Introduction to the History of Religions Part 11

+420+. Phallicistic cults, attenuated by advance of refinement, survived long, even into Christian times, under modified forms.[768] In such cases they become merely devices of ignorant piety. When the aid of a Christian saint is sought in order to secure fertility, the trust in the phallus-symbol involves no unworthy desire; and what is true of medieval European peoples may have been true of ancient peoples. In the ancient world these cults took many forms, ranging from nave faith to frank obscenity on the one hand and philosophic breadth on the other hand.

They take their place as part of the general wors.h.i.+p of the forces of nature, and follow all the variations of human culture.

CHAPTER V

TOTEMISM AND TABOO

+421+. Totemism and taboo are both of them intimately connected with the history of early religion, but in different ways. Totemism is not essentially religious if religion be held to involve wors.h.i.+p of superhuman or extrahuman beings; it has, however, in many cases coalesced with religious practices and ideas, and it is sometimes difficult to draw the line distinctly between it and religion proper.

Taboo, on the other hand, is founded on magical conceptions, and these are nearly allied to the basis of early religion; it is more or less prominent in all early cults, and has survived in the higher religious systems, though in these it is generally spiritualized. The two lines of development, totemism and taboo, appear side by side in early cults, and influence each the other; but their functions in the social organization of religion have been different, and they are best treated separately.

As the collections of material for their history are still incomplete, accounts of them must be regarded as, to a greater or less extent, provisional.

TOTEMISM

+422+. The natural attraction of human beings for one another and the necessity of providing effective means of defense against enemies have led men to a.s.sociate themselves together in clans and tribes. In such a.s.sociations some form of organization arose as a matter of course; experience early showed that men could not live together except under the guidance and control of authoritative regulations. Such regulations dealt with fundamental facts of life, which in the beginnings of society are mostly physical. The points requiring regulation are: the relation of man to nonhuman things (animals, plants, and inanimate objects); the maintenance of rights of life and property; and the s.e.xual relations between human beings, especially marriage as the basis of the family.

The determination of what things may be eaten belongs more particularly under "taboo," and is considered below. Customs and rules designed to protect life and property have always coalesced with religious systems; they are mentioned in connection with the ethical element in religion.[769] The other points--relations to nonhuman things and s.e.xual relations--may be conveniently considered together here; but, as the second point belongs rather to sociology than to the history of religion, it will be sufficient, with an introductory word on marriage restrictions (under _Exogamy_), to give the facts in connection with the various totemic organizations.

+423+. _Exogamy._[770] All over the savage world the general rule prevails (though not without exceptions) that a man must not marry a woman of his own clan; though the family proper (husband, wife, and children) exists, the clan is the fundamental social unit. When a tribe contains several clans it is commonly divided into groups (phratries), each phratry including certain clans, and the rule then is that a man shall not marry a woman of his phratry. Usually the number of phratries is two, but in some cases (as among the Australian Arunta and adjoining tribes) these are divided so that there are four or eight exogamous groups (subphratries). When the totem is hereditary the totemic clans are exogamous; otherwise (as among the Arunta) marriage between persons of the same clan is permitted.

+424+. Whether the clan or the phratry preceded in time it is hardly possible to determine--clans may have united to form a larger group, or an original group may have been divided into clans. But in the latter case this original group was practically a clan, so that the question of precedence in time is not important. Where clan exogamy exists without phratries it is possible that these also formerly existed and have been dropped in the interests of freedom--that is, they limited the choice of a wife to an extent that proved inconvenient.[771]

+425+. An almost universal feature of the marriage rules of low tribes is the cla.s.sificatory system of relations.h.i.+p. According to this system, the community being divided into groups, terms of relations.h.i.+p indicate not kins.h.i.+p in blood but tribal status in respect of marriageability; thus, the same term is used for a child's real father and for every man who might legally have become the husband of his mother, and the same term for the real mother and for every woman whom the father might have married; the children of such possible fathers and mothers are the child's brothers and sisters; all possible spouses are called a man's "wives" or a woman's "husbands"; and similarly with all relations.h.i.+ps.[772]

+426+. The system has many varieties of form, and gives way in time to the formal recognition of blood kins.h.i.+p. It has been held to point to an earlier system of "group marriage," in which all the men of one group had marital relations with all the women of another group, and further to a primitive custom of s.e.xual promiscuity.[773] In the nature of the case these hypotheses do not admit of proof or disproof. All that is certain is that the cla.s.sificatory system has been and is an accompaniment of one stage of social and religious development.

