Part 1

_AMERICAN LECTURES ON THE HISTORY OF RELIGIONS_

SECOND SERIES—1896-1897

RELIGIONS OF PRIMITIVE PEOPLES

BY DANIEL G. BRINTON, A.M., M.D., LL.D., SC.D. Professor of American Archæology and Linguistics in the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia

_FOURTH IMPRESSION_

G. P. PUTNAM’S SONS NEW YORK AND LONDON The Knickerbocker Press

COPYRIGHT, 1897 BY G. P. PUTNAM’S SONS

Entered at Stationers’ Hall, London

The Knickerbocker Press, New York

ANNOUNCEMENT.

On the 24th of December, 1891, fifteen persons interested in promoting the historical study of religions united in issuing a circular-letter, inviting a conference in the Council Chambers of the Historical Society of Philadelphia, on the 30th of the same month, for the purpose of instituting “popular courses in the History of Religions, somewhat after the style of the Hibbert lectures in England, to be delivered annually by the best scholars of Europe and this country, in various cities, such as Baltimore, Boston, Brooklyn, Chicago, New York, Philadelphia, and others.” There participated in this conference personally or by letter from Philadelphia, Rev. Prof. E. T. Bartlett, D.D., Rev. George Dana Boardman, D.D., Prof. D. G. Brinton, M.D., Sc.D., Horace Howard Furness, LL.D., Prof. E. J. James, Ph.D., Prof. Morris Jastrow, Jr., Ph.D., Provost Wm. Pepper, M.D., LL.D., of the University of Pennsylvania, Hon. Mayer Sulzberger, Mrs. Cornelius Stevenson, and Talcott Williams, LL.D.; from Baltimore, Prest. D. C. Gilman, LL.D., of the Johns Hopkins University, and Prof. Paul Haupt, Ph.D.; from Boston and Cambridge, Rev. E. E. Hale, D.D., Prof. C. R. Lanman, Ph.D., Prof. D. G. Lyon, Ph.D., and Prof. C. H. Toy, LL.D.; from Brooklyn, Rev. Edward S. Braislin, D.D., and Prof. Franklin W. Hooper of the Brooklyn Institute; from Chicago, Prest. W. R. Harper, Ph.D., of the University of Chicago, and Rev. Prof. Emil G. Hirsch, Ph.D.; from New York, Rev. Prof. C. A. Briggs, D.D., LL.D., Rev. Prof. Francis Brown, D.D., Rev. G. Gottheil, D.D., Prof. R. J. H. Gottheil, Ph.D., Rev. John P. Peters, Ph.D., and Rev. W. Hayes Ward, D.D., LL.D.; from Ithaca, N. Y., Prest. J. G. Schurman of Cornell University, and Hon. Andrew D. White, LL.D.

At this conference Prof. Jastrow submitted a plan for establishing popular lecture courses on the historical study of religions by securing the co-operation of existing institutions and lecture associations, such as the Lowell, Brooklyn, and Peabody Institutes, the University Lecture Association of Philadelphia, and some of our colleges and universities. Each course, according to this plan, was to consist of from six to eight lectures, and the engagement of lecturers, choice of subjects, and so forth were to be in the hands of a committee chosen from the different cities, and representing the various institutions and associations participating. This general scheme met with the cordial approval of the conference, which voted the project both a timely and useful one, and which appointed Dean Bartlett, Prof. Jastrow, and Dr. Peters a committee to elaborate a plan of organisation and report at an adjourned meeting. That meeting was held at the Union Theological Seminary in New York City, February 6, 1892, and, as a result, an association was organised for the purpose of encouraging the study of religions. The _terms_ of association then adopted, with slight modifications introduced later, are as follows:

1.—The object of this Association shall be to provide courses of lectures on the history of religions, to be delivered in various cities.

2.—The Association shall be composed of delegates from institutions agreeing to co-operate, or from local boards, organised where such co-operation is not possible.

3.—These Delegates—one from each Institution or Local Board—shall constitute themselves a council under the name of the “American Committee for Lectures on the History of Religions.”

4.—The Council shall elect out of its number a President, a Secretary, and a Treasurer.

5.—All matters of local detail shall be left to the Institutions or Local Boards, under whose auspices the lectures are to be delivered.

