight of it to others whose\nminds are in a properly receptive state.' But this is arguing in a circle;\nWhat is 'a properly receptive state'? If illness, overwork, 'expectant\nattention,' make 'a properly receptive state,' I should have seen several\nphantoms in several 'haunted houses.' But the only thing of the sort I\never saw occurred when I was thinking of nothing less, when I was in good\nhealth, and when I did not know (nor did I learn till long after) that it\nwas the right and usual phantom to see. Mr. Podmore remarks that various\nmembers of the Psychical Society have sojourned in various 'haunted\nhouses,' 'some of them in a state of expectancy and nervous excitement,'\nwhich never caused them to see phantoms, for they saw none.[4]\n\nMr. Tylor treats of waking hallucinations in much the same manner as he\ndeals with 'travelling clairvoyance.' He does not study them 'in the field\nof experience.' He is not concerned with the truth of the facts, important\nas we think it would be, but with his theory that hallucinations, among\nother causes, would naturally give rise to the belief in spirits, and thus\nto the early philosophy of Animism. Now, certainly, the hallucination of a\nperson's presence, say at the moment of his death at a distance, would\nsuggest to a savage that something of the dying man's, something\nsymbolised in the word 'shadow,' or 'breath' _(spiritus)_, had come to say\nfarewell. The modern 'spiritualistic' theory, again, that the dead man's\n'spirit' is actually present to the percipient, in space, corresponds to,\nand is derived from, the animistic philosophy of the savage. But we may\nbelieve in such 'death-wraiths,' or hallucinatory appearances of\nthe dying, without being either savages or spiritualists. We may\nbelieve without pretending to explain, or we may advance the theory of\n'Telepathy,' Hegel's 'magical tie,' according to which the distant mind\nsomehow impresses itself, in a more or less perfect hallucination, on the\nmind of the person who perceives the wraith. If this be so, or even if no\nexplanation be offered, the truth of the stories of coincidental\napparitions becomes important, as pointing to a new region of psychical\ninquiry. Then the evidence of savages as to hallucinations of their own,\ncoincident with the death of their absent friends, will confirm,\n_quantum valeat_, the evidence of many modern observers in all ranks of\nlife, and all degrees of culture, from Lord Brougham to an old nurse.[5]\n\nAs to hallucinations coincident with the death of the person apparently\nseen, Mr. Tylor says: 'Narratives of this class I can here only specify\nwithout arguing on them, they are abundantly in circulation.'[6] Now, the\nmodern hallucinations themselves can scarcely, perhaps, be called\n'survivals from savagery,' though the opinion that an hallucination of a\nperson must be his 'spirit' is really such a survival. It is with that\nopinion, with Animism in its hallucinatory origins, that Mr. Tylor is\nconcerned, not with the hallucinations themselves or with the evidence\nfor their veridical existence.\n\nMr. Tylor gives three anecdotes, narrated to him, in two cases, by the\nseers, of phantasms of the living beheld by them (and in one case by a\ncompanion also) when the real person was dying at a distance. He adds: 'My\nown view is that nothing but dreams and visions could have ever put into\nmen's minds such an idea as that of souls being ethereal images of\nbodies.'[7] The idea may be perfectly erroneous; but if the occurrence\nof such coincidental appearances as Mr. Tylor tells us about could be\nshown to be too frequent for mere chance to produce, then there would be\na presumption in favour of some unknown faculties in our nature--a proper\ntheme for anthropology.\n\nThe hallucinations of which we hear most are those in which a person\nsees the phantom of another person, who, unknown to him, is in or near\nthe hour of death. Mr. Tylor, in addition to his three instances in\ncivilised life, alludes to one in savage life, with references to other\ncases.[8] We turn to his savage instance, offering it at full length from\nthe original.[9]\n\n'Among the Maoris' (says Mr. Shortland) 'it is always ominous to see the\nfigure of an absent person. If the figure is very shadowy, and its face is\nnot seen, death, although he may ere long be expected, has not seized his\nprey. If the face of the absent person is seen, the omen forewarns the\nbeholder that he is already dead.'\n\nThe following statement is from the mouth of an eyewitness:\n\n'A party of natives left their village, with the intention of being\nabsent some time, on a pig-hunting expedition. One night, while they\nwere seated in the open air around a blazing fire, the figure of a\nrelative who had been left ill at home was seen to approach. The\napparition appeared to two of the party only, and vanished immediately\non their making an exclamation of surprise. When they returned to the\nvillage they inquired for the sick man, and then learnt that he had\ndied about the time he was said to have been seen.'\n\nI now give Maori cases, communicated to me by Mr. Tregear, F.R.G.S.,\nauthor of a 'Maori Comparative Dictionary.'\n\nA very intelligent Maori chief said to me, 'I have seen but two ghosts.\nI was a boy at school in Auckland, and one morning was asleep in bed\nwhen I found myself aroused by some one shaking me by the shoulder. I\nlooked up, and saw bending over me the well-known form of my uncle, whom\nI supposed to be at the Bay of Islands. I spoke to him, but the form\nbecame dim and vanished. The next mail brought me the news of his\ndeath. Years passed away, and I saw no ghost or spirit--not even when\nmy father and mother died, and I was absent in each case. Then one day I\nwas sitting reading, when a dark shadow fell across my book. I looked\nup, and saw a man standing between me and the window. His back was\nturned towards me. I saw from his figure that he was a Maori, and I\ncalled out to him, \"Oh friend!\" He turned round, and I saw my other\nuncle, Ihaka. The form faded away as the other had done. I had not\nexpected to hear of my uncle's death, for I had seen him hale and strong\na few hours before. However, he had gone into the house of a missionary,\nand he (with several white people) was poisoned by eating of a pie made\nfrom tinned meat, the tin having been opened and the meat left in it all\nnight. That is all I myself had seen of spirits.'\n\nOne more Maori example may be offered:[10]\n\nFrom Mr. Francis Dart Fenton, formerly in the Native Department of the\nGovernment, Auckland, New Zealand. He gave the account in writing to his\nfriend, Captain J.H. Crosse, of Monkstown, Cork, from whom we received\nit. In 1852, when the incident occurred, Mr. Fenton was 'engaged in\nforming a settlement on the banks of the Waikato.'\n\n'March 25, 1860\n\n'Two sawyers, Frank Philps and Jack Mulholland, were engaged cutting\ntimber for the Rev. R. Maunsell at the mouth of the Awaroa creek--a very\nlonely place, a vast swamp, no people within miles of them. As usual,\nthey had a Maori with them to assist in felling trees. He came from\nTihorewam, a village on the other side of the river, about six miles\noff. As Frank and the native were cross-cutting a tree, the native\nstopped suddenly, and said, \"What are you come for?\" looking in the\ndirection of Frank. Frank replied, \"What do you mean?\" He said, \"I am\nnot speaking to you; I am speaking to my brother.\" Frank said, \"Where is\nhe?\" The native replied, \"Behind you. What do you want?\" (to the other\nMaori), Frank looked round and saw nobody. The native no longer saw\nanyone, but bid down the saw and said, \"I shall go across the river; my\nbrother is dead.\"\n\n'Frank laughed at him, and reminded him that be had left him quite well\non Sunday (five days before), and there had been no communication since.\nThe Maori spoke no more, but got into his canoe and pulled across. When\nhe arrived at the landing-place, he met people coming to fetch him. His\nbrother had just died. I knew him well.'\n\nIn answer to inquiries as to his authority for this narrative, Mr. Fenton\nwrites:\n\n'December 18, 1883.\n\n'I knew all the parties concerned well, and it is quite true, _valeat\nquantum_, as the lawyers say. Incidents of this sort are not infrequent\namong the Maoris.\n\n'F.D. FENTON,\n _'Late Chief Judge, Native Law-Court of N.Z.'_\n\nHere is a somewhat analogous example from Tierra del Fuego:\n\n'Jemmy Button was very superstitious' (says Admiral Fitzroy, speaking of\na Fuegian brought to England). 'While at sea, on board the \"Beagle,\" he\nsaid one morning to Mr. Bynoe that in the night some man came to the\nside of his hammock and whispered in his ear that his father was dead.\nHe fully believed that such was the case,' and he was perfectly\nright.... 'He reminded Bennett of the dream.'[11]\n\nMr. Darwin also mentions this case, a coincidental auditory hallucination.\n\nI have found no other savage cases quite to the point. This is,\nundeniably, 'a puir show for Kirkintilloch,' a meagre collection of savage\ndeath-wraiths, but it may be so meagre by reason of want of research, or\nof lack of records, travellers usually pooh-poohing the benighted\nsuperstitions of the heathen, or fearing to seem superstitious if they\nchronicle instances. However few the instances, they are, undeniably,\nexact parallels to those recorded in civilised life.\n\nIn filling up the lacuna in Mr. Tylor's anthropological work, in asking\nquestions as to the proportion between phantasms of the living which\ncoincide with a crisis in the experience of the person seen, and those\nwhich do not, it is obviously necessary to reject all evidence of people\nwho were ill, or anxious, or overworked, or in poignant grief at the time\nof the hallucination. It will be seen later that neither grief nor amatory\npassion (dominating the association of our ideas as they do) beget many\nphantasms. Our business, however, is with the false perceptions of persons\ntrustworthy, as far as we know, sane, healthy, not usually visionary, and\nin an unperturbed state of mind.\n\nThere remains a normal cause of subjective hallucinations, expectancy.\nThis appears to be a real cause of hallucination or, at least, of\nillusion. Waiting for the sound of a carriage you may hear it often before\nit comes, you taking other sounds for that which you desire. Again, in an\ninquiry embracing 17,000 people, the S.P.R. collected thirteen cases of an\nhallucinatory appearance of one person to another who was _expecting_ his\narrival. Once more, it is very conceivable that a trifle, the accidental\nopening of a door, a noise of a familiar kind in an unfamiliar place, may\ntouch the brain into originating an hallucination of a person passing\nthrough the door, or of the place where the sound now heard used once to\nbe familiar. Expectancy, again, and nervousness, might doubtless cause an\nhallucination to a person who felt uncomfortable in a house with a name to\nbe 'haunted,' though, as we have seen, the effect is far less common than\nthe cause. All these sorts of causes are undoubtedly more apt to be\nprevalent among superstitious savages than among educated Europeans.\nAnd it stands to reason that savages, where one man 'thinks he sees\nsomething,' will be readier than we are to think they 'see something' too.\nYet collective hallucinations, which are shared by several persons at\nonce, are especially puzzling. Even if they occur when all are in a\nstrained condition of expectancy, it is odd that all see them in _the same\nway_.[12] Examples will occur later. When there is no excitement, the\nmystery is increased. We may note that, among the expectant multitudes who\nlooked on while Bernadette was viewing the Blessed Virgin at Lourdes, not\none person, however superstitious or hysterical, pretended to share the\nvision. Again, only one person, and he on doubtful evidence, is asserted\nto have shared, once, the visions of Jeanne d'Arc. In both cases all the\nconditions said to produce collective hallucination were present in the\nhighest degree. Yet no collective hallucination occurred.\n\nNarratives about hallucinations coincident with a death, narratives well\nattested, are abundant in modern times, so abundant that one need only\nrefer the curious to Messrs. Gurney and Myers's two large volumes,\n'Phantasms of the Living,' and to the S.P.R 'Report of Census of\nHallucinations' (1894). Mr. Tylor says: 'The spiritualistic theory\nspecially insists on cases of apparitions, where the person's death\ncorresponds more or less nearly with the time when some friend perceives\nhis phantom.' But visionaries, he remarks truly, often see phantoms of\nliving persons when nothing occurs. That is the case, and the question\narises whether more such phantoms are viewed (_not_ by 'visionaries')\nin connection with the death or other crisis of the person whose\nhallucinatory appearance is perceived, than ought to occur, if there be no\nconnection of some unknown cause between deaths and appearances. As Mr.\nTylor observes, 'Man, as yet in a low intellectual condition, came to\nassociate in thought those things which he found by experience to be\nconnected in fact.'[13] Did early man, then, find _in experience_ that\napparitions of his friends were 'connected in fact' with their deaths?\nAnd, if so, was that discovered connection in fact the origin of his\nbelief that an hallucinatory appearance of an absent person sometimes\nannounced his death?\n\nThat the belief exists in New Zealand we saw, and find confirmed by this\ninstance, one of 'many such relations,' says the author. A Maori chief was\nlong absent on the war-path. One day he entered his wife's hut, and sat\nmute by the hearth. She ran to bring witnesses, but on her return the\nphantasm was no longer visible. The woman soon afterwards married again.\n\nHer husband then returned in perfect health, and pardoned the lady, as\nshe had acted on what, to a Maori mind, seemed good legal evidence of\nhis decease. Of course, even if she fabled, the story is evidence to the\nexistence of the belief.[14]\n\nWhat, then, is the cause of the belief that a phantom of a man is a token\nof his death? On the theory of savage philosophy, as explained by Mr.\nTylor himself, a man's soul may leave his body and become visible to\nothers, not at death only, but on many other occasions, in dream, trance,\nlethargy. All these are much more frequent conditions, in every man's\ncareer, than the fact of dying. Why, then, is the phantasm supposed by\nsavages to announce death? Is it because, in a sufficient ratio of cases\nto provoke remark, early man has found the appearance and the death to be\n'things connected in fact'?\n\nI give an instance in which the philosophy of savages would lead them\n_not_ to connect a phantasm of a living man with his death.\n\nThe Woi Worung, an Australian tribe, hold that 'the Murup [wraith] of an\nindividual could be sent from him by magic, as, for instance, when a\nhunter incautiously went to sleep when out hunting.'[15] In this case the\nhunter is exposed to the magic of his enemies. But the Murup, or detached\nsoul, would be visible to people at a distance when its owner is only\nasleep--according to the savage philosophy. Why, then, when the wraith is\nseen, is the owner believed to be dying? Are the things bound to be\n'connected in fact'?\n\nAs is well known, the Society for Psychical Research has attempted a\nlittle census, for the purpose of discovering whether hallucinations\nrepresenting persons at a distance coincided, within twelve hours, with\ntheir deaths, in a larger ratio than the laws of chance allow as possible.\nIf it be so, the Maori might have some ground for his theory that such\nhallucinations betoken a decease. I do not believe that any such census\ncan enable us to reach an affirmative conclusion which science will\naccept. In spite of all precautions taken, all warnings before, and\n'allowances' made later, collectors of evidence will 'select' affirmative\ncases already known, or (which is equally fatal) will be suspected of\ndoing so. Again, illusions of memory, increasing the closeness of the\ncoincidence, will come in--or it will be easy to say that they came in.\n'Allowances' for them will not be accepted.\n\nOnce more, 17,000 cases, though a larger number than is usual in\nbiological inquiries, are decidedly not enough for a popular argument on\nprobabilities; a million, it will be said, would not be too many.\nFinally, granting honesty, accurate memory, and non-selection (none of\nwhich will be granted by opponents), it is easy to say that odd things\n_must_ occur, and that the large proportion of affirmative answers as to\ncoincidental hallucinations is just a specimen of these odd things.\n\nOther objections are put forward by teachers of popular science who have\nnot examined--or, having examined, misreport--the results of the Census in\ndetail. I may give an example of their method.\n\nMr. Edward Clodd is the author of several handbooks of science--'The Story\nof Creation,' 'A Manual of Evolution,' and others. Now, in a signed review\nof a book, a critique published in 'The Sketch' (October 13, 1897), Mr.\nClodd wrote about the Census: 'Thousands of persons were asked whether\nthey had ever seen apparitions, and out of these some hundreds, mostly\nunintelligent foreigners, replied in the affirmative. Some eight or ten of\nthe number--envied mortals--had seen \"angels,\" but the majority,\nlike the American in the mongoose story, had seen only \"snakes.\"...\nIn weighing evidence we have to take into account the competency as\nwell as the integrity of the witnesses.' Mr. Clodd has most frankly and\ngood-humouredly acknowledged the erroneousness of his remark. Otherwise we\nmight ask: Does Mr. Clodd prefer to be considered not 'competent' or not\n'veracious'? He cannot be both on this occasion, for his signed and\npublished remarks were absolutely inaccurate. First, thousands of persons\nwere _not_ asked 'whether they had seen apparitions.' They were asked:\n'Have you ever, when believing yourself to be perfectly awake, had a vivid\nimpression of seeing, or being touched by a living being or inanimate\nobject, or of hearing a voice; which impression, so far as you could\ndiscover, was not due to any external physical cause?' Secondly, it is not\nthe fact that 'some hundreds, _mostly unintelligent foreigners,_ replied\nin the affirmative.' Of English-speaking men and women, 1,499 answered the\nquestion quoted above in the affirmative. Of foreigners (naturally\n'unintelligent'), 185 returned affirmative answers. Thirdly, when Mr.\nClodd says, 'The majority had seen only \"snakes,\"' it is not easy to know\nwhat precise sense 'snakes' bears in the terminology of popular science.\nIf Mr. Clodd means, by 'snakes,' fantastic hallucinations of animals,\nthese amounted to 25, as against 830 representing human forms of persons\nrecognised, unrecognised, living or dead. But, if by 'snakes' Mr. Clodd\nmeans purely subjective hallucinations, not known to coincide with any\nevent--and this _is_ his meaning--his statement agrees with that of the\nCensus. His observations, of course, were purely accidental errors.\n\nThe number of hallucinations representing living or dying recognised\npersons in the answers received, was 352. Of first-hand cases, in which\ncoincidence of the hallucination with the death of the person apparently\nseen was affirmed, there were 80, of which 26 are given.\n\nThe non-coincidental hallucinations were multiplied by four, to allow for\nforgetfulness of 'misses.' The results being compared, it was decided that\nthe hallucinations collected coincided with death 440 more often than\nought to be the case by the law of probabilities. Therefore there was\nproof, or presumption, in favour of some relation of cause and effect\nbetween A's death and B's hallucination.\n\nIf we were to attack the opinion of the Committee on Hallucinations, that\n'Between deaths and apparitions of the dying a connection exists which is\nnot due to chance alone,' the assault should be made not only on the\nmethod, but on the details. The events were never of very recent, and\noften were of remote occurrence. The remoteness was less than it seems,\nhowever, as the questions were often answered several years before the\npublication of the Report (1894). There was scarcely any documentary\nevidence, any note or letter written between the hallucination and the\narrival of news of the death. Such letters, the evidence alleged, had in\nsome cases existed, but had been lost, burnt, eaten by white ants, or\nwritten on a sheet of blotting paper or the whitewashed wall of a barrack\nroom. If I may judge by my own lifelong success in mislaying, losing, and\ncasually destroying papers, from cheques to notes made for literary\npurposes, from interesting letters of friends to the manuscripts of\nnovelists, or if I may judge by Sir Walter Scott's triumphs of the same\nkind, I should not think much of the disappearance of documentary evidence\nto death-wraiths. Nobody supposed, when these notes were written, that\nScience would ask for their production; and even if people had guessed at\nthis, it is human to lose or destroy old papers.\n\nThe remoteness of the occurrences is more remarkable, for, if these things\nhappen, why were so few recent cases discovered? Again, the seers were\nsometimes under anxiety, though such cases were excluded from the final\ncomputation: they frequently knew that the person seen was in bad health:\nthey were often very familiar with his personal aspect. Now what are\ncalled 'subjective hallucinations,' non-coincidental hallucinations,\nusually represent persons very familiar to us, persons much in our minds.\nI know seven cases in which such hallucinations occurred. 1, 2, of husband\nto wife; 3, son to mother; 4, brother to sister; 5, sister to sister;\n6, cousin (living in the same house) to cousin; 7, friend (living a mile\naway) to two friends. In no case was there a death-coincidence. Only in\ncase 4 was there any kind of coincidence, the brother having intended to\ndo (unknown to the sister) what he was seen doing--driving in a dog-cart\nwith a lady. But he had _not_ driven. We cannot, of course, _prove_ that\nthese seven cases were _not_ telepathic, but there is no proof that they\nwere. Now most of the coincidental cases, on which the Committee relied as\ntheir choicest examples, represented persons familiarly known to the\nseers. This looks as if they were casual; but, of course, if telepathy\ndoes exist, it is most likely (as Hegel says) to exist between kinsfolk\nand friends.[16]\n\nThe dates might be fresher!\n\nIn case 1, percipient knew that his aunt in England (he being in\nAustralia) was not very well. No anxiety.\n\n2. Casual acquaintance. No anxiety. Case of accident or suicide.\n\n3. Acquaintance who feared to die in childbed, and did. Percipient not\nmuch interested, nor at all anxious.\n\n4. Father in England to son in India. No anxiety.\n\n5. Uncle to niece. Sudden death. No anxiety. No knowledge of illness.\n\n6. Brother-in-law to sister-in-law, and her maid. No anxiety reported.\n_Russian_.\n\n7. Father to son. No anxiety reported. _Russian_.\n\n8. Friend to friend. No knowledge of illness or anxiety reported.\n\n9. Grandmother to grandson. No anxiety. No knowledge of illness.\n\n10. Casual acquaintance, to seven people, and apparently to a dog. Illness\nknown. _Russian._\n\n11. Step-brother to step-brother. No anxiety. No knowledge of illness.\n\n12. Friend to friend. No anxiety or knowledge of illness.\n\n13. Casual acquaintance. No anxiety.\n\n14. Aunt to nephew and to his wife. Illness known. No anxiety.\n\n15. Sister to brother. Illness known. No anxiety.\n\n16. Father to daughter. No knowledge of illness. No anxiety.\n\n17. Father to son. Much anxiety. (Uncounted.)\n\n18. Sister to sister. Illness known. 'No immediate danger' surmised.\n\n19. Father to son. Much anxiety. _Russian._ (Uncounted.)\n\n20. Friend to friend. Illness known. Percipient had been nursing patient.\n_Brazilian._ (Very bad case!)\n\n21 Friend to friend. Illness known. No anxiety.\n\n22. Brother to brother. Illness known. No anxiety.\n\n23. Grandfather to grand-daughter. Illness known. No pressing anxiety.\n\n24. Grandfather to grandson. Illness known. No anxiety.\n\n25. Father's _hand._ Illness chronic. No anxiety. Percipient a daughter.\n_Russian._\n\n20. Husband to wife. Anxiety in time of war.\n\n27. Brother to sister. Slightly anxious from receiving no letter.\n\n28. Friend to friend. No anxiety.\n\nAnxiety is only reported, or to be surmised, in two or three cases. In a\ndozen the existence of illness was known.\n\nIt may therefore be argued, adversely, that in the selected coincidental\nhallucinations, the persons seen were in the class most usually beheld in\nnon-coincidental and, probably, purely subjective hallucinations\nrepresenting real persons; also, that knowledge of their illness, even\nwhen no anxiety existed, kept them in some cases before the mind; also,\nthat several cases are foreign, and that 'most foreigners are fools.' On\nthe other hand, affection, familiarity, and knowledge of illness had _not_\nproduced hallucinations even in the case of these percipients, till\nwithin the twelve hours (often much less) of the event of death.\n\nIt would have been desirable, of course, to publish all the\n_non_-coincidental cases, and show how far, in these not _veridical_\ncases, the recognised phantasms were those of kindred, dear friends, known\nto be ill, and subjects of anxiety[17].\n\nThe Census, in fact, does contain a chapter on 'Mental and Nervous\nConditions in connection with Hallucinations,' such as anxiety, grief,\nand overwork. Do these produce, or probably produce, many empty\nhallucinations _not_ coincident with death or any great crisis? If they\ndo, then all cases in which a coincidental hallucination occurred\nto a person in anxiety, or overstrained, will seem to be, probably,\nfortuitous coincidences like the others. All percipients, of all sorts\nof hallucinations, hits or misses, were asked if they were in grief or\nanxiety. Now, out of 1,622 cases of hallucination of all known kinds\n(coincidental or not), mental strain was reported in 220 instances; of\nwhich 131 were cases of grief about known deaths or anxiety. These mental\nconditions, therefore, occur only in twelve per cent. of the instances. On\nthe whole, it does not seem fair to argue that anxiety produces so much\nhallucination that it will account by itself for those which we have\nanalysed as coincidental.\n\nThe impression left on my own mind by the Census does pretty closely agree\nwith that of its authors. Fairly well persuaded of the possibility of\ntelepathy, on other grounds, and even inclined to believe that it does\nproduce coincidental hallucinations, the evidence of the Census, by\nitself, would not convince me nor its authors. We want better records; we\nwant documentary evidence recording cases before the arrival of news of\nthe coincidence. Memories are very adaptive. The authors, however, made a\ngallant effort, at the cost of much labour, and largely allowed for all\nconceivable drawbacks.\n\nI am, personally, illogical enough to agree with Kant, and to be more\nconvinced by the cumulative weight of the hundreds of cases in 'Phantasms\nof the Living,' in other sources, in my own circle of acquaintance, and\neven by the coincident traditions of European and savage peoples, than by\nthe statistics of the Census. The whole mass, Census and all, is of very\nconsiderable weight, and there exist individual cases which one feels\nunable to dispute. Thus while I would never regard the hallucinatory\nfigure of a friend, perceived by myself, as proof of his death, I\nwould entertain some slight anxiety till I heard of his well-being.\n\nOn this topic I will offer, in a Kantian spirit, an anecdote of the kind\nwhich, occurring in great quantities, disposes the mind to a sort of\nbelief. It is not given as evidence to go to a jury, for I only received\nit from the lips of a very gallant and distinguished officer and V.C.,\nwhose own part in the affair will be described.\n\nThis gentleman was in command of a small British force in one of the\nremotest and least accessible of our dependencies, not connected by\ntelegraph, at the time of the incident, with the distant mainland. In the\nforce was a particularly folly young captain. One night he went to a\ndance, and, as the sleeping accommodation was exhausted, he passed the\nnight, like a Homeric hero, on a couch beneath the echoing _loggia_. Next\nday, contrary to his wont, he was in the worst of spirits, and, after\nmoping for some time, asked leave to go a three days' voyage to the\nnearest telegraph station. His commanding officer, my informant, was\ngood-natured, and gave leave. At the end of a week Captain ---- returned,\nin his usual high spirits. He now admitted that, while lying awake in the\nverandah, after the ball, he had seen a favourite brother of his, then\nin, say, Peru. He could not shake off the impression; he had made the long\nvoyage to the nearest telegraph station, and thence had telegraphed to\nanother brother in, let us say, Hong Kong, 'Is all well with John?' He\nreceived a reply, 'All well by last mail,' and so returned, relieved in\nmind, to his duties. But the next mail bringing letters from Peru brought\nnews of his Peruvian brother's death on the night of the vision in the\nverandah.\n\nThis, of course, is not offered as evidence. For evidence we need\nCaptain ----'s account, his Hong Kong brother's account, date of the\ndance, official date of the Peruvian brother's death, and so on. But the\ncharacter of my informant indisposes me to disbelief. The names of places\nare intentionally changed, but the places were as remote from each other\nas those given in the text.\n\nWe find ourselves able to understand the Master of Ravenswood's\ncogitations after he saw the best wraith in fiction:\n\n'She died expressing her eager desire to see me. Can it be, then--can\nstrong and earnest wishes, formed during the last agony of nature,\nsurvive its catastrophe, surmount the awful bounds of the spiritual\nworld, and place before us its inhabitants in the hues and colouring of\nlife? And why was that manifested to the eye, which could not unfold its\ntale to the ear?' ('Her withered lips moved fast, although no sound\nissued from them.') 'And wherefore should a breach be made in the laws\nof nature, yet its purpose remain unknown?'\n\nThe Master's reasonings are such as, in hearing similar anecdotes, must\nhave occurred to Scott. They no longer represent our views. The death and\napparition were coincidental almost to the minute: it would be impossible\nto prove that life was utterly extinct, when Alice seemed to die, 'as the\nclock in the distant village tolled one, just before' Ravenswood's\nexperience. We do not, like him, postulate 'a breach in the laws of\nnature,' only a possible example of a law. The tale was not 'unfolded to\nthe ear,' as the telepathic impact only affected the sense of sight.\n\nHere, perhaps, ought to follow a reply to certain scientific criticisms of\nthe theory that telepathy, or the action of one distant mind, or brain,\nupon another, may be the cause of 'coincidental hallucinations,'\nwhether among savage or civilised races. But, not to delay the argument\nby controversy, the Reply to Objections has been relegated to the\nAppendix[18].\n\n[Footnote 1: The lady, her husband, and the lawyer, all known to me, gave\nme the story in writing; the servant's sister has been lost sight of.]\n\n[Footnote 2: See three other cases in _Proceedings_, S.P.R., ii. 122, 123.\nTwo others are offered by Mr. Henry James and Mr. J. Neville Maskelyne of\nthe Egyptian Hall.]\n\n[Footnote 3: See 'Phantasms of the Living' and 'A Theory of Apparitions,'\n_Proceedings_, S.P.R., vol. ii., by Messrs. Gurney and Myers.]\n\n[Footnote 4: _Studies in Psychical Research,_ p. 388.]\n\n[Footnote 5: This, at least, scorns to myself a not illogical argument.\nMr. Leaf has argued on the other side, that 'Darwinism may have done\nsomething for Totemism, by proving the existence of a great monkey\nkinship. But Totemism can hardly be quoted as evidence for Darwinism.'\nTrue, but Darwinism and Totemism are matters of opinion, not facts of\npersonal experience. To a believer in coincidental hallucinations, at\nleast, the alleged parallel experiences of savages must yield some\nconfirmation to his own. His belief, he thinks, is warranted by human\nexperience. On what does he suppose that the belief of the savage is\nbased? Do his experience and their belief coincide by pure chance?]\n\n[Footnote 6: _Prim. Cult._ i. 449.]\n\n[Footnote 7: Ibid. i. 450.]\n\n[Footnote 8: _Prim. Cult._ vol. i. p. 450.]\n\n[Footnote 9: From Shortland's _Traditions of New Zealand,_ p. 140.]\n\n[Footnote 10: Gurney and Myers, 'Phantasms of the Living,' vol. ii.\nch. v. p. 557.]\n\n[Footnote 11: _The 'Adventure' and 'Beagle,'_ iii. 181, cf. 204.]\n\n[Footnote 12: It will, of course, be said that they worked their stories\ninto conformity.]\n\n[Footnote 13: _Prim. Cult._ i. 116.]\n\n[Footnote 14: Polack's _Manners of the New Zealanders_, i. 268.]\n\n[Footnote 15: Howitt, op. cit. p. 186.]\n\n[Footnote 16: On examining the cases, we find, in 1894, these dates of\nreported occurrences, in twenty-eight cases: 1890, 1882, 1879, 1870, 1863,\n1861, 1888, 1885, 1881, 1880, 1878, 1874, 1869, 1869, 1845, 1887, 1881,\n1877, 1874, 1873, 1860 (?), 1864 (?), 1855, 1830 (?!), 1867, 1862, 1888,\n1870.]\n\n[Footnote 17: On this point see _Report_, p. 260. Fifty phantasms out of\nthe whole occurred during anxiety or presumable anxiety. Of these,\nthirty-one coincided (within twelve hours) with the death of the person\napparently seen. In the remaining nineteen, the person seen recovered in\neight cases.]\n\n[Footnote 18: Appendix A.]\n\n\n\n\nVII\n\nDEMONIACAL POSSESSION\n\nThere is a kind of hallucinations--namely, Phantasms of the Dead--about\nwhich it seems better to say nothing in this place. If such phantasms are\nseen by savages when awake, they will doubtless greatly corroborate that\nbelief in the endurance of the soul after death, which is undeniably\nsuggested to the early reasoner by the phenomena of dreaming. But, while\nit is easy enough to produce evidence to recognised phantasms of the dead\nin civilised life, it would be very difficult indeed to discover many good\nexamples in what we know about savages. Some Fijian instances are given by\nMr. Fison in his and Mr. Howitt's 'Kamilaroi and Kurnai,' Others occur in\nthe narrative of John Tanner, a captive from childhood among the Red\nIndians. But the circumstance, already noted, that an Australian lad\nbecame a wizard on the strength of having seen a phantasm of his dead\nmother, proves that such experiences are not common; and Australian black\nfellows have admitted that they, for their part, never did see a ghost,\nbut only heard of ghosts from their old men. Mr. David Leslie, previously\ncited, gives some first-hand Zulu evidence about a haunted wood, where the\n_Esemkofu_, or ghosts of persons killed by a tyrannical chief, were heard\nand felt by his native informant; the percipient was also pelted with\nstones, as by the European _Poltergeist_. The Zulu who dies commonly\nbecomes an Ihlozi, and receives his share of sacrifice. The _Esemkofu_ on\nthe other hand, are disturbed and haunting spirits[1].\n\nAs a rule, so far as our information goes, it is not recognised phantasms\nof the dead, in waking vision, which corroborate the savage belief in the\npersistence of the spirit of the departed. The savage reasoner rather\nrests his faith on the alleged phenomena of noises and physical movements\nof objects apparently untouched, which cause so many houses in civilised\nsociety to be shut up, or shunned, as 'haunted.' Such disturbances the\nsavage naturally ascribes to 'spirits.' Our evidence, therefore, for\nrecognised phantasms of the savage dead is very meagre, so it is\nunnecessary to examine the much more copious civilised evidence. The facts\nattested may, of course, be theoretically explained as the result of\ntelepathy from a mind no longer incarnate; and, were the evidence as\ncopious as that for coincidental hallucinations of the living, or dying,\nit would be of extreme importance. But it is not so copious, and, granting\neven that it is accurate, various explanations not involving anything so\ndistasteful to science as the action of a discarnate intelligence may be,\nand have been, put forward.\n\nWe turn, therefore, from a theme in which civilised testimony is more\nbulky than that derived from savage life, to a topic in which savage\nevidence is much more full than modern civilised records. This topic is\nthe so-called Demoniacal Possession.\n\nIn the philosophy of Animism, and in the belief of many peoples, savage\nand civilised, spirits of the dead, or spirits at large, can take up their\nhomes in the bodies of living men. Such men, or women, are spoken of as\n'inspired,' or 'possessed.' They speak in voices not their own, they act\nin a manner alien to their natural character, they are said to utter\nprophecies, and to display knowledge which they could not have normally\nacquired, and, in fact, do not consciously possess, in their normal\ncondition. All these and similar phenomena the savage explains by the\nhypothesis that an alien spirit--perhaps a demon, perhaps a ghost, or a\ngod--has taken possession of the patient. The possessed, being full of the\nspirit, delivers sermons, oracles, prophecies, and what the Americans call\n'inspirational addresses,' before he returns to his normal consciousness.\nThough many such prophets are conscious impostors, others are sincere. Dr.\nMason mentions a prophet who became converted to Christianity. 'He could\nnot account for his former exercises, but said that it certainly appeared\nto him as though a spirit spoke, and he must tell what it communicated.'\nDr. Mason also gives the following anecdote:\n\n'...Another individual had a familiar spirit that he consulted and with\nwhich he conversed; but, on hearing the Gospel, he professed to become\nconverted, and had no more communication with his spirit. It had left\nhim, he said; it spoke to him no more. After a protracted trial I\nbaptised him. I watched his case with interest, and for several years he\nled an unimpeachable Christian life; but, on losing his religious zeal,\nand disagreeing with some of the church members, he removed to a distant\nvillage, where he could not attend the services of the Sabbath, and it\nwas soon after reported that he had communications with his familiar\nspirit again. I sent a native preacher to visit him. The man said\nhe heard the voice which had conversed with him formerly, but it\nspoke very differently. Its language was exceedingly pleasant to\nhear, and produced great brokenness of heart. It said, \"Love each\nother; act righteously--act uprightly,\" with other exhortations such us\nhe had heard from the teachers. An assistant was placed in the village\nnear him, when the spirit left him again; and ever since he has\nmaintained the character of a consistent Christian.'[2]\n\nThis anecdote illustrates what is called by spiritists 'change of\ncontrol.' After receiving, and deserting, Christian doctrine, the patient\nagain spoke unconsciously, but under the influence of the faith which he\nhad abandoned. In the same way we shall find that a modern American\n'Medium,' after being for a time constantly in the society of educated\nand psychological observers, obtained new 'controls' of a character more\nurbane and civilised than her old 'familiar spirit.'[3]\n\nIt is admitted that the possessed sometimes display an eloquence which\nthey are incapable of in their normal condition.[4] In China, possessed\nwomen, who never composed a line of poetry in their normal lives, utter\ntheir thoughts in verse, and are said to give evidence of clairvoyant\npowers.[5]\n\nThe book--_Demon Possession in China_--of Dr. Nevius, for forty years a\nmissionary, was violently attacked by the medical journals of his native\ncountry, the United States. The doctor had the audacity to declare that he\ncould find no better explanation of the phenomena than the theory of the\nApostles--namely, that the patients were possessed. Not having the fear of\nman before his eyes, he also remarked that the current scientific\nexplanations had the fault of not explaining anything.\n\nFor example, 'Mr. Tylor intimates that all cases of supposed demoniacal\npossession are identical with hysteria, delirium, and mania, and\nsuchlike bodily and mental derangements.' Dr. Nevius, however, gave what\nhe conceived to be the notes of possession, and, in his diagnosis,\ndistinguished them from hysteria (whatever that may mean), delirium, and\nmania. Nor can it honestly be denied that, if the special notes of\npossession actually exist, they do mark quite a distinct species of mental\naffection. Dr. Nevius then observed that, according to Mr. Tylor,\n'scientific physicians now explain the facts on a different principle,'\nbut, says Dr. Nevius, 'we search in vain to discover what this principle\nis.'[6] Dr. Nevius, who had the courage of his opinions, then consulted a\nwork styled 'Nervous Derangement,' by Dr. Hammond, a Professor in the\nMedical School of the University of New York.[7] He found this scientific\nphysician admitting that we know very little about the matter. He knew,\nwhat is very gratifying, that 'mind is the result of nervous action,'\nand that so-called 'possession' is the result of 'material derangements of\nthe organs or functions of the system.'\n\nDr. Nevius was ready to admit this latter doctrine in cases of idiocy,\ninsanity, epilepsy, and hysteria; but then, said he, these are not what I\ncall possession. The Chinese have names for all these maladies, 'which\nthey ascribe to physical causes,' but for possession they have a different\nname. He expected Dr. Hammond to account for the abnormal conditions in\nso-called possession, but 'he has hardly even attempted to do this.' Dr.\nNevius next perused the works of Dr. Griesinger, Dr. Baelz, Professor\nWilliam James, M. Ribot, and, generally, the literature of 'alternating\npersonality.' He found Mr. James professing his conviction that the\n'alternating personality' (in popular phrase, the demon, or familiar\nspirit) of Mrs. Piper knew a great deal about things which Mrs. Piper, in\nher normal state, did not, and could not know. Thus, after consulting many\nphysicians, Dr. Nevius was none the better, and came back to his faith in\nDiabolical Possession. He was therefore informed that he had written 'one\nof the most extraordinarily perverted books of the present day' on the\nevidence of 'transparent ghost stories'--which do not occur in his book.\n\nThe attitude of Dr. Nevius cannot be called strictly scientific. Because\npathologists and psychologists are unable to explain, or give the _modus_\nof a set of phenomena, it does not follow that the devil, or a god, or a\nghost, is in it.\n\nBut this, of course, was precisely the natural inference of savages.\n\nDr. Nevius catalogues the symptoms of possession thus:\n\n1. The automatic, persistent and consistent acting out of a new\npersonality, which calls himself _shieng_ (genius) and calls the patient\n_hiang to_ (incense burner, 'medium').\n\n2. Possession of knowledge and intellectual power not owned by the patient\n(in his normal state), nor explainable on the pathological hypothesis.\n\n3. Complete change of moral character in the patient.\n\nOf these notes, the second would, of course, most confirm the savage\nbelief that a new intelligence had entered into the patient. If he\ndisplayed knowledge of the future, or of the remote, the inference that a\nnovel and wiser intelligence had taken possession of the patient's body\nwould be, to the savage, irresistible. But the more cautious modern, _even\nif he accepted the facts_, would be reduced to no such extreme conclusion.\nHe would say that knowledge of the remote in space, or in the past, might\nbe telepathically communicated to the brain of some living person; while,\nfor knowledge of the future, he could fly, with Hartmann, to contact with\nthe Absolute.\n\nBut the question of evidence for the facts is, of course, the only real\nquestion. Now, in Dr. Nevius's book, this evidence rests almost entirely\non the written reports of native Christian teachers, for the Chinese were\nstrictly reticent when questioned by Europeans. 'My heathen brother, you\nhave a sister who is a demoniac?' asks the intelligent European. The reply\nof the heathen brother is best left in the obscurity of a remarkably\ndifficult and copious Oriental language. We are thus obliged to fall back\non the reports of Mr. Leng and other native Christian teachers. They are\nperfectly modest and rational in style. We learn that Mrs. Sen, a lady in\nher normal state incapable of lyrical efforts, lisped in numbers in her\nsecondary personality, and detected the circumstance that Mr. Leng was on\nhis way to see her, when she could not have learned the fact in any normal\nway.[8] 'They are now crossing the stream, and will be here when the sun\nis about so high;' which was correct. The other witnesses were examined,\nand corroborated.[9] Dr. Nevius himself examined Mrs. Kwo, when possessed,\ntalking in verse, and, physically, limp.[10]\n\nThe narratives are of this type; the patient, on recovering consciousness,\nknows nothing of what has occurred; Christian prayers are often\nefficacious, and there are many anecdotes of movements of objects\nuntouched.[11]\n\nBy a happy accident, as this chapter was passing through the press, a\nscientific account of a demoniac and his cure was published by Dr. Pierre\nJanet.[12] Dr. Janet has explained, with complete success, everything in\nthe matter of possession, except the facts which, in the opinion of Dr.\nNevius, were in need of explanation. These facts did not occur in the case\nof the demoniac 'exorcised' by Dr. Janet. Thus the learned essay of that\neminent authority would not have satisfied Dr. Nevius. The facts in which\nhe was interested did not present themselves in Dr. Janet's patient, and\nso Dr. Janet does not explain them.\n\nThe simplest plan, here, is to deny that the facts in which Dr. Nevius\nbelieves ever present themselves at all; but, if they ever do, Dr. Janet's\nexplanation does not explain them.\n\n1. His patient, Achille, did _not_ act out a new personality.\n\n2. Achille displayed _no_ knowledge or intellectual power which he did not\npossess in his normal state.\n\n3. His moral character was _not_ completely changed; he was only more\nhypochondriacal and hysterical than usual.\n\nAchille was a poor devil of a French tradesman who, like Captain Booth,\nhad infringed the laws of strict chastity and virtue. He brooded on this\ntill he became deranged, and thought that Satan had him. He was convulsed,\nanaesthetic, suicidal, involuntarily blasphemous. He was not 'exorcised'\nby a prayer or by a command, but after a long course of mental and\nphysical treatment. His cure does not explain the cures in which Dr.\nNevius believed. His case did not present the features of which Dr.\nNevius asked science for an explanation. Dr. Janet's essay is the\n_dernier cri_ of science, and leaves Dr. Nevius just where it found him.\n\nScience, therefore, can, and does, tell Dr. Nevius that his evidence for\nhis facts is worthless, through the lips of Professor W. Romaine Newbold,\nin 'Proceedings, S.P.R.,' February 1898 (pp. 602-604). And the same\nnumber of the same periodical shows us Dr. Hodgson accepting facts similar\nto those of Dr. Nevius, and explaining them by--possession! (p. 406).\n\nDr. Nevius's observations practically cover the whole field of\n'possession' in non-European peoples. But other examples from other areas\nare here included.\n\nA rather impressive example of possession may be selected from\nLivingstone's 'Missionary Travels' (p. 86). The adventurous Sebituane was\nharried by the Matabele in a new land of his choice. He thought of\ndescending the Zambesi till he was in touch with white men; but Tlap\u00e1ne,\n'who held intercourse with gods,' turned his face west-wards. Tlap\u00e1ne used\nto retire, 'perhaps into some cave, to remain in a hypnotic or mesmeric\nstate' until the moon was full. Then he would return _en proph\u00e8te_.\n'Stamping, leaping, and shouting in a peculiarly violent manner, or\nbeating the ground with a club' (to summon those under earth), 'they\ninduce a kind of fit, and while in it pretend that their utterances are\nunknown to themselves,' as they probably are, when the condition is\ngenuine. Tlap\u00e1ne, after inducing the 'possessed' state, pointed east:\n'There, Sebituane, I behold a fire; shun it, it may scorch thee. The gods\nsay, Go not thither!' Then, pointing west, he said, 'I see a city and a\nnation of black men, men of the water, their cattle are red, thine own\ntribe are perishing, thou wilt govern black men, spare thy future tribe.'\n\nSo far, mere advice; then,\n\n'Thou, Ramosinii, thy village will perish utterly. If Mokari moves first\nfrom the village, he will perish first; and thou, Ramosinii, wilt be the\nlast to die.'\n\nThen,\n\n  'Like some bold seer in a trance,\n  Seeing all his own mischance,'\n\n  'The gods have given other men water to drink, but to me they have given\n  bitter water. They call me away. I go.'[13]\n\nTlap\u00e1ne died, Mokari died, Ramosinii died, their village was destroyed\nsoon after, and so Sebituane wandered westward, not disobedient to the\nvoice, was attacked by the Baloiana, conquered, and spared them.\n\nSuch is 'possession' among savages. It is superfluous to multiply\ninstances of this world-wide belief, so freely illustrated in the New\nTestament, and in trials for witchcraft. The scientific study of the\nphenomena, as Littr\u00e9 complained, 'had hardly been sketched' forty years\nago. In the intervening years, psychologists and hypnotists have devoted\nmuch attention to the theme of these 'secondary personalities,' which\nAnimism explains by the theory of possession. The explanations of modern\nphilosophers differ, and it is not our business to discuss their\nphysiological and pathological ideas.[14] Our affair is to ask whether, in\nthe field of experience, there is any evidence that persons thus\n'possessed' really evince knowledge which they could not have acquired\nthrough normal channels? If such evidence exists, the facts would\nnaturally strengthen the conviction that the possessed person was inspired\nby an intelligence not his own, that is, by a spirit. Now it is the firm\nconviction of several men of science that a certain Mrs. Piper, an\nAmerican, does display, in her possessed condition, knowledge which\nshe could not normally acquire. The case of this lady is precisely on a\nlevel with that of certain savage or barbaric seers. Thus: 'The Fijian\npriest sits looking steadily at a whale's tooth ornament, amid dead\nsilence. In a few minutes he trembles, slight twitchings of face and limbs\ncome on, which increase to strong convulsions.... Now the god has\nentered.'[15]\n\nIn China, 'the professional woman sits at a table in contemplation, till\nthe soul of a deceased person from whom communication is desired enters\nher body and talks through her to the living....'[16]\n\nThe latter account exactly describes Mrs. Piper. When consulted she passes\nthrough convulsions into a trance, after which she talks in a new voice,\nassumes a fresh personality, and affects to be possessed by the spirit of\na French doctor (who does not know French)--Dr. Phinuit. She then displays\na varying amount of knowledge of dead and living people connected with her\nclients, who are usually strangers, often introduced under feigned names.\nMrs. Piper and her husband have been watched by detectives, and have not\nbeen discovered in any attempts to procure information. She was for some\nmonths in England under the charge of the S.P.R. Other ghosts, besides\nDr. Phinuit, ghosts more civilised than he, now influence her, and her\nlatest performances are said to exceed her former efforts.[17]\n\nVolumes of evidence about Mrs. Piper have been published by Dr. Hodgson,\nwho unmasked Madame Blavatsky and Eusapia Paladino.[18] He was at first\nconvinced that Mrs. Piper, in her condition of trance, obtains knowledge\nnot otherwise and normally accessible to her. It was admitted that her\nfamiliar spirit guesses, attempts to extract information from the people\nwho sit with her, and tries sophistically to conceal his failures. Here\nfollow the statements of Professor James of Harvard.\n\n'The most convincing things said about my own immediate household were\neither very intimate or very trivial. Unfortunately the former things\ncannot well be published. Of the trivial things I have forgotten the\ngreater number, but the following, _rarae nantes_, may serve as samples\nof their class. She said that we had lost recently a rug, and I a\nwaistcoat. (She wrongly accused a person of stealing the rug, which was\nafterwards found in the house.) She told of my killing a grey-and-white\ncat with ether, and described how it had \"spun round and round\" before\ndying. She told how my New York aunt had written a letter to my wife,\nwarning her against all mediums, and then went off on a most amusing\ncriticism, full of _traits vifs_, of the excellent woman's character.\n(Of course, no one but my wife and I knew the existence of the letter in\nquestion.) She was strong on the events in our nursery, and gave striking\nadvice during our first visit to her about the way to deal with certain\n\"tantrums\" of our second child--\"little Billy-boy,\" as she called him,\nreproducing his nursery name. She told how the crib creaked at night, how\na certain rocking-chair creaked mysteriously, how my wife had heard\nfootsteps on a stair, &c. &c. Insignificant as these things sound when\nread, the accumulation of them has an irresistible effect; and I repeat\nagain what I said before, that, taking everything that I know of Mrs.\nPiper into account, the result is to make me feel as absolutely certain as\nI am of any personal fact in the world that she knows things in her\ntrances which she cannot possibly have heard in her waking state, and that\nthe definitive philosophy of her trances is yet to be found. The\nlimitations of her trance information, its discontinuity and fitfulness,\nand its apparent inability to develop beyond a certain point, although\nthey end by arousing one's moral and human impatience with the phenomenon,\nyet are, from a scientific point of view, amongst its most interesting\npeculiarities, since where there are limits there are conditions, and the\ndiscovery of them is always the beginning of an explanation.\n\n'This is all I cam tell you of Mrs. Piper. I wish it were more\n\"scientific.\" But _valcat quantum!_ it is the best I can do.'\n\nElsewhere Mr. James writes:\n\n'Mr. Hodgson and others have made prolonged study of this lady's trances,\nand are all convinced that supernormal powers of cognition are displayed\ntherein. They are, _prima facie_, due to \"spirit control.\" But the\nconditions are so complex that a dogmatic decision either for or against\nthe hypothesis must as yet be postponed.'[19]\n\nAgain--\n\n'In the trances of this medium I cannot resist the conviction that\nknowledge appears which she has never gained by the ordinary waking use of\nher eyes, ears, and wits.\n\n'The trances have broken down, for my own mind, the limits of the admitted\norder of nature.'\n\nM. Paul Bourget (who is not superstitious), after consulting Mrs. Piper,\nconcludes:\n\n'L'esprit a des proc\u00e9d\u00e9s de conna\u00eetre non soup\u00e7onn\u00e9s par notre\nanalyse.'[20]\n\nIn this treatise I may have shown 'the will to believe' in an unusual\ndegree; but, for me, the interest of Mrs. Piper is purely anthropological.\nShe exhibits a survival or recrudescence of savage phenomena, real or\nfeigned, of convulsion and of secondary personality, and entertains a\nsurvival of the animistic explanation.\n\nMrs. Piper's honesty and excellent character, in her normal condition, are\nvouched for by her friends and observers in England and America; nor do I\nimpeach her normal character. But 'secondary personalities' have often\nmore of Mr. Hyde than of Dr. Jekyll in their composition. It used to be\nadmitted that, when 'possessed,' Mrs. Piper would cheat when she\ncould--that is to say, she would make guesses, try to worm information out\nof her sitter, describe a friend of his, alive or dead, as 'Ed.,' who may\nbe Edgar, Edmund, Edward, Edith, or anybody. She would shuffle, and repeat\nwhat she had picked up in a former sitting with the same person; and the\nvast majority of her answers started from vague references to probable\nfacts (as that an elderly man is an orphan), and so worked on to more\nprecise statements. Professor Macalister wrote:\n\n'She is quite wide-awake enough all through to profit by suggestions. I\nlet her see a blotch of ink on my finger, and she said that I was a\nwriter.... Except the guess about my sister Helen, who is alive, there was\nnot a single guess which was nearly right. Mrs. Piper is not anaesthetic\nduring the so-called trance, and if you ask my private opinion, it is that\nthe whole thing is an imposture, and a poor one.'[21]\n\nMr. Barkworth said that, as far as his experience went, 'Mrs. Piper's\npowers are of the ordinary thought-reading [i.e. muscle-reading] kind,\ndependent on her hold of the visitor's hand.' Each of these gentlemen had\nonly one 'sitting.' M. Paul Bourget also informed me, in conversation,\nthat Mrs. Piper held his hand while she told the melancholy tale connected\nwith a key in his possession, and that she did not tell the story promptly\nand fluently, but very slowly and hesitatingly. Even so, he declared that\nhe did not feel able to account for her performance.\n\nAs these pages were passing through the press, Dr. Hodgson's last report\non Mrs. Piper was published.[22] It is quite impossible, within the space\nallotted, to criticise this work. It would be necessary to examine\nminutely scores of statements, in which many facts are suppressed as too\nintimate, while others are remarkably incoherent. Dr. Hodgson deserves the\npraise of extraordinary patience and industry, displayed in the very\ndistasteful task of watching an unfortunate lady in the vagaries of\n'trance.' His reasonings are perfectly calm, perfectly unimpassioned, and\nhis bias has not hitherto seemed to make for credulity. We must, in fact,\nregard him as an expert in this branch of psychology. But he himself makes\nit clear that, in his opinion, no written reports can convey the\nimpressions produced by several years of personal experience. The results\nof that experience he sums up in these words:\n\n'At the present time I cannot profess to have any doubt but that the chief\n\"communicators\" to whom I have referred in the foregoing pages are\nveritably the personalities that they claim to be, that they have survived\nthe change we call death, and that they have directly communicated with\nus, whom we call living, through Mrs. Piper's entranced organism.'[23]\n\nThis means that Dr. Hodgson, at present, in this case, accepts the\nhypothesis of 'possession' as understood by Maoris and Fijians, Chinese\nand Karens.\n\nThe published reports do not produce on me any such impression. As a\npersonal matter of opinion, I am convinced that those whom I have honoured\nin this life would no more avail themselves of Mrs. Piper's 'entranced\norganism' (if they had the chance) than I would voluntarily find myself in\na 'sitting' with that lady. It is unnecessary to wax eloquent on this\nhead; and the curious can consult the writings of Dr. Hodgson for\nthemselves. Meanwhile we have only to notice that an American 'possessed'\nwoman produces on a highly educated and sceptical modern intelligence\nthe same impression as the Zulu 'possessed' produce on some Zulu\nintelligences.\n\nThe Zulus admit 'possession' and divination, but are not the most\ncredulous of mankind. The ordinary possessed person is usually consulted\nas to the disease of an absent patient. The inquirers do not assist the\ndiviner by holding his hand, but are expected to smite the ground\nviolently if the guess made by the diviner is right; gently if it is\nwrong. A sceptical Zulu, named John, having a shilling to expend on\npsychical research, smote violently at _every_ guess. The diviner was\nhopelessly puzzled; John kept his shilling, and laid it out on a much more\nmeritorious exhibition of animated sticks.[24]\n\nUguise gave Dr. Callaway an account of a female possessed person with\nwhom Mrs. Piper could not compete. Her spirit spoke, not from her mouth,\nbut from high in the roof. It gave forth a kind of questioning remarks\nwhich were always correct. It then reported correctly a number of singular\ncircumstances, ordered some remedies for a diseased child, and offered to\nreturn the fee, if ample satisfaction was not given.[25]\n\nIn China and Zululand, as in Mrs. Piper's case, the spirits are fond of\ndiagnosing and prescribing for absent patients.\n\nA good example of savage possession is given in his travels by Captain\nJonathan Carver (1763).\n\nCarver was waiting impatiently for the arrival of traders with provisions,\nnear the Thousand Lakes. A priest, or jossakeed, offered to interview the\nGreat Spirit, and obtain information. A large lodge was arranged, and the\ncovering drawn up (which is unusual), so that what went on within might be\nobserved. In the centre was a chest-shaped arrangement of stakes, so far\napart from each other 'that whatever lay within them was readily to be\ndiscerned.' The tent was illuminated 'by a great number of torches.' The\npriest came in, and was first wrapped in an elk's skin, as Highland seers\nwere wrapped in a black bull's hide. Forty yards of rope made of elk's\nhide were then coiled about him, till he 'was wound up like an Egyptian\nmummy.'\n\nI have elsewhere shown[26] that this custom of binding with bonds the seer\nwho is to be inspired, existed in Graeco-Egyptian spiritualism, among\nSamoyeds, Eskimo, Canadian Hareskin Indians, and among Australian blacks.