Part 44

Equal in enormity with the sin of not believing in a certain god is sometimes the sin of having a false belief about him. It seems strange that a god should be so easily offended as to punish with the utmost severity those who hold erroneous notions regarding some attribute of his which in no way affects his honour or glory, or regarding some detail of ritual. Thomas Aquinas himself admits that the heretic _intends_ to take the word of Christ, although he fails "in the election of articles whereon to take that word." But it is in this election that his sin consists. {647} Instead of choosing those articles which are truly taught by Christ, he chooses those which his own mind suggests to him. Thus he perverts the doctrines of Christ, and in consequence deserves not only to be separated from the Church by excommunication, but to be banished from the world by death.[47] Moreover, the heretic is an apostate, a traitor who may be forced to pay the vow which he has once taken.[48] The extreme rigour of this sophistical argumentation can only be understood in connection with its historical surroundings. It presupposes a Church which not only regards itself as the sole possessor of divine truth, but whose cohesion and power depend upon a strict adherence to its doctrines.[49] Nor was it a religious motive only that induced Christian sovereigns to persecute heretics. Certain heresies, as Manichæism and Donatism, were expressly declared to affect the common welfare;[50] and the Frankish kings treated heretics not only as rebels against the Church, but as traitors to the State, as confederates of hostile Visigoths or Burgundians or Lombards.[51]

[Footnote 47: Thomas Aquinas, _op. cit._ ii.-ii. 11. 1, 3.]

[Footnote 48: _Ibid._ ii.-ii. 10. 8.]

[Footnote 49: _Cf._ Ritchie, _Natural Rights_, p. 183.]

[Footnote 50: Milman, _History of Latin Christianity_, ii. 33.]

[Footnote 51: _Ibid._ ii. 61.]

Whilst intolerance is a characteristic of all monotheistic religions which attribute human passions and emotions to their godhead, polytheism is by nature tolerant. A god who is always used to share with other gods the worship of his believers cannot be a very jealous god. The pious Hennepin was struck by the fact that Red Indians were "incapable of taking away any person's life out of hatred to his religion."[52] Among the natives of the African Gold and Slave Coasts, though a man must show outward respect for the gods so as not to provoke calamities, he may worship many gods or none, just as he pleases. "There is perfect liberty of thought in matters of religion. . . . At this stage, man tolerates any form of religion that tolerates others; and as he thinks it perfectly {648} natural that different people should worship different gods, he does not attempt to force his own personal opinions upon anyone, or to establish conformity of ideas."[53] On the Slave Coast even a sacrilege committed by a European is usually regarded with indifference, as the gods of a country are supposed to be concerned about the actions of the people of that country only.[54] "The characteristics of Natural Religion," says Sir Alfred Lyall, "the conditions of its existence as we see it in India, are complete liberty and material tolerance; there is no monopoly either of divine powers or even of sacerdotal privilege."[55] In China the hatred of foreigners has not its root in religion. The Catholics residing there were left undisturbed until they began to meddle with the civil and social institutions of the country;[56] and the difficulty in persuading the Chinese to embrace Christianity is said by a missionary to be due to their notion that one religion is as good as another provided that it has a good moral code.[57] Among the early Greeks and Romans it was a principle that the religion of the State should be the religion of the people, as its welfare was supposed to depend upon a strict observance of the established cult; but the gods cared for external worship rather than for the beliefs of their worshippers, and evidently took little notice even of expressed opinions. Philosophers openly despised the very rites which they both defended and practised; and religion was more a pretext than a real motive for the persecutions of men like Anaxagoras, Protagoras, Socrates, and Aristotle.[58] So also the measures by which the Romans in earlier times repressed the introduction of new religions were largely suggested by worldly considerations; "they grew out of that intense national spirit which sacrificed every {649} other interest to the State, and resisted every form of innovation, whether secular or religious, that could impair the unity of the national type, and dissolve the discipline which the predominance of the military spirit and the stern government of the Republic had formed."[59] It has also been sufficiently proved that the persecutions of the Christians during the pagan Empire sprang from motives quite different from religious intolerance. Liberty of worship was a general principle of the Imperial rule. That it was denied the Christians was due to their own aggressiveness, as also to political suspicion. They grossly insulted the pagan cult, denouncing it as the worship of demons, and every calamity which fell upon the Empire was in consequence regarded by the populace as the righteous vengeance of the offended gods. Their proselytism disturbed the peace of families and towns. Their secret meetings aroused suspicion of political danger; and this suspicion was increased by the doctrines they professed. They considered the Roman Empire a manifestation of Antichrist, they looked forward with longing to its destruction, and many of them refused to take part in its defence. The greatest and best among the pagans spoke of the Christians as "enemies," or "haters of the human race."[60]

[Footnote 52: Hennepin, _New Discovery of a Vast Country in America_, ii. 70.]

[Footnote 53: Ellis, _Yoruba-speaking Peoples of the Slave Coast_, p. 295. See also _Idem_, _E[(w]e-speaking Peoples of the Slave Coast_, p. 81; Monrad, _Skildring af Guinea-Kysten_, p. 28; Kubary, 'Die Verbrechen und das Strafverfahren auf den Pelau-Inseln,' in _Original-Mittheil. aus d. ethnol. Abtheil. d. königl. Museen zu Berlin_, i. 90.]

[Footnote 54: Ellis, _E[(w]e-speaking Peoples_, p. 81.]

[Footnote 55: Lyall, _Natural Religion in India_, p. 52.]

[Footnote 56: Davis, _China_, ii. 7. _Cf._ Edkins, _op. cit._ p. 178.]

[Footnote 57: Edkins, _op. cit._ p. 75.]

[Footnote 58: See Schmidt, _Die Ethik der alten Griechen_, ii. 24 _sqq._]

[Footnote 59: Lecky, _History of European Morals_, i. 493. _Cf._ Dio Cassius, _Historia Romana_, lii. 36.]

[Footnote 60: Lecky, _op. cit._ i. 408 _sqq._ Ramsay, _The Church in the Roman Empire_, p. 346 _sqq._ See also _supra_, i. 345 _sq._; ii. 178 _sq._]

The same difference in toleration between monotheistic and polytheistic religions shows itself in their different attitudes towards witchcraft. A monotheistic religion is not necessarily averse from magic; its god may be supposed to have created magical as well as natural energy, and also to have given mankind permission to utilise it in a proper manner. Both Christianity in its earlier phases and Muhammedanism are full of magical practices expressly sanctioned by their theology--for instance, the use made of sacred words and of the relics of saints. But besides this sort of magic there is another kind--witchcraft, in the narrow sense of the term,--which is ascribed to the {650} assistance of exorcised spirits, regarded not as the willing agents but as the adversaries of God; and this practice is naturally looked upon as highly offensive to His feelings. In Christianity witchcraft was esteemed the most horrible form of impiety.[61] The religious law of the Hebrews--which generally prohibited all practices that savoured of idolatry, such as soothsaying and oracles--punished witches and wizards with death.[62] Islam disapproves of all magic which is practised with the assistance of evil spirits, or _jinn_, although such magic is very prevalent and popularly tolerated in Muhammedan countries.[63] Among polytheistic peoples, again, witchcraft is certainly in many cases treated with great severity; a large number of uncivilised races punish it with death,[64] and among some of them it is the only offence which is capital.[65] But then witchcraft is punished because it is considered destructive to human life or welfare.[66] "In Africa," says Mr. Rowley, "there is what is regarded as lawful as well as unlawful witchcraft, the lawful being practised professedly for the welfare of mankind, and in opposition to the unlawful, which is resorted to for man's injury." But "the purposes of witchcraft {651} are now generally wicked; its processes generally involve moral guilt; the spirits invoked are, for the most part, avowedly evil and maleficent."[67] Among the Gaika tribe of the Kafirs "witchcraft is supposed to be an influence for evil, possessed by one individual over another, or others."[68] Among the Bondeis "the meaning of witchcraft is simply murder."[69] That witchcraft, as a malicious practice, must be a grave and at the same time frequent offence among savages, is obvious from the common belief that death, disease, and misfortunes of every description are caused by it. From a similar point of view it is condemned by polytheistic nations of a higher type. Among the Aztecs of ancient Mexico anybody who employed sorcery or incantations for the purpose of doing harm to the community or to individuals was sacrificed to the gods.[70] The Chinese Penal Code punishes with death those who have been convicted of writing and editing books of sorcery, or of employing spells and incantations, "in order to agitate and influence the minds of the people."[71] But, according to Mr. Dennys, the hatred of witches and wizards cherished in the West does not seem to exist in China; "those reputed to possess magic powers are regarded with dread, but it is rare to hear of any of them coming to untimely end by mob violence."[72] The Laws of [Hv]ammurabi, the ancient Babylonian legislator, enjoin that "if a man weave a spell and put a ban upon a man, and has not justified himself, he that wove the spell upon him shall be put to death."[73] It is said in 'Vishnu Purâna' that he who practises magical rites "for the harm of others" is punished in the hell called Krimîsa.[74] Among the ancient Teutons not every kind of magic but only such as was considered of injurious nature was criminal.[75] {652} In Rome, also, what was deemed harmless magic was left undisturbed, whereas, according to the 'Law of the Twelve Tables,' "he who affects another by magical arts or with poisonous drugs" is to be put to death;[76] and during the Empire persons were severely persecuted for political astrology or divination practised with a view to discovering the successors to the throne.[77] Plato, writes in his 'Laws':--"He who seems to be the sort of man who injures others by magic knots or enchantments or incantations or any of the like practices, if he be a prophet or divine, let him die; and, if not being a prophet, he be convicted of witchcraft, as in the previous case, let the court fix what he ought to pay or suffer."[78] As Mr. Lecky justly remarks, both in Greece and Rome the measures taken against witchcraft seem to have been almost entirely free from religious fanaticism, the magician being punished because he injured man and not because he offended God.[79] Sometimes we find even among a polytheistic people that sorcery is particularly opposed by its priesthood;[80] but the reason for this is no doubt hatred of rivals rather than religious zeal. Miss Kingsley, however, does not think that the dislike of witchcraft in West Africa at large has originally anything to do with the priesthood.[81]

