To take an example: the Dinkas of the Upper Nile (‘godless,’ says Sir Samuel Baker) ‘pay a very theoretical kind of homage11 to the all-powerful Being, dwelling12 in heaven, whence he sees all things. He is called “Dendid” (great rain, that is, universal benediction13?).’ He is omnipotent14, but, being all beneficence, can do no evil; so, not being feared, he is not addressed in prayer. The evil spirit, on the other hand, receives sacrifices. The Dinkas have a strange old chant:
‘At the beginning, when Dendid made all things,
He created the Sun,
And the Sun is born, and dies, and comes again!
He created the Stars,
And the Stars are born, and die, and come again!
He created Man,
And Man is born, and dies, and returns no more!’
It is like the lament15 of Moschus.1
Russegger compares the Dinkas, and all the neighbouring peoples who hold the same beliefs, to modern Deists.2 They are remote from Atheism16 and from cult4! Suggestions about an ancient Egyptian influence are made, but popular Egyptian religion was not monotheistic, and priestly thought could scarcely influence the ancestors of the Dinkas. M. Lejean says these peoples are so practical and utilitarian17 that missionary18 religion takes no hold on them. Mr. Spencer does not give the ideas of the Dinkas, but it is not easy to see how the too beneficent Dendid could be evolved out of ghost-propitiation, ‘the origin of all religions.’ Rather the Dinkas, a practical people, seem to have simply forgotten to be grateful to their Maker19; or have decided20, more to the credit of the clearness of their heads than the warmth of their hearts, that gratitude21 he does not want. Like the French philosopher they cultivate l’indépendance du coeur, being in this matter strikingly unlike the Pawnees.
Let us now take a case in which ancestor-worship, and no other form of religion (beyond mere22 superstitions24), has been declared to be the practice of an African people. Mr. Spencer gives the example of natives of the south-eastern district of Central Africa described by Mr. Macdonald in ‘Africana.’3 The dead man becomes a ghost-god, receives prayer and sacrifice, is called a Mulungu (= great ancestor or = sky?), is preferred above older spirits, now forgotten; such old spirits may, however, have a mountain top for home, a great chief being better remembered; the mountain god is prayed to for rain; higher gods were probably similar local gods in an older habitat of the Yao.4
Such is in the main Mr. Spencer’s résumé of Mr. Duff Macdonald’s report. He omits whatever Mr. Macdonald says about a Being among the Yaos, analogous25 to the Dendid of the Dinkas, or the Darumulun of Australia, or the Huron Ahone. Yet analysis detects, in Mr. Macdonald’s report, copious26 traces of such a Being, though Mr. Macdonald himself believes in ancestor-worship as the Source of the local religion. Thus, Mulungu, or Mlungu, used as a proper name, ‘is said to be the great spirit, msimu, of all men, a spirit formed by adding all the departed spirits together.5 This is a singular stretch of savage1 philosophy, and indicates (says Mr. Macdonald) ‘a grasping after a Being who is the totality of all individual existence. . . . If it fell from the lips of civilised men instead of savages, it would be regarded as philosophy. Expressions of this kind among the natives are partly traditional, and partly dictated27 by the big thoughts of the moment.’ Philosophy it is, but a philosophy dependent on the ghost theory.
I go on to show that the Wayao have, though Mr. Spencer omits him, a Being who precisely28 answers to Darumulun, if stripped (perhaps) of his ethical29 aspect. On this point we are left in uncertainty30, just because Mr. Macdonald could not ascertain31 the secrets of his mysteries, which, in Australia, have been revealed to a few Europeans.
Where Mulungu is used as a proper name, it ‘certainly points to a personal Being, by the Wayao sometimes said to be the same as Mtanga. At other times he is a Being that possesses many powerful servants, but is himself kept a good deal beyond the scene of earthly affairs, like the gods of Epicurus.’
This is, of course, precisely the feature in African theology which interests us. The Supreme Being, in spite of the potency32 which his supposed place as latest evolved out of the ghost-world should naturally give him, is neglected, either as half forgotten, or for philosophical33 reasons. For these reasons Epicurus and Lucretius make their gods otiosi, unconcerned, and the Wayao, with their universal collective spirit, are no mean philosophers.
‘This Mulungu’ or Mtanga, ‘in the world beyond the grave, is represented as assigning to spirits their proper places,’ whether for ethical reasons or not we are not informed.6 Santos (1586) says ‘they acknowledge a God who, both in this world and the next, measures retribution for the good or evil done in this.’
‘In the native hypothesis about creation “the people of Mulungu” play a very important part.’ These ministers of his who do his pleasure are, therefore, as is Mulungu himself, regarded as prior to the existing world. Therefore they cannot, in Wayao opinion, be ghosts of the dead at all; nor can we properly call them ‘spirits.’ They are beings, original, creative, but undefined. The word Mulungu, however, is now applied36 to spirits of individuals, but whether it means ‘sky’ (Salt) or whether it means ‘ancestor’ (Bleek), it cannot be made to prove that Mulungu himself was originally envisaged37 as ‘spirit.’ For, manifestly, suppose that the idea of powerful beings, undefined, came first in evolution, and was followed by the ghost idea, that idea might then be applied to explaining the pre-existent creative powers.