\n\n'The head, body, and limbs are wound round with stringy bark cords.'[27]\nThis is an extraordinary range of diffusion of a ceremony apparently\nmeaningless. Is the idea that, by loosing the bonds, the seer demonstrates\nthe agency of spirits, after the manner of the Davenport Brothers?[28] But\nthe Graeco-Egyptian medium did _not_ undo the swathings of linen, in which\nhe was rolled, _like a mummy_. They had to be unswathed for him, by\nothers.[29] Again, a dead body, among the Australians, is corded up tight,\nas soon as the breath is out of it, if it is to be buried, or before being\nexposed on a platform, if that is the custom.[30] Again, in the Highlands\nsecond-sight was thus acquired: the would-be seer 'must run a Tedder\n(tether) of Hair, _which bound a corpse to the Bier_, about his Middle\nfrom end to end,' and then look between his legs till he sees a funeral\ncross two marches.[31] The Greenland seer is bound 'with his head between\nhis legs.'[32]\n\nCan it be possible, judging from Australia, Scotland, Egypt, that the\nbinding, as of a corpse or mummy, is a symbolical way of putting the seer\non a level with the dead, who will then communicate with him? In three\nremote points, we find seer-binding and corpse-binding; but we need to\nprove that corpses are, or have been, bound at the other points where the\nseer is tied up--in a reindeer skin among the Samoyeds, an elk skin in\nNorth America, a bull's hide in the Highlands.\n\nBinding the seer is not a universal Red Indian custom; it seems to cease\nin Labrador, and elsewhere, southwards, where the prophet enters a magic\nlodge, unbound. Among the Narquapees, he sits cross-legged, and the lodge\nbegins to answer questions by leaping about.[33] The Eskimo bounds, though\nhe is tied up.\n\nIt would be decisive, if we could find that, wherever the sorcerer is\nbound, the dead are bound also. I note the following examples, but the\nCreeks do not, I think, bind the magician.\n\nAmong the Creeks,\n\n'The corpse is placed in a hole, with a blanket wrapped about it, and the\nlegs bent under it _and tied together_.'[34] The dead Greenlanders were\n'wrapped and sewed up in their best deer-skins.'[35]\n\nCarver could only learn that, among the Indians he knew, dead bodies were\n'wrapped in skins;' that they were also swathed with cords he does not\nallege, but he was not permitted to see all the ceremonies.\n\nMy theory is, at least, plausible, for this manner of burying the dead,\ntied tightly up, with the head between the legs (as in the practice of\nScottish and Greenland seers), is very old and widely diffused. Ellis\nsays, of the Tahitians, 'the body of the dead man was ... placed in a\nsitting posture, with the knees elevated, _the face pressed down between\nthe knees_,... and the whole body tied with cord or cinet, wound repeatedly\nround.'[36]\n\nThe binding may originally have been meant to keep the corpse, or ghost,\nfrom 'walking.' I do not know that Tahitian prophets were ever tied up, to\nawait inspiration. But I submit that the frequency of the savage form of\nburial with the corpse tied up, or swathed, sometimes with the head\nbetween the legs; and the recurrence of the savage practice of similarly\nbinding the sorcerer, probably points to a purpose of introducing the\nseer to the society of the dead. The custom, as applied to prophets, might\nsurvive, even where the burial rite had altered, or cannot be ascertained,\nand might survive, for corpses, where it had gone out of use, for seers.\nThe Scotch used to justify their practice of putting the head between\nthe knees when, bound with a corpse's hair tether, they learned to\nbe second-sighted, by what Elijah did. The prophet, on the peak of\nCarmel, 'cast himself down upon the earth, and put his face between his\nknees.'[37] But the cases are not analogous. Elijah had been hearing a\npremonitory 'sound of abundance of rain' in a cloudless sky. He was\nprobably engaged in prayer, not in prophecy.\n\nKirk, by the way, notes that if the wind changes, while the Scottish seer\nis bound, he is in peril of his life. So children are told, in Scotland,\nthat, if the wind changes while they are making faces, the grimace will be\npermanent. The seer will, in the same way, become what he pretends to be,\na corpse.\n\nThis desertion of Carver's tale may be pardoned for the curiosity of the\ntopic. He goes on:\n\n'Being thus bound up like an Egyptian mummy' (Carver unconsciously making\nmy point), 'the seer was lifted into the chest-like enclosure. I could now\nalso discern him as plain as I had ever done, and I took care not to turn\nmy eyes away a moment'--in which effort he probably failed.\n\nThe priest now began to mutter, and finally spoke in a mixed jargon of\nscarcely intelligible dialects. He now yelled, prayed, and foamed at the\nmouth, till in about three quarters of an hour he was exhausted and\nspeechless. 'But in an instant he sprang upon his feet, notwithstanding at\nthe time he was put in it appeared impossible for him to move either his\nlegs or arms, and shaking off his covering, as quick as if the bands with\nwhich it had been bound were burst asunder,' he prophesied. The Great\nSpirit did not say when the traders would arrive, but, just after high\nnoon, next day, a canoe would arrive, and the people in it would tell when\nthe traders were to appear.\n\nNext day, just after high noon, a canoe came round a point of land about a\nleague away, and the men in it, who had met the traders, said they would\ncome in two days, which they did. Carver, professing freedom from any\ntincture of credulity, leaves us 'to draw what conclusions we please.'\n\nThe natural inference is 'private information,' about which the only\ndifficulty is that Carver, who knew the topography and the chances of a\nsecret messenger arriving to prompt the Jossakeed, does not allude to this\ntheory.[38] He seems to think such successes not uncommon.\n\nAll that psychology can teach anthropology, on this whole topic of\n'possession;' is that secondary or alternating personalities are facts\n_in rerum natura_, that the man or woman in one personality may have no\nconscious memory of what was done or said in the other, and that cases of\nknowledge said to be supernormally gained in the secondary state are worth\ninquiring about, if there be a chance of getting good evidence.\n\nA few fairly respectable savage instances are given in Dr. Gibier's 'Le\nFakirisme Occidental' and in Mr. Manning's 'Old New Zealand;' but, while\nmodern civilised parallels depend on the solitary case of Mrs. Piper (for\nno other case has been well observed), no affirmative conclusion can be\ndrawn from Chinese, Maori, Zulu, or Red Indian practice.\n\n[Footnote 1: _Among the Zulus_, p. 120.]\n\n[Footnote 2:_ Burmah_, p. 107.]\n\n[Footnote 3: Hodgson, _Proceedings_, S.P.E., vol. xiii. pt. xxxiii. Dr.\nHodgson by no means agrees with this view of the case--the case of Mrs.\nPiper.]\n\n[Footnote 4: _Prim. Cult_. ii. 184.]\n\n[Footnote 5: Nevius's _Demon Possession in China_, a curious collection of\nexamples by an American missionary. The reports of Catholic missionaries\nabound in cases.]\n\n[Footnote 6: Op. cit. p. 169.]\n\n[Footnote 7: Putnam, 1881.]\n\n[Footnote 8: Nevius, p. 33.]\n\n[Footnote 9: Ibid. p. 35.]\n\n[Footnote 10: Op. cit. p. 38.]\n\n[Footnote 11: See 'Fetishism and Spiritualism.']\n\n[Footnote 12: _N\u00e9croses et Id\u00e9es Fixes_. Alcan, Paris, 1898. This is the\nfirst of a series of works connected with the Laboratoire de Psychologie,\nat the Salp\u00e9trit\u00e8re, in Paris.]\n\n[Footnote 13: 'Macleod shall return, but Macrimmon shall never!']\n\n[Footnote 14: See Ribot, _Les Maladies de la Personnalit\u00e9,_; Bourru\net Burot, _Variations de la Personnalit\u00e9_; Janet, _L'Automatisme\nPsychologique_; James, _Principles of Psychology_; Myers, in _Proceedings_\nof S.P.R., 'The Mechanism of Genius,' 'The Subliminal Self.']\n\n[Footnote 15: _Prim. Cult_. ii. 133.]\n\n[Footnote 16: Doolittle's _Chinese_, i. 143; ii. 110, 320.]\n\n[Footnote 17: _Proceedings_, S.P.R., pt. xxxiii.]\n\n[Footnote 18: _Proceedings_, S.P.R., vi. 436-650; viii. 1-167; xiii.\n284-582].\n\n[Footnote 19: _The Will to Believe_, p. 814.]\n\n[Footnote 20: _Figaro_, January 14, 1895.]\n\n[Footnote 21: _Proceedings_, vi. 605, 606.]\n\n[Footnote 22: _Proceedings_, S.P.R, part xxxiii. vol. xiii.]\n\n[Footnote 23: Op. cit. part xxxiii. p. 406.]\n\n[Footnote 24: See 'Fetishism.' Compare Callaway, p. 328.]\n\n[Footnote 25: Callaway, pp. 361-374.]\n\n[Footnote 26: _Cock Lane and Common Sense_, p. 66.]\n\n[Footnote 27: Brough Smyth, i. 475. This point is disputed, but I did not\ninvent it, and a case appears in Mr. Curr's work on the natives.]\n\n[Footnote 28: _Prim. Cult_. i. 152.]\n\n[Footnote 29: Eusebius, _Prap. Evang_. v. 9.]\n\n[Footnote 30: Brough Smyth, i. 100, 113.]\n\n[Footnote 31: Kirk, _Secret Commonwealth_ 1691.]\n\n[Footnote 32: Crantz, p. 209.]\n\n[Footnote 33: P\u00e8re Arnaud, in Hind's _Labrador_, ii. 102.]\n\n[Footnote 34: Major Swan, 1791, official letter on the Creek Indians,\nSchoolcraft, v. 270.]\n\n[Footnote 35: Crantz, p. 237.]\n\n[Footnote 36: _Polynesian Researches_, i. 519.]\n\n[Footnote 37: 1 Kings xviii. 42.]\n\n[Footnote 38: Carver, pp. 123, 184.]\n\n\n\n\nVIII\n\nFETISHISM AND SPIRITUALISM\n\nIt has been shown how the doctrine of souls was developed according to the\nanthropological theory. The hypothesis as to how souls of the dead were\nlater elevated to the rank of gods, or supplied models after which such\ngods might be inventively fashioned, will be criticised in a later\nchapter. Here it must suffice to say that the conception of a separable\nsurviving soul of a dead man was not only not essential to the savage's\nidea of his supreme god, as it seems to me, but would have been wholly\ninconsistent with that conception. There exist, however, numerous forms of\nsavage religion in addition to the creed in a Supreme Being, and these\ncontribute their streams to the ocean of faith. Thus among the kinds of\nbelief which served in the development of Polytheism, was Fetishism,\nitself an adaptation and extension of the idea of separable souls. In this\nregard, like ancestor-worship, it differs from the belief in a Supreme\nBeing, which, as we shall try to demonstrate, is not derived from the\ntheory of ghosts or souls at all.\n\n_Fetish_ (_f\u00e9tiche_) seems to come from Portuguese _feiti\u00e7o_, a talisman\nor amulet, applied by the Portuguese to various material objects\nregarded by the negroes of the west coast with more or less of religious\nreverence. These objects may be held sacred in some degree for a number of\nincongruous reasons. They may be tokens, or may be of value in sympathetic\nmagic, or merely _odd_, and therefore probably endowed with unknown mystic\nqualities. Or they may have been pointed out in a dream, or met in a\nlucky hour and associated with good fortune, or they may (like a tree with\nan unexplained stir in its branches, as reported by Kohl) have seemed to\nshow signs of life by spontaneous movements; in fact, a thing may be what\nEuropeans call a fetish for scores of reasons. For our present purpose, as\nMr. Tylor says, 'to class an object as a fetish demands explicit statement\nthat a spirit is considered as embodied in it, or acting through it, or\ncommunicating by it, or, at least, that the people it belongs to do\nhabitually think this of such objects; or it must be shown that the object\nis treated as having personal consciousness or power, is talked with,\nworshipped...' and so forth. The in-dwelling spirit may be human, as when\na fetish is made out of a friend's skull, the spirit in which may even be\nasked for oracles, like the Head of Bran in Welsh legend.\n\nWe have tried to show that the belief in human souls may be, in part at\nleast, based on supernormal phenomena which Materialism disregards. We\nshall now endeavour to make it probable that Fetishism (the belief in the\nsouls tenanting inanimate objects) may also have sources which perhaps are\nnot normal, or which at all events seemed supernormal to savages. We say\n'perhaps not normal' because the phenomena now to be discussed are of the\nmost puzzling character. We may lean to the belief in a supernormal cause\nof certain hallucinations, but the alleged movements of inanimate objects\nwhich probably supply one origin of Fetishism, one suggestion of the\npresence of a spirit in things dead, leave the inquiring mind in\nperplexity. In following Mr. Tylor's discussion of the subject, it is\nnecessary to combine what he says about Spiritualism in his fourth with\nwhat he says about Fetishism in his fourteenth and later chapters. For\nsome reason his book is so arranged that he criticises 'Spiritualism'\nlong before he puts forward his doctrine of the origin and development of\nthe belief in spirits.\n\nWe have seen a savage reason for supposing that human spirits inhabit\ncertain lifeless things, such as skulls and other relics of the dead. But\nhow did it come to be thought that a spirit dwelt in a lifeless and\nmotionless piece of stone or stick? Mr. Tylor, perhaps, leads us to a\nplausible conjecture by writing: 'Mr. Darwin saw two Malay women in\nKeeling Island, who held a wooden spoon dressed in clothes like a doll:\nthis spoon had been carried to the grave of a dead man, and becoming\ninspired at full moon, in fact lunatic, it danced about convulsively, like\na table or a hat at a modern spirit s\u00e9ance.'[1] Now M. Lef\u00e9bure has\npointed out (in 'M\u00e9lusine') that, according to De Brosses, the African\nconjurers gave an appearance of independent motion to small objects, which\nwere then accepted as fetishes, being visibly animated. M. Lef\u00e9bure\nnext compares, like Mr. Tylor, the alleged physical phenomena of\nspiritualism, the flights and movements of inanimate objects apparently\nuntouched.\n\nThe question thus arises, Is there any truth whatever in these world-wide\nand world-old stories of inanimate objects acting like animated things?\nHas fetishism one of its origins in the actual field of supernormal\nexperience in the X region? This question we do not propose to answer,\nas the evidence, though practically universal, may be said to rest on\nimposture and illusion. But we can, at least, give a sketch of the nature\nof the evidence, beginning with that as to the apparently _voluntary_\nmovements of objects, _not_ untouched. Mr. Tylor quotes from John Bell's\n'Journey in Asia' (1719) an account of a Mongol Lama who wished to\ndiscover certain stolen pieces of damask. His method was to sit on a\nbench, when 'he carried it, or, as was commonly believed, it carried him,\nto the very tent' of the thief. Here the bench is innocently believed to\nbe self-moving. Again, Mr. Rowley tells how in Manganjah the sorcerer, to\nfind out a criminal, placed, with magical ceremonies, two staffs of wood\nin the hands of some young men. 'The sticks whirled and dragged the men\nround like mad,' and finally escaped and rolled to the feet of the\nwife of a chief, who was then denounced as the guilty person.[2]\n\nMr. Duff Macdonald describes the same practice among the Yaos:[3]\n\n'The sorcerer occasionally makes men take hold of a stick, which, after a\ntime, begins to move as if endowed with life, and ultimately carries them\noff bodily and with great speed to the house of the thief.'\n\nThe process is just that of Jacques Aymard in the celebrated story of the\ndetection of the Lyons murderer.[4]\n\nIn Melanesia, far enough away, Dr. Codrington found a similar practice,\nand here the sticks are explicitly said by the natives to be moved by\n_spirits_.[5] The wizard and a friend hold a bamboo stick by each end, and\nask what man's ghost is afflicting a patient. At the mention of the\nright ghost 'the stick becomes violently agitated.' In the same way, the\nbamboo 'would run about' with a man holding it only on the palms of his\nhands. Again, a hut is built with a partition down the middle. Men sit\nthere with their hands _under_ one end of the bamboo, while the other end\nis extended into the empty half of the hut. They then call over the names\nof the recently dead, till 'they feel the bamboo moving in their hands.' A\nbamboo placed on a sacred tree, 'when the name of a ghost is called, moves\nof itself, and will lift and drag people about.' Put up into a tree, it\nwould lift them from the ground. In other cases the holding of the sticks\nproduces convulsions and trance.[6] The divining sticks of the Maori are\nalso 'guided by spirits,'[7] and those of the Zulu sorcerers rise, fall,\nand jump about.[8]\n\nThese Zulu performances must be really very curious. In the last chapter\nwe told how a Zulu named John, having a shilling to lay out in the\ninterests of psychical research, declined to pay a perplexed diviner, and\nreserved his capital far a more meritorious performance. He tried a medium\nnamed Unomantshintshi, who divined by Umabakula, or dancing sticks--\n\n'If they say \"no,\" they fall suddenly; if they say \"yes,\" they arise and\njump about very much, and leap on the person who has come to inquire. They\n\"fix themselves on the place where the sick man is affected; ... if the\nhead, they leap on his head.... Many believe in Umabakula more than in the\ndiviner. But there are not many who have the Umabakula.\"'\n\nDr. Callaway's informant only knew two Umabakulists, John was quite\nsatisfied, paid his shilling, and went home.[9]\n\nThe sticks are about a foot long. It is not reported that they are moved\nby spirits, nor do they seem to be regarded as fetishes.\n\nMr. Tylor also cites a form of the familiar pendulum experiment. Among the\nKarens a ring is suspended by a thread over a metal basin. The relations\nof the dead strike the basin, and when he who was dearest to the ghost\ntouches it the spirit twists the thread till it breaks, and the ring falls\ninto the basin. With us a ring is held by a thread over a tumbler, and our\nunconscious movements swing it till it strikes the hour. How the Karens\nmanage it is less obvious. These savage devices with animated sticks\nclearly correspond to the more modern 'table-turning.' Here, when the\nplayers are honest, the pushing is certainly _unconscious_.\n\nI have tested this in two ways--first by trying the minimum of _conscious_\nmuscular action that would stir a table at which I was alone, and by\ncomparing the absolute unconsciousness of muscular action when the table\nbegan to move in response to no _voluntary_ push. Again, I tried with a\nfriend, who said, 'You are pushing,' when I gently removed my hands\naltogether, though they seemed to rest on the table, which still revolved.\nMy friend was himself unconsciously pushing. It is undeniable that, to\na solitary experimenter, the table _seems_ to make little darts of its own\nwill in a curious way. Thus, the unconsciousness of muscular action on the\npart of savages engaged in the experiment with sticks would lead them to\nbelieve that spirits were animating the wood. The same fallacy beset the\ntable-turners of 1855-65, and was, to some extent, exposed by Faraday.\nOf course, savages would be even more convinced by the dancing spoon of\nMr. Darwin's tale, by the dancing sticks of the Zulus, and the rest,\nwhether the phenomena were supernormal or merely worked by unseen strings.\nThe same remark applies to modern experimenters, when, as they declare,\nvarious objects move untouched, without physical contact.\n\nStill more analogous than turning tables to the savage use of inspired\nsticks for directing the inquirer to a lost object or to a criminal, is\nthe modern employment of the divining-rod--a forked twig which, held by\nthe ends, revolves in the hands of the performer when he reaches the\nobject of his quest. He, like the savage cited, is occasionally agitated\nin a convulsive manner; and cases are quoted in which the twig writhes\nwhen held in a pair of tongs! The best-known modern treatise on the\ndivining-rod is that of M. Chevreul, 'La Baguette Divinatoire' (1854). We\nhave also 'L'Histoire du Merveilleux dans les Temps Modernes,' by M.\nFiguier (1860). In 1781 Thouvenel published his 600 experiments with\nBleton and others; and Hegel refers to Amoretti's collection of hundreds\nof cases. The case of Jacques Aymard, who in the seventeenth century\ndiscovered a murderer by the use of the rod in true savage fashion, is\nwell known. In modern England the rod is used in the interests of private\nindividuals and public bodies (such as Trinity College, Cambridge) for the\ndiscovery of water.\n\nProfessor Barrett has lately published a book of 280 pages, in which\nevidence of failures and successes is collected.[10] Professor Barrett\ngives about one hundred and fifty cases, in which he was only able to\ndiscover, on good authority, twelve failures. He gives a variety of tests\ncalculated to check frauds and chance coincidence, and he publishes\nopinions, hostile or agnostic, by geologists. The evidence, as a general\nrule, is what is called first-hand in other inquiries. The actual\nspectators, and often the owners of the land, or the persons in whose\ninterest water was wanted, having been present, give their testimony; and\nit is certain that the 'diviner' is called in by people of sense and\neducation, commonly too practical to have a theory, and content with\ngetting what they want, especially where scientific experts have\nfailed.[11]\n\nIn Mr. Barrett's opinion, the subconscious perception of indications of\nthe presence of water produces an equally unconscious muscular 'spasm,'\nwhich twirls the rod till it often breaks. Yet 'it is almost impossible to\nimitate its characteristic movement by any voluntary effort.' I have\nmyself held the hands of an amateur performer when the twig was moving,\nand neither by sight nor touch could I detect any muscular movement on his\npart, much less a spasm. The person was bailiff on a large estate, and,\nhaving accidentally discovered that he possessed the gift, used it when he\nwanted wells dug for the tenants on the property.\n\nThe whole topic is obscure; nor am I concerned here with the successes or\nfailures of the divining-rod. But the movements of the twig have never, to\nmy knowledge, been attributed by modern English performers to the\noperation of spirits. They say 'electricity.' Mr. Tylor merely writes:\n\n'The action of the famous divining-rod, with its curiously versatile\nsensibility to water, ore, treasure, and thieves, seems to belong partly\nto trickery and partly to more or less conscious direction by honester\noperators.'\n\nAs the divining-rod is the only instance in which automatism, whatever its\nnature and causes, has been found of practical value by practical men, and\nas it is obviously associated with a number of analogous phenomena, both\nin civilised and savage life, it certainly deserves the attention of\nscience. But no advance will be made till scientifically trained inquirers\nthemselves arrange and test a large number of experiments. Knowledge of\nthe geological ignorance of the dowsers, examples of fraud on their part,\nand cases of failure or reported failure, with a general hostile bias, may\nprevent such experiments from being made by scientific experts on an\nadequate scale. Such experts ought, of course, to avoid working the\ndowsers into a state of irritation.\n\nIt is just worth while to notice cases in which the rod acts like those of\nthe Melanesians, Africans, and other savages. A Mr. Thomas Welton\npublished an English translation of 'La Verge de Jacob' (Lyon, 1693). In\n1651 he asked his servant to bring into the garden 'a stick that stood\nbehind the parlour door. In great terror she brought it to the garden, her\nhand firmly clutched on it, nor could she let it go.' When Mrs. Welton\ntook the stick, 'it drew her with very considerable velocity to nearly the\ncentre of the garden,' where a well was found. Mr. Welton is not likely to\nhave known of the lately published savage examples. The coincidence with\nthe African and Melanesian cases is, therefore, probably undesigned.\n\nAgain, in 1694, the rod was used by le P\u00e8re Menestrier and others, just as\nit is by savages, to indicate by its movements answers to all sorts of\nquestions. Experiments of this kind have not been made by Professor\nBarrett, and other modern inquirers, except by M. Richet, as a mode of\ndetecting automatic action. But it would be just as sensible to use the\ntwig as to use planchette or any other 'autoscopic' apparatus. If these\nelicit knowledge unconsciously present to the mind, mere water-finding\nought not to be the sole province of the rod. In the same class as\nthese rods is the forked twig which, in China, is held at each end by\ntwo persons, and made to write in the sand. The little apparatus called\n_planchette_, or the other, the _ouija_, is of course, consciously or\nunconsciously, pushed by the performers. In the case of the twig, as held\nby water-seekers, the difficulty of consciously moving it so as to\nescape close observation is considerable.\n\nIn the case of the _ouija_ (a little tripod, which, under the operators'\nhands, runs about a table inscribed with letters at which it points), I\nhave known curious successes to be achieved by amateurs. Thus, in the\nhouse of a lady who owned an old _ch\u00e2teau_ in another county, the _ouija_,\noperated on by two ladies known to myself, wrote a number of details about\na visit paid to the _ch\u00e2teau_ for a certain purpose by Mary Stuart. That\nvisit, and its object, a purely personal one, are unknown to history, and\nthe _ch\u00e2teau_ is not spoken of in Mr. Hay Fleming's careful, but\nunavoidably incomplete, itinerary of the Queen's residence in Scotland.\nAfter the communication had been made, the owner of the _ch\u00e2teau_\nexplained that she was already acquainted with the circumstances\ndescribed, as she had recently read them in documents in her charter\nchest, where they remain.\n\nOf course, the belief we extend to such narratives is entirely conditioned\nby our knowledge of the personal character of the performers. The point\nhere is merely the civilised and savage practice of _automatism_, the\napparent eliciting of knowledge not otherwise accessible, by the\nmovements of a stick, or a bit of wood. These movements, made without\nconscious exertion or direction, seem, to savage philosophy, to be caused\nby in-dwelling spirits, the sources of Fetishism.\n\nThese examples, then, demonstrating unconscious movement of objects by the\noperators, make it clear that movements even of touched objects, may be\nattributed, by some civilised and by savage amateurs, to 'spirits.' The\nobjects so moved may, by savages, be regarded in some cases as fetishes,\nand their movements may have helped to originate the belief that spirits\ncan inhabit inanimate objects. When objects apparently quite untouched\nbecome volatile, the mystery is deeper. This apparent animation and\nfrolicsome behaviour of inanimate objects is reported all through history,\nand attested by immense quantities of evidence of every degree. It would\nbe tedious to give a full account of the antiquity and diffusion of reports\nabout such occurrences. We find them among Neo-Platonists, in the English\nand Continental Middle Ages, among Eskimo, Hurons, Algonkins, Tartars,\nZulus, Malays, Nasquapees, Maoris, in witch trials, in ancient Peru\n(immediately after the Spanish Conquest), in China, in modern Russia, in\nNew England (1680), all through the career of modern spiritualism, in\nHayti (where they are attributed to 'Obeah'), and, sporadically,\neverywhere.[12]\n\nAmong all these cases, we must dismiss whatever the modern paid medium\ndoes in the dark. The only thing to be done with the ethnographic and\nmodern accounts of such marvels is to 'file them for reference.' If a\nspontaneous example occurs, under proper inspection, we can then compare\nour old tales. Professor James says: 'Their mutual resemblances suggest a\nnatural type, and I confess that till these records, or others like them,\nare positively explained away, I cannot feel (in spite of such vast\namounts of detected frauds) as if the case of physical mediumship itself,\nas a freak of nature, were definitely closed.... So long as the stories\nmultiply in various lands, and so few are positively explained away, it is\nbad method to ignore them.'[13] Here they are not ignored, because,\nwhatever the cause or causes of the phenomena, they would buttress, if\nthey did not originate, the savage belief in spirits tenanting inanimate\nmatter, whence came Fetishism. As to facts, we cannot, of course, 'explain\naway' events of this kind, which we know only through report. A conjurer\ncannot explain a trick merely from a description, especially a description\nby a non-conjurer. But, as a rule, nothing so much leads to doubt on this\ntheme as the 'explanation' given--except, of course, in the case of 'dark\ns\u00e9ances' got up and prepared by paid mediums. We know, sometimes, how the\n'explanation' arose.\n\nThus, the house of a certain M. Zoller, a lawyer and member of the Swiss\nFederal Council, a house at Stans, in Unterwalden, was made simply\nuninhabitable in 1860-1862. The disturbances, including movements of\nobjects, were of a truly odious description, and occurred in full\ndaylight. M. Zoller, deeply attached to his home, which had many\ninteresting associations with the part his family played in the struggle\nagainst revolutionary France, was obliged to abandon the place. He had\nmade every conceivable sort of research, and had called in the local\npolice and _savants_, to no purpose.\n\nBut the affair was explained away thus: While the phenomena could still be\nconcealed from public curiosity, a client called to see M. Zoller, who was\nout. The client, therefore, remained in the drawing-room. Loud and heavy\nblows resounded through the room. The client, as it chanced, had once felt\nthe effects of an electric battery, for some medical reason, apparently.\nM. Zoller writes: 'My eldest son was present at the time, and, when my\nclient asked whether there was such a thing as an electrical machine in\nthe house (the family having been enjoined to keep the disturbances as\nsecret as possible), he allowed S. to think that there was.' Consequently,\nthe phenomena were set down to M. Zoller's singular idea of making\nhis house untenantable with an 'electric machine'--which he did not\npossess.[14] A number of the most respected citizens, including the\nSuperintendent of Police, and the chief magistrate for law, published a\nstatement that neither Zoller, nor any of his family, nor any of\nthemselves, produced or could have produced the phenomena witnessed by\nthem in August 1862. This declaration they put forth in the 'Schwytzer\nZeitung,' October 5, 1863.[15] No electric machine known to mortals\ncould have produced the vast variety of alleged effects, none was ever\nfound; and as M. Zoller changed his servants without escaping his\ntribulations, they can hardly be blamed for what, _prima facie_, it seems\nthat they could not possibly do. However, 'electricity,' like Mesopotamia,\nis 'a blessed word.'[16]\n\nMy own position in this matter of 'physical phenomena' is, I hope, clear.\nThey interest me, for my present purpose, as being, whatever their real\nnature and origin, things which would suggest to a savage his theory of\nFetishism. 'An inanimate object may be tenanted by a spirit, as is proved\nby its extraordinary movements.' Thus the early thinker might reason, and\ngo on to revere the object. It is to be wished that competent observers\nwould pay more attention to such savage practices as crystal-gazing and\nautomatism as illustrated by the sticks of the Melanesians, Zulus, and\nYaos. Our scanty information we pick up out of stray allusions, but\nit has the advantage of being uncontaminated by theory, the European\nspectator not knowing the wide range of such practices and their value in\nexperimental psychology.\n\nWe have now finished our study of the less normal and usual phenomena,\nwhich gave rise to belief in separable, self-existing, conscious, and\npowerful souls. We have shown that the supernormal factors which, when\nreflected on, probably supported this belief, are represented in civilised\nas well as in savage life, while as to their existence among the founders\nof religion we can historically know nothing at all. If we may infer from\ncertain considerations, the supernormal experiences were possibly more\nprevalent among the remote ancestors of known savage races than among\ntheir modern descendants. We have suggested that clairvoyance, thought\ntransference, and telepathy cannot be dismissed as mere fables, by a\ncautious inquirer, while even the far more obscure stories of 'physical\nmanifestations' are but poorly explained away by those who cannot explain\nthem.[17] Again, these faculties have presented--in the acquisition of\notherwise unattainable knowledge, in coincidental hallucinations, and in\nother ways--just the kind of facts on which the savage doctrine of souls\nmight be based, or by which it might be buttressed. Thus, while the\nactuality of the supernormal facts and faculties remains at least an open\nquestion, the prevalent theory of Materialism cannot be admitted as\ndogmatically certain in its present shape. No more than any other theory,\nnay, less than some other theories, can it account for the psychical facts\nwhich, at the lowest, we may not honestly leave out of the reckoning.\n\nWe have therefore no more to say about the supernormal aspects of the\norigins of religion. We are henceforth concerned with matters of\nverifiable belief and practice. We have to ask whether, when once the\ndoctrine of souls was conceived by early men, it took precisely the course\nof development usually indicated by anthropological science.\n\n[Footnote 1: Darwin, _Journal_, p. 458; Tylor, _Prim. Cult_. ii. 152. The\nspoon was not untouched.]\n\n[Footnote 2: Rowley, _Universities' Mission_, p. 217.]\n\n[Footnote 3: _Africana_, vol. i. p. 161.]\n\n[Footnote 4: In the author's _Custom and Myth_, 'The Divining Rod.']\n\n[Footnote 5: Codrington's _Melanesia_, p. 210.]\n\n[Footnote 6: Op. cit. pp. 229-325.]\n\n[Footnote 7: _Prim. Cult_. vol. i. p. 125.]\n\n[Footnote 8: Callaway, _Amazulu_, p. 330.]\n\n[Footnote 9: Callaway, _Amazulu_, p. 368.]\n\n[Footnote 10: _The So-called Divining-Rod_, S.P.R. 1897.]\n\n[Footnote 11: See especially _The Waterford Experiments_, p. 106.]\n\n[Footnote 12: Authorities and examples are collected in the author's _Cock\nLane and Common Sense_.]\n\n[Footnote 13: _Proceedings_, xii. 7, 8.]\n\n[Footnote 14: _Personal Narrative_, by M. Zoller. Hanke, Zurich, 1863.]\n\n[Footnote 15: Daumer, _Reich des Wundersamen_, Regensburg, 1872,\npp. 265, 266.]\n\n[Footnote 16: A criticism of modern explanations of the phenomena here\ntouched upon will be found in Appendix B.]\n\n[Footnote 17: See Appendix B.]\n\n\n\n\nIX\n\nEVOLUTION OF THE IDEA OF GOD\n\nTo the anthropological philosopher 'a plain man' would naturally put the\nquestion: 'Having got your idea of spirit or soul--your theory of\nAnimism--out of the idea of ghosts, and having got your idea of ghosts out\nof dreams and visions, how do you get at the Idea of God?' Now by 'God'\nthe proverbial 'plain man' of controversy means a primal eternal Being,\nauthor of all things, the father and friend of man, the invisible,\nomniscient guardian of morality.\n\nThe usual though not invariable reply of the anthropologist might be given\nin the words of Mr. Im Thurn, author of a most interesting work on the\nIndians of British Guiana:\n\n'From the notion of ghosts,' says Mr. Im Thurn, 'a belief has arisen, but\nvery gradually, in higher spirits, and eventually in a Highest Spirit,\nand, keeping pace with the growth of these beliefs, a habit of reverence\nfor, and worship of spirits.... The Indians of Guiana know no God.'[1]\n\nAs another example of Mr. Im Thurn's hypothesis that God is a late\ndevelopment from the idea of spirit may be cited Mr. Payne's learned\n'History of the New World,' a work of much research:[2]\n\n'The lowest savages not only have no gods, but do not even recognise those\nlower beings usually called spirits, the conception of which has\ninvariably preceded that of gods in the human mind.'\n\nMr. Payne here differs, _toto caelo_, from Mr. Tylor, who finds no\nsufficient proof for wholly non-religious savages, and from Roskoff, who\nhas disposed of the arguments of Sir John Lubbock. Mr. Payne, then, for\nethnological purposes, defines a god as 'a benevolent spirit, permanently\nembodied in some tangible object, usually an image, and to whom food,\ndrink,' and so on, 'are regularly offered for the purpose of securing\nassistance in the affairs of life.'\n\nOn this theory 'the lowest savages' are devoid of the idea of god or of\nspirit. Later they develop the idea of spirit, and when they have secured\nthe spirit, as it were, in a tangible object, and kept it on board wages,\nthen the spirit has attained to the dignity and the savage to the\nconception of a god. But while a god of this kind is, in Mr. Payne's\nopinion, relatively a late flower of culture, for the hunting races\ngenerally (with some exceptions) have no gods, yet 'the conception of a\ncreator or maker of all things ... obviously a great spirit' is 'one of\nthe earliest efforts of primitive logic.'[3]\n\nMr. Payne's own logic is not very clear. The 'primitive logic' of the\nsavage leads him to seek for a cause or maker of things, which he finds in\na great creative spirit. Yet the lowest savages have no idea even of\nspirit, and the hunting races, as a rule, have no god. Does Mr. Payne mean\nthat a great creative spirit is _not_ a god, while a spirit kept on board\nwages in a tangible object is a god? We are unable, by reason of evidence\nlater to be given, to agree with Mr. Payne's view of the facts, while his\nreasoning appears somewhat inconsistent, the lowest savages having, in his\nopinion, no idea of spirit, though the idea of a creative spirit is, for\nall that, one of the earliest efforts of primitive logic.\n\nOn any such theories as these the belief in a moral Supreme Being is a\nvery late (or a very early?) result of evolution, due to the action of\nadvancing thought upon the original conception of ghosts. This opinion of\nMr. Im Thurn's is, roughly stated, the usual theory of anthropologists.\nWe wish, on the other hand, to show that the idea of God, as he is\nconceived of by our inquiring plain man, is shadowed forth (among\ncontradictory fables) in the lowest-known grades of savagery, and\ntherefore cannot arise from the later speculation of men, comparatively\ncivilised and advanced, on the original datum of ghosts. We shall\ndemonstrate, contrary to the opinion of Mr. Spencer, Mr. Huxley, and even\nMr. Tylor, that the Supreme Being, and, in one case at least, the casual\nsprites of savage faith, are active moral influences. What is even more\nimportant, we shall make it undeniable that Anthropology has simplified\nher problem by neglecting or ignoring her facts. While the real problem is\nto account for the evolution out of ghosts of the eternal, creative moral\ngod of the 'plain man,' the germ of such a god or being in the creeds of\nthe lowest savages is by anthropologists denied, or left out of sight, or\naccounted for by theories contradicted by facts, or, at best, is explained\naway as a result of European or Islamite influences. Now, as the problem\nis to account for the evolution of the highest conception of God, as far\nas that conception exists among the most backward races, the problem can\nnever be solved while that highest conception of God is practically\nignored.\n\nThus, anthropologists, as a rule, in place of facing and solving their\nproblem, have merely evaded it--doubtless unwittingly. This, of course, is\nnot the practice of Mr. Tylor, though even his great work is professedly\nmuch more concerned with the development of the idea of spirit and with\nthe lower forms of animism than with the real crux--the evolution of the\nidea (always obscured by mythology) of a moral, uncreated, undying God\namong the lowest savages. This negligence of anthropologists has arisen\nfrom a single circumstance. They take it for granted that God is always\n(except where the word for God is applied to a living human being)\nregarded as Spirit. Thus, having accounted for the development of the\nidea of spirit, they regard God as that idea carried to its highest\npower, and as the final step in its evolution. But, if we can show that\nthe early idea of an undying, moral, creative being does not necessarily\nor logically imply the doctrine of spirit (or ghost), then this idea of an\neternal, moral, creative being may have existed even before the doctrine\nof spirit was evolved.\n\nWe may admit that Mr. Tylor's account of the process by which Gods were\nevolved out of ghosts is a little _touffu_--rather buried in facts. We\n'can scarcely see the wood for the trees.' We want to know how Gods,\nmakers of things (or of most things), fathers in heaven, and friends,\nguardians of morality, seeing what is good or bad in the hearts of men,\nwere evolved, as is supposed, out of ghosts or surviving souls of the\ndead. That such moral, practically omniscient Gods are known to the very\nlowest savages--Bushmen, Fuegians, Australians--we shall demonstrate.\n\nHere the inquirer must be careful not to adopt the common opinion that\nGods improve, morally and otherwise, in direct ratio to the rising grades\nin the evolution of culture and civilisation. That is not necessarily the\ncase; usually the reverse occurs. Still less must we take it for granted,\nfollowing Mr. Tylor and Mr. Huxley, that the 'alliance [of religion and\nmorality] belongs almost, or wholly, to religions above the savage\nlevel--not to the earlier and lower creeds;' or that 'among the Australian\nsavages,' and 'in its simplest condition,' 'theology is wholly independent\nof ethics.'[4] These statements can be proved (by such evidence as\nanthropology is obliged to rely upon) to be erroneous. And, just because\nthese statements are put forward, Anthropology has an easier task in\nexplaining the origin of religion; while, just because these statements\nare incorrect, her conclusion, being deduced from premises so far false,\nis invalidated.\n\nGiven souls, acquired by thinking on the lines already described, Mr.\nTylor develops Gods out of them. But he is not one of the writers who is\ncertain about every detail. He 'scarcely attempts to clear away the haze\nthat covers great parts of the subject.'[5]\n\nThe human soul, he says, has been the model on which man 'framed his\nideas of spiritual beings in general, from the tiniest elf that sports\nin the grass up to the heavenly creator and ruler of the world, the\nGreat Spirit.' Here it is taken for granted that the Heavenly Ruler was\nfrom the first envisaged as a '_spiritual_ being'--which is just the\ndifficulty. Was He?[6]\n\nThe process of framing these ideas is rather obscure. The savage 'lives\nin terror of the souls of the dead as harmful spirits.' This might yield\na Devil; it would not yield a God who 'makes for righteousness.'\nHappily, 'deified ancestors are regarded, on the whole, as kindly\nspirits.' The dead ancestor is 'now passed into a deity.'[7] Examples of\nancestor-worship follow. But we are no nearer home. For among the Zulus\nmany Amatongo (ancestral spirits) are sacred. 'Yet their father\n[i.e. the father of each actual family] is far before all others when\nthey worship the Amatongo.... They do not know the ancients who are dead,\nnor their laud-giving names, nor their names.'[8] Thus, each new\ngeneration of Zulus must have a new first worshipful object--its own\nfather's Itongo. This father, and his very name, are, in a generation or\ntwo, forgotten. The name of such a man, therefore, cannot survive as that\nof the God or Supreme Being from age to age; and, obviously, such a real\ndead man, while known at all, is much too well known to be taken for the\ncreator and ruler of the world, despite some African flattering titles and\nsuperstitions about kings who control the weather. The Zulus, about\nas 'godless' a people as possible, have a mythical first ancestor,\nUnkulunkulu, but he is 'beyond the reach of rites,' and is a centre of\nmyths rather than of worship or of moral ideas.[9]\n\nAfter other examples of ancestor-worship, Mr. Tylor branches off into a\nlong discussion of the theory of 'possession' or inspiration,[10] which\ndoes not assist the argument at the present point. Thence he passes to\nfetishism (already discussed by us), and the transitions from the\nfetish--(1) to the idol; (2) to the guardian angel ('subliminal self');\n(3) to tree and river spirits, and local spirits which cause volcanoes;\nand (4) to polytheism. A fetish may inhabit a tree; trees being\ngeneralised, the fetish of one oak becomes the god of the forest. Or,\nagain, fetishes rise into 'species gods;' the gods of _all_ bees, owls,\nor rabbits are thus evolved.\n\nNext,[11]\n\n'As chiefs and kings are among men, so are the great gods among the lesser\nspirits.... With little exception, wherever a savage or barbaric system of\nreligion is thoroughly described, great gods make their appearance in the\nspiritual world as distinctly as chiefs in the human tribe.'\n\nVery good; but whence comes the great God among tribes which have neither\nchief nor king and probably never had, as among the Fuegians, Bushmen, and\nAustralians? The maker and ruler of the world known to _these_ races\ncannot be the shadow of king or chief, reflected and magnified on the mist\nof thought; for chief or king these peoples have none. This theory\n(Hume's) will not work where people have a great God but no king or\nchief; nor where they have a king but no Zeus or other supreme King-god,\nas (I conceive) among the Aztecs.\n\nWe now reach, in Mr. Tylor's theory, great fetish deities, such as Heaven\nand Earth, Sun and Moon, and 'departmental deities,' gods of Agriculture,\nWar, and so forth, unknown to low savages.\n\nNext Mr. Tylor introduces an important personage. 'The theory of family\nManes, carried back to tribal Gods, leads to the recognition of superior\ndeities of the nature of Divine Ancestor, or First Man,' who sometimes\nranks as Lord of the Dead. As an instance, Mr. Tylor gives the Maori Maui,\nwho, like the Indian Yama, trod first of men the path of death. But\nwhether Maui and Yama are the Sun, or not, both Maori and Sanskrit\nreligion regard these heroes as much later than the Original Gods. In\nKamschatka the First Man is the 'son' of the Creator, and it is about the\norigin of the idea of the Creator, not of the First Man, that we are\ninquiring. Adam is called 'the son of God' in a Biblical genealogy, but,\nof course, Adam was made, not begotten. The case of the Zulu belief will\nbe analysed later. On the whole, we cannot explain away the conception\nof the Creator as a form of the conception of an idealised divine\nFirst Ancestor, because the conception of a Creator occurs where\nancestor-worship does not occur; and again, because, supposing that the\nidea of a Creator came first, and that ancestor-worship later grew more\npopular, the popular idea of Ancestor might be transferred to the waning\nidea of Creator. The Creator might be recognised as the First Ancestor,\n_apr\u00e8s coup_.\n\nMr. Tylor next approaches Dualism, the idea of hostile Good and Bad\nBeings. We must, as he says, be careful to discount European teaching,\nstill, he admits, the savage has this dualistic belief in a 'primitive'\nform. But the savage conception is not merely that of 'good = friendly\nto me,' 'bad = hostile to me.' Ethics, as we shall show, already come into\nplay in his theology.\n\nMr. Tylor arrives, at last, at the Supreme Being of savage creeds. His\nwords, well weighed, must be cited textually--\n\n'To mark off the doctrines of monotheism, closer definition is required\n[than the bare idea of a Supreme Creator], assigning the distinctive\nattributes of Deity to none save the Almighty Creator. It may be declared\nthat, in this strict sense, no savage tribe of monotheists has been ever\nknown.[12] Nor are any fair representatives of the lower culture in a\nstrict sense pantheists. The doctrine which they do widely hold, and\nwhich opens to them a course tending in one or other of these directions,\nis polytheism culminating in the rule of one supreme divinity. High above\nthe doctrine of souls, of divine Manes, of local nature gods, of the great\ngods of class and element, there are to be discerned in barbaric theology,\nshadowings, quaint or majestic, of the conception of a Supreme Deity,\nhenceforth to be traced onward in expanding power and brightening glory\nalong the history of Religion. It is no unimportant task, partial as it\nis, to select and group the typical data which show the nature and\nposition of the doctrine of supremacy, as it comes into view within the\nlower culture.[13]\n\nWe shall show that certain low savages are as monotheistic as some\nChristians. They have a Supreme Being, and the 'distinctive attributes of\nDeity' are not by them assigned to other beings, further than as\nChristianity assigns them to Angels, Saints, the Devil, and, strange as\nit appears, among savages, to mediating 'Sons.'\n\nIt is not known that, among the Andamanese and other tribes, this last\nnotion is due to missionary influence. But, in regard to the whole chapter\nof savage Supreme Beings, we must, as Mr. Tylor advises, keep watching for\nChristian and Islamite contamination. The savage notions, as Mr. Tylor\nsays, even when thus contaminated, may have 'to some extent, a native\nsubstratum.' We shall select such savage examples of the idea of a\nSupreme Being as are attested by ancient native hymns, or are inculcated\nin the most sacred and secret savage institutions, the religious Mysteries\n(manifestly the last things to be touched by missionary influence), or are\nfound among low insular races defended from European contact by the\njealous ferocity and poisonous jungles of people and soil. We also note\ncases in which missionaries found such native names as 'Father,' 'Ancient\nof Heaven,' 'Maker of All,' ready-made to their hands.\n\nIt is to be remarked that, while this branch of the inquiry is practically\nomitted by Mr. Spencer, Mr. Tylor can spare for it but some twenty pages\nout of his large work. He arranges the probable germs of the savage\nidea of a Supreme Being thus: A god of the polytheistic crowd is simply\nraised to the primacy, which, of course, cannot occur where there is no\npolytheism. Or the principle of Manes worship may make a Supreme Deity\nout of 'a primeval ancestor' say Unkulunkulu, who is so far from being\nsupreme, that he is abject. Or, again, a great phenomenon or force in\nNature-worship, say Sun, or Heaven, is raised to supremacy. Or speculative\nphilosophy ascends from the Many to the One by trying to discern through\nand beyond the universe a First Cause. Animistic conceptions thus reach\ntheir utmost limit in the notion of the Anima Mundi. He may accumulate all\npowers of all polytheistic gods, or he may 'loom vast, shadowy, and\ncalm ... too benevolent to need human worship ... too merely existent to\nconcern himself with the petty race of men.'[14] But he is always\nanimistic.\n\nNow, in addition to the objections already noted in passing, how can we\ntell that the Supreme Being of low savages was, in original conception,\n_animistic_ at all? How can we know that he was envisaged, originally, as\n_Spirit_? We shall show that he probably was not, that the question\n'spirit or not spirit' was not raised at all, that the Maker and Father in\nHeaven, prior to Death, was merely regarded as a deathless _Being_, no\nquestion of 'spirit' being raised. If so, Animism was not needed for\nthe earliest idea of a moral Eternal. This hypothesis will be found to\nlead to some very singular conclusions.\n\nIt will be more fully stated and illustrated, presently, but I find that\nit had already occurred to Dr. Brinton.[15] He is talking specially of a\nheaven-god; he says 'it came to pass that the idea of God was linked to\nthe heavens _long ere man asked himself, Are the heavens material and God\nspiritual_?' Dr. Brinton, however, does not develop his idea, nor am I\naware that it has been developed previously.\n\nThe notion of a God about whose spirituality nobody has inquired is new to\nus. To ourselves, and doubtless or probably to barbarians on a certain\nlevel of culture, such a Divine Being _must_ be animistic, _must_ be a\n'spirit.' To take only one case, to which we shall return, the Banks\nIslanders (Melanesia) believe in ghosts, 'and in the existence of Beings\nwho were not, and never had been, human. All alike might be called\nspirits,' says Dr. Codrington, but, _ex hypothesi_, the Beings 'who\nnever were human' are only called 'spirits,' by us, because our habits of\nthought do not enable us to envisage them _except_ as 'spirits.' They\nnever were men, 'the natives will always maintain that he (the _Vui_) was\n_something different_, and deny to him the fleshly body of a man,' while\nresolute that he was not a ghost.[16]\n\nThis point will be amply illustrated later, as we study that strangely\nneglected chapter, that essential chapter, the Higher beliefs of the\nLowest savages. Of the existence of a belief in a Supreme Being, not as\nmerely 'alleged,' there is as good evidence as we possess for any fact in\nthe ethnographic region.\n\nIt is certain that savages, when first approached by curious travellers,\nand missionaries, have again and again recognised our God in theirs.\n\nThe mythical details and fables about the savage God are, indeed,\ndifferent; the ethical, benevolent, admonishing, rewarding, and creative\naspects of the Gods are apt to be the same.[17]\n\n'There is no necessity for beginning to tell even the most degraded of\nthese people of the existence of God, or of a future state, 'the facts\nbeing universally admitted.'[18]\n\n'Intelligent men among the Bakwains have scouted the idea of any of them\never having been without a tolerably clear conception of good and evil,\nGod and the future state; Nothing we indicate as sin ever appeared to\nthem as otherwise,' except polygamy, says Livingstone.\n\nNow we may agree with Mr. Tylor that modern theologians, familiar\nwith savage creeds, will scarcely argue that 'they are direct or\nnearly direct products of revelation' (vol. ii. p. 356). But we may\nargue that, considering their nascent ethics (denied or minimised by many\nanthropologists) and the distance which separates the high gods of\nsavagery from the ghosts out of which they are said to have sprung;\nconsidering too, that the relatively pure and lofty element which, _ex\nhypothesi_, is most recent in evolution, is also, _not_ the most honoured,\nbut often just the reverse; remembering, above all, that we know nothing\nhistorically of the mental condition of the founders of religion, we may\nhesitate to accept the anthropological hypothesis _en masse_. At best\nit is conjectural, and the facts are such that opponents have more\njustification than is commonly admitted for regarding the bulk of\nsavage religion as degenerate, or corrupted, from its own highest\nelements. I am by no means, as yet, arguing positively in favour of that\nhypothesis, but I see what its advocates mean, or ought to mean, and the\nstrength of their position. Mr. Tylor, with his unique fairness, says\n'the degeneration theory, no doubt in some instances with justice, may\nclaim such beliefs as mutilated and perverted remains of higher religion'\n(vol. ii. p. 336).\n\nI do not pretend to know how the lowest savages evolved the theory of a\nGod who reads the heart and 'makes for righteousness,' It is as easy,\nalmost, for me to believe that they 'were not left without a witness,'\nas to believe that this God of theirs was evolved out of the maleficent\nghost of a dirty mischievous medicine-man.\n\nHere one may repeat that while the 'quaint or majestic foreshadowings'\nof a Supreme Being, among very low savages, are only sketched lightly\nby Mr. Tylor; in Mr. Herbert Spencer's system they seem to be almost\nomitted. In his 'Principles of Sociology' and 'Ecclesiastical\nInstitutions' one looks in vain for an adequate notice; in vain for almost\nany notice, of this part of his topic. The watcher of conduct, the\nfriendly, creative being of low savage faith, whence was he evolved? The\ncircumstance of his existence, as far as I can see; the chastity, the\nunselfishness, the pitifulness, the loyalty to plighted word, the\nprohibition of even extra-tribal homicide, enjoined in various places on\nhis worshippers, are problems that appear somehow to have escaped\nMr. Spencer's notice. We are puzzled by endless difficulties in his\nsystem: for example as to how savages can forget their great-grandfathers'\nvery names, and yet remember 'traditional persons from generation to\ngeneration,' so that 'in time any amount of expansion and idealisation can\nbe reached,'[19]\n\nAgain, Mr. Spencer will argue that it is a strange thing if 'primitive men\nhad, as some think, the consciousness of a Universal Power whence they and\nall other things proceeded,' and yet 'spontaneously performed to that\nPower an act like that performed by them to the dead body of a fellow\nsavage'--by offerings of food.[20]\n\nNow, first, there would be nothing strange in the matter if the crude idea\nof 'Universal Power' came _earliest_, and was superseded, in part, by a\nlater propitiation of the dead and ghosts. The new religious idea would\nsoon refract back on, and influence by its ritual, the older conception.\nAnd, secondly, it is precisely this 'Universal Power' that is _not_\npropitiated by offerings of food, in Tonga, (despite Mr. Huxley)\nAustralia, and Africa, for example. We cannot escape the difficulty by\nsaying that there the old ghost of Universal Power is regarded as dead,\ndecrepit, or as a _roi-fain\u00e9ant_ not worth propitiating, for that is not\ntrue of the punisher of sin, the teacher of generosity, and the solitary\nsanction of faith between men and peoples.\n\nIt would appear then, on the whole, that the question of the plain man to\nthe anthropologist, 'Having got your idea of spirit into the savage's\nmind, how does he develop out of it what I call God?' has not been\nanswered. God cannot be a reflection from human kings where there have\nbeen no kings; nor a president elected out of a polytheistic society of\ngods where there is as yet no polytheism; nor an ideal first ancestor\nwhere men do not worship their ancestors; while, again, the spirit of a\nman who died, real or ideal, does not answer to a common savage conception\nof the Creator. All this will become much more obvious as we study in\ndetail the highest gods of the lowest races.\n\nOur study, of course, does not pretend to embrace the religion of all the\nsavages in the world. We are content with typical, and, as a rule,\nwell-observed examples. We range from the creeds of the most backward and\nworst-equipped nomad races, to those of peoples with an aristocracy,\nhereditary kings, houses and agriculture, ending with the Supreme Being of\nthe highly civilised Incas, and with the Jehovah of the Hebrews.\n\n[Footnote 1: _Journal Anthrop. Inst._ xi. 874. We shall return to this\npassage.]\n\n[Footnote 2: Vol. i. p. 389, 1892.]\n\n[Footnote 3: Payne, i. 458.]\n\n[Footnote 4: _Prim. Cult._ vol. ii. p. 381; _Science and Hebrew\nTradition_, pp. 346, 372.]\n\n[Footnote 5:  _Prim. Cult_. vol. ii. p. 109.]\n\n[Footnote 6: Ibid. vol. ii. p. 110.]\n\n[Footnote 7: Ibid. vol. ii. p. 113.]\n\n[Footnote 8: _Prim. Cult_. vol. ii. pp. 115, 116, citing Callaway and\nothers.]\n\n[Footnote 9: The Zulu religion will be analysed later.]\n\n[Footnote 10: _Prim. Cult_. vol. ii. pp. 130-144.]\n\n[Footnote 11: Ibid. vol. ii. p. 248.]\n\n[Footnote 12: And very few civilised populations, if any, are monotheistic\nin this sense.]\n\n[Footnote 13: _Prim. Cult_. vol. ii. pp. 332, 333.]\n\n[Footnote 14: _Prim. Cult_. vol. ii. pp. 335, 336.]\n\n[Footnote 15: _Myths of the New World_, 1868, p. 47.]\n\n[Footnote 16: I observed this point in _Myth, Ritual, and Religion_, while\nI did not see the implication, that the idea of 'spirit' was not\nnecessarily present in the savage conception of the primal Beings,\nCreators, or Makers.]\n\n[Footnote 17: See one or two cases in _Prim. Cult_. vol. ii. p. 340.]\n\n[Footnote 18: Livingstone, speaking of the Bakwain, _Missionary Travels_,\np. 168.]\n\n[Footnote 19: _Principles of Sociology_, vol. i. p. 450.]\n\n[Footnote 20: Op. cit. vol. i. p. 302.]\n\n\n\n\nX\n\nHIGH GODS OF LOW RACES\n\nTo avoid misconception we must repeat the necessary cautions about\naccepting evidence as to high gods of low races. The missionary who does\nnot see in every alien god a devil is apt to welcome traces of an original\nsupernatural revelation, darkened by all peoples but the Jews. We shall\nnot, however, rely much on missionary evidence, and, when we do, we must\nnow be equally on our guard against the anthropological bias in the\nmissionary himself. Having read Mr. Spencer and Mr. Tylor, and finding\nhimself among ancestor-worshippers (as he sometimes does), he is apt to\nthink that ancestor-worship explains any traces of a belief in the Supreme\nBeing. Against each and every bias of observers we must be watchful.\n\nIt may be needful, too, to point out once again another weak point in all\nreasoning about savage religion, namely that we cannot always tell what\nmay have been borrowed from Europeans. Thus, the Fuegians, in 1830-1840,\nwere far out of the way, but one tribe, near Magellan's Straits,\nworshipped an image called Cristo. Fitzroy attributes this obvious trace\nof Catholicism to a Captain Pelippa, who visited the district some time\nbefore his own expedition. It is less probable that Spaniards established\na belief in a moral Deity in regions where they left no material traces of\ntheir faith. The Fuegians are not easily proselytised. 