[Footnote 61: Lea, _History of the Inquisition_, iii. 422, 453. Pollock and Maitland, _History of English Law before the Time of Edward I._ ii. 552 _sqq._ Milman, _op. cit._ ix. 69. Lecky, _Rise and Influence of Rationalism in Europe_, i. 26. Keary, _Outlines of Primitive Belief among the Indo-European Races_, p. 511 _sqq._ Rogers, _Social Life in Scotland_, iii. 265, 268. Ralston, _Songs of the Russian People_, pp. 386, 416 _sq._]

[Footnote 62: _Exodus_, xxii. 18. _Leviticus_, xix. 26, 31; xx. 6, 27. _Deuteronomy_, xviii. 10 _sqq._]

[Footnote 63: Polak, _Persien_, i. 348. Lane, _Modern Egyptians_, i. 333.]

[Footnote 64: _Supra_, i. 189 _sq._ Cruickshank, _Eighteen Years on the Gold Coast_, ii. 179. Bowdich, _Mission to Ashantee_, p. 260. Johnston, _British Central Africa_, p. 403 (Bakongo). Cunningham, _Uganda_, pp. 35 (Banyoro), 140 (Bavuma), 305 (Basukuma), Arnot, _Garenganze_, p. 75. Decle, _Three Years in Savage Africa_, p. 76 (Barotse). Casalis, _Basutos_, p. 229. Kidd, _The Essential Kafir_, p. 148 _sq._ Sibree, _The Great African Island_, p. 292 (Malagasy). Swettenham, _Malay Sketches_, p. 196 (Malays of Perak). Dalton, _Ethnology of Bengal_, (Oraons). Egede, _Description of Greenland_, p. 123 _sq._ Krause, _Die Tlinkit-Indianer_, p. 293 _sq._ Jones, quoted by Kohler, 'Die Rechte der Urvölker Nordamerikas,' in _Zeitschr. f. vergl. Rechtswiss._ xii. 412 (Chippewas). Morgan, _League of the Iroquois_, p. 330; Seaver, _Life of Mrs. Jemison_, p. 167 (Iroquois). Powell, 'Wyandot Government,' in _Ann. Rep. Bur. Ethn._ i. 67. Stevenson, 'Sia,' _ibid._ xi. 19. Lumholtz, _Unknown Mexico_, i. 325 (Tarahumares). Forbes, 'Aymara Indians of Bolivia and Peru,' in _Jour. Ethn. Soc._ N. S. ii. 236, n. *]

[Footnote 65: _Supra_, i. 189.]

[Footnote 66: _Cf._ Dorsey, 'Omaha Sociology,' in _Ann. Rep. Bur. Ethn._ iii. 364.]

[Footnote 67: Rowley, _Religion of the Africans_, p. 125 _sq._ See also Kidd, _The Essential Kafir_, p. 148.]

[Footnote 68: Maclean, _Compendium of Kafir Laws_, p. 123.]

[Footnote 69: Dale, in _Jour. Anthr. Inst._ xxv. 223.]

[Footnote 70: Bancroft, _Native Races of the Pacific States_, ii. 462.]

[Footnote 71: _Ta Tsing Leu Lee_, sec. cclvi. p. 273.]

[Footnote 72: Dennys, _Folk-Lore of China_, p. 80.]

[Footnote 73: _Laws of [Hv]ammurabi_, 1.]

[Footnote 74: _Vish['n]u Purá['n]a_, p. 208.]

[Footnote 75: Brunner, _Deutsche Rechtsgeschichte_, ii. 678.]

[Footnote 76: _Lex Duodecim Tabularum_, viii. 25.]

[Footnote 77: Lecky, _History of European Morals_, i. 420.]

[Footnote 78: Plato, _Leges_, xi. 933.]

[Footnote 79: Lecky, _Rationalism in Europe_, i. 18.]

[Footnote 80: Kingsley, _West African Studies_, p. 137. Rink, _Greenland_, p. 201.]

[Footnote 81: Kingsley, _West African Studies_, p. 135 _sq._]

The religious intolerance which has accompanied the rise of monotheism is, as we have just observed, the result of the nature attributed to its godhead. But the evolution of religion does not end with the triumph of a jealous and irritable heavenly despot. There is a later stage where men believe in a god or supernatural power which is absolutely free from all human weakness, and in such a religion intolerance has no place. It has been said that the tolerant spirit of Buddhism[82] is due to religious {653} indifference,[83] but the original cause of it seems to be the absence of a personal god; and the increasing tolerance of modern Christianity is undoubtedly connected with the more ethical view it takes of the Deity when compared with the opinions of earlier ages. It should be remembered, however, that religious toleration does not mean passive indifference with regard to dissenting religious ideas. The tolerant man may be a great propagandist. He may do his utmost to eradicate, by means of persuasion, what he considers to be a false belief. He may even resort to stronger measures against those who do mischief in the name of their religion. But he does not persecute anybody for the sake of his faith; nor does he believe in an intolerant and persecuting god.

[Footnote 82: Hardy, _Eastern Monachism_, p. 412. Monier-Williams, _Buddhism_, p. 126. Waddell, _Buddhism of Tibet_, p. 568. Edkins, _Religion in China_, p. 127. Gutzlaff, _Sketch of Chinese History_, i. 70. Forbes, _British Burma_, p. 322 _sq._]

[Footnote 83: Forbes, _op. cit._ p. 322. _Cf._ Kuenen, _Hibbert Lectures on National and Universal Religions_, p. 290.]

* * * * *

Supernatural beings, according to the belief of many races, desire to be worshipped not only because they depend upon human care for their subsistence or comfort, but because worship is an act of homage. We have seen that sacrifice, after losing its original significance, still survives as a reverent offering. So also prayer is frequently a tribute to the self-regarding pride of the god to whom it is addressed. A supplication is an act of humility, more or less flattering to the person appealed to and especially gratifying where, as in the case of a god, the granting of the request entails no deprivation or loss, but on the contrary is rewarded by the worshipper. Moreover, the request is very commonly accompanied by reverential epithets or words of eulogy; and praise, nay even flattery, is just as pleasant to superhuman as to human ears. Gods are addressed as great or mighty, as lords or kings, as fathers or grandfathers.[84] A prayer of the ancient Peruvians began with the following words:--"O conquering Viracocha! Ever present Viracocha! Thou art in the ends of the earth without equal!"[85] {654} The ancient Egyptians flattered their gods,[86] the Vedic and Zoroastrian hymns are full of praise. Muhammedans invoke Allah by sentences such as, "God is great," "God is merciful," "God is he who seeth and heareth." Words of praise, as well as words of thanks, addressed to a god, may certainly be the expressions of unreflecting admiration or gratitude, free from all thought of pleasing him; but where laudation is demanded by the god as a price for good services, it is simply a tribute to his vanity. There is a Chinese story which amusingly illustrates this little weakness of so many gods:--At the hottest season of the year there was a heavy fall of snow at Soochow. The people, in their consternation, went to the temple of the Great Prince to pray. Then the spirit moved one of them to say, "You now address me as Your Honour. Make it Your Excellency, and, though I am but a lesser deity, it may be well worth your while to do so." Thereupon the people began to use the latter term, and the snow stopped at once.[87] The Hindus say that by praise a person may obtain from the gods whatever he desires.[88]

[Footnote 84: See Brinton, _Religions of Primitive Peoples_, p. 105.]

[Footnote 85: de Molina, 'Fables and Rites of the Yncas,' in _Narratives of the Rites and Laws of the Yncas_, p. 33.]

[Footnote 86: Amélineau, _L'évolution des idées morales dans l'Égypte ancienne_, p. 214.]

[Footnote 87: Giles, _Strange Stories from a Chinese Studio_, ii. 294.]

[Footnote 88: Ward, _View of the History, Literature, and Religion of the Hindoos_, ii. 69.]