Mtanga is by ‘some’ localised as the god of Mangochi, an Olympus left behind by the Yao in their wanderings. Here, some hold, his voice is still audible. ‘Others say that Mtanga never was a man . . . he was concerned in the first introduction of men into the world. He gets credit for . . . making mountains and rivers. He is intimately associated with a year of plenty. He is called Mchimwene juene, ‘a very chief.’ He has a kind of evil opposite, Chitowe, but this being, the Satan of the creed38, ‘is a child or subject of Mtanga,’ an evil angel, in fact.7
The thunder god, Mpambe, in Yao, Njasi (lightning) is also a minister of the Supreme Being. ‘He is sent by Mtanga with rain.’ Europeans are cleverer than natives, because we ‘stayed longer with the people of God (Mulungu).’
I do not gather that, though associated with good crops, Mtanga or Mulungu receives any sacrifice or propitiation. ‘The chief addresses his own god;’8 the chief ‘will not trouble himself about his great-great-grand-father; he will present his offering to his own immediate39 predecessor40, saying, ‘O father, I do not know all your relatives; you know them all: invite them to feast with you.’9
‘All the offerings are supposed to point to some want of the spirit,’ Mtanga, on the other hand, is nihil indiga nostri.
A village god is given beer to drink, as Indra got Soma. A dead chief is propitiated by human sacrifices. I find no trace of any gift to Mtanga. His mysteries are really unknown to Mr. Macdonald: they were laughed at by a travelled and ‘emancipated’ Yao.10
‘These rites41 are supposed to be inviolably concealed42 by the initiated43, who often say that they would die if they revealed them.’11
How can we pretend to understand a religion if we do not know its secret? That secret, in Australia, yields the certainty of the ethical character of the Supreme Being. Mr. Macdonald says about the initiator (a grotesque44 figure):—
‘He delivers lectures, and is said to give much good advice . . . the lectures condemn45 selfishness, and a selfish person is called mwisichana, that is, “uninitiated.”’
There could not be better evidence of the presence of the ethical element in the religious mysteries. Among the Yao, as among the Australian Kurnai, the central secret lesson of religion is the lesson of unselfishness.
It is not stated that Mtanga instituted or presides over the mysteries. Judging from the analogy of Eleusis, the Bora, the Red Indian initiations, and so on, we may expect this to be the belief; but Mr. Macdonald knows very little about the matter.
The legendary46 tales say ‘all things in this world were made by “God.”’ ‘At first there were not people, but “God” and beasts.’ ‘God’ here, is Mlungu. The other statement is apparently47 derived48 from existing ancestor-worship, people who died became ‘God’ (Mlungu). But God is prior to death, for the Yao have a form of the usual myth of the origin of death, also of sleep: ‘death and sleep are one word, they are of one family.’ God dwells on high, while a malevolent49 ‘great one,’ who disturbed the mysteries and slew50 the initiated, was turned into a mountain.12
In spite of information confessedly defective51, I have extracted from Mr. Spencer’s chosen authority a mass of facts, pointing to a Yao belief in a primal53 being, maker of mountains and rivers; existent before men were; not liable to death — which came late among them — beneficent; not propitiated by sacrifice (as far as the evidence goes); moral (if we may judge by the analogy of the mysteries), and yet occupying the religious background, while the foreground is held by the most recent ghosts. To prove Mr. Spencer’s theory, he ought to have given a full account of this being, and to have shown how he was developed out of ghosts which are forgotten in inverse54 ratio to their distance from the actual generation. I conceive that Mr. Spencer would find a mid-point between a common ghost and Mtanga, in a ghost of a chief attached to a mountain, the place and place-name preserving the ghost’s name and memory. But it is, I think, a far cry from such a chief’s ghost to the pre-human, angel-served Mtanga.
Of ancestor worship and ghost worship, we have abundant evidence. But the position of Mtanga raises one of these delicate and crucial questions which cannot be solved by ignoring their existence. Is Mtanga evolved out of an ancestral ghost? If so, why, as greatest of divine beings, ‘Very Chief,’ and having powerful ministers under him, is he left unpropitiated, unless it be by moral discourses55 at the mysteries? As a much more advanced idea than that of a real father’s ghost, he ought to be much later in evolution, fresher in conception, and more adored. How do we explain his lack of adoration56? Was he originally envisaged as a ghost at all, and, if so, by what curious but uniform freak of savage logic57 is he regarded as prior to men, and though a ghost, prior to death? Is it not certain that such a being could be conceived of by men who had never dreamed of ghosts? Is there any logical reason why Mtanga should not be regarded as originally on the same footing as Munganngaur, but now half forgotten and neglected, for practical or philosophical reasons?
On these problems light is thrown by a successor of Mr. Spencer’s authority, Mr. Duff Macdonald, in the Blantyre Mission. This gentleman, the Rev10. David Clement58 Scott, has published ‘A Cyclopaedic Dictionary of the Mang’anja Language in British Central Africa.’13 Looking at ancestral spirits first, we find Mzimu, ‘spirits of the departed, supposed to come in dreams.’ Though abiding59 in the spirit world, they also haunt thickets60, they inspire Mlauli, prophets, and make them rave35 and utter predictions. Offerings are made to them. Here is a prayer: ‘Watch over me, my ancestor, who died long ago; tell the great spirit at the head of my race from whom my mother came.’ There are little hut-temples, and the chief directs the sacrifices of food, or of animals. There are religious pilgrimages, with sacrifice, to mountains. God, like men in this region, has various names, as Chiuta, ‘God in space and the rainbow sign across;’ Mpambe, ‘God Almighty61’ (or rather ‘pre-excellent’); Mlezi, ‘God the Sustainer,’ and Mulungu, ‘God who is spirit.’ Mulungu = God, ‘not spirits or fetish.’ ‘You can’t put the plural62, as God is One,’ say the natives. ‘There are no idols63 called gods, and spirits are spirits of people who have died, not gods.’ Idols are Zitunzi-zitunzi. ‘Spirits are supposed to be with Mulungu.’ God made the world and man. Our author says ‘when the chief or people sacrifice it is to God,’ but he also says that they sacrifice to ancestral spirits. There is some confusion of ideas here: Mr. Macdonald says nothing of sacrifice to Mtanga.