'When discovered by\nstrangers, the instant impulse of a Fuegian family is to run off into the\nwoods.' Occasionally they will emerge to barter, but 'sometimes nothing\nwill induce a single individual of the family to appear.' Fitzroy thought\nthey had no idea of a future state, because, among other reasons not\ngiven, 'the evil spirit torments them in _this_ world, if they do wrong,\nby storms, hail, snow, &c.' Why the evil spirit should punish evil deeds\nis not evident. 'A great black man is supposed to be always wandering\nabout the woods and mountains, who is certain of knowing every word and\nevery action, who cannot be escaped and who influences the weather\naccording to men's conduct.'[1]\n\nThere are no traces of propitiation by food, or sacrifice, or anything but\nconduct. To regard the Deity as 'a magnified non-natural man' is not\npeculiar to Fuegian theologians, and does not imply Animism, but the\nreverse. But the point is that this ethical judge of perhaps the lowest\nsavages 'makes for righteousness' and searches the heart. His morality is\nso much above the ordinary savage standard that he regards the slaying of\na stranger and an enemy, caught redhanded in robbery, as a sin. York's\nbrother (York was a Fuegian brought to England by Fitzroy) killed a 'wild\nman' who was stealing his birds. 'Rain come down, snow come down, hail\ncome down, wind blow, blow, very much blow. Very bad to kill man. Big man\nin woods no like it, he very angry.' Here be ethics in savage religion.\nThe Sixth Commandment is in force. The Being also prohibits the slaying of\nflappers before they can fly. 'Very bad to shoot little duck, come wind,\ncome rain, blow, very much blow.'[2]\n\nNow this big man is not a deified chief, for the Fuegians 'have no\nsuperiority of one over another ... but the doctor-wizard of each party has\nmuch influence.' Mr. Spencer disposes of this moral 'big man' of the\nFuegians as 'evidently a deceased weather-doctor.'[3] But, first, there is\nno evidence that the being is regarded as ever having died. Again, it is\nnot shown that Fuegians are ancestor-worshippers. Next, Fitzroy did not\nthink that the Fuegians believed in a future life. Lastly, when were\nmedicine-men such notable moralists? The worst spirits among the\nneighbouring Patagonians are those of dead medicine-men. As a rule\neverywhere the ghost of a 'doctor-wizard,' shaman, or whatever he may be\ncalled, is the worst and wickedest of all ghosts. How, then, the Fuegians,\nwho are not proved to be ancestor-worshippers, evolved out of the\nmalignant ghost of an ancestor a being whose strong point is morality, one\ndoes not easily conceive. The adjacent Chonos 'have great faith in a good\nspirit, whom they call Yerri Yuppon, and consider to be the author of all\ngood; him they invoke in distress or danger.' However starved they do not\ntouch food till a short prayer has been muttered over each portion, 'the\npraying man looking upward.'[4] They have magicians, but no details are\ngiven as to spirits or ghosts. If Fuegian and Chono religion is on this\nlevel, and if this be the earliest, then the theology of many other higher\nsavages (as of the Zulus) is decidedly degenerate. 'The Bantu gives one\naccustomed to the negro the impression that he once had the same set of\nideas, _but has forgotten half of them_,' says Miss Kingsley.[5]\n\nOf all races now extant, the Australians are probably lowest in culture,\nand, like the fauna of the continent, are nearest to the primitive\nmodel. They have neither metals, bows, pottery, agriculture, nor fixed\nhabitations; and no traces of higher culture have anywhere been found\nabove or in the soil of the continent. This is important, for in some\nrespects their religious conceptions are so lofty that it would be natural\nto explain them as the result either of European influence, or as relics\nof a higher civilisation in the past. The former notion is discredited\nby the fact that their best religious ideas are imparted in connection\nwith their ancient and secret mysteries, while for the second idea, that\nthey are degenerate from a loftier civilisation, there is absolutely no\nevidence.\n\nIt has been suggested, indeed, by Mr. Spencer that the singularly complex\nmarriage customs of the Australian blacks point to a more polite condition\nin their past history. Of this stage, as we said, no material traces have\never been discovered, nor can degeneration be recent. Our earliest account\nof the Australians is that of Dampier, who visited New Holland in the\nunhappy year 1688. He found the natives 'the miserablest people in the\nworld. The Hodmadods, of Mononamatapa, though a nasty people, yet for\nwealth are gentlemen to these: who have no houses, sheep, poultry, and\nfruits of the earth.... They have no houses, but lie in the open air.'\nCuriously enough, Dampier attests their _unselfishness_: the main ethical\nfeature in their religious teaching. 'Be it little or be it much they get,\nevery one has his part, as well the young and tender as the old and\nfeeble, who are not able to go abroad, as the strong and lusty.' Dampier\nsaw no metals used, nor any bows, merely boomerangs ('wooden cutlasses'),\nand lances with points hardened in the fire. 'Their place of dwelling was\nonly a fire with a few boughs before it' (the _gunyeh_).\n\nThis description remains accurate for most of the unsophisticated\nAustralian tribes, but Dampier appears only to have seen ichthyophagous\ncoast blacks.\n\nThere is one more important point. In the _Bora_, or Australian\nmysteries, at which knowledge of 'The Maker' and of his commandments is\nimparted, the front teeth of the initiated are still knocked out. Now,\nDampier observed 'the two fore-teeth of their upper jaw are wanting in all\nof them, men and women, old and young.' If this is to be taken quite\nliterally, the Bora rite, in 1688, must have included the women, at least\nlocally. Dampier was on the north-west coast in latitude 16 degrees,\nlongitude 122-1/4 degrees east (Dampier Land, West Australia). The natives\nhad neither boats, canoes, nor bark logs; but it seems that they had their\nreligious mysteries and their unselfishness, two hundred years ago.[6]\n\nThe Australians have been very carefully studied by many observers, and\nthe results entirely overthrow Mr. Huxley's bold statement that 'in its\nsimplest condition, such as may be met with among the Australian savages,\ntheology is a mere belief in the existence, powers, and dispositions\n(usually malignant) of ghost-like entities who may be propitiated or\nscared away; but no cult can properly be said to exist. And in this stage\ntheology is wholly independent of ethics.'\n\nRemarks more crudely in defiance of known facts could not be made. The\nAustralians, assuredly, believe in 'spirits,' often malicious, and\nprobably in most cases regarded as ghosts of men. These aid the wizard,\nand occasionally inspire him. That these ghosts are _worshipped_ does not\nappear, and is denied by Waitz. Again, in the matter of cult, 'there is\nnone' in the way of _sacrifice_ to higher gods, as there should be if\nthese gods were hungry ghosts. The cult among the Australians is the\nkeeping of certain 'laws,' expressed in moral teaching, supposed to be in\nconformity with the institutes of their God. Worship takes the form, as at\nEleusis, of tribal mysteries, originally instituted, as at Eleusis, by\nthe God. The young men are initiated with many ceremonies, some of which\nare cruel and farcical, but the initiation includes ethical instruction,\nin conformity with the supposed commands of a God who watches over\nconduct. As among ourselves, the ethical ideal, with its theological\nsanction, is probably rather above the moral standard of ordinary\npractice. What conclusion we should draw from these facts is uncertain,\nbut the facts, at least, cannot be disputed, and precisely contradict the\nstatement of Mr. Huxley. He was wholly in the wrong when he said: 'The\nmoral code, such as is implied by public opinion, derives no sanction from\ntheological dogmas,'[7] It reposes, for its origin and sanction, on such\ndogmas.\n\nThe evidence as to Australian religion is abundant, and is being added to\nyearly. I shall here content myself with Mr. Howitt's accounts.[8]\n\nAs regards the possible evolution of the Australian God from\nancestor-worship, it must be noted that Mr. Howitt credits the groups with\npossessing 'headmen,' a kind of chiefs, whereas some inquirers, in Brough\nSmyth's collection, disbelieve in regular chiefs. Mr. Howitt writes:--\n\n'The Supreme Spirit, who is believed in by all the tribes I refer to here\n[in South-Eastern Australia], either as a benevolent, or more frequently\nas a malevolent being, it seems to me represents the defunct headman.'\n\nNow, the traces of 'headmanship' among the tribes are extremely faint; no\nsuch headman rules large areas of country, none is known to be worshipped\nafter death, and the malevolence of the Supreme Spirit is not illustrated\nby the details of Mr. Howitt's own statement, but the reverse. Indeed, he\ngoes on at once to remark that '_Darumulun_ was not, it seems to me,\neverywhere thought a malevolent being, but he was dreaded as one who could\nseverely punish the trespasses committed against these tribal ordinances\nand customs whose first institution is ascribed to him.'\n\nTo punish transgressions of his law is not the essence of a malevolent\nbeing. Darumulun 'watched the youths from the sky, prompt to punish, by\ndisease or death, the breach of his ordinances,' moral or ritual. His name\nis too sacred to be spoken except in whispers, and the anthropologist will\nobserve that the names of the human dead are also often tabooed. But the\ndivine name is not thus tabooed and sacred when the mere folklore about\nhim is narrated. The informants of Mr. Howitt instinctively distinguished\nbetween the mythology and the religion of Darumulun.[9] This distinction--\nthe secrecy about the religion, the candour about the mythology--is\nessential, and accounts for our ignorance about the inner religious\nbeliefs of early races. Mr. Howitt himself knew little till he was\ninitiated. The grandfather of Mr. Howitt's friend, _before the white men\ncame to Melbourne_, took him out at night, and, pointing to a star, said:\n'You will soon be a man; you see _Bunjil_ [Supreme Being of certain\ntribes] up there, and he can see you, and all you do down here.' Mr.\nPalmer, speaking of the Mysteries of Northern Australians (mysteries under\ndivine sanction), mentions the nature of the moral instruction. Each lad\nis given, 'by one of the elders, advice so kindly, fatherly, and\nimpressive, as often to soften the heart, and draw tears from the youth.'\nHe is to avoid adultery, not to take advantage of a woman if he finds her\nalone, he is not to be quarrelsome.[10]\n\nAt the Mysteries Darumulun's real name may be uttered, at other times he\nis 'Master' (_Biamban_) or 'Father' (_Papang_), exactly as we say 'Lord'\nand 'Father.'\n\nIt is known that all these things are not due to missionaries, whose\ninstructions would certainly not be conveyed in the _Bora_, or tribal\nmysteries, which, again, are partly described by Collins as early as 1798,\nand must have been practised in 1688. Mr. Howitt mentions, among moral\nlessons divinely sanctioned, respect for old age, abstinence from lawless\nlove, and avoidance of the sins so popular, poetic, and sanctioned by the\nexample of Gods, in classical Greece.[11] A representation is made of the\nMaster, Biamban; and to make such idols, except at the Mysteries, is\nforbidden 'under pain of death.' Those which are made are destroyed as\nsoon as the rites are ended.[12] The future life (apparently) is then\nillustrated by the burial of a living elder, who rises from a grave.\nThis may, however, symbolise the 'new life' of the Mystae, 'Worse have I\nfled; better have I found,' as was sung in an Athenian rite. The whole\nresult is, by what Mr. Howitt calls 'a quasi-religious element,' to\n'impress upon the mind of the youth, in an indelible manner, those rules\nof conduct which form the moral law of the tribe.'[13]\n\nMany other authorities could be adduced for the religious sanction of\nmorals in Australia. A watchful being observes and rewards the conduct or\nmen; he is named with reverence, if named at all; his abode is the\nheavens; he is the Master and Lord of things; his lessons 'soften the\nheart,'[14]\n\n  'What wants this Knave\n  That a _God_ should have?'\n\nI shall now demonstrate that the religion patronised by the Australian\nSupreme Being, and inculcated in his Mysteries, is actually used to\ncounteract the immoral character which natives acquire by associating with\nAnglo-Saxon Christians.[15]\n\nMr. Howitt[16] gives an account of the Jeraeil, or Mysteries of the\nKurnai. The old men deemed that through intercourse with whites 'the lads\nhad become selfish and no longer inclined to share that which they\nobtained by their own exertions, or had given them, with their friends.'\nOne need not say that selflessness is the very essence of goodness, and\nthe central moral doctrine of Christianity. So it is in the religious\nMysteries of the African Yao; a selfish man, we shall see, is spoken of as\n'uninitiated.' So it is with the Australian Kurnai, whose mysteries and\nethical teaching are under the sanction of their Supreme Being. So much\nfor the anthropological dogma that early theology has no ethics.\n\nThe Kurnai began by kneading the stomachs of the lads about to be\ninitiated (that is, if they have been associating with Christians), to\nexpel selfishness and greed. The chief rite, later, is to blindfold every\nlad, with a blanket closely drawn over his head, to make whirring sounds\nwith the _tundun_, or Greek _rhombos_, then to pluck off the blankets, and\nbid the initiate raise their faces to the sky. The initiator points to it,\ncalling out, 'Look there, look there, look there!' They have seen in this\nsolemn way the home of the Supreme Being, 'Our Father,' Mungan-ngaur\n(Mungan = 'Father,' ngaur = 'our'), whose doctrine is then unfolded by the\nold initiator ('headman') 'in an impressive manner.'[17] 'Long ago there\nwas a great Being, Mungan-ngaur, who lived on the earth.' His son Tundun\nis _direct ancestor_ of the Kurnai. Mungan initiated the rites, and\ndestroyed earth by water when they were impiously revealed. 'Mungan left\nthe earth, and ascended to the sky, where he still remains.'\n\nHere Mungan-ngaur, a Being not defined as spirit, but immortal, and\ndwelling in heaven, is Father, or rather grandfather, not maker,\nof the Kurnai. This _may_ be interpreted as ancestor-worship, but the\nopposite myth, of making or creating, is of frequent occurrence in many\nwidely-severed Australian districts, and co-exists with evolutionary\nmyths. Mungan-ngaur's precepts are:\n\n  1. _To listen to and obey the old men_.\n  2. _To share everything they have with their friends_.\n  3. _To live peaceably with their friends_.\n\n  4. _Not to interfere with girls or married women_.\n\n  5. _To obey the food restrictions until they are released from them by\n     the old men_.\n\nMr. Howitt concludes: 'I venture to assert that it can no longer be\nmaintained that the Australians have no belief which can be called\nreligious, that is, in the sense of beliefs which govern tribal and\nindividual morality under a supernatural sanction.' On this topic\nMr. Hewitt's opinion became more affirmative the more deeply he was\ninitiated.[18]\n\nThe Australians are the lowest, most primitive savages, yet no\npropitiation by food is made to their moral Ruler, in heaven, as if he\nwere a ghost.\n\nThe laws of these Australian divine beings apply to ritual as well as to\nethics, as might naturally be expected. But the moral element is\nconspicuous, the reverence is conspicuous: we have here no mere ghost,\npropitiated by food or sacrifice, or by purely magical rites. His very\nimage (modelled on a large scale in earth) is no vulgar idol: to make such\na thing, except on the rare sacred occasions, is a capital offence.\nMeanwhile the mythology of the God has often, in or out of the rites,\nnothing rational about it.\n\nOn the whole it is evident that Mr. Herbert Spencer, for example,\nunderrates the nature of Australian religion. He cites a case of\naddressing the ghost of a man recently dead, which is asked not to bring\nsickness, 'or make loud noises in the night,' and says: 'Here we may\nrecognise the essential elements of a cult.' But Mr. Spencer does not\nallude to the much more essentially religious elements which he might have\nfound in the very authority whom he cites, Mr. Brough Smyth.[19] This\nappears, as far as my scrutiny goes, to be Mr. Spencer's solitary\nreference to Australia in the work on 'Ecclesiastical Institutions.' Yet\nthe facts which he and Mr. Huxley ignore throw a light very different from\ntheirs on what they consider 'the simplest condition of theology.'\n\nAmong the causes of confusion in thought upon religion, Mr. Tylor mentions\n'the partial and one-sided application of the historical method of inquiry\ninto theological doctrines.'[20] Here, perhaps, we have examples. In its\nhighest aspect that 'simplest theology' of Australia is free from the\nfaults of popular theology in Greece. The God discourages sin, though, in\nmyth, he is far from impeccable. He is almost too revered to be named\n(except in mythology) and is not to be represented by idols. He is not\nmoved by sacrifice; he has not the chance; like Death in Greece, 'he only,\nof all Gods, loves not gifts.' Thus the status of theology does not\ncorrespond to what we look for in very low culture. It would scarcely be a\nparadox to say that the popular Zeus, or Ares, is degenerate from\nMungan-ngaur, or the Fuegian being who forbids the slaying of an enemy,\nand almost literally 'marks the sparrow's fall.'\n\nIf we knew all the mythology of Darumulun, we should probably find it\n(like much of the myth of Pundjel or Bunjil) on a very different level\nfrom the theology. There are two currents, the religious and the mythical,\nflowing together through religion. The former current, religious, even\namong very low savages, is pure from the magical ghost-propitiating habit.\nThe latter current, mythological, is full of magic, mummery, and\nscandalous legend. Sometimes the latter stream quite pollutes the\nformer, sometimes they flow side by side, perfectly distinguishable, as\nin Aztec ethical piety, compared with the bloody Aztec ritualism.\nAnthropology has mainly kept her eyes fixed on the impure stream, the\nlusts, mummeries, conjurings, and frauds of priesthoods, while relatively,\nor altogether, neglecting (as we have shown) what is honest and of good\nreport.\n\nThe worse side of religion is the less sacred, and therefore the more\nconspicuous. Both elements are found co-existing, in almost all races, and\nnobody, in our total lack of historical information about the beginnings,\ncan say which, if either, element is the earlier, or which, if either, is\nderived from the other. To suppose that propitiation of corpses and then\nof ghosts came first is agreeable, and seems logical, to some writers\nwho are not without a bias against all religion as an unscientific\nsuperstition. But we know so little! The first missionaries in Greenland\nsupposed that there was not, there, a trace of belief in a Divine Being.\n'But when they came to understand their language better, they found quite\nthe reverse to be true ... and not only so, but they could plainly gather\nfrom a free dialogue they had with some perfectly wild Greenlanders (at\nthat time avoiding any direct application to their hearts) that their\nancestors must have believed in a Supreme Being, and did render him some\nservice, which their posterity neglected little by little...'[21] Mr.\nTylor does not refer to this as a trace of Christian Scandinavian\ninfluence on the Eskimo.[22]\n\nThat line, of course, may be taken. But an Eskimo said to a missionary,\n'Thou must not imagine that no Greenlander thinks about these things'\n(theology). He then stated the argument from design. 'Certainly there\nmust be some Being who made all these things. He must be very good too...\nAh, did I but know him, how I would love and honour him.' As St. Paul\nwrites: 'That which may be known of God is manifest in them, for God hath\nshowed it unto them ... being understood by the things which are made ...\nbut they became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was\ndarkened.'[23] In fact, mythology submerged religion. St. Paul's theory of\nthe origin of religion is not that of an 'innate idea,' nor of a direct\nrevelation. People, he says, reached the belief in a God from the Argument\nfor Design. Science conceives herself to have annihilated teleological\nideas. But they are among the probable origins of religion, and would lead\nto the belief in a Creator, whom the Greenlander thought beneficent, and\nafter whom he yearned. This is a very different initial step in religious\ndevelopment, if initial it was, from the feeding of a corpse, or a ghost.\n\nFrom all this evidence it does not appear how non-polytheistic,\nnon-monarchical, non-Manes-worshipping savages evolved the idea of a\nrelatively supreme, moral, and benevolent Creator, unborn, undying,\nwatching men's lives. 'He can go everywhere, and do everything.'[24]\n\n[Footnote 1: Fitzroy, ii. 180. Darwin. _Descent of Man_, p. 67.]\n\n[Footnote 2: Ibid. We seem to have little information about Fuegian\nreligion either before or after the cruise of the _Beagle_.]\n\n[Footnote 3: _Principles of Sociology_, i. 422.]\n\n[Footnote 4: Fitzroy, ii. 190, 191]\n\n[Footnote 5: _Travels in West Africa_, p. 442.]\n\n[Footnote 6: _Early Voyages to Australia_, 102-111 (Hakluyt Society).]\n\n[Footnote 7: _Science and Hebrew Tradition_, p. 846.]\n\n[Footnote 8: _Journal of the Anthrop. Institute_, 1884. See, for less\ndignified accounts, op. cit. xxiv. xxv.]\n\n[Footnote 9: _Journal_, xiii. 193.]\n\n[Footnote 10: _Journal_, xiii. 296.]\n\n[Footnote 11: Op. cit. p. 450.]\n\n[Footnote 12: P. 453.]\n\n[Footnote 13: P. 457.]\n\n[Footnote 14: See Brough Smyth, _Aborigines_, i. 426; Taplin, _Native\nRaces of Australia_. According to Taplin, Nurrumdere was a deified black\nfellow, who died on earth. This is not the case of Baiame, but is said,\nrather vaguely, to be true of Daramulun. _J.A.I._, xiii. 194, xxv. 297.]\n\n[Footnote 15: From a brief account of the Fire Ceremony, or _Engwurra_ of\ncertain tribes in Central Australia, it seems that religious ceremonies\nconnected with Totems are the most notable performances. Also 'certain\nmythical ancestors,' of the '_alcheringa_, or dream-times,' were\ncelebrated; these real or ideal human beings appear to 'sink their\nidentity in that of the object with which they are associated, and from\nwhich they are supposed to have originated.' There appear also to be\nplaces haunted by 'spirit individuals,' in some way mixed up with Totems,\nbut nothing is said of sacrifice to these Manes. The brief account is by\nProfessor Baldwin Spencer and Mr. F.J. Gillen, _Proc. Royal Soc.\nVictoria_, July 1897. This Fire Ceremony is not for lads--not a kind of\nconfirmation in the savage church--but is intended for adults.]\n\n[Footnote 16: _J. Anthrop. Inst_. 1886, p. 310.]\n\n[Footnote 17: _J. Anthrop. Inst_. 1885, p. 313.]\n\n[Footnote 18: _J. Anthrop. Inst_. xiii. p. 459.]\n\n[Footnote 19: _Ecclesiastical Institutions_, p. 674.]\n\n[Footnote 20: _Prim. Cult_. ii. 450.]\n\n[Footnote 21: Cranz, pp. 198, 199.]\n\n[Footnote 22: _Journal Anthrop. Inst_. xiii. 348-356.]\n\n[Footnote 23: Rom. i. 19. Cranz, i. 199.]\n\n[Footnote 24: In Mr. Carr's work, _The Australian Race_, reports of\n'godless' natives are given, for instance, in the Mary River country and\nin Gippsland. These reports are usually the result of the ignorance or\ncontempt of white observers, cf. Tylor, i. 419. The reader is referred to\nthe Introduction for additional information about Australian beliefs, and\nfor replies to objections.]\n\n\n\n\nXI\n\nSUPREME GODS NOT NECESSARILY DEVELOPED OUT OF 'SPIRITS'\n\nBefore going on to examine the high gods of other low savages, I must here\nagain insist on and develop the theory, not easily conceived by us, that\nthe Supreme Being of savages belongs to another branch of faith than\nghosts, or ghost-gods, or fetishes, or Totems, and need not be--probably\nis not--essentially derived from these. We must try to get rid of our\ntheory that a powerful, moral, eternal Being was, from the first, _ex\nofficio_, conceived as 'spirit;' and so was necessarily derived from a\nghost.\n\nFirst, what was the process of development?\n\nWe have examined Mr. Tylor's theory. But, to take a practical case: Here\nare the Australians, roaming in small bands, without more formal rulers\nthan 'headmen' at most; not ancestor worshippers; not polytheists; with\nno departmental deities to select and aggrandise; not apt to speculate on\nthe _Anima Mundi_. How, then, did they bridge the gulf between the ghost\nof a soon-forgotten fighting man, and that conception of a Father above,\n'all-seeing,' moral, which, under various names, is found all over a huge\ncontinent? I cannot see that this problem has been solved or frankly\nfaced.\n\nThe distinction between the Australian deity, at his highest power,\nunpropitiated by sacrifice, and the ordinary, waning, easily forgotten,\ncheaply propitiated ghost of a tribesman, is essential. It is not easy to\nshow how, in 'the dark backward' of Australian life, the notion of\nMungan-ngaur grew from the idea of the ghost of a warrior. But there is no\nlogical necessity for the belief in the evolution of this god out\nof that ghost. These two factors in religion--ghost and god--seem to\nhave perfectly different sources, and it appears extraordinary that\nanthropologists have not (as far as I am aware) observed this circumstance\nbefore.\n\nMr. Spencer, indeed, speaks frequently of living human beings adored as\ngods. I do not know that these are found on the lowest levels of savagery,\nand Mr. Jevons has pointed out that, before you can hail a man as a god,\nyou must have the idea of God. The murder of Captain Cook notoriously\nresulted from a scientific experiment in theology. 'If he is a god, he\ncannot be killed.' So they tried with a dagger, and found that the honest\ncaptain was but a mortal British mariner--no god at all. 'There are\ndegrees.' Mr. Spencer's men-gods become real gods--after death.[1]\n\nNow the Supreme Being of savage faith, as a rule, never died at all. He\nbelonged to a world that knew not Death.\n\nOne cause of our blindness to the point appears to be this: We have from\nchildhood been taught that 'God is a Spirit.' We, now, can only conceive\nof an eternal being as a 'spirit.' We know that legions of savage gods are\nnow regarded as spirits. And therefore we have never remarked that there\nis no reason why we should take it for granted that the earliest deities\nof the earliest men were supposed by them to be 'spirits' at all. These\ngods might most judiciously be spoken of, not as 'spirits,' but as\n'undefined eternal beings.' To us, such a being is necessarily a spirit,\nbut he was by no means necessarily so to an early thinker, who may not\nyet have reached the conception of a ghost.\n\nA ghost is said, by anthropologists, to have developed into a god. Now,\nthe very idea of a ghost (apart from a wraith or fetch) implies the\nprevious _death_ of his proprietor. A ghost is the phantasm of a _dead_\nman. But anthropologists continually tell us, with truth, that the idea\nof death as a universal ordinance is unknown to the savage. Diseases and\ndeath are things that once did not exist, and that, normally, ought not to\noccur, the savage thinks. They are, in his opinion, supernormally caused\nby magicians and spirits. Death came into the world by a blunder, an\naccident, an error in ritual, a decision of a god who was before Death\nwas. Scores of myths are told everywhere on this subject.[2]\n\nThe savage Supreme Being, with added power, omniscience, and morality, is\nthe idealisation of the savage, as conceived of by himself, _minus_\nfleshly body (as a rule), and _minus_ Death. He is not necessarily a\n'spirit,' though that term may now be applied to him. He was not\noriginally differentiated as 'spirit' or 'not spirit.' He is a Being,\nconceived of without the question of 'spirit,' or 'no spirit' being\nraised; perhaps he was originally conceived of before that question could\nbe raised by men. When we call the Supreme Being of savages a 'spirit' we\nintroduce our own animistic ideas into a conception where it may not have\noriginally existed. If the God is 'the savage himself raised to the n^th\npower' so much the less of a spirit is he. Mr. Matthew Arnold might as\nwell have said: 'The British Philistine has no knowledge of God. He\nbelieves that the Creator is a magnified non-natural man, living in the\nsky.' The Gippsland or Fuegian or Blackfoot Supreme Being is just a\n_Being_, anthropomorphic, not a _mrart_, or 'spirit.' The Supreme Being is\na _wesen_, Being, _Vui_; we have hardly a term for an immortal existence\nso undefined. If the being is an idealised first ancestor (as among the\nKurnai), he is not, on that account, either man or ghost of man. In the\noriginal conception he is a powerful intelligence who was from the first:\nwho was already active long before, by a breach of his laws, an error in\nthe delivery of a message, a breach of ritual, or what not, death entered\nthe world. He was not affected by the entry of death, he still exists.\n\nModern minds need to become familiar with this indeterminate idea of the\nsavage Supreme Being, which, logically, may be prior to the evolution of\nthe notion of ghost or spirit.\n\nBut how does it apply when, as by the Kurnai, the Supreme Being is\nreckoned an ancestor?\n\nIt can very readily be shown that, when the Supreme Being of a savage\npeople is thus the idealised First Ancestor, he can never have been\nenvisaged by his worshippers as at any time a _ghost_; or, at least,\ncannot logically have been so envisaged where the nearly universal\nbelief occurs that death came into the world by accident, or needlessly.\n\nAdam is the mythical first ancestor of the Hebrews, but he died, [Greek:\nuper moron], and was not worshipped. Yama, the first of Aryan men who\ndied, was worshipped by Vedic Aryans, but _confessedly_ as a ghost-god.\nMr. Tylor gives a list of first ancestors deified. The Ancestor of the\nMaudans did not die, consequently is no ghost; _emigravit_, he 'moved\nwest.' Where the First Ancestor is also the Creator (Dog-rib Indians), he\ncan hardly be, and is not, regarded as a mortal. Tamoi, of the Guaranis,\nwas 'the ancient of heaven,' clearly no mortal man. The Maori Maui was the\nfirst who died, but he is not one of the original Maori gods. Haetsh,\namong the Kamchadals, precisely answers to Yama. Unkulunkulu will be\ndescribed later.[3]\n\nThis is the list: Where the First Ancestor is equivalent to the Creator,\nand is supreme, he is--from the first--deathless and immortal. When he\ndies he is a confessed ghost-god.\n\nNow, ghost-worship and dead ancestor-worship are impossible before the\nancestor is dead and is a ghost. But the essential idea of Mungan-ngaur,\nand Baiame, and most of the high gods of Australia, and of other low\nraces, is that _they never died at all_. They belong to the period before\ndeath came into the world, like Qat among the Melanesians. They arise in\nan age that knew not death, and had not reflected on phantasms nor evolved\nghosts. They could have been conceived of, in the nature of the case, by a\nrace of immortals who never dreamed of such a thing as a ghost. For these\ngods, the ghost-theory is not required, and is superfluous, even\ncontradictory. The early thinkers who developed these beings did not need\nto know that men die (though, of course, they did know it in practice),\nstill less did they need to have conceived by abstract speculation the\nhypothesis of ghosts. Baiame, Cagn, Bunjil, in their adorers' belief, were\n_there_; death later intruded among men, but did not affect these divine\nbeings in any way.\n\nThe ghost-theory, therefore, by the evidence of anthropology itself, is\nnot needed for the evolution of the high gods of savages. It is only\nneeded for the evolution of ghost-propitiation and genuine dead-ancestor\nworship. Therefore, the high gods described were not necessarily once\nghosts--were not idealised _mortal_ ancestors. They were, naturally, from\nthe beginning, from before the coming in of death, immortal Fathers, now\ndwelling on high. Between them and apotheosised mortal ancestors there is\na great gulf fixed--the river of death.\n\nThe explicitly stated distinction that the high creative gods never were\nmortal men, while other gods are spirits of mortal men, is made in every\nquarter. 'Ancestors _known_ to be human were _not_ worshipped as\n[original] gods, and ancestors worshipped as [original] gods were not\nbelieved to have been human.'[4]\n\nBoth kinds may have a generic name, such as _kalou_, or _wakan_, but the\nspecific distinction is universally made by low savages. On one hand,\noriginal gods; on the other, non-original gods that were once ghosts. Now,\nthis distinction is often calmly ignored; whereas, when any race has\ndeveloped (like late Scandinavians) the Euhemeristic hypothesis ('all gods\nwere once men'), that hypothesis is accepted as an historical statement of\nfact by some writers.\n\nIt is part of my theory that the more popular ghost-worship of souls of\npeople whom men have loved, invaded the possibly older religion of the\nSupreme Father. Mighty beings, whether originally conceived of as\n'spirits' or not, came, later, under the Animistic theory, to be reckoned\nas spirits. They even (but not among the lowest savages) came to be\npropitiated by food and sacrifice. The alternative, for a Supreme Being,\nwhen once Animism prevailed, was sacrifice (as to more popular ghost\ndeities) or neglect. We shall find examples of both alternatives. But\nsacrifice does not prove that a God was, in original conception, a ghost,\nor even a spirit. 'The common doctrine of the Old Testament is not that\nGod is spirit, but that the spirit [_r\u00faah_ = 'wind,' 'living breath'] of\nJehovah, going forth from him, works in the world and among men.'[5]\n\nTo resume. The high Gods of savagery--moral, all-seeing directors of\nthings and of men--are not explicitly envisaged as spirits at all by their\nadorers. The notion of soul or spirit is here out of place. We can best\ndescribe Pirnmeheal, and N\u00e1pi and Baiame as 'magnified non-natural men,'\nor undefined beings who were from the beginning and are undying. They are,\nlike the easy Epicurean Gods, _nihil indiga nostri_. Not being ghosts,\nthey crave no food from men, and receive no sacrifice, as do ghosts, or\ngods developed out of ghosts, or gods to whom the ghost-ritual has been\ntransferred. For this very reason, apparently, they seem to be spoken of\nby Mr. Grant Allen as 'gods to talk about, not gods to adore; mythological\nconceptions rather than religious beings.'[6] All this is rather hard on\nthe lowest savages. If they sacrifice to a god, then the god is a hungry\nghost; if they don't, then the god is 'a god to talk about, not to adore,'\nLuckily, the facts of the Bora ritual and the instruction given there\nprove that Mungan-nganr and other names _are_ gods to adore, by ethical\nconformity to their will and by solemn ceremony, not merely gods to talk\nabout.\n\nThus, the highest element in the religion of the lowest savages does not\nappear to be derived from their theory of ghosts. As far as we can say, in\nthe inevitable absence of historical evidence, the highest gods of savages\nmay have been believed in, as Makers and Fathers and Lords of an\nindeterminate nature, before the savage had developed the idea of souls\nout of dreams and phantasms. It is logically conceivable that savages may\nhave worshipped deities like Baiame and Darumulun before they had evolved\nthe notion that Tom, Dick, or Harry has a separable soul, capable of\nsurviving his bodily decease. Deities of the higher sort, by the very\nnature of savage reflections on death and on its non-original casual\ncharacter, are prior, or may be prior, or cannot be shown not to be prior,\nto the ghost theory--the alleged origin of religion. For their evolution\nthe ghost theory is not logically demanded; they can do without it. Yet\n_they_, and not the spirits, bogles, Mrarts, _Brewin_, and so forth, are\nthe high gods, the gods who have most analogy--as makers, moral guides,\nrewarders, and punishers of conduct (though that duty is also occasionally\nassumed by ancestral spirits)--with our civilised conception of the\ndivine. Our conception of God descends not from ghosts, but from the\nSupreme Beings of non-ancestor-worshipping peoples.\n\nAs it seems impossible to point out any method by which low, chiefless,\nnon-polytheistic, non-metaphysical savages (if any such there be) evolved\nout of ghosts the eternal beings who made the world, and watch over\nmorality: as the people themselves unanimously distinguish such beings\nfrom ghost-gods, I take it that such beings never were ghosts. In this\ncase the Animistic theory seems to me to break down completely. Yet these\nhigh gods of low savages preserve from dimmest ages of the meanest culture\nthe sketch of a God which our highest religious thought can but fill up to\nits ideal. Come from what germ he may, Jehovah or Allah does not come from\na ghost.\n\nIt may be retorted that this makes no real difference. If savages did not\ninvent gods in consequence of a fallacious belief in spirit and soul,\nstill, in some other equally illogical way they came to indulge the\nhypothesis that they had a Judge and Father in heaven. But, if the ghost\ntheory of the high Gods is wrong, as it is conspicuously superfluous, that\n_does_ make some difference. It proves that a widely preached scientific\nconclusion may be as spectral as Bathybius. On other more important\npoints, therefore, we may differ from the newest scientific opinion\nwithout too much diffident apprehensiveness.\n\n[Footnote 1: _Principles of Sociology_, i. 417, 421. 'The medicine men\nare treated as gods.... The medicine man becomes a god after death.']\n\n[Footnote 2: I have published a chapter on Myths on the Origin of Death in\n_Modern Mythology_.]\n\n[Footnote 3: _Prim. Cult_. ii. 311-316.]\n\n[Footnote 4: Jevons, _Introduction_, p. 197.]\n\n[Footnote 5: Robertson Smith. _The Prophets of Israel_, p. 61.]\n\n[Footnote 6: _Evolution of the Idea of God_, p. 170.]\n\n\n\n\nXII\n\nSAVAGE SUPREME BEINGS\n\nIt is among 'the lowest savages' that the Supreme Beings are most regarded\nas eternal, moral (as the morality of the tribe goes, or above its\nhabitual practice), and _powerful_. I have elsewhere described the Bushman\ngod Cagn, as he was portrayed to Mr. Orpen by Qing, who 'had never\nbefore seen a white man except fighting.' Mr. Orpen got the facts from\nQing by inducing him to explain the natives' pictures on the walls of\ncaves. 'Cagn made all things, and we pray to him,' thus: 'O Cagn, O Cagn,\nare we not thy children? Do you not see us hunger? Give us food.' As to\nethics, 'At first Cagn was very good, but he got spoilt through fighting\nso many things.' 'How came he into the world?' 'Perhaps with those who\nbrought the Sun: only the initiated know these things.' It appears that\nQing was not yet initiated in the dance (answering to a high rite of the\nAustralian _Bora_) in which the most esoteric myths were unfolded.[1]\n\nIn Mr. Spencer's 'Descriptive Sociology' the religion of the Bushmen is\nthus disposed of. 'Pray to an insect of the caterpillar kind for success\nin the chase.' That is rather meagre. They make arrow-poison out of\ncaterpillars,[2] though Dr. Bleek, perhaps correctly, identifies Cagn\nwith i-kaggen, the insect.\n\nThe case of the Andaman Islanders may be especially recommended to\nbelievers in the anthropological science of religion. For long these\nnatives were the joy of emancipated inquirers as the 'godless Andamanese.'\nThey only supply Mr. Spencer's 'Ecclesiastical Institutions' with\na few instances of the ghost-belief.[3] Yet when the Andamanese are\nscientifically studied _in situ_ by an educated Englishman, Mr. Man, who\nknows their language, has lived with them for eleven years, and presided\nover our benevolent efforts 'to reclaim them from their savage state,'\nthe Andamanese turn out to be quite embarrassingly rich in the higher\nelements of faith. They have not only a profoundly philosophical\n_religion_, but an excessively absurd _mythology_, like the Australian\nblacks, the Greeks, and other peoples. If, on the whole, the student of\nthe Andamanese despairs of the possibility of an ethnological theory of\nreligion, he is hardly to be blamed.\n\nThe people are probably Negritos, and probably 'the original inhabitants,\nwhose occupation dates from prehistoric times.'[4] They use the bow, they\nmake pots, and are considerably above the Australian level. They have\nsecond-sighted men, who obtain status 'by relating an extraordinary dream,\nthe details of which are declared to have been borne out subsequently by\nsome unforeseen event, as, for instance, a sudden death or accident.' They\nhave to produce fresh evidential dreams from time to time. They see\nphantasms of the dead, and coincidental hallucinations.[5] All this is as\nwe should expect it to be.\n\nTheir religion is probably not due to missionaries, as they always shot\nall foreigners, and have no traditions of the presence of aliens on the\nislands before our recent arrival.[6] Their God, Puluga, is 'like fire,'\nbut invisible. He was never born, and is immortal. By him were all things\ncreated, except the powers of evil. He knows even the thoughts of the\nheart. He is angered by _yubda_ = sin, or wrong-doing, that is falsehood,\ntheft, grave assault, murder, adultery, bad carving of meat, and (as a\ncrime of witchcraft) by burning wax.[7] 'To those in pain or distress he\nis pitiful, and sometimes deigns to afford relief.' He is Judge of Souls,\nand the dread of future punishment 'to _some_ extent is said to affect\ntheir course of action in the present life.'[8]\n\nThis Being could not be evolved out of the ordinary ghost of a\nsecond-sighted man, for I do not find that ancestral ghosts are\nworshipped, nor is there a trace of early missionary influence, while\nMr. Man consulted elderly and, in native religion, well-instructed\nAndamanese for his facts.\n\nYet Puluga lives in a large stone house (clearly derived from ours at Port\nBlair), eats and drinks, foraging for himself, and is married to a green\nshrimp.[9] There is the usual story of a Deluge caused by the moral wrath\nof Puluga. The whole theology was scrupulously collected from natives\nunacquainted with other races.\n\nThe account of Andamanese religion does not tally with the anthropological\nhypothesis. Foreign influence seems to be more than usually excluded by\ninsular conditions and the jealousy of the 'original inhabitants.' The\nevidence ought to make us reflect on the extreme obscurity of the whole\nproblem.\n\nAnthropological study of religion has hitherto almost entirely overlooked\nthe mysteries of various races, except in so far as they confirm the entry\nof the young people into the ranks of the adult. Their esoteric moral and\nreligious teaching is nearly unknown to us, save in a few instances. It is\ncertain that the mysteries of Greece were survivals of savage ceremonies,\nbecause we know that they included specific savage rites, such as the use\nof the _rhombos_ to make a whirring noise, and the custom of ritual\ndaubing with dirt; and the sacred _ballets d'action_, in which, as Lucian\nand Qing say, mystic facts are 'danced out.'[10] But, while Greece\nretained these relics of savagery, there was something taught at Eleusis\nwhich filled minds like Plato's and Pindar's with a happy religious awe.\nNow, similar 'softening of the heart' was the result of the teaching in\nthe Australian _Bora_: the Yao mysteries inculcate the victory over self;\nand, till we are admitted to the secrets of all other savage mysteries\nthroughout the world, we cannot tell whether, among mummeries,\nfrivolities, and even license, high ethical doctrines are not presented\nunder the sanction of religion. The New Life, and perhaps the future life,\nare undeniably indicated in the Australian mysteries by the simulated\nResurrection.\n\nI would therefore no longer say, as in 1887, that the Hellenic genius must\nhave added to 'an old medicine dance' all that the Eleusinian mysteries\npossessed of beauty, counsel, and consolation[11]. These elements, as well\nas the barbaric factors in the rites, may have been developed out of such\nsavage doctrine as softens the hearts of Australians and Yaos. That this\nkind of doctrine receives religious sanction is certain, where we know the\nsecret of savage mysteries. It is therefore quite incorrect, and strangely\npresumptuous, to deny, with almost all anthropologists, the alliance of\nethics with religion among the most backward races. We must always\nremember their secrecy about their inner religion, their frankness about\ntheir mythological tales. These we know: the inner religion we ought to\nbegin to recognise that we do not know.\n\nThe case of the Andamanese has taught us how vague, even now, is our\nknowledge, and how obscure is our problem. The example of the Melanesians\nenforces these lessons. It is hard to bring the Melanesians within any\ntheory. Dr. Codrington has made them the subject of a careful study, and\nreports that while the European inquirer can communicate pretty freely on\ncommon subjects 'the vocabulary of ordinary life in almost useless when\nthe region of mysteries and superstitions is approached.'[12] The Banks\nIslanders are most free from an Asiatic element of population on one side,\nand a Polynesian element on the other.\n\nThe Banks Islanders 'believe in two orders of intelligent beings different\nfrom living men.' (1) Ghosts of the dead, (2) 'Beings who were not, and\nnever had been, human.' This, as we have shown, and will continue to show,\nis the usual savage doctrine. On the one hand are separable souls of men,\nsurviving the death of the body. On the other are beings, creators,\nwho were before men were, and before death entered the world. It is\nimpossible, logically, to argue that these beings are only ghosts of real\nremote ancestors, or of ideal ancestors. These higher beings are not\nsafely to be defined as 'spirits,' their essence is vague, and, we repeat,\nthe idea of their existence might have been evolved _before the ghost\ntheory was attained by men_. Dr. Codrington says, 'the conception can\nhardly be that of a purely spiritual being, yet, by whatever name the\nnatives call them, they are such as in English must be called spirits.'\n\nThat is our point. 'God is a spirit,' these beings are Gods, therefore\n'these are spirits.' But to their initial conception our idea of 'spirit'\nis lacking. They are beings who existed before death, and still exist.\n\nThe beings which never were human, never died, are _Vui_, the ghosts are\n_Tamate_. Dr. Codrington uses 'ghosts' for _Tamate_, 'spirits' for _Vui_.\nBut as to render _Vui_ 'spirits' is to yield the essential point, we shall\ncall _Vui_ 'beings,' or, simply, _Vui_. A Vui is not a spirit that has\nbeen a ghost; the story may represent him as if a man, 'but the native\nwill always maintain that he was something different, and deny to him the\nfleshly body of a man.'[13]\n\nThis distinction, ghost on one side--original being, not a man, not a\nghost of a man, on the other--is radical and nearly universal in savage\nreligion. Anthropology, neglecting the essential distinction insisted on,\nin this case, by Dr. Codrington, confuses both kinds under the style of\n'spirits,' and derives both from ghosts of the dead. Dr. Codrington, it\nshould be said, does not generalise, but confines himself to the savages\nof whom he has made a special study. But, from the other examples of the\nsame distinction which we have offered, and the rest which we shall offer,\nwe think ourselves justified in regarding the distinction between a\nprimeval, eternal, being or beings, on one hand, and ghosts or spirits\nexalted from ghost's estate, on the other, as common, if not universal.\n\nThere are corporeal and incorporeal Vuis, but the body of the corporeal\nVui is '_not_ a human body.'[14] The chief is Qat, 'still at hand to help\nand invoked in prayers.' 'Qat, Marawa, look down upon me, smooth the sea\nfor us two, that I may go safely over the sea!' Qat 'created men and\nanimals,' though, in a certain district, he is claimed as an _ancestor_\n(p. 268). Two strata of belief have here been confused.\n\nThe myth of Qat is a jungle of facetiae and frolic, with one or two\nserious incidents, such as the beginning of Death and the coming of Night.\nHis mother was, or became, a stone; stones playing a considerable part in\nthe superstitions.\n\nThe incorporeal Vuis, 'with nothing like a human life, have a much higher\nplace than Qat and his brothers in the religious system.' They have\nneither names, nor shapes, nor legends, they receive sacrifice, and are in\nsome uncertain way connected with stones; these stones usually bear a\nfanciful resemblance to fruits or animals (p. 275). The only sacrifice, in\nBanks Islands, is that of shell-money. The mischievous spirits are Tamate,\nghosts of men. There is a belief in _mana_ (magical _rapport_). Dr.\nCodrington cannot determine the connection of this belief with that in\nspirits. Mana is the uncanny, is X, the unknown. A revived impression of\nsense is _nunuai_, as when a tired fisher, half asleep at night, feels the\n'draw' of a salmon, and automatically strikes.[15] The common ghost is a\nbag of _nunuai_, as living man, in the opinion of some philosophers, is a\nbag of 'sensations.' Ghosts are only seen as spiritual lights, which so\ncommonly attend hallucinations among the civilised. Except in the prayers\nto Qat and Marawa, prayer only invokes the dead (p. 285). 'In the western\nislands the offerings are made to ghosts, and consumed by fire; in the\neastern (Banks) isles they are made to spirits (beings, _Vui_), and\nthere is no sacrificial fire.' Now, the worship of ghosts goes, in these\nisles, with the higher culture, 'a more considerable advance in the arts\nof life;' the worship of non-ghosts, _Vui_, goes with the lower material\nculture.[16] This is rather the reverse of what we should expect, in\naccordance with the anthropological theory. According, however, to our\ntheory, Animism and ghost-worship may be of later development, and belong\nto a higher level of culture, than worship of a being, or beings, that\nnever were ghosts. In Leper's Isle, 'ghosts do not appear to have prayers\nor sacrifices offered to them,' but cause disease, and work magic.[17]\n\nThe belief in the soul, in Melanesia, does _not_ appear to proceed 'from\ntheir dreams or visions in which deceased or absent persons are presented\nto them, for they do not appear to believe that the soul goes out from the\ndreamer, or presents itself as an object in his dreams,' nor does belief\nin other spirits seem to be founded on 'the appearance of life or motion\nin inanimate things.'[18]\n\nTo myself it rather looks as if all impressions had their _nunuai_, real,\nbodiless, persistent, after-images; that the soul is the complex of all of\nthese _nunuai_; that there is in the universe a kind of magical other,\ncalled _mana_, possessed, in different proportions, by different men,\n_Vui_, _tamate_, and material objects, and that the _atai_ or _ataro_ of a\nman dead, his ghost, retains its old, and acquires new _mana_.[19] It is an\nodd kind of metaphysic to find among very backward and isolated savages.\nBut the lesson of Melanesia teaches us how very little we really know of\nthe religion of low races, how complex it is, how hardly it can be forced\ninto our theories, if we take it as given in our knowledge, allow for our\nignorance, and are not content to select facts which suit our hypothesis,\nwhile ignoring the rest. On a higher level of material culture than the\nMelanesians are the Fijians.\n\nFijian religion, as far as we understand, resembles the others in drawing\nan impassable line between ghosts and eternal gods. The word _Kalou_ is\napplied to all supernal beings, and mystic or magical things alike. It\nseems to answer to _mana_ in New Zealand and Melanesia, to _wakan_ in\nNorth America, and to _f\u00e9e_ in old French, as when Perrault says, about\nBluebeard's key, 'now the key was _f\u00e9e_.' All Gods are _Kalou_, but all\nthings that are _Kalou_ are not Gods. Gods are _Kalou vu_; deified ghosts\nare _Kalou yalo_. The former are eternal, without beginning of days or end\nof years; the latter are subject to infirmity and even to death.[20]\n\nThe Supreme Being, if we can apply the term to him, is Ndengei, or Degei,\n'who seems to be an impersonation of the abstract idea of eternal\nexistence.' This idea is not easily developed out of the conception of a\nhuman soul which has died into a ghost and may die again. His myth\nrepresents him as a serpent, emblem of eternity, or a body of stone with a\nserpent's head. His one manifestation is given by eating. So neglected is\nhe that a song exists about his lack of worshippers and gifts. 'We made\nmen,' says Ndengei, 'placed them on earth, and yet they share to us only\nthe under shell.'[21] Here is an extreme case of the self-existent\ncreative Eternal, mythically lodged in a serpent's body, and reduced to a\njest.\n\nIt is not easy to see any explanation, if we reject the hypothesis that\nthis is an old, fallen form of faith, 'with scarcely a temple.' The other\nunborn immortals are mythical warriors and adulterers, like the popular\ndeities of Greece. Yet Ndengei receives prayers through two sons of his,\nmediating deities. The priests are possessed, or inspired, by spirits and\ngods. One is not quite clear as to whether Ndengei is an inspiring god or\nnot; but that prayers are made to him is inconsistent with the belief in\nhis eternal inaction. A priest is represented as speaking for Ndengei,\nprobably by inspiration. 'My own mind departs from me, and then, when it\nis truly gone, my god speaks by me,' is the account of this 'alternating\npersonality' given by a priest.[22]\n\nAfter informing us that Ndengei is starved, Mr. Williams next tells about\nofferings to him, in earlier days, of hundreds of hogs.[23] He sends rain\non earth. Animals, men, stones, may all be _Kalou_. There is a Hades as\nfantastic as that in the Egyptian 'Book of the Dead,' and second sight\nflourishes.\n\nThe mysteries include the sham raising of the dead, and appear to be\ndirected at propitiatory ghosts rather than at Ndengei. There are scenes\nof license; 'particulars of almost incredible indecency have been\nprivately forwarded to Dr. Tylor.'[24]\n\nSuppose a religious reformer were to arise in one of the many savage\ntribes who, as we shall show, possess, but neglect, an Eternal Creator.\nHe would do what, in the secular sphere, was done by the Mikado of Japan.\nThe Mikado was a political Dendid or Ndengei--an awful, withdrawn,\nimpotent potentate. Power was wielded by the Tycoon. A Mikado of genius\nasserted himself; hence arose modern Japan. In the same way, a religious\nreformer like Khuen Ahten in Egypt would preach down minor gods, ghosts\nand sacred beasts, and proclaim the primal Maker, Ndengei, Dendid, Mtanga.\n'The king shall hae his ain again.' Had it not been for the Prophets,\nIsrael, by the time that Greece and Rome knew Israel, would have been\nworshipping a horde of little gods, and even beasts and ghosts, while the\nEternal would have become a mere name--perhaps, like Ndengei and Atahocan\nand Unkulunkulu, a jest. The Old Testament is the story of the prolonged\neffort to keep Jehovah in His supreme place. To make and to succeed in\nthat effort was the _differentia_, of Israel. Other peoples, even the\nlowest, had, as we prove, the germinal conception of a God--assuredly not\ndemonstrated to be derived from the ghost theory, logically in no need of\nthe ghost theory, everywhere explicitly contrasted with the ghost theory.\n'But their foolish heart was darkened.'\n\nIt is impossible to prove, historically, which of the two main elements in\nbelief--the idea of an Eternal Being or Beings, or the idea of surviving\nghosts--came first into the minds of men. The idea of primeval Eternal\nBeings, as understood by savages, does not depend on, or require, the\nghost theory. But, as we almost always find ghosts and a Supreme Being\ntogether, where we find either, among the lowest savages, we have no\nhistorical ground for asserting that either is prior to the other. Where\nwe have no evidence to the belief in the Maker, we must not conclude that\nno such belief exists. Our knowledge is confused and scanty; often it is\nderived from men who do not know the native language, or the native sacred\nlanguage, or have not been trusted with what the savage treasures as his\nsecret. Moreover, if anywhere ghosts are found without gods, it is an\ninference from the argument that an idea familiar to very low savage\ntribes, like the Australians, and falling more and more into the\nbackground elsewhere, though still extant and traceable, might, in certain\ncases, be lost and forgotten altogether.\n\nTo take an example of half-forgotten deity. Mr. Im Thurn, a good observer,\nhas written on 'The Animism of the Indians of British Guiana.' Mr. Im\nThurn justly says: 'The man who above all others has made this study\npossible is Mr. Tylor.' But it is not unfair to remark that Mr. Im Thurn\nnaturally sees most distinctly that which Mr. Tylor has taught him to\nsee--namely, Animism. He has also been persuaded, by Mr. Dorman, that the\nGreat Spirit of North American tribes is 'almost certainly nothing more\nthan a figure of European origin, reflected and transmitted almost beyond\nrecognition on the mirror of the Indian mind,' That is not my opinion: I\nconceive that the Red Indians had their native Eternal, like the\nAustralians, Fijians, Andamanese, Dinkas, Yao, and so forth, as will be\nshown later.\n\nMr. Im Thurn, however, dilates on the dream origin of the ghost theory,\ngiving examples from his own knowledge of the difficulty with which Guiana\nIndians discern the hallucinations of dreams from the facts of waking\nlife. Their waking hallucinations are also so vivid as to be taken for\nrealities.[25] Mr. Im Thurn adopts the hypothesis that, from ghosts, 'a\nbelief has arisen, but very gradually, in higher spirits, and, eventually,\nin a Highest Spirit; and, keeping pace with the growth of these beliefs,\na habit of reverence for and worship of spirits.' On this hypothesis,\nthe spirit latest evolved, and most worshipful, ought, of course, to be\nthe 'Highest Spirit.' But the reverse, as usual, is the case. The Guiana\nIndians believe in the continued, but not in the everlasting, existence of\na man's ghost.[26] They believe in no spirits which were not once tenants\nof material bodies.[27]\n\nThe belief in a Supreme Spirit is only attained 'in the highest form of\nreligion'--Andamanese, for instance--as Mr. Im Thurn uses 'spirit' where\nwe should say 'being.' 'The Indians of Guiana know no god.'[28]\n\n'But it is true that various words have been found in all, or nearly all,\nthe languages of Guiana which have been supposed to be names of a Supreme\nBeing, God, a Great Spirit, in the sense which those phrases bear in the\nlanguage of the higher religions.'\n\nBeing interpreted, these Guiana names mean--\n\n  _The Ancient One,\n  The Ancient One in Sky-land,\n  Our Maker,\n  Our Father,\n  Our Great Father._\n\n'None of those in any way involves the attributes of a god.'\n\nThe Ancient of Days, Our Father in Sky-land, Our Maker, do rather convoy\nthe sense of God to a European mind. Mr. Im Thurn, however, decides that\nthe beings thus designated were supposed ancestors who came into Guiana\nfrom some other country, 'sometimes said to have been that entirely\nnatural country (?) which is separated from Guiana by the ocean of the\nair.'[29]\n\nMr. Im Thurn casually observed (having said nothing about morals in\nalliance with Animism):\n\n'The fear of unwittingly offending the countless visible and invisible\nbeings ... kept the Indians very strictly within their own rights and from\noffending against the rights of others.'\n\nThis remark dropped out at a discussion of Mr. Im Thurn's paper, and\nclearly demonstrated that even a very low creed 'makes for\nrighteousness.'[30]\n\nProbably few who have followed the facts given here will agree with Mr. Im\nThurn's theory that 'Our Maker,' 'Our Father,' 'The Ancient One of the\nHeaven,' is merely an idealised human ancestor. He falls naturally into\nhis place with the other high gods of low savages. But we need much more\ninformation on the subject than Mr. Im Thurn was able to give.\n\nHis evidence is all the better, because he is a loyal follower of Mr.\nTylor. And Mr. Tylor says: 'Savage Animism is almost devoid of that\nethical element which to the educated modern mind is the very mainspring\nof practical religion.'[31] 'Yet it keeps the Indians very strictly\nwithin their own rights and from offending the rights of others.' Our own\nreligion is rarely so successful.[32]\n\nIn the Indians of Guiana we have an alleged case of a people still deep in\nthe animistic or ghost-worshipping case, who, by the hypothesis, have not\nyet evolved the idea of a god at all.\n\nWhen the familiar names for God, such as Maker, Father, Ancient of Days,\noccur in the Indian language, Mr. Im Thurn explains the neglected Being\nwho bears these titles as a remote deified ancestor. Of course, when a\nBeing with similar titles occurs where ancestors are not worshipped, as in\nAustralia and the Andaman Islands, the explanation suggested by Mr. Im\nThurn for the problem of religion in Guiana, will not fit the facts.