We have different means of gratifying a person's self-regarding pride: one is to praise him, another is to humiliate ourselves. Both have been adopted by men with reference to their gods. Besides hymns of praise there are hymns of penitence, the object of which is largely to appease the angry feelings of offended gods. Prayers for remission of sins form a whole literature among peoples like that of the Vedic age, the Chaldeans,[89] and the Hebrews, who commonly regarded calamities to which men were subject not as the result of an inexorable fate nor as the machinations of evil spirits, but as divine punishments. According to early ideas, as we have seen, sin is a substance charged with injurious {655} energy, from which the infected person tries to rid himself by mechanical means.[90] But at the same time the effect of sin is conceived as a divine punishment, and this suggests atonement. In the Rig-Veda we not only hear of the removal of sins by magical operations, but the gods are requested to free the sufferer from his sin.[91]

[Footnote 89: Zimmern, _Babylonische Busspsalmen_, _passim_. Mürdter-Delitzsch, _Geschichte Babyloniens und Assyriens_, p. 38 _sq._ Delitzsch, _Wo lag das Paradies?_ p. 86. Hommel, _Die semitischen Völker und Sprachen_, p. 315 _sqq._ Meyer, _Geschichte des Alterthums_, i. 178.]

[Footnote 90: _Supra_, i. 52 _sqq._]

[Footnote 91: See Oldenberg, _Die Religion des Veda_, pp. 292, 296, 317 _sq._]

Gods are fond of prayers not only as expressions of humility or repentance but for other reasons as well. In early religion a prayer is commonly connected with an offering, since the god is not supposed to bestow his favours gratuitously.[92] By the call contained in it he is invited to partake of the offering, or his attention is drawn to it.[93] "Compassionate father!" says the Tanna priest when he offers first-fruits to a deified ancestor; "here is some food for you, eat it, and be kind to us on account of it!"[94] In one of the Pahlavi texts it is said that when the guardian spirits of the righteous are invited they accept the sacrifice, whereas if they are not invited "they go up the height of a spear and will remain."[95] Throughout the Yasts we hear of the claims of deities to be worshipped with sacrifices in which they are invoked by their own names and with the proper words.[96] Mithra complains, "If men would worship me with a sacrifice in which I were invoked by my own name, as they worship the other Yazatas with sacrifices in which they are invoked by their own names, then I would come to the faithful at the appointed time."[97] {656} According to Vedic and Zoroastrian texts the gods were purified, strengthened, and encouraged not only by offerings but by prayers, although it is difficult in this respect to distinguish between two elements in one and the same rite which are so closely interwoven with each other.[98] By his invocations man assists the gods in their combats with evil demons, he sends his prayer between the earth and the heavens there to smite the fiends.[99] In a Vedic hymn the people are exhorted to "sing to Indra a song very destructive to the demons."[100] By pronouncing the praise of Asha, Zarathustra brings the Daevas to naught;[101] by mentioning the name of Ahura Mazda their malice is most effectually destroyed.[102] Thus prayer may be a religious duty also on account of the magic efficacy ascribed to it, and the same is the case with incantations directed against evil spirits.

[Footnote 92: Tylor, _Primitive Culture_, ii. 364 _sqq._ Georgi, _Russia_, iii. 272 (shamanistic peoples of Siberia). Maspero, _Études de mythologie et d'archéologie égyptiennes_, i. 163; _Idem_, _Dawn of Civilization_, p. 124, n. 5 (ancient Egyptians). Darmesteter, in _Sacred Books of the East_, iv. (1st ed.) p. lxix. (Zoroastrians). Oldenberg, _op. cit._ p. 430 _sqq._; Barth, _Religions of India_, p. 34 (Vedic people). Donaldson, 'Expiatory and Substitutionary Sacrifices of the Greeks,' in _Trans. Roy. Soc. Edinburgh_, xxvii. 430. Grimm, _Teutonic Mythology_, i. 29. Among the Kafirs of Natal "a soldier wounded in battle would only pray if his hurt were slight; but if it were serious, he would vow a sacrifice on his return, naming perhaps the particular beast" (Shooter, _Kafirs of Natal_, p. 164).]

[Footnote 93: _Cf._ Brinton, _Religions of Primitive Peoples_, p. 104.]

[Footnote 94: Turner, _Nineteen Years in Polynesia_, p. 88.]

[Footnote 95: _Shâyast Lâ-Shâyast_, ix. 12.]

[Footnote 96: _Yasts_, viii. 23 _sqq._; x. 30.]

[Footnote 97: _Ibid._ x. 55. _Cf._ _ibid._ x. 74.]

[Footnote 98: See Bergaigne, _La religion védique_, ii. 237, 250, 273 _sqq._; Zimmer, _Altindisches Leben_, p. 337 _sqq._; Oldenberg, _Religion des Veda_, p. 437; Macdonell, _Vedic Mythology_, p. 60; Meyer, _Geschichte des Alterthums_, i. 534 _sq._ (Zoroastrianism).]

[Footnote 99: _Yasna_, xxviii. 7. _Yasts_, iii. 5. _Vendîdâd_, xix. 1, 2, 8 _sqq._ Darmesteter, _Ormazd et Ahriman_, pp. 101, 119, 131, 193. _Idem_, in _Sacred Books of the East_, iv. (1st ed.) p. lxix.]

[Footnote 100: _Rig-Veda_, viii. 78. 1.]

[Footnote 101: _Yasts_, xiii. 89. _Cf._ _ibid._ xiii. 90.]

[Footnote 102: _Ibid._ i. 3, 4, 10, 11, 19.]

In earlier chapters we have often noticed how curses gradually develop into genuine prayers, and _vice versa_ may a prayer develop into a curse or spell. Dr. Rivers observes that the formulæ used in Toda magic have the form of prayers.[103] So also Assyrian incantations are often dressed in the robe of supplication, and end with the formula, "Do so and so, and I shall gladden thine heart and worship thee in humility."[104] Vedic texts which were not originally meant as charms became so afterwards. Incantations are comparatively rare in the Rig-Veda, and seem even to be looked upon as objectionable, but towards the end of the Vedic period the reign of Brahma, the power of prayer, as the supreme god in the Indian Pantheon began to dawn.[105] {657}_Brahma_ is a force by which the gods act, by which they are born, and by which the world has been formed;[106] but it is also the prayer which ascends from the altar to heaven and by means of which man wrests from the gods the boon he demands[107]--"the prayer governs them."[108] This omnipresent force is personified in Brahma[n.]aspati, the lord of prayer, who resides in the highest heaven but of whom not only every separate god but the priest himself becomes a manifestation at the moment he pronounces the mantras or sacred texts.[109] It is a current saying in India that the whole universe is subject to the gods, that the gods are subject to the mantras, that the mantras are subject to the Brahmans, and that therefore the Brahmans are the real gods.[110] In Zoroastrianism prayers are not made efficacious by devotion and fervency, but to the words themselves belongs a mysterious power and the mere recitation of them, if correct and faultless, brings that power into action;[111] in the Yasts prayer is regarded as a goddess, as the daughter of Ahura Mazda.[112] In ancient Egypt, M. Maspero observes, "la prière n'était pas comme chez nous une petition que l'homme présente au dieu, et que le dieu est libre d'accepter ou de refuser à son gré: c'était une formule dont les terms ont une valeur impérative, et dont l'énonciation exacte oblige le dieu à concéder ce qu'on lui demande."[113] Greek literature supplies other instances of men conjuring their gods by incantations;[114] the word [Greek: a)ra/] means both prayer and curse.[115] And "in the Roman, as in the majority of the old Italian cults, prayer is a magic formula, producing its effect by its own inherent quality."[116]

[Footnote 103: Rivers, _Todas_, pp. 450, 453.]

[Footnote 104: Tallqvist, 'Die assyrische Beschwörungsserie Maqlû,' in _Acta Soc. Scient. Fennicæ_, xx. 22.]

[Footnote 105: Oldenberg, _op. cit._ p. 311 _sqq._ Hopkins, _op. cit._ p. 149. Roth, 'Brahma und die Brahmanen,' in _Zeitschr. d. Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellsch._ i. 67, 71. Darmesteter, _Essais orientaux_, p. 132.]

[Footnote 106: _Atharva-Veda_, xi. 5. 5. Barth, _op. cit._ p. 38.]

[Footnote 107: Roth, _loc. cit._ p. 66 _sqq._ Barth, _op. cit._ p. 38. Darmesteter, _Ormazd et Ahriman_, p. 101.]

[Footnote 108: _Rig-Veda_, vi. 51. 8.]

[Footnote 109: Barth, _op. cit._ p. 15 _sq._ Roth, _loc. cit._ p. 71.]

[Footnote 110: Monier-Williams, _Br[=a]hmanism and Hind[=u]ism_, p. 201 _sq._]

[Footnote 111: See Geiger, _Civilization of the Eastern Ir[=a]nians_, i. 71.]

[Footnote 112: _Yasts_, xiii. 92; xvii. 16.]

[Footnote 113: Maspero, _Études de mythologie et archéologie égyptiennes_, i. 163.]

[Footnote 114: See Usener, _Götternamen_, p. 335 _sq._]

[Footnote 115: _Cf._ von Lasaulx, _Der Fluch bei Griechen und Römern_, p. 6. So also the Manx word _gwee_ means both prayer and curse (Rhys, _Celtic Folklore_, i. 349).]

[Footnote 116: Renan, _Hibbert Lectures on the Influence of the Institutions, &c. of Rome on Christianity_, p. 10 _sq._ _Cf._ Jevons, in Plutarch's _Romane Questions_, p. xxviii.; Granger, _Worship of the Romans_, p. 158.]