+427+. The effect of exogamous arrangements has been to prevent marriage between persons related in blood.[774] In totemic organizations, when the totem is inherited, a division into two exogamous groups makes marriage of brother to sister impossible, since all the children of one mother are in the same group; and if there are four such groups and children are a.s.signed to a group different from that of the father and that of the mother, marriage between parent and child is impossible.

When the totem is not inherited (as is the case among the Australian Arunta) similar results are secured by a further subdivision.

+428+. The particular exogamic customs vary considerably among early tribes, the differences following, in general, differences of social organization. In some more settled savage communities (as, for example, the Kurnai of Southeast Australia), in which there are neither cla.s.ses nor totemic clans, marriage is permitted only between members of certain districts.[775] Well-organized social life tends to promote individual freedom in marriage as in other things. Marriage with a half-sister was allowed by the old Hebrew law,[776] and Egyptian kings often married their sisters.

+429+. _Theories of the origin of exogamy._ Exogamy has been referred to a supposed scarcity of women, which forced the young men to seek wives abroad.[777] On the a.s.sumption of early s.e.xual promiscuity it has been regarded as a deliberate attempt to prevent the marriage of blood relations.[778] It has been supposed to result from the absence of s.e.xual attraction between persons who have been brought up together.[779] An original human horde being a.s.sumed, it has been suggested that the patriarch, who had possession of all the women of the horde, would, from jealousy, drive the young men off to seek wives elsewhere.[780] From the point of view of the totem as divine ancestor, exogamy has been supposed to arise from religious respect for the clan blood, which is held to share the divinity of the totem, and would be polluted (with danger to the clan) by outside marriages.[781]

+430+. Objections may be raised to all these theories. It is doubtful whether a scarcity of women existed in early times; and supposing that there were not women enough in a clan for the men of the clan, this would not stand in the way of men's taking as wives their clan women.[782] The a.s.sumption of primitive s.e.xual promiscuity, likewise, cannot be said to be distinctly borne out by known facts.[783] Morgan's theory, however, is not dependent on this a.s.sumption--it need only suppose repugnance to the marriage of blood relations. Such repugnance granted, the main objection to the theory rests on the difficulty of supposing savages capable of originating so thoughtful and elastic a scheme as the exogamous system. This is a point on which it is not possible to speak positively. The lowest tribes have produced languages of wonderfully intricate and delicate construction, and, supposing the process of constructing marriage regulations to have gone on during a very long period, modifications introduced from time to time, to meet conditions felt to be important, might conceivably result in such exogamous systems as are now found.

+431+. As to absence of s.e.xual attraction between persons brought up together,[784] this seems to be a result rather than a cause of the prohibition of s.e.xual relations between certain cla.s.ses of persons. The argument from habits of the lower animals is indefinite--no general habit has been proven. In orgies in India and elsewhere no repulsion appears between persons of the same family. In the ancient world marriage between such persons was legal and not uncommon.

+432+. The human horde, with its jealous patriarch, appears to be a creation of the scientific imagination. It, again, was derived by its author from the procedure of certain beast-herds in which the strongest male drives away his rivals. It is supposed, however, that in the human horde the young men, having found wives, are allowed to come back bringing their wives with them, and these last the patriarch is supposed not to appropriate. The theory is supported by no facts of actual usage.

+433+. The supposition that the young men of a clan or tribe go off to seek food, and thus found a new clan, has more in its favor. Being compelled to seek wives in their new surroundings, they might thus initiate a habit of outside marriage that would in time become general usage and therefore sacred. Secession from tribes does occur, and may have been frequent in prehistoric times, but concerning these times we have little or no information. It may be said that movements of this sort would furnish a more probable starting-point for savage customs than the ideas and schemes mentioned above.