\n\nIt is plain that, _a priori_, another explanation is conceivable. If a\npeople like the Andamanese, or the Australian tribes whom we have studied,\nhad such a conception as that of Puluga, or Baiame, or Mungan-ngaur and\nthen, _later_, developed ancestor-worship with its propitiatory sacrifices\nand ceremonies, ancestor-worship, as the newest evolved and infinitely the\nmost practical form of cult, would gradually thrust the belief in a\nPuluga, or Mungan-ngaur, or Cagn into the shade. The ancestral spirit, to\nspeak quite plainly, can be 'squared' by the people in whom he takes a\nspecial interest for family reasons. The equal Father of all men cannot\nbe 'squared,' and declines (till corrupted by the bad example of ancestral\nghosts) to make himself useful to one man rather than to another. For\nthese very intelligible, simple, and practical reasons, if the belief in\na Mungan-ngaur came first in evolution, and the belief in a practicable\nbribable family ghost came second, the ghost-cult would inevitably crowd\nout the God-cult.[33] The name of the Father and Maker would become a\nmere survival, _nominis umbra_, worship and sacrifice going to the\nancestral ghost. That explanation would fit the state of religion which\nMr. Im Thurn has found, rightly or wrongly, in British Guiana.\n\nBut, if the idea of a universal Father and Maker came last in evolution,\nas a refinement, then, of course, it ought to be the newest, and therefore\nthe most fashionable and potent of Guianese cults. Precisely the reverse\nis said to be the case. Nor can the belief indicated in such names\nas Father and Maker be satisfactorily explained as a refinement of\nancestor-worship, because, we repeat, it occurs where ancestors are not\nworshipped.\n\nThese considerations, however unpleasant to the devotees of Animism, or\nthe ghost theory, are not, in themselves, illogical, nor contradictory of\nthe theory of evolution, which, on the other hand, fits them perfectly\nwell. That god thrives best who is most suited to his environment. Whether\nan easy-going, hungry ghost-god with a liking for his family, or a moral\nCreator not to be bribed, is better suited to an environment of not\nespecially scrupulous savages, any man can decide. Whether a set of not\nparticularly scrupulous savages will readily evolve a moral unbribable\nCreator, when they have a serviceable family ghost-god eager to oblige, is\na question as easily resolved.\n\nBeyond all doubt, savages who find themselves under the watchful eye of a\nmoral deity whom they cannot 'square' will desert him as soon as they have\nevolved a practicable ghost-god, useful for family purposes, whom they\n_can_ square. No less manifestly, savages, who already possess a throng of\nserviceable ghost-gods, will not enthusiastically evolve a moral Being who\ndespises gifts, and only cares for obedience. 'There is a great deal of\nhuman nature in man,' and, if Mr. Im Thurn's description of the Guianese\nbe correct, everything we know of human nature, and of evolution, assures\nus that the Father, or Maker, or Ancient of Days came first; the\nghost-gods, last. What has here been said about the Indians of Guiana\n(namely, that they are now more ghost and spirit worshippers, with only a\nname surviving to attest a knowledge of a Father and Maker in Heaven)\napplies equally well to the Zulus. The Zulus are the great standing type\nof an animistic or ghost-worshipping race without a God. But, had they a\nGod (on the Australian pattern) whom they have forgotten, or have they not\nyet evolved a God out of Animism?\n\nThe evidence, collected by Dr. Callaway, is honest, but confused. One\nnative, among others, put forward the very theory here proposed by us as\nan alternative to that of Mr. Im Thurn. 'Unkulunkulu' (the idealised but\ndespised First Ancestor) 'was not worshipped [by men]. For it is not\nworship when people see things, as rain, or food, or corn, and say,\n\"Yes, these things were made by Unkulunkulu.... Afterwards they [men]\nhad power to change those things, that they might become the Amatongos\"\n[might belong to the ancestral spirits]. _They took them away from\nUnkulunkulu_.'[34]\n\nAnimism supplanted Theism. Nothing could be more explicit. But, though we\nhave found an authentic Zulu text to suit our provisional theory, the most\neminent philosophical example must not reduce us into supposing that this\ntext settles the question. Dr. Callaway collected great masses of Zulu\nanswers to his inquiries, and it is plain that a respondent, like the\nnative theologian whom we have cited, may have adapted his reply to what\nhe had learned of Christian doctrine. Having now the Christian notion of a\nDivine Creator, and knowing, too, that the unworshipped Unkulunkulu is\nsaid to have 'made things,' while only ancestral spirits, are worshipped,\nthe native may have inferred that worship (by Christians given to the\nCreator) was at some time transferred by the Zulus from Unkulunkulu to the\nAmatongo. The truth is that both the anthropological theory (spirits\nfirst, Gods last), and our theory (Supreme Being first, spirits next) can\nfind warrant in Dr. Callaway's valuable collections. For that reason, the\nproblem must be solved after a survey of the whole field of savage and\nbarbaric religion; it cannot be settled by the ambiguous case of the\nZulus alone.\n\nUnkulunkulu is represented as 'the First Man, who broke off in the\nbeginning.' 'They are ancestor-worshippers,' says Dr. Callaway, 'and\nbelieve that their first ancestor, the First Man, was the Creator.'[35]\nBut they may, like many other peoples, have had a different original\ntradition, and have altered it, just because they are now such fervent\nancestor-worshippers. Unkulunkulu was prior to Death, which came among men\nin the usual mythical way.[36] Whether Unkulunkulu still exists, is\nrather a moot question: Dr. Callaway thinks that he does not.[37] If not,\nhe is an exception to the rule in Australia, Andaman, among the Bushmen,\nthe Fuegians, and savages in general, who are less advanced in culture\nthan the Zulus. The idea, then, of a Maker of things who has ceased to\nexist occurs, if at all, not in a relatively primitive, but in a\nrelatively late religion. On the analogy of pottery, agriculture, the use\nof iron, villages, hereditary kings, and so on, the notion of a dead Maker\nis late, not early. It occurs where men have iron, cattle, agriculture,\nkings, houses, a disciplined army, _not_ where men have none of these\nthings. The Zulu godless ancestor-worship, then, by parity of reasoning,\nis, like their material culture, not an early but a late development. The\nZulus 'hear of a King which is above'--'the heavenly King.'[38] 'We did\nnot hear of him first from white men.... But he is not like Unkulunkulu,\nwho, we say, made all things.'\n\nHere may be dimly descried the ideas of a God, and a subordinate demiurge.\n'The King is above, Unkulunkulu is beneath.' The King above punishes sin,\nstriking the sinner by lightning. Nor do the Zulus know how they have\nsinned. 'There remained only that word about the heaven,' 'which,' says\nDr. Callaway, 'implies that there might have been other words which are\nnow lost.' There is great confusion of thought. Unkulunkulu made the\nheaven, where the unknown King reigns, a hard task for a\nFirst Man.[39]\n\n'In process of time we have come to worship the Amadhlozi (spirits) only,\nbecause we know not what to say about Unkulunkulu.'[40] 'It is on that\naccount, then, that we seek out for ourselves the Amadhlozi (spirits),\nthat we may not always be thinking about Unkulunkulu.'\n\nAll this attests a faint lingering shadow of a belief too ethereal, too\nremote, for a practical conquering race, which prefers intelligible\nserviceable ghosts, with a special regard for their own families.\n\nUkoto, a very old Zulu, said: 'When we were children it was said \"The Lord\nis in heaven.\" ... They used to point to the Lord on high; we did not hear\nhis name.' Unkulunkulu was understood, by this patriarch, to refer to\nimmediate ancestors, whose mimes and genealogies he gave.[41] 'We heard it\nsaid that the Creator of the world was the Lord who is above; people used\nalways, when I was growing up, to point towards heaven.'\n\nA very old woman was most reluctant to speak of Unkulunkulu; at last she\nsaid, 'Ah, it is he in fact who is the Creator, who is in heaven, of whom\nthe ancients spoke.' Then the old woman began to babble humorously of how\nthe white men made all things. Again, Unkulunkulu is said to have been\ncreated by Utilexo. Utilexo was invisible, Unkulunkulu was visible, and so\ngot credit not really his due.[42] When the heaven is said to be the\nChief's (the chief being a living Zulu) 'they do not believe what they\nsay,' the phrase is a mere hyperbolical compliment.[43]\n\nOn this examination of the evidence, it certainly seems as logical to\nconjecture that the Zulus had once such an idea of a Supreme Being as\nlower races entertain, and then nearly lost it; as to say that Zulus,\nthough a monarchical race, have not yet developed a King-God out of the\nthrong of spirits (Amatongo). The Zulus, the Norsemen of the South, so to\nspeak, are a highly practical military race. A Deity at all abstract was\nnot to their liking. Serviceable family spirits, who continually provided\nan excuse for a dinner of roast beef, were to their liking. The less\ndeveloped races do not kill their flocks commonly for food. A sacrifice is\nneeded as a pretext. To the gods of Andamanese, Bushmen, Australians, no\nsacrifice is offered. To the Supreme Being of most African peoples no\nsacrifice is offered. There is no festivity in the worship of these\nSupreme Beings, no feasting, at all events. They are not to be 'got at' by\ngifts or sacrifices. The Amatongo are to be 'got at,' are bribable, supply\nan excuse for a good dinner, and thus the practical Amatongo are honoured,\nwhile, in the present generation of Zulus, Unkulunkulu is a joke, and the\nLord in Heaven is the shadow of a name. Clearly this does not point to the\nrecent but to the remote development of the higher ideas, now superseded\nby spirit-worship.\n\nWe shall next see how this view, the opposite of the anthropological\ntheory, works when applied to other races, especially to other African\nraces.\n\n[Footnote 1: When I wrote _Myth, Ritual, and Religion_ (ii. 11-13) I\nregarded Cagn as 'only a successful and idealised medicine man.' But I now\nthink that I confused in my mind the religious and the mythological\naspects of Cagn. One of unknown origin, existing before the sun, a Maker\nof all things, prayed to, but not in receipt of sacrifice, is no medicine\nman, except in his myth.]\n\n[Footnote 2: The omissions in Mr. Spencer's system may possibly be\nexplained by the circumstance that, as he tells us, he collected his\nfacts 'by proxy.' While we find Waitz much interested in and amazed by the\nbenevolent Supreme Being of many African tribes, that personage is only\nalluded to as 'Alleged Benevolent Supreme Being' in Mr. Spencer's\n_Descriptive Sociology_, and is usually left out of sight altogether in\nhis _Principles of Sociology_ and _Ecclesiastical Institutions_. Yet we\nhave precisely the same kind of evidence of observers for this 'alleged'\nbenevolent Supreme Being as we have for the _canaille_ of ghosts and\nfetishes. If he is a deity of a rather lofty moral conception, of course\nhe need not be propitiated by human sacrifices or cold chickens. _That_\nkind of material evidence to the faith in him must be absent by the\nnature of the case; but the coincident testimony of travellers to belief\nin a Supreme Being cannot be dismissed as 'alleged.']\n\n[Footnote 3: Pp. 676, 677.]\n\n[Footnote 4: Man, _J.A.I_. xii. 70.]\n\n[Footnote 5: Man, _J.A.I_. xii. 96-98.]\n\n[Footnote 6: xii. 156, 157.]\n\n[Footnote 7: xii. 112.]\n\n[Footnote 8: xii. 158.]\n\n[Footnote 9: xii. 158.]\n\n[Footnote 10: _Myth, Ritual, and Religion_, i. 281-288.]\n\n[Footnote 11: Lobeck, _Aglaophamus_, 133.]\n\n[Footnote 12: _J.A.I_. x. 263.]\n\n[Footnote 13: _J.A.I_. 267.]\n\n[Footnote 14: _J.A.I_. x. 267.]\n\n[Footnote 15: P. 281. This is a _nunuai_ with which I am familiar. Flying\nfish, in Banks Island, take the _r\u00f4le_ of salmon. The natives think it\nreal, but without form or substance.]\n\n[Footnote 16: Codrington, _Melanesia_, p. 122.]\n\n[Footnote 17: _J.A.I_. x. 294.]\n\n[Footnote 18: Op. cit. x. 313.]\n\n[Footnote 19: _J.A.I_. x. 300.]\n\n[Footnote 20: Williams's _Fiji_, p. 218. See Mr. Thomson's remarks cited\nlater.]\n\n[Footnote 21: _Fiji_, p. 217.]\n\n[Footnote 22: Ibid. p. 228.]\n\n[Footnote 23: Ibid. p. 230.]\n\n[Footnote 24: _J.A.I_. xiv. 30.]\n\n[Footnote 25: _J.A.I_. xi. 361-366.]\n\n[Footnote 26: Ibid. xi. 374.]\n\n[Footnote 27: Ibid. xi. 376.]\n\n[Footnote 28: Ibid. xi. 376]\n\n[Footnote 29: _J.A.I_. xi. 378.]\n\n[Footnote 30: Ibid. 382.]\n\n[Footnote 31: _Prim. Cult_. ii. 360.]\n\n[Footnote 32: Conceivably, however, the Guiana spirits who have so much\nmoral influence, exert it by magical charms. 'The belief in the power of\ncharms for good or evil produces not only honesty, but a great amount of\ngentle dealing,' says Livingstone, of the Africans. However they work, the\nspirits work for righteousness.]\n\n[Footnote 33: Obviously there could be no Family God before there was the\ninstitution of the Family.]\n\n[Footnote 34: Callaway, _Rel. of Amazulu_, p. 17.]\n\n[Footnote 35: Callaway, p. 1.]\n\n[Footnote 36: Op. cit. p. 8.]\n\n[Footnote 37: Op. cit. p. 7.]\n\n[Footnote 38: Op. cit. p. 19.]\n\n[Footnote 39: Callaway, pp. 20, 21.]\n\n[Footnote 40: Pp. 26, 27.]\n\n[Footnote 41: Pp. 49, 50.]\n\n[Footnote 42: P. 67.]\n\n[Footnote 43: P. 122.]\n\n\n\n\nXIII\n\nMORE SAVAGE SUPREME BEINGS\n\nIf many of the lowest savages known to us entertain ideas of a Supreme\nBeing such as we find among Fuegians, Australians, Bushmen, and\nAndamanese, are there examples, besides the Zulus, of tribes higher in\nmaterial culture who seem to have had such notions, but to have partly\nforgotten or neglected them? Miss Kingsley, a lively, observant, and\nunprejudiced, though rambling writer, gives this very account of the Bantu\nraces. Oblivion, or neglect, will show itself in leaving the Supreme Being\nalone, as he needs no propitiation, while devoting sacrifice and ritual to\nfetishes and ghosts. That this should be done is perfectly natural if the\nSupreme Being (who wants no sacrifice) were the first evolved in thought,\nwhile venal fetishes and spirits came in as a result of the ghost theory.\nBut if, as a result of the ghost theory, the Supreme Being came last in\nevolution, he ought to be the most fashionable object of worship, the\nlatest developed, the most powerful, and most to be propitiated. He is the\nreverse.\n\nTo take an example: the Dinkas of the Upper Nile ('godless,' says Sir\nSamuel Baker) 'pay a very theoretical kind of homage to the all-powerful\nBeing, dwelling in heaven, whence he sees all things. He is called\n\"Dendid\" (great rain, that is, universal benediction?).' He is omnipotent,\nbut, being all beneficence, can do no evil; so, not being feared, he is\nnot addressed in prayer. The evil spirit, on the other hand, receives\nsacrifices. The Dinkas have a strange old chant:\n\n  'At the beginning, when Dendid made all things,\n    He created the Sun,\n  And the Sun is born, and dies, and comes again!\n    He created the Stars,\n  And the Stars are born, and die, and come again!\n    He created Man,\n  And Man is born, and dies, and returns no more!'\n\nIt is like the lament of Moschus.[1]\n\nRussegger compares the Dinkas, and all the neighbouring peoples who hold\nthe same beliefs, to modern Deists.[2] They are remote from Atheism and\nfrom cult! Suggestions about an ancient Egyptian influence are made, but\npopular Egyptian religion was not monotheistic, and priestly thought could\nscarcely influence the ancestors of the Dinkas. M. Lejean says these\npeoples are so practical and utilitarian that missionary religion takes no\nhold on them. Mr. Spencer does not give the ideas of the Dinkas, but it is\nnot easy to see how the too beneficent Dendid could be evolved out of\nghost-propitiation, 'the origin of all religions.' Rather the Dinkas, a\npractical people, seem to have simply forgotten to be grateful to\ntheir Maker; or have decided, more to the credit of the clearness of their\nheads than the warmth of their hearts, that gratitude he does not want.\nLike the French philosopher they cultivate _l'ind\u00e9pendance du coeur_,\nbeing in this matter strikingly unlike the Pawnees.\n\nLet us now take a case in which ancestor-worship, and no other form of\nreligion (beyond mere superstitions), has been declared to be the practice\nof an African people. Mr. Spencer gives the example of natives of the\nsouth-eastern district of Central Africa described by Mr. Macdonald in\n'Africana.'[3] The dead man becomes a ghost-god, receives prayer and\nsacrifice, is called a Mulungu (= great ancestor or = sky?), is preferred\nabove older spirits, now forgotten; such old spirits may, however, have a\nmountain top for home, a great chief being better remembered; the\nmountain god is prayed to for rain; higher gods were probably similar\nlocal gods in an older habitat of the Yao.[4]\n\nSuch is in the main Mr. Spencer's _r\u00e9sum\u00e9_ of Mr. Duff Macdonald's report.\nHe omits whatever Mr. Macdonald says about a Being among the Yaos,\nanalogous to the Dendid of the Dinkas, or the Darumulun of Australia, or\nthe Huron Ahone. Yet analysis detects, in Mr. Macdonald's report,\ncopious traces of such a Being, though Mr. Macdonald himself believes in\nancestor-worship as the Source of the local religion. Thus, Mulungu,\nor Mlungu, used as a proper name, 'is said to be the great spirit,\n_msimu_, of all men, a spirit formed by adding all the departed spirits\ntogether.[5] This is a singular stretch of savage philosophy, and\nindicates (says Mr. Macdonald) 'a grasping after a Being who is the\ntotality of all individual existence.... If it fell from the lips of\ncivilised men instead of savages, it would be regarded as philosophy.\nExpressions of this kind among the natives are partly traditional, and\npartly dictated by the big thoughts of the moment.' Philosophy it is, but\na philosophy dependent on the ghost theory.\n\nI go on to show that the Wayao have, though Mr. Spencer omits him, a Being\nwho precisely answers to Darumulun, if stripped (perhaps) of his ethical\naspect. On this point we are left in uncertainty, just because Mr.\nMacdonald could not ascertain the secrets of his mysteries, which, in\nAustralia, have been revealed to a few Europeans.\n\nWhere Mulungu is used as a proper name, it 'certainly points to a personal\nBeing, by the Wayao sometimes said to be the same as Mtanga. At other\ntimes he is a Being that possesses many powerful servants, but is himself\nkept a good deal beyond the scene of earthly affairs, like the gods of\nEpicurus.'\n\nThis is, of course, precisely the feature in African theology which\ninterests us. The Supreme Being, in spite of the potency which his\nsupposed place as latest evolved out of the ghost-world should naturally\ngive him, is neglected, either as half forgotten, or for philosophical\nreasons. For these reasons Epicurus and Lucretius make their gods\n_otiosi_, unconcerned, and the Wayao, with their universal collective\nspirit, are no mean philosophers.\n\n'This Mulungu' or Mtanga, 'in the world beyond the grave, is represented\nas assigning to spirits their proper places,' whether for ethical reasons\nor not we are not informed.[6] Santos (1586) says 'they acknowledge a God\nwho, both in this world and the next, measures retribution for the good or\nevil done in this.'\n\n'In the native hypothesis about creation \"the people of Mulungu\" play a\nvery important part.' These ministers of his who do his pleasure are,\ntherefore, as is Mulungu himself, regarded as prior to the existing world.\nTherefore they cannot, in Wayao opinion, be ghosts of the dead at all; nor\ncan we properly call them 'spirits.' They are _beings_, original,\ncreative, but undefined. The word Mulungu, however, is now applied to\nspirits of individuals, but whether it means 'sky' (Salt) or whether it\nmeans 'ancestor' (Bleek), it cannot be made to prove that Mulungu himself\nwas originally envisaged as 'spirit.' For, manifestly, suppose that the\nidea of powerful beings, undefined, came first in evolution, and was\nfollowed by the ghost idea, that idea might then be applied to explaining\nthe pre-existent creative powers.\n\nMtanga is by 'some' localised as the god of Mangochi, an Olympus left\nbehind by the Yao in their wanderings. Here, some hold, his voice is still\naudible. 'Others say that Mtanga never was a man ... he was concerned in\nthe first introduction of men into the world. He gets credit for ...\nmaking mountains and rivers. He is intimately associated with a year of\nplenty. He is called Mchimwene juene, 'a very chief.' He has a kind of\nevil opposite, _Chitowe_, but this being, the Satan of the creed, 'is a\nchild or subject of Mtanga,' an evil angel, in fact.[7]\n\nThe thunder god, Mpambe, in Yao, Njasi (lightning) is also a minister of\nthe Supreme Being. 'He is sent by Mtanga with rain.' Europeans are\ncleverer than natives, because we 'stayed longer with the people of\nGod (Mulungu).'\n\nI do not gather that, though associated with good crops, Mtanga or\nMulungu receives any sacrifice or propitiation. 'The chief addresses\nhis own god;'[8] the chief 'will not trouble himself about his\ngreat-great-grand-father; he will present his offering to his own\nimmediate predecessor, saying, 'O father, I do not know all your\nrelatives; you know them all: invite them to feast with you.'[9]\n\n'All the offerings are supposed to point to some want of the spirit,'\nMtanga, on the other hand, is _nihil indiga nostri_.\n\nA village god is given beer to drink, as Indra got Soma. A dead chief is\npropitiated by human sacrifices. I find no trace of any gift to Mtanga.\nHis mysteries are really unknown to Mr. Macdonald: they were laughed at\nby a travelled and 'emancipated' Yao.[10]\n\n'These rites are supposed to be inviolably concealed by the initiated, who\noften say that they would die if they revealed them.'[11]\n\nHow can we pretend to understand a religion if we do not know its secret?\nThat secret, in Australia, yields the certainty of the ethical character\nof the Supreme Being. Mr. Macdonald says about the initiator (a grotesque\nfigure):--\n\n'He delivers lectures, and is said to give much good advice ... the\nlectures condemn selfishness, and a selfish person is called _mwisichana_,\nthat is, \"uninitiated.\"'\n\nThere could not be better evidence of the presence of the ethical element\nin the religious mysteries. Among the Yao, as among the Australian Kurnai,\nthe central secret lesson of religion is the lesson of unselfishness.\n\nIt is not stated that Mtanga instituted or presides over the mysteries.\nJudging from the analogy of Eleusis, the Bora, the Red Indian initiations,\nand so on, we may expect this to be the belief; but Mr. Macdonald knows\nvery little about the matter.\n\nThe legendary tales say 'all things in this world were made by \"God.\"'\n'At first there were not people, but \"God\" and beasts.' 'God' here,\nis Mlungu. The other statement is apparently derived from existing\nancestor-worship, people who died became 'God' (Mlungu). But God is prior\nto death, for the Yao have a form of the usual myth of the origin of\ndeath, also of sleep: 'death and sleep are one word, they are of one\nfamily.' God dwells on high, while a malevolent 'great one,' who disturbed\nthe mysteries and slew the initiated, was turned into a mountain.[12]\n\nIn spite of information confessedly defective, I have extracted from Mr.\nSpencer's chosen authority a mass of facts, pointing to a Yao belief in a\nprimal being, maker of mountains and rivers; existent before men were; not\nliable to death--which came late among them--beneficent; not propitiated\nby sacrifice (as far as the evidence goes); moral (if we may judge by the\nanalogy of the mysteries), and yet occupying the religious background,\nwhile the foreground is held by the most recent ghosts. To prove Mr.\nSpencer's theory, he ought to have given a full account of this being, and\nto have shown how he was developed out of ghosts which are forgotten in\ninverse ratio to their distance from the actual generation. I conceive\nthat Mr. Spencer would find a mid-point between a common ghost and Mtanga,\nin a ghost of a chief attached to a mountain, the place and place-name\npreserving the ghost's name and memory. But it is, I think, a far cry from\nsuch a chief's ghost to the pre-human, angel-served Mtanga.\n\nOf ancestor worship and ghost worship, we have abundant evidence. But the\nposition of Mtanga raises one of these delicate and crucial questions\nwhich cannot be solved by ignoring their existence. Is Mtanga evolved\nout of an ancestral ghost? If so, why, as greatest of divine beings, 'Very\nChief,' and having powerful ministers under him, is he left unpropitiated,\nunless it be by moral discourses at the mysteries? As a much more advanced\nidea than that of a real father's ghost, he ought to be much later in\nevolution, fresher in conception, and more adored. How do we explain his\nlack of adoration? Was he originally envisaged as a ghost at all, and, if\nso, by what curious but uniform freak of savage logic is he regarded as\nprior to men, and though a ghost, prior to death? Is it not certain that\nsuch a being could be conceived of by men who had never dreamed of ghosts?\nIs there any logical reason why Mtanga should not be regarded as\noriginally on the same footing as Munganngaur, but now half forgotten and\nneglected, for practical or philosophical reasons?\n\nOn these problems light is thrown by a successor of Mr. Spencer's\nauthority, Mr. Duff Macdonald, in the Blantyre Mission. This gentleman,\nthe Rev. David Clement Scott, has published 'A Cyclopaedic Dictionary\nof the Mang'anja Language in British Central Africa.'[13] Looking at\nancestral spirits first, we find _Mzimu_, 'spirits of the departed,\nsupposed to come in dreams.' Though abiding in the spirit world, they also\nhaunt thickets, they inspire Mlauli, prophets, and make them rave and\nutter predictions. Offerings are made to them. Here is a prayer: 'Watch\nover me, my ancestor, who died long ago; tell the great spirit at the head\nof my race from whom my mother came.' There are little hut-temples, and\nthe chief directs the sacrifices of food, or of animals. There are\nreligious pilgrimages, with sacrifice, to mountains. God, like men in this\nregion, has various names, as Chiuta, 'God in space and the rainbow sign\nacross;' Mpambe, 'God Almighty' (or rather 'pre-excellent'); Mlezi, 'God\nthe Sustainer,' and Mulungu, 'God who is spirit.' Mulungu = God, 'not\nspirits or fetish.' 'You can't put the plural, as God is One,' say the\nnatives. 'There are no idols called gods, and spirits are spirits of\npeople who have died, not gods.' Idols are _Zitunzi-zitunzi_. 'Spirits\nare supposed to be with Mulungu.' God made the world and man. Our author\nsays 'when the chief or people sacrifice it is to God,' but he also says\nthat they sacrifice to ancestral spirits. There is some confusion of\nideas here: Mr. Macdonald says nothing of sacrifice to Mtanga.\n\nMr. Scott does not seem to know more about the Mysteries than Mr.\nMacdonald, and his article on Mulungu does not much enlighten us. Does\nMulungu, as Creative God, receive sacrifice, or not?[14] Mr. Scott gives\nno instance of this, under _Nsembe_ (sacrifice), where ancestors, or\nhill-dwelling ghosts of chiefs, are offered food; yet, as we have seen,\nunder _Mulungu_, he avers that the chiefs and people do sacrifice to God.\nHe appears to be confusing the Creator with spirits, and no reliance can\nbe placed on this part of his evidence. 'At the back of all this'\n(sacrifice to spirits) 'there is God.' If I understand Mr. Scott,\nsacrifices are really made only to spirits, but he is trying to argue\nthat, after all, the theistic conception is at the back of the animistic\npractice, thus importing his theory into his facts. His theory would,\nreally, be in a better way, if sacrifice is _not_ offered to the Creator,\nbut this had not occurred to Mr. Scott.\n\nIt is plain, in any case, that the religion of the Africans in the\nBlantyre region has an element not easily to be derived from ancestral\nspirit-worship, an element not observed by Mr. Spencer.\n\nNobody who has followed the examples already adduced will be amazed by\nwhat Waitz calls the 'surprising result' of recent inquiries among the\ngreat negro race. Among the branches where foreign influence is least to\nbe suspected, we discover, behind their more conspicuous fetishisms and\nsuperstitions, something which we cannot exactly call Monotheism, yet\nwhich tends in that direction.[15] Waitz quotes Wilson for the fact that,\ntheir fetishism apart, they adore a Supreme Being as the Creator: and do\nnot honour him with sacrifice.\n\nThe remarks of Waitz may be cited in full:\n\n'The religion of the negro may be considered by some as a particularly\nrude form of polytheism and may be branded with the special name of\nfetishism. It would follow, from a minute examination of it, that--apart\nfrom the extravagant and fantastic traits, which are rooted in the\ncharacter of the negro, and which radiate therefrom over all his\ncreations--in comparison with the religions of other savages it is neither\nvery specially differentiated nor very specially crude in form.\n\n'But this opinion can be held to be quite true only while we look at the\n_outside_ of the negro's religion, or estimate its significance from\narbitrary pre-suppositions, as is specially the case with Ad. Wuttke.\n\n'By a deeper insight, which of late several scientific investigators have\nsucceeded in attaining, we reach, rather, the surprising conclusion that\nseveral of the negro races--on whom we cannot as yet prove, and can hardly\nconjecture, the influence of a more civilised people--in the embodying of\ntheir religious conceptions are further advanced than almost all other\nsavages, so far that, even if we do not call them monotheists, we may\nstill think of them as standing on the boundary of monotheism, seeing that\ntheir religion is also mixed with a great mass of rude superstition which,\nin turn, among other peoples, seems to overrun completely the purer\nreligious conceptions.'\n\nThis conclusion as to an element of pure faith in negro religion would not\nhave surprised Waitz, had recent evidence as to the same creed among lower\nsavages lain before him as he worked.\n\nThis volume of his book was composed in 1860. In 1872 he had become well\naware of the belief in a good Maker among the Australian natives, and of\nthe absence among them of ancestor worship.[16]\n\nWaitz's remarks on the Supreme Being of the Negro are well worth noting,\nfrom his unconcealed astonishment at the discovery.\n\nWilson's observations on North and South Guinea religion were published in\n1856. After commenting on the delicate task of finding out what a savage\nreligion really is, he writes: 'The belief in one great Supreme Being,\nwho made and upholds all things, is universal.'[17] The names of the being\nare translated 'Maker,' 'Preserver,' 'Benefactor,' 'Great Friend.' Though\ncompact of all good qualities, the being has allowed the world to 'come\nunder the control of evil spirits,' who, alone, receive religious worship.\nThough he leaves things uncontrolled, yet the chief being (as in Homer)\nratifies the Oath, at a treaty, and is invoked to punish criminals when\nordeal water is to be drunk. So far, then, he has an ethical influence.\n'Grossly wicked people' are buried outside of the regular place. Fetishism\nprevails, with spiritualism, and Wilson thinks that mediums might pick up\nsome good tricks in Guinea. He gives no examples. Their inspired men do\nthings 'that cannot be accounted for,' by the use of narcotics.\n\nThe South Guinea Creator, Anyambia (= good spirit?), is good, but\ncapricious. He has a good deputy, Ombwiri (spelled 'Mbuiri' by Miss\nKingsley); _he alone has no priests_, but communicates directly with men.\nThe neighbouring Shekuni have mysteries of the Great Spirit. No details\nare given. This great being, Mwetyi, witnesses covenants and punishes\nperjury. This people are ancestor-worshippers, but their Supreme Being is\nnot said to receive sacrifice, as ghosts do, while he is so far from\nbeing powerless, like Unkulunkulu, that, but for fear of his wrath,\n'their national treaties would have little or no force.'[18] Having no\ninformation about the mysteries, of course, we know nothing of other moral\ninfluences which are, or may be exercised by these great, powerful, and\nnot wholly otiose beings.\n\nThe celebrated traveller, Mungo Park, who visited Africa in 1805, had good\nopportunities of understanding the natives. He did not hurry through the\nland with a large armed force, but alone, or almost alone, paid his way\nwith his brass buttons. 'I have conversed with all ranks and conditions\nupon the subject of their faith,' he says, 'and can pronounce, without the\nsmallest shadow of doubt, that the belief in one God and in a future state\nof reward and punishment is entire and universal among them.' This cannot\nstrictly be called monotheism, as there are many subordinate spirits who\nmay be influenced by 'magical ceremonies.' But if monotheism means belief\nin One Spirit alone, or religious regard paid to One Spirit alone, it\nexists nowhere--no, not in Islam.\n\nPark thinks it remarkable that 'the Almighty' only receives prayers at the\nnew moon (of sacrifice to the Almighty he says nothing), and that, being\nthe creator and preserver of all things, he is 'of so exalted a nature\nthat it is idle to imagine the feeble supplications of wretched mortals\ncan reverse the decrees and change the purpose of unerring Wisdom.' The\nnew moon prayers are mere matters of tradition; 'our fathers did it before\nus.' 'Such is the blindness of unassisted nature,' says Park, who is not\nsatirising, in Swift's manner, the prayers of Presbyterians at home on\nYarrow.\n\nThus, the African Supreme Being is unpropitiated, while inferior spirits\nare constrained by magic or propitiated with food.\n\nWe meet our old problem: How has this God, in the conception of whom there\nis so much philosophy, developed out of these hungry ghosts? The influence\nof Islam can scarcely be suspected, Allah being addressed, of course, in\nendless prayers, while the African god receives none. Indeed, it would be\nmore plausible to say that Mahomet borrowed Allah from the widespread\nbelief which we are studying, than that the negro's Supreme Being was\nborrowed from Allah.\n\nPark had, as we saw, many opportunities of familiar discussion with the\npeople on whose mercies he threw himself.\n\n'But it is not often that the negroes make their religious opinions the\nsubject of conversation; when interrogated, in particular, concerning\ntheir ideas of a future state, they express themselves with great\nreverence, but endeavour to shorten the discussion by saying, _\"Mo o mo\ninta allo_\" (\"No man knows anything about it\").'[19]\n\nPark himself, in extreme distress, and almost in despair, chanced to\nobserve the delicate beauty of a small moss-plant, and, reflecting that\nthe Creator of so frail a thing could not be indifferent to any of His\ncreatures, plucked up courage and reached safety.[20] He was not of the\nnegro philosophy, and is the less likely to have invented it. The new moon\nprayer, said in a whisper, was reported to Park, 'by many different\npeople,' to contain 'thanks to God for his kindness during the existence\nof the past moon, and to solicit a continuation of his favour during the\nnew one.' This, of course, may prove Islamite influence, and is at\nvariance with the general tendency of the religious philosophy as\ndescribed.\n\nWe now arrive at a theory of the Supreme Being among a certain African\nrace which would be entirely fatal to my whole hypothesis on this topic,\nif it could be demonstrated correct in fact, and if it could be stretched\nso as to apply to the Australians, Fuegians, Andamanese, and other very\nbackward peoples. It is the hypothesis that the Supreme Being is a\n'loan-god,' borrowed from Europeans.\n\nThe theory is very lucidly set forth in Major Ellis's 'Tshi-speaking\nPeoples of the Gold Coast.'[21] Major Ellis's opinion coincides with that\nof Waitz in his 'Introduction to Anthropology' (an opinion to which Waitz\ndoes not seem bigoted)--namely, that 'the original form of all religion is\na raw, unsystematic polytheism,' nature being peopled by inimical powers\nor spirits, and everyone worshipping what he thinks most dangerous or\nmost serviceable. There are few general, many local or personal, objects\nof veneration.[22] Major Ellis only met this passage when he had formed\nhis own ideas by observation of the Tshi race. We do not pretend to\nguess what 'the original form of all religion' may have been; but we have\ngiven, and shall give, abundant evidence for the existence of a loftier\nfaith than this, among peoples much lower in material culture than the\nTshi races, who have metals and an organised priesthood. They occupy, in\nsmall villages (except Coomassie and Djuabin), the forests of the Gold\nCoast. The mere mention of Coomassie shows how vastly superior in\ncivilisation the Tshis (Ashantis and Fantis) are to the naked, houseless\nAustralians. Their inland communities, however, are 'mere specks in a vast\ntract of impenetrable forest.' The coast people have for centuries been in\ntouch with Europeans, but the 'Tshi-speaking races are now much in the\nsame condition, both socially and morally, as they were at the time of the\nPortuguese discovery.'[23]\n\nNevertheless, Major Ellis explains their Supreme Being as the result of\nEuropean influence! _A priori_ this appears highly improbable. That a\nbelief should sweep over all these specks in impenetrable forest, from\nthe coast-tribes in contact with Europeans, and that this belief should,\nthough the most recent, be infinitely the least powerful, cannot be\nregarded as a plausible hypothesis. Moreover, on Major Ellis's theory the\nSupreme Beings of races which but recently came for the first time in\ncontact with Europeans, Supreme Beings kept jealously apart from European\nken, and revered in the secrecy of ancient mysteries, must also, by\nparity of reason, be the result of European influence. Unfortunately,\nMajor Ellis gives no evidence for his statements about the past history of\nTshi religion. Authorities he must have, and references would be welcome.\n\n'With people in the condition in which the natives of the Gold Coast now\nare, religion is not in any way allied with moral ideas.'[24] We have given\nabundant evidence that among much more backward tribes morals rest on a\nreligious sanction. If this be not so on the Gold Coast we cannot accept\nthese relatively advanced Fantis and Ashantis as representing the\n'original' state of ethics and religion, any more than those people with\ncities, a king, a priesthood, iron, and gold, represent the 'original'\nmaterial condition of society. Major Ellis also shows that the Gods exact\nchastity from aspirants to the priesthood.[25] The present beliefs\nof the Gold Coast are kept up by organised priesthoods as 'lucrative\nbusiness.'[26] Where there is no lucre and no priesthood, as among more\nbackward races, this kind of business cannot be done. On the Gold Coast\nmen can only approach gods through priests.[27] This is degeneration.\n\nObviously, if religion began in a form relatively pure and moral, it\n_must_ degenerate, as civilisation advances, under priests who 'exploit'\nthe lucrative, and can see no money in the pure elements of belief and\npractice. That the lucrative elements in Christianity were exploited by\nthe clergy, to the neglect of ethics, was precisely the complaint of the\nReformers. From these lucrative elements the creed of the Apostles was\nfree, and a similar freedom marks the religion of Australia or of the\nPawnees. We cannot possibly, then, expect to find the 'original' state\nof religion among a people subdued to a money-grubbing priesthood, like\nthe Tshi races. Let religion begin as pure as snow, it would be corrupted\nby priestly trafficking in its lucrative animistic aspect. And priests are\ndeveloped relatively late.\n\nMajor Ellis discriminates Tshi gods as--\n\n  1. General, worshipped by an entire tribe or more tribes.\n  2. Local deities of river, hill, forest, or sea.\n  3. Deities of families or corporations.\n  4. Tutelary deities of individuals.\n\nThe second class, according to the natives, were appointed by the first\nclass, who are 'too distant or indifferent to interfere ordinarily in\nhuman affairs.' Thus, the Huron god, Ahone, punishes nobody. He is all\nsweetness and light, but has a deputy god, called Okeus. On our hypothesis\nthis indifference of high gods suggests the crowding out of the great\ndisinterested God by venal animistic competition. All of class II. 'appear\nto have been originally malignant.' Though, in native belief, class I.\nwas prior to, and 'appointed' class II., Major Ellis thinks that malignant\nspirits of class II. were raised to class I. as if to the peerage, while\nclasses III. and IV. 'are clearly the product of priesthood'--therefore\nlate.\n\nMajor Ellis then avers that when Europeans reached the Gold Coast, in the\nfifteenth century, they 'appear to have found' a Northern God, Tando, and\na Southern God, Bobowissi, still adored. Bobowissi makes thunder and rain,\nlives on a hill, and receives, or received, human sacrifices. But, 'after\nan intercourse of some years with Europeans,' the villagers near European\nforts 'added to their system a new deity, whom they termed Nana Nyankupon.\nThis was the God of the Christians, borrowed from them, and adapted under\na new designation, meaning 'Lord of the sky.' (This is conjectural.\n_Nyankum_ = rain. _Nyansa_ has 'a later meaning, \"craft.\"')[28]\n\nNow Major Ellis, later, has to contrast Bosman's account of fetishism\n(1700) with his own observations. According to Bosman's native source of\ninformation, men then selected their own fetishes. These are _now_\nselected by priests. Bosman's authority was wrong--or priesthood has\nextended its field of business. Major Ellis argues that the revolution\nfrom amateur to priestly selection of fetishes could not occur in\n190 years, 'over a vast tract of country, amongst peoples living in\nsemi-isolated communities, in the midst of pathless forests, where there\nis but little opportunity for the exchange of ideas, _and where we know\nthey have been uninfluenced by any higher race_.'\n\nYet Major Ellis's theory is that this isolated people _were_ influenced\nby a higher race, to the extent of adopting a totally new Supreme Being,\nfrom Europeans, a being whom they in no way sought to propitiate, and who\nwas of no practical use. And this they did, he says, not under priestly\ninfluence, but in the face of priestly opposition.[29]\n\nMajor Ellis's logic does not appear to be consistent. In any case we ask\nfor evidence how, in the 'impenetrable forests' did a new Supreme Deity\nbecome universally known? Are we certain that travellers (unquoted) did\nnot discover a deity with no priests, or ritual, or 'money in the\nconcern,' later than they discovered the blood-stained, conspicuous,\nlucrative Bobowissi? Why was Nyankupon, the supposed new god of a new\npowerful set of strangers, left wholly unpropitiated? The reverse was to\nbe expected.\n\nMajor Ellis writes: 'Almost certainly the addition of one more to an\nalready numerous family' of gods, 'was strenuously resisted by the\npriesthood,' who, confessedly, are adding now lower gods every day! Yet\nNyankupon is universally known, in spite of priestly resistance.\nNyankupon, I presume = Anzambi, Anyambi, Nyambi, Nzambi, Anzam, Nyam, the\nNzam of the Fans, 'and of all Bantu coast races, the creator of man,\nplants, animals, and the earth; he takes no further interest in the\naffair.'[30] The crowd of _spirits_ take only too much interest; and,\ntherefore, are the lucrative element in religion.\n\nIt is not very easy to believe that Nyam, under all his names, was picked\nup from the Portuguese, and passed apparently from negroes to Bantu all\nover West Africa, despite the isolation of the groups, and the resistance\nof the priesthood among tribes 'uninfluenced by any higher race.'\n\nNyam, like Major Ellis's class I., appoints a subordinate god to do his\nwork: he is truly good, and governs the malevolent spirits.[31]\n\nThe spread of Nyankupon, as described by Major Ellis, is the more\nremarkable, since 'five or six miles from the sea, or even less, the\ncountry was a _terra incognita_ to Europeans,'[32] Nyankupon was, it is\nalleged, adopted, because our superiority proved Europeans to be\n'protected by a deity of greater power than any of those to which they\nthemselves' (the Tshi races) 'offered sacrifices.'\n\nThen, of course, Nyankupon would receive the best sacrifices of all, as\nthe most powerful deity? Far from that, Nyankupon received no sacrifice,\nand had no priests. No priest would have a traditional way of serving him.\nAs the unlucky man in Voltaire says to his guardian angel, 'It is well\nworth while to have a presiding genius,' so the Tshis and Bantu might\nironically remark, 'A useful thing, a new Supreme Being!' A quarter of a\ncontinent or so adopts a new foreign god, and leaves him _plant\u00e9 l\u00e0_;\nunserved, unhonoured, and unsung. He therefore came to be thought too\nremote, or too indifferent, 'to interfere directly in the affairs of the\nworld.' 'This idea was probably caused by the fact that the natives had\nnot experienced any material improvement in their condition ... although\nthey also had become followers of the god of the whites.'[33]\n\nBut that was just what they had not done! Even at Magellan's Straits, the\nFuegians picked up from a casual Spanish sea-captain and adored an image\nof Cristo. Name and effigy they accepted. The Tshi people took neither\neffigy nor name of a deity from the Portuguese settled among them. They\nneither imitated Catholic rites nor adapted their own; they prayed not,\nnor sacrificed to the 'new' Nyankupon. Only his name and the idea of his\nnature are universally diffused in West African belief. He lives in no\ndefinite home, or hill, but 'in Nyankupon's country.' Nyankupon, at the\npresent day, is 'ignored rather than worshipped,' while Bobowissi has\npriests and offerings.\n\nIt is clear that Major Ellis is endeavouring to explain, by a singular\nsolution (namely, the borrowing of a God from Europeans), and that\na solution improbable and inadequate, a phenomenon of very wide\ndistribution. Nyankupon cannot be explained apart from Taaroa, Puluga,\nAhone, Ndengei, Dendid, and Ta-li-y-Tochoo, Gods to be later described,\nwho cannot, by any stretch of probabilities, be regarded as of European\norigin. All of these represent the primeval Supreme Being, more or less\nor altogether stripped, under advancing conditions of culture, of his\nethical influence, and crowded out by the horde of useful greedy ghosts or\nghost gods, whose business is lucrative. Nyankupon has no pretensions to\nbe, or to have been a 'spirit.'[34]\n\nMajor Ellis's theory is a natural result of his belief in a tangle of\npolytheism as 'the original state of religion.' If so, there was not much\nroom for the natural development of Nyankupon, in whom 'the missionaries\nfind a parallel to the Jahveh of the Jews.'[35] On our theory Nyankupon\ntakes his place in the regular process of the corruption of theism by\nanimism.\n\nThe parallel case of Nzambi Mpungu, the Creator among the Fiorts (a Bantu\nstock), is thus stated by Miss Kingsley:\n\n'I have no hesitation in saying I fully believe Nzambi Mpungu to be a\npurely native god, and that he is a great god over all things, but the\nstudy of him is even more difficult than the study of Nzambi, because the\nJesuit missionaries who gained so great an influence over the Fiorts in\nthe sixteenth century identified him with Jehovah, and worked on the\nnative mind from that stand-point. Consequently semi-mythical traces\nof Jesuit teaching linger, even now, in the religious ideas of the\nFiorts.'[36]\n\nNzambi Mpungu lives 'behind the firmament.' 'He takes next to no interest\nin human affairs;' which is not a Jesuit idea of God.\n\nIn all missionary accounts of savage religion, we have to guard against\ntwo kinds of bias. One is the bias which makes the observer deny any\nreligion to the native race, except devil-worship. The other is the bias\nwhich lends him to look for traces of a pure primitive religious\ntradition. Yet we cannot but observe this reciprocal phenomenon:\nmissionaries often find a native name and idea which answer so nearly to\ntheir conception of God that they adopt the idea and the name, in\nteaching. Again, on the other side, the savages, when first they hear the\nmissionaries' account of God, recognise it, as do the Hurons and Bakwain,\nfor what has always been familiar to them. This is recorded in very early\npre-missionary travels, as in the book of William Strachey on Virginia\n(1612), to which we now turn. The God found by Strachey in Virginia\ncannot, by any latitude of conjecture, be regarded as the result of\ncontact with Europeans. Yet he almost exactly answers to the African\nNyankupon, who is explained away as a 'loan-god.' For the belief in\nrelatively pure creative beings, whether they are morally adored, without\nsacrifice, or merely neglected, is so widely diffused, that Anthropology\nmust ignore them, or account for them as 'loan-gods'--or give up her\ntheory!\n\n[Footnote 1: Lejean, _Rev. des Deux Mondes_, April 1862, p. 760. Citing\nfor the chant, Beltrame, _Dictionario della lingua denka_, MS.]\n\n[Footnote 2: Waitz, ii. 74.]\n\n[Footnote 3: 1882.]\n\n[Footnote 4: _Ecclesiastical Institutions_, 681.]\n\n[Footnote 5: _Africana_, i. 66.]\n\n[Footnote 6: _Africana_, i. 67.]\n\n[Footnote 7: _Africana_, i. 71, 72_]\n\n[Footnote 8: i 88.]\n\n[Footnote 9: i. 68.]\n\n[Footnote 10: i. 130.]\n\n[Footnote 11: Ibid.]\n\n[Footnote 12: _Africana_, i 279-301.]\n\n[Footnote 13: Edinburgh, 1892.]\n\n[Footnote 14: Incidentally Mr. Macdonald shows that, contrary to Mr.\nSpencer's opinion, these savages have words for dreams and dreaming. They\ninterpret dreams by a system of symbols, 'a canoe is ill luck,' and 'dreams\ngo by contraries.']\n\n[Footnote 15: Waitz, _Anthropologie_, ii. 167.]\n\n[Footnote 16: Waitz and Gerland, _Anthropologie_, vi. 796-799 and 809. In\n1874 Mr. Howitt's evidence on the moral element in the mysteries was not\npublished. Waitz scouts the idea that the higher Australian beliefs are of\nEuropean origin. 'Wir schen vielmehr uralte Tr\u00fcmmer \u00e4hnlicher Mythologenie\nin ihnen,' (vi. 798) flotsam from ideas of immemorial antiquity.]\n\n[Footnote 17: Wilson, p. 209.]\n\n[Footnote 18: Wilson, p. 392.]\n\n[Footnote 19: Park's _Journey_, i. 274, 275, 1815.]\n\n[Footnote 20: P. 245.]\n\n[Footnote 21: London, 1887.]\n\n[Footnote 22: Ellis, pp. 20, 21.]\n\n[Footnote 23: P. 4.]\n\n[Footnote 24: Ellis, p. 10.]\n\n[Footnote 25: P. 120.]\n\n[Footnote 26: P. 15.]\n\n[Footnote 27: P. 125.]\n\n[Footnote 28: Ellis, pp. 24, 25.]\n\n[Footnote 29: Ellis, p. 189.]\n\n[Footnote 30: Miss Kingsley, p. 442.]\n\n[Footnote 31: Ellis, p. 229.]\n\n[Footnote 32: Ibid. p. 25.]\n\n[Footnote 33: Op. cit. p. 27.]\n\n[Footnote 34: Ellis, p. 29.]\n\n[Footnote 35: Op. cit. p. 28.]\n\n[Footnote 36: 'African Religion and Law,' _National Review_, September\n1897, p. 132.]\n\n\n\n\nXIV\n\nAHONE. TI-RA-W\u00c1. N\u00c0-PI. PACHACAMAC. TUI LAGA. TAA-ROA\n\nIn this chapter it is my object to set certain American Creators beside\nthe African beings whom we have been examining. We shall range from Hurons\nto Pawnees and Blackfeet, and end with Pachacamac, the supreme being of\nthe old Inca civilisation, with Tui Laga and Taa-roa. It will be seen that\nthe Hurons have been accidentally deprived of their benevolent Creator by\na bibliographical accident, while that Creator corresponds very well\nwith the Peruvian Pachucamac, often regarded as a mere philosophical\nabstraction. The Pawnees will show us a Creator involved in a sacrificial\nritual, which is not common, while the Blackfeet present a Creator who is\nnot envisaged as a spirit at all, and, on our theory, represents a very\nearly stage of the theistic conception.\n\nTo continue the argument from analogy against Major Ellis's theory of the\nEuropean origin of Nyankupon, it seems desirable first to produce a\nparallel to his case, and to that of his blood-stained subordinate\ndeity, Bobowissi, from a quarter where European influence is absolutely\nout of the question. Virginia was first permanently colonised by\nEnglishmen in 1607, and the 'Historie of Travaile into Virginia,' by\nWilliam Strachey, Gent., first Secretary of the Colony, dates from the\nearliest years (1612-1616). It will hardly be suggested, then, that the\nnatives had already adopted _our_ Supreme Being, especially as Strachey\nsays that the native priests strenuously opposed the Christian God.\nStrachey found a house-inhabiting, agricultural, and settled population,\nunder chiefs, one of whom, Powhattan, was a kind of Bretwalda. The temples\ncontained the dried bodies of the _weroances_, or aristocracy, beside\nwhich was their Okeus, or Oki, an image 'ill favouredly carved,' all\nblack dressed, 'who doth them all the harm they suffer. He is propitiated\nby sacrifices of their own children' (probably an error) 'and of\nstrangers.'\n\nMr. Tylor quotes a description of this Oki, or Okeus, with his idol and\nbloody rites, from Smith's 'History of Virginia' (1632)[1]. The two books,\nStrachey's and Smith's, are here slightly varying copies of one original.\nBut, after censuring Smith's (and Strachey's) hasty theory that Okeus is\n'no other than a devil,' Mr. Tylor did not find in Smith what follows in\nStrachey. Okeus has human sacrifices, like Bobowissi, 'whilst the great\nGod (the priests tell them) who governes all the world, and makes\nthe son to shine, creatyng the moone and starrs his companyons ... they\ncalling (_sic_) Ahone. The good and peaceable God requires no such dutyes,\nnor needs to be sacrificed unto, for he intendeth all good unto them,'\nOkeus, on the contrary, 'looking into all men's accions, and examining the\nsame according to the severe scheme of justice, punisheth them.... Such is\nthe misery and thraldome under which Sathan hath bound these wretched\nmiscreants.'\n\nAs if, in Mr. Strachey's own creed, Satan does not punish, in hell, the\noffences of men against God!\n\nHere, then, in addition to a devil (or rather a divine police magistrate),\nand general fetishism and nature worship, we find that the untutored\nVirginian is equipped with a merciful Creator, without idol, temple, or\nsacrifice, as needing nought of ours. It is by the merest accident, the\nuse of Smith's book (1632) instead of Strachey's book (1612), that Mr.\nTylor is unaware of these essential facts[2].\n\nDr. Brinton, like Mr. Tylor, cites Smith for the nefarious or severe\nOkeus, and omits any mention of Ahone, the benevolent Creator.[3]\nNow, Strachey's evidence is early (1612), is that of a well-educated\nman, fond of airing his Greek, and not prejudiced in favour of these\nworshippers of 'Sathan.' In Virginia he found the unpropitiated loving\nSupreme Being, beside a subordinate, like Nyankupon beside Bobowissi in\nAfrica.\n\nEach highest deity, in Virginia or on the Gold Coast, is more or less\neclipsed in popular esteem by nascent polytheism and nature worship. This\nis precisely what we should expect to find, if Ahone, the Creator, were\nearlier in evolution, while Okeus and the rest were of the usual greedy\nclass of animistic corruptible deities, useful to priests. This could not\nbe understood while Ahone was left out of the statement.[4]\n\nProbably Mr. Strachey's narrative justifies, by analogy, our suspicion of\nMajor Ellis's theory that the African Supreme Being is of European origin.\nThe purpose in the Ahone-Okeus creed is clear. God (Ahone) is omnipotent\nand good, yet calamities beset mankind. How are these to be explained?\nClearly as penalties for men's sins, inflicted, not by Ahone, but by his\nlieutenant, Okeus. But that magistrate can be, and is, appeased by\nsacrifices, which it would be impious, or, at all events, useless, to\noffer to the Supreme Being, Ahone. It is a logical creed, but how was the\nSupreme Being evolved out of the ghost of a 'people-devouring king' like\nPowhattan? The facts, very fairly attested, do not fit the anthropological\ntheory. It is to be remarked that Strachey's Ahone is a much less\nmythological conception than that which, on very good evidence, he\nattributes to the Indians of the Patowemeck River. Their Creator is spoken\nof as 'a godly Hare,' who receives their souls into Paradise, whence they\nare reborn on earth again, as in Plato's myth. They also regard the four\nwinds as four Gods. How the god took the mythological form of a hare is\ndiversely explained.[5]\n\nMeanwhile the Ahone-Okeus creed corresponds to the Nyankupon-Bobowissi\ncreed. The American faith is certainly not borrowed from Europe, so it is\nless likely that the African creed is borrowed.\n\nAs illustrations of the general theory here presented, we may now take two\ntribal religions among the North American Indians. The first is that of\nthe equestrian Pawnees, who, thirty years ago, were dwelling on the Loup\nFork in Nebraska. The buffaloes have since been destroyed, the lands\nseized, and the Pawnees driven into a 'Reservation,' where they are, or\nlately were, cheated and oppressed in the usual way. They were originally\nknown to Europeans in four hordes, the fourth being the Skidi or Wolf\nPawnees. They seem to have come into Kansas and Nebraska, at a date\nrelatively remote, from Mexico, and are allied with the Lipans and\nTonkaways of that region. The Tonkaways are a tribe who, in a sacred\nmystery, are admonished to 'live like the wolves,' in exactly the same way\nas were the Hirpi (wolf tribe), of Mount Soracte, who practised the feat\nof walking unhurt through fire.[6] The Tonkaways regard the Pawnees, who\nalso have a wolf tribe, as a long-separated branch of their race. If,\nthen, they are of Mexican origin, we might expect to find traces of Aztec\nritual among the Pawnees.\n\nLong after they obtained better weapons they used flint-headed arrows for\nslaying the only two beasts which it was lawful to sacrifice, the deer and\nthe buffalo. They have long been a hunting and also an agricultural\npeople. The corn was given to them originally by the Ruler: their god,\n_Ti-ra-w\u00e1_, 'the Spirit Father.' They offer the sacrifice of a deer with\npeculiar solemnity, and are a very prayerful people. The priest 'held a\nrelation to the Pawnees and their deity not unlike that occupied by Moses\nto Jehovah and the Israelites.' A feature in ritual is the sacred bundles\nof unknown contents, brought from the original home in Mexico. The Pawnees\nwere created by Ti-ra-w\u00e1. They believe in a happy future life, while the\nwicked die, and there is an end of them. They cite their dreams of the\ndead as an argument for a life beyond the tomb. 'We see ourselves living\nwith Ti-ra-w\u00e1!' An evil earlier race, which knew not Ti-ra-w\u00e1, was\ndestroyed by him in the Deluge; evidence is found in large fossil bones,\nand it would be an interesting inquiry whether such fossils are always\nfound where the story of a 'sin-flood' occurs. If so, fossils must be\nuniversally diffused.\n\nAs is common, the future life is attested, not only by dreams, but in the\nexperience of men who 'have died' and come back to life, like Secret Pipe\nChief, who told the story to Mr. Grinnell. These visions in a state of\napparent death are not peculiar to savages, and, no doubt, have had much\neffect on beliefs about the next world.[7] Ghosts are rarely seen, but\nauditory hallucinations, as of a voice giving good advice in time of\nperil, are regarded as the speech of ghosts. The beasts are also friendly,\nas fellow children with men of Ti-ra-w\u00e1. To the Morning Star the Skidi or\nWolf Pawnees offered on rare occasions a captive man. The ceremony was not\nunlike that of the Aztecs, though less cruel. Curiously enough, the slayer\nof the captive had instantly to make a mock flight, as in the Attic\n_Bouphonia_. This, however, was a rite paid to the Morning Star, not to\nTi-ra-w\u00e1, 'the power above that moves the universe and controls all\nthings.' Sacrifice to Ti-ra-w\u00e1 was made on rare and solemn occasions out\nof his two chief gifts, deer and buffalo. 'Through corn, deer, buffalo,\nand the sacred bundles, we worship _Ti-ra-w\u00e1_.'\n\nThe flesh was burned in the fire, while prayers were made with great\nearnestness. In the old Skidi rite the women told the fattened captive\nwhat they desired to gain from the Ruler. It is occasionally said that\nthe human sacrifice was made to _Ti-ra-w\u00e1_ himself. The sacrificer not\nonly fled, but fasted and mourned. It is possible that, as among the\nAztecs, the victim was regarded as also an embodiment of the God, but this\nis not certain, the rite having long been disused. Mr. Grinnell got the\ndescription from a very old Skidi. There was also a festival of thanks to\nTi-ra-w\u00e1 for corn. During a sacred dance and hymn the corn is held up to\nthe Ruler by a woman. Corn is ritually called 'The Mother,' as in Peru.[8]\n'We are like seed, and we worship through the Corn.'\n\nDisease is caused by evil spirits, and many American soldiers were healed\nby Pawnee doctors, though their hurts had refused to yield to the\ntreatment of the United States Army Surgeons.[9]\n\nThe miracles wrought by Pawnee medicine men, under the eyes of Major\nNorth, far surpass what is told of Indian jugglery. But this was forty\nyears ago, and it is probably too late to learn anything of these\nastounding performances of naked men on the hard floor of a lodge.\n'Major North told me' (Mr. Grinnell) 'that he saw with his own eyes the\ndoctors make the corn grow,' the doctor not manipulating the plant, as in\nthe Mango trick, but standing apart and singing. Mr. Grinnell says: 'I\nhave never found any one who could even suggest an explanation.'