Mr. Scott does not seem to know more about the Mysteries than Mr. Macdonald, and his article on Mulungu does not much enlighten us. Does Mulungu, as Creative God, receive sacrifice, or not?14 Mr. Scott gives no instance of this, under Nsembe (sacrifice), where ancestors, or hill-dwelling ghosts of chiefs, are offered food; yet, as we have seen, under Mulungu, he avers64 that the chiefs and people do sacrifice to God. He appears to be confusing the Creator with spirits, and no reliance can be placed on this part of his evidence. ‘At the back of all this’ (sacrifice to spirits) ‘there is God.’ If I understand Mr. Scott, sacrifices are really made only to spirits, but he is trying to argue that, after all, the theistic conception is at the back of the animistic practice, thus importing his theory into his facts. His theory would, really, be in a better way, if sacrifice is not offered to the Creator, but this had not occurred to Mr. Scott.
It is plain, in any case, that the religion of the Africans in the Blantyre region has an element not easily to be derived from ancestral spirit-worship, an element not observed by Mr. Spencer.
Nobody who has followed the examples already adduced will be amazed by what Waitz calls the ‘surprising result’ of recent inquiries65 among the great negro race. Among the branches where foreign influence is least to be suspected, we discover, behind their more conspicuous66 fetishisms and superstitions, something which we cannot exactly call Monotheism, yet which tends in that direction.15 Waitz quotes Wilson for the fact that, their fetishism apart, they adore a Supreme Being as the Creator: and do not honour him with sacrifice.
The remarks of Waitz may be cited in full:
‘The religion of the negro may be considered by some as a particularly rude form of polytheism and may be branded with the special name of fetishism. It would follow, from a minute examination of it, that — apart from the extravagant67 and fantastic traits, which are rooted in the character of the negro, and which radiate therefrom over all his creations — in comparison with the religions of other savages it is neither very specially68 differentiated69 nor very specially crude in form.
‘But this opinion can be held to be quite true only while we look at the outside of the negro’s religion, or estimate its significance from arbitrary pre-suppositions, as is specially the case with Ad. Wuttke.
‘By a deeper insight, which of late several scientific investigators70 have succeeded in attaining71, we reach, rather, the surprising conclusion that several of the negro races — on whom we cannot as yet prove, and can hardly conjecture72, the influence of a more civilised people — in the embodying73 of their religious conceptions are further advanced than almost all other savages, so far that, even if we do not call them monotheists, we may still think of them as standing74 on the boundary of monotheism, seeing that their religion is also mixed with a great mass of rude superstition23 which, in turn, among other peoples, seems to overrun completely the purer religious conceptions.’
This conclusion as to an element of pure faith in negro religion would not have surprised Waitz, had recent evidence as to the same creed among lower savages lain before him as he worked.
This volume of his book was composed in 1860. In 1872 he had become well aware of the belief in a good Maker among the Australian natives, and of the absence among them of ancestor worship.16
Waitz’s remarks on the Supreme Being of the Negro are well worth noting, from his unconcealed astonishment75 at the discovery.
Wilson’s observations on North and South Guinea religion were published in 1856. After commenting on the delicate task of finding out what a savage religion really is, he writes: ‘The belief in one great Supreme Being, who made and upholds all things, is universal.’17 The names of the being are translated ‘Maker,’ ‘Preserver,’ ‘Benefactor,’ ‘Great Friend.’ Though compact of all good qualities, the being has allowed the world to ‘come under the control of evil spirits,’ who, alone, receive religious worship. Though he leaves things uncontrolled, yet the chief being (as in Homer) ratifies76 the Oath, at a treaty, and is invoked77 to punish criminals when ordeal78 water is to be drunk. So far, then, he has an ethical influence. ‘Grossly wicked people’ are buried outside of the regular place. Fetishism prevails, with spiritualism, and Wilson thinks that mediums might pick up some good tricks in Guinea. He gives no examples. Their inspired men do things ‘that cannot be accounted for,’ by the use of narcotics79.
The South Guinea Creator, Anyambia (= good spirit?), is good, but capricious. He has a good deputy, Ombwiri (spelled ‘Mbuiri’ by Miss Kingsley); he alone has no priests, but communicates directly with men. The neighbouring Shekuni have mysteries of the Great Spirit. No details are given. This great being, Mwetyi, witnesses covenants80 and punishes perjury81. This people are ancestor-worshippers, but their Supreme Being is not said to receive sacrifice, as ghosts do, while he is so far from being powerless, like Unkulunkulu, that, but for fear of his wrath82, ‘their national treaties would have little or no force.’18 Having no information about the mysteries, of course, we know nothing of other moral influences which are, or may be exercised by these great, powerful, and not wholly otiose83 beings.