6.—A course of lectures on some religion, or phase of religion, from an historical point of view, or on a subject germane to the study of religions, shall be delivered annually, or at such intervals as may be found practicable, in the different cities represented by this Association.

7.—The Council (_a_) shall be charged with the selection of the lecturers, (_b_) shall have charge of the funds, (_c_) shall assign the time for the lectures in each city, and perform such other functions as may be necessary.

8.—Polemical subjects, as well as polemics in the treatment of subjects, shall be positively excluded.

9.—The lecturer shall be chosen by the Council at least ten months before the date fixed for the course of lectures.

10.—The lectures shall be delivered in the various cities between the months of October and June.

11.—The copyright of the lectures shall be the property of the Association.

12.—One half of the lecturer’s compensation shall be paid at the completion of this entire course, and the second half upon the publication of the lectures.

13.—The compensation offered to the lecturer shall be fixed in each case by the Council.

14.—The lecturer is not to deliver elsewhere any of the lectures for which he is engaged by the Committee, except with the sanction of the Committee.

The Committee appointed to carry out this plan as now constituted, is as follows:

Prof. C. H. Toy, of Harvard University, Chairman.

Prof. Morris Jastrow, Jr., of the University of Pennsylvania, Secretary.

Rev. John P. Peters, D. D., of New York, Treasurer.

Prof. Richard J. H. Gottheil, of Columbia University.

Prof. Paul Haupt, of the Johns Hopkins University.

Prof. F. W. Hooper, of the Brooklyn Institute.

Prof. J. F. Jameson, of Brown University.

Prof. F. K. Sanders, of Yale University.

President J. G. Schurman, of Cornell University.

For its first course the Committee selected as lecturer Prof. T. W. Rhys Davids, Ph.D. LL.D., of London, England, who delivered a course of lectures in the winter of 1894-95 on The History and Literature of Buddhism, at the following places, with the co-operation of the institutions named:

Baltimore, before the Johns Hopkins University.

Boston, at the Lowell Institute.

Brooklyn, at the Brooklyn Institute.

Ithaca, before the Cornell University.

New York, before the Columbia University.

Philadelphia, before the University of Pennsylvania Lecture Association.

Providence, before the Brown University Lecture Association.

Professor Davids’ lectures were published in 1896 by arrangement with Messrs. G. P. Putnam’s Sons, the publishers to the Committee, as the First Series of The American Lectures on the History of Religions. As the second lecturer, the Committee chose Prof. Daniel G. Brinton, A.M., M.D., LL.D., Sc.D., of Philadelphia; and as the subject, “The Religions of Primitive Peoples.” Dr. Brinton, who holds the chair of American Archæology and Linguistics in the University of Pennsylvania, is a leading authority on the languages and customs of the American Indians, and on Anthropology in general. His studies have led him also into the domain of Prehistoric Archæology and Comparative Mythology. As the product of his investigations in the latter field, he published as early as 1868, _The Myths of The New World_, which at once attracted the attention of scholars, and has passed through several editions since. In 1876 he issued an important contribution to the Science of Religion, under the title, _The Religious Sentiment_. In addition to this he has published a large number of works on American Languages on Anthropology, and Archæology, the most notable of which is the series Library of Aboriginal American Literature. His papers, scattered in various scientific periodicals of this country and Europe, number several hundred.

The lectures delivered by him under the auspices of the Committee represent the ripe fruit of many years of study, and will, we feel assured, be welcomed as an important contribution to a subject now attracting much attention.

The lectures were delivered during the winter of 1896-97, at the following places:

Boston, (Lowell Institute).

Brooklyn, (Brooklyn Institute).

Ithaca, (Cornell University).

New Haven, (Yale University).

New York, (New York University).

Philadelphia, (University of Pennsylvania).

Providence, (Brown University Lecture Association).

The object of this Association is to provide the best opportunities for bringing to the knowledge of the public at large the methods and results of those distinguished specialists who have devoted their lives to the study of the religions of other countries and other ages. It is safe to say that there is no other subject of modern research which concerns all classes so nearly as the study of religions. It is the hope of the Committee to provide courses at intervals of two years, or oftener, if the encouragement which the undertaking receives warrants it, and the practical difficulties involved in securing competent lecturers do not make it impossible.