\n\nThis art places great power in the hands of the doctors, who exhibit many\nother prodigies. It is notable that in this religion we hear nothing of\nancestor-worship; all that is stated as to ghosts has been reported. We\nfind the cult of an all-powerful being, in whose ritual sacrifice is the\nonly feature that suggests ghost-worship. The popular tales and historical\nreminiscences of the last generation entirely bear out by their allusions\nMr. Grinnell's account of the Pawnee faith, in which the ethical element\nchiefly consists in a sense of dependence on and touching gratitude to\nTi-ra-w\u00e1, as shown in fervent prayer. Theft he abhors, he applauds valour,\nhe punishes the wicked by annihilation, the good dwell with him in his\nheavenly home. He is addressed as A-ti-us ta-kaw-a, 'Our father in all\nplaces.'\n\nIt is not so easy to see how this Being was developed out of\nancestor-worship, of which we find no traces among Pawnees. For\nancestor-worship among the Sioux, it is usual to quote a remark of one\nPrescott, an interpreter: 'Sometimes an Indian will say, \"Wah negh on she\nwan da,\" which means, \"Spirits of the dead have mercy on me.\" Then they\nwill add what they want. That is about the amount of an Indian's\nprayer.'[10] Obviously, when we compare Mr. Grinnell's account of Pawnee\nreligion, based on his own observations, and those of Major North, and\nMr. Dunbar, who has written on the language of the tribe, we are on much\nsafer ground, than when we follow a contemptuous, half-educated European.\n\nThe religion of the Blackfoot Indians appears to be a ruder form of the\nPawnee faith. Whether the differences arise from tribal character, or from\ndecadence, or because the Blackfoot belief is in an earlier and more\nbackward condition than that of the Pawnees, it is not easy to be certain.\nAs in China, there exists a difficulty in deciding whether the Supreme\nBeing is identical with the great nature-god; in China the Heaven, among\nthe Blackfeet the Sun; or is prior to him in conception, or has been,\nlater, substituted for him, or placed beside him. The Blackfoot mythology\nis low, crude, and, except in tales of Creation, is derisive. As in\nAustralia, there is a specific difference of tone between mythology and\nreligion.\n\nThe Blackfoot country runs east from the summit of the Rocky Mountains, to\nthe mouth of the Yellowstone river on the Missouri, then west to the\nYellowstone sources, across the Rocky Mountains to the Beaverhead, thence\nto their summit.\n\nAs to spirits, the Blackfeet believe in, or at least tell stories of,\nghosts, which conduct themselves much as in our old-fashioned ghost\nstories. They haunt people in a rather sportive and irresponsible way. The\nsouls or shadows of respectable persons go to the bleak country called the\nSand Hills, where they live in a dull, monotonous kind of Sheol. The\nshades of the wicked are 'earth-bound' and mischievous, especially ghosts\nof men slain in battle. They cause paralysis and madness, but dread\ninteriors of lodges; they only 'tap on the lodge-skins.' Like many Indian\ntribes, the Blackfeet have the Eurydice legend. A man grieving for his\ndead wife finds his way to Hades, is pitied by the dead, and allowed to\ncarry the woman back with him, under certain ritual prohibitions, one of\nwhich he unhappily infringes. The range of this deeply touching story\namong the Red Men, and its close resemblance to the tale of Orpheus, is\none of the most curious facts in mythology. Mr. Grinnell's friend Young\nBear, when lost with his wife in a fog, heard a Voice, 'It is well. Go on,\nyou are going right.' 'The top of my head seemed to lift up. It seemed as\nif a lot of needles were running into it.... This must have been a ghost.'\nAs the wife also heard the Voice it was probably human, not hallucinatory.\n\nAnimals receive the usual amount of friendly respect from the Blackfeet.\nThey have also an inchoate polytheism, 'Above Persons, Ground Persons, and\nUnder Water Persons.' Of the first, Thunder is most important, and is\nworshipped. There is the Cold Maker, a white figure on a white horse, the\nWind, and so on.\n\nThe Creator is N\u00e0-pi, Old Man; Dr. Brinton thinks he is a personification\nof Light, but Mr. Grinnell reckons it absurd to attribute so abstract a\nconception to the Blackfeet. N\u00e0-pi is simply a primal Being, an Immortal\nMan,[11] who was before Death came into the world, concerning which one of\nthe usual tales of the Origin of Death is told. 'All things that he had\nmade understood him when he spoke to them--birds, animals, and people,' as\nin the first chapters of Genesis. With N\u00e0-pi, Creation worked on the lines\nof adaptation to environment. He put the bighorn on the prairie. There it\nwas awkward, so he set it on rocky places, where it skipped about with\nease. The antelope fell on the rocks, so he removed it to the level\nprairie. N\u00e0-pi created man and woman, out of clay, but the folly of the\nwoman introduced Death. N\u00e0-pi, as a Prometheus, gave fire, and taught the\nforest arts. He inculcated the duty of prayer; his will should be done by\nemissaries in the shape of animals. Then he went to other peoples. The\nmisfortunes of the Indians arise from disobedience to his laws.\n\nChiefs were elective, for conduct, courage, and charity.\n\nThough weapons and utensils were buried with the dead, or exposed on\nplatforms, and though great men were left to sleep in their lodges,\nhenceforth never to be entered by the living, there is no trace known to\nme of continued ancestor-worship. As many Blackfeet change their names\nyearly, ancestral names are not likely to become those of gods.\n\nThe Sun is by many believed to have taken the previous place of N\u00e0-pi in\nreligion; or perhaps N\u00e0-pi _is_ the Sun. However, he is still separately\naddressed in prayer. The Sun receives presents of furs and so forth; a\nfinger, when the prayer is for life, has been offered to him. Fetishism\nprobably shows itself in gifts to a great rock. There is daily prayer,\nboth to the Sun and to N\u00e0-pi. Women institute Medicine Lodges, praying,\n'Pity me, Sun. You have seen my life. You know that I am pure.' 'We look\non the Medicine Lodge woman as you white people do on the Roman Catholic\nSisters.' Being 'virtuous in deed, serious, and clean-minded,' the Medical\nLodge woman is in spiritual _rapport_ with N\u00e0-pi and the Sun. To this\nextent, at least, Blackfoot religion is an ethical influence.\n\nThe creed seems to be a nascent polytheism, subordinate to N\u00e0-pi as\nsupreme Maker, and to the personified Sun. As Blackfoot ghosts are\n'vaporous, ineffectual' for good, there seems to be nothing like ancestor\nworship.\n\nThese two cults and beliefs, Pawnee and Blackfoot, may be regarded as\nfairly well authenticated examples of un-Christianised American religion\namong races on the borderland of agriculture and the chase. It would be\ndifficult to maintain that ghost-worship or ancestor-worship is a potent\nfactor in the evolution of the deathless Ti-ra-w\u00e1 or the immortal Creator\nN\u00e0-pi, who has nothing of the spirit about him, especially as ghosts are\nnot worshipped.[12]\n\nLet us now look at the Supreme Being of a civilised American people. There\nare few more interesting accounts of religion than Garcilasso de la Vega's\ndescription of faith in Peru. Garcilasso was of Inca parentage on the\nspindle side; he was born in 1540, and his book, taken from the traditions\nof an uncle, and aided by the fragmentary collections of Father Blas\nValera, was published in 1609. In Garcilasso's theory the original people\nof Peru, Totemists and worshippers of hills and streams, Earth and Sea,\nwere converted to Sun worship by the first Inca, a child of the Sun. Even\nthe new religion included ancestor-worship and other superstitions. But\nbehind Sun worship was the faith in a Being who 'advanced the Sun so far\nabove all the stars of heaven.'[13] This Being was Pachacamac, 'the\nsustainer of the world.' The question then arises, Is Pachacamac a form of\nthe same creative being whom we find among the lowest savages; or is he\nthe result of philosophical reflection? The latter was the opinion\nof Garcilasso. 'The Incas and their Amautas' (learned class) 'were\nphilosophers.'[14]\n\n'Pacha,' he says, = universe, and 'cama' = soul. Pachacamac, then, is\n_Anima Mundi_. 'They did not even take the name of Pachacamac into their\nmouths,' or but seldom and reverently, as the Australians will not, in\nreligious matters, mention Darumulun. Pachacamac had no temple, 'but they\nworshipped him in their hearts.' That he was the Creator appears in an\nearlier writer, cited by Garcilasso, Agustin de Zarate (ii. ch. 5).\nGarcilasso, after denying the existence of temples to Pachacamac, mentions\none, but only one. He insists, at length, and with much logic, that He\nwhom, as a Christian, he worships, is in Quichua styled Pachacamac.\nMoreover, the one temple to Pachacamac was not built by an Inca, but by\na race which, having heard of the Inca god, borrowed his name, without\nunderstanding his nature, that of a Being who dwells not in temples made\nwith hands (ii. 186). In the temple this people, the Yuncas, offered even\nhuman sacrifices. By the Incas to Pachacamac no sacrifice was offered\n(ii. 189). This negative custom they also imposed upon the Yuncas, and\nthey removed idols from the Yunca temple of Pachacamac (ii. 190). Yunca\nsuperstitions, however, infested the temple, and a Voice gave oracles\ntherein.[15] The Yuncas also had a talking idol, which the Inca, in\naccordance with a religious treaty, occasionally consulted.\n\nWhile Pachacamac, without temple or rite, was reckoned the Creator, we\nmust understand that Sun-worship and ancestor-worship were the practical\nelements of the Inca cult. This appears to have been distasteful to the\nInca Huayna Ccapac, for at a Sun feast he gazed hard on the Sun, was\nremonstrated with by a priest, and replied that the restless Sun 'must\nhave another Lord more powerful than himself.'[16]\n\nThis remark could not have been necessary if Pachacamac were really an\narticle of living and universal belief. Perhaps we are to understand that\nthis Inca, like his father, who seems to have been the original author of\nthe saying, meant to sneer at the elaborate worship bestowed on the Sun,\nwhile Pachacamac was neglected, as far as ritual went.\n\nIn Garcilasso's book we have to allow for his desire to justify the creed\nof his maternal ancestors. His criticism of Spanish versions is acute, and\nhe often appeals to his knowledge of Quichua, and to the direct traditions\nreceived by him from his uncle. Against his theory of Pachacamac as a\nresult of philosophical thought, it may be urged that similar conceptions,\nor nearly similar, exist among races not civilised like the Incas, and not\nprovided with colleges of learned priests. In fact, the position of\nPachacamac and the Sun is very nearly that of the Blackfoot Creator N\u00e0-pi,\nand the Sun, or of Shang-ti and the Heaven, in China. We have the Creative\nBeing whose creed is invaded by that of a worshipped aspect of nature, and\nwhose cult, quite logically, is _nil_, or nearly _nil_. There are also, in\ndifferent strata of the Inca empire, ancestor-worship, or mummy-worship,\nTotemism and polytheism, with a vague mass of _huaca = Elohim, kalou,\nwakan._\n\nPerhaps it would not be too rash to conjecture that Pachacamac is not a\nmerely philosophical abstraction, but a survival of a Being like N\u00e0-pi or\nAhone. Cieza de Leon calls Pachacamac 'a devil,' whose name means\n'creator of the world'![17] The name, when it _was_ uttered, was spoken\nwith genuflexions and signs of reverence. So closely did Pachacamac\nresemble the Christian Deity, that Cieza de Leon declares the devil to\nhave forged and insisted on the resemblance![18] It was open to Spanish\nmissionaries to use Pachacamac, as to the Jesuits among the Bantu to use\nMpungu, as a fulcrum for the introduction of Christianity. They preferred\nto regard Pachacamac as a fraudulent fiend. Now Nzambi Mpungu, among the\nBantu, is assuredly not a creation of a learned priesthood, for the Bantu\nhave no learned priests, and Mpungu would be useless to the greedy\nconjurers whom they do consult, as he is not propitiated. On grounds of\nanalogy, then, Pachacamac may be said to resemble a savage Supreme\nBeing, somewhat etherealised either by Garcilasso or by the Amautas, the\nlearned class among the subjects of the Incas. He does not seem, even so,\nmuch superior to the Ahone of the Virginians.\n\nWe possess, however, a different account of Inca religion, from which\nGarcilasso strongly dissents. The best version is that of Christoval de\nMolina, who was chaplain of the hospital for natives, and wrote between\n1570 and 1584.[19] Christoval assembled a number of old priests and other\nnatives who had taken part in the ancient services, and collected their\nevidence. He calls the Creator ('not born of woman, unchangeable\nand eternal') by the name Pachayachachi. 'Teacher of the world' and\n'Tecsiviracocha,' which Garcilasso dismisses as meaningless.[20] He also\ntells the tale of the Inca Yupanqui and the Lord of the Sun, but\nsays that the Incas had already knowledge of the Creator. To Yupanqui he\nattributes the erection of a gold image of the Creator, utterly denied by\nGarcilasso.[21] Christoval declares, again contradicted by Garcilasso,\nthat sacrifices were offered to the Creator. Unlike the Sun, Christoval\nsays, the Creator had no woman assigned to him, 'because, as he created\nthem, they all belonged to him' (p. 26), which, of course, is an idea that\nwould also make sacrifice superfluous.\n\nChristoval gives prayers in Quichua, wherein the Creator is addressed as\n_Uiracocha_.\n\nChristoval assigns images, sacrifice, and even human sacrifice, to the\nCreator Uiracocha. Garcilasso denies that the Creator Pachacamac had any\nof these things, he denies that Uiracocha was the name of the Creator,\nand he denies it, knowing that the Spaniards made the assertion.[22] Who\nis right? Uiracocha, says Garcilasso, is one thing, with his sacrifices;\nthe Creator, Pachacamac, without sacrifices, is another, is GOD.\n\nMr. Markham thinks that Garcilasso, writing when he did, and not\nconsciously exaggerating, was yet less trustworthy (though 'wonderfully\naccurate') than Christoval. Garcilasso, however, is 'scrupulously\ntruthful.'[23] 'The excellence of his memory is perhaps best shown in\nhis topographical details.... He does not make a single mistake,' in the\ntopography of three hundred and twenty places! A scrupulously truthful\ngentleman, endowed with an amazing memory, and a master of his native\nlanguage, flatly contradicts the version of a Spanish priest, who also\nappears to have been careful and honourable.\n\nI shall now show that Christoval and Garcilasso have different versions of\nthe same historical events, and that Garcilasso bases his confutation of\nthe Spanish theory of the Inca Creator on his form of this historical\ntradition, which follows:\n\nThe Inca Yahuarhuaccac, like George II., was at odds with his Prince of\nWales. He therefore banished the Prince to Chita, and made him serve as\nshepherd of the llamas of the Sun. Three years later the disgraced\nPrince came to Court, with what the Inca regarded as a cock-and-bull story\nof an apparition of the kind technically styled 'Borderland.' Asleep or\nawake, he knew not, he saw a bearded robed man holding a strange animal.\nThe appearance declared himself as Uiracocha (Christoval's name for the\nCreator), a Child of the Sun; by no means as Pachacamac, the Creator of\nthe Sun. He announced a distant rebellion, and promised his aid to the\nPrince. The Inca, hearing this narrative, replied in the tones of\nCharles II., when he said about Monmouth, 'Tell James to go to hell!'[24]\nThe predicted rebellion, however, broke out, the Inca fled, the Prince\nsaved the city, dethroned his father, and sent him into the country. He\nthen adopted, from the apparition, the throne-name _Uiracocha,_ grew a\nbeard, and dressed like the apparition, to whom he erected a temple,\nroofless, and unique in construction. Therein he had an image of the god,\nfor which he himself gave frequent sittings. When the Spaniards arrived,\nbearded men, the Indians called them Uiracochas (as all the Spanish\nhistorians say), and, to flatter them, declared falsely that Uiracocha was\ntheir word for the Creator. Garcilasso explodes the Spanish etymology of\nthe name, in the language of Cuzco, which he 'sucked in with his mother's\nmilk.' 'The Indians said that the chief Spaniards were children of the\nSun, to make gods of them, just as they said they were children of the\napparition, Uiracocha.'[25] Moreover, Garcilasso and Cieza de Leon agree\nin their descriptions of the image of Uiracocha, which, both assert,\nthe Spaniards conceived to represent a Christian early missionary, perhaps\nSt. Bartholomew.[26] Garcilasso had seen the mummy of the Inca Uiracocha,\nand relates the whole tale from the oral version of his uncle, adding many\nnative comments on the Court revolution described.\n\nTo Garcilasso, then, the invocations of Uiracocha, in Christoval's\ncollection of prayers, are a native adaptation to Spanish prejudice: even\nin them Pachacamac occurs.[27]\n\nNow, Christoval has got hold of a variant of Garcilasso's narrative,\nwhich, in Garcilasso, has plenty of humour and human nature. According to\nChristoval it was not the Prince, later Inca Uiracocha, who beheld the\napparition, but the Inca Uiracocha's _son,_ Prince of Wales, as it were,\nof the period, later the Inca Yupanqui.\n\nGarcilasso corrects Christoval. Uiracocha saw the apparition, as P\u00e8re\nAcosta rightly says, and Yupanqui was _not_ the son but the grandson of\nthis Inca Uiracocha.[28] Uiracocha's own son was Pachacutec, which simply\nmeans 'Revolution,' 'they say, by way of by-word _Pachamcutin,_ which\nmeans \"the world changes.\"'\n\nChristoval's form of the story is peculiarly gratifying in one way.\nYupanqui saw the apparition _in a piece of crystal_, 'the apparition\nvanished, while the piece of crystal remained. The Inca took care of it,\nand they say that he afterwards saw everything he wanted in it.' The\napparition, in human form and in Inca dress, gave itself out for the Sun;\nand Yupanqui, when he came to the throne, 'ordered a statue of the Sun to\nbe made, as nearly as possible resembling the figure he had seen in the\ncrystal.' He bade his subjects to 'reverence the new deity, as they had\nheretofore worshipped the Creator,'[29] who, therefore, was prior to\nUiracocha.\n\nInteresting as a proof of Inca crystal-gazing, this legend of Christoval's\ncannot compete as evidence with Acosta and Garcilasso. The reader,\nhowever, must decide as to whether he prefers Garcilasso's unpropitiated\nPachacamac, or Christoval's Uiracocha, human sacrifices, and all.[30]\n\nMr. Tylor prefers the version of Christoval, making Pachacamac a title of\nUiracocha.[31] He thinks that we have, in Inca religion, an example of 'a\nsubordinate god' (the Sun) 'usurping the place of the supreme deity,' 'the\nrivalry between the Creator and the divine Sun.' In China, as we shall\nsee, Mr. Tylor thinks, on the other hand, that Heaven is the elder god,\nand that Shang-ti, the Supreme Being, is the usurper.\n\nThe truth in the Uiracocha _versus_ Pachacamac controversy is difficult to\nascertain. I confess a leaning toward Garcilasso, so truthful and so\nwonderfully accurate, rather than to the Spanish priest. Christoval, it\nwill be remarked, says that 'Chanca-Uiracocha was a _huaca_ (sacred place)\nin Chuqui-chaca.'[32] Now Chuqui-chaca is the very place where, according\nto Garcilasso, the Inca Uiracocha erected a temple to 'his Uncle, the\nApparition.'[33] Uiracocha, then, the deity who receives human sacrifice,\nwould be a late, royally introduced ancestral god, no real rival of the\nCreator, who receives no sacrifice at all, and, as he was bearded, his\nname would be easily transferred to the bearded Spaniards, whose arrival\nthe Inca Uiracocha was said to have predicted. But to call several or all\nSpaniards by the name given to the Creator would be absurd. Mr. Tylor and\nMr. Markham do not refer to the passage in which Christoval obviously gets\nhold of a wrong version of the story of the apparition.\n\nThere is yet another version of this historical legend, written forty\nyears after Christoval's date by Don Juan de Santa Cruz Pachacuti-yamqui\nSalcamayhua. He ranks after Garcilasso and Christoval, but before earlier\n_Spanish_ writers, such as Acosta, who knew not Quichua. According to\nSalcamayhuia, the Inca Uiracocha was like James III., fond of architecture\nand averse to war. He gave the realm to his bastard, Urca, who was\ndefeated and killed by the Chancas. Uiracocha meant to abandon the\ncontest, but his legitimate son, Yupanqui, saw a fair youth on a rock, who\npromised him success in the name of the Creator, and then vanished. The\nPrince was victorious, and the Inca Uiracocha retired into private\nlife. This appears to be a mixture of the stories of Garcilasso and\nChristoval.[34]\n\nIt is not, in itself, a point of much importance whether the Creator was\ncalled Uiracocha (which, if it means anything, means 'sea of grease!'), or\nwhether he was called Pachacamac, maker of the world, or by both names.\nThe important question is as to whether the Creator received even human\nsacrifices (Christoval) or none at all (Garcilasso). As to Pachacamac, we\nmust consult Mr. Payne, who has the advantage of being a Quichua scholar.\nHe considers that Pachacamac combines the conception of a general spirit\nof living things with that of a Creator or maker of all things.\n'Pachacamac and the Creator are one and the same,' but the conception of\nPachayachacic, 'ruler of the world,' 'belongs to the later period of the\nIncas.'[35] Mr. Payne appears to prefer Christoval's legend of the Inca\ncrystal-gazer, to the rival version of Garcilasso. The Yunca form of the\nworship of Pachacamac Mr. Payne regards as an example of degradation.[36]\nHe disbelieves Garcilasso's statement, that human sacrifices were not\nmade to the Sun. Garcilasso must, if Mr. Payne is right, have been a\ndeliberate liar, unless, indeed, he was deceived by his Inca kinsfolk.\nThe reader can now estimate for himself the difficulty of knowing much\nabout Peruvian religion, or, indeed, of any religion. For, if Mr. Payne\nis right about the lowest savages having no conception of God, or even of\nspirit, though the idea of a great Creator, a spirit, is one of the\nearliest efforts of 'primitive logic,' we, of course, have been merely\nfabling throughout.\n\nGarcilasso's evidence, however, seems untainted by Christian attempts to\nfind a primitive divine tradition. Garcilasso may possibly be refining on\nfacts, but he asks for no theory of divine primitive tradition in the case\nof Pachacamac, whom he attributes to philosophical reflection.\n\nIn the following chapter we discuss 'the old Degeneration theory,' and\ncontrast it with the scheme provisionally offered in this book. We have\nalready observed that the Degeneration theory biasses the accounts of some\nmissionaries who are obviously anxious to find traces of a Primitive\nTradition, originally revealed to all men, but only preserved in a pure\nform by the Jews. To avoid deception by means of this bias we have chosen\nexamples of savage creative beings from wide areas, from diverse ages,\nfrom non-missionary statements, from the least contaminated backward\npeoples, and from their secret mysteries and hymns.\n\nThus, still confining ourselves to the American continent, we have the\nancient hymns of the Zu\u00f1is, in no way Christianised, and never chanted in\nthe presence of the Mexican Spanish, These hymns run thus: 'Before the\nbeginning of the New Making, Awonawilona, the Maker and container of All,\nthe All-Father, solely had being.' He then evolved all things 'by thinking\nhimself outward in space.' Hegelian! but so are the dateless hymns of the\nMaoris, despite the savage mythology which intrudes into both sets of\ntraditions. The old fable of Ouranos and Gaia recurs in Zu\u00f1i as in\nMaori.[37]\n\nI fail to see how Awonawilona could be developed out of the ghost of chief\nor conjurer. That in which all things potentially existed, yet who was\nmore than all, is not the ghost of a conjurer or chief. He certainly is\nnot due to missionary influence. No authority can be better than that of\ntraditional sacred chants found among a populace which will not sing them\nbefore one of their Mexican masters.\n\nWe have tried to escape from the bias of belief in a primitive divine\ntradition, but bias of every kind exists, and must exist. At present the\nanthropological hypothesis of ancestor-worship as the basis, perhaps (as\nin Mr. Spencer's theory) the only basis of religion, affects observers.\n\nBefore treating the theory of Degeneration let us examine a case of the\nanthropological bias. The Fijians, as we learned from Williams, have\nancestral gods, and also a singular form of the creative being, Ndengei,\nor, as Mr. Basil Thomson calls him, Degei. Mr. Thomson writes: 'It is\nclear that the Fijians humanised their gods, because they had once existed\non earth in human form.... Like other primitive people, the Fijians\ndeified their ancestors.' Yet the Fijians 'may have forgotten the names\nof their ancestors three generations back'! How in the world can you deify\na person whom you don't remember? Moreover, only malevolent chiefs were\ndeified, so apparently a Fijian god is really a well-born human\nscoundrel, so considerable that _he_ for one is not forgotten--just as if\nwe worshipped the wicked Lord Lyttelton! Of course a god like Ahone could\nnot be made out of such materials as these, and, in fact, we learn from\nMr. Thomson that there are other Fijian gods of a different origin.\n\n'It is probable that there were here and there, _gods that were the\ncreation of the priests that ministered to them, and were not the\nspirits of dead chiefs_. Such was the god of the Bure Tribe on the Ra\ncoast, who was called Tui Laga or \"Lord of Heaven.\" When the missionaries\nfirst went to convert this town they found the heathen priest their\nstaunch ally. He declared that they had come to preach the same god that\nhe had been preaching, the Tui Laga, and that more had been revealed to\nthem than to him of the mysteries of the god.'\n\nMr. Thomson is reminded of St. Paul at Athens, 'whom then ye ignorantly\nworship, him declare I unto you.'[38]\n\nMr. Thomson has clearly no bias in favour of a God like our own, known to\nsavages, and _not_ derived from ghost-worship. He deduces this god, Tui\nLaga, from priestly reflection and speculation. But we find such a God\nwhere we find no priests, where a priesthood has not been developed. Such\na God, being usually unpropitiated by sacrifice and lucrative private\npractice, is precisely the kind of deity who does not suit a priesthood.\nFor these reasons--that a priesthood 'sees no money in' a God of this\nkind, and that Gods of this kind, ethical and creative, are found where\nthere are no priesthoods--we cannot look on the conception as a late one\nof priestly origin, as Mr. Thomson does, though a learned caste, like the\nPeruvian Amantas, may refine on the idea. Least of all can such a God be\n'the creation of the priests that minister to him,' when, as in Peru, the\nAndaman Isles, and much of Africa, this God is ministered to by no\npriests. Nor, lastly, can we regard the absence of sacrifice to the\nCreative Being as a mere proof that he is an ancestral ghost who 'had\nlived on earth at too remote a time;' for this absence of sacrifice occurs\nwhere ghosts are dreaded, but are not propitiated by offerings of food (as\namong Australians, Andamanese, and Blackfoot Indians), while the Creative\nBeing is not and never was a ghost, according to his worshippers.\n\nAt this point criticism may naturally remark that whether the savage\nSupreme Being is f\u00eated, as by the Comanches, who offer puffs of smoke: or\nis apparently half forgotten, as by the Algonquins and Zulus: whether\nhe is propitiated by sacrifice (which is very rare indeed), or only by\nconduct, I equally claim him as the probable descendant in evolution of\nthe primitive, undifferentiated, not necessarily 'spiritual' Being of such\ncreeds as the Australian.\n\nOne must reply that this pedigree cannot, indeed, be historically traced,\nbut that it presents none of the logical difficulties inherent in the\nanimistic pedigree--namely, that the savage Supreme Being is the last and\nhighest result of evolution on animistic lines out of ghosts. It does not\nrun counter to the evidence universally offered by savages, that their\nSupreme Being never was mortal man. It is consistent, whereas the\nanimistic hypothesis is, in this case, inconsistent, with the universal\nsavage theory of Death. Finally, as has been said before, granting my\nopinion that there are two streams of religious thought, one rising in the\nconception of an undifferentiated Being, eternal, moral, and creative, the\nother rising in the ghost-doctrine, it stands to reason that the latter,\nas best adapted to everyday needs and experiences, normal and supernormal,\nmay contaminate the former, and introduce sacrifice and food-propitiation\ninto the ritual of Beings who, by the original conception, 'need nothing\nof ours.' At the same time, the conception of 'spirit,' once attained,\nwould inevitably come to be attached to the idea of the Supreme Being,\neven though he was not at first conceived of as a spirit. We know, by our\nown experience, how difficult it has become for us to think of an eternal,\npowerful, and immortal being, except as a spirit. Yet this way of looking\nat the Supreme Being, merely as _being_, not as spirit, must have existed,\ngranting that the idea of spirit has ghost for its first expression, as,\nby their very definition, the high gods of savages are not ghosts, and\nnever were ghosts, but are prior to death.\n\nHere let me introduce, by way of example, a Supreme Being _not_ of the\nlowest savage level. Metaphysically he is improved on in statement,\nmorally he is stained with the worst crimes of the hungry ghost-god, or\ngod framed on the lines of animism. This very interesting Supreme Being,\nin a middle barbaric race, is the Polynesian Taa-roa, as described by\nEllis in that fascinating book 'Polynesian Researches.'[39] 'Several of\ntheir _taata-paari_, or wise men, pretend that, according to other\ntraditions, Taa-roa was only a man who was deified after death.'\nEuhemerism, in fact, is a natural theory of men acquainted with\nancestor-worship, but a Euhemeristic hypothesis by a Polynesian thinker is\nnot a statement of national belief. Taa-roa was 'uncreated, existing from\nthe beginning, or from the time he emerges from the _po_, or world of\ndarkness.' In the Leeward Isles Taa-roa was _Toivi_, fatherless and\nmotherless from all eternity. In the highest heavens he dwells alone. He\ncreated the gods of polytheism, the gods of war, of peace, and so on. Says\na native hymn, 'He was: he abode in the void. No earth, _no sky_, no men!\nHe became the universe.' In the Windward Isles he has a wife, Papa the\nrock = Papa, Earth, wife of Rangi, Heaven, in Maori mythology. Thus it may\nbe argued, Taa-roa is no 'primaeval theistic idea,' but merely the\nHeaven-God (Ouranos in Greece). But we may distinguish: in the Zu\u00f1i hymn\nwe have the myth of the marriage of Heaven and Earth, but Heaven is not\nthe Eternal, Awonawilona, who 'thought himself out into the void,' before\nwhich, as in the Polynesian hymn, 'there was no sky.'[40]\n\nWhence came the idea of Taa-roa? The Euhemeristic theory that he was a\nghost of a dead man is absurd. But as we are now among polytheists it may\nbe argued that, given a crowd of gods on the animistic model, an origin\nhad to be found for them, and that origin was Taa-roa. This would be more\nplausible if we did not find Supreme Beings where there is no departmental\npolytheism to develop them out of. In Tahiti, _Atuas_ are gods, _Oramutuas\ntiis_ are spirits; the chief of the spirits were ghosts of warriors. These\nwere mischievous: they, their images, and the skulls of the dead needed\npropitiation, and these ideas (perhaps) were reflected on to Taa-roa, to\nwhom human victims were sacrificed.[41]\n\nNow this kind of horror, human sacrifice, is unknown, I think, in early\nsavage religions of Supreme Beings, as in Australia, among the Bushmen,\nthe Andamanese, and so on. I therefore suggest that in an advanced\npolytheism, such as that of Polynesia, the evil sacrificial rites\nunpractised by low savages come to be attached to the worship even of the\nSupreme Being. Ghosts and ghost-gods demanded food, and food was therefore\nalso offered to the Supreme Being.\n\nIt was found difficult, or impossible, to induce Christian converts, in\nPolynesia, to repeat the old prayers. They began, trembled, and abstained.\nThey had a ritual 'for almost every act of their lives,' a thing\nunfamiliar to low savages. In fact, beyond all doubt, religious criminal\nacts, from human sacrifice to the burning of Jeanne d'Arc, increase as\nreligion and culture move away from the stage of Bushmen and Andamanese to\nthe stage of Aztec and Polynesian culture. The Supreme Being is succeeded\nin advancing civilisation, and under the influences of animism, by\nruthless and insatiable ghost-gods, full of the worst human qualities.\nThus there is what we may really call degeneration, moral and religious,\ninevitably accompanying early progress.\n\nThat this is the case, that the first advances in culture _necessarily_\nintroduce religious degeneration, we shall now try to demonstrate. But we\nmay observe, in passing, that our array of moral or august savage supreme\nbeings (the first who came to hand) will, for some reason, not be found in\nanthropological treatises on the Origin of Religion. They appear, somehow,\nto have been overlooked by philosophers. Yet the evidence for them\nis sufficiently good. Its excellence is proved by its very uniformity,\nassuredly undesigned. An old, nay, an obsolete theory--that of\ndegeneration in religion--has facts at its basis, which its very\nsupporters have ignored, which orthodoxy has overlooked. Thus the Rev.\nProfessor Flint informs the audience in the Cathedral of St. Giles's,\nthat, in the religions 'at the bottom of the religious scale,' 'it is\nalways easy to see how wretchedly the divine is conceived of; how little\nconscious of his own true wants ... is the poor worshipper.' The poor\nworshipper of Baiame wishes to obey His Law, which makes, to some extent,\nfor righteousness.[42]\n\n[Footnote 1: In Pinkerton, xiii. pp. 13, 39; _Prim. Cult_. ii. 342.]\n\n[Footnote 2: See Preface to this edition for corrected statement.]\n\n[Footnote 3: _Myths of the New World_, p. 47.]\n\n[Footnote 4: There is a description of Virginia, by W. Strachey, including\nSmith's remarks, published in 1612. Strachey interwove some of this work\nwith his own MS. in the British Museum, dedicated to Bacon (Verulam). This\nMS. was edited by Mr. Major, for the Hakluyt Society, in 1849, with a\nglossary, by Strachey, of the native language. The remarks on religion are\nin Chapter VII. The passage on Ahone occurs in Strachey (1612), but _not_\nin Smith (1682), in Pinkerton. I owe to the kindness of Mr. Edmund Gosse\nphotographs of the drawings accompanying the MS. Strachey's story of\nsacrifice of children (pp. 94, 95) seems to refer to nothing worse than the\ninitiation into the mysteries.]\n\n[Footnote 5: See Brinton, _Myths of the New World_, for a philological\ntheory.]\n\n[Footnote 6: Compare 'The Fire Walk' in _Modern Mythology_.]\n\n[Footnote 7: Compare St. Augustine's curious anecdote in _De Cura pro\nMortuis habenda_ about the dead and revived Curio. The founder of the new\nSioux religion, based on hypnotism, 'died' and recovered.]\n\n[Footnote 8: Cf. Demeter.]\n\n[Footnote 9: Major North, for long the U.S. Superintendent of the Pawnees.]\n\n[Footnote 10: Schoolcraft, iii. 237.]\n\n[Footnote 11: As envisaged here, N\u00e0-pi is not a spirit. The question\nof spirit or non-spirit has not arisen. So far, N\u00e0-pi answers to\nMarrangarrah, the Creative Being of the Larrakeah tribe of Australians.\n'A very good Man called Marrangarrah lives in the sky; he made all living\ncreatures, except black fellows. He made everything.... He never dies, and\nlikes all black fellows.' He has a demiurge, Dawed (Mr. Foelsche, _apud_\nDr. Stirling, _J.A.I_., Nov. 1894, p. 191). It is curious to observe how\nsavage creeds often shift the responsibility for evil from the Supreme\nCreator, entirely beneficent, on to a subordinate deity.]\n\n[Footnote 12: Grinnell's _Blackfoot Lodge-Tales_ and _Pawnee Hero\nStories_.]\n\n[Footnote 13: Garcilasso, i. 101.]\n\n[Footnote 14: Op. cit. i. 106.]\n\n[Footnote 15: From all this we might conjecture, like Mr. Prescott, that\nthe Incas borrowed Pachacamac from the Yuncas, and etherealised his\nreligion. But Mr. Clements Markham points out that 'Pachacamac is a pure\nQuichua word.']\n\n[Footnote 16: Garcilasso, ii. 446, 447.]\n\n[Footnote 17: Cieza de Leon. p.253]\n\n[Footnote 18: Markham's translation, p. 253.]\n\n[Footnote 19: _Rites and Laws of the Yncas_, Markham's translation,\np. vii.]\n\n[Footnote 20: _Rites_, p. 6. Garcilasso, i. 109.]\n\n[Footnote 21: _Rites_, p. 11.]\n\n[Footnote 22: Compare _Reports on Discovery of Peru,_ Introduction.]\n\n[Footnote 23: _Rites_, p. xv.]\n\n[Footnote 24: Lord Ailesbury's _Memoirs_.]\n\n[Footnote 25: Garcilasso, ii. 68.]\n\n[Footnote 26: Cieza de Leon, p. 357.]\n\n[Footnote 27: _Rites,_ pp. 28, 29.]\n\n[Footnote 28: Acosta, lib. vi. ch. 21: Garcilasso. ii. 88, 89.]\n\n[Footnote 29: _Rites_, p. 12.]\n\n[Footnote 30: Ibid. p.54.]\n\n[Footnote 31: _Prim. Cult_. ii, 337, 338.]\n\n[Footnote 32: _Rites_, p. 29.]\n\n[Footnote 33: Garcilasso, ii. 69.]\n\n[Footnote 34: _Rites and Laws_, p. 91 _et seq_.]\n\n[Footnote 35: Payne, i. 139.]\n\n[Footnote 36: Op. cit. i. 468. Mr. Payne absolutely rejects\nIxtlilochitl's story of the monotheism of Nezahualcoyotl; 'Torquemada\nknows nothing of it,' i. 490.]\n\n[Footnote 37: Cushing, _Report, Ethnol. Bureau_, 1891-92, p. 379.]\n\n[Footnote 38: _J.A.I_. May 1895, pp. 341-344.]\n\n[Footnote 39: ii. 191, 1829.]\n\n[Footnote 40: _Prim. Cult_. ii. 345, 346. Ellis, ii. 193.]\n\n[Footnote 41: Ellis, ii. 221.]\n\n[Footnote 42: _The Faiths of The World_, p. 413.]\n\n\n\n\nXV\n\nTHE OLD DEGENERATION THEORY\n\nIf any partisan of the anthropological theory has read so far into this\nargument, he will often have murmured to himself, 'The old degeneration\ntheory!' On this Dr. Brinton remarked in 1868:\n\n'The supposition that in ancient times and in very unenlightened\nconditions, before mythology had grown, a monotheism prevailed which\nafterwards, at various times, was revived by reformers, is a belief that\nshould have passed away when the delights of savage life and the praises\nof a state of nature ceased to be the theme of philosophers[1].'\n\n'The old degeneration theory' practically, and fallaciously, resolved\nitself, as Mr. Tylor says, into two assumptions--'first, that the history\nof culture began with the appearance on earth of a semi-civilised race of\nmen; and second, that from this stage culture has proceeded in two\nways--backward to produce savages, and forward to produce civilised\nmen[2].' That hypothesis is false to all our knowledge of evolution.\n\nThe hypothesis here provisionally advocated makes no assumptions\nat all. It is a positive fact that among some of the lowest savages\nthere exists, not a doctrinal and abstract Monotheism, but a belief\nin a moral, powerful, kindly, creative Being, while this faith is found\nin juxtaposition with belief in unworshipped ghosts, totems, fetishes,\nand so on. The powerful creative Being of savage belief sanctions truth,\nunselfishness, loyalty, chastity, and other virtues. I have set forth the\ndifficulties involved in the attempt to derive this Being from ghosts and\nother lower forms of belief.\n\nNow, it is mere matter of fact, and not of assumption, that the Supreme\nBeing of many rather higher savages differs from the Supreme Being of\ncertain lower savages by the neglect in which he is left, by the epicurean\nrepose with which he is credited, and by his comparative lack of moral\ncontrol over human conduct. In his place a mob of ghosts and spirits,\nsupposed to be potent and helpful in everyday life, attract men's regard\nand adoration, and get paid by sacrifice--even by human sacrifice.\n\nTurning to races yet higher in material culture, we find a crowd of hungry\nand cruel gods.\n\nOn this point Mr. Jevons remarks, in accordance with my own observation,\nthat 'human sacrifice appears at a much earlier period in the rites for\nthe dead than it does in the ritual of the gods.'[3] The dead chief needs\nservants and wives in Hades, who are offered to him. The Australians have\nsome elements of cannibalism, but do not, as a general rule, offer any\nhuman victims. So far, then, ancestor-worship introduced a sadly\n'degenerate' rite, compared with the moral faith in unfed gods.\n\nTo gods the human sacrifice was probably extended (in some cases) either\nby a cannibal civilised race, like the Aztecs, or by way of _piacula_, the\ngod being conciliated for man's sin by the offering of what man most\nprized, the 'jealousy' of the god being appeased in a similar way.\nBut these are relatively advanced conceptions, not to be found, to my\nknowledge, among the lowest and most backward races. Therefore, advance to\nthe idea of spirit at one point, meant degeneration at another point, to\nthe extent of human sacrifice.\n\nThus, on looking at relatively advanced races, we find them worshipping\npolytheistic deities and ghosts of the kings just dead, who are often\npropitiated by terrible massacres of human victims, while, as in the case\nof Taa-roa, the blood spurts back even on the uncreated Creator, who was\nbefore earth was, or sea, sun, or sky.\n\nUndeniably the hungry, cruel gods are degenerate from the Australian\nFather in Heaven, who receives no sacrifice but that of men's lusts and\nselfishness; who desires obedience, not the fat of kangaroos; who needs\nnothing of ours; is unfed and unbribed. Thus, in this particular respect\nthe degeneration of religion from the Australian or Andamanese to the\nDinka standard--and infinitely more to the Polynesian, or Aztec, or\npopular Greek standard--is as undeniable as any fact in human history.\n\nAnthropology has only escaped the knowledge of this circumstance by laying\ndown the rule, demonstrably unbased on facts, that 'the divine sanction of\nethical laws ... belongs almost or wholly to religions above the savage\nlevel, not to the earlier and lower creeds;' that 'savage Animism is\nalmost devoid of that ethical element which to the educated modern mind is\nthe very mainspring of practical religion.'[4]\n\nI have argued, indeed, that the God of low savages who imparts the divine\nsanction of ethical laws is _not_ of animistic origin. But even where Mr.\nIm Thurn finds, in Guiana, nothing but Animism of the lowest conceivable\ntype, he also finds in that Animism the only or most potent moral\nrestraint on the conduct of men.\n\nWhile Anthropology holds the certainly erroneous idea that the religion of\nthe most backward races is always non-moral, of course she cannot know\nthat there has, in fact, been great degeneration in religion (if religion\nbegan on the Australian and Andamanese level, or even higher) wherever\nreligion is non-moral or immoral.\n\nAgain, Anthropology, while fixing her gaze on totems, on worshipped\nmummies, adored ghosts, and treasured fetishes, has not, to my knowledge,\nmade a comparative study of the higher and purer religious ideas of\nsavages. These have been passed by, with a word about credulous\nmissionaries and Christian influences, except in the brief summary for\nwhich Mr. Tylor found room. In this work I only take a handful of cases of\nthe higher religious opinions of savages, and set them side by side for\npurposes of comparison. Much more remains to be done in this field. But\nthe area covered is wide, the evidence is the best attainable, and it\nseems proved beyond doubt that savages have 'felt after' a conception of a\nCreator much higher than that for which they commonly get credit. Now, if\nthat conception is original, or is very early (and nothing in it suggests\nlateness of development), then the other elements of their faith and\npractice are degenerate.\n\n'How,' it has been asked, 'could all mankind forget a pure religion?'[5]\nThat is what I now try to explain. That degeneration I would account for\nby the attractions which animism, when once developed, possessed for the\nnaughty natural man, 'the old Adam.' A moral creator in need of no gifts,\nand opposed to lust and mischief, will not help a man with love-spells, or\nwith malevolent 'sendings' of disease by witchcraft; will not favour one\nman above his neighbour, or one tribe above its rivals, as a reward for\nsacrifice which he does not accept, or as constrained by charms which do\nnot touch his omnipotence. Ghosts and ghost-gods, on the other hand, in\nneed of food and blood, afraid of spells and binding charms,[6] are a\ncorrupt, but, to man, a useful constituency. Man being what he is, man was\ncertain to 'go a-whoring' after practically useful ghosts, ghost-gods, and\nfetishes which he could keep in his wallet or medicine bag. For these he\nwas sure, in the long run, first to neglect his idea of his Creator; next,\nperhaps, to reckon Him as only one, if the highest, of the venal rabble of\nspirits or deities, and to sacrifice to Him, as to them. And this is\nexactly what happened! If we are not to call it 'degeneration,' what are\nwe to call it? It may be an old theory, but facts 'winna ding,' and are on\nthe side of an old theory. Meanwhile, on the material plane, culture\nkept advancing, the crafts and arts arose; departments arose, each needing\na god; thought grew clearer; such admirable ethics as those of the Aztecs\nwere developed, and while bleeding human hearts smoked on every altar,\nNezahuatl conceived and erected a bloodless fane to 'The Unknown God,\nCause of Causes,' without altar or idol; and the Inca, Yupanqui, or\nanother, declared that 'Our Father and Master, the Sun, must have a\nLord.'[7]\n\nBut, at this stage of culture, the luck of the state, and the interests of\na rich and powerful clergy, were involved in the maintenance of the old,\nanimistic, relatively non-moral system, as in Cuzco, Greece, and Rome.\nThat popular and political regard for the luck of the state, that\npriestly self-interest (quite natural), could only be swept away by the\nmoral monotheism of Christianity or of Islam. Nothing else could do it. In\nthe case of Christianity, the central and most potent of many combined\ninfluences, apart from the Life and Death of Our Lord, was the moral\nMonotheism of the Hebrew religion of Jehovah.\n\nNow, it is undeniable that Jehovah, at a certain period of Hebrew history,\nhad become degraded and anthropomorphized, far below Darumulun, and\nPuluga, and Pachacamac, and Ahone, as conceived of in their purest form,\nand in the high mood of savage mysteries which yet contain so much that is\ngrotesque. Even the Big Black Man of the Fuegians is on a higher level (as\n_we_ reckon morals), when he forbids the slaying of a robber enemy, than\ncertain examples of early Hebrew conduct. But our knowledge of the\nFuegians is lamentably scanty.\n\nAgain, traces of human sacrifice appear in the ritual of Israel, and it is\nonly relatively late that the great prophets, justly declaring Jehovah to\nbe indifferent to the blood of bulls and rams, try to bring back his\nservice to that of the unpropitiated, unbought Dendid, or Ahone, or\nPundjel. Here is degeneration, even in Israel. How the conception of\nJehovah arose in Israel, whether it was a revival of a half-obliterated\nidea, such as we find among low savages; or whether it was borrowed from\nsome foreign creed; or was the result of meditation on the philosophical\nSupreme Being of high Egyptian theology, is another question. The Biblical\nstatement leans to the first alternative. Jehovah, not by that name, had\nbeen the God of Israel's fathers. The question will be discussed later;\nbut, unless new facts are discovered, we must accept the version of the\nPentateuch, or take refuge in conjecture.\n\nNot only is there degeneration from the Australian conception of\nMungan-gnaur, at its best, to the conception of the Semitic gods in\ngeneral, but, 'humanly speaking,' if religion began in a pure form among\nlow savages, degeneration was inevitable. Advancing social conditions\ncompelled men into degeneration. Mungan-ngaur is, so far, in line with\nour own ideas of divinity because he is not localised. He dwelleth not in\ntemples made with hands; it is not likely that he should, when his\nworshippers have neither house, tent, nor tabernacle. As Mr. Robertson\nSmith says, 'where the God had a house or a temple, we recognise the work\nof men who were no longer pure nomads, but had begun to form fixed homes.'\nBy the nature of Australian society, a deity could not be tied to a\ntemple, and temple-ritual, and consequent myths to explain that ritual,\ncould not arise. Nor could Darumulun be attached to a district, just as\n'the nomad Arabs could not assimilate the conception of a god as a\nland-owner, and apply it to their own tribal deities, for the simple\nreason that in the desert private property in land was unknown.'[8]\n\nDarumulun is thus not capable of degenerating into 'a local god, as\n_Baal_, or lord of the land,' because this 'involves a series of ideas\nunknown to the primitive life of the savage huntsman,' like the widely\nspread Murring tribes.[9]\n\nNor could Darumulun be tied down to a place in Semitic fashion, first by\nmanifesting himself there, therefore by receiving an altar of sacrifice\nthere, and in the end a sanctuary, for Darumulun receives no sacrifice\nat all.\n\nAgain, the scene of the Bora could not become a permanent home of\nDarumulun, because, when the rites are over, the effigy of the god is\nscrupulously destroyed. Thus Darumulun, in his own abode 'beyond the sky,'\ncan 'go everywhere and do everything' (is omnipresent and omnipotent),\ndwells in no earthly places, has no temple, nor tabernacle, nor sacred\nmount, nor, like Jehovah, any limit of land.[10]\n\nThe early Hebrew conception of Jehovah, then, is infinitely more\nconditioned, practically, by space, than the Supreme Being, 'The Master,'\nin the conception of some Australian blacks.\n\n'By a prophet like Isaiah the residence of Jehovah in Zion is almost\nwholly dematerialised.... Conceiving Jehovah as the King of Israel, he\nnecessarily conceives His kingly activity as going forth from the capital\nof the nation.'[11]\n\nBut nomad hunter tribes, with no ancestor-worship, no king and no capital,\ncannot lower their deity by the conditions, or limit him by the\nlimitations, of an earthly monarchy.\n\nIn precisely the same way, Major Ellis proves the degeneration of deity in\nAfrica, so far as being localised in place of being the Universal God,\nimplies degeneration, as it certainly does to our minds. By being attached\nto a given hill or river 'the gods, instead of being regarded as being\ninterested in the whole of mankind, would eventually come to be regarded\nas being interested in separate tribes or nations alone.'\n\nTo us Milton seems nobly Chauvinistic when he talks of what God has done\nby 'His English.' But this localised and essentially degenerate conception\nwas inevitable, as soon as, in advancing civilisation, the god who had\nbeen 'interested in the whole of [known] mankind' was settled on a hill,\nriver, or lagoon, amidst a nation of worshippers.\n\nIn the course of the education of mankind, this form of degeneration\n(abstractly so considered) was to work, as nothing else could have worked,\ntowards the lofty conception of universal Deity. For that conception\nwas only brought into practical religion (as apart from philosophic\nspeculation) by the union between Israel and the God of Sinai and Zion.\nThe Prophets, recognising in the God of Sinai, their nation's God--One\nto whom righteousness was infinitely dearer than even his Chosen\nPeople--freed the conception of God from local ties, and made it\noverspread the world.\n\nMr. Robertson Smith has pointed out, again, the manner in which the\ndifferent political development of East and West affected the religion of\nGreece and of the Semites. In Greece, monarchy fell, at an early period,\nbefore the aristocratic houses. The result was 'a divine aristocracy of\nmany gods, only modified by a weak reminiscence of the old kingship in the\nnot very effective sovereignty' (or _prytany_) 'of Zeus. In the East the\nnational god tended to acquire a really monarchic sway.'[12] Australia\nescaped polytheistic degeneracy by having no aristocracy, as in Polynesia,\nwhere aristocracy, as in early Greece, had developed polytheism. Ghosts\nand spirits the Australians knew, but not polytheistic gods, nor\ndepartmental deities, as of war, agriculture, art. The savage had no\nagriculture, and his social condition was not departmental. In yet another\nway, political advance produces religious degeneration, if polytheism be\ndegeneration from the conception of one relatively supreme moral being.\nTo make a nation, several tribes must unite. Each has its god, and the\nnation is apt to receive them all, equally, into its Pantheon. Thus, if\nworshippers of Baiame, Pundjel, and Darumulun coalesced into a nation,\nwe might find all three gods living together in a new polytheism. In fact,\ngranting a relatively pure starting-point, degeneration from it must\naccompany every step of civilisation, to a certain distance.\n\nUnlike Semitic gods, Darumulun receives no sacrifice. As we have said, he\nhas no kin with ghosts, and their sacrifices could not be carried on into\nhis cult, if Waitz-Gerland (vi. 811) are right in saying that the\nAustralians have no ancestor-worship. The Kurnai ghosts 'were believed to\nlive upon plants,'[13] which are not offered to them. Chill ghosts, unfed\nby men, would come to waning camp-fires and batten on the broken meats.\nThe Ngarego and Wolgal held, more handsomely, that Tharamulun (Darumulun)\nmet the just departed spirit 'and conducted it to its future home beyond\nthe sky.'[14] Ghosts might also accompany relics of the body, such as the\ndead hand, carried about by the family, who would wave the black fragment\nat the dreaded Aurora Borealis, crying, 'Send it away!' I am unacquainted\nwith any sacrifices to ancestral ghosts among this people who cannot long\nremember their ancestors, consequently the practice has not been refracted\non their supreme Master's cult. In the cult of Darumulun, and of other\nhighest gods of lowest savages, nothing answers to the Hebrew technical\npriestly word for sacrifice, 'food of the deity.'[15] Nobody feeds Puluga,\nnobody fed Ahone. We hear of no Fuegian sacrifices. Mr. Robertson Smith\nsays: 'In all religions in which the gods have been developed out of\ntotems [worshipped animals and other things regarded as akin to human\nstocks] the ritual act of laying food before the deity is perfectly\nintelligible.' Pundjel, an Australian Supreme Being, is mixed up with\nanimals in some myths, but it is not easy to see how such Supreme Beings\nas he could be 'developed out of totems'! I am not aware, again, that any\nAustralian tribe feeds the animals who are its totems, so Darumulun could\nnot, and did not inherit sacrifice through them. Mr. Robertson Smith had\na celebrated theory that cereal sacrifice is a tribute to a god, while\nsacrifice of a beast or man is an act of communion with the god.[16] Men\nand gods dined together.[17] 'The god himself was conceived of as a being\nof the same stock as his comrades.' Beasts were also of the same stock,\none beast, say a lobster, was of the same blood as a lobster kin, and its\ngod.[18] Occasionally the sacred beast of the kin, usually not to be slain\nor tasted, is 'eaten as a kind of mystic sacrament a most dubious\nfact.'[19]\n\nNow, there is, I believe, some evidence, lately collected if not\npublished, which makes in favour of the eating of totems by Australians,\nat a certain very rare and solemn mystery. It would not even surprise me\n('from information received') if a very deeply initiated person were\noccasionally slain, as the highest degree of initiation, on certain most\nunusual occasions. This remains uncertain, but I have at present no\nevidence that, either by one road or another, either from ghost-feeding or\ntotem-feeding, or feeding on totems, any Australian Supreme Being receives\nany sacrifice at all. Much less, as among Pawnees and Semitic peoples (to\njudge from certain traces), is the Australian Supreme Being a cause of and\npartaker in human sacrifice.[20] The horrible idea of the Man who is the\nGod, and is eaten in the God's honour, occurs among polytheistic Aztecs,\non a high level of material culture, not among Australians, Andamanese,\nBushmen, or Fuegians.[21]\n\nThus, in religion, the Darumulun, or other Supreme Being of the lowest\nknown savages, men roaming wild, when originally met, on a continent\npeopled by older kinds of animals than ours, was (as we regard purity) on\na higher plane by far than the gods of Greeks and Semites in their\nearliest known myths. Setting mythology aside and looking only at cult,\nthe God of the Murring or the Kurnai, whose precepts soften the heart,\nwho knows the heart's secrets, who inculcates chastity, respect of age,\nunselfishness, who is not bound by conditions of space or place, who\nreceives no blood of slaughtered man or beast, is a conception from which\nthe ordinary polytheistic gods of infinitely more polite peoples are\nfrankly degenerate. The animistic superstitions wildly based on the belief\nin the soul have not soiled him, and the social conditions of aristocracy,\nagriculture, architecture, have not made him one in a polytheistic\ncrowd of rapacious gods, nor fettered him as a Baal to his estate, nor\nlocalised him in a temple built with hands. He cannot appear as a 'God of\nBattles;' no _Te Deum_ can be sung to him for victory in a cause perhaps\nunjust, for he is the Supreme Being of a certain group of allied local\ntribes. One of these tribes has no more interest with him than another,\nand the whole group do not, as a body, wage war on another alien group.\nThe social conditions of his worshippers, then, preserve Darumulun from\nthe patent blots on the escutcheon of gods among much more advanced races.\n\nOnce more, the idea of Animism admits of endless expansion. A spirit can\nbe located anywhere, in any stone, stick, bush, person, hill, or river. A\ngod made on the animistic model can be assigned to any department of\nhuman activity, down to sports, or lusts, or the province of Cloacina.\nThus religion becomes a mere haunted and pestilential jungle of beliefs.\nBut the theistic conception, when not yet envisaged as spiritual, cannot\nbe subdivided and _\u00e9parpill\u00e9_. Thus, from every point of view, and on\nevery side, Animism is full of the seeds of religious degeneration, which\ndo not and cannot exist in what I take to be the earliest known form of\nthe theistic conception: that of a Being about whose metaphysical\nnature--spirit or not spirit--no questions were asked, as Dr. Brinton long\nago remarked.\n\nThat conception alone could neither supply the moral motive of 'a soul to\nbe saved,' nor satisfy the metaphysical instinct of advancing mankind. To\nmeet these wants, to supply 'soul,' with its moral stimulus, and to\nprovide a phrase or idea under which the Deity could be envisaged (i.e. as\na _spirit_) by advancing thought, Animism was necessary. The blending of\nthe theistic and the animistic beliefs was indispensable to religion.\nBut, in the process of animistic development under advancing social\nconditions, degeneration was necessarily implied. Degeneration of the\ntheistic conception for a while, therefore, occurred. The facts are the\nproofs; and only contradictory facts, in sufficient quantity, can\nannihilate the old theory of Degeneration when it is presented in this\nform.\n\nIt mast be repeated that on this theory an explanation is given of what\nthe old Degeneration hypothesis does not explain. Granting a primal\nreligion relatively pure in its beginnings, why did it degenerate?\n\nMr. Max Mullet, looking on religion as the development of the sentiment of\nthe Infinite, regards fetishism as a secondary and comparatively late form\nof belief. We find it, he observes, in various forms of Christianity;\nChristianity, therefore, is primary there, relic worship is secondary.\nReligion beginning, according to him, in the sense of the infinite, as\nawakened in man by tall trees, high hills, and so on, it advances to the\ninfinite of space and sky, and so to the infinitely divine. This is\nprimary: fetishism is secondary. Arguing elsewhere against this idea, I\nhave asked: What was the _modus_ of degeneration which produced similar\nresults in Christianity, and in African and other religions? How did it\nwork? I am not aware that Mr. Max M\u00fcller has answered this question.\nBut how degeneration worked--namely, by Animism supplanting Theism--is\nconspicuously plain on our theory.