{658} Whilst an ordinary curse readily develops into a prayer when the name of a god is brought in for the purpose of giving magic efficacy to the curse, a prayer may contrariwise assume a magic character by being addressed to a god--just as a sacrifice becomes endowed with magic energy in consequence of its contact or communion with the supernatural being to which it is offered; and the constraining force in the prayer or sacrifice may then be directed even against the god himself. But there can be little doubt that the extreme importance which the magic element in the cult attained among the nations of ancient civilisation was chiefly due to the prevalence of a powerful priesthood or class of persons well versed in sacred texts. A successful incantation presupposes a certain knowledge in him who utters it. The words of the formulæ are fixed and may not suffer the slightest modification under penalty of losing their potency. Right intonation is equally important.[117] The Brahmanic mantras "must be pronounced according to certain mystic forms and with absolute accuracy, or their efficacy is destroyed"; nay, if in the repetition of a mantra the slightest mistake is made, either by omission of a syllable or defective pronunciation, the calamity which it was intended to bring down on an enemy will inevitably recoil on the head of the repeater.[118] The potency of the incantation largely lies in the voice, which is the magical instrument _par excellence_.[119] A Buddhist priest who was asked what advantage he could expect to derive from merely repeating a number of words with the sense of which he was entirely unacquainted, gave the answer that the advantage of often repeating the sounds was incalculable, infinite;[120] and a Muhammedan writer argues that prayers which are offered in any other language than {659} Arabic are profane and useless, because "the sounds of this language"--whether understood or not--"illuminate the darkness of men" and "purify the hearts of the faithful."[121] Ideas of this sort are of course most strongly advocated by those who derive the greatest profit from them--priests or scribes. And it is easy to understand that with their increasing influence among a superstitious and credulous people the magic significance which is so readily ascribed to a religious act also has a tendency to grow in importance.

[Footnote 117: Maspero, _Études_, i. 109; _Idem_, _Dawn of Civilization_, pp. 146, 213 (ancient Egyptians). Sayce, _Hibbert Lectures on the Religion of the Andent Babylonians_, p. 319. Darmesteter, _Ormazd et Ahriman_, p. 9. Sell, _Faith of Islám_, pp. 53, 79, 334, 341.]

[Footnote 118: Monier-Williams, _Br[=a]hmanism and Hind[=u]ism_, p. 199.]

[Footnote 119: _Yasts_, iv. 5. Maspero, _Études_, ii. 373 _sq._; _Idem_, _Dawn of Civilization_, p. 146 (ancient Egyptians). Sell, _op. cit._ p. 318 (Muhammedans).]

[Footnote 120: _Indo-Chinese Gleaner_, iii. 145.]

[Footnote 121: _Indo-Chinese Gleaner_, iii. 146.]

* * * * *

Among all sins there is none which gods resent more severely than disobedience to their commandments. Mr. Macdonald says of the Efatese, in the New Hebrides, that no people under the sun is more obedient to what they regard as divine mandates than these savages, who believe that an offence against a spiritual being means calamity and death.[122] The Chaldeans had a lively sense of the risks entailed upon the sinner by disobedience to the gods.[123] According to the Bible disobedience was the first sin committed by man, and death was introduced into the world as its punishment. "Rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, and stubbornness is as iniquity and idolatry."[124] On the history of morals this demand of obedience has exercised considerable influence. It gives emphasis to moral rules which are looked upon as divine injunctions, and it helps to preserve such rules after the conditions from which they sprang have ceased to exist. The fact that they have become meaningless does not render them less binding; on the contrary, the mystery surrounding them often increases their sanctity. The commandments of a god must be obeyed independently of their contents, simply because disobedience to him is a sin. Acts totally different in character, crimes of the worst description and {660} practices by themselves perfectly harmless, are grouped together as almost equally offensive to the deity because they have been forbidden by him.[125] And moral progress is hampered by a number of precepts which, though rooted in obsolete superstitions or antiquated ideas about right and wrong, have an obstinate tendency to persist on account of their supposed divine origin.[126]

[Footnote 122: Macdonald, _Oceania_, p. 201.]

[Footnote 123: Maspero, _Dawn of Civilization_, p. 682. Delitzsch, _Wo lag das Paradies?_ p. 86.]

[Footnote 124: _1 Samuel_, xv. 23. Schultz, _Old Testament Theology_, ii. 286. For other instances see _Rig-Veda_, vii. 89. 5; Geiger, _Civilization of the Eastern Ir[=a]nians_, i. p. li.; Schmidt, _Die Ethik der alten Griechen_, ii. 51 _sq._]

[Footnote 125: _Cf._ _supra_, i. 193 _sqq._]

[Footnote 126: _Cf._ Pollock, _Essays on Jurisprudence and Ethics_, p. 306 _sq._]

* * * * *

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

[Footnote 127: Waterland, 'On Self-Love,' in _The English Preacher_, i. 101 sq._ Cf._ Paley's definition of virtue in his _Principles of Moral and Political Philosophy_, i. 7 (_Complete Works_, ii. 38; _supra_, i. 300).]

At the same time it may be not only in people's own interests, but in the interests of their fellow men as well, for them to be on friendly terms with supernatural beings. These beings often visit the iniquity of fathers or forefathers upon children or descendants, or punish the community for the sins of one of its members;[128] and, on the other hand, they reward the whole family or group for the virtues of a single individual.[129] So also, when the {661} members of a community join in common acts of worship, each worshipper promotes not only his own welfare, but the welfare of his people. In early religion it is of the utmost importance for the tribe or nation that the established cult should be strictly observed. This is a fact which cannot be too much emphasised when we have to explain how conduct which is pleasing to a god has come to be regarded as a moral duty; for, if the latest stages of religious development be excepted, the relations between men and their gods are communal rather than individual in character. Ahura Mazda said, "If men sacrifice unto Verethraghna, made by Ahura, if the due sacrifice and prayer is offered unto him just as it ought to be performed in the perfection of holiness, never will a hostile horde enter the Aryan countries, nor any plague, nor leprosy, nor venomous plants, nor the chariot of a foe, nor the uplifted spear of a foe!"[130] Thus the duties to gods are at the same time social duties of the first order, owing to the intensely social character of religious relationships.

[Footnote 128: _Supra_, i. 48 _sqq._]

[Footnote 129: _Supra_, i. 96 _sqq._]

[Footnote 130: _Yasts_, xiv. 48.]

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

[Footnote 131: _Supra_, i. 194.]

I have here spoken of duties which men consider they owe to their gods, not of duties to supernatural beings in general. This distinction, though not always easy to {662} follow in detail, is yet of vital importance. People may no doubt be afraid to offend and even anxious to please other spirits besides their gods, but religious duties chiefly arise where there are established relationships between men and supernatural beings; indeed, it may even be a duty to refrain from worshipping or actually to persecute other spirits, as is the case in monotheistic religions. Men depend for their welfare on their gods more than on any other members of the spiritual world. They select as their gods those supernatural beings from whom they think they have most to fear or most to hope. Hence it is generally in the relations to them only that those factors, prudential and reverential, are to be found which lead to the establishment of religious duties.

CHAPTER L

GODS AS GUARDIANS OF MORALITY

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

We are told by competent observers that the supernatural beings of savage belief frequently display the utmost indifference to all questions of worldly morality. According to Messrs. Spencer and Gillen, the Central Australian natives, though they assume the existence of both friendly and mischievous spirits, "have not the vaguest idea of a personal individual other than an actual living member of the tribe who approves or disapproves of their conduct, so far as anything like what we call morality is concerned."[1] The Society Islanders maintained that "the only crimes that were visited by the displeasure of their deities were the neglect of some rite or ceremony."[2] The religious belief of the Gonds of Central India is said to be wholly unconnected with any idea of morality; a moral deity demanding righteous conduct from his creatures, our informant adds, is a religious {664} conception far beyond the present capacity either of the Indian savage or the ordinary Hindu.[3] Of the E[(w]e-, Yoruba-, and Tshi-speaking peoples of the West African Slave and Gold Coasts Major Ellis writes:--"Religion, at the stage of growth in which we find it among these three groups of tribes, has no connection with morals, or the relations of men to one another. It consists solely of ceremonial worship, and the gods are only offended when some rite or ceremony has been neglected or omitted. . . . Murder, theft, and all offences against the person or against property, are matters in which the gods have no immediate concern, and in which they take no interest, except in the case when, bribed by a valuable offering, they take up the quarrel in the interests of some faithful worshipper."[4] So also among the Bambala, a Bantu tribe in the Kasai, south of the River Congo, "there is no belief that the gods or spirits punish wrong-doing by afflicting the criminal or his family, nor are the acts of a man supposed to affect his condition after death."[5] The Indians of Guiana, says Sir E. F. Im Thurn, observe an admirable code of morality, which exists side by side with a simple animistic form of religion, but the two have absolutely no connection with one another.[6] With reference to the Tarahumares of Mexico Dr. Lumholtz states that the only wrong towards the gods of which an Indian may consider himself guilty is that he does not dance enough. "For this offence he asks pardon. Whatever bad thoughts or actions toward man he may have on his conscience are settled between himself and the person offended."[7] In the primitive Indian's conception of a god," Mr. Parkman observes, "the idea of moral good {665} has no part. His deity does not dispense justice for this world or the next."[8]

[Footnote 1: Spencer and Gillen, _Northern Tribes of Central Australia_, p. 491.]