The celebrated84 traveller, Mungo Park, who visited Africa in 1805, had good opportunities of understanding the natives. He did not hurry through the land with a large armed force, but alone, or almost alone, paid his way with his brass85 buttons. ‘I have conversed86 with all ranks and conditions upon the subject of their faith,’ he says, ‘and can pronounce, without the smallest shadow of doubt, that the belief in one God and in a future state of reward and punishment is entire and universal among them.’ This cannot strictly87 be called monotheism, as there are many subordinate spirits who may be influenced by ‘magical ceremonies.’ But if monotheism means belief in One Spirit alone, or religious regard paid to One Spirit alone, it exists nowhere — no, not in Islam.
Park thinks it remarkable88 that ‘the Almighty’ only receives prayers at the new moon (of sacrifice to the Almighty he says nothing), and that, being the creator and preserver of all things, he is ‘of so exalted89 a nature that it is idle to imagine the feeble supplications of wretched mortals can reverse the decrees and change the purpose of unerring Wisdom.’ The new moon prayers are mere matters of tradition; ‘our fathers did it before us.’ ‘Such is the blindness of unassisted nature,’ says Park, who is not satirising, in Swift’s manner, the prayers of Presbyterians at home on Yarrow.
Thus, the African Supreme Being is unpropitiated, while inferior spirits are constrained90 by magic or propitiated with food.
We meet our old problem: How has this God, in the conception of whom there is so much philosophy, developed out of these hungry ghosts? The influence of Islam can scarcely be suspected, Allah being addressed, of course, in endless prayers, while the African god receives none. Indeed, it would be more plausible91 to say that Mahomet borrowed Allah from the widespread belief which we are studying, than that the negro’s Supreme Being was borrowed from Allah.
Park had, as we saw, many opportunities of familiar discussion with the people on whose mercies he threw himself.
‘But it is not often that the negroes make their religious opinions the subject of conversation; when interrogated92, in particular, concerning their ideas of a future state, they express themselves with great reverence93, but endeavour to shorten the discussion by saying, “Mo o mo inta allo” (“No man knows anything about it”).’19
Park himself, in extreme distress94, and almost in despair, chanced to observe the delicate beauty of a small moss-plant, and, reflecting that the Creator of so frail95 a thing could not be indifferent to any of His creatures, plucked up courage and reached safety.20 He was not of the negro philosophy, and is the less likely to have invented it. The new moon prayer, said in a whisper, was reported to Park, ‘by many different people,’ to contain ‘thanks to God for his kindness during the existence of the past moon, and to solicit96 a continuation of his favour during the new one.’ This, of course, may prove Islamite influence, and is at variance97 with the general tendency of the religious philosophy as described.
We now arrive at a theory of the Supreme Being among a certain African race which would be entirely98 fatal to my whole hypothesis on this topic, if it could be demonstrated correct in fact, and if it could be stretched so as to apply to the Australians, Fuegians, Andamanese, and other very backward peoples. It is the hypothesis that the Supreme Being is a ‘loan-god,’ borrowed from Europeans.
The theory is very lucidly99 set forth100 in Major Ellis’s ‘Tshi-speaking Peoples of the Gold Coast.’21 Major Ellis’s opinion coincides with that of Waitz in his ‘Introduction to Anthropology101’ (an opinion to which Waitz does not seem bigoted) — namely, that ‘the original form of all religion is a raw, unsystematic polytheism,’ nature being peopled by inimical powers or spirits, and everyone worshipping what he thinks most dangerous or most serviceable. There are few general, many local or personal, objects of veneration102.22 Major Ellis only met this passage when he had formed his own ideas by observation of the Tshi race. We do not pretend to guess what ‘the original form of all religion’ may have been; but we have given, and shall give, abundant evidence for the existence of a loftier faith than this, among peoples much lower in material culture than the Tshi races, who have metals and an organised priesthood. They occupy, in small villages (except Coomassie and Djuabin), the forests of the Gold Coast. The mere mention of Coomassie shows how vastly superior in civilisation103 the Tshis (Ashantis and Fantis) are to the naked, houseless Australians. Their inland communities, however, are ‘mere specks104 in a vast tract52 of impenetrable forest.’ The coast people have for centuries been in touch with Europeans, but the ‘Tshi-speaking races are now much in the same condition, both socially and morally, as they were at the time of the Portuguese105 discovery.’23
Nevertheless, Major Ellis explains their Supreme Being as the result of European influence! A priori this appears highly improbable. That a belief should sweep over all these specks in impenetrable forest, from the coast-tribes in contact with Europeans, and that this belief should, though the most recent, be infinitely106 the least powerful, cannot be regarded as a plausible hypothesis. Moreover, on Major Ellis’s theory the Supreme Beings of races which but recently came for the first time in contact with Europeans, Supreme Beings kept jealously apart from European ken107, and revered108 in the secrecy109 of ancient mysteries, must also, by parity110 of reason, be the result of European influence. Unfortunately, Major Ellis gives no evidence for his statements about the past history of Tshi religion. Authorities he must have, and references would be welcome.
‘With people in the condition in which the natives of the Gold Coast now are, religion is not in any way allied111 with moral ideas.’24 We have given abundant evidence that among much more backward tribes morals rest on a religious sanction. If this be not so on the Gold Coast we cannot accept these relatively112 advanced Fantis and Ashantis as representing the ‘original’ state of ethics113 and religion, any more than those people with cities, a king, a priesthood, iron, and gold, represent the ‘original’ material condition of society. Major Ellis also shows that the Gods exact chastity from aspirants114 to the priesthood.25 The present beliefs of the Gold Coast are kept up by organised priesthoods as ‘lucrative115 business.’26 Where there is no lucre34 and no priesthood, as among more backward races, this kind of business cannot be done. On the Gold Coast men can only approach gods through priests.27 This is degeneration.