\n\nTake the early chapters of Genesis, or any savage cosmogonic myth you\nplease. Deathless man is face to face with the Creator. He cannot\ndegenerate in religion. He cannot offer sacrifice, for the Creator\nobviously needs nothing, and again, as there is no death, he cannot slay\nanimals for the Creator. But, in one way or another, usually by breach of\na taboo, Death enters the world. Then comes, by process of evolution,\nbelief in hungry spirits, belief in spirits who may inhabit stones or\nsticks; again there arise priests who know how to propitiate spirits\nand how to tempt them into sticks and stones. These arts become lucrative\nand are backed by the cleverest men, and by the apparent evidence of\nprophecies by convulsionaries. Thus every known kind of degeneration in\nreligion is inevitably introduced as a result of the theory of Animism. We\ndo not need an hypothesis of Original Sin as a cause of degeneration, and,\nif Mr. Max M\u00fcller's doctrine of the Infinite were _viable_, we have\nsupplied, in Animism, under advancing social conditions, what he does not\nseem to provide, a cause and _modus_ of degeneration. Fetishism would\nthus be really 'secondary,' _ex hypothesi_, but as we nowhere find\nFetishism alone, without the other elements of religion, we cannot say,\nhistorically, whether it is secondary or not. Fetishism logically needs,\nin some of its aspects, the doctrine of spirits, and Theism, in what we\ntake to be its earliest known form, does not logically need the doctrine\nof spirits as given matter. So far we can go, but not farther, as to the\nfact of priority in evolution. Nevertheless we meet, among the most\nbackward peoples known to us, among men just emerged from the palaeolithic\nstage of culture, men who are involved in dread of ghosts, a religious\nIdea which certainly is not born of ghost-worship, for by these men,\nancestral ghosts are not worshipped.\n\nIn their hearts, on their lips, in their moral training we find (however\nblended with barbarous absurdities, and obscured by rites of another\norigin) the faith in a Being who created or constructed the world; who was\nfrom time beyond memory or conjecture; who is primal, who makes for\nrighteousness, and who loves mankind. This Being has not the notes of\ndegeneration; his home is 'among the stars,' not in a hill or in a house.\nTo him no altar smokes, and for him no blood is shed.\n\n'God, that made the world and all things therein, seeing that He is lord\nof heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands; neither is\nworshipped with men's hands, as though He needed any thing ... and hath\nmade of one blood all nations of men ... that they should seek the Lord,\nif haply they might feel after Him, and find Him, though He be not far\nfrom every one of us: for in Him we live, and move, and have our being.'\n\nThat the words of St. Paul are literally true, as to the feeling after a\nGod who needs not anything at man's hands, the study of anthropology seems\nto us to demonstrate. That in this God 'we have our being,' in so far\nas somewhat of ours may escape, at moments, from the bonds of Time and the\nmanacles of Space, the earlier part of this treatise is intended to\nsuggest, as a thing by no means necessarily beyond a reasonable man's\npower to conceive. That these two beliefs, however attained (a point on\nwhich we possess no positive evidence), have commonly been subject to\ndegeneration in the religions of the world, is only too obvious.\n\nSo far, then, the nature of things and of the reasoning faculty does not\nseem to give the lie to the old Degeneration theory.\n\nTo these conclusions, as far as they are matters of scientific opinion, we\nhave been led by nothing but the study of anthropology.\n\n[Footnote 1: _Myths of the New World_, p. 44.]\n\n[Footnote 2: _Prim. Cult_. i. 35.]\n\n[Footnote 3: _Introduction_, p. 199; also p. 161.]\n\n[Footnote 4: _Prim. Cult_. ii. 360,361.]\n\n[Footnote 5: Prof. Menzies, _History of Religion_, p. 23.]\n\n[Footnote 6: [Greek: legomenai theion anagchai.] Porphyry.]\n\n[Footnote 7: Ixtlilochitl. Balboa, _Hist. du P\u00e9rou_, p. 62.]\n\n[Footnote 8: Robertson Smith, _Religion of the Semites_, pp. 104, 105.]\n\n[Footnote 9: Op. cit. p. 106.]\n\n[Footnote 10: On the Glenelg some caves and mountain tops are haunted or\nholy. Waitz, vi. 804, No authority cited.]\n\n[Footnote 11: _Religion of Semites_, p. 110.]\n\n[Footnote 12: _Rel. Sem_. p. 71.]\n\n[Footnote 13: Howitt, _J.A.T_. 1884, p. 187.]\n\n[Footnote 14: Op. cit. p. 188.]\n\n[Footnote 15: _Rel. Sem_. p. 207.]\n\n[Footnote 16: _Rel. Sem_. p. 225.]\n\n[Footnote 17: Op. cit. p. 247.]\n\n[Footnote 18: Op. cit. p. 269.]\n\n[Footnote 19: Op. cit. p. 277.]\n\n[Footnote 20: Op. cit. p. 343. Citing Gen. xxii 2 Kings xxi. 6, Micah\nvi. 7, 2 Kings iii. 27.]\n\n[Footnote 21: I mean, does not occur to my knowledge. New evidence is\nalways upsetting anthropological theories.]\n\n\n\n\nXVI\n\nTHEORIES OF JEHOVAH\n\nAll speculation on the curly history of religion is apt to end in the\nendeavour to see how far the conclusions can be made to illustrate the\nfaith of Israel. Thus, the theorist who believes in ancestor-worship as\nthe key of all the creeds will see in Jehovah a developed ancestral\nghost, or a kind of fetish-god, attached to a stone--perhaps an ancient\nsepulchral stele of some desert sheikh.\n\nThe exclusive admirer of the hypothesis of Totemism will find evidence for\nhis belief in worship of the golden calf and the bulls. The partisan of\nnature-worship will insist on Jehovah's connection with storm, thunder,\nand the fire of Sinai. On the other hand, whoever accepts our suggestions\nwill incline to see, in the early forms of belief in Jehovah, a shape of\nthe widely diffused conception of a Moral Supreme Being, at first (or, at\nleast, when our information begins) envisaged in anthropomorphic form,\nbut gradually purged of all local traits by the unexampled and unique\ninspiration of the great Prophets. They, as far as our knowledge extends,\nwere strangely indifferent to the animistic element in religion, to the\ndoctrine of surviving human souls, and so, of course, to that element\nof Animism which is priceless--the purification of the soul in the light\nof the hope of eternal life. Just as the hunger after righteousness of the\nProphets is intense, so their hope of finally sating that hunger\nin an eternity of sinless bliss and enjoyment of God is confessedly\ninconspicuous. In short, they have carried Theism to its austere\nextreme--'though He slay me, yet will I trust in Him'--while unconcerned\nabout the rewards of Animism. This is certainly a strange result of a\nreligion which, according to the anthropological theory, has Animism for\nits basis.\n\nWe therefore examine certain forms of the animistic hypothesis as applied\nto account for the religion of Israel. The topic is one in which special\nknowledge of Hebrew and other Oriental languages seems absolutely\nindispensable; but anthropological speculators have not been Oriental\nscholars (with rare exceptions), while some Oriental scholars have\nborrowed from popular anthropology without much critical discrimination.\nThese circumstances must be our excuse for venturing on to this difficult\nground.\n\nIt is probably impossible for us to trace with accuracy the rise of the\nreligion of Jehovah. 'The wise and learned' dispute endlessly over dates\nof documents, over the amount of later doctrine interpolated into\nthe earlier texts, over the nature, source, and quantity of foreign\ninfluence--Chaldaean, Accadian, Egyptian, or Assyrian. We know that Israel\nhad, in an early age, the conception of the moral Eternal; we know that,\nat an early age, that conception was contaminated and anthropomorphised;\nand we know that it was rescued, in a great degree, from this corruption,\nwhile always retaining its original ethical aspect and sanction. Why\nmatters went thus in Israel and not elsewhere we know not, except that\nsuch was the will of God in the mysterious education of the world. How\nmysterious that education has been is best known to all who have studied\nthe political and social results of Totemism. On the face of it a\nperfectly crazy and degrading belief--on the face of it meant for nothing\nbut to make the family a hell of internecine hatred--Totemism rendered\npossible--nay, inevitable--the union of hostile groups into large and\nrelatively peaceful tribal societies. Given the materials as we know them,\nwe never should have educated the world thus; and we do not see why it\nshould thus have been done. But we are very anthropomorphic, and totally\nignorant of the conditions of the problem.\n\nAn example of anthropological theory concerning Jehovah was put forth by\nMr. Huxley.[1] Mr. Huxley's general idea of religion as it is on the\nlowest known level of material culture--through which the ancestors of\nIsrael must have passed like other people--has already been criticised.\nHe denied to the most backward races both cult and religious sanction of\nethics. He was demonstrably, though unconsciously, in error as to the\nfacts, and therefore could not start from the idea that Israel, in the\nlowest historically known condition of savagery, possessed, or, like other\nraces, might possess, the belief in an Eternal making for righteousness.\n'For my part,' he says, 'I see no reason to doubt that, like the\nrest of the world, the Israelites had passed through a period of mere\nghost-worship, and had advanced through ancestor-worship and Fetishism and\nTotemism to the theological level at which we find them in the Books of\nJudges and Samuel.'[2]\n\nBut why does he think the Israelites did all this? The Hebrew ghosts,\nabiding, according to Mr. Huxley, in a rather torpid condition in Sheol,\nwould not be of much practical use to a worshipper. A reference in\nDeuteronomy xxvi. 14 (Deuteronomy being, _ex hypothesi_, a late pious\nimposture) does not prove much. The Hebrew is there bidden to remind\nhimself of the stay of his ancestors in Egypt, and to say, 'Of the\nhallowed things I have not given aught for the dead'--namely, of the\ntithes dedicated to the Levites and the poor. A race which abode for\ncenturies among the Egyptians, as Israel did--among a people who\nelaborately fed the _kas_ of the departed--might pick up a trace of a\ncustom, the giving of food for the dead, still persevered in by St. Monica\ntill St. Ambrose admonished her. But Mr. Huxley is hard put to it for\nevidence of ancestor-worship or ghost-worship in Israel when he looks for\nindications of these rites in 'the singular weight attached to the\nveneration of parents in the Fourth Commandment.'[3] The _Fourth_\nCommandment, of course, is a slip of the pen. He adds: 'The Fifth\nCommandment, as it stands, would be an excellent compromise between\nancestor-worship and Monotheism.' Long may children practise this\nexcellent compromise! It is really too far-fetched to reason thus: 'People\nwere bidden to honour their parents, as a compromise between Monotheism\nand ghost-worship.' Hard, hard bestead is he who has to reason in that\nfashion! This comes of 'training in the use of the weapons of precision of\nscience.'\n\nMr. Huxley goes on: 'The Ark of the Covenant may have been a relic of\nancestor-worship;' 'there is a good deal to be said for that speculation.'\nPossibly there is, by way of the valuable hypothesis that Jehovah was a\nfetish stone which had been a grave-stone, or perhaps a _lingam_, and was\nkept in the Ark on the plausible pretext that it was the two Tables of\nthe Law!\n\nHowever, Mr. Huxley really finds it safer to suppose that references to\nancestor-worship in the Bible were obliterated by late monotheistic\neditors, who, none the less, are so full and minute in their descriptions\nof the various heresies into which Israel was eternally lapsing, and must\nnot be allowed to lapse again. Had ancestor-worship been a _p\u00e9ch\u00e9 mignon_\nof Israel, the Prophets would have let Israel hear their mind on it.\n\nThe Hebrews' indifference to the departed soul is, in fact, a puzzle,\nespecially when we consider their Egyptian education--so important an\nelement in Mr. Huxley's theory.\n\nMr. Herbert Spencer is not more successful than Mr. Huxley in finding\nancestor-worship among the Hebrews. On the whole subject he writes:\n\n'Where the levels of mental nature and social progress are lowest, we\nusually find, along with an absence of religious ideas generally, an\nabsence, or very slight development, of ancestor-worship.... Cook\n[Captain Cook], telling us what the Fuegians were before contact\nwith Europeans had introduced foreign ideas, said there were no\nappearances of religion among them; and we are not told by him or others\nthat they were ancestor-worshippers.'[4]\n\nProbably they are not; but they do possess a Being who reads their hearts,\nand who certainly shows no traces of European ideas. If the Fuegians\nare not ancestor-worshippers, this Being was not developed out of\nancestor-worship.\n\nThe evidence of Captain Cook, no anthropologist, but a mariner who saw and\nknew little of the Fuegians, is precisely of the sort against which Major\nEllis warns us.[5] The more a religion consists in fear of a moral\nguardian of conduct, the less does it show itself, by sacrifice or rite,\nto the eyes of Captain Cook, of his Majesty's ship _Endeavour_. Mr.\nSpencer places the Andamanese on the same level as the Fuegians, 'so far\nas the scanty evidence may be trusted.' We have shown that (as known\nto Mr. Spencer in 1876) it may not be trusted at all; the Andamanese\npossessing a moral Supreme Being, though they are not, apparently,\nancestor-worshippers. The Australians 'show us not much persistence in\nghost-propitiation,' which, if it exists, ceases when the corpses are tied\nup and buried, or after they are burned, or after the bones, carried about\nfor a while, are exposed on platforms. Yet many Australian tribes possess\na moral Supreme Being.\n\nIn fact ghost-worship, in Mr. Spencer's scheme, cannot be fairly well\ndeveloped till society reaches the level of 'settled groups whose\nburial-places are in their midst.' Hence the development of a moral\nSupreme Being among tribes _not_ thus settled, is inconceivable, on\nMr. Spencer's hypothesis.[6] By that hypothesis, 'worshipped ancestors,\naccording to their remoteness, were regarded as divine, semi-divine, and\nhuman.'[7] Where we find, then, the Divine Being among nomads who do not\nremember their great-grandfathers, the Spencerian theory is refuted by\nfacts. We have the effect, the Divine Being, without the cause, worship of\nancestors.\n\nComing to the Hebrews, Mr. Spencer argues that 'the silence of their\nlegends (as to ancestor-worship) is but a negative fact, which may be as\nmisleading as negative facts usually are.' They are, indeed; witness\nMr. Spencer's own silence about savage Supreme Beings. But we may fairly\nargue that if Israel had been given to ancestor-worship (as might partly\nbe surmised from the mystery about the grave of Moses) the Prophets would\nnot have spared them for their crying. The Prophets were unusually\noutspoken men, and, as they undeniably do scold Israel for every other\nkind of conceivable heresy, they were not likely to be silent about\nancestor-worship, if ancestor-worship existed. Mr. Spencer, then, rather\nheedlessly, though correctly, argues that 'nomadic habits are unfavourable\nto evolution of the ghost-theory.'[8] Alas, this gives away the whole\ncase! For, if all men began as nomads, and nomadic habits are unfavourable\neven to the ordinary ghost, how did the Australian and other nomads\ndevelop the Supreme Being, who, _ex hypothesi_, is the final fruit of the\nghost-flower? If you cannot have 'an established ancestor-worship' till\nyou abandon nomadic habits, how, while still nomadic, do you evolve a\nSupreme Being? Obviously not out of ancestor-worship.\n\nMr. Spencer then assigns, as evidence for ancestor-worship in Israel,\nmourning dresses, fasting, the law against self-bleeding and cutting off\nthe hair for the dead, and the text (Deut. xxvi. 14) about 'I have not\ngiven aught thereof for the dead.' 'Hence, the conclusion must be that\nancestor-worship had developed as far as nomadic habits allowed, before it\nwas repressed by a higher worship.'[9] But whence came that higher worship\nwhich seems to have intervened immediately after the cessation of nomadic\nhabits?\n\nThere are obvious traces of grief expressed in a primitive way among the\nHebrews. 'Ye shall not cut yourselves, nor make any baldness between your\neyes for the dead' (Deut. xiv. 1). 'Neither shall men lament for them,\nnor cut themselves, nor make themselves bald for them; neither shall men\ntear themselves for them in mourning, to comfort them for the dead' (by\nway of counter-irritant to grief); 'neither shall men give them the cup\nof consolation to drink for their father or their mother,' because the\nJews were to be removed from their homes.[10] 'Ye shall not make any\ncuttings in your flesh for the dead, nor print any marks upon you.'[11]\n\nIt may be usual to regard inflictions, such as cutting, by mourners, as\nsacrifices to the ghost of the dead. But one has seen a man strike himself\na heavy blow on receiving news of a loss _not_ by death, and I venture to\nfancy that cuttings and gashings at funerals are merely a more violent\nform of appeal to a counter-irritant of grief, and, again, a token of\nrecklessness caused by a sorrow which makes void the world. One of John\nNicholson's native adorers killed himself on news of that warrior's death,\nsaying, 'What is left worth living for?' This was not a sacrifice to the\nManes of Nicholson. The sacrifice of the mourner's hair, as by Achilles,\nargues a similar indifference to personal charm. Once more, the text in\nPsalm cvi. 28, 'They joined themselves unto Baal-Peor, and ate the\nsacrifices of the dead,' is usually taken by commentators as a reference\nto the ritual of gods who are no gods. But it rather seems to indicate an\nacquiescence in foreign burial rites. All this additional evidence does\nnot do much to prove ancestor-worship in Israel, though the secrecy of the\nburial of Moses, 'in a valley of the land of Moab, over against Beth-peor;\nbut no man knoweth of his sepulchre to this day,' may indicate a dread of\na nascent worship of the great leader.[12] The scene of the defection in\nPsalm cvi., Beth-peor, is indicated in Numbers xxv., where Israel runs\nafter the girls and the gods of Moab: 'And Moab called the people unto the\nsacrifices of their gods; and the people did eat, and bowed down to their\ngods. And Israel joined himself unto Baal-peor.' Psalm cvi. is obviously a\nlater restatement of this addiction to the Moabite gods, and the Psalm\nadds 'they ate the sacrifices of the dead.'\n\nIt is plain that, for whatever reason, ancestor-worship among the Hebrews\nwas, at the utmost, rudimentary. Otherwise it must have been clearly\ndenounced by the Prophets among the other heresies of Israel. Therefore,\nas being at the most rudimentary, ancestor-worship in Israel could not be\ndeveloped at once into the worship of Jehovah.\n\nThough ancestor-worship among the Hebrews could not be fully developed,\naccording to Mr. Spencer, because of their nomadic habits, it _was_ fully\ndeveloped, according to the Rev. A.W. Oxford. 'Every family, like every\nold Roman and Greek family, was firmly held together by the worship of its\nancestors, the hearth was the altar, the head of the family the priest....\nThe bond which kept together the families of a tribe was its common\nreligion, the worship of its reputed ancestor. The chief of the tribe was,\nof course, the priest of the cult.' Of course; but what a pity that Mr.\nHuxley and Mr. Spencer omitted facts so invaluable to their theory! And\nhow does the Rev. Mr. Oxford know? Well, 'there is no direct proof,'\noddly enough, of so marked a feature in Hebrew religion but we are\nreferred to 1 Sam. xx. 29 and Judges xviii. 19. 1 Sam. xx. 29 makes\nJonathan say that David wants to go to a family sacrifice, that is, a\nfamily dinner party. This hardly covers the large assertions made by\nMr. Oxford. His second citation is so unlucky as to contradict his\nobservation that 'of course' the chief of the tribe was the priest of the\ncult. Micah, in Judges xvii., xviii., is _not_ the chief of his tribe\n(Ephraim), neither is he even the priest in his own house. He 'consecrated\none of his own sons who became his priest,' till he got hold of a casual\nyoung Levite, and said, 'Be unto me a _father_ and a priest,' for ten\nshekels _per annum_, a suit of clothes, and board and lodging.\n\nIn place, then, of any remote reference to a chief's being priest of his\nancestral ghosts, we have here a man of one tribe who is paid rather\nhandsomely to be family chaplain to a member of another tribe. Some\nmoss-troopers of the tribe of Dan then kidnapped this valuable young\nLevite, and seized a few idols which Micah had permitted himself to make.\nAnd all this, according to our clerical authority, is evidence for\nancestor-worship![13]\n\nAll this appears to be derived from some incoherent speculations of Stade.\nFor example, that learned German cites the story of Micah as a proof that\nthe different tribes or clans had different religions. This _must_ be so,\nbecause the Danites asked the young Levite whether it was not better to be\npriest to a clan than to an individual? It is as if a patron offered a\nrich living to somebody's private chaplain, saying that the new position\nwas more creditable and lucrative. This would hardly prove a difference of\nreligion between the individual and the parish.[14]\n\nMr. Oxford next avers that 'the earliest form of the Israelite religion\nwas Fetishism or Totemism.' This is another example of Stade's logic.\nFinding, as he believes, names suggestive of Totemism in Simeon, Levi,\nRachel, and so on, Stade leaps to the conclusion that Totemism in Israel\nwas prior to anything resembling monotheism. For monotheism, he argues,\ncould not give the germs of the clan or tribal organisation, while Totemism\ncould do so. Certainly it could, but as, in many regions (America,\nAustralia), we find Totemism and the belief in a benevolent Supreme Being\nco-existing among savages, when first observed by Europeans, we cannot\npossibly say dogmatically whether a rough monotheism or whether Totemism\ncame first in order of evolution. This holds as good of Israel (if once\ntotemistic) as it does of Pawnees or Kurnai. Stade has overlooked these\nwell-known facts, and his opinion filters into a cheap hand-book, and is\nset in examinations![15]\n\nWe also learn from Mr. Oxford's popular manual of German Biblical\nconjecture that 'Jehovah was not represented as a loving Father, but as a\nBeing easily roused to wrath,' a thing most incident to loving fathers.\n\nAgain, Mr. Oxford avers that 'the old Israelites knew no distinction\nbetween physical and moral evil.... The conception of Jehovah's holiness\nhad nothing moral in it' (p. 90). This rather contradicts Wellhausen: 'In\nall ancient primitive peoples ... religion furnishes a motive for law and\nmorals; in the case of none did it become so with such purity and power as\nin that of the Israelites.'[16]\n\nWe began by examining Mr. Huxley's endeavours to find traces of\nancestor-worship (in his opinion the origin of Jehovah-worship) among the\nIsraelites. We next criticised Mr. Spencer's efforts in the same quest,\nand the more dogmatic assertions of Mr. Oxford and Stade. We now return to\nMr. Huxley's account of the evolution from ghost-cult to the cult of\nJehovah.\n\nFrom the history of the Witch of Endor, which Mr. Huxley sees no reason to\nregard as other than a sincere statement of what really occurred, he\ngathers that the Witch cried out, 'I see Elohim.' These Elohim proved to\nbe the phantasm of the dead Samuel. Moved by this hallucination the Witch\nuttered a veridical premonition, totally adverse to her own interests, and\nuncommonly dangerous to her life. This is, psychically, interesting.\nThe point, however, is that _Elohim_ is a term equivalent to Red\nIndian _Wakan_, Fijian _Kahu_, Maori or Melanesian _Mana_, meaning the\n'supernatural,' the vaguely powerful--in fact X. This particular example\nof _Elohim_ was a phantasm of the dead, but _Elohim_ is also used of the\nhighest Divine Being, therefore the highest Divine Being is of the same\ngenus as a ghost--so Mr. Huxley reasons. 'The difference which was\nsupposed to exist between the different Elohim was one of degree, not of\nkind.'[17]\n\n'If Jehovah was thus supposed to differ only in degree from the\nundoubtedly zoomorphic or anthropomorphic \"gods of the nations,\" why is it\nto be assumed that he also was not thought to have a human shape?' He\n_was_ thought to have a human shape, at one time, by some theorists: no\ndoubt exists on that head. That, however, is not where we demur. We demur\nwhen, because an hallucination of the Witch of Endor (probably still\nincompletely developed) is called by her _Elohim_, therefore the highest\n_Elohim_ is said by Mr. Huxley to differ from a ghost only in degree, not\nin kind. _Elohim_, or _El_, the creative, differs from a ghost in kind,\nbecause he, in Hebrew belief, never was a ghost, he is immortal and\nwithout beginning.\n\nMr. Huxley now enforces his theory by a parallel between the religion of\nTonga and the religion of Israel under the Judges. He quotes Mariner,[18]\nwhose statement avers that there is a supreme Tongan being: 'of his\norigin they had no idea, rather supposing him to be eternal. His name is\nT\u00e1-li-y-Tooboo = \"Wait-there-Tooboo.\"' 'He is a great chief from the top\nof the sky down to the bottom of the earth.' He, and other '_original_\ngods' of his making, are carefully and absolutely discriminated from the\n_atua_, which are 'the human soul after its separation from the body.' All\nTongan gods are _atua_ (_Elohim_), but all _atua_ are not 'original gods,'\nunserved by priests, and unpropitiated by food or libation, like the\nhighest God, T\u00e1-li-y-Tooboo, the Eternal of Tonga. 'He occasionally\ninspires the How' (elective King), but often a How is not inspired at all\nby T\u00e1-li-y-Tooboo, any more than Saul, at last, was inspired by Jehovah.\n\nSurely there is a difference _in kind_ between an eternal, immortal God,\nand a ghost, though both are _atua_, or both are _Elohim_--the unknown X.\n\nMany people call a ghost 'supernatural;' they also call God\n'supernatural,' but the difference between a phantasm of a dead man and\nthe Deity they would admit, I conceive, to be a difference of kind. We\nhave shown, or tried to show, that the conceptions of 'ghost' and 'Supreme\nBeing' are different, not only in kind, but in origin. The ghost comes\nfrom, and depends on, the animistic theory; the Supreme Being, as\noriginally thought of, does not. All Gods are _Elohim, kalou, wakan_; all\n_Elohim, kalou, wakan_ are not Gods.\n\nA ghost-god should receive food or libation. Mr. Huxley says that\nT\u00e1-li-y-Tooboo did so. 'If the god, like T\u00e1-li-y-Tooboo, had no priest,\nthen the chief place was left vacant, and was supposed to be occupied by\nthe god himself. _When the first cup of Kava was filled_, the mataboole\nwho acted as master of the ceremonies said, \"Give it to your god,\" and it\nwas offered, though only as a matter of form.'[19]\n\nThis is incorrect. In the case of T\u00e1-li-y-Tooboo _'there is no cup filled\nfor the god.'_[20] _'Before any cup is filled_ the man by the side of the\nbowl says: \"The Kava is in the cup\"' (which it is not), 'and the mataboole\nanswers, \"Give it to your god;\"' but the Kava is _not_ in the cup, and the\nTongan Eternal receives no oblation.\n\nThe sacrifice, says Mr. Huxley, meant 'that the god was either a deified\nghost, or, at any rate, a being of like nature to these.'[21] But as\nT\u00e1-li-y-Tooboo had no sacrifice, contrary to Mr. Huxley's averment, he was\n_not_ 'a deified ghost, or a being of like nature to these.' To the lower,\nnon-ghostly Tongan gods the animistic habit of sacrifice had been\nextended, but not yet to the Supreme Being.\n\nAh, if Mr. Gladstone, or the Duke of Argyll, or some bishop had made a\nmisstatement of this kind, how Mr. Huxley would have crushed him! But it\nis a mere error of careless reading, such as we all make daily.\n\nIt is manifest that we cannot prove Jehovah to be a ghost by the parallel\nof a Tongan god, who, by ritual and by definition, was _not_ a ghost. The\nproof therefore rests on the anthropomorphised pre-prophetic accounts, and\non the ritual, of Jehovah. But man naturally 'anthropises' his deities: he\ndoes not thereby demonstrate that they were once ghosts.\n\nAs regards the sacrifices to Jehovah, the sweet savour which he was\nsupposed to enjoy (contrary to the opinion of the Prophets), these\nsacrifices afford the best presumption that Jehovah was a ghost-god, or a\ngod constructed on ghostly lines.\n\nBut we have shown that among the lowest races neither are ghosts\nworshipped by sacrifice, nor does the Supreme Being, Darumulun or Puluga,\nreceive food offerings. We have also instanced many Supreme Beings\nof more advanced races, Ahone, and Dendid, and Nyankupon, who do not sniff\nthe savour of any offerings. If then (as in the case of Taa-roa), a\nSupreme Being _does_ receive sacrifice, we may argue that a piece of\nanimistic ritual, not connected with the Supreme Being in Australia or\nAndaman, not connected with his creed in Virginia or Africa (where\nghost-gods do receive sacrifice), may in other regions be transferred from\nghost-gods to the Supreme Being, who never was a ghost. There seems to\nbe nothing incredible or illogical in the theory of such transference.\n\nOn a God who never was a ghost men may come to confer sacrifices (which\nare not made to Baiame and the rest) because, being in the habit of thus\npropitiating one set of bodiless powers, men may not think it civil or\nsafe to leave another set of powers out. By his very nature, man must\nclothe all gods with some human passions and attributes, unless, like a\nlarge number of savages, he leaves his high God severely alone, and is the\nslave of fetishes and spectres. But that practice makes against the\nghost-theory.\n\nIn the attempt to account thus, namely by transference, for the sacrifices\nto Jehovah, we are met by a difficulty of our own making. If the\nIsraelites did not sacrifice to ancestors (as we have shown that there is\nvery scant reason for supposing that they did), how could they transfer to\nJehovah the rite which, by our hypothesis, they are not proved to have\noffered to ancestors?\n\nThis is certainly a hard problem, harder (or perhaps easier) because we\nknow so very little of the early history of the Hebrews. According to\ntheir own traditions, Israel had been in touch with all manner of races\nmuch more advanced than themselves in material culture, and steeped in\nhighly developed polytheistic Animism. According to their history, the\nIsraelites 'went a-whoring' incorrigibly after strange gods. It is\nimpossible, perhaps, to disentangle the foreign and the native elements.\n\nIt may therefore be tentatively suggested that early Israel had its Ahone\nin a Being perhaps not yet named Jehovah. Israel entertained, however,\nperhaps by reason of 'nomadic habits,' only the scantiest concern about\nancestral ghosts. We then find an historical tradition of secular contact\nbetween Israel and Egypt, from which Israel emerges with Jehovah for God,\nand a system of sacrifices. Regarding Jehovah as a revived memory of\nthe moral Supreme Being whom Israel must have known in extremely remote\nages (unless Israel was less favoured than Australians, Bushmen, or\nAndamanese), we might look on the sacrifices to him as an adaptation from\nthe practices of religion among races more settled than Israel, and more\ncivilised.[22]\n\nSpeculation on subjects so remote must be conjectural, but our suggestion\nwould, perhaps, account for sacrifices to Jehovah, paid by a race\nwhich, by reason of 'nomadic habits,' was never much given to\nancestor-worship, but had been in contact with great sacrificing,\npolytheistic civilisations. Mr. Huxley, however, while he seems to slur\nthe essential distinction between ghost-gods and the Eternal, grants,\nlater, that 'there are very few people(s?) without additional gods,\nwhich cannot, with certainty, be accounted for as deified ancestors.'\nT\u00e1-li-y-Tooboo, of course, is one of these gods, as is Jehovah. Mr. Huxley\ngives no theory of _how_ these gods came into belief, except the\nsuggestion that 'the polytheistic theology has become modified by the\nselection of the cosmic or tribal god, as the only god to whom worship is\ndue on the part of that nation,' without prejudice to the right of other\nnations to worship other gods.[23] This is 'monolatry,' and 'the ethical\ncode, often of a very high order, comes into closer relation with the\ntheological creed,' _why_, we are not informed. Nor do we learn out of\nwhat polytheistic deities Jehovah was selected, nor for what reason. The\nhypothesis, as usual, breaks down on the close relation between the\nethical code and the theological creed, among low savages, with a\nrelatively Supreme Being, but without ancestor-worship, and without\npolytheistic gods from whom to select a heavenly chief.\n\nWhence came the moral element in the idea of Jehovah? Mr. Huxley supposes\nthat, during their residence in the land of Goshen (and _a fortiori_\nbefore it), the Israelites 'knew nothing of Jehovah.'[24] They were\npolytheistic idolaters. This follows, apparently, from Ezekiel xx. 5:\n'In the day when I chose Israel, and lifted up mine hand unto the seed of\nthe house of Jacob, _and made myself known unto them_ in the land of\nEgypt.' The Biblical account is that the God of Moses's fathers, the God\nof Abraham, enlightened Moses in Sinai, giving his name as 'I am that I\nam' (Exodus iii. 6, 14; translation uncertain). We are to understand that\nMoses, a religious reformer, revived an old, and, in the Egyptian bondage,\na half-obliterated creed of the ancient nomadic Beni-Israel. They were no\nlonger to 'defile themselves with the idols of Egypt,' as they had\nobviously done. We really know no more about the matter. Wellhausen says\nthat Jehovah was 'originally a family or tribal god, either of the family\nof Moses or of the tribe of Joseph.' How a family could develop a Supreme\nBeing all to itself, we are not informed, and we know of no such analogous\ncase in the ethnographic field. Again, Jehovah was 'only a special name of\nEl, current within a powerful circle.' And who was El?[25] 'Moses was not\nthe first discoverer of the faith.' Probably not, but Mr. Huxley seems to\nthink that he was.\n\nWellhausen's and other German ideas filter into popular traditions, as we\nsaw, through 'A Short Introduction to the History of Ancient Israel'\n(pp. 19, 20), by the Rev. A.W. Oxford, M.A., Vicar of St. Luke's, Soho.\nHere follows Mr. Oxford's undeniably 'short way with Jehovah.' 'Moses was\nthe founder of the Israelite religion. Jehovah, his family or tribal god,\nperhaps originally the God of the Kenites, was taken as a tribal god by\nall the Israelite tribes.... That Jehovah was not the original god of\nIsrael' (as the Bible impudently alleges) 'but was the god of the Kenites,\nwe see mainly from Deut. xxxiii. 2, Judges v. 4, 5, and from the history\nof Jethro, who, according to Judges i. 16, was a Kenite.'\n\nThe first text says that, according to Moses, 'the Lord came from Sinai,'\nrose up from Seir, and shone from Mount Paran. The second text mentions\nJehovah's going up out of Seir and Sinai. The third text says that Jethro,\nMoses's Kenite (or Midianite) father-in-law, dwelt among the people of\nJudah; Jethro being a priest of Midian. How all this proves that 'Moses\nwas a great impostor,' as the poet says, and that Jehovah was not 'the\noriginal God of Israel,' but (1) Moses's family or tribal god, or (2) 'the\ngod of the Kenites,' I profess my inability to comprehend.\n\nWellhausen himself had explained Jehovah as 'a family or tribal god,\neither of the family of Moses' (tribe of Levi) 'or of the tribe of\nJoseph.' It seems to be all one to Mr. Oxford whether Jehovah was a god\nof Moses's tribe or quite the reverse, 'a Kenite god.' Yet it really\nmakes a good deal of difference! For in a complex of tribes, speaking one\nlanguage, it is to the last degree unexampled (within my knowledge) that\none tribe, or family, possesses, all to itself, a family god who is also\nthe Creator and is later accepted as such by all the other tribes. One may\nask for instances of such a thing in any known race, in any stage of\nculture. Peru will not help us--not the Creator, Pachacamac, but the Sun,\nis the god of the Inca family. If, on the other hand, Jehovah was a Kenite\ngod, the Kenites were a half-Arab Semitic people connected with Israel,\nand may very well have retained traditions of a Supreme Being which, in\nEgypt, were likely to be dimmed, as Exodus asserts, by foreign religions.\nThe learned Stade, to be sure, may disbelieve in Israel's sojourn in\nEgypt, but that revolutionary opinion is not necessarily binding on us and\ninvolves a few difficulties.\n\nHave critics and manual-makers no knowledge of the science of comparative\nreligion? Are they unaware that peoples infinitely more backward than\nIsrael was at the date supposed have already moral Supreme Beings\nacknowledged over vast tracts of territory? Have they a tittle of positive\nevidence that early Israel was benighted beyond the darkness of Bushmen,\nAndamanese, Pawnees, Blackfeet, Hurons, Indians of British Guiana, Dinkas,\nNegroes, and so forth? Unless Israel had this rare ill-luck (which Israel\ndenies) of course Israel must have had a secular tradition, however dim,\nof a Supreme Being. We must ask for a single instance of a family or\ntribe, in a complex of semi-barbaric but not savage tribes of one\nspeech, owning a private deity who happened to be the Maker and Ruler of\nthe world, and, as such, was accepted by all the tribes. Jehovah came out\nfrom Sinai, because, there having been a Theophany at Sinai, that mountain\nwas regarded as one of his seats.[26]\n\nWe have seen that it seemed to make no difference to Mr. Oxford whether\nJehovah was a god of Moses's family or tribe or a Kenite god. The former\n(with the alternative of _Joseph's_ family or tribal god) is Wellhausen's\ntheory. The latter is Stade's.[27] Each is inconsistent with the other;\nWellhausen's fancy is inconsistent with all that we know of religious\ndevelopment: Stade's is hopelessly inconsistent with Exodus iv. 24-26,\nwhere Moses's Kenite wife reproaches him for a ceremony of his, not of\nher, religion. Therefore the Kenite differed from the Hebrew _sacra_.\n\nThe passage is very extraordinary, and is said by critics to be very\narchaic. After the revelation of the Burning Bush, Jehovah met Moses and\nhis Kenite wife, Zipporah, and their child, at a khan. Jehovah was\nanxious to slay Moses, nobody ever knew why, so Zipporah appeased\nJehovah's wrath by circumcising her boy _with a flint_. 'A bloody husband\nart thou to me,' she said, 'because of the circumcision'--an Egyptian,\nbut clearly not a Kenite practice. Whatever all this may mean, it does not\nlook as if Zipporah expected such rites as circumcision in the faith of a\nKenite husband, nor does it favour the idea that the _sacra_ of Moses were\nof Kenite origin.\n\nWithout being a scholar, or an expert in Biblical criticism, one may\nprotest against the presentation to the manual-reading intellectual middle\nclasses of a theory so vague, contradictory, and (by all analogy) so\nimpossible as Mr. Oxford collects from German writers. Of course, the\nwhole subject, so dogmatically handled, is mere matter of dissentient\nopinion among scholars. Thus M. Renan derives the name of Jehovah from\nAssyria, from 'Aramaised Chaldaeanism.'[28] In that case the name was long\nanterior to the residence in Egypt. But again, perhaps Jehovah was a local\ngod of Sinai, or a provincial deity in Palestine.[29] He was known to very\nancient sages, who preferred such names as El Shaddai and Elohim. In\nshort, we have no certainty on the subject.[30]\n\nI need hardly say, perhaps, that I have no antiquated prejudice against\nBiblical criticism. Assuredly the Bible must be studied like any other\ncollection of documents, linguistically, historically, and in the light of\nthe comparative method. The leading ideas of Wellhausen, for example, are\nconspicuous for acumen: the humblest layman can see that. But one may\nprotest against criticising the Bible, or Homer, by methods like those\nwhich prove Shakspeare to have been Bacon. One must protest, too, against\nthe presentation of inconsistent and probably baseless critical hypotheses\nin the dogmatic brevity of cheap handbooks.\n\nYet again, whence comes the moral element in Jehovah? Mr. Huxley thinks\nthat it possibly came from the ethical practice and theory of Egypt. In\nthe Egyptian Book of the Dead, 'a sort of Guide to Spirit Land,' there\nare moral chapters; the ghost tells his judges in Amenti what sins he has\n_not_ committed. Many of these sins are forbidden in the Ten Commandments.\n\nThey are just as much forbidden in the nascent morality of savage peoples.\nMoses did not need the Book of the Dead to teach him elementary morals.\nFrom the mysteries of Mtanga he might have learned, also, had he been\npresent, the virtue of unselfish generosity. If the creed of Jehovah, or\nof El, retained only as much of ethics as is under divine sanction among\nthe Kurnai, adaptation from the Book of the Dead was superfluous.\n\nThe care for the departed, the ritual of the Ka, the intense\npre-occupation with the future life, which, far more than its morality,\nare the essential characteristics of the Book of the Dead--Israel cared\nfor none of these animistic things, brought none of these, or very little\nof these, out of the land of Egypt. Moses was certainly very eclectic; he\ntook only the morality of Egypt. But as Mr. Huxley advances this opinion\ntentatively, as having no secure historical authority about Moses, it\nhardly answers our question, Whence came the moral element in Jehovah? One\nmay surmise that it was the survival of the primitive divinely sanctioned\nethics of the ancient savage ancestors of the Israelite, known to them,\nas to the Kurnai, before they had a pot, or a bronze knife, or seed to\nsow, or sheep to herd, or even a tent over their heads. In the counsels of\neternity Israel was chosen to keep burning, however obscured with smoke\nof sacrifice, that flame which illumines the darkest places of the earth,\n'a light to lighten the Gentiles, and the glory of thy people Israel'--a\nflame how litten a light whence shining, history cannot inform us, and\nanthropology can but conjecture. Here scientific nescience is wiser than\nthe cocksureness of popular science, with her ghosts and fetish-stones,\nand gods that sprang from ghosts, which ghosts, however, could not be\ndeveloped, owing to nomadic habits.\n\nIt appears, then, if our general suggestion meets with any acceptance,\nthat what occurred in the development of Hebrew religion was precisely\nwhat the Bible tells us did occur. This must necessarily seem highly\nparadoxical to our generation; but the whole trend of our provisional\nsystem makes in favour of the paradox. If savage nomadic Israel had the\nhigher religious conceptions proved to exist among several of the lowest\nknown races, these conceptions might be revived by a leader of genius.\nThey might, in a crisis of tribal fortunes, become the rallying point of a\nnew national sentiment. Obscured, in some degree, by acquaintance with\n'the idols of Egypt,' and restricted and localised by the very national\nsentiment which they fostered, these conceptions were purified and widened\nfar beyond any local, tribal, or national restrictions--widened far as the\n_flammantia moenia mundi_--by the historically unique genius of the\nProphets. Blended with the doctrine of our Lord, and recommended by the\naddition of Animism in its pure and priceless form--the reward of faith,\nhope, and charity in eternal life--the faith of Israel enlightened the\nworld.\n\nAll this is precisely what occurred, according to the Old and New\nTestaments. All this is just what, on our hypothesis, might be expected to\noccur if, out of the many races which, in their most backward culture, had\na rude conception of a Moral Creative Being, relatively supreme, one race\nendured the education of Israel, showed the comparative indifference of\nIsrael to Animism and ghost-gods, listened to the Prophets of Israel, and\ngave birth to a greater than Moses and the Prophets.\n\nTo this result the Logos, as Socrates says, has led us, by the path of\nanthropology.\n\n[Footnote 1: _Science and Hebrew Tradition_.]\n\n[Footnote 2: Op. cit. p. 361.]\n\n[Footnote 3:_ Science and Hebrew Tradition_. p. 308.]\n\n[Footnote 4: _Prin. Soc_. p. 306.]\n\n[Footnote 5: _The Tshi-speaking Races_, p. 183.]\n\n[Footnote 6: Some Australian tribes have cemeteries, and I have found one\nnative witness, King Billy, to the celebration of the mysteries near one of\nthese burying-places. I have not discovered other evidence to this effect,\nthough I have looked for it. The spot selected is usually 'near the camp,'\nand the place for so large a camp in chosen, naturally, where the supply\nof food is adequate.]\n\n[Footnote 7: Cf. the Aryans, _Principles of Sociology_, p. 314.]\n\n[Footnote 8: _Principles_, p. 316.]\n\n[Footnote 9: Ibid. p. 317.]\n\n[Footnote 10: Jeremiah xvi. 6, 7.]\n\n[Footnote 11: Leviticus xix. 28.]\n\n[Footnote 12: Deuteronomy xxxiv. 6.]\n\n[Footnote 13: _Short Introduction to History of Ancient Israel_, pp.\n83, 84.]\n\n[Footnote 14: Stade i 403.]\n\n[Footnote 15: Stade, i. 406.]\n\n[Footnote 16: Wellhausen, _History of Israel_, p. 437. Mr. Oxford's book\nis only noticed here because it is meant for a popular manual. As Mr.\nHenry Foker says, 'it seems a pity that the clergy should interfere in\nthese matters.']\n\n[Footnote 17: _Science and Hebrew Tradition_, p. 299.]\n\n[Footnote 18: II. 127.]\n\n[Footnote 19: _Science and Hebrew Tradition_, p. 331.]\n\n[Footnote 20: Mariner, ii. 205.]\n\n[Footnote 21: Op. cit. p. 335.]\n\n[Footnote 22: Of course, it in understood that Israel (in the dark\nbackward and abysm of time) may also have been totemistic, like the\nAustralians, as texts pointed out by Mr. Robertson Smith seem to hint.\nThere was also worship of teraphim, respect paid to stones and trees, and\nso forth.]\n\n[Footnote 23: _Science and Hebrew Tradition_, p. 349.]\n\n[Footnote 24: P. 351.]\n\n[Footnote 25: _History of Israel_, p. 443 note.]\n\n[Footnote 26: _Religion of Semites_.]\n\n[Footnote 27: _Geschichte des Volkes Israel_, i. 180.]\n\n[Footnote 28: _Histoire du Peuple d'Israel_, citing Schrader, p. 23.]\n\n[Footnote 29: Op. cit. p. 85]\n\n[Footnote 30: See Professor Robertson's _Early Religion of Israel_ for a\nlist of these conjectures, and, generally, for criticisms of the\noccasional vagaries of critics.]\n\n\n\n\nXVII\n\nCONCLUSION\n\nWe may now glance backward at the path which we have tried to cut through\nthe jungles of early religions. It is not a highway, but the track\nof a solitary explorer; and this essay pretends to be no more than a\nsketch--not an exhaustive survey of creeds. Its limitations are obvious,\nbut may here be stated. The higher and even the lower polytheisms are only\nalluded to in passing, our object being to keep well in view the\nconception of a Supreme, or practically Supreme, Being, from the lowest\nstages of human culture up to Christianity. In polytheism that conception\nis necessarily obscured, showing itself dimly either in the _Prytanis_,\nor President of the Immortals, such as Zeus; or in Fate, behind and above\nthe Immortals; or in Mr. Max M\u00fcller's _Henotheism_, where the god\naddressed--Indra, or Soma, or Agni--is, for the moment, envisaged as\nsupreme, and is adored in something like a monotheistic spirit; or,\nfinally, in the etherealised deity of advanced philosophic speculation.\n\nIt has not been necessary, for our purpose, to dwell on these civilised\nreligions. Granting our hypothesis of an early Supreme Being among\nsavages, obscured later by ancestor-worship and ghost-gods, but not\noften absolutely lost to religious tradition, the barbaric and the\ncivilised polytheisms easily take their position in line, and are easily\nintelligible. Space forbids a discussion of all known religions; only\ntypical specimens have been selected. Thus, nothing has been said of the\nreligion of the great Chinese empire. It appears to consist, on its\nhigher plane, of the worship of Heaven as a great fetish-god--a worship\nwhich may well have begun in days, as Dr. Brinton says, 'long ere man had\nasked himself, \"Are the heavens material and God spiritual?\"'--perhaps,\nfor all we know, before the idea of 'spirit' had been evolved. Thus, if it\ncontains nothing more august, the Chinese religion is, so far, beneath\nthat of the Zu\u00f1is, or the creed in Taa-roa, in Beings who are eternal, who\nwere before earth was or sky was. The Chinese religion of Heaven is also\ncoloured by Chinese political conditions; Heaven (Tien) corresponds to the\nEmperor, and tends to be confounded with Shang-ti, the Emperor above. 'Dr.\nLegge charges Confucius,' says Mr. Tylor, 'with an inclination to\nsubstitute, in his religious teaching, the name of Tien, Heaven, for that\nknown to more ancient religion, and used in more ancient books--Shang-ti,\nthe personal ruling deity.' If so, China too has its ancient Supreme\nBeing, who is not a divinised aspect of nature.\n\nBut Mr. Tylor's reading, in harmony with his general theory, is different:\n\n'It seems, rather, that the sage was, in fact, upholding the tradition of\nthe ancient faith, thus acting according to the character on which he\nprided himself--that of a transmitter, not a maker, a preserver of old\nknowledge, not a new revealer.'[1]\n\nThis, of course, is purely a question of evidence, to be settled by\nSinologists. If the personal Supreme Being, Shang-ti, occupies in older\ndocuments the situation held by Tien (Heaven) in Confucius's later system,\nwhy are we to say that Confucius, by putting forward Heaven in place of\nShang-ti, was restoring an older conception? Mr. Tylor's affection for his\ntheory leads him, perhaps, to that opinion; while my affection for my\ntheory leads me to prefer documentary evidence in its favour.\n\nThe question can only be settled by specialists. As matters stand, it\nseems to me probable that ancient China possessed a Supreme Personal\nBeing, more remote and original than Heaven, just as the Zu\u00f1is do. On\nthe lower plane, Chinese religion is overrun, as everyone knows, by\nAnimism and ancestor-worship. This is so powerful that it has given rise\nto a native theory of Euhemerism. The departmental deities of Chinese\npolytheism are explained by the Chinese on Euhemeristic principles:\n\n'According to legend, the War God, or Military Sage, was once, in human\nlife, a distinguished soldier; the Swine God was a hog-breeder who lost\nhis pigs and died of sorrow; the God of Gamblers was _un d\u00e9cav\u00e9_.'[2]\n\nThese are not statements of fact, but of Chinese Euhemeristic theory. On\nthat hypothesis, Confucius should now be a god; but of course he is not;\nhis spirit is merely localised in his temple, where the Emperor worships\nhim twice a year as ancestral spirits are worshipped.\n\nEvery theorist will force facts into harmony with his system, but I do not\nsee that the Chinese facts are contrary to mine. On the highest plane is\neither a personal Supreme Being, Shang-ti, or there is Tien, Heaven (with\nEarth, parent of men), neither of them necessarily owing, in origin,\nanything to Animism. Then there is the political reflection of the Emperor\non Religion (which cannot exist where there is no Emperor, King, or Chief,\nand therefore must be late), there is the animistic rabble of spirits\nancestral or not, and there is departmental polytheism. The spirits are,\nof course, fed and furnished by men in the usual symbolical way. Nothing\nshows or hints that Shang-ti is merely an imaginary idealised first\nancestor. Indeed, about all such explanations of the Supreme Being (say\namong the Kurnai) as an idealised imaginary first ancestor, M. R\u00e9ville\njustly observes as follows: 'Not only have we seen that, in wide regions\nof the uncivilised world, the worship of ancestors has invaded a domain\npreviously occupied by \"Naturism\" and Animism properly so called, that it\nis, therefore, posterior to these; but, farther, we do not understand, in\nMr. Spencer's system, why, in so many places, the first ancestor is the\nMaker, if not the Creator of the world, Master of life and death, and\npossessor of divine powers, not held by any of his descendants. This\nproves that it was not the first ancestor who became God, in the belief of\nhis descendants, but much rather the Divine Maker and Beginner of all,\nwho, in the creed of his adorers, became the first ancestor.'[3]\n\nOur task has been limited, in this way, mainly to examination of\nthe religion of some of the very lowest races, and of the highest\nworld-religions, such as Judaism. The historical aspect of Christianity,\nas arising in the Life, Death, and Resurrection of our Lord, would demand\na separate treatise. This would, in part, be concerned with the attempts\nto find in the narratives concerning our Lord, a large admixture of the\nmythology and ritual connected with the sacrificed _Rex Nemorensis_, and\nwhatever else survives in peasant folk-lore of spring and harvest.[4]\n\nAfter these apologies for the limitations of this essay, we may survey the\nbackward track. We began by showing that savages may stumble, and have\nstumbled, on theories not inconsistent with science, but not till\nrecently discovered by science. The electric origin of the Aurora Borealis\n(whether absolutely certain or not) was an example; another was the\nefficacy of 'suggestion,' especially for curative purposes. It was,\ntherefore, hinted that, if savages blundered (if you please) into a belief\nin God and the Soul, however obscurely envisaged, these beliefs were not\ntherefore necessarily and essentially false. We then stated our purpose of\nexamining the alleged supernormal phenomena, savage or civilised, which,\non Mr. Tylor's hypothesis, help to originate the conception of 'spirits.'\nWe defended the nature of our evidence, as before anthropologists, by\nshowing that, for the savage belief in the supernormal phenomena, we have\nexactly the kind of evidence on which all anthropological science reposes.\nThe relative weakness of that evidence, our need of more and better\nevidence, we would be the very last to deny, indeed it is part of our\ncase. Our existing evidence will hardly support any theory of religion.\nAnyone who is in doubt on that head has only to read M. R\u00e9ville's 'Les\nReligions des Peuples Non-Civilis\u00e9s,' under the heads 'M\u00e9lan\u00e9siens,'\n'Mincopies,' 'Les Australiens' (ii. 116-143), when he will observe that\nthis eminent French authority is ignorant of the facts about these races\nhere produced. In 1883 they had not come within his ken. Such minute and\ncareful inquiries by men closely intimate with the peoples concerned, as\nDr. Codrington's, Mr. Hewitt's, Mr. Man's, and the authorities compiled by\nMr. Brough Smyth, were unfamiliar to M. R\u00e9ville, Thus, in turn, new facts,\nor facts unknown to us, may upset my theory. This peril is of the essence\nof scientific theorising on the history of religion.\n\nHaving thus justified our evidence for the savage _belief_ in supernormal\nphenomena, as before anthropologists, we turned to a court of\npsychologists in defence of our evidence for the _fact_ of exactly the\nsame supernormal phenomena in civilised experience. We pointed out that\nfor subjective psychological experiences, say of telepathy, we had\nprecisely the same evidence as all non-experimental psychology must and\ndoes rest upon. Nay, we have even experimental evidence, in experiments in\nthought-transference. We have chiefly, however, statements of subjective\nexperience. For the coincidence of such experience with unknown events we\nhave such evidence as, in practical life, is admitted by courts of law.\n\nExperimental psychology, of course, relies on experiments conducted under\nthe eyes of the expert, for example, by hypnotism or otherwise, under Dr.\nHack Tuke, Professor James, M. Richet, M. Janet. The evidence is\nthe conduct rather than the statements of the subject. There is\nalso physiological experiment, by vivisection (I regret to say) and\npost-mortem dissection. But non-experimental psychology reposes on the\nself-examination of the student, and on the statements of psychological\nexperiences made to him by persons whom he thinks he can trust. The\npsychologist, however, if he be, as Mr. Galton says, 'unimaginative in the\nstrict but unusual sense of that ambiguous word,' needs Mr. Galton's 'word\nof warning.' He is asked 'to resist a too frequent tendency to assume that\nthe minds of every other sane and healthy person must be like his own. The\npsychologist should inquire into the minds of others as he should into\nthose of animals of different races, and be prepared to find much to which\nhis own experience can afford little if any clue.'[5] Mr. Galton had to\nwarn the unimaginative psychologist in this way, because he was about to\nunfold his discovery of the faculty which presents numbers to some minds\nas visualised coloured numerals, 'so vivid as to be undistinguishable from\nreality, except by the aid of accidental circumstances.'\n\nMr. Galton also found in his inquiries that occasional hallucinations of\nthe sane are much more prevalent than he had supposed, or than science had\never taken into account. All this was entirely new to psychologists,\nmany of whom still (at least many popular psychologists of the press)\nappear to be unacquainted with the circumstances. One of them informed me,\nquite gravely, that '_he_ never had an hallucination,' therefore--_his_\nmind being sane and healthy--the inference seemed to be that no sane and\nhealthy mind was ever hallucinated. Mr. Galton has replied to _that_\nargument! His reply covers, logically, the whole field of psychological\nfaculties little regarded, for example, by Mr. Sully, who is not exactly\nan imaginative psychologist.\n\nIt covers the whole field of automatism (as in automatic writing) perhaps\nof the divining rod, certainly of crystal visions and of occasional\nhallucinations, as Mr. Galton, in this last case, expressly declares.\nPsychologists at least need not be told that such faculties cannot,\nany more than other human faculties, be always evoked for study and\nexperiment. Our evidence for these faculties and experiences, then, is\nusually of the class on which the psychologist relies. But, when the\npsychologist, following Leibnitz, Sir William Hamilton, and Kant,\ndiscusses the Subconscious (for example, knowledge, often complex and\nabundant, unconsciously acquired) we demonstrated by examples that the\npsychologist will contentedly repose on evidence which is not evidence at\nall. He will swallow an undated, unlocalised legend of Coleridge, reaching\nColeridge on the testimony of rumour, and told at least twenty years after\nthe unverified occurrences. Nay, the psychologist will never dream of\nprocuring contemporary evidence for such a monstrous statement as that\nan ignorant German wench unconsciously acquired and afterwards\nsubconsciously reproduced huge cantles of dead languages, by virtue of\nhaving casually heard a former master recite or read aloud from Hebrew and\nGreek books. This legend do psychologists accept on no evidence at all,\nbecause it illustrates a theory which is, doubtless, a very good theory,\nthough, in this case, carried to an extent 'imagination boggles at.'\n\nHere the psychologist may reply that much less evidence will content him\nfor a fact to which he possesses, at least, analogies in accredited\nexperience, than for a fact (say telepathic crystal-gazing) to which _he_\nknows, in experience, nothing analogous. Thus, for the mythical German\nhandmaid, he has the analogy of languages learned in childhood, or\npassages got up by rote, being forgotten and brought back to ordinary\nconscious memory, or delirious memory, during an illness, or shortly\nbefore death. Strong in these analogies, the psychologist will venture to\naccept a case of language _not_ learned, but reproduced in delirious\nmemory, on no evidence at all. But, not possessing analogies for\ntelepathic crystal-gazing, he will probably decline to examine ours.\n\nI would first draw his attention to the difference between revived memory\nof a language once known (Breton and Welsh in known examples), or learned\nby rote (as Greek, in an anecdote of Goethe's), and verbal reproduction\nof a language _not_ known or learned by rote but overheard--each passage\nprobably but once--as somebody recited fragments. In this instance (that\nof the mythical maid) 'the difficulty ... is that the original impressions\nhad not the strength--that is, the distinctness--of the reproduction. An\nunknown language overheard is a mere sound....'[6]\n\nThe distinction here drawn is so great and obvious that for proof of the\nGerman girl's case we need better evidence than Coleridge's rumour of a\nrumour, cited, as it is, by Hamilton, Maudsley, Carpenter, Du Prel, and\nthe common run of manuals.\n\nNot that I deny, _a priori_, the possibility of Coleridge's story. As Mr.\nHuxley says, 'strictly speaking, I am unaware of anything that has a right\nto the title of an \"impossibility,\" except a contradiction in terms.'[7]\nTo the horror of some of his admirers, Mr. Huxley would not call the\nexistence of demons and demoniacal possession 'impossible.'[8] Mr. Huxley\nwas no blind follower of Hume. I, too, do not call Coleridge's tale\n'impossible,' but, unlike the psychologists, I refuse to accept it on\n'Bardolph's security.' And I contrast their conduct, in swallowing\nColeridge's legend, with their refusal (if they do refuse) to accept the\nevidence for the automatic writing of not-consciously-known languages (as\nof eleventh-century French poetry and prose by Mr. Schiller), or their\nrefusal (if they do refuse) to look at the evidence for telepathic\ncrystal-gazing, or any other supernormal exhibitions of faculty, attested\nby living and honourable persons.\n\nI wish I saw a way for orthodox unimaginative psychology out of its\ndilemma.