Arrangements have been made for a course of lectures during the winter of 1897-98, by the Rev. T. K. Cheyne, M.A., D.D., Professor of Old Testament Interpretation at Oriel College, Oxford, and Canon of Rochester; whose subject will be Religious Thought and Life among the Hebrews in Post-Exilic Days, to be followed in 1898-99 by a complementary course on Religious Life and Thought among the Hebrews in Pre-Exilic Days, by Professor Karl Budde, of the University of Strasburg, Germany.

JOHN P. PETERS, C. H. TOY, MORRIS JASTROW, JR.

_Committee on Publication._

_May 10, 1897._

CONTENTS.

PAGE

LECTURE I. THE SCIENTIFIC STUDY OF PRIMITIVE RELIGIONS—METHODS AND DEFINITIONS.

Ethnology Defined—The Scientific Study of Religions—It is not Theology—Its Methods: 1. The Historic Method; 2. The Comparative Method; 3. The Psychologic Method—Strange Coincidences in Human Thought—Conspicuous in Primitive Religions—“Primitive” Peoples Defined—The Savage Mind—Examples—Means of Study: 1. Archæology; 2. Language: 3. Folk-Lore; 4. Descriptions of Travellers—Examples: The Early Aryans, Etruscans, Semites, Egyptians, American Tribes, Australians, Polynesians, etc.—“Religions” Defined—Compared with “Superstitions”—No One Belief Essential to Religion—Atheistic Religions—Fundamental Identity of Religions—No Tribe Known Devoid of a Religion—How the Opposite Opinion Arose—Earliest Men probably had No Religion—No Signs of Religion in Lower Animals—Power of Religion in Primitive Society—True Source of Religion 1

LECTURE II. THE ORIGIN AND CONTENTS OF PRIMITIVE RELIGIONS.

Former Theories of the Origin of Religions—Inadequacy of these—Universal Postulate of Religions that Conscious Volition is the Source of Force—How Mind was Assigned to Nature—Communion between the Human and the Divine Mind—Universality of “Inspiration”—Inspiration the Product of the Sub-Conscious Mind—Known to Science as “Suggestion”—This Explained—Examples—Illustrations from Language—No Primitive Monotheism—The Special Stimuli of the Religious Emotions: 1. Dreaming and Allied Conditions—Life as a Dream—2. The Apprehension of Life and Death and the Notion of the Soul—3. The Perception of Light and Darkness; Day and Night—The Sky God as the High God—4. The Observation of Extraordinary Exhibitions of Force—The Thunder God—5. The Impression of Vastness—Dignity of the Sub-Conscious Intelligence 41

LECTURE III. PRIMITIVE RELIGIOUS EXPRESSION: IN THE WORD.

An Echo Myth—The Power of Words—Their Magical Potency—The Curse—Power Independent of Meaning—The Name as an Attribute—The Sacred Names—The Ineffable Name—“Myrionomous” Gods—“Theophorous” Names—Suggestion and Repetition as Stimulants—I. The Word _to_ the gods: Prayer—Its Forms, Contents, and Aims—II. The Word _from_ the gods: The Law and the Prophecy—The Ceremonial Law, or _tabu_—Examples—Divination and Prediction—III. The Word _concerning_ the gods: The Myths—Their Sources chiefly Psychic—Some from Language—Examples—Transference—Similarities—The Universal Mythical Cycles: 1. The Cosmical Concepts; 2. The Sacred Numbers; 3. The Drama of the Universe; Creation and Deluge Myths; 4. The Earthly Paradise; 5. The Conflict of Nature; 6. The Returning Saviour; 7. The Journey of the Soul—Conclusion as to these Identities 86

LECTURE IV. PRIMITIVE RELIGIOUS EXPRESSION: IN THE OBJECT.

Visual Ideas—Fetishism—Not Object-Worship only—Identical with Idolatry—Modern Fetishism—Animism—Not a Stadium of Religion—The Chief Groups of Religious Objects: 1. The Celestial Bodies—Sun and Moon Worship—Astrolatry; 2. The Four Elements—Fire, Air (the Winds), Water, and the Earth—Symbolism of Colours; 3. Stones and Rocks—Thunderbolts—Memorial Stones—Divining Stones; 4. Trees and Plants—The Tree of Life—The Sacred Pole and the Cross—The Plant-Soul—The Tree of Knowledge; 5. Places and Sites—High Places and Caves; 6. The Lower Animals—The Bird, the Serpent, etc.; 7. Man—Anthropism in Religion—The Worship of Beauty; 8. Life and its Transmission—Examples—Genesiac Cults—The Fatherhood of God—Love as Religion’s Crown 130

LECTURE V. PRIMITIVE RELIGIOUS EXPRESSION: IN THE RITE.