[Footnote 2: Ellis, _Polynesian Researches_, i. 397.]

[Footnote 3: Forsyth, _Highlands of Central India_, p. 145. See also Hodgson, _Miscellaneous Essays_, i. 124 (Bódo and Dhimáls); Caldwell, _Tinnevelly Shanars_, p. 36; Lyall, _Asiatic Studies_, p. 45; Radloff, _Das Schamanenthum_, p. 13 (Turkish tribes of the Altai).]

[Footnote 4: Ellis, _Yoruba-speaking Peoples of the Slave Coast_, p. 293. _Idem_, _Tshi-speaking Peoples of the Gold Coast_, p. 10. The E[(w]e god Mawu is represented as an exception to this rule (_infra_, p. 686).]

[Footnote 5: Torday and Joyce, 'Ethnography of the Ba-Mbala,' in _Jour. Anthr. Inst._ xxxv. 415.]

[Footnote 6: Im Thurn, _Indians of Guiana_, p. 342.]

[Footnote 7: Lumholtz, _Unknown Mexico_, i. 332.] [Footnote 8: Parkman, _Jesuits in North America_, p. lxxviii. See also Eastman, _Dacotah_, p. xx.; Schoolcraft, _Indian Tribes of the United States_, ii. 195 (Dacotahs).]

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

[Footnote 9: See Meiners, _Geschichte der Religionen_, i. 405; Tylor, _Primitive Culture_, ii. 329; Avebury, _Origin of Civilisation_, p. 232 _sqq._; Roskoff, _Geschichte des Teufels_, i. 20 _sq._; Frazer, _Golden Bough_, iii. 40 _sqq._; Karsten, _Origin of Worship_, p. 46 _sqq._]

The Maoris of New Zealand regarded their deities as the causes of pain, misery, and death, as mighty enemies from whom nobody ever thought of getting any aid or good, but who were to be rendered harmless by means of charms or spells or by sacrifices offered to appease their wrath.[10] The Tahitians "supposed their gods were powerful spiritual beings, in some degree acquainted with the events of this world, and generally governing its affairs; never exercising any thing like benevolence towards even their most devoted followers, but requiring homage and obedience, with constant offerings; denouncing their anger, and dispensing destruction on all who either refused or hesitated to comply."[11] The Fijians "formed no idea of any voluntary kindness on the part of their gods, except the planting of wild yams, and the wrecking of strange canoes and foreign vessels on their coast";[12] and that some of these beings were conceived as positively wicked is indicated by the names given them--"the adulterer," "the rioter," "the murderer," and so forth.[13] The people of Aneiteum, in the New Hebrides, maintained that "earth and air and ocean were filled with natmasses, spiritual beings, but all malignant, who ruled over everything that affected the human race. . . . Their deities, like themselves, were {666} all selfish and malignant; they breathed no spirit of benevolence."[14]

[Footnote 10: Taylor, _Te Ika a Maui_, pp. 104, 148. Colenso, _Maori Races of New Zealand_, p. 62. _Cf._ Dieffenbach, _Travels in New Zealand_, ii. 118.]

[Footnote 11: Ellis, _Polynesian Researches_, i. 336.]

[Footnote 12: Williams and Calvert, _Fiji_, p. 195.]

[Footnote 13: _Ibid._ p. 185.]

[Footnote 14: Inglis, _In the New Hebrides_, pp. 30, 32.]

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

[Footnote 15: Hunter, _Annals of Rural Bengal_, i. 181 _sq._]

[Footnote 16: Klemm, _Cultur-Geschichte der Menschheit_, ii. 318 _sq._ Steller, _Beschreibung von Kamtschatka_, p. 264.]

According to the beliefs of the Koksoagmyut, or Hudson Bay Eskimo, all the minor spirits are under the control of the great spirit whose name is Tung ak, and this being "is nothing more or less than death, which ever seeks to torment and harass the lives of people that their spirits may go to dwell with him."[17] Nay, even the special guardian spirit by which each person is supposed to be attended is malignant in character and ever ready to seize upon the least occasion to work harm upon the individual whom it accompanies; its good offices can be obtained by propitiation only.[18] Among the Nenenot, or Indians of Hudson Bay, "the rule seems to be that all spirits are by nature bad, and must be propitiated to secure their favour."[19] Of various Brazilian tribes we are likewise told that they do not believe in the existence of any benevolent spirits. Thus the Coroado Indian acknowledges only an evil principle, which sometimes meets him in the form of a lizard or a crocodile or an ounce or a man with the feet of a stag, sometimes transforms itself into a swamp, and leads him astray, vexes him, brings him into difficulty and danger, and even kills him.[20] The Mundrucus of the Cuparí have no notion of a good supreme being, but believe in an evil spirit, regarded merely as a kind of hobgoblin, who is at the bottom of all their little failures and gives them troubles in fishing, hunting, and so forth.[21] The Uaupés, says Mr. Wallace, "appear to have no definite idea of a God. . . . They have much more definite ideas of a bad spirit, 'Juruparí,' or Devil, whom they fear and {667} endeavour through their _pagés_ [or medicine men] to propitiate. When it thunders, they say the 'Juruparí' is angry, and their idea of natural death is that the 'Juruparí' kills them."[22]

[Footnote 17: Turner, 'Ethnology of the Ungava District,' in _Ann. Rep. Bur. Ethn._ xi. 272.]

[Footnote 18: _Ibid._ p. 194.]

[Footnote 19: _Ibid._ p. 193 _sq._]

[Footnote 20: von Spix and von Martius, _Travels in Brazil_, ii. 243.]

[Footnote 21: Bates, _The Naturalist on the River Amazons_, ii. 137.]

[Footnote 22: Wallace, _Travels on the Amazon_, p. 500.]

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

[Footnote 23: Burton, _Lake Regions of Central Africa_, ii. 348.]

[Footnote 24: New, _Life, Wanderings, and Labours in Eastern Africa_, p. 103 _sq._]

[Footnote 25: Decle, _Three Years in Savage Africa_, p. 153.]

[Footnote 26: Campbell, _Second Journey in the Interior of South Africa_, ii. 204.]

[Footnote 27: Moffat, _Missionary Labours in Southern Africa_ (ed. 1842), p. 262.]

[Footnote 28: Rowley, _Religion of the Africans_, p. 55. Kingsley, _Travels in West Africa_, p. 443. Mockler-Ferryman, _British Nigeria_, p. 255 _sq._]

[Footnote 29: Ellis, _Tshi-speaking Peoples_, pp. 12, 18, 20. _Cf._ Cruickshank, _Eighteen Years on the Gold Coast_, ii. 134.]

Of many savages it is reported that they have notions of good, as well as of evil spirits, but that they chiefly or exclusively worship the evil ones, since the others are supposed to be so good that they require no offerings or homage.[30] But adoration of supernatural beings which are {668} considered at least occasionally beneficent is also very prevalent among uncivilised peoples.[31] The gods of the pagan Lapps were all good, although they took revenge upon those who offended them.[32] Among the Navaho Indians of New Mexico "the gods who are supposed to love and help men the most receive the greatest honour"; whereas the evil spirits are not worshipped except, rumour says, by the witches.[33] The belief in guardian or tutelary spirits of tribes, clans, villages, families, or individuals, is extremely widespread.[34] These spirits may be exacting enough--they are often greatly feared by their own worshippers, and sometimes described as distinctly malignant {669} by nature;[35] but their general function is nevertheless to afford assistance to the person or persons with whom they are associated. At the same time it should be noticed that the goodness of many savage gods only consists in their readiness to help those who please them by offerings or adoration; and in no case does their benevolence prove that they take an active interest in morality at large. A friendly supernatural being is not necessarily a guardian of men's behaviour towards their fellow men. In Morocco the patron saint of a town, village, or tribe is not in the least concerned about any kind of conduct which has not immediate reference to himself.[36] It is believed that even the robber may, by invoking a dead saint, secure his assistance in an unlawful enterprise.

[Footnote 30: Wilken, _Het Animisme bij de volken van den Indischen Archipel_, p. 207 _sq._ Perham, 'Sea Dyak Religion,' in _Jour. Straits Branch Roy. Asiatic Soc._ no. 10, p. 220; St. John, _Life in the Forests of the Far East_, i. 69 _sq._ (Sea Dyaks). Blumentritt, 'Der Ahnencultus und die religiösen Anschauungen der Malaien des Philippinen-Archipels,' in _Mittheil. d. kais. u. kön. Geograph. Gesellsch. in Wien_, xxv. 166 _sqq._ Prain, 'Angami Nagas,' in _Revue coloniale internationale_, v. 489. Forsyth, _op. cit._ pp. 141, 143 (Gonds). Hooker, _Himalayan Journals_, i. 126 (Lepchas). Robertson, _History of America_, i. 383; Müller, _Geschichte der Amerikanischen Urreligionen_, pp. 150, 151, 232, 260; Dorman, _Origin of Primitive Superstition_, p. 30 (American Indians). Sproat, _Scenes and Studies of Savage Life_, p. 212 (Ahts). Falkner, _Description of Patagonia_, p. 116; Prichard, _Through the Heart of Patagonia_, p. 97.]