Obviously, if religion began in a form relatively pure and moral, it must degenerate116, as civilisation advances, under priests who ‘exploit’ the lucrative, and can see no money in the pure elements of belief and practice. That the lucrative elements in Christianity were exploited by the clergy117, to the neglect of ethics, was precisely the complaint of the Reformers. From these lucrative elements the creed of the Apostles was free, and a similar freedom marks the religion of Australia or of the Pawnees. We cannot possibly, then, expect to find the ‘original’ state of religion among a people subdued118 to a money-grubbing priesthood, like the Tshi races. Let religion begin as pure as snow, it would be corrupted119 by priestly trafficking in its lucrative animistic aspect. And priests are developed relatively late.
Major Ellis discriminates120 Tshi gods as —
1. General, worshipped by an entire tribe or more tribes.
2. Local deities121 of river, hill, forest, or sea.
3. Deities of families or corporations.
4. Tutelary122 deities of individuals.
The second class, according to the natives, were appointed by the first class, who are ‘too distant or indifferent to interfere123 ordinarily in human affairs.’ Thus, the Huron god, Ahone, punishes nobody. He is all sweetness and light, but has a deputy god, called Okeus. On our hypothesis this indifference124 of high gods suggests the crowding out of the great disinterested125 God by venal animistic competition. All of class II. ‘appear to have been originally malignant126.’ Though, in native belief, class I. was prior to, and ‘appointed’ class II., Major Ellis thinks that malignant spirits of class II. were raised to class I. as if to the peerage, while classes III. and IV. ‘are clearly the product of priesthood’ — therefore late.
Major Ellis then avers that when Europeans reached the Gold Coast, in the fifteenth century, they ‘appear to have found’ a Northern God, Tando, and a Southern God, Bobowissi, still adored. Bobowissi makes thunder and rain, lives on a hill, and receives, or received, human sacrifices. But, ‘after an intercourse127 of some years with Europeans,’ the villagers near European forts ‘added to their system a new deity128, whom they termed Nana Nyankupon. This was the God of the Christians129, borrowed from them, and adapted under a new designation, meaning ‘Lord of the sky.’ (This is conjectural130. Nyankum = rain. Nyansa has ‘a later meaning, “craft.”’)28
Now Major Ellis, later, has to contrast Bosman’s account of fetishism (1700) with his own observations. According to Bosman’s native source of information, men then selected their own fetishes. These are now selected by priests. Bosman’s authority was wrong — or priesthood has extended its field of business. Major Ellis argues that the revolution from amateur to priestly selection of fetishes could not occur in 190 years, ‘over a vast tract of country, amongst peoples living in semi-isolated131 communities, in the midst of pathless forests, where there is but little opportunity for the exchange of ideas, and where we know they have been uninfluenced by any higher race.’
Yet Major Ellis’s theory is that this isolated people were influenced by a higher race, to the extent of adopting a totally new Supreme Being, from Europeans, a being whom they in no way sought to propitiate8, and who was of no practical use. And this they did, he says, not under priestly influence, but in the face of priestly opposition132.29
Major Ellis’s logic does not appear to be consistent. In any case we ask for evidence how, in the ‘impenetrable forests’ did a new Supreme Deity become universally known? Are we certain that travellers (unquoted) did not discover a deity with no priests, or ritual, or ‘money in the concern,’ later than they discovered the blood-stained, conspicuous, lucrative Bobowissi? Why was Nyankupon, the supposed new god of a new powerful set of strangers, left wholly unpropitiated? The reverse was to be expected.
Major Ellis writes: ‘Almost certainly the addition of one more to an already numerous family’ of gods, ‘was strenuously133 resisted by the priesthood,’ who, confessedly, are adding now lower gods every day! Yet Nyankupon is universally known, in spite of priestly resistance. Nyankupon, I presume = Anzambi, Anyambi, Nyambi, Nzambi, Anzam, Nyam, the Nzam of the Fans, ‘and of all Bantu coast races, the creator of man, plants, animals, and the earth; he takes no further interest in the affair.’30 The crowd of spirits take only too much interest; and, therefore, are the lucrative element in religion.
It is not very easy to believe that Nyam, under all his names, was picked up from the Portuguese, and passed apparently from negroes to Bantu all over West Africa, despite the isolation134 of the groups, and the resistance of the priesthood among tribes ‘uninfluenced by any higher race.’
Nyam, like Major Ellis’s class I., appoints a subordinate god to do his work: he is truly good, and governs the malevolent spirits.31
The spread of Nyankupon, as described by Major Ellis, is the more remarkable, since ‘five or six miles from the sea, or even less, the country was a terra incognita to Europeans,’32 Nyankupon was, it is alleged135, adopted, because our superiority proved Europeans to be ‘protected by a deity of greater power than any of those to which they themselves’ (the Tshi races) ‘offered sacrifices.’