+434+. Proof is lacking also for Durkheim's theory. It is not probable that the totem was regarded as divine in the period in which exogamy arose--by the tribes whose ideas on this point are known the totem is looked on as a friend and an equal but not as a G.o.d. And, as is pointed out above, there is no such general religious respect for the clan blood as would forbid s.e.xual intercourse between persons of the same clan. The demand for revenge for the murder of a clansman arises from the sense of clan solidarity and the necessity of self-defense--it is only in this regard that the blood of the clan is regarded as sacred.

+435+. Horror of marriage or of s.e.xual intercourse in general, within the prohibited degrees or areas, is universal in low communities; violation of the tribal law on this point is severely punished, sometimes with death. Whence this feeling sprang is not clear.[785] It cannot have arisen from respect for the purity of women or from a belief in the sanct.i.ty of the family--intercourse with girls before their marriage is freely allowed, and lending or exchange of wives is common.

Magical dangers are supposed to follow on infringement of marriage rules, but, as such results come from violation of any tribal custom, this throws no light on the origin of the feeling of horror in question.

Absence of s.e.xual attraction between persons brought up together,[786]

though the absence of such feeling is said to have been observed in some of the lower animals, is not a.s.sured for savages; its existence in civilized communities is due to the acceptance of the established usage, which makes certain unions impossible, so that they are not considered, and the germ of such a public opinion may perhaps be a.s.sumed for early tribes. Probably the horror of incest is a derivation from economic and other situations and laws that arose naturally in early society--it is a habit hardened into an instinct.

+436+. Though exogamy differs from totemism in origin and function, the two are often found a.s.sociated--their conjunction may be said to be the general rule. There are, however, exceptions.[787] Totemic clans are not exogamous in Central Australia, the Melanesian Banks Islands, among the Nandi of East Africa, and the Bakuana of South Africa. On the other hand, exogamy is found without totemism in the tribes just mentioned, among the Todas of Southern India, in Sumatra, among the African Masai and Ashanti, and in Southern Nigeria, and local exogamy among tribes (for example, the Kurnai of Southeast Australia, and the Californian Maidu and Shasta) in which totemic divisions are not perceptible.

+437+. In all such cases, however, the absence of records makes the history of the organizations uncertain--we do not know whether or not one of the elements, totemism or exogamy, formerly existed and has yielded to disintegrating influences. Thus local exogamy may have superseded clan exogamy in many places, the former representing the more settled habit of life, and the absence of the totemic const.i.tution may indicate a process of decay of totemism. No general rule for the decision of the question can be laid down--every case must be judged for itself.[788]

+438+. Since a custom of exogamy presupposes at least two social groups (clans), and totemism appears to be connected originally with single clans, the natural inference is that the latter has everywhere preceded the former in time. Both have undergone great changes produced by similar sets of circ.u.mstances, and in both cases the simplest form is probably the oldest, though here again definite data are lacking.

However, comparison of the known exogamous systems points to a two-group arrangement as that from which the existing forms have come.

+439+. Exogamy served a good purpose in early stages of society, both by preventing marriages between blood relations and by inducing a sense of the sacredness of the marriage bond. Its long persistence shows that it was regarded by most tribes as necessary for the maintenance of the tribal life. Its restriction of individual freedom in the choice of wives was an evil, and was in time modified and finally thrown off; but it seems to have been the only means, discoverable by early society, by which clans and tribes could live peaceably side by side, and it paved the way for the establishment of the family proper.

+440+. This brief account of the most important adjunct of totemism may serve to clear the way for the consideration of the totemic system.

+441+. Among the various relations that undeveloped communities sustain to nonhuman things totemism has the peculiarity that it is an alliance between a human group (clan or tribe) and a species of animals or plants, or an inanimate natural object (as sun or moon), or, rarely, an artificial object (usually an implement of labor).[789] The nonhuman thing is regarded as a friend, and is respected and cared for accordingly. When it is a species (animal or plant) every individual of the species is held to bear this friendly relation to every individual of the allied human group. Generally there is believed to be not only similarity or ident.i.ty of nature between the two (such ident.i.ty of nature between man and nonhuman things is everywhere an article of the creed of savages) but a special intimacy, commonly a kins.h.i.+p of blood.

While the men of a group respect their ally, it, on its part, is supposed to refrain from injuring them, and even in some cases to aid them. It is credited with great power, such as in savage life all nonhuman things are supposed to possess. The members of the human group regard one another as brothers; this feeling, however, can hardly be said to be peculiar to totemic organizations--it exists, more or less, in all early a.s.sociations, particularly in any one a.s.sociation as against others.