[Footnote 31: See _supra_, ii. 615 _sq._]

[Footnote 32: von Düben, _Lappland_, pp. 227, 285. Friis, _Lappisk Mythologi_, p. 106. Jessen, _Norske Finners og Lappers Hedenske Religion_, p. 33.]

[Footnote 33: Matthews, _Navaho Legends_, p. 40. See also _ibid._ p. 33.]

[Footnote 34: Ellis, _Tshi-speaking Peoples of the Gold Coast_, pp. 17, 18, 77, 92. _Idem_, _E[(w]e-speaking Peoples of the Slave Coast_, p. 75. Wilson, _Western Africa_, p. 387 (Mpongwe). Tuckey, _River Zaire_, p. 375. Ellis, _History of Madagascar_, i. 395 _sq._ Ratzel, _History of Mankind_, i. 321 (various South Sea Islanders). Turner, _Samoa_, p. 17 _sq._ Williams and Calvert, _Fiji_, p. 185 _sq._ Inglis, _op. cit._ p. 30 (people of Aneiteum). Christian, _Caroline Islands_, p. 75. Wilken, _Het Animisme_, pp. 231 _sqq._ (Minahassers, Macassars, and Bugis of Celebes), 243 (Javanese). Selenka, _Sonnige Welten_, p. 103 _sq._ (Dyaks). Forbes, _Insulinde_, p. 203 (natives of Tenimber). von Brenner, _Besuch bei den Kannibalen Sumatras_, p. 221 (Bataks). Mason, 'Religion, &c. among the Karens,' in _Jour. Asiatic Soc. Bengal_, xxxiv. 196. Hunter, _Annals of Rural Bengal_, i. 182, 186 _sq._ (Santals). Hodgson, _Miscellaneous Essays_, i. 128 (Bódo and Dhimáls). Bailey, 'Veddahs of Ceylon,' in _Trans. Ethn. Soc._ N.S. ii. 301; Nevill, 'Vaeddas of Ceylon,' in _Taprobanian_, i. 194. Schmidt, _Ceylon_, p. 291 _sq._ (Tamils). Bergmann, _Nomadische Streifereien unter den Kalmüken_, iii. 182 _sq._ Abercromby, _Pre- and Proto-historic Finns_, i. 160 (Ostiaks). Buch, 'Die Wotjaken,' in _Acta Soc. Scient. Fennicæ_, xii. 595 _sq._ Castrén, _Nordiska resor och forskningar_, iii. 106, 107, 174 _sq._ (Finnish tribes). Boas, 'Central Eskimo,' in _Ann. Rep. Bur. Ethn._ vi. 591. Turner, _ibid._ xi. 193 _sq._ (Hudson Bay Eskimo), 272 (Hudson Bay Indians). Hoffman, 'Menomini Indians,' _ibid._ xiv. 65. McGee, 'Siouan Indians,' _ibid._ xv. 179; Parkman, _op. cit._ p. lxx; Dorman, _op. cit._ p. 227 (North American Indians). Müller, _Geschichte der Amerikanischen Urreligionen_, pp. 72 (North American Indians), 171 (Indians of the Great Antilles). Couto de Magalhães, _Trabalho preparatorio para aproveitamento do selvagem no Brazil--O selvagem_, p. 128 _sqq._ Tylor, _op. cit._ ii. 199 _sqq._]

[Footnote 35: Schmidt, _Ceylon_, p. 291 _sq._ (Tamils). Turner, in _Ann. Rep. Bur. Ethn._ xi. 193 _sq._ (Hudson Bay Eskimo), 272 (Hudson Bay Indians). McGee, _ibid._ xv. 179; Müller, _op. cit._ p. 72 (North American Indians).]

[Footnote 36: For a singular exception to this rule see _supra_, ii. 67 _sq._]

On the other hand, instances are not wanting in which savage gods are supposed to punish the transgression of rules relating to worldly morality. Occasionally, as we have noticed above, such gods are represented as avengers of some special kind of wrong-doing--murder,[37] theft,[38] niggardliness,[39] want of hospitality,[40] or lying.[41] Of certain Negro tribes we are told that, "when a man is about to commit a crime, or do that which his conscience tells him he ought not to do, he lays aside his fetiche, and covers up his deity, that he may not be privy to the deed."[42] The Tonga Islanders "firmly believe that the gods approve of virtue, and are displeased with vice; that every man has his tutelar deity, who will protect him as long as he conducts himself as he ought to do; but, if he does not, will leave him to the approaches of misfortune, disease, and death. . . . All rewards for virtue or punishments for vice happen to men in this world only, {670} and come immediately from the gods."[43] The Ainu of Japan are heard to say, "We could not go contrary to the customs of our ancestors without bringing down upon us the wrath of the gods."[44] And of various savages we are told that they believe in the existence of a supreme being who is a moral lawgiver or judge.

[Footnote 37: _Supra_, i. 378 _sq._]

[Footnote 38: _Supra_, ii. 59 _sq._]

[Footnote 39: _Supra_, i. 561 _sq._]

[Footnote 40: _Supra_, i. 578.]

[Footnote 41: _Supra_, ii. 114 _sq._]

[Footnote 42: Tuckey, _op. cit._ p. 377. _Cf._ Monrad, _Skildring af Guinea-Kysten_, p. 27, n. *]

[Footnote 43: Mariner, _Natives of the Tonga Islands_, ii. 149, 107.]

[Footnote 44: Batchelor, _Ainu of Japan_, p. 243 _sq._]

In Australia, especially in New South Wales and Victoria but also in other parts of the continent, many of the native tribes have the notion of an "All-father," called Baiame, Daramulun, Mungan-ngalla, Bunjil, Nurelli, Nurundere, or by some other name.[45] He is represented as an anthropomorphic, supernatural being and as the father of the race or the maker of everything, who at one time dwelt on the earth but afterwards ascended to a land beyond the sky, where he still remains. He is of a kindly disposition, and requires no worship; in a very few cases only we meet with some faint traces of a cult offered him.[46] {671} He is frequently believed to have instituted the initiation ceremonies,[47] and to have given the people their laws.[48] Thus Nurundere is said to have taught the Narrinyeri all the rites and ceremonies whether connected with life or death; on inquiry why they adhere to any custom, the reply is that Nurundere commanded it.[49] At the _boorah_, or initiation, of the Euahlayi tribe, Byamee is proclaimed as "Father of All, whose laws the tribes are now obeying"; and in one of their myths he is described as the original source of all the totems and of the law that persons of the same totem may not intermarry.[50] Bunjil taught the Kulin the arts of life, and told them to divide themselves into two intermarrying classes so as to prevent marriages between kindred.[51] Daramulun instructed the Yuin what to do and gave them laws which the old people have handed down from father to son to the present time.[52] And in several instances the Australian "All-father" is represented as a guardian of morality who punishes the wicked and rewards the good. Bunjil "very frequently sent his sons to destroy bad men and bad women . . . who had killed and eaten blacks."[53] Daramulun, or Tharamulun, who from his residence in the sky watches the actions of men, "is very angry when they do things that they ought not to do, as when they eat forbidden food."[54] The natives of the Herbert River, in Queensland, believe that anybody who takes a wife from the prohibited sub-class, or who does not wear the morning necklace for the prescribed period, or who eats forbidden food, will sooner or later die in consequence, since his behaviour is offensive to Kohin, a supernatural being who is supposed to have his dwelling in the Milky Way but to roam about at night on earth as a gigantic warrior killing those whom he meets.[55] Most commonly, however, the retribution is said to come after death. {672} The tribes about Maryborough, in Queensland, maintain that the ghosts of those who are good or those who have a high degree of excellence in any particular line--fishing, hunting, fighting, dancing, and so forth--are directed by Birral to an island in the Far North, where he resides.[56] Among the Cape River tribes, "when a Blackfellow dies whose actions during life have been what they hold to be good, he is said to ascend to Boorala (_i.e._, to the Creator, literally 'good'), where he lives much as he did on earth, less the usual terrestrial discomforts"; whereas to the man who has led a bad life death is thought to be simple annihilation.[57] The Kulin said that when they die they will be subjected to a sort of trial by Binbeal, "the good being rewarded in a better land, the bad driven away, but where they seemed to have no idea."[58] According to another account, again, Binbeal, after he has subjected the spirits of the deceased to an ordeal of fire to try whether they are good or bad, liberates the good at once, whereas the bad are confined and punished.[59] The Illawarra, who lived from thirty to a hundred miles south of Sidney, believed that when people die they are brought up to a large tree where Mirirul, the supreme ruler, examines and judges them. The good he takes up to the sky, the bad he sends to another place to be punished. The women said to their children when they were naughty, "Mirirul will not allow it."[60] Among the Wathiwathi, in New South Wales, the belief prevails that if the spirit of a bad man escapes the traps which are set for it on its course in the sky, it is sure to fall into the hell of fire. The good spirit, on the other hand, is received by two old women who take care of it till it becomes accustomed to its new abode; and after a time the great God, Tha-tha-puli, comes with a host of spirits to see the newcomer and try his strength.[61] According to a report written by Archdeacon Günther in 1839, Baiame is supposed to like the blacks who are good; and "there is also an idea entertained by the more thoughtful that good natives will go to Baiame when they die."[62] Later authorities state that Baiame is believed not only to reward the good after death, but also to punish the wicked--that is, persons who tell lies or kill men by striking them secretly or who are unkind towards the old and sick or, generally, who break his laws.[63] A very elaborate {673} theory of retribution is communicated by Mr. Manning, whose notes date from 1844 or 1845. Boyma (Baiame) is said to be seated far away in the north-east on an immense throne made of transparent crystal and standing in a great lake. He has a son, Grogoragally, equal with him in omniscience, who acts as mediator for the souls to the Great God. His office is to watch over the actions of mankind and to bring to life the dead to appear before the judgment-seat of his Father, who alone pronounces the judgment of eternal happiness in heaven or eternal misery in a hell of everlasting fire. Women and boys dying before the initiation, however, do not go to heaven; the men have a vague idea that another world is reserved for them. There is also a third person, half human, half divine, called Moodgeegally, who makes Boyma's will known to mankind and is the avowed enemy of all wicked people, transmitting their misdeeds to Grogoragally.[64]