Then, of course, Nyankupon would receive the best sacrifices of all, as the most powerful deity? Far from that, Nyankupon received no sacrifice, and had no priests. No priest would have a traditional way of serving him. As the unlucky man in Voltaire says to his guardian136 angel, ‘It is well worth while to have a presiding genius,’ so the Tshis and Bantu might ironically remark, ‘A useful thing, a new Supreme Being!’ A quarter of a continent or so adopts a new foreign god, and leaves him planté là; unserved, unhonoured, and unsung. He therefore came to be thought too remote, or too indifferent, ‘to interfere directly in the affairs of the world.’ ‘This idea was probably caused by the fact that the natives had not experienced any material improvement in their condition . . . although they also had become followers137 of the god of the whites.’33
But that was just what they had not done! Even at Magellan’s Straits, the Fuegians picked up from a casual Spanish sea-captain and adored an image of Cristo. Name and effigy138 they accepted. The Tshi people took neither effigy nor name of a deity from the Portuguese settled among them. They neither imitated Catholic rites nor adapted their own; they prayed not, nor sacrificed to the ‘new’ Nyankupon. Only his name and the idea of his nature are universally diffused139 in West African belief. He lives in no definite home, or hill, but ‘in Nyankupon’s country.’ Nyankupon, at the present day, is ‘ignored rather than worshipped,’ while Bobowissi has priests and offerings.
It is clear that Major Ellis is endeavouring to explain, by a singular solution (namely, the borrowing of a God from Europeans), and that a solution improbable and inadequate140, a phenomenon of very wide distribution. Nyankupon cannot be explained apart from Taaroa, Puluga, Ahone, Ndengei, Dendid, and Ta-li-y-Tochoo, Gods to be later described, who cannot, by any stretch of probabilities, be regarded as of European origin. All of these represent the primeval Supreme Being, more or less or altogether stripped, under advancing conditions of culture, of his ethical influence, and crowded out by the horde141 of useful greedy ghosts or ghost gods, whose business is lucrative. Nyankupon has no pretensions142 to be, or to have been a ‘spirit.’34
Major Ellis’s theory is a natural result of his belief in a tangle143 of polytheism as ‘the original state of religion.’ If so, there was not much room for the natural development of Nyankupon, in whom ‘the missionaries144 find a parallel to the Jahveh of the Jews.’35 On our theory Nyankupon takes his place in the regular process of the corruption145 of theism by animism.
The parallel case of Nzambi Mpungu, the Creator among the Fiorts (a Bantu stock), is thus stated by Miss Kingsley:
‘I have no hesitation146 in saying I fully147 believe Nzambi Mpungu to be a purely148 native god, and that he is a great god over all things, but the study of him is even more difficult than the study of Nzambi, because the Jesuit missionaries who gained so great an influence over the Fiorts in the sixteenth century identified him with Jehovah, and worked on the native mind from that stand-point. Consequently semi-mythical traces of Jesuit teaching linger, even now, in the religious ideas of the Fiorts.’36
Nzambi Mpungu lives ‘behind the firmament149.’ ‘He takes next to no interest in human affairs;’ which is not a Jesuit idea of God.
In all missionary accounts of savage religion, we have to guard against two kinds of bias150. One is the bias which makes the observer deny any religion to the native race, except devil-worship. The other is the bias which lends him to look for traces of a pure primitive151 religious tradition. Yet we cannot but observe this reciprocal phenomenon: missionaries often find a native name and idea which answer so nearly to their conception of God that they adopt the idea and the name, in teaching. Again, on the other side, the savages, when first they hear the missionaries’ account of God, recognise it, as do the Hurons and Bakwain, for what has always been familiar to them. This is recorded in very early pre-missionary travels, as in the book of William Strachey on Virginia (1612), to which we now turn. The God found by Strachey in Virginia cannot, by any latitude152 of conjecture, be regarded as the result of contact with Europeans. Yet he almost exactly answers to the African Nyankupon, who is explained away as a ‘loan-god.’ For the belief in relatively pure creative beings, whether they are morally adored, without sacrifice, or merely neglected, is so widely diffused, that Anthropology must ignore them, or account for them as ‘loan-gods’ — or give up her theory!
点击
收听单词发音
收听单词发音 |
1
savage
|
|
| adj.野蛮的；凶恶的，残暴的；n.未开化的人 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
2
savages
|
|
| 未开化的人，野蛮人( savage的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
3
supreme
|
|
| adj.极度的，最重要的；至高的，最高的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
4
cult
|
|
| n.异教，邪教；时尚，狂热的崇拜 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
5
rambling
|
|
| adj.[建]凌乱的，杂乱的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
6
perfectly
|
|
| adv.完美地，无可非议地，彻底地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
7
venal
|
|
| adj.唯利是图的，贪脏枉法的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
8
propitiate
|
|
| v.慰解，劝解 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
9
propitiated
|
|
| v.劝解，抚慰，使息怒( propitiate的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
|
10
rev
|
|
| v.发动机旋转，加快速度 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
11
homage
|
|
| n.尊敬，敬意，崇敬 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
12
dwelling
|
|
| n.住宅，住所，寓所 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
13
benediction
|
|
| n.祝福；恩赐 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
14
omnipotent
|
|
| adj.全能的，万能的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
15
lament
|
|
| n.悲叹，悔恨，恸哭；v.哀悼，悔恨，悲叹 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
16
atheism
|
|
| n.无神论，不信神 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
17
utilitarian
|
|
| adj.实用的，功利的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
18
missionary
|
|