The Ritual a Mimicry of the Gods—Magical Rites—Division of Rites into I. Communal, and II. Personal. I. Communal Rites: 1. The Assemblage—The Liturgy—2. The Festal Function—Joyous Character of Primitive Rites—Commensality—The “Ceremonial Circuit”—Masks and Dramas—3. The Sacrifice—Early and Later Forms—4. The Communion with God—Pagan Eucharists. II. Personal Rites: 1. Relating to Birth—Vows and Baptism—2. Relating to Naming—The Personal Name—3. Relating to Puberty—Initiation of Boys and Girls—4. Relating to Marriage—Marriage “by Capture” and “by Purchase”—5. Relating to Death—Early Cannibalism—Sepulchral Monuments—Funerary Ceremonies—Modes of Burial—Customs of Mourning 172

LECTURE VI. THE LINES OF DEVELOPMENT OF PRIMITIVE RELIGIONS.

Pagan Religions not wholly Bad—Their Lines of Development as Connected with: 1. The Primitive Social Bond—The Totem, the Priesthood, and the Law; 2. The Family and the Position of Woman; 3. The Growth of Jurisprudence—The Ordeal, Trial by Battle, Oaths, and the Right of Sanctuary—Religion is Anarchic; 4. The Development of Ethics—Dualism of Primitive Ethics—Opposition of Religion to Ethics; 5. The Advance in Positive Knowledge—Religion _versus_ Science; 6. The Fostering of the Arts—The Aim for Beauty and Perfection—Colour-Symbolism, Sculpture, Metre, Music, Oratory, Graphic Methods—Useful Arts, Architecture; 7. The Independent Life of the Individual—His Freedom and Happiness—Inner Stadia of Progress: 1. From the Object to the Symbol; 2. From the Ceremonial Law to the Personal Ideal; 3. From the Tribal to the National Conception of Religion—Conclusion 214

RELIGIONS OF PRIMITIVE PEOPLES

LECTURE I.

The Scientific Study of Primitive Religions—Methods and Definitions.

CONTENTS:—Ethnology Defined—The Scientific Study of Religions—It is not Theology—Its Methods: 1. The Historic Method; 2. The Comparative Method; 3. The Psychologic Method—Strange Coincidences in Human Thought—Conspicuous in Primitive Religions—“Primitive” Peoples Defined—The Savage Mind—Examples—Means of Study: 1. Archæology; 2. Language; 3. Folk-Lore; 4. Descriptions of Travellers—Examples: The Early Aryans, Etruscans, Semites, Egyptians, American Tribes, Australians, Polynesians, etc.—“Religions” Defined—Compared with “Superstitions”—No One Belief Essential to Religion—Atheistic Religions—Fundamental Identity of Religions—No Tribe Known Devoid of a Religion—How the Opposite Opinion Arose—Earliest Men probably had No Religion—No Signs of Religion in Lower Animals—Power of Religion in Primitive Society—True Source of Religion.

The youngest in the sisterhood of the sciences is that which deals with Man. In its widest scope it is called Anthropology, and as such includes both the physical and mental life of the species, from the beginning until now. That branch of it which especially concerns itself with the development of man as indicated by his advance in civilisation, is known as Ethnology.

When we analyse the directive forces which have brought about this advance, and whose study therefore makes up Ethnology, they can be reduced to four, to wit, Language, Laws, Arts, and Religion. Do not imagine, however, that these are separable, independent forces. On the contrary, they are inseparable, constituent elements of an organic unity, each working through the others, and on the symmetrical adjustment of all of them to the needs of a community depend its prosperity and growth. No one of them can be omitted or exaggerated without stunting or distorting the national expansion. This lesson, taught by all ages and confirmed by every example, warns us to be cautious in giving precedence to one over the others in any general scheme; but we can profitably separate one from the others, and study its origins and influence.

On this occasion I invite your attention to Religion, and especially as displayed in its earliest and simplest forms, in the faiths and rites of primitive peoples. I shall present these to you in accordance with the principles and methods of Ethnology.