+442+. While, therefore, we may take a certain clan alliance as a fundamental fact of totemism, we find in various communities other features of organization more or less closely combined with this into a social unity. In every such case it is necessary to inquire whether the feature in question is a universal or general accompaniment of clan alliance, and whether it is peculiar to the latter or is found in other systems also.

+443+. (a) _Exogamy._ It is pointed out above[790] that totemism and exogamy are mutually independent arrangements, differing in function and origin, each being found without the other. Yet in many cases, perhaps in the majority of cases, the two are found combined. Exogamy supposes a body of clans, and, given a group of totemic clans, it would naturally be attached to these, and so become an organic part of their social const.i.tution. Where there is no totemism the question of union, of course, does not come up. Where totemism is not accompanied by exogamy it is sometimes probable that the union of the two once existed,[791] or that exogamy is excluded by the peculiar form of the totemism.[792]

Exogamy may thus be regarded as a natural and frequent accompaniment of totemism, but it is not a universal and necessary element of the totemic const.i.tution.

+444+. (b) _Names._ As a general rule the totemic clan bears the name of its totem. The exceptions appear to be found in somewhat advanced communities, as the Fijians and the Kwakiutl (but not the northern branch of this tribe).[793] There are also many larger exogamous groups (as, for example, in Australia) the meaning of whose names is obscure--they may or may not contain the name of the totem; but such groups may have a different origin from that of the totemic clans.

+445+. In some cases clans and tribes have distinctive _crests_ or _badges_, generally totemic figures or parts of such figures. These are carved on beams of houses and on house poles, or cut or drawn on men's persons, and are used as signs manual, serving thus to indicate to strangers a man's clan connections. Such emblems are employed in the Torres Straits islands and British New Guinea,[794] in the Aru Islands (southwest of New Guinea), and in North America among the Lenape (Delawares), the Pueblo tribes, the Tlingit, the Haidas, and the Kwakiutl.[795]

+446+. In America the crest is not always identical in name with the totem, and sometimes coalesces with the guardian animal-spirit. The myths that give the origin of the crest usually describe some adventure (marriage or other) of a man with the crest animal, involving sometimes, but not always, the origin of the clan.[796] The relation between totem and crest thus differs in different places, and its origin is not clear.

The simplest form of this relation (that found in the New Guinea region) may indicate that the totem animal, being most intimately connected with the clan, is chosen on that account as its badge. Or possibly totem and crest have arisen, independently of each other, from some early affiliation with animals, and therefore do not always coincide. Such a mode of origination would help to explain the fact that in Northwestern America a clan may have several crests, and a man also may acquire more than one. The relation of crest to clan is looser than that of totem to clan--the same crest or crests are found in different clans. When the totemic const.i.tution of the tribe or clan is weakened, the crest may become more important than the totem, as is the case among the Haidas.

But the adoption of the crest name does not invalidate the general rule that the clan bears the name of its totem.

+447+. Names of families and of persons do not come into consideration here. They arise from various local and personal peculiarities that, as a rule, have nothing to do with totemism, and they become more prominent and important as the latter declines.

+448+. The origin of clan totemic names is closely connected with the origin of the totemic organization, and will be more conveniently considered in connection with this point.[797]

+449+. (c) _Descent from the totem._ Details so far reported as to this belief are regrettably few and often indefinite, and it is not possible to give more than a provisional sketch of it.[798] In Central Australia it is held that all the members of a clan come into being as spirit children, who are the creation of mythical half-human, half-animal beings of the olden time; the clan bears the name of the mythical ancestor (its totem), and its members regard themselves as identical in blood and nature with the totem.[799] Similar beliefs are reported as existing in New South Wales and West Australia, and a definite conception of descent from the totem has been found in the Santa Cruz group in Southern Melanesia, in Fiji in Eastern Melanesia, and apparently in Tonga and Tikopia.[800] In North America the belief is reported as existing among the Lenape (Delawares) and other Eastern tribes.[801] In South America it appears among the Arawaks of Guiana,[802] and perhaps elsewhere. For Africa there is little information on this point, and what we have is not always definite;[803]

one of the clearest expressions of descent is found in the t.i.tle "grandfather" given to the chameleon by the Chameleon clan of the Herrero of German Southwest Africa, but a comparison with the similar t.i.tle given by the Zulus to a sort of divine ancestor, and with the Herrero mythical stories of the origins of certain clans, suggests that the conception is vague.