| adj.教会的，传教(士)的；n.传教士 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
19
maker
|
|
| n.制造者，制造商 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
20
decided
|
|
| adj.决定了的，坚决的；明显的，明确的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
21
gratitude
|
|
| adj.感激，感谢 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
22
mere
|
|
| adj.纯粹的；仅仅，只不过 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
23
superstition
|
|
| n.迷信，迷信行为 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
24
superstitions
|
|
| 迷信，迷信行为( superstition的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
25
analogous
|
|
| adj.相似的；类似的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
26
copious
|
|
| adj.丰富的，大量的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
27
dictated
|
|
| v.大声讲或读( dictate的过去式和过去分词 )；口授；支配；摆布 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
28
precisely
|
|
| adv.恰好，正好，精确地，细致地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
29
ethical
|
|
| adj.伦理的，道德的，合乎道德的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
30
uncertainty
|
|
| n.易变，靠不住，不确知，不确定的事物 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
31
ascertain
|
|
| vt.发现，确定，查明，弄清 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
32
potency
|
|
| n. 效力，潜能 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
33
philosophical
|
|
| adj.哲学家的，哲学上的，达观的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
34
lucre
|
|
| n.金钱，财富 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
35
rave
|
|
| vi.胡言乱语；热衷谈论；n.热情赞扬 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
36
applied
|
|
| adj.应用的；v.应用，适用 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
37
envisaged
|
|
| 想像，设想( envisage的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
38
creed
|
|
| n.信条；信念，纲领 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
39
immediate
|
|
| adj.立即的；直接的，最接近的；紧靠的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
40
predecessor
|
|
| n.前辈，前任 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
41
rites
|
|
| 仪式，典礼( rite的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
42
concealed
|
|
| a.隐藏的，隐蔽的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
43
initiated
|
|
| n. 创始人 adj. 新加入的 vt. 开始，创始，启蒙，介绍加入 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
44
grotesque
|
|
| adj.怪诞的，丑陋的；n.怪诞的图案，怪人（物） | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
45
condemn
|
|
| vt.谴责，指责；宣判(罪犯)，判刑 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
46
legendary
|
|
| adj.传奇（中）的，闻名遐迩的；n.传奇（文学） | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
47
apparently
|
|
| adv.显然地；表面上，似乎 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
48
derived
|
|
| vi.起源；由来；衍生；导出v.得到( derive的过去式和过去分词 )；（从…中）得到获得；源于；（从…中）提取 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
49
malevolent
|
|
| adj.有恶意的，恶毒的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
50
slew
|
|
| v.（使）旋转；n.大量，许多 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
51
defective
|
|
| adj.有毛病的，有问题的，有瑕疵的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
52
tract
|
|
| n.传单，小册子，大片(土地或森林) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
53
primal
|
|
| adj.原始的；最重要的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
54
inverse
|
|
| adj.相反的，倒转的，反转的；n.相反之物；v.倒转 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
55
discourses
|
|
| 论文( discourse的名词复数 )； 演说； 讲道； 话语 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
56
adoration
|
|
| n.爱慕，崇拜 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
57
logic
|
|
| n.逻辑(学)；逻辑性 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
58
clement
|
|
| adj.仁慈的；温和的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
59
abiding
|
|
| adj.永久的，持久的，不变的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
60
thickets
|
|
| n.灌木丛( thicket的名词复数 )；丛状物 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
61
almighty
|
|
| adj.全能的，万能的；很大的，很强的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
62
plural
|
|
| n.复数；复数形式；adj.复数的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
63
idols
|
|
| 偶像( idol的名词复数 )； 受崇拜的人或物； 受到热爱和崇拜的人或物； 神像 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
64
avers
|
|
| v.断言( aver的第三人称单数 )；证实；证明…属实；作为事实提出 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
65
inquiries
|
|
| n.调查( inquiry的名词复数 )；疑问；探究；打听 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
66
conspicuous
|
|
| adj.明眼的，惹人注目的；炫耀的，摆阔气的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
67
extravagant
|
|
| adj.奢侈的；过分的；(言行等)放肆的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
68
specially
|
|
| adv.特定地；特殊地；明确地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
69
differentiated
|
|
| 区分，区别，辨别( differentiate的过去式和过去分词 )； 区别对待； 表明…间的差别，构成…间差别的特征 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
70
investigators
|
|
| n.调查者，审查者( investigator的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
71
attaining
|
|
| （通常经过努力）实现( attain的现在分词 )； 达到； 获得； 达到（某年龄、水平、状况） | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
72
conjecture
|
|
| n./v.推测，猜测 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
73
embodying
|
|
| v.表现( embody的现在分词 )；象征；包括；包含 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
74
standing
|
|
| n.持续，地位；adj.永久的，不动的，直立的，不流动的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
75
astonishment
|
|
| n.惊奇，惊异 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
76
ratifies
|
|
| v.批准，签认（合约等）( ratify的第三人称单数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
77
invoked
|
|
| v.援引( invoke的过去式和过去分词 )；行使（权利等）；祈求救助；恳求 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
78
ordeal
|
|
| n.苦难经历，（尤指对品格、耐力的）严峻考验 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
79
narcotics
|
|
| n.麻醉药( narcotic的名词复数 )；毒品；毒 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
80
covenants
|
|
| n.（有法律约束的）协议( covenant的名词复数 )；盟约；公约；（向慈善事业、信托基金会等定期捐款的）契约书 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
81
perjury
|
|
| n.伪证；伪证罪 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
82
wrath
|
|
| n.愤怒，愤慨，暴怒 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
83
otiose
|
|
| adj.无效的，没有用的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
84
celebrated
|
|
| adj.有名的，声誉卓著的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
85
brass
|
|