[Footnote 45: Henderson, _Colonies of New South Wales_, p. 147. de Strzelecki, _New South Wales_, p. 339. Manning, 'Aborigines of New Holland,' in _Jour. and Proceed. Roy. Soc. N.S. Wales_, xvi. 157 _sqq._ Ridley, _Kámilarói_, p. 135 _sqq._ Cameron, 'Some Tribes of New South Wales,' in _Jour. Anthr. Inst._ xiv. 364 _sq._ Langloh Parker, _Euahlayi Tribe_, p. 4 _sqq._ Threlkeld, _An Australian Language as spoken by the Awabakal_, p. 47. Mathews, _Aboriginal Tribes of New South Wales and Victoria_, p. 138 _sqq._ Mathew, _Eagle-hawk and Crow_, p. 146 _sqq._ Fountain and Ward, _Rambles of an Australian Naturalist_, p. 296. _Missions-Blatt aus der Brüdergemeine_, xvi. 101, 143; Parker, _Aborigines of Australia_, p. 24; Dawson, _Australian Aborigines_, p. 49 (tribes in Victoria). Brough Smyth, _Aborigines of Victoria_, i. 423 _sqq._ Taplin, 'Narrinyeri,' in Woods, _Native Tribes of South Australia_, p. 55 _sqq._ Howitt, _Native Tribes of South-East Australia_, p. 489 _sqq._ Spencer and Gillen, _Northern Tribes of Central Australia_, p. 498 _sq._ (Kaitish). Strehlow, quoted by Thomas, 'Religious Ideas of the Arunta,' in _Folk-Lore_, xvi. 429 _sq._ _Idem_, quoted by von Leonhardi, 'Religiöse und totemistische Vorstellungen der Aranda und Loritja in Zentralaustralien,' in _Globus_, xci. 286 _sq._ Curr, _The Australian Race_, i. 253 (Larrak[=i]a); ii. 465, 475 (some Cape River natives). Lang, _Cooksland_, p. 459 _sq._; _Idem_, _Queensland_, p. 379 _sq._ Roth, _Ethnol. Studies among the North-West-Central Queensland Aborigines_, pp. 16, 153. 158. Salvado, _Mémoires historiques sur l'Australie_, p. 258 (natives of West Australia).]

[Footnote 46: When the natives of Cooksland, in North-Eastern Australia, rob a wild bees' hive they generally leave a little of the honey for Buddai, the supernatural ancestor of their race (Lang, _Cooksland_, p. 460; _Idem_, _Queensland_, p. 380). Mrs. Langloh Parker (_op. cit._ pp. 8, 9, 79, 89) was told that in the Euahlayi tribe prayers are addressed to Byamee at funerals for the souls of the dead, and that at some initiatory rites the oldest medicine-man present addresses a prayer to him asking him to give the people long life as they have kept his law; but they do not profess to pray or to have prayed to Byamee on any other occasions (_cf._ Manning, _loc. cit._ p. 164). The natives inhabiting the neighbourhood of Lake Boga in Victoria have to placate Pei-a-mei by dances (_Missions-Blatt aus der Brüdergemeine_, xvi. 143). Of the South-Eastern Australian Daramulun Mr. Howitt says (_op. cit._ p. 507 _sq._) that, although there is no worship of him, "the dances round the figure of clay and the invocating of his name by the medicine-men certainly might have led up to it."]

[Footnote 47: Manning, _loc. cit._ p. 165; Ridley, _op. cit._ pp. 141, 155; Langloh Parker, _op. cit._ p. 7 (Boyma, Baiame, Byamee). Howitt, _op. cit._ p. 495 (Daramulun). M'Kinlay, quoted _ibid._ p. 496. Mr. Threlkeld says (_op. cit._ p. 47) that Koin, an imaginary male being who has the appearance of a black, is supposed to precede the coming of the natives from distant parts when they assemble to celebrate certain of their ceremonies.]

[Footnote 48: Howitt, _op. cit._ p. 489 (Nurelli of the Wiimbaio). M'Kinlay, quoted _ibid._ p. 496.]

[Footnote 49: Taplin, in Woods, _op. cit._ p. 55.]

[Footnote 50: Langloh Parker, _op. cit._ p. 7 _sq._]

[Footnote 51: Howitt, _op. cit._ p. 491.]

[Footnote 52: _Ibid._ p. 495.]

[Footnote 53: Brough Smyth, _op. cit._ i. 423.]

[Footnote 54: Howitt, _op. cit._ p. 495.]

[Footnote 55: _Ibid._ p. 499.]

[Footnote 56: Howitt, _op. cit._ p. 498.]

[Footnote 57: Curr, _op. cit._ ii. 475.]

[Footnote 58: Parker, _Aborigines of Australia_, p. 24.]

[Footnote 59: Ridley, _op. cit._ p. 137.]

[Footnote 60: _Ibid._ p. 137.]

[Footnote 61: Cameron, in _Jour. Anthr. Inst._ xiv. 364 _sq._]

[Footnote 62: Günther, quoted by Thomas, in _Man_, 1905, p. 51.]

[Footnote 63: Ridley, _op. cit._ pp. 135, 136, 140. Langloh Parker, _op. cit._ p. 70.]

[Footnote 64: Manning, _loc. cit._ p. 159 _sqq._]

It seems probable that these statements represent a mixture of Christian ideas and genuine aboriginal beliefs. There is reason to believe that the Australian notion of an "All-father" is not in the first instance due to missionary influence;[65] we have records of it from a comparatively early date, it is spread over a wide area, it has been found among natives who live in a state of great isolation, and the multitude of different names by which the "All-father" is called in different tribes does not suggest a recent origin from a common source. He may very well be a mythical ancestor. Mr. Howitt observes that the master in the sky-country represents the Australian idea of a headman--"a man who is skilful in the use of weapons of offence and defence, all-powerful in magic, but generous and liberal to his people, who does no injury or violence to any one, yet treats with severity any breaches of custom or morality."[66] But he may also be a personification of supernatural force in general, or a being who has been invented to account for all kinds of marvellous phenomena. The word _altjira_, by which the Arunta call their great god, is apparently not a proper name; according to Kempe, it is applied to five gods, whose names he gives, as also to the sun, moon, and remarkable things generally.[67] And Mulkari, who figures in the beliefs of some Queensland tribes, is described not only as "a benevolent, omnipresent, supernatural being," but as "anything incomprehensible," as {674} the supernatural power who makes everything which the blacks cannot otherwise account for.[68] On the other hand, it is hardly possible to doubt that in various instances Christian conceptions have been infused into the aboriginal belief either by the natives themselves or by our informants.[69] Biblical traits are conspicuous in some of the legends. Bishop Salvado tells us that, according to West Australian beliefs, the Creator, Motogon, "employa ces paroles: 'Terre, parais dehors': et il souffla, et la terre fut créée. 'Eau, parais dehors'; et il souffla, et l'eau fut créée."[70] The believers in Nourelle give the following account of the origin of death:--The first created man and woman were told not to go near a certain tree in which a bat was living, as the bat was not to be disturbed. But one day the woman, while gathering firewood, went near the forbidden tree; the bat flew away and after that came death.[71] And the same natives also believe that Nourelle created a great serpent, to which he gave power over all created things.[72] So also the doctrine of a hell with everlasting fire has almost certainly a foreign origin; and in some other points the genuineness of the Australian theories of retribution is at least open to doubt, even though the function of a judge cannot be regarded as incompatible with the notion of a mythical headman in the sky. Messrs. Spencer and Gillen observe that it would be a very easy matter indeed to form, as the result of a general statement such as might be made by any individual native in reply to a question, a perfectly wrong impression with regard to the native's idea as to the existence of anything like a supreme being inculcating moral rules.[73] Of the Central Australian aborigines they say:--"Any such idea as that of a future life of happiness or the reverse, as a reward for meritorious or as a punishment for blameworthy conduct, is quite foreign to them. . . . We know of no tribe in which there is a belief of any kind in a supreme being who rewards or punishes the individual according to his moral behaviour, using the word moral in the native sense."[74] So far as the Arunta are concerned, this statement is confirmed by Mr. Strehlow. He writes that their god Altjira, who lives in the sky and shows himself to man in the lightning, is a {675} good god who never inflicts any punishments on human beings.[75]

[Footnote 65: See especially Howitt, _op. cit._ p. 504 _sqq._; Lang, _Magic and Religion_, p. 25 _sqq._; Thomas, in _Man_, p. 50 _sqq._; von Leonhardi, in _Globus_, xci. 287.]