There is what has been called the “science of religion.” The expression seems to me a little presumptuous—or, at least, premature. We do not yet speak of a “science of jurisprudence,” although we have better materials for it than for a science of religion. I shall content myself, therefore, in calling what I have to offer a study of early religions according to scientific methods.

I need not remind you that such a method is absolutely without bias or partisanship; that it looks upon all religions alike as more or less enlightened expressions of mental traits common to all mankind in every known age.[1] It concedes the exclusive possession of truth to none, and still less does it aim to set up any other standard than past experience by which to measure the claims of any. It brings no new canons of faith or doctrine, and lays no other foundation than that which has been laid even from the beginning until now.

But just there its immediate utility and practical bearings are manifested. It seeks to lay bare those eternal foundations on which the sacred edifices of religion have ever been and must ever be erected. It aims to accomplish this by clearing away the incidental and adventitious in religions so as to discover what in them is permanent and universal. Those sacred ideas and institutions which we find repeated among all the early peoples of the earth, often developing in after ages along parallel lines, will form the special objects of our investigation. The departures from these universal forms, we shall see, can be traced to local or temporary causes, they turn on questions of environment, and serve merely to define the limits of variability of the ubiquitous principles of religion as a psychic phenomenon, wherever we find it.

This is not “theology.” That branch of learning aims to measure the objective reality, the concrete truth, of some one or another opinion concerning God and divine things; while the scientific study of religions confines itself exclusively to examining such opinions as phases of human mental activity, and ascertaining what influence they have exerted on the development of the species or of some branch of it. Therefore it is never “polemic.” It neither attacks nor defends the beliefs which it studies. It confines itself to examining their character and influence by the lights of reason and history.

The methods which we employ in this process of reduction are three in number: 1. The Historic Method; 2. The Comparative Method; 3. The Psychologic Method. A few words will explain the scope of each of these.

The Historic Method studies the history of beliefs and the development of worship. It seeks to discover what influences have been exerted on them by environment, transmission, heredity, and conquest, and to bring into full relief what is peculiar to the tribe or group under consideration, and what is exotic. For in one sense it is true that every nation and tribe, even every man, has his own religion.

Such ethnic traits merit the closest scrutiny. They are so marked and constant as to modify profoundly the history of even the ripest religions. It is quite true, as has been observed by an historian of Christianity, that “there is in every people an hereditary disposition to some particular heresy,”[2] that is, to altering any religion which they accept in accordance with the special constitution of their own minds.

The Comparative Method notes the similarities and differences between the religions of different tribes or groups, and, gradually extending its field to embrace the whole species, endeavors, by excluding what is local or temporal, to define those forms of religious thought and expression which are common to humanity at large.

The Psychologic Method takes the results of both the previous methods and aims to explain them by referring the local manifestations to the special mental traits of the tribe or group, and the universal features to equally universal characteristics of the human mind.

The last, the Psychologic Method, is the crown and completion of the quest; for every advanced student of religion will subscribe to the declaration of Professor Granger, that “all mythology and all history of beliefs must finally turn to psychology for their satisfactory elucidation.”[3] In other words, the laws of human thought can alone explain its own products.

And here I must mention a startling discovery, the most startling, it seems to me, of recent times. It is that these laws of human thought are frightfully rigid, are indeed automatic and inflexible. The human mind seems to be a machine; give it the same materials, and it will infallibly grind out the same product. So deeply impressed by this is an eminent modern writer that he lays it down as “a fundamental maxim of ethnology” that, “we do not think; thinking merely goes on within us.”[4]

These strange coincidences find their explanation in experimental psychology. This science, in its modern developments, establishes the fact that the origin of ideas is due to impressions on the nerves of sense. The five senses give rise to five classes of ideas, the most numerous of which are those from the sense of sight, visual ideas, and those from the sense of hearing, auditory ideas. The former yield the conceptions of space, motion, and lustre (colour, brightness, etc.), the latter that of time. From the sense of touch arise the “tactual” impressions, which yield the ideas of power and might, through the sensations of resistance and pressure, pleasure and pain. From these primary ideas (or perceptions), drawn directly from impressions, are derived secondary, abstract, and general ideas (apperceptions) by comparison and association (the laws of Identity, Diversity, and Similarity).