\n\nAfter offering to anthropologists and psychologists these considerations,\nwhich I purposely reiterate, we examined historically the relations of\nscience to 'the marvellous,' showing for example how Hume, following his\n_a priori_ theory of the impossible, would have declined to investigate,\nbecause they were 'miraculous,' certain occurrences which, to Charcot,\nwere ordinary incidents in medical experience.\n\nWe next took up and criticised the anthropological theory of religion as\nexpounded by Mr. Tylor. We then collected from his work a series of\nalleged supernormal phenomena in savage belief, all making for the\nfoundation of animistic religion. Through several chapters we pursued the\nstudy of these phenomena, choosing savage instances, and setting beside\nthem civilised testimony to facts of experience. Our conclusion was that\nsuch civilised experiences, if they occurred, as they are universally said\nto do, among savages, would help to originate, and would very strongly\nsupport the savage doctrine of souls, the base of religion in the theory\nof English anthropologists. But apart from the savage doctrine of\n'spirits' (whether they exist or not), the evidence points to the\nexistence of human faculties not allowed for in the current systems of\nmaterialism.\n\nWe next turned from the subject of supernormal experiences to the admitted\nfacts about early religion. Granting the belief in souls and ghosts and\nspirits, however attained, how was the idea of a Supreme Being to be\nevolved out of that belief? We showed that, taking the creed as found in\nthe lowest races, the processes put forward by anthropologists could\nnot account for its evolution. The facts would not fit into, but\ncontradicted, the anthropological theory. The necessary social conditions\npostulated were not found in places where the belief is found. Nay, the\nnecessary social conditions for the evolution even of ancestor-worship\nwere confessedly not found where the supposed ultimate result of\nancestor-worship, the belief in a Supreme Being, flourished abundantly.\n\nAgain, the belief in a Supreme Being, _ex hypothesi_ the latest in\nevolution, therefore the most potent, was often shelved and half\nforgotten, or neglected, or ridiculed, where the belief in Animism (_ex\nhypothesi_ the earlier) was in full vigour. We demonstrated by facts that\nAnthropology had simplified her task by ignoring that essential feature,\n_the prevalent alliance of ethics with religion_, in the creed of the\nlowest and least developed races. Here, happily, we have not only the\nevidence of an earnest animist, Mr. Im Thurn, on our side, but that of a\ndistinguished Semitic scholar, the late Mr. Robertson Smith. 'We see that\neven in its rudest forms Religion was a moral force, the powers that man\nreveres were on the side of social order and moral law; and the fear of\nthe gods was a motive to enforce the laws of society, which were also the\nlaws of morality.'[9] Wellhausen has already been cited to the same\neffect.\n\nHowever, the facts proving that truth, and unselfishness, surely a large\nelement of Christian ethics, are divinely sanctioned in savage religion\nare more potent than the most learned opinion on that side.\n\nOur next step was to examine in detail several religions of the most\nremote and backward races, of races least contaminated with Christian or\nIslamite teaching. Our evidence, when possible, was derived from ancient\nand secret tribal mysteries, and sacred native hymns. We found a\nrelatively Supreme Being, a Maker, sanctioning morality, and unpropitiated\nby sacrifice, among peoples who go in dread of ghosts and wizards, but do\nnot always worship ancestors. We showed that the anthropological theory of\nthe evolution of God out of ghosts in no way explains the facts in the\nsavage conception of a Supreme Being. We then argued that the notion of\n'spirit,' derived from ghost-belief, was not logically needed for the\nconception of a Supreme Being in its earliest form, was detrimental to\nthe conception, and, by much evidence, was denied to be part of the\nconception. The Supreme Being, thus regarded, may be (though he cannot\nhistorically be shown to be) prior to the first notion of ghost and\nseparable souls.\n\nWe then traced the idea of such a Supreme Being through the creeds of\nraces rising in the scale of material culture, demonstrating that he was\nthrust aside by the competition of ravenous but serviceable ghosts,\nghost-gods, and shades of kingly ancestors, with their magic and their\nbloody rites. These rites and the animistic conception behind them were\nnext, in rare cases, reflected or refracted back on the Supreme Eternal.\nAristocratic institutions fostered polytheism with the old Supreme Being\nobscured, or superseded, or enthroned as Emperor-God, or King-God. We saw\nhow, and in what sense, the old degeneration theory could be defined and\ndefended. We observed traces of degeneration in certain archaic aspects of\nthe faith in Jehovah; and we proved that (given a tolerably pure low\nsavage belief in a Supreme Being) that belief _must_ degenerate, under\nsocial conditions, as civilisation advanced. Next, studying what we may\ncall the restoration of Jehovah, under the great Prophets of Israel, we\nnoted that they, and Israel generally, were strangely indifferent to that\npriceless aspect of Animism, the care for the future happiness, as\nconditioned by the conduct of the individual soul. That aspect had been\nneglected neither by the popular instinct nor the priestly and philosophic\nreflection of Egypt, Greece, and Rome. Christianity, last, combined what\nwas good in Animism, the care for the individual soul as an immortal\nspirit under eternal responsibilities, with the One righteous Eternal of\nprophetic Israel, and so ended the long, intricate, and mysterious\ntheological education of humanity. Such is our theory, which does\nnot, to us, appear to lack evidence, nor to be inconsistent (as the\nanthropological theory is apparently inconsistent) with the hypothesis of\nevolution.\n\nAll this, it must be emphatically insisted on, is propounded 'under all\nreserves.' While these four stages, say (1) the Australian unpropitiated\nMoral Being, (2) the African neglected Being, still somewhat moral,\n(3) the relatively Supreme Being involved in human sacrifice, as in\nPolynesia, and (4) the Moral Being reinstated philosophically, as in\nIsrael, do suggest steps in evolution, we desire to base no hard-and-fast\nsystem of ascending and descending degrees upon our present evidence.\nThe real object is to show that facts may be regarded in this light, as\nwell as in the light thrown by the anthropological theory, in the hands\nwhether of Mr. Tylor, Mr. Spencer, M. R\u00e9ville, or Mr. Jevons, whose\ninteresting work comes nearest to our provisional hypothesis.\n\nWe only ask for suspense of judgment, and for hesitation in accepting the\ndogmas of modern manual makers. An exception to them certainly appears to\nbe Mr. Clodd, if we may safely attribute to him a review (signed C.) of\nMr. Grant Allen's 'Evolution of the Idea of God.'\n\n'We fear that all our speculations will remain summaries of probabilities.\nNo documents are extant to enlighten us; we have only mobile, complex and\nconfused ideas, incarnate in eccentric, often contradictory theories. That\nthis character attaches to such ideas should keep us on guard against\nframing theories whose symmetry is sometimes their condemnation' ('Daily\nChronicle,' December 10, 1897).\n\nNothing excites my own suspicion of my provisional hypothesis more than\nits symmetry. It really seems to fit the facts, as they appear to me, too\nneatly. I would suggest, however, that ancient savage sacred hymns,\nand practices in the mysteries, are really rather of the nature of\n'documents;' more so, at least, than the casual observations of some\ntravellers, or the gossip extracted from natives much in contact with\nEuropeans.\n\nSupposing that the arguments in this essay met with some acceptance, what\neffect would they have, if any, on our thoughts about religion? What is\ntheir practical tendency? The least dubious effect would be, I hope, to\nprevent us from accepting the anthropological theory of religion, or any\nother theory, as a foregone conclusion, I have tried to show how dim is\nour knowledge, how weak, often, is our evidence, and that, finding among\nthe lowest savages all the elements of all religions already developed\nin different degrees, we cannot, historically, say that one is earlier\nthan another. This point of priority we can never historically settle. If\nwe met savages with ghosts and no gods, we could not be sure but that they\nonce possessed a God, and forgot him. If we met savages with a God and no\nghosts, we could not be historically certain that a higher had not\nobliterated a lower creed. For these reasons dogmatic decisions about the\n_origin_ of religion seem unworthy of science. They will appear yet more\nfutile to any student who goes so far with me as to doubt whether the\nhighest gods of the lowest races could be developed, or can be shown to\nhave been developed, by way of the ghost-theory. To him who reaches this\npoint the whole animistic doctrine of ghosts as the one germ of religion\nwill appear to be imperilled. The main practical result, then, will be\nhesitation about accepting the latest scientific opinion, even when backed\nby great names, and published in little primers.\n\nOn the hypothesis here offered to criticism there are two chief sources of\nReligion, (1) the belief, how attained we know not,[10] in a powerful,\nmoral, eternal, omniscient Father and Judge of men; (2) the belief\n(probably developed out of experiences normal and supernormal) in\nsomewhat of man which may survive the grave. This second belief is not,\nlogically, needed as given material for the first, in its apparently\nearliest form. It may, for all we know, be the later of the two beliefs,\nchronologically. But this belief, too, was necessary to religion; first,\nas finally supplying a formula by which advancing intellects could\nconceive of the Mighty Being involved in the former creed; next, as\nelevating man's conception of his own nature. By the second belief he\nbecomes the child of the God in whom, perhaps, he already trusted, and in\nwhom he has his being, a being not destined to perish with the death of\nthe body. Man is thus not only the child but the heir of God, a 'nurseling\nof immortality,' capable of entering into eternal life. On the moral\ninfluence of this belief it is superfluous to dwell.\n\nFrom the most backward races historically known to us, to those of our own\nstatus, all have been more or less washed by the waters of this double\nstream of religion. The Hebrews, as far as our information goes, were\nchiefly influenced by the first belief, the faith in the Eternal, and had\ncomparatively slight interest in whatever posthumous fortunes might await\nindividual souls. Other civilised peoples, say the Greeks, extended the\nsecond, or animistic theory, into forms of beautiful fantasy, the\nmaterial of art. Yet both in Greece and Rome, as we learn from the\n'Republic' (Books i. iii.) of Plato, and from the whole scope of the poem\nof Lucretius, and from the Painted Porch at Delphi, answering to the\nfrescoes of the Pisan Campo Santo, there existed, among the people, what\nwas unknown to the Hebrews, an extreme anxiety about the posthumous\nfortunes and possible punishment of the individual soul. A kind of\npardoners and indulgence-sellers made a living out of that anxiety in\nGreece. For the Greek pardoners, who testify to an interest in the\nfuture happiness of the soul not found in Israel, Mr. Jevons may be cited:\n\n'The _agyrtes_ professed by means of his rites to purify men from the sins\nthey had themselves committed ... and so to secure to those whom he\npurified an exemption from the evil lot in the next world which awaited\nthose who were not initiated.' 'A magic mirror' (crystal-gazing) 'was\namong his properties.'[11]\n\nIn Egypt a moral life did not suffice to secure immortal reward. There\nwas also required knowledge of the spells that baffle the demons who, in\nAmenti, as in the Red Indian and Polynesian Hades, lie in wait for souls.\nThat knowledge was contained in copies of the Book of the Dead--the\n_gagne-pain_ of priests and scribes.\n\nEarly Israel, having, as far as we know, a singular lack of interest in\nthe future of the soul, was born to give himself up to developing,\nundisturbed, the theistic conception, the belief in a righteous Eternal.\n\nPolytheism everywhere--in Greece especially--held of the animistic\nconception, with its freakish, corruptible deities. Greek philosophy could\nhardly restore that Eternal for whom the Prophets battled in Israel; whom\nsome of the lowest savages know and fear; whom the animistic theory or cult\neverywhere obscures with its crowd of hungry, cruel, interested,\nfood-propitiated ghost-gods. In the religion of our Lord and the Apostles\nthe two currents of faith in one righteous God and care for the individual\nsoul were purified and combined. 'God is a Spirit, and they who worship\nHim must worship Him in spirit and in truth.' Man also is a spirit, and,\nas such, is in the hands of a God not to be propitiated by man's\nsacrifice or monk's ritual. We know how this doctrine was again disturbed\nby the Animism, in effect, and by the sacrifice and ritual of the\nMediaeval Church. Too eager 'to be all things to all men,' the august and\nbeneficent Mother of Christendom readmitted the earlier Animism in new\nforms of saint-worship, pilgrimage, and popular ceremonial--things apart\nfrom, but commonly supposed to be substitutes for, righteousness of life\nand the selflessness enjoined in savage mysteries. For the softness, no\nless than for the hardness of men's hearts, these things were ordained:\nsuch as masses for the beloved dead.\n\nModern thought has deanthropomorphised what was left of anthropomorphic\nin religion, and, in the end, has left us for God, at most, 'a stream\nof tendency making for righteousness,' or an energy unknown and\nunknowable--the ghost of a ghost. For the soul, by virtue of his\nbelief in which man raised himself in his own esteem, and, more or less,\nin ethical standing, is left to us a negation or a wistful doubt.\n\nTo this part of modern scientific teaching the earlier position of this\nessay suggests a demurrer. By aid of the tradition of and belief in\nsupernormal phenomena among the low races, by attested phenomena of the\nsame kinds of experience among the higher races, I have ventured to try to\nsuggest that 'we are not merely brain;' that man has his part, we know not\nhow, in we know not what--has faculties and vision scarcely conditioned by\nthe limits of his normal purview. The evidence of all this deals with\nmatters often trivial, like the electric sparks rubbed from the deer's\nhide, which yet are cognate with an illimitable, essential potency of the\nuniverse. Not being able to explain away these facts, or, in this place,\nto offer what would necessarily be a premature theory of them, I regard\nthem, though they seem shadowy, as grounds of hope, or, at least, as\ntokens that men need not yet despair. Not now for the first time have weak\nthings of the earth been chosen to confound things strong. Nor have men of\nthis opinion been always the weakest; not among the feeblest are Socrates,\nPascal, Napoleon, Cromwell, Charles Gordon, St. Theresa, and Jeanne d'Arc.\n\nI am perfectly aware that the 'superstitiousness' of the earlier part of\nthis essay must injure any effect which the argument of the latter part\nmight possibly produce on critical opinion. Yet that argument in no way\ndepends on what we think about the phenomena--normal, supernormal, or\nillusory--on which the theory of ghost, soul, or spirit may have been\nbased. It exhibits religion as probably beginning in a kind of Theism,\nwhich is then superseded, in some degree, or even corrupted, by Animism in\nall its varieties. Finally, the exclusive Theism of Israel receives its\ncomplement in a purified Animism, and emerges as Christianity.\n\nQuite apart, too, from any favourable conclusion which may, by some, be\ndrawn from the phenomena, and quite apart from the more general opinion\nthat all modern instances are compact of imposture, malobservation,\nmythopoeic memory, and superstitious bias, the systematic comparison of\ncivilised and savage beliefs and alleged experiences of this kind cannot\nwisely be neglected by Anthropology. _Humani nihil a se alienum putat._\n\n[Footnote 1: _Prim. Cult_. ii. 352.]\n\n[Footnote 2: Abridged from _Prim. Cult_. ii. 119.]\n\n[Footnote 3: _Histoire des Religions_, ii. 237, note. M. R\u00e9ville's system,\nit will be observed, differs from mine in that he finds the first essays\nof religion in worship of aspects of nature (_naturisme_) and in 'animism\nproperly so called,' by which he understands the instinctive, perhaps not\nexplicitly formulated, sense that all things whatever are animated and\npersonal. I have not remarked this aspect of belief as much prevalent in\nthe most backward races, and I do not try to look behind what we know\nhistorically about early religion. I so far agree with M. R\u00e9ville as to\nthink the belief in ghosts and spirits (Mr. Tylor's 'Animism') not\nnecessarily postulated in the original indeterminate conception of\nthe Supreme Being, or generally, in 'Original Gods.' But M. R\u00e9ville\nsays, 'L'objet de la religion humaine est n\u00e9cessairement un esprit'\n(_Prol\u00e9gom\u00e9nes_, 107). This does not seem consistent with his own theory.]\n\n[Footnote 4: Compare Mr. Frazer's _Golden Bough_ with Mr. Grant Allen's\n_Evolution of the Idea of God_.]\n\n[Footnote 5: _J.A.I_. x. 85.]\n\n[Footnote 6: Massey. Note to Du Prel. _Philosophy of mysticism_, ii 10.]\n\n[Footnote 7: _Science and Christian Tradition_, p. 197]\n\n[Footnote 8: Op. cit. p. 195.]\n\n[Footnote 9: _Religion of the Semites_, p. 53.]\n\n[Footnote 10: The hypothesis of St. Paul seems not the most\nunsatisfactory, Rom. i. 19.]\n\n[Footnote 11: _Introd. to Hist. of Rel_. p. 333; Aristoph. _Frogs_, 159.]\n\n\n\n\nAPPENDICES\n\nAPPENDIX A\n\nOPPOSITIONS OF SCIENCE\n\nThe most elaborate reply to the arguments for telepathy, based on The\nReport of the Census of Hallucinations, is that of Herr Parish, in his\n'Hallucinations and Illusions.'[1]\n\nHerr Parish is, at present, opposed to the theory that the Census\nestablishes a telepathic cause in the so-called 'coincidental' stories,\n'put forward,' as he says, 'with due reserve, and based on an astonishing\nmass of materials, to some extent critically handled.'\n\nHe first demurs to an allowance of twelve hours for the coincidence of\nhallucination and death; but, if we reflect that twelve hours is little\neven in a year, coincidences within twelve hours, it may be admitted,\n_donnent \u00e0 penser_, even if we reject the theory that, granted a real\ntelepathic impact, it may need time and quiet for its development into a\ncomplete hallucination. We need not linger over the very queer cases from\nMunich, as these are not in the selected thirty of the Report. Herr Parish\nthen dwells on that _hallucination of memory_, in which we feel as if\neverything that is going on had happened before. It may have occurred to\nmost of us to be reminded by some association of ideas during the day, of\nsome dream of the previous night, which we had forgotten. For instance,\nlooking at a brook from a bridge, and thinking of how I would fish it, I\nremembered that I had dreamed, on the previous night, of casting a fly for\npractice, on a lawn. Nobody would think of disputing the fact that I\nreally had such a dream, forgot it and remembered it when reminded of it\nby association of ideas. But if the forgotten dream had been 'fulfilled,'\nand been recalled to memory only in the moment of fulfilment, science\nwould deny that I ever had such a dream at all. The alleged dream would be\ndescribed as an 'hallucination of memory.' Something occurring, it would\nbe said, I had the not very unusual sensation, 'This has occurred to me\nbefore,' and the sensation would become a false memory that it _had_\noccurred--in a dream. This theory will be advanced, I think, not when an\nordinary dream is recalled by a waking experience, but only when the dream\ncoincides with and foreruns that experience, which is a thing that dreams\nhave no business to do. Such coincidental dreams are necessarily 'false\nmemories,' scientifically speaking. Now, how does this theory of false\nmemory bear on coincidental hallucinations?\n\nThe insane, it seems, are apt to have the false memory 'This occurred\nbefore,' and _then_ to say that the event was revealed to them in a\nvision.[2] The insane may be recommended to make a note of the vision, and\nhave it properly attested, _before_ the event. The same remark applies to\nthe 'presentiments' of the sane. But it does _not_ apply if Jones tells me\n'I saw my great aunt last night,' and if news comes _after_ this remark\nthat Jones's aunt died, on that night, in Timbuctoo. Yet Herr Parish\n(p. 282) seems to think that the argument of fallacious memory comes in\npart, even when an hallucination has been reported to another person\n_before_ its fulfilment. Of course all depends on the veracity of the\nnarrator and the person to whom he told his tale. To take a case given:[3]\nBrown, say, travelling with his wife, dreams that a mad dog bit his boy at\nhome on the elbow. He tells his wife. Arriving at home Brown finds that it\nwas so. Herr Parish appears to argue thus:\n\nBrown dreamed nothing at all, but he gets excited when he hears the bad\nnews at home; he thinks, by false memory, that he has a recollection of\nit, he says to his wife, 'My dear, didn't I tell you, last night, I had\ndreamed all this?' and his equally excited wife replies, 'True, my Brown,\nyou did, and I said it was only one of your dreams.' And both now believe\nthat the dream occurred. This is very plausible, is it not? only science\nwould not say anything about it if the dream had _not_ been fulfilled--if\nBrown had remarked, 'Egad, my dear, seeing that horse reminds me that I\nwas dreaming last night of driving in a dog-cart.' For then Brown was not\nexcited.\n\nNone of this exquisite reasoning as to dreams applies to waking\nhallucinations, reported before the alleged coincidence, unless we accept\na collective hallucination of memory in seer or seers, and also in the\npersons to whom their story was told.\n\nBut, it is obvious, memory is apt to become mythopoeic, so far as to\nexaggerate closeness of coincidence, and to add romantic details. We do\nnot need Herr Parish to tell us _that_; we meet the circumstance in all\nnarratives from memory, whatever the topic, even in Herr Parish's own\nwritings.\n\nWe must admit that the public, in ghostly, as in all narratives on all\ntopics, is given to 'fanciful addenda.' Therefore, as Herr Parish justly\nremarks, we should 'maintain a very sceptical attitude to all accounts' of\nveridical hallucinations. 'Not that we should dismiss them as old wives'\nfables--an all too common method--or even doubt the narrator's good\nfaith.' We should treat them like tales of big fish that get away;\nsometimes there is good corroborative evidence that they really were\nbig fish, sometimes not. We shall return to these false memories.\n\nWas there a coincidence at all in the Society's cases printed in the\nCensus? Herr Parish thinks three of the selected twenty-six cases very\ndubious. In one case is a _possible_ margin of four days, another\n(wrongly numbered by the way) does not occur at all among the twenty-six.\nIn the third, Herr Parish is wrong in his statement.[4] This is a lovely\nexample of the sceptical slipshod, and, accompanied by the miscitation of\nthe second case, shows that inexactitude is not all on the side of the\nseers. However the case is not very good, the two percipients fancying\nthat the date of the event was less remote than it really was. Unluckily\nHerr Parish only criticises these three cases, how accurately we have\nremarked. He had no room for more.\n\nHerr Parish next censures the probable selection of good cases by\ncollectors, on which the editors of the Census have already made\nobservations, as they have also made large allowances for this cause of\nerror. He then offers the astonishing statement that, 'in the view of the\nEnglish authors, a view which is, of course, assumed in all calculations\nof the kind, an hallucination persists equally long in the memory and is\nequally readily recalled in reply to a question, whether the experience\nmade but a slight impression on the percipient, or affected him deeply,\nas would be the case, for instance, if the hallucination had been found to\ncoincide with the death of a near relative or friend.'[5] This assertion\nof Herr Parish's is so erroneous that the Report expressly says 'as years\nrecede into the distance,' the proportion of the hallucinations that are\nremembered in them to those which are forgotten, or at least ignored, 'is\nvery large.' Again, 'Hallucinations of the most impressive class will not\nonly be better remembered than others, but will, we may reasonably\nsuppose, be more often mentioned by the percipients to their friends.'[6]\n\nYet Herr Parish avers that, in all calculations, it is assumed that\nhallucinations are equally readily recalled whether impressive or not!\nOnce more, the Report says (p. 246), '_It is not the case_' that\ncoincidental (and impressive) hallucinations are as easily subject to\noblivion as non-coincidental, and non-impressive ones. The editors\ntherefore multiply the non-coincidental cases by four, arguing that no\ncoincidental cases (hits) are forgotten, while three out of four\nnon-coincidentals (misses) are forgotten, or may be supposed likely to be\nforgotten. Immediately after declaring that the English authors suppose\nall hallucinations to be equally well remembered (which is the precise\nreverse of what they do say), Herr Parish admits that the authors multiply\nthe misses by four, 'influenced by other considerations' (p. 289). By what\nother considerations? They give their reason (that very reason which they\ndecline to entertain, says Herr Parish), namely, that misses are four\ntimes as likely to be forgotten as hits. 'To go into the reason for\nadopting this plan would lead us too far,' he writes. Why, it is the\nvery reason which, he says, does _not_ find favour with the English\nauthors!\n\nHow curiously remote from being 'coincidental' with plain facts, or\n'veridical' at all, is this scientific criticism! Herr Parish says that a\n'view' (which does not exist) is 'of course assumed in all calculations;'\nand, on the very same page, he says that it is _not_ assumed! 'The\nwitnesses of the report--influenced, it is true, by other considerations'\n(which is not the case), 'have sought to turn the point of this objection\nby multiplying the whole number of (non-coincidental) cases by four.' Then\nthe 'view' is _not_ 'assumed in all calculations,' as Herr Parish has just\nasserted.\n\nWhat led Herr Parish, an honourable and clearheaded critic, into this maze\nof incorrect and contradictory assertions? It is interesting to try to\ntrace the causes of such _non-veridical illusions_, to find the _points\nde rep\u00e8re_ of these literary hallucinations. One may suggest that when\nHerr Parish 'recast the chapters' of his German edition, as he says in his\npreface to the English version, he accidentally left in a passage based\non an earlier paper by Mr. Gurney,[7] not observing that it was no longer\naccurate or appropriate.\n\nAfter this odd passage, Herr Parish argues that a 'veridical'\nhallucination is regarded by the English authors as 'coincidental,' even\nwhen external circumstances have made that very hallucination a probable\noccurrence by producing 'tension of the corresponding nerve element\ngroups.' That is to say, a person is in a condition--a nervous condition--\nlikely, _a priori_, to beget an hallucination. An hallucination _is_\nbegotten, quite naturally; and so, if it happens to coincide with an\nevent, the coincidence should not count--it is purely fortuitous.[8]\n\nHere is an example. A lady, facing an old sideboard, saw a friend, with no\ncoat on, and in a waistcoat with a back of shiny material. Within an hour\nshe was taken to where her friend lay dying, without a coat, and in a\nwaistcoat with a shiny back.[9] Here is the scientific explanation of Herr\nParish: 'The shimmer of a reflecting surface [the sideboard?] formed the\noccasion for the hallucinatory emergence of a subconsciously perceived\n_shiny black waistcoat_ [quotation incorrect, of course], and an\nindividual subconsciously associated with that impression.[10] I ask any\nlady whether she, consciously or subconsciously, associates the men she\nknows with the backs of their waistcoats. Herr Parish's would be a\nbrilliantly satisfactory explanation if it were only true to the printed\nwords that lay under his eyes when he wrote. There was no 'shiny black\nwaistcoat' in the case, but a waistcoat with a shiny _back_. Gentlemen,\nand especially old gentlemen who go about in bath-chairs (like the man in\nthis story), don't habitually take off their coats and show the backs of\ntheir waistcoats to ladies of nineteen in England. And, if Herr Parish had\ncared to read his case, he would have found it expressly stated that the\nlady 'had never seen the man without his coat' (and so could not associate\nhim with an impression of a shiny back to his waistcoat) till _after_ the\nhallucination, when she saw him coatless on his death-bed. In this\ninstance Herr Parish had an hallucinatory memory, all wrong, of the page\nunder his eyes. The case is got rid of, then, by aid of the 'fanciful\naddenda,' to which Herr Parish justly objects. He first gives the facts\nincorrectly, and then explains an occurrence which, as reported by him,\ndid not occur, and was not asserted to occur.\n\nI confess that, if Herr Parish's version were as correct as it is\nessentially inaccurate, his explanation would leave me doubtful. For the\ncircumstances were that the old gentleman of the story lunched daily with\nthe young lady's mother. Suppose that she was familiar (which she was not)\nwith the shiny back of his waistcoat, still, she saw him daily, and daily,\ntoo, was in the way of seeing the (hypothetically) shiny surface of the\nsideboard. That being the case, she had, every day, the materials,\nsubjective and objective, of the hallucination. Yet it only occurred\n_once_, and then it precisely coincided with the death agony of the old\ngentleman, and with his coatless condition. Why only that once? _C'est l\u00e0\nle miracle!_ 'How much for this little veskit?' as the man asked David\nCopperfield.\n\nHerr Parish next invents a cause for an hallucination, which, I myself\nthink, ought not to have been reckoned, because the percipient had been\nsitting up with the sick man. This he would class as a 'suspicious' case.\nBut, even granting him his own way of handling the statistics, he would\nstill have far too large a proportion of coincidences for the laws of\nchance to allow, if we are to go by these statistics at all.\n\nHis next argument practically is that hallucinations are always only a\nkind of dreams.[11] He proves this by the large number of coincidental\nhallucinations which occurred in sleepy circumstances. One man went to bed\nearly, and woke up early; another was 'roused from sleep;' two ladies were\nsitting up in bed, giving their babies nourishment; a man was reading a\nnewspaper on a sofa; a lady was lying awake at seven in the morning; and\nthere are eight other English cases of people 'awake' in bed during an\nhallucination. Now, in Dr. Parish's opinion, we must argue that they were\n_not_ awake, or not much; so the hallucinations were mere dreams.\nDreams are so numerous that coincidences in dreams can be got rid of as\npure flukes. People may say, to be sure, 'I am used to dreams, and don't\nregard them; _this_ was something solitary in my experience.' But we must\nnot mind what people say.\n\nYet I fear we must mind what they say. At least, we must remember that\nsleeping dreams are, of all things, most easily forgotten; while a\nfull-bodied hallucination, when we, at least, believe ourselves awake,\nseems to us on a perfectly different plane of impressiveness, and\n(_experto crede_) is really very difficult to forget. Herr Parish cannot\nbe allowed, therefore, to use the regular eighteenth-century argument--\n'All dreams!' For the two sorts of dreams, in sleep and in apparent\nwakefulness, seem, to the subject, to differ in _kind_. And they really\ndo differ in kind. It is the essence of the every night dream that we are\nunconscious of our actual surroundings and conscious of a fantastic\nenvironment. It is the essence of wideawakeness to be conscious of our\nactual surroundings. In the ordinary dream, nothing actual competes with\nits visions. When we are conscious of our surroundings, everything actual\ndoes compete with any hallucination. Therefore, an hallucination which,\nwhen we are conscious of our material environment, does compete with it in\nreality, is different _in kind_ from an ordinary dream. Science gains\nnothing by arbitrarily declaring that two experiences so radically\ndifferent are identical. Anybody would see this if he were not arguing\nunder a dominant idea.\n\nHerr Parish next contends that people who see pictures in crystal balls,\nand so on, are not so wide awake as to be in their normal consciousness.\nThere is 'dissociation' (practically drowsiness), even if only a\nlittle. Herr Moll also speaks of crystal-gazing pictures as 'hypnotic\nphenomena.'[12] Possibly neither of these learned men has ever seen a\nperson attempt crystal-gazing. Herr Parish never asserts any such personal\nexperience as the basis of his opinion about the non-normal state of the\ngazer. He reaches this conclusion from an anecdote reported, as a not\nunfamiliar phenomenon, by a friend of Miss X. But the phenomenon occurred\nwhen Miss X. was not crystal-gazing at all! She was looking out of a\nwindow in a brown study. This is a noble example of logic. Some one says\nthat Miss X. was not in her normal consciousness on a certain occasion\nwhen she was _not_ crystal-gazing, and that this condition is familiar to\nthe observer. Therefore, argues Herr Parish, nobody is in his normal\nconsciousness when he is crystal-gazing.\n\nIn vain may 'so good an observer as Miss X. think herself fully awake' (as\nshe does think herself) when crystal-gazing, because once, when she\nhappened to have 'her eyes _fixed on the window_,' her expression was\n'_associated_' by a friend 'with _something uncanny_,' and she afterwards\nspoke '_in a dreamy, far-away tone_' (p. 297). Miss X., though extremely\n'wide awake,' may have looked dreamily at a window, and may have seen\nmountains and marvels. But the point is that she was not voluntarily\ngazing at a crystal for amusement or experiment--perhaps trying to see how\na microscope affected the pictures--or to divert a friend.\n\nI appeal to the shades of Aristotle and Bacon against scientific logic in\nthe hands of Herr Parish. Here is his syllogism:\n\n  A. is occasionally dreamy when _not_ crystal-gazing.\n  A. is human.\n  Therefore every human being, when crystal-gazing, is more or less\n  asleep.\n\nHe infers a general affirmative from a single affirmative which happens\nnot to be to the point. It is exactly as if Herr Parish argued:\n\n  Mrs. B. spends hours in shopping.\n  Mrs. B. is human.\n  Therefore every human being is always late for dinner.\n\nMiss X., I think, uplifted her voice in some review, and maintained that,\nwhen crystal-gazing, she was quite in her normal state, _dans son\nassiette_.\n\nYet Herr Parish would probably say to any crystal-gazer who argued thus,\n'Oh, no; pardon me, you were _not_ wholly awake--you were a-dream. I know\nbetter than you.' But, as he has not seen crystal-gazers, while I have,\nmany scores of times, I prefer my own opinion. And so, as this assertion\nabout the percipient's being 'dissociated,' or asleep, or not awake, is\ncertainly untrue of all crystal-gazers in my considerable experience, I\ncannot accept it on the authority of Herr Parish, who makes no claim to\nany personal experience at all.\n\nAs to crystal-gazing, when the gazer is talking, laughing, chatting,\nmaking experiments in turning the ball, changing the light, using prisms\nand magnifying-glasses, dropping matches into the water-jug, and so on,\nhow can we possibly say that 'it is impossible to distinguish between\nwaking hallucinations and those of sleep' (p. 300)? If so, it is\nimpossible to distinguish between sleeping and waking altogether. We are\nall like the dormouse! Herr Parish is reasoning here _a priori_,\nwithout any personal knowledge of the facts; and, above all, he is under\nthe 'dominant idea' of his own theory--that of _dissociation_.\n\nHerr Parish next crushes telepathy by an argument which--like one of the\nreasons why the bells were not rung for Queen Elizabeth, namely, that\nthere were no bells to ring--might have come first, and alone. We are\ntold (in italics--very impressive to the popular mind): _'No matter how\ngreat the number of coincidences, they afford not even the shadow of a\nproof for telepathy'_ (p. 301). What, not even if all hallucinations, or\nninety-nine per cent., coincided with the death of the person seen? In\nheaven's name, why not? Why, because the 'weightiest' cause of all has\nbeen omitted from our calculations, namely, our good old friend, _the\nassociation of ideas_ (p. 302). Our side cannot prove the _absence_\n(italics) of _the association of ideas_. Certainly we cannot; but ideas in\nendless millions are being associated all day long. A hundred thousand\ndifferent, unnoticed associations may bring Jones to my mind, or Brown.\nBut I don't therefore see Brown, or Jones, who is not there. Still less do\nI see Dr. Parish, or Nebuchadnezzar, or a monkey, or a salmon, or a golf\nball, or Arthur's Seat (all of which may be brought to my mind by\nassociation of ideas), when they are not present.\n\nSuppose, then, that once in my life I see the absent Jones, who dies in\nthat hour (or within twelve hours). I am puzzled. Why did Association\nchoose that day, of all days in my life, for her solitary freak? And,\nif this choice of freaks by Association occurs among other people, say two\nhundred times more often than chance allows, the freak begins to suggest\nthat it may have a cause.\n\nNot even the circumstance cited by Herr Parish, that a drowsy tailor,\n'sewing on in a dream,' poor fellow, saw a client in his shop while the\nclient was dying, solves the problem. The tailor is not said even once to\nhave seen a customer who was _not_ dying; yet he writes, 'I was accustomed\nto work all night frequently.' The tailor thinks he was asleep, because he\nhad been making irregular stitches, and perhaps he was. But, out of\nall his vigils and all his customers, association only formed _one_\nhallucination, and that was of a dying client whom he supposed to be\nperfectly well. Why on earth is association so fond of dying people--\ngranting the statistics, which are 'another story'? The explanation\nexplains nothing. Herr Parish only moves the difficulty back a step, and,\nas we cannot live without association of ideas, they are taken for granted\nby our side. Association of ideas does not cause hallucinations, as Mrs.\nSidgwick remarks, though it may determine their contents.\n\nThe difficult theme of coincidental collective hallucinations, as when two\nor more people at once have, or profess to have, the same false perception\nof a person who is really absent and dying, is next disposed of by Herr\nParish. The same _points de rep\u00e8re_, the same sound, or flicker of light,\nor arrangement of shadow, may beget the same or a similar false perception\nin two or more people at once. Thus two girls, in different rooms, are\nlooking out on different parts of the hall in their house. 'Both heard, at\nthe same time, an [objective?] noise' (p. 313). Then, says Herr Parish,\n'_the one sister saw her father cross the hall_ after entering; the other\nsaw the dog (the usual companion of his walks) run past her door.' Father\nand dog had not left the dining-room. Herr Parish decides that the same\n_point de rep\u00e8re_ (the apparent noise of a key in the lock of the front\ndoor) 'acted by way of suggestion on both sisters,' producing, however,\ndifferent hallucinations, 'in virtue of the difference of the connected\nassociations.' One girl associated the sound with her honoured sire, the\nother with his faithful hound; so one saw a dog, and the other saw an\nelderly gentleman. Now, first, if so, this should _always_ be occurring,\nfor we all have different associations of ideas. Thus, we are in a haunted\nhouse; there is a noise of a rattling window; I associate it with a\nburglar, Brown with a milkman, Miss Jones with a lady in green, Miss Smith\nwith a knight in armour. That collection of phantasms should then be\nsimultaneously on view, like the dog and old gentleman; all our reports\nshould vary. But this does not occur. Most unluckily for Herr Parish, he\nillustrates his theory by telling a story which happens not to be\ncorrectly reported. At first I thought that a fallacy of memory, or an\noptical delusion, had betrayed him again, as in his legend of the\nwaistcoat. But I am now inclined to believe that what really occurred was\nthis: Herr Parish brought out his book in German, before the Report of the\nCensus of Hallucinations was published. In his German edition he probably\nquoted a story which precisely suited his theory of the origin of\ncollective hallucinations. This anecdote he had found in Prof. Sidgwick's\nPresidential Address of July 1890.[13] As stated by Prof. Sidgwick, the\ncase just fitted Herr Parish, who refers to it on p. 190, and again on\np. 314. He gives no reference, but his version reads like a traditional\nvariant of Prof. Sidgwick's. Now Prof. Sidgwick's version was erroneous,\nas is proved by the elaborate account of the case in the Report of the\nCensus, which Herr Parish had before him, but neglected when he prepared\nhis English edition. The story was wrong, alas! in the very point where,\nfor Herr Parish's purpose, it ought to have been right. The hallucination\nis believed not to have been collective, yet Herr Parish uses it to\nexplain collective hallucinations. Doubtless he overlooked the accurate\nversion in the Report.[14]\n\nThe facts, as there reported, were not what he narrates, but as follows:\n\nMiss C.E. was in the breakfast-room, about 6:30 P.M., in January 1883, and\nsupposed her father to be taking a walk with his dog. She heard noises,\nwhich may have had any other cause, but which she took to be the sounds\nof a key in the door lock, a stick tapping the tiles of the hall, and the\npatter of the dog's feet on the tiles. She then saw the dog pass the door.\nMiss C.E. next entered the hall, where she found nobody; but in the pantry\nshe met her sisters--Miss E., Miss H.G.E.--and a working-woman. Miss E.\nand the working-woman had been in the hall, and there had heard the sound,\nwhich they, like Miss C.E., took for that of a key in the lock. They were\nbreaking a little household rule in the hall, so they 'ran straightway\ninto the pantry, meeting Miss H.G.E. on the way.' Miss C.E. and Miss E.\nand the working-woman all heard the noise as of a key in the lock, but\nnobody is said to have 'seen the father cross the hall' (as Herr Parish\nasserts). 'Miss H.G.E. was of opinion that Miss E. (now dead) saw\n_nothing_, and Miss C.E. was inclined to agree with her.' Miss E. and the\nwork-woman (now dead) were 'emphatic as to the father having entered the\nhouse;' but this the two only _inferred_ from hearing the noise, after\nwhich they fled to the pantry. Now, granting that some other noise was\nmistaken for that of the key in the lock, we have here, _not_ (as Herr\nParish declares) a _collective_ yet discrepant hallucination--the\ndiscrepancy being caused 'by the difference of connected associations'--\nbut a _solitary_ hallucination. Herr Parish, however, inadvertently\nconverts a solitary into a collective hallucination, and then uses the\nexample to explain collective hallucinations in general. He asserts\nthat Miss E. 'saw her father cross the hall.' Miss E.'s sisters think that\nshe saw no such matter. Now, suppose that Mr. E. had died at the moment,\nand that the case was claimed on our part as a 'collective coincidental\nhallucination,' How righteously Herr Parish might exclaim that all the\nevidence was against its being collective! The sound in the lock, heard by\nthree persons, would be, and probably was, another noise misinterpreted.\nAnd, in any case, there is no evidence for its having produced _two_\nhallucinations; the evidence is in exactly the opposite direction.\n\nHere, then, Herr Parish, with the printed story under his eyes, once more\nillustrates want of attention. In one way his errors improve his case. 'If\nI, a grave man of science, go on telling distorted legends out of my own\nhead, while the facts are plain in print before me,' Herr Parish\nmay reason, 'how much more are the popular tales about coincidental\nhallucinations likely to be distorted?' It is really a very strong\nargument, but not exactly the argument which Herr Parish conceives\nhimself to be presenting.[15]\n\nThis unlucky inexactitude is chronic, as we have shown, in Herr Parish's\nwork, and is probably to be explained by inattention to facts, by\n'expectation' of suitable facts, and by 'anxiety' to prove a theory. He\nexplains the similar or identical reports of witnesses to a collective\nhallucination by 'the case with which such appearances adapt themselves\nin recollection' (p. 313), especially, of course, after lapse of time. And\nthen he unconsciously illustrates his case by the case with which\nprinted facts under his very eyes adapt themselves, quite erroneously, to\nhis own memory and personal bias as he copies them on to his paper.\n\nFinally he argues that even if collective hallucinations are also 'with\ncomparative frequency' coincidental, that is to be explained thus:\n'The rarity and the degree of interest compelled by it' (by such an\nhallucination) 'will naturally tend to connect itself with some other\nprominent event; and, conversely, the occurrence of such an event as the\ndeath or mortal danger of a friend is most calculated to produce memory\nillusions of this kind.'\n\nIn the second case, the excitement caused by the death of a friend is\nlikely, it seems, to make two or more sane people say, and _believe,_\nthat they saw him somewhere else, when he was really dying. The only\nevidence for this fact is that such illusions occasionally occur, _not_\ncollectively, in some lunatic asylums. 'It is not, however, a form of\nmnemonic error often observed among the insane.' 'Kraepelin gives two\ncases.' 'The process occurs sporadically in certain sane people, under\ncertain exciting conditions.' No examples are given! What is rare as an\n_individual_ folly among lunatics, is supposed by Herr Parish to explain\nthe theoretically 'false memory' whereby sane people persuade themselves\nthat they had an hallucination, and persuade others that they were told\nof it, when no such thing occurred.\n\nTo return to our old example. Jones tells me that he has just seen his\naunt, whom he knows to be in Timbuctoo. News comes that the lady died when\nJones beheld her in his smoking-room. 'Oh, nonsense,' Herr Parish would\nargue, 'you, Jones, saw nothing of the kind, nor did you tell Mr. Lang,\nwho, I am sorry to find, agrees with you. What happened was _this_: When\nthe awful news came to-day of your aunt's death, you were naturally,\nand even creditably, excited, especially as the poor lady was killed by\nbeing pegged down on an ant-heap. This excitement, rather praiseworthy\nthan otherwise, made you _believe_ you had seen your aunt, and _believe_\nyou had told Mr. Lang. He also is a most excitable person, though I\nadmit he never saw your dear aunt in his life. He, therefore (by virtue of\nhis excitement), now _believes_ you told him about seeing your unhappy\nkinswoman. This kind of false memory is very common. Two cases are\nrecorded by Kraepelin, among the insane. Surely you quite understand my\nreasoning?'\n\nI quite understand it, but I don't see how it comes to seem good logic to\nHerr Parish.\n\nThe other theory is funnier still. Jones never had an hallucination\nbefore. 'The rarity and the degree of interest compelled by it' made Jones\n'connect it with some other prominent event,' say, the death of his aunt,\nwhich, really, occurred, say, nine months afterwards. But this is a mere\ncase of _evidence_, which it is the affair of the S.P.R. to criticise.\n\nHerr Parish is in the happy position called in American speculative\ncircles 'a straddle.' If a man has an hallucination when alone, he was in\ncircumstances conducive to the sleeping state. So the hallucination is\nprobably a dream. But, if the seer was in company, who all had the same\nhallucination, then they all had the same _points de rep\u00e8re_, and the same\nadaptive memories. So Herr Parish kills with both barrels.\n\nIf anything extraneous could encourage a belief in coincidental and\nveridical hallucinations, it would be these 'Oppositions of Science.' If a\nlearned and fair opponent can find no better proofs than logic and\n(unconscious) perversions of facts like the logic and the statements of\nHerr Parish, the case for telepathic hallucinations may seem strong\nindeed. But we must grant him the existence of the adaptive and mythopoeic\npowers of memory, which he asserts, and also illustrates. I grant, too,\nthat a census of 17,000 inquiries may only have 'skimmed the cream off'\n(p. 87). Another dip of the net, bringing up 17,000 fresh answers, might\nalter the whole aspect of the case, one way or the other. Moreover, we\ncannot get scientific evidence in this way of inquiry. If the public were\ninterested in the question, and understood its nature, and if everybody\nwho had an hallucination at once recorded it in black and white, duly\nattested on oath before a magistrate, by persons to whom he reported,\nbefore the coincidence was known, and if all such records, coincidental or\nnot, were kept in the British Museum for fifty years, then an examination\nof them might teach us something. But all this is quite impossible.\nWe may form a belief, on this point of veridical hallucinations, for\nourselves, but beyond that it is impossible to advance. Still, Science\nmight read her brief!\n\n[Footnote 1: Walter Scott.]\n\n[Footnote 2: Parish, p. 278.]\n\n[Footnote 3: Ibid. pp. 282, 283.]\n\n[Footnote 4: P. 287, Mr. Sims, _Proceedings_, x. 230.]\n\n[Footnote 5: Parish pp. 288, 289.]\n\n[Footnote 6: _Report_, p. 68.]\n\n[Footnote 7: P. 274, note 1.]\n\n[Footnote 8: Parish, p. 290.]\n\n[Footnote 9: _Report_, p. 297.]\n\n[Footnote 10: Parish, p. 290.]\n\n[Footnote 11: Pp. 291, 292.]\n\n[Footnote 12: Moll, _Hypnotism_, p. 1.]\n\n[Footnote 13 _Proceedings_, vol. vi. p. 433.]\n\n[Footnote 14: Parish, p. 313.]\n\n[Footnote 15: Compare _Report_, pp. 181-83, with Parish, pp. 190 and\n313, 314.]\n\n\n\n\nAPPENDIX B\n\nTHE POLTERGEIST AND HIS EXPLAINERS.\n\nIn the chapter on 'Fetishism and Spiritualism' it was suggested that the\nmovements of inanimate objects, apparently without contact, may have been\none of the causes leading to fetishism, to the opinion that a spirit may\ninhabit a stick, stone, or what not. We added that, whether such movements\nwere caused by trickery or not, was inessential as long as the savage did\nnot discover the imposture.\n\nThe evidence for the genuine supernormal character of such phenomena was\nnot discussed, that we might preserve the continuity of the general\nargument. The history of such phenomena is too long for statement here.\nThe same reports are found 'from China to Peru,' from Eskimo to the Cape,\nfrom Egyptian magical papyri to yesterday's provincial newspaper.[1]\n\nAbout 1850-1870 phenomena, which had previously been reported as of\nsporadic and spontaneous occurrence, were domesticated and organised by\nMediums, generally American. These were imitators of the enigmatic David\nDunglas Home, who was certainly a most oddly gifted man, or a most\nsuccessful impostor. A good deal of scientific attention was given to\nthe occurrences; Mr. Darwin, Mr. Tyndall, Dr. Carpenter, Mr. Huxley, had\nall glanced at the phenomena, and been present at _s\u00e9ances_. In most cases\nthe exhibitions, in the dark, or in a very bad light, were impudent\nimpostures, and were so regarded by the _savants_ who looked into them. A\nseries of exposures culminated in the recent detection of Eusapia\nPaladino by Dr. Hodgson and other members of the S.P.R. at Cambridge.\n\nThere was, however, an apparent exception. The arch mystagogue, Home,\nthough by no means a clever man, was never detected in fraudulent\nproductions of fetishistic phenomena. This is asserted here because\nseveral third-hand stories of detected frauds by Home are in circulation,\nand it is hoped that a well-attested first-hand case of detection may be\nelicited.\n\nOf Home's successes with Sir William Crookes, Lord Crawford, and others,\nsomething remains to be said; but first we shall look into attempted\nexplanations of alleged physical phenomena occurring _not_ in the presence\nof a paid or even of a recognised 'Medium.' It will appear, we think, that\nthe explanations of evidence so widely diffused, so uniform, so old, and\nso new, are far from satisfactory. Our inference would be no more than\nthat our eyes should be kept on such phenomena, if they are reported to\nrecur.\n\nMr. Tylor says, 'I am well aware that the problem [of these phenomena] is\none to be discussed on its merits, in order to arrive at a distinct\nopinion how far it may be connected with facts insufficiently appreciated\nand explained by science, and how far with superstition, delusion, and\nsheer knavery. Such investigation, pursued by careful observation in a\nscientific spirit, would seem apt to throw light on some interesting\npsychological questions.'\n\nActing on Mr. Tylor's hint, Mr. Podmore puts forward as explanations\n(1) fraud; (2) hallucinations caused by excited expectation, and by the\n_Schw\u00e4rmerei_ consequent on sitting in hushed hope of marvels.\n\nTo take fraud first: Mr. Podmore has collected, and analyses, eleven\nrecent sporadic cases of volatile objects.[2] His first instance (Worksop,\n1883) yields no proof of fraud, and can only be dismissed by reason of the\nbad character of the other cases, and because Mr. Podmore took the\nevidence five weeks after the events. To this example we confine\nourselves. This case appears to have been first reported in the 'Retford\nand Gainsborough Times' 'early in March,' 1883 (really March 9). It does\nnot seem to have struck Mr. Podmore that he should publish these\ncontemporary reports, to show us how far they agree with evidence\ncollected by him on the spot five weeks later. To do this was the more\nnecessary, as he lays so much stress on failure of memory. I have\ntherefore secured the original newspaper report, by the courtesy of the\neditor. To be brief, the phenomena began on February 20 or 21, by the\ntable voluntarily tipping up, and upsetting a candle, while Mrs. White\nonly saved the wash tub by alacrity and address. 'The whole incident\nstruck her as very extraordinary.' It is not in the newspaper report. On\nFebruary 26, Mr. White left his home, and a girl, Eliza Rose, 'child of a\nhalf-imbecile mother,' was admitted by the kindness of Mrs. White to share\nher bed. The girl was eighteen years of age, was looking for a place as\nservant, and nothing is said in the newspaper about her mother. Mr. White\nreturned on Wednesday night, but left on Thursday morning, returning on\nFriday afternoon. On Thursday, in Mr. White's absence, phenomena set in.\nOn Thursday night, in Mr. White's presence, they increased in vigour. A\ndoctor was called in, also a policeman. On Saturday, at 8 A.M., the row\nrecommenced. At 4 P.M. Mr. White sent Eliza Rose away, and peace returned.\nWe now offer the\n\nSTATEMENT OF POLICE CONSTABLE HIGGS. A man of good intelligence, and\nbelieved to be entirely honest....\n\n'On the night of Friday, March 2nd, I heard of the disturbances at Joe\nWhite's house from his young brother, Tom. I went round to the house at\n11.55 P.M., as near as I can judge, and found Joe White in the kitchen\nof his house. There was one candle lighted in the room, and a good fire\nburning, so that one could see things pretty clearly. The cupboard doors\nwere open, and White went and shut them, and then came and stood against\nthe chest of drawers. I stood near the outer door. No one else was in\nthe room at the time. White had hardly shut the cupboard doors when they\nflew open, and a large glass jar came out past me, and pitched in the\nyard outside, smashing itself. I didn't see the jar leave the cupboard,\nor fly through the air; it went too quick. But I am quite sure that it\nwasn't thrown by White or any one else. White couldn't have done it\nwithout my seeing him. The jar couldn't go in a straight line from the\ncupboard out of the door; but it certainly did go.\n\n'Then White asked me to come and see the things which had been smashed\nin the inner room. He led the way and I followed. As I passed the chest\nof drawers in the kitchen I noticed a tumbler standing on it. Just\nafter I passed I heard a crash, and looking round, I saw that the tumbler\nhad fallen on the ground in the direction of the fireplace, and was\nbroken. I don't know how it happened. There was no one else in the room.\n\n'I went into the inner room, and saw the bits of pots and things on the\nfloor, and then I came back with White into the kitchen. The girl Rose\nhad come into the kitchen during our absence. She was standing with\nher back against the bin near the fire. There was a cup standing on the\nbin, rather nearer the door. She said to me, \"Cup'll go soon; it has\nbeen down three times already.\" She then pushed it a little farther on\nthe bin, and turned round and stood talking to me by the fire. She had\nhardly done so, when the cup jumped up suddenly about four or five feet\ninto the air, and then fell on the floor and smashed itself. White was\nsitting on the other side of the fire.\n\n'Then Mrs. White came in with Dr. Lloyd; also Tom White and Solomon\nWass. After they had been in two or three minutes, something else\nhappened. Tom White and Wass were standing with their backs to the\nfire, just in front of it. Eliza Rose and Dr. Lloyd were near them, with\ntheir backs turned towards the bin, the doctor nearer to the door. I\nstood by the drawers, and Mrs. White was by me near the inner door. Then\nsuddenly a basin, which stood on the end of the bin near the door, got up\ninto the air, _turning over and over as it went. It went up not very\nquickly, not as quickly as if it had been thrown_. When it reached the\nceiling it fell plump and smashed. I called Dr. Lloyd's attention to it,\nand we all saw it. No one was near it, and I don't know how it happened.\nI stayed about ten minutes more, but saw nothing else. I don't know what\nto make of it all. I don't think White or the girl could possibly have\ndone the things which I saw.'\n\nThis statement was made five weeks after date to Mr. Podmore. We compare\nit with the intelligent constable's statement made between March 3 and\nMarch 8, that is, immediately after the events, and reported in the local\npaper of March 9.\n\nSTATEMENT BY POLICE CONSTABLE HIGGS.--During Friday night, Police\nConstable Higgs visited the house, and concerning the visit he makes the\nfollowing statement.\n\n'About ten minutes past [to?] twelve on Friday night, I was met in Bridge\nStreet by Buck Ford, and Joe's brother, Tom White and Dr. Lloyd. Tom said\nto me, \"Will you go with us to Joe's, and you will see something you have\nnever seen before?\" I went; and when I got into the house Joe went and\nshut the cupboard doors. No sooner had he done so than the doors flew\nopen again, and an ordinary sized glass jar flew across the kitchen, out\nof the door into the yard. A sugar jar also flew out of the cupboard\nunseen. In fact, we saw nothing and heard nothing until we heard it smash.\nThe distance travelled by the articles was about seven yards. I stood\na minute or two, and then the glass which I noticed on the drawers jumped\noff the drawers a yard away, and broke in about a hundred bits. The next\nthing was a cup, which stood on the flour-bin just beyond the yard\ndoor. It flew upwards, and then fell to the ground and broke. The girl\nsaid that this cup had been on the floor three times, and that she had\npicked it up just before it went off the bench. I said, \"I suppose the cup\nwill be the next.\" The cup fell a distance of two yards away from the\nflour-bin. Dr. Lloyd had been in the next house lancing the back of a\nlittle boy who had been removed there. He now came in, and we began\ntalking, the doctor saying, \"It is a most mysterious thing.\" He turned\nwith his back to the flour-bin, on which stood a basin. The basin flew up\ninto the air obliquely, went over the doctor's head, and fell at his feet\nin pieces. The doctor then went out. I stood a short time longer, but\nsaw nothing farther. There were six persons in the room while these things\nwere going on, and so far as I could see, there was no human agency at\nwork. I had not the slightest belief in anything appertaining to the\nsuper-natural. I left just before one o'clock, having been in the\nhouse thirty minutes.'\n\nAs the policeman says, there was nothing 'super-natural,' but there was an\nappearance of something rather supernormal. On the afternoon of Saturday\nWhite sent the girl Rose away, and a number of people watched in his house\ntill after midnight. Though the sceptical reporter thought that objects\nwere placed where they might easily be upset, none were upset. The ghost\nwas laid. 'Excited expectation' was so false to its function as to beget\nno phenomena.