[Footnote 66: Howitt, _op. cit._ p. 507. See also _ibid._ p. 501.]

[Footnote 67: Thomas, in _Folk-Lore_, xvi. 431.]

[Footnote 68: Roth, _op. cit._ pp. 36, 153.]

[Footnote 69: Mr. J. D. Lang (_Queensland_, p. 379 _sq._; _Cooksland_, p. 459 _sq._) even suspects Asiatic influence in the case of Buddai, or Budjah, the mythical ancestor of certain Queensland aborigines. Not only does his name remind of Buddha, but a story told of him is remarkably similar to an Eastern legend.]

[Footnote 70: Salvado, _op. cit._ p. 258.]

[Footnote 71: Brough Smyth, _op. cit._ i. 428.]

[Footnote 72: _Ibid._ i. 423.]

[Footnote 73: Spencer and Gillen, _Northern Tribes of Central Australia_, p. 492 _sqq._]

[Footnote 74: _Ibid._ p. 491.]

[Footnote 75: Strehlow, quoted by Thomas, in _Folk-Lore_, xvi. 429 _sq._ _Idem_, quoted by von Leonhardi, in _Globus_, xci. 287.]

From various Polynesian and Melanesian islands we hear of a supreme being--called Io by the Maoris,[76] Tangaroa by the Samoans,[77] Taaroa by the Society Islanders,[78] and so forth[79]--who has made everything, but who is too remote and indistinct to be an object of worship and takes no interest in the morals of men. In some instances at least he seems to be a very shadowy deification of the forces of nature. Thus Io is described as "the great originator, the All-Father, who pervades space, has no residence, and cannot be localised"; and the conception of Tangaroa is equally abstract.[80] Mr. Guppy learned that the natives of Treasury Island and the Shortlands, in the Solomon Group, believe in a Good Spirit who lives in a pleasant land, whither all men who have led good lives go after death; whereas all bad people are transported to the crater of Bagana, the burning volcano of Bougainville, which is the home of the Evil Spirit and his companion spirits.[81] But this belief savours too much of a Christian hell to be accepted as genuine without further evidence.

[Footnote 76: Gudgeon, 'Maori Religion,' in _Jour. Polynesian Soc._ xiv. 108 _sq._]

[Footnote 77: _Ibid._ p. 108 _sq._]

[Footnote 78: Ellis, _Polynesian Researches_, i. 323 _sqq._]

[Footnote 79: Tylor, _op. cit._ ii. 344 _sqq._ Hoffmann, _La notion de l'Être suprême chez les peuples non civilisés_, p. 70 _sqq._]

[Footnote 80: Gudgeon, in _Jour. Polynesian Soc._ xiv. 108.]

[Footnote 81: Guppy, _Solomon Islands_, p. 53.]

The Sea Dyaks of Borneo have a great good god called Batara, or Petara, who created the world and rules over it, and is the cause of every blessing. He is not susceptible to human influence, and therefore receives no worship. But he approves of industry, honesty, purity of speech, and skill in word and work. He punishes theft, injustice, disrespect for old persons, and adultery; and immorality among the unmarried is supposed to bring a plague of rain upon the earth as a punishment inflicted by Petara. In general, says Mr. Perham, he is against man's sin; but over and above moral offences many sins have been invented which are simply the infringement of _pemate_, or _tabu_.[82] Like many other great gods of savages, Petara is lacking in individuality. He is at all events not now supposed to be one supreme god, but the general belief is that there are many Petaras--in fact as many Petaras as men. Each man, the people say, has his own peculiar Petara, his own tutelary deity, and if a {676} person is miserable it is because his Petara is miserable.[83] This account, however, loses much of its interest when we find that the name Batara or Petara has obviously been borrowed from Sanscrit, where the word _bha[t.][t.]âra_ means "lord" or "master."[84] The great gods of some other peoples in the Malay Archipelago, again, have names which are derived from Arabic--Lahatala, Latala, or Hatalla, from _Allah ta[(]âla_. Hence when the Alfura of Bura are heard to say that their highest god, Opo-geba-snulat or Lahatala, writes down in a book the actions of men so as to be able to reward the virtuous and punish the wicked as they deserve, there is every reason to think of influence from Muhammedanism.[85]

[Footnote 82: Perham, 'Petara,' in _Jour. Straits Branch Roy. Asiatic Soc._ no. 8, p. 149 _sq._ St. John, _Life in the Forests of the Far East_, i. 69 _sq._ Selenka, _op. cit._ p. 97 _sqq._]

[Footnote 83: Perham, in _Jour. Straits Branch Roy. Asiatic Soc._ no. 8, p. 134 _sq._]

[Footnote 84: _Ibid._ p. 133. Wilken, _Het Animisme_, p. 162.]

[Footnote 85: Wilken, _op. cit._ pp. 162, 240 _sq._]

The Andaman Islanders are reported to believe in a supreme being, P[=u]luga, who was never born and is immortal, who has created the world and all its objects, who is omniscient when it is day, knowing even the thoughts of their hearts. Whilst pitiful to those in distress, he is angered by the commission of certain sins--falsehood, theft, grave assault, murder, adultery, and burning wax. He is the judge from whom each soul receives its sentence after death. The "spirits" of the departed are sent by him to a place comprising the whole area under the earth, to await the resurrection. The "souls" of the departed, again, pass either into paradise or to another place which might be described as purgatory, a place of punishment for those who have been guilty of heinous sins, such as murder. At the resurrection the soul (from which evil emanates) and the spirit (from which all good emanates) will be reunited and will henceforth live permanently on the new earth, since the souls of the wicked will then have been reformed by the punishments inflicted on them during their residence in the "purgatory."[86] Mr. Man, who has given us this account, thinks it is extremely improbable that the legends about P[=u]luga, about the powers of good and evil, and about a world beyond the grave, are the result of the teaching of missionaries or others.[87] But his assumption that they are indigenous seems hardly justified by the very scanty knowledge we possess of the past history of these islanders. Considering their low state of culture, the metaphysical subtlety in some of the notions recorded by Mr. Man would certainly be more astonishing if India were not so near.

[Footnote 86: Man, 'Aboriginal Inhabitants of the Andaman Islands,' in _Jour. Anthr. Inst._ xii. 112, 157, 158, 161 _sq._]

[Footnote 87: _Ibid._ p. 156.]

{677}Among the Karens of Burma the belief is held that Hades has a king or judge who stands at the door to admit or reject those who apply for admission into his kingdom. He decides the future of each. Those who have performed meritorious works are sent to the regions of happiness above; those who have done wickedness, such as striking father or mother, are delivered over to the king of hell who is in waiting; whilst those who have neither performed deeds of merit nor are guilty of great crimes are allotted a place in Hades.[88] At the same time the Karens' ideas of a future state are described as confused, indefinite, and contradictory. Mr. Mason writes:--"They seem to be a melee of different systems. That which appears to me indigenous Karen . . . represents the future world as a counterpart of this, located under the earth, where the inhabitants are employed precisely as they are here."[89] The Pahárias of the Rájmahal Hills believe that the souls of those who have been disobedient to the commands of Bedo Gosain will be condemned either to inhabit some portion of the vegetable kingdom for a certain number of years, or to be cast into a pit of fire, where the offender will suffer eternal punishment or be regenerated in the shape of a dog or a cat. Those who have led a good life, on the other hand, will be rewarded, first by enjoying a short but happy residence with Bedo Gosain in heaven, and subsequently by being born a second time on earth of women and being exalted to posts of great honour, as also by possessing an abundance of worldly goods.[90] In these notions our chief informant, Lieutenant Shaw, sees traces of Hinduism.[91] Lack of detailed information makes it impossible to decide whether the belief in a creator and heavenly judge which has been found in some other uncivilised tribes in India might be traced to a similar influence. The Munda Kols in Central Bengal maintain that the good and almighty Singbonga, who lives in the sky and is connected with the sun, has made everything. Being so far away he occupies himself very little with earthly matters, and is only in exceptional cases an object of worship; but he sees everything which happens, and is said to punish theft and insincerity.[92] So also the Kukis recognise a benevolent and all-powerful god {678} and creator, called Puthén, who is the judge of all mortals and awards punishments to the wicked both in this world and in the next.[93]

[Footnote 88: Mason, in _Jour. Asiatic Soc. Bengal_, xxxiv. 196.]

[Footnote 89: _Ibid._ p. 195.]

[Footnote 90: Shaw, 'Inhabitants of the Hills near Rájamahall,' in _Asiatick Researches_, iv. 48 _sqq._ Sherwill, 'Tour through the Rájmahal Hills,' in _Jour. Asiatic Soc. Bengal_, xx. 556.]

[Footnote 91: Shaw, in _Asiatick Researches_, iv. 46.]