| n.黄铜；黄铜器，铜管乐器 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
86
conversed
|
|
| v.交谈，谈话( converse的过去式 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
87
strictly
|
|
| adv.严厉地，严格地；严密地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
88
remarkable
|
|
| adj.显著的，异常的，非凡的，值得注意的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
89
exalted
|
|
| adj.(地位等)高的，崇高的；尊贵的，高尚的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
90
constrained
|
|
| adj.束缚的,节制的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
91
plausible
|
|
| adj.似真实的，似乎有理的，似乎可信的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
92
interrogated
|
|
| v.询问( interrogate的过去式和过去分词 )；审问；（在计算机或其他机器上）查询 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
93
reverence
|
|
| n.敬畏，尊敬，尊严；Reverence:对某些基督教神职人员的尊称；v.尊敬，敬畏，崇敬 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
94
distress
|
|
| n.苦恼，痛苦，不舒适；不幸；vt.使悲痛 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
95
frail
|
|
| adj.身体虚弱的；易损坏的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
96
solicit
|
|
| vi.勾引；乞求；vt.请求，乞求；招揽(生意) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
97
variance
|
|
| n.矛盾，不同 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
98
entirely
|
|
| ad.全部地，完整地；完全地，彻底地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
99
lucidly
|
|
| adv.清透地，透明地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
100
forth
|
|
| adv.向前；向外，往外 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
101
anthropology
|
|
| n.人类学 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
102
veneration
|
|
| n.尊敬，崇拜 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
103
civilisation
|
|
| n.文明，文化，开化，教化 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
104
specks
|
|
| n.眼镜；斑点，微粒，污点( speck的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
105
Portuguese
|
|
| n.葡萄牙人；葡萄牙语 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
106
infinitely
|
|
| adv.无限地，无穷地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
107
ken
|
|
| n.视野，知识领域 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
108
revered
|
|
| v.崇敬，尊崇，敬畏( revere的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
109
secrecy
|
|
| n.秘密，保密，隐蔽 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
110
parity
|
|
| n.平价，等价，比价，对等 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
111
allied
|
|
| adj.协约国的；同盟国的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
112
relatively
|
|
| adv.比较...地，相对地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
113
ethics
|
|
| n.伦理学；伦理观，道德标准 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
114
aspirants
|
|
| n.有志向或渴望获得…的人( aspirant的名词复数 )v.渴望的，有抱负的，追求名誉或地位的( aspirant的第三人称单数 )；有志向或渴望获得…的人 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
115
lucrative
|
|
| adj.赚钱的，可获利的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
116
degenerate
|
|
| v.退步，堕落；adj.退步的，堕落的；n.堕落者 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
117
clergy
|
|
| n.[总称]牧师，神职人员 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
118
subdued
|
|
| adj. 屈服的，柔和的，减弱的 动词subdue的过去式和过去分词 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
119
corrupted
|
|
| （使）败坏( corrupt的过去式和过去分词 )； （使）腐化； 引起（计算机文件等的）错误； 破坏 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
120
discriminates
|
|
| 分别，辨别，区分( discriminate的第三人称单数 )； 歧视，有差别地对待 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
121
deities
|
|
| n.神，女神( deity的名词复数 )；神祗；神灵；神明 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
122
tutelary
|
|
| adj.保护的；守护的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
123
interfere
|
|
| v.(in)干涉，干预；(with)妨碍，打扰 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
124
indifference
|
|
| n.不感兴趣，不关心，冷淡，不在乎 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
125
disinterested
|
|
| adj.不关心的，不感兴趣的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
126
malignant
|
|
| adj.恶性的，致命的；恶意的，恶毒的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
127
intercourse
|
|
| n.性交；交流，交往，交际 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
128
deity
|
|
| n.神，神性；被奉若神明的人(或物) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
129
Christians
|
|
| n.基督教徒( Christian的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
130
conjectural
|
|
| adj.推测的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
131
isolated
|
|
| adj.与世隔绝的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
132
opposition
|
|
| n.反对，敌对 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
133
strenuously
|
|
| adv.奋发地，费力地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
134
isolation
|
|
| n.隔离，孤立，分解，分离 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
135
alleged
|
|
| a.被指控的，嫌疑的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
136
guardian
|
|
| n.监护人；守卫者，保护者 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
137
followers
|
|
| 追随者( follower的名词复数 )； 用户； 契据的附面； 从动件 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
138
effigy
|
|
| n.肖像 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
139
diffused
|
|
| 散布的，普及的，扩散的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
140
inadequate
|
|
| adj.(for,to)不充足的，不适当的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
141
horde
|
|
| n.群众，一大群 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
142
pretensions
|
|
| 自称( pretension的名词复数 )； 自命不凡； 要求； 权力 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
143
tangle
|
|
| n.纠缠；缠结；混乱；v.(使)缠绕；变乱 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
144
missionaries
|
|
| n.传教士( missionary的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
145
corruption
|
|
| n.腐败，堕落，贪污 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
146
hesitation
|
|
| n.犹豫，踌躇 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
147
fully
|
|
| adv.完全地，全部地，彻底地；充分地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
148
purely
|
|
| adv.纯粹地，完全地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
149
firmament
|
|
| n.苍穹；最高层 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
150
bias
|
|
| n.偏见，偏心，偏袒；vt.使有偏见 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
151
primitive
|
|
| adj.原始的；简单的；n.原(始)人，原始事物 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
152
latitude
|
|
| n.纬度，行动或言论的自由(范围)，(pl.)地区 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
| 欢迎访问英文小说网 |