\n\nThe newspaper reports contain no theory that will account for White's\nbreaking his furniture and crockery, nor for Rose's securing her own\ndismissal from a house where she was kindly received by wilfully\ndestroying the property of her hostess. An amateur published a theory\nof silken threads attached to light articles, and thick cords to heavy\narticles, whereof no trace was found by witnesses who examined the\nvolatile objects. An elaborate machinery of pulleys fixed in the ceiling,\nthe presence of a trickster in a locked pantry, apparent errors in the\naccount of the flight of the objects, and a number of accomplices, were\nall involved in this local explanation, the explainer admitting that he\ncould not imagine _why_ the tricks were played. Six or eight pounds' worth\nof goods were destroyed, nor is it singular that poor Mrs. White wept over\nher shattered penates.\n\nThe destruction began, of course, in the _absence_ of White. The girl Rose\ngave to the newspaper the same account as the other witnesses, but, as\nWhite thought _she_ was the agent, so she suspected White, though she\nadmitted that he was not at home when the trouble arose.\n\nMr. Podmore, reviewing the case, says, 'The phenomena described are quite\ninexplicable by ordinary mechanical means.[3] Yet he elsewhere[4] suggests\nthat Rose herself, 'as the instrument of mysterious agencies, or simply as\na half-witted girl, gifted with abnormal cunning and love of mischief, may\nhave been directly responsible for all that took place.' That is to say, a\nhalf-witted girl could do (barring 'mysterious agencies') 'what is quite\ninexplicable by ordinary mechanical means,' while, according to the\npoliceman, she was not even present on some occasions. But it is not easy\nto make out, in the evidence of White, the other witness, whether this\ngirl Rose was present or not when the jar flew circuitously out of the\ncupboard, a thing easily worked by a half-witted girl. Such discrepancies\nare common in all evidence to the most ordinary events. In any case a\nhalf-witted girl, in Mr. Podmore's theory, can do what 'is quite\ninexplicable by ordinary mechanical means.' There is not the shadow of\nevidence that the girl Rose had the inestimable advantage of being\n'half-witted;' she is described by Mr. Podmore as 'the child of an\nimbecile mother.' The phenomena began, in an isolated case (the tilted\ntable), _before_ Rose entered the house. She was admitted in kindness,\nacted as a maid, and her interest was _not_ to break the crockery\nand upset furniture. The troubles, which began before the girl's arrival,\nwere apparently active when she was not present, and, if she _was_\npresent, she could not have caused them 'by ordinary mechanical means,'\nwhile of extraordinary mechanical means there was confessedly no trace.\nThe disturbances ceased after she was dismissed--nothing else connects her\nwith them.\n\nMr. Podmore's attempt at a normal explanation by fraud, therefore, is\nof no weight. He has to exaggerate the value, as disproof, of such\ndiscrepancies as occur in all human evidence on all subjects. He has to\nlay stress on the interval of five weeks between the events and the\ncollection of testimony by himself. But contemporary accounts appeared in\nthe local newspapers, and he does not compare the contemporary with the\nlater evidence, as we have done. There is one discrepancy which looks as\nif a witness, not here cited, came to think he had seen what he heard\ntalked about. Finally, after abandoning the idea that mechanical means can\npossibly have produced the effect, Mr. Podmore falls back on the cunning\nof a half-witted girl whom nothing shows to have been half-witted. The\nalternative is that the girl was 'the instrument of mysterious agencies.'\n\nSo much for the hypothesis of a fraud, which has been identical in results\nfrom China to Peru and from Greenland to the Cape.\n\nWe now turn to the other, and concomitantly active cause, in Mr. Podmore's\ntheory, hallucination. 'Many of the witnesses described the articles as\nmoving slowly through the air, or exhibiting some peculiarity of flight.'\n(See e.g. the Worksop case.) Mr. Podmore adds another English case,\npresently to be noted, and a German one. 'In default of any experimental\nevidence' (how about Mr. William Crookes's?) 'that disturbances of this\nkind are ever due to abnormal agency, I am disposed to explain the\nappearance of moving slowly or flying as a sensory illusion, conditioned\nby the excited state of the percipient.' ('Studies,' 157, 158.)\n\nBefore criticising this explanation, let us give the English affair,\nalluded to by Mr. Podmore.\n\nThe most curious modern case known to me is not of recent date, but it\noccurred in full daylight, in the presence of many witnesses, and the\nphenomena continued for weeks. The events were of 1849, and the record is\nexpanded, by Mr. Bristow, a spectator, from an account written by him in\n1854. The scene was Swanland, near Hull, in a carpenter's shop, where Mr.\nBristow was employed with two fellow workmen. To be brief, they were\npelted by odds and ends of wood, about the size of a common matchbox. Each\nblamed the others, till this explanation became untenable. The workrooms\nand space above were searched to no purpose. The bits of wood sometimes\ndanced along the floor, more commonly sailed gently along, or \"moved as if\nborne on gently heaving waves.\" This sort of thing was repeated during six\nweeks. One piece of wood \"came from a distant corner of the room towards\nme, describing what may be likened to a geometrical square, or corkscrew\nof about eighteen inches diameter.... Never was a piece seen to come in\nat the doorway.\" Mr. Bristow deems this period 'the most remarkable\nepisode in my life.' (June 27, 1891.) The phenomena 'did not depend on the\npresence of any one person or number of persons.'\n\nGoing to Swanland, in 1891, Mr. Sidgwick found one surviving witness of\nthese occurrences, who averred that the objects could not have been thrown\nbecause of the eccentricities of their course, which he described in the\nsame way as Mr. Bristow. The thrower must certainly have had a native\ngenius for 'pitching' at base-ball. This witness, named Andrews, was\nmentioned by Mr. Bristow in his report, but not referred to by him for\nconfirmation. Those to whom he referred were found to be dead, or had\nemigrated. The villagers had a superstitious theory about the phenomena\nbeing provoked by a dead man, whose affairs had not been settled to his\nliking. So Mr. Darwin's spoon danced--on a grave.[5]\n\nThis case has a certain interest _\u00e0 propos_ of Mr. Podmore's surmise that\nall such phenomena arise in trickery, which produces excitement in the\nspectators, while excitement begets hallucination, and hallucination\ntakes the form of seeing the thrown objects move in a non-natural way.\nThus, I keep throwing things about. You, not detecting this stratagem, get\nexcited, consequently hallucinated, and you believe you see the things\nmove in spirals, or undulate as if on waves, or hop, or float, or glide\nin an impossible way. So close is the uniformity of hallucination\nthat these phenomena are described, in similar terms, by witnesses\n(hallucinated, of course) in times old and new, as in cases cited by\nGlanvil, Increase Mather, Telfer (of Rerrick), and, generally, in works of\nthe seventeenth century. Nor is this uniform hallucination confined to\nEngland. Mr. Podmore quotes a German example, and I received a similar\ntestimony (to the flight of an object round a corner) from a gentleman who\nemployed Esther Teed, 'the Amherst Mystery,' in his service. _He_ was not\nexcited, for he was normally engaged in his normal stable, when the\nincident occurred unexpectedly as he was looking after his live stock. One\nmay add the case of Cideville (1851) and Sir W. Crookes's evidence, and\nthat of Mr. Schhapoff.\n\nMr. Podmore must, therefore, suppose that, in states of excitement, the\nsame peculiar form of hallucination develops itself uniformly in America,\nFrance, Germany, and England (not to speak of Russia), and persists\nthrough different ages. This is a novel and valuable psychological law.\nMoreover, Mr. Podmore must hold that 'excitement' lasted for six weeks\namong the carpenters in the shop at Swanland, one of whom writes like a\nman of much intelligence, and has thriven to be a master in his craft.\nIt is difficult to believe that he was excited for six weeks, and we still\nmarvel that excitement produces the same uniformity of hallucination,\naffecting policemen, carpenters, marquises, and a F.R.S. We allude to Sir\nW. Crookes's case.\n\nStrictly scientific examination of these prodigies has been very rare. The\nbest examples are the experiments of Sir William Crookes, F.R.S., with\nHome.[6] He demonstrated, by means of a machine constructed for the\npurpose, and automatically registering, that, in Home's presence, a\nbalance was affected to the extent of two pounds when Home was not in\ncontact with the table on which the machine was placed. He also saw\nobjects float in air, with a motion like that of a piece of wood on small\nwaves of the sea (clearly excitement producing hallucination), while Home\nwas at a distance, other spectators holding his hands, and his feet being\nvisibly enclosed in a kind of cage. All present held each other's hands,\nand all witnessed the phenomena. Sir W. Crookes being, professionally,\ncelebrated for the accuracy of his observations, these circumstances are\ndifficult to explain, and these are but a few cases among multitudes.\n\nI venture to conceive that, on reflection, Mr. Podmore will doubt whether\nhe has discovered an universal law of excited malperception, or whether\nthe remarkable, and certainly undesigned, coincidence of testimony to the\nsingular flight of objects does not rather point to an 'abnormal agency'\nuniform in its effects. Contagious hallucination cannot affect witnesses\nignorant of each other's existence in many lands and ages, nor could they\ncook their reports to suit reports of which they never heard.\n\nWe now turn to peculiarities in the so-called Medium, such as floating in\nair, change of bulk, and escape from lesion when handling or treading in\nfire. Mr. Tylor says nothing of Sir William Crookes's cases (1871), but\nspeaks of the alleged levitation, or floating in air, of savages and\ncivilised men. These are recorded in Buddhist and Neoplatonic writings,\nand among Red Indians, in Tonquin (where a Jesuit saw and described the\nphenomena, 1730), in the 'Acta Sanctorum,' and among modern spiritualists.\nIn 1760, Lord Elcho, being at Home, was present at the _proc\u00e8s_ for\ncanonising a Saint (unnamed), and heard witnesses swear to having seen the\nholy man levitated. Sir W. Crookes attests having seen Home float in air\non several occasions. In 1871, the Master of Lindsay, now Lord Crawford\nand Balcarres, F.R.S., gave the following evidence, which was corroborated\nby the two other spectators, Lord Adare and Captain Wynne.\n\n'I was sitting with Mr. Home and Lord Adare and a cousin of his. During\nthe sitting, Mr. Home went into a trance, and in that state was carried\nout of the window in the room next to where we were, and was brought in\nat our window. The distance between the windows was about seven feet six\ninches, and there was not the slightest foothold between them, nor was\nthere more than a twelve-inch projection to each window, which served as\na ledge to put flowers on. _We heard the window in the next room lifted\nup_, and almost immediately after we saw Home floating in the air outside\nour window. The moon was shining full into the room; my back was to the\nlight, and I saw the shadow on the wall of the window sill, and Home's\nfeet about six inches above it. He remained in this position for a few\nseconds, then raised the window and glided into the room feet foremost\nand sat down.\n\n'Lord Adare then went into the next room to look at the window from which\nhe had been carried. It was raised about eighteen inches, and he expressed\nhis wonder how Mr. Home had been taken through so narrow an aperture. Home\nsaid, still entranced, \"I will show you,\" and then with his back to the\nwindow he leaned back and was shot out of the aperture, head first, with\nthe body rigid, and then returned quite quietly. The window is about\nseventy feet from the ground.' The hypothesis of a mechanical arrangement\nof ropes or supports outside has been suggested, but does not cover the\nfacts as described.\n\nMr. Podmore, who quotes this, offers the explanation that the witnesses\nwere excited, and that Home 'thrust his head and shoulders out of the\nwindow.' But, if he did, they could not see him do it, for he was in the\nnext room. A brick wall was between them and him. Their first view of Home\nwas 'floating in the air outside our window.' It is not very easy to hold\nthat a belief to which the collective evidence is so large and universal,\nas the belief in levitation, was caused by a series of saints, sorcerers,\nand others thrusting their heads and, shoulders, out of windows where the\nobservers could not see them. Nor in Lord Crawford's case is it easy\nto suppose that three educated men, if hallucinated, would all be\nhallucinated in the same way.\n\nThe argument of excited expectation and consequent hallucination does not\napply to Mr. Hamilton A\u00efd\u00e9 and M. Alphonse Karr, neither of whom was a man\nof science. Both were extremely prejudiced against Home, and at Nice went\nto see, and, if possible, to expose him. Home was a guest at a large\nvilla in Nice, M. Karr and Mr. A\u00efd\u00e9 were two of a party in a spacious\nbrilliantly lighted salon, where Home received them. A large heavy table,\nremote from their group, moved towards them. M. Karr then got under a\ntable which rose in air, and carefully examined the space beneath, while\nMr. A\u00efd\u00e9 observed it from above. Neither of them could discover any\nexplanation of the phenomenon, and they walked away together, disgusted,\ndisappointed, and reviling Home.[7]\n\nIn this case there was neither excitement nor desire to believe, but a\nstrong wish to disbelieve and to expose Home. If two such witnesses could\nbe hallucinated, we must greatly extend our notion of the limits of the\ncapacity for entertaining hallucinations.\n\nOne singular phenomenon was reported in Home's case, which has, however,\nlittle to do with any conceivable theory of spirits. He was said to become\nelongated in trance.[8] Mr. Podmore explains that 'perhaps he really\nstretched himself to his full height'--one of the easiest ways conceivable\nof working a miracle, Iamblichus reports the same phenomenon in his\npossessed men.[9] Iamblichus adds that they were sometimes broadened as\nwell as lengthened. Now, M. F\u00e9r\u00e9 observes that 'any part of the body of an\nhysterical patient may change in volume, simply owing to the fact that the\npatient's attention is fixed on that part.'[10] Conceivably the elongation\nof Home and the ancient Egyptian mediums may have been an extreme case of\nthis 'change of volume.' Could this be proved by examples, Home's\nelongation would cease to be a 'miracle.' But it would follow that in this\ncase observers were _not_ hallucinated, and the presumption would be\nraised that they were not hallucinated in the other cases. Indeed, this\nargument is of universal application.\n\nThere is another class of 'physical phenomena,' which has no direct\nbearing on our subject. Many persons, in many ages, are said to have\nhandled or walked through fire, not only without suffering pain, but\nwithout lesion of the skin. Iamblichus mentions this as among the\npeculiarities of his 'possessed' men; and in 'Modern Mythology' (1897) I\nhave collected first-hand evidence for the feat in classical times, and in\nIndia, Fiji, Bulgaria, Trinidad, the Straits Settlements, and many other\nplaces. The evidence is that of travellers, officials, missionaries, and\nothers, and is backed (for what photographic testimony is worth) by\nphotographs of the performance. To hold glowing coals in his hand, and to\ncommunicate the power of doing so to others, was in Home's _r\u00e9pertoire_.\nLord Crawford saw it done on eight occasions, and himself received from\nHome's hand the glowing coal unharmed. A friend of my own, however, still\nbears the blister of the hurt received in the process. Sir W. Crookes's\nevidence follows:\n\n'At Mr. Home's request, whilst he was entranced, I went with him to the\nfireplace in the back drawing-room. He said, \"We want you to notice\nparticularly what Dan is doing.\" Accordingly I stood close to the\nfire, and stooped down to it when he put his hands in....\n\n'Mr. Home then waved the handkerchief about in the air two or three times,\nheld it above his head, and then folded it up and laid it on his hand like\na cushion. Putting his other hand into the fire, he took out a large\nlump of cinder, red-hot at the lower part, and placed the red part on the\nhandkerchief. Under ordinary circumstances it would have been in a blaze.\nIn about half a minute he took it off the handkerchief with his hand,\nsaying, \"As the power is not strong, if we leave the coal longer it will\nburn.\" He then put it on his hand, and brought it to the table in the\nfront room, where all but myself had remained seated.'\n\nMr. Podmore explains that only two candles and the fire gave light on one\noccasion, and that 'possibly' Home's hands were protected by some\n'non-conducting substance.' He does not explain how this substance was put\non Lord Crawford's hands, nor tell us what this valuable substance may be.\nNone is known to science, though it seems to be known to Fijians, Tongans,\nKlings, and Bulgarians, who walk through fire unhurt.\n\nIt is not necessary to believe Sir W. Crookes's assertions that he saw\nHome perform the fire-tricks, for we can fall back on the lack of light\n(only two candles and the fire-light), as also on the law of hallucination\ncaused by excitement. But it _is_ necessary to believe this distinguished\nauthority's statement about his ignorance of 'some non-conducting\nsubstance:'\n\n'Schoolboys' books and mediaeval tales describe how this can be done with\nalum and other ingredients. It is possible that the skin may be so\nhardened and thickened by such preparations that superficial charring\nmight take place without the pain becoming great; but the surface of the\nskin would certainly suffer severely. After Home had recovered from the\ntrance, I examined his hand with care to see if there were any signs of\nburning or of previous preparation. I could detect no trace or injury\nto the skin, which was soft and delicate, like a woman's. Neither were\nthere signs of any preparation having been previously applied. I have\noften seen conjurers and others handle red-hot coals and iron, but there\nwere always palpable signs of burning.'[11]\n\nIn September 1897 a crew of passengers went from New Zealand to see the\nFijian rites, which, as reported in the 'Fiji Times,' corresponded exactly\nwith the description published by Mr. Basil Thomson, himself a witness.\nThe interesting point, historically, is the combination in Home of all the\n_r\u00e9pertoire_ of the possessed men in Iamblichus. We certainly cannot get\nrid of the fire-trick by aid of a hypothetical 'non-conducting substance.'\nTill the 'substance' is tested experimentally it is not a _vera causa_. We\nmight as well say 'spirits' at once. Both that 'substance' and those\n'spirits' are equally 'in the air.' Yet Mr. Podmore's 'explanations' (not\nsatisfactory to himself) are conceived so thoroughly in the spirit of\npopular science--one of them casually discovering a new psychological law,\na second contradicting the facts it seeks to account for, a third\ngenerously inventing an unknown substance--that they ought to be welcomed\nby reviewers and lecturers.\n\nIt seems wiser to admit our ignorance and suspend our belief.\n\nHere closes the futile chapter of explanations. Fraud is a _vera causa_,\nbut an hypothesis difficult of application when it is admitted that the\neffects could not be caused by ordinary mechanical means. Hallucination,\nthrough excitement, is a _vera causa_, but its remarkable uniformity,\nas described by witnesses from different lands and ages, knowing nothing\nof each other, makes us hesitate to accept a sweeping hypothesis of\nhallucination. The case for it is not confirmed, when we have the same\nreports from witnesses certainly not excited.\n\nThis extraordinary bundle, then, of reports, practically identical, of\nfacts paralysing to belief, this bundle made up of statements from so many\nages and countries, can only be 'filed for reference.' But it is manifest\nthat any savage who shared the experiences of Sir W. Crookes, Lord\nCrawford, Mr. Hamilton A\u00efd\u00e9, M. Robert de St. Victor at Cideville, and\nPoliceman Higgs at Worksop, would believe that a spirit might tenant a\nstick or stone--so believing he would be a Fetishist. Thus even of\nFetishism the probable origin is in a region of which we know nothing--the\n_X_ region.\n\n[Footnote 1: A sketch of the history will be found in the author's _Cock\nLane and Common Sense_.]\n\n[Footnote 2: The best source is his article on 'Poltergeists.'\n_Proceedings_ xi. 45-116. See, too, his 'Poltergeists' in _Studies in\nPsychical Research_.]\n\n[Footnote 3: _Studies in Psychical Research_, p. 140.]\n\n[Footnote 4: See Preface to this edition for correction.]\n\n[Footnote 5: _Proceedings_, S.P.R. vii. 383-394.]\n\n[Footnote 6: See Sir W. Crookes's _Researches in Spiritualism_.]\n\n[Footnote 7: Mr. A\u00efd\u00e9 has given me this information. He recorded the\ncircumstances in his Diary at the time.]\n\n[Footnote 8: _Report of Dialectical Society_, p. 209.]\n\n[Footnote 9: See Porphyry, in Parthey's edition (Berlin, 1857), iii. 4.]\n\n[Footnote 10: _Bulletin de la Soci\u00e9t\u00e9 de Biologie_, 1880, p. 399.]\n\n[Footnote 11: Crookes, _Proceedings_, ix. 308.]\n\n\n\n\nAPPENDIX C\n\n_CRYSTAL-GAZING_\n\nSince the chapter on crystal-gazing was in type, a work by Dr. Pierre\nJanet has appeared, styled 'Les N\u00e9vroses et les Id\u00e9es Fixes.'[1] It\ncontains a chapter on crystal-gazing. The opinion of Dr. Janet, as that of\na savant familiar, at the Salp\u00eatri\u00e8re, with 'neurotic' visionaries,\ncannot but be interesting. Unluckily, the essay must be regarded as\nseriously impaired in value by Dr. Janet's singular treatment of his\nsubject. Nothing is more necessary in these researches than accuracy of\nstatement. Now, Dr. Janet has taken a set of experiences, or experiments,\nof Miss X.'s from that lady's interesting essay, already cited; has\nattributed them, not to Miss X., but to various people--for example, to\n_une jeune fille, une pauvre voyante, une personne un peu mystique_; has\naltered the facts in the spirit of romance; and has triumphantly given\nthat explanation, revival of memory, which was assigned by Miss X.\nherself.\n\nThroughout his paper Dr. Janet appears as the calm man of science\npronouncing judgment on the visionary vagaries of 'haunted' young girls\nand disappointed seeresses. No such persons were concerned; no such\nhauntings, supposed premonitions, or 'disillusions' occurred; the romantic\nand 'marvellous' circumstances are mythopoeic accretions due to Dr.\nJanet's own memory or fancy; his scientific explanation is that given by\nhis trinity of _jeune fille, pauvre voyante_, and _personne un peu\nmystique_.\n\nBeing much engaged in the study of 'neurotic' and hysterical patients, Dr.\nJanet thinks that they are most apt to see crystal visions. Perhaps they\nare; and one doubts if their descriptions are more to be trusted than\nthe romantic essay of their medical attendant. In citing Miss X.'s paper\n(as he did), Dr. Janet ought to have reported her experiments correctly,\nought to have attributed them to herself, and should, decidedly, have\nremarked that the explanation he offered was her own hypothesis, verified\nby her own exertions.\n\nNot having any acquaintances in neurotic circles, I am unable to say\nwhether such persons supply more cases of the faculty of crystal vision\nthan ordinary people; while their word, one would think, is much less to\nbe trusted than that of men and women in excellent health. The crystal\nvisions which I have cited from my own knowledge (and I could cite scores\nof others) were beheld by men and women engaged in the ordinary duties\nof life. Students, barristers, novelists, lawyers, school-masters,\nschool-mistresses, golfers--to all of whom the topic was perfectly\nnew--have all exhibited the faculty. It is curious that an Arabian author\nof the thirteenth century, Ibn Khaldoun, cited by M. Lef\u00e9bure, offers the\nsame account of _how_ the visions appear as that given by Miss Angus in\nthe _Journal_ of the S.P.R., April 1898. M. Lef\u00e9bure's citation was sent\nto me in a letter.\n\nI append M. Lef\u00e9bure's quotation from Ibn Khaldoun. The original is\ntranslated in 'Notices et Extraits des MSS. de la Biblioth\u00e8que Imp\u00e9riale,'\nI. xix. p. 643-645.\n\n'Ibn Kaldoun admet que certains hommes ont la facult\u00e9 de deviner l'avenir.\n\n'\"Ceux, ajoute-t-il, qui regardent dans les corps diaphanes, tels que les\nmiroirs, les cuvettes remplies d'eau et les liquides; ceux qui inspectent\nles coeurs, les foies et les os des animaux, ... tous ces gens-l\u00e0\nappartiennent aussi \u00e0 la cat\u00e9gorie des devins, mais, \u00e0 cause de\nl'imperfection de leur nature, ils y occupent un rang inf\u00e9rieur. Pour\n\u00e9carter le voile des sens, le vrai devin n'a pas besoin de grands efforts;\nquant aux autres, ils t\u00e2chent d'arriver au but en _essayant de concentrer\nen un seul sens toutes leurs perceptions_. Comme la vue est le sens le\nplus noble, ils lui donnent la pr\u00e9f\u00e9rence; fixant leur regard sur on objet\n\u00e0 superficie unie, ils le consid\u00e8rent avec attention jusqu'\u00e0 ce qu'ils y\naper\u00e7oivent la chose qu'ils veulent annoncer. Quelques personnes croient\nque l'image aper\u00e7ue de cette mani\u00e8re se dessine sur la surface du miroir;\nmais ils se trompent. Le devin regarde fixement cette surface jusqu'\u00e0 ce\nqu'elle disparaisse et qu'un rideau, semblable \u00e0 un brouillard,\ns'interpose entre lui et le miroir. Sur ce rideau se dessinent les choses\n_qu'il d\u00e9sira apercevoir_, et cela lui permet de donner des indications\nsoit affirmatives, soit n\u00e9gatives, sur ce que l'on d\u00e9sire savoir. Il\nraconte alors les perceptions telles qu'il les re\u00e7oit. Les devins,\npendant qu'ils sont dans cet \u00e9tat, n'aper\u00e7oivent pas ce qui se voit\nr\u00e9ellement dans le miroir; c'est un autre mode de perception qui na\u00eet\nchez eux et qui s'op\u00e8re, non pas au moyen de la vue, mais de l'\u00e2me. Il\nest vrai que, _pour eux, les perceptions de l'\u00e2me ressemblent \u00e0 celles\ndes sens au point de les tromper_; fait qui, du reste, est bien connu. La\nm\u00eame chose arrive \u00e0 ceux qui examinent les coeurs et les foies d'animaux.\nNous avons vu quelques-uns de ces individus _entraver l'op\u00e9ration des\nsens_ par l'emploi de simples _fumigations_, puis se servir\nd'_incantations_[2] afin de donner \u00e0 l'\u00e2me la disposition requise; ensuite\nils racontent ce qu'ils ont aper\u00e7u. Ces formes, disent-ils, se montrent\ndans l'air et repr\u00e9sentent des personnages: elles leur apprennent, au\nmoyen d'embl\u00e8mes et de signes, les choses qu'ils cherchent \u00e0 savoir. Les\nindividus de cette classe se d\u00e9tachent moins de l'influence des sens que\nceux de la classe pr\u00e9c\u00e9dente.\"'\n\n[Footnote 1: Lican, Paris, 1898.]\n\n[Footnote 2: L'auteur arabe avait d\u00e9j\u00e0 mentionn\u00e9 (p. 209) l'emploi des\nincantations et indiqu\u00e9 qu'elles \u00e9tuient un simple adjuvant physique\ndestin\u00e9 \u00e0 donner \u00e0 certains hommes une exaltation dont ils se servaient\npour t\u00e2cher de d\u00e9couvrir l'avenir.\n\n'Pour arriver au plus haut degr\u00e9 d'inspiration dont il est capable, le\ndevin doit avoir recours \u00e0 l'emploi de certaines phrases qui se\ndistinguent par _une cadence et un parallelisme particuliers_. Il\nessaye ce moyen _afin de soustraire son \u00e2me aux influences des sens_ et\nde lui donner assez de force pour se mettre dans un contact imparfait\navec le monde spirituel.[a] Cette agitation d'esprit, jointe \u00e0 l'emploi\ndes moyens intrins\u00e8ques dont nous avons parl\u00e9, excite dans son coeur\ndes id\u00e9es que cet organe exprime par le minist\u00e8re de la langne. Les\nparoles qu'il prononce sont tant\u00f4t vraies, tant\u00f4t fausses. En effet,\nle devin, voulant suppl\u00e9er \u00e0 l'imperfection de son naturel, se sert de\nmoyens tout \u00e0 fait \u00e9trangers \u00e0 sa facult\u00e9 perceptive et qui ne\ns'accordent en aucune fa\u00e7on avec elle. Donc la v\u00e9rit\u00e9 et l'erreur se\npr\u00e9sentent \u00e0 lui en m\u00eame temps, aussi ne doit on mettre aucune\nconfiance en ses paroles. Quelquefois m\u00eame il a recours \u00e0 des\nsuppositions et \u00e0 des conjectures dans l'espoir de rencontrer la v\u00e9rit\u00e9\net de tromper ceux qui l'interrogent.']\n\n[Footnote a: Compare Tennyson's way of attaining a state of trance by\nrepeating to himself his own name.]\n\n\n\n\nAPPENDIX D\n\n_CHIEFS IN AUSTRALIA_\n\nIn the remarks on Australian religion, it is argued that chiefs in\nAustralia are, at most, very inconspicuous, and that a dead chief cannot\nhave thriven into a Supreme Being. Attention should be called, however, to\nMr. Howitt's remarks on Australian 'Head-men,' in his tract on 'The\nOrganisation of Australian Tribes' (pp. 103-113).\n\nHe attaches more of the idea of power to 'Head-men' than does Mr. Curr in\nhis work, 'The Australian Race.' The Head-men, as a rule, arrive at such\ninfluence as they possess by seniority, if accompanied by courage, wisdom,\nand, in some cases, by magical acquirements. There are traces of a\ntendency to keep the office (if it may be called one) in the same kinship.\n'But Vich Ian Vohr or Chingahgook are not to be found in Australian\ntribes' (p. 113). I do not observe that the manes or ghost of a dead\nHead-man receives any worship or service calculated to fix him in the\ntribal memory, and so lead to the evolution of a deity, though one\nHead-man was potent through the whole Dieyri tribe over three hundred\nmiles of country. Such a person, if propitiated after death, might\nconceivably develop into a hero, if not into a creative being. But we\nmust await evidence to the effect that any posthumous reverence was paid\nto this man, Ialina Piramurane (New Moon). Mr. Howitt's essay is in the\n'Transactions of the Royal Society of Victoria for 1889.'\n\n\n\n\nINDEX\n\nAcademy of Medicine, Paris, inquiry into animal magnetism, 34\n\nAchille, the case of, 134\n\nAcosta, P\u00e8re, cited, 74, 244, 246\n\nAdare, Lord, cited, 335\n\nAddison, cited, 16\n\nAfricans, religious faiths of, 212, 218, 221, 222.\n  See under separate tribal names.\n\nAhone, North-American Indian god, 231-233, 241, 248, 258, 262, 280\n\nA\u00efd\u00e9, Hamilton, cited, 336\n\nAlgonquins, the, 250\n\nAllen, Grant, cited, 190\n\nAmerican Creators, 230;\n  parallel with African gods, 230;\n  savage gods of Virginia, 231;\n  the Ahone-Okeus creed, 231-233;\n  Pawnee tribal religions, 233-236;\n  Ti-ra-w\u00e1, the Spirit Father, 234, 235;\n  rite to the Morning Star, 234;\n  religion of the Blackfeet, 236;\n  N\u00e0-pi, 237-239;\n  one account of the Inca religion, 239-242;\n  Sun-worship, 239-241;\n  cult of Pachacamac, the Inca deity, 239-247;\n  another account of the Inca religion, 242-246;\n  hymns of the Zu\u00f1is, 247;\n  _Awonawilona_, 247\n\nAmoretti, Sig., cited, 30, 152\n\nAncestor, worship, 164-166, 178, 205, 212, 268, 271-277\n\nAndamanese, the, religious beliefs of,     167, 194-197, 205, 208, 211,\n    249, 252, 256, 272\n'Angus, Miss,' cases in her experience of crystal-gazing, 89-102, 341\n\nAnimal magnetism, inquiry into, 29, 34, 35\n\nAnimism, nature and influence of,     48, 49, 53, 58, 63, 129, 168, 190,\n    191, 206, 256, 264, 266, 268, 269, 303\n\nAnthropology and hallucinations, 105;\n  sleeping and waking experience, 105, 106;\n  hallucinations in mentally sound people, 107;\n  ghosts, 107;\n  coincidence of hallucinations of the sane with death or other crisis of\n    person seen, 107;\n  morbid hallucinations and coincidental 'flukes,' 108;\n  connection of cause and effect, 108;\n  the emotional effect, 108;\n  illustrative coincidence, 108;\n  hallucinations of sight, 109;\n  causes of hallucinations, 110;\n  collective hallucinations, 110;\n  the properly receptive state, 110;\n  telepathy, 111;\n  phantasms of the living, 112;\n  Maori cases, 113-115;\n  evidence to be rejected, 116;\n  subjective hallucination caused by expectancy, 116;\n  puzzling nature of hallucinations shared by several people at once, 116,\n    117;\n  hallucinations coincident with a death, 117;\n  apparitions and deaths connected in fact, 117;\n  Census of the Society for Psychical Research thereupon, 118;\n  number and character of the instances, 119;\n  weighing evidence, 119;\n  opinion of the Committee on Hallucinations, 121;\n  remoteness of occurrence of instances, 121;\n  want of documentary evidence, 121\n  non-coincidental hallucinations, 121;\n  telepathy existing between kinsfolk and friends, 122;\n  influence of anxiety, 123;\n  existence of illness known, 123;\n  mental and nervous conditions in connection with hallucinations, 134;\n  value of the statistics of the Census, 124;\n  anecdote of an English officer, 125\n\nAnthropology and religion, 30;\n  early scientific prejudice against, 40;\n  evolution and evidence, 40;\n  testing of evidence, 41-43;\n  psychical research, 48;\n  origin of religion, 44;\n  inferences drawn from supernormal phenomena, 41, 53;\n  savage parallels of psychical phenomena, 45;\n  meanings of religion, 45, 40;\n  disproof of godless tribes, 47;\n  Animism, 48, 49;\n  limits of savage tongues, 49;\n  waking and sleeping hallucinations, 60;\n  crystal-gazing, 50;\n  the ghost-soul, 51;\n  savage abstract speculation, 52;\n  analogy of the ideas of children and primitive man, 53;\n  early man's conception of life, 32;\n  ghost-seers, 54;\n  psychical conditions in which savages differ from civilised men, 54;\n  power of producing non-normal psychological conditions, 55;\n  faculties of the lower animals, 56;\n  man's first conception of religion, 56;\n  the suggested hypnotic state, 57;\n  second-sight, 68;\n  savage names for the ghost-soul, 60;\n  the migratory spirit, 60-64\n\nAnynrabia, South Guinea Creator, 220\n\nApaches, crystal-gazing by, 84, 85\n\nApollonius of Tyana, 66\n\nAtua, the Tongan Elohim, 279\n\nAurora Borealis, savage ideas of the, 4, 262, 292\n\nAustralians, religious beliefs of, 50, 83, 118, 128, 165, 175-182, 185,\n    188, 190, 205, 208, 211, 215, 219, 224, 240, 249, 253, 266, 261-263\n\nAutomatism, 155\n\nAwonawilona, Zu\u00f1i deity, 248, 251\n\nAyinard, Jacques, case of, 150, 182\n\nAztecs, creed of, 104 _note_, 183, 233, 234, 255, 258, 263\n\nBealz, Dr., cited, 132\n\nBaiame, deity, 189, 190, 191, 205, 261, 280\n\nBaker, Sir Samuel, cited, 42, 211\n\nBakwains, the, 169\n\nBalfour, A.J., quoted, 44, 57 _note_\n\nBanks Islanders, their gods, 169, 197-198\n\nBantus, religious beliefs of, 176, 211, 220, 248\n\nBarkworth, Mr., his opinion of Mrs. Piper, 140\n\nBarrett, Professor, on the divining-rod, 162-154\n\nBostian, Adolf, cited, 6, 43\n\nBaxter, cited, 15\n\nBeaton, Cardinal, his mistress visualized, 97\n\nBell, John, cited, 149\n\nBeni-Israel, 282\n\nBerna, magnetiser, 34\n\nBernadette, case of, 117\n\nBig Black Man, Fuegian deity, 258\n\nBinet and F\u00e9r\u00e9, quoted, 20, 76\n\nBissett, Mr. and Mrs., experiences of crystal-gazing, 99-102\n\nBlackfeet, beliefs of, 230, 236\n\nBlantyre region, religion in the, 217, 218\n\nBleck, Dr., cited, 194\n\nBobowissi, Gold Coast god, 225-227, 230-232\n\nBodinus, cited, 15\n\nBook of the Dead, 286, 303\n\nBora, Australian mysteries, 176, 179, 190, 196, 260\n\nBosman, cited, 225\n\nBourget, Paul, his opinion of Mrs. Piper, 139, 140\n\nBourke, Captain J.G., cited, 83\n\nBoyle, cited, 15\n\nBraid, inventor of the word 'hypnotism,' 24, 35, 36\n\nBrewster, Sir David, cited, 33\n\nBrinton, Dr., cited, 67, 168, 232, 236, 254, 264, 290\n\nBristow, Mr., cited, 332\n\nBritish Association decline to hear Braid's essay, 24\n  rejection of anthropological papers, 89\n\nBrasses, de, cited, 149\n\nBrown, General Mason, cited, 68, 67\n\nBunjil, deity, 189\n\nBushmen, religious beliefs of, 165, 198, 208, 211, 252\n\nButton, Jemmy, the Faegian, case of, 116\n\nCaon, Boshmon deity, 189, 193, 205\n\nCallawoy, Dr., on Zulu beliefs, 72, 85, 106, 142, 151 207, 208\n\nCardan, cited, 15\n\nCarpenter, Dr., cited, 324\n\nCarver, Captain Jonathan, his instance of savage possession, 142\n  cited, 60, 144, 145\n\nCharcot, Dr., on faith cures, 20-23, 24 _note_\n\nChevreul, M., cited, 152\n\nChinese, the, demon possession in, 181, 183\n  divining-rod, 154\n  religious beliefs, 237, 290, 291\n\nChonos, the, 176\n\nCircumcision, 286\n\nClairvoyance (vue \u00e0 distance), 65\n  'opening the Gates at Distance.' 65, 66\n  attested cases among savages, 66\n  conflict with the laws of exact science, 67\n  instances, 67\n  among the Zulus, 68-70\n  among the Lapps, 70\n  the Llarson case, 71\n  seers, 72\n  the element of trickery, 73\n  a Red Indian seeress, 73\n  Peruvian clairvoyants, 75\n  Professor Richet's case, 75\n  Mr. Dobbie's case, 76\n  Scottish tales of second-sight, 78-81\n  visions provoked by various methods, 81\n  See Crystal visions\n\nClodd, Edward, cited, 119, 120, 300\n\n'Cockburn, Mrs.,' test of crystal-gazing, 99-101\n\nCodrington, Dr., cited, 150, 169, 197-199\n\nCoirin, Mlle., her miraculous cure, 20\n\nColeridge, cited, 9, 11, 12 _note_, 295, 296\n\nCollins, cited, 179\n\nComanches, the, 250\n\nConfucius, religious teaching of, 290, 291\n\nCook, Captain, cited, 271\n\nCorpse-binding, 143, 144\n\nCrawford, Lord, cited, 325, 334, 330, 387\n\nCreeks, the, 143\n\nCroesus, tests the Delphic Oracle, 14\n\nCrookes, Sir William, cited, 325, 331, 333, 334, 337, 338\n\nCrystal visions, 83\n  savage instances, 83-85\n  in later Europe, 85\n  nature of 'Miss X's' experiments, 85\n  attributed to 'dissociation,' 86\n  examples of 'thought-transference,' 87\n  arguments against accepting recognition of objects described by another\n    person, 87\n  coincidence of fact and fiction, 88\n  cases in the experience of 'Miss Angus,' 89-102\n  'Miss Rose's' experience, 91, 92\n  phenomena suggest the savage theory of the wandering soul, 103\n  cited, 7, 44, 50, 314-316, 340\n\nCumberland, Stuart, 72\n\nCures by suggestion, 20, 21\n\nCurr, Mr., reports 'godless' savages, 184 _note_\n\nDampier, cited, 176\n\nDancing sticks, 149-131\n\nDarumulun, Australian Supreme Being, 178, 179, 183, 186, 191, 213, 240,\n    258-264, 280\n\nDarwin, cited, 115, 149, 174 _note_, 324, 332\n\nDeath, savage ideas on, 187\n\nDegeneration theory, the, 254\n  the powerful creative Being of lowest savages, 254\n  differences between the Supreme Being of higher and lower savages, 255\n  human sacrifice, 255\n  hungry, cruel gods degenerate from the Australian Father in Heaven, 256\n  savage Animism, 256\n  a pure religion forgotten, 257\n  an inconvenient moral Creator, 257\n  hankering after useful ghost-gods, 257\n  lowering of the ideal of a Creator, 257\n  maintenance of an immoral system in the interests of the State and the\n    clergy, 258\n  moral monotheism of the Hebrew religion, 258\n  degradation of Jehovah, 258\n  human sacrifice in ritual of Israel, 258\n  origin of conception of Jehovah, 258\n  Semitic gods, 259\n  status of Darumulun, 259\n  conception of Jehovah conditioned by space, 260\n  degeneration of deity in Africa, 260\n  political advance produces religious degeneration, 261\n  sacrificial ideas, 262\n  the savage Supreme Being on a higher plane than the Semitic and\n    Greek gods, 263\n  Animism full of the seeds of religions degeneration, 264\n  falling off in the theistic conception, 265\n  fetishism, 265\n  modus of degeneration by Animism supplanting Theism, 265\n  feeling after a God who needs not anything at man's hands, 267\n\nDemoniacal possession, 128\n  the 'inspired' or 'possessed,' 129\n  'change of control,' 130\n  gift of eloquence and poetry, 131\n  instances in China, 131\n  attempted explanations of the phenomena, 132\n  'alternating personality,' 132\n  symptoms of possession, 132\n  evidence for, 133\n  scientific account of a demoniac and his cure, 134\n  inducing the 'possessed' state, 135\n  exhibition of abnormal knowledge by the possessed, 136\n  Scientific study of the phenomena, 136\n  details of the case of Mrs. Piper, 136-141\n  diagnosing and prescribing for patients, 142\n  Carver's example of savage possession, 142, 157\n  custom of binding the seer with bonds, 142, 145\n  corpse-binding, 143, 144\n\nDendid, Dinka Supreme Being, 211, 212, 258, 280\n\nDeslon, M., disciple of Mesmer, 24\n\nDessoir, Dr. Max, quoted, 32, 33, 57\n\nDinkas, beliefs of the, 42, 211, 212, 256\n\nDivining-rod, use of the, 30, 152-155\n\nDobbie, Mr., his case of clairvoyance, 76\n\nDorman, Mr., cited, 203\n\nDunbar, Mr., cited, 236\n\nDu Pont, cited, 75\n\nDu Prel, cited, 28\n\nDynois, Jonka, trance of, 65\n\nEbumtupism, second sight, 73\n\nEgyptians, beliefs of, 83, 302\n\nElcho, Lord, cited, 334\n\nEleusinian mysteries, 196\n\nElliotson, Dr., cited, 24, 35, 37, 40\n\nEllis, Major, on Polynesian and African religions ideas, 83, 144, 222-228,\n    232, 251, 260, 272\n\nElohim, savage equivalents to the term, 277\n\nEsemkofu, Zulu ghosts, 128, 129\n\nEskimo, religious beliefs of, 72, 113, 184\n\nFaith-Cures, 20-22\n\nFenton, Francis Dart, on Maori ghost-seeing, 114\n\nFerrand, Mlle., on hallucinations, 32\n\nFetishism and Spiritualism, 147\n  the fetish, 147\n  sources super-normal to savages, 148\n  independent motion in inanimate objects, 149\n  comparison with physical phenomena of spiritualism, 149\n  Melanesian belief in sticks moved by spirits, 150\n  a sceptical Zulu, 150\n  a form of the pendulum experiment, 151\n  table-turning, 152\n  the divining-rod, 152\n  the civilised and savage practice of automatism, 156\n  dark room manifestations, 156\n  the disturbances in the house of M. Zoller, 156\n  consideration of physical phenomena, 158\n  instanced, 165, 225, 265, 266, 276, 324-339\n\nFiguier, M., cited, 152\n\nFijians, religious beliefs of, 128, 136, 200, 248, 338\n\nFinns, the, 58\n\nFire ceremony, the, 180 _note_\n\nFison, Mr., cited, 128\n\nFitzroy, Admiral, cited, 115, 173, 174\n\nFlacourt, Sieur de, on crystal-gazing in Madagascar, 84\n\nFlint, Professor, cited, 253\n\nFrancis, St., stigmata of, 22\n\nFuegians, beliefs and customs of, 115, 165, 173-175, 183, 187, 208,\n    211, 227, 258, 262, 272\n\nGalton, Mr., cited, 12, 96, 107, 294, 295\n\nGarcilasso de la Vega, on Inca beliefs, 239-244\n\n'Gates of Distance, Opening the,' 65, 66, 68\n\nGhost-seers, 54, 63\n\nGhost-soul, the, 51\n  names for the, 60\n\nGibert, Dr., on 'willing' sleep, 36\n\nGibier, Dr., cited, 146\n\nGippsland tribes, 187\n\nGlanvil, Rev. Joseph, his scientific investigations, 15\n\nGod, evolution of the idea of, 160\n  anthropological hypothesis, 160\n  primitive logic of the savage, 161\n  regarded as a spirit, 162\n  idea of spiritual beings framed on the human soul, 164\n  deified ancestors, 164\n  the Zulu first ancestor, 164\n  fetishes, 165\n  great gods in savage systems of religion, 165\n  the Lord of the Dead, 165\n  conception of an idealised divine First Ancestor, 188\n  hostile Good and Bad Beings, 166\n  the Supreme Being of savage creeds, 166\n  mediating 'Sons,' 167\n  Christian and Islamite influence on savage conceptions, 167\n  probable germs of the savage idea of a Supreme Being, 168\n  animistic conceptions, 168\n  ghosts, and Beings who never were human, 169\n  recognition by savages of our God in theirs, 169\n  the hypothesis of degeneracy, 170\n  the moral, friendly creative Being of low savage faith, 171\n  food offerings to a Universal Power, 171\n  the High Gods of low races, 173\n  intrusion of European ideas into savage religions, 173\n  the Fuegian Big Man, 174\n  ghosts of dead medicine man, 175\n  the Bora, or Australian tribal mysteries, 176, 177, 179\n  possible evolution of the Australian god, 178\n  mythology and theology of Darumulun, the highest Australian god, 178,\n    179, 183\n  religious sanction of morals, 179\n  selflessness the very essence of goodness, 180\n  precepts of Darumulan, 181, 182\n  argument from design, 184\n  Supreme Gods not necessarily developed out of 'spirits,' 185\n  distinction between deities and ghosts, 185\n  human beings adored as gods, 186\n  deathlessness of the Supreme Being of savage faith, 186, 188\n  idealisation of the savage himself, 187\n  negation of the ghost-theory, 188, 189\n  high creative gods never wore mortal men, 189\n  low savage distinction between gods, 189\n  propitiation by food and sacrifice, 190\n  'magnified non-natural men,' 190\n  gods to talk about, not to adore, 190\n  higher gods prior to the ghost theory, 191\n  See Supreme Beings; American Creators; Jehovah\n\nGreeks, the, beliefs of, 302\n\nGreenlanders, the, 144, 182\n\nGregory, Dr., cited, 86\n\nGriesinger, Dr., cited, 132\n\nGrinnell, Mr., on Pawnee beliefs, 234-237\n\nGuiana Indians, religious beliefs of, 202-206, 256\n\nGuinea, North and South, religious beliefs in, 220\n\nGurney, Mr., his experiments in hypnotism, 85, 86\n  cited, 107, 114, 117\n\nGuyau, M., cited, 12, 24, 25\n\nHallucinations. See Anthropology and Hallucinations\n\nHamilton, Sir William, cited, 12\n\nHammond, Dr., on demoniacal possession, 131\n\nHarteville, Madame, case of, 26\n\nHearne, on the Aurora Borealis, 3\n  on cure by suggestion, 21, 22\n\nHebrews. See Israelites\n\nHegel, cited, 30-34, 50, 56, 58, 78, 111, 152\n\nHiggs, Police Constable, statement of, on the disturbances at Mr.\n  White's house, 326-328\n\nHighland second-sight, 143-145\n\nHodgson, Dr., report on Mrs. Piper, 137, 140, 141\n  cited, 135, 325\n\nHome, David Dunglas, his powers as a medium, 324, 325, 334-339\n\nHowitt, Mr., cited, 128, 177-182\n\nHume, David, attitude towards miracles, 16\n  definition of a miracle, 16\n  self-contradictions, 17\n  refuses to examine miracle of the Abb\u00e9 Paris, 18, 19, 22-25\n  alternative definition of a miracle, 25\n  cited, 297\n\nHuxley, Professor, on savage religious cults, 42, 43, 48, 162, 163, 171,\n    176, 177, 182\n  on the evolution of Jehovah, 270, 271, 277, 279, 282, 286\n  cited, 17 _note_, 296, 324\n\nHypnotism, 6, 24, 29, 32, 34, 35, 37, 75, 76\n\nIamblichus, cited, 14, 336, 337, 339\n\nIbn Khaldoun, cited, 341\n\nIm Thurn, on the religious ideas of the Indians of Guiana, 50, 160,\n    202-207, 256, 298\n\nIncas, the, 85, 240-247, 258\n\nIroquois, the, 84, 85\n\nIslam, influence of, on African beliefs, 221\n\nIsraelites, development of their religious ideas, 258, 260, 268-284, 302\n\nJames, Professor William, quoted, 23, 59, 73, 107, 110, 132, 137, 156,\n    294\n\nJanet, Dr. Pierre, on 'willing' sleep, 36\n  on demoniacal possession, 134, 135\n  cited, 73, 294, 340, 341\n\nJeanne d'Arc, 34, 73, 115, 128, 276\n\nJehovah, theories of, 258, 260, 268\n  as a Moral Supreme Being, 268\n  anthropological theory of the origin of Jehovah-worship, 270\n  absence of ancestor-worship from the Hebrew tradition, 270-273\n  alleged evidence for ancestor-worship in Israel, 273-277\n  evolution from ghost-cult to the cult of Jehovah, 277\n  the term Elohim, 277\n  human shape assumed, 278\n  considered as a ghost-god, 279\n  sacrifices to, 280\n  suggestion of a Being not yet named Jehovah, 281\n  traditional emergence of Jehovah as the god of Israel, 281\n  as a deified ancestor, 282\n  moral element in the idea of Jehovah, 282, 286\n  a mere tribal god, 283\n  a Kenite god, 283, 284\n  inconsistencies of theorists concerning, 285\n  the moral element a survival of primitive ethics in the savage ancestors\n    of the Israelites, 287\n  verity of the Biblical account, 287\n  cited, 299\n\nJeraeil, mysteries of the Kurnai, 180\n\nJevons, Mr., cited, 186, 255, 300, 302\n\nJugglery, Pawnee, 235\n\nJung-Stilling, cited, 30, 63\n\nKaloc, Fijian name for gods, 200, 201\n\nKamschatkans, 166\n\nKant, inquires into Swedenborg's visions, 26, 59\n  disappointed with Swedenborg's 'Arcana Coelestia', 26, 27\n  on the metaphysics of 'spirits,' 27\n  discusses the subconscious, 28\n  cited, 125\n\nKarens, beliefs of, 60, 73, 151\n\nKarr, Alphonse, cited, 336\n\nKelvin, Lord, on hypnotism, 37\n\nKenites, the, 284\n\nKingsley, Miss, cited, 175, 211, 220, 328\n\nKirk, cited, 144\n\nKohl, cited, 148\n\nKulin, Australian tribe, 49\n\nKurnai, Australian tribe, their religious conceptions, 49, 180, 181, 187,\n    215, 262, 263, 287, 291\n\nLaing, Mr. Samuel, cited, 12 _note_\n\nLanglois, M., the case of, 75, 76\n\nLapps, beliefs of, 58, 71, 81\n\nLatukas, the, 42\n\nLaverterus, telepathic hypothesis of, 15\n\nLe Loyer, cited, 15\n\nLeaf, Mr., cited, 112 _note_\n\nLeeward Isles, ideas of a god in, 251\n\nLef\u00e8bure, M., cited, 84, 149, 341\n\nLegge, Dr., on the teaching of Confucius, 290\n\nLejean, M., on the Dinkas, 212\n\nLejeaune, P\u00e8re, cited, 74, 83\n\nLeng, Mr., cited, 133\n\nLeon, Cieza de, cited, 241, 244\n\nL\u00e9onie, the case of her hypnotisation, 75, 76\n\nLeslie, David, on Zulu clairvoyance, 68\n  on ghosts, 128\n\nLevitation, 334\n\nLittr\u00e9, M., cited, 136\n\nLivingstone, Dr., cited, 6, 135, 170\n\nLloyd, Dr., cited, 327, 328\n\nLoan-god, a, Tshi theory of, 222-229\n\nLourdes, cures at, 19\n\nLubbock, Sir John, cited, 42\n\nMacalister, Professor, his opinion of Mrs. Piper, 140\n\nMacCulloch, Dr., on second-sight, 58\n\nMacdonald, Duff, cited, 150, 213, 215, 218\n\nMacgregor, Dr. Alastair, gives instances of second-sight, 79-81\n\nMadagascar, 84\n\nMagnetism, 29, 34, 35\n\nMalagasies, beliefs of, 84\n\nMalays of Keeling Island, fetishism in, 141\n\nMan, Mr., on Andamanese religion and mythology, 194, 195\n\nMans, magical rapport, 199, 200\n\nMandans, the, 188\n\nManganjah, practice of sorcery in, 149\n\nManning, Mr., cited, 146\n\nMaoris, religious beliefs of, 83, 113-115, 118, 119, 150, 166, 188\n\nMarawa, Banks Islands deity, 198, 199\n\nMariner, cited, 278\n\nMarkham, Mr., cited, 243, 246\n\nMarson, Madame, case of, 71\n\nMason, Dr., on familiar spirits, 130\n\nMather, Cotton, cited, 16, 55\n\nMaudsloy, Dr., cited, 23 _note_\n\nMani, Maori deity, 166, 188\n\nMayo, Dr., cited, 86\n\nMedici, Catherine de', cited, 66\n\nMedicine-men, 84\n\nMediums, 324-339\n\nMelanesians, religious beliefs of, 150, 169, 189, 197, 199, 200\n\nMenestrier, le P\u00e8re, uses the divining-rod, 154\n\nMenzies, Professor, cited, 257\n\nMesmer, his theory of magnetism, 29, 34\n\nMillar, cited, 40, 41\n\nMiracles, regarded from the standpoint of science, 14\n  early tests, 14\n  and more modern research, 15\n  witchcraft, 15, 16\n  Hume's essay on, 16\n  and his definitions of a miracle, 16, 25\n  cures at the tomb of the Abb\u00e8 Paris, 18-20, 23\n  Binet and F\u00e8r\u00e8's explanation of these cures, 20\n  cures by suggestion, 20, 21\n  Dr. Charcot's views, 20\n  faith cures, 20-22\n  science opposed to systematic negation, 22\n  refusal to examine evidence, 23-25\n  'marvellous facts,' 24\n  suggestion \u00e0 distance, 24\n  Kant's researches, 26-29\n  Swedenborg's clairvoyance, 26, 27\n  thought-transference and hypnotic sleep, 29, 30, 32, 35\n  water-finding, 39\n  phenomena of clairvoyance, 31\n  Hegel's 'magic tie,' 31\n  Dr. Max Dessoir's views, 31, 32\n  hallucinations, 32\n  animal magnetism, 34\n  hypnotism, 35\n  'willing,' 36\n  facts and phenomena confronting science, 37\n\n'Miss X,' on crystal-gazing, 87, 315, 316, 340, 341\n\nMlungu, Central African deity, 213-218\n\nMolina, Christoval de, on Inca beliefs, 242, 243\n\nMoll, Herr, cited, 314\n\nMontgeron, M., cited, 19, 20\n\nMore, Henry, cited, 15\n\nMoses, founder of the Hebrew religion, 283-286\n\nMtanga, African deity, 213-217\n\nM\u00fcller, Max, cited, 41, 43, 46, 265, 266, 289\n\nMungan-ngaur, Kurnai Supreme Being, 181, 188, 190, 205, 217, 259\n\nMwetyi, Shekuni Great Spirit, 220\n\nMyers, Frederic, on hypnotic slumber, 30, 33\n  cited, 15 _note_\n\nNana Nyankupon, Gold Coast Supreme Being, 225-228, 232, 280\n\nN\u00e0-pi, American Indian deity, 237-239, 241\n\nNdengei, Fijian Supreme Being, 200-202, 228, 248\n\nNevius, Dr., on demoniacal possession, 131-135\n\nNewbold, Professor W. Romaine, 135\n\nNezahuati, erects a bloodless fane to the Unknown God, 258\n\nNicaraguans, the, 60\n\nNorth, Major, on Pawnee jugglery, 235, 236\n\nNzambi Mpungu, Bantu Supreme Being, 226, 228, 242\n\nOkeus (Oki), American Indian deity, 231, 232\n\nOkey, the sisters, case of, 37 _note_\n\nOmbwiri, South Guinea god, 220\n\nOrpen, Mr., cited, 193\n\nOxford, Rev. A.W., on ancient Israel, 275-277, 283-285\n\nPachacamac, Inca, Supreme Being, 230, 239-247, 258\n\nPachayachachi, Inca god, 242, 246\n\nPaladino, Eusapia, case of, 325\n\nPalmer, Mr., cited, 179\n\nParis, Abb\u00e8 miracles wrought at his tomb, 18-20, 23\n\nParish, Herr, criticism of his reply to the arguments for telepathy,\n    307-323\n  cited, 8, 86, 107\n\nPark, Mungo, on African beliefs, 221, 223\n\nPawnees, religious beliefs and practices of, 212, 224, 230, 233-236, 263\n\nPayne, Mr., cited, 160, 161, 246\n\nPeden, Rev. Mr., cited, 66\n\nPelippa, Captain, cited, 173\n\nPendulum experiment, a form of the, 151\n\nPepys, cited, 15\n\nPeruvians, religious ideas and practices of, 75, 239-247\n\nPhantasms of the Dead, 128\n\nPhinuit, Dr. See Mrs. Piper\n\nPiper, Mrs., the case of, 132, 136-141\n\nPliny, cited, 15\n\nPlotinus, cited, 66\n\nPlutarch, cited, 15\n\nPodmore, Mr., on psychical research, 111, 325, 326, 328, 330-336, 338, 339\n\nPoltergeist, the, and his explainers, 334-339\n\nPolynesians, religious beliefs of, 7, 83, 251, 252, 256\n\nPolytheism, 289, 291, 303\n\nPorphyry, cited, 14\n\nPowhattan, Virginian chief, 231, 232\n\nPuluga, Andamanese Supreme Being, 195, 205, 228, 258, 262\n\nPundjel, Australian god, 258, 261, 262\n\nPuys\u00e9gur, de, his discovery of hypnotic sleep, 29,\n  cited, 76\n\nQat, Banks Islands deity, 189, 198, 199\n\nQing, Bushman, his ideas of the god Cang, 193, 196\n\nRavenwood, Master of, instanced, 126\n\nRed Indians, beliefs and practices of, 3, 5, 6, 21, 22, 83, 104 _note_,\n    128, 142, 143, 203\n\nRegnard, M., cited, 71\n\nRenan, M., cited, 285\n\nR\u00e9villo, M., cited, 291, 293\n\nReynolds, Dr. Russell, cited, 22\n\nRhombos, use of the, 84\n\nRibot, M., cited, 132\n\nRichet, Professor Charles, hypnotises L\u00e9onie, 75, 76\n  cited, 64, 73, 82, 154, 294\n\nRitter, Dr., believes in Siderism, 29\n\nRomans, religious ideas of, 302\n\n'Rose, Miss,' her experience of crystal-gazing, 90,91\n\nRose, Eliza, the case of, 326-330\n\nRoskoff, cited, 42\n\nRowley, Mr., cited, 149\n\nRussegger, cited, 212\n\nSalcamayhua, cited, 246\n\nSamoyeds, 58, 72\n\nSand, George, cited, 86\n\nSantos, cited, 214\n\nSaul and the Witch of Endor, 14\n\nScheffer, cited, 66, 70, 71, 81\n\nSchoolcraft, Mr., cited, 236\n\nSchrenck-Notzing, von, cited, 55 _note_\n\nScot, Reginald, cited, 15\n\nScott, Rev. David Clement, cited, 49 _note_, 106, 217, 218\n\nScott, Sir Walter, his attitude towards clairvoyance, 27\n  cited, 121, 126\n\nSebituane, case of, 135, 136\n\nSecond-sight, 56, 66, 78-81\n\nSeer-binding, 143\n\nSeers, 72\n\nShang-ti, Chinese Supreme Being, 245, 290, 291\n\nShortland, Mr., quoted, 113\n\nSidgwick, Professor, cited, 318, 332\n\nSioux, the, 236\n\nSkidi or Wolf Pawnees, the, 233, 234\n\nSmith, Mrs. Erminie, on crystal-gazing, 84\n\nSmith, historian of Virginia, cited, 231, 232\n\nSmith, Robertson, cited, 259, 261, 262, 281 _note_, 298\n\nSmyth, Brough, cited, 42, 178, 182, 293\n\nSociety for Psychical Research, 116, 118\n\nSpencer, Herbert, on early religious ideas, 42, 43\n  ghosts, 47\n  Animism, 48 _note_, 53, 54\n  limits of savage language, 49\n  the Fuegian Big Man, 174\n  Australian marriage customs, 175\n  Australian religion, 182\n  men-gods, 186\n  religion of Bushmen, 193\n  ancestor-worship, 212, 213, 271-273\n  cited, 162, 167, 170, 216, 218, 292\n\nSpiritualism, 324-339.\n  See Fetishism\n\nStade, Herr, cited, 276, 284, 285\n\nStanley, Hans, cited, 12\n\nStarr, cited, 104 _note_\n\nStoll, cited, 72\n\nStrachey, William, cited, 229-232\n\nSuetonius, cited, 15\n\nSully, Mr., cited. 295\n\nSun-worship, 238-245\n\nSupreme Beings of savages, regarded as eternal, moral, and powerful, 193\n  Cagn, the Bushman god, 193\n  Puluga, the Andamanese god, 195\n  savage mysteries and rites, 196\n  alliance of ethics with religion, 196\n  the Banks Islanders' belief in Tamate (ghosts) and Vui (Beings who never\n    had been human), 197\n  corporeal and incorporeal Vuis, 198\n  sacrificial offerings to ghosts and spirits, 199\n  the soul the complex of real bodiless after-images, 200\n  Fijian belief, 200\n  Ndengei, the Fijian chief god, 200, 201\n  the idea of primeval Eternal Beings, 202\n  the Great Spirit of North American tribes, 203\n  dream origin of the ghost theory, 203\n  Guiana Indian names indicating a belief in a Great Spirit, 203-206\n  the God-cult abandoned for the Ghost-cult, 205\n  Unkulunkulu, the Zulu Creator, 207-210\n  the notion of a dead Maker, 208\n  preference for serviceable family spirits, 209\n  the Dinka Creator, 211\n  African ancestor-worship, 212\n  Mlungu, a deity formed by aggregation of departed spirits, 213\n  ethical element in religious mysteries, 215\n  the position of Mtanga, 216\n  religious beliefs in the Blantyre region, 217, 218\n  negro tendency to monotheism, 218\n  beliefs in North and South Guinea, 220\n  Mungo Park's observation of African beliefs, 221\n  Islamic influence, 221\n  the Tshi theory of a loan-god,' borrowed from Europeans, 222-228\n  varieties of Tshi gods, 224, 225\n  fetishes, 225\n  Nana Nyankupon, the 'God of the Christians,' 225-229\n  American Creators (see under), 230-252\n  the Polynesian cult, 251, 252\n  Chinese conceptions, 290-292\n\nSwedenborg, Emanuel, visions of, 26\n  recovers Mme. Harteville's receipt, 26\n  his 'Arcana Coelestia,' 27\n  noticed by Kant, 28, 29, 59\n\nTaa-Roa, Polynesian deity, 251, 252, 256, 280, 308\n\nTable-turning, 151\n\nTahitians, 251\n\nTaine, M., cited, 57\n\nTa-li-y-Tooboo, Tongan deity, 278, 279, 282\n\nTamate, Banks Islands ghosts, 197-199\n\nTamoi, the 'ancient of heaven,' 188\n\nTando, Gold Coast god, 225\n\nTanner, John, case of, 57, 128\n\nTeed, Esther, the Amherst mystery, 333\n\nTelepathy, oppositions of science to, 307\n  hallucination of memory, 307\n  presentiments, 308\n  dreams, 308, 309, 312\n  veridical hallucinations, 309, 311\n  coincidence in S.P.R.'s Census cases, 310\n  non-coincidental cases, 311\n  condition to beget hallucination, 312\n  hallucinations mere dreams, 312\n  crystal-gazing, 314-316\n  number of coincidences no proof, 316\n  association of ideas, 316\n  coincidental collective hallucinations, 317-323\n  See Crystal visions\n\nThomson, Basil, cited, 200 _note_, 248, 249, 339\n\nThought-transference, 4, 29-32, 35\n  illustrative cases, 88-103\n\nThouvenel, M., cited, 152\n\nThyraeus on ghosts, 15\n\nTien, Chinese heaven, 290, 291\n\nTi-ra-w\u00e1, American Indian god, 234-236, 239\n\nTlapan\u00e9, African wizard, 135\n\nTongans, religious beliefs of, 278-280\n\nTonkaways, American tribe, 233\n\nTorfaeus, cited, 71\n\nTotemism, 239, 241, 262, 263, 269, 270, 276\n\nTregear, Mr., on Maori ghost-seeing, 113\n\nTshi theory of a loan-god, 223-227\n\nTuckey, Dr. Lloyd, cited, 36\n\nTui Laga, Fijian deity, 249\n\nTundun, ancestor of the Kurnai, 181\n\nTylor, Mr., his test of recurrence, 41\n  on anthropological origin of religion, 43\n  on savage philosophy of super-normal phenomena, 45, 53\n  disproves the assertion about 'godless' tribes, 47\n  his term Animism, 48, 49\n  theory of metaphysical genius in low savages, 51\n  ghost-seers, 54\n  on psychical conditions of contemporary savages, 54-56\n  on the influence of Swedenborg, 59\n  savage names for the ghost-soul, 60\n  second-sight, 66\n  mediums, 73\n  dreams, 106\n  hallucinations, 110-113, 117, 118\n  demoniacal possession, 131\n  fetishism, 148, 149, 165\n  divining-rod, 153\n  evolution of gods from ghosts, 163, 164\n  fetish deities, 165\n  dualistic idea, 166\n  Supreme Being of savage creeds, 166, 167\n  the degeneration theory, 170, 254\n  confusion of thought upon religion, 182\n  list of first ancestors deified, 188\n  savage mysteries, 201\n  savage Animism, 204\n  Okeus and his rites, 231\n  Pachacamac, 245\n  Confucius's teaching, 290\n  the mystagogue Home, 325\n  levitation, 334\n  cited, 50, 52, 53, 58, 59, 61-63, 78, 151, 161, 162, 170, 173, 184, 185,\n    203, 231, 232, 246, 257, 293, 297\n\nTyndall, Professor, cited, 324\n\nUiracocha, Inca Creator, 242-246\n\nUmabakulists, diviners by sticks, 151\n\nUnkulunkulu, Zulu mythical first ancestor, 164, 168, 188, 202, 207, 220\n\nVincent, Mr., 29\n  on clairvoyance, 34, 36, 37\n\nVirchow, cited, 19\n\nVui, non-ghost gods, 169, 197-200\n\nWabose, Catherine, Red Indian seeress, experience of, 73, 74\n\nWaltz, cited, 177, 194 _note_, 218-220, 222, 243\n\nWallace, Alfred Basset, on Hume's theory of 'miracles,' 17, 18\n  on Ritter, 29\n  on clairvoyance, 31\n\nWayao, Supreme Being of the, 213, 214\n\nWellhausen, cited, 277, 283, 285, 286, 298\n\nWelton, Thomas, on the divining-rod, 154\n\nWesley, John, cited, 16\n\nWhite, Joseph, spirit manifestations at his house, 326-331\n\nWierus, cited, 15\n\nWilliams, Mr., cited, 201, 248\n\nWilson, Mr., cited, 50, 219, 220\n\nWindward Isles, ideas of a God in, 251\n\nWitch of Endor, the, 14, 277, 278\n\nWitchcraft, 14-16\n\nWodrow, Mr., cited, 16\n\nWolf tribes, 233\n\nWynne, Captain, cited, 335\n\nYama, Vedic-Aryan ghost-god, 188\n\nYaos, religious beliefs of, 150, 213, 214-216\n\nYerri Yuppon, good spirit of the Chonos, 175\n\nYork, a Fuegian, cited, 174\n\nYuncus, a Peruvian race, worship of, 240, 246\n\nZarate, Augustin de, cited, 240\n\nZoller, M., disturbances in the house of, 156, 157\n\nZulus, religious beliefs and customs of, 65, 66, 68, 70, 72, 85, 128,\n    141, 142, 150, 152, 207-210\n\nZu\u00f1is, hymns of the, 248, 251","title":"The Making of Religion","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":124174}