+450+. In addition to the more direct statements there are traditions or myths that connect the origin of clans with animals or plants through the intermediation of G.o.ds or human beings, by marriage, or some other relation. The Bushbuck clan of the East African Baganda wors.h.i.+p a lion-G.o.d, who is called an ancestor and is said to have turned into a lion at his death. Fluctuating opinions (some persons holding to direct descent from a nonhuman object, others to friendly relations between it and the ancestor) are reported in Sumatra, Borneo, and the Moluccas.

The Hurons regarded the rattlesnake as a kinsman of their ancestor. The origin of the clan or family is referred to marriage with an animal by the Borneo Dyaks and various tribes on the African Gold Coast, and to marriage with a plant by some of the Upper Liluet;[804] and the origin of the crests in Northwestern America is ascribed to adventures with crest animals.[805] In the Trobriand group of islands (lying to the northeast of British New Guinea) the totems are said to have been brought by the first men; naturally it is not explained whence and how the men got them.[806]

+451+. These instances of indirect origination (to which others of the sort might be added) show a variety of points of view, and may be variously interpreted. They may be regarded as declensions from an earlier belief in the direct descent of the clan from the totem, or as independent conceptions that never grew into this belief. Both these ideas of the form of descent are found in widely separated regions and in communities differing one from another in general culture and in the degree of importance they attach to the totemic const.i.tution. The possibility of general agreement in myths, with difference in details, between tribes remote from one another is ill.u.s.trated by the creation myths of the Australian Arunta (who have an elaborate totemism) and the Thompson River Indians of Northwestern America (who have no clan totems, secret societies, or dramatic ceremonies); both relate transformations of primitive unformed persons, but in the former the creators are half-human, half-animal, in the latter they are men who transform half-human, half-animal beings. Such widespread variations point to early differences in social conditions and in intellectual endowments with the nature of which we are not acquainted.[807]

+452+. (d) _Refusal to kill or eat the totem._ The usages in regard to killing or eating the totem are so diverse, and often so uncertain, that it is not possible to lay down a general rule of prohibition. An edible totem is only a peculiar sort of sacred animal or plant, and respect for such objects often leads to refusal to kill or eat them--an interdiction of this sort does not in itself show whether or not the object in question is a totem. But within totemic areas the usage varies in a remarkable manner, as, for example, in Australia. In the north there is complete prohibition, sometimes including the totems of a man's father, mother, and father's father. Among the central tribes a man kills his clan totem only for the benefit of other clans, and eats a little of it ceremonially. In the southeast the Dieri, it is said, kill and eat their totems freely, while other tribes, the Wotjoballuk and others, eat them only at a pinch.[808] The northeastern tribes have many food taboos, which, however, relate not to the totemic clans but to the exogamous subcla.s.ses. A modified regard for the totem or crest (kobong) appears in West Australia, according to Sir George Grey's report[809]; it is not allowable to kill a family kobong while it is asleep, and it is always with reluctance that it is killed.

+453+. Abstention from killing and eating the totem holds, as a rule, in the Torres Straits islands, while in New Guinea the custom varies--the totem is eaten by some tribes, not eaten by others.

+454+. In Melanesia the food restrictions connected with animal patrons or friends of clans are less definite than in Australia. Here, also, there are local differences of usage. Prohibition of eating or using the totem (fish, gra.s.s, fowl, and so forth) was found by Rivers in the Santa Cruz group (in Southern Melanesia) but not in the northern New Hebrides.[810] In the central islands the prohibition refers to the exogamous cla.s.ses, and a similar usage is reported as existing in the Duke of York group (in the north). The Fijians refrain from eating their tribal sacred animals.

+455+. In Polynesia family G.o.ds appear instead of totems, and the incarnations of G.o.ds (in animals and plants) are not eaten; such is the rule in Samoa and Tonga, and this was formerly the practice in Hawaii.

The food restrictions in Borneo and Sumatra are not definitely totemic.