The Myths of the New World Part 3

The confusion of these distinct ideas has led to much misconception of the native creeds. But another and more fatal error was that which distorted them into a dualistic form, ranging on one hand the good spirit with his legions of angels, on the other the evil one with his swarms of fiends, representing the world as the scene of their unending conflict, man as the unlucky football who gets all the blows. This notion, which has its historical origin among the Pa.r.s.ees of ancient Iran, is unknown to savage nations. "The idea of the Devil," justly observes Jacob Grimm, "is foreign to all primitive religions." Yet Professor Mueller, in his voluminous work on those of America, after approvingly quoting this saying, complacently proceeds to cla.s.sify the deities as good or bad spirits![59-1]

This view, which has obtained without question in every work on the native religions of America, has arisen partly from habits of thought difficult to break, partly from mistranslations of native words, partly from the foolish axiom of the early missionaries, "The G.o.ds of the gentiles are devils." Yet their own writings furnish conclusive proof that no such distinction existed out of their own fancies. The same word (_otkon_) which Father Bruyas employs to translate into Iroquois the term "devil," in the pa.s.sage "the Devil took upon himself the figure of a serpent," he is obliged to use for "spirit" in the phrase, "at the resurrection we shall be spirits,"[59-2] which is a rather amusing ill.u.s.tration how impossible it was by any native word to convey the idea of the spirit of evil. When, in 1570, Father Rogel commenced his labors among the tribes near the Savannah River, he told them that the deity they adored was a demon who loved all evil things, and they must hate him; whereupon his auditors replied, that so far from this being the case, whom he called a wicked being was the power that sent them all good things, and indignantly left the missionary to preach to the winds.[60-1]

A pa.s.sage often quoted in support of this mistaken view is one in Winslow's "Good News from New England," written in 1622. The author says that the Indians wors.h.i.+p a good power called Kiehtan, and another "who, as farre as wee can conceive, is the Devill," named Hobbamock, or Hobbamoqui. The former of these names is merely the word "great," in their dialect of Algonkin, with a final _n_, and is probably an abbreviation of Kittanitowit, the great manito, a vague term mentioned by Roger Williams and other early writers, not the appellation of any personified deity.[60-2] The latter, so far from corresponding to the power of evil, was, according to Winslow's own statement, the kindly G.o.d who cured diseases, aided them in the chase, and appeared to them in dreams as their protector. Therefore, with great justice, Dr. Jarvis has explained it to mean "the _oke_ or tutelary deity which each Indian wors.h.i.+ps," as the word itself signifies.[61-1]

So in many instances it turns out that what has been reported to be the evil divinity of a nation, to whom they pray to the neglect of a better one, is in reality the highest power they recognize. Thus Juripari, wors.h.i.+pped by certain tribes of the Pampas of Buenos Ayres, and said to be their wicked spirit, is in fact the only name in their language for spiritual existence in general; and Aka-kanet, sometimes mentioned as the father of evil in the mythology of the Araucanians, is the benign power appealed to by their priests, who is throned in the Pleiades, who sends fruits and flowers to the earth, and is addressed as "grandfather."[61-2] The cupay of the Peruvians never was, as Prescott would have us believe, "the shadowy embodiment of evil," but simply and solely their G.o.d of the dead, the Pluto of their pantheon, corresponding to the Mictla of the Mexicans.

The evidence on the point is indeed conclusive. The Jesuit missionaries very rarely distinguish between good and evil deities when speaking of the religion of the northern tribes; and the Moravian Brethren among the Algonkins and Iroquois place on record their unanimous testimony that "the idea of a devil, a prince of darkness, they first received in later times through the Europeans."[62-1] So the Cherokees, remarks an intelligent observer, "know nothing of the Evil One and his domains, except what they have learned from white men."[62-2] The term Great Spirit conveys, for instance, to the Chipeway just as much the idea of a bad as of a good spirit; he is unaware of any distinction until it is explained to him.[62-3] "I have never been able to discover from the Dakotas themselves," remarks the Rev. G. H. Pond, who had lived among them as a missionary for eighteen years,[62-4] "the least degree of evidence that they divide the G.o.ds into cla.s.ses of good and evil, and am persuaded that those persons who represent them as doing so, do it inconsiderately, and because it is so natural to subscribe to a long cherished popular opinion."

Very soon after coming in contact with the whites, the Indians caught the notion of a bad and good spirit, pitted one against the other in eternal warfare, and engrafted it on their ancient traditions. Writers anxious to discover Jewish or Christian a.n.a.logies, forcibly construed myths to suit their pet theories, and for indolent observers it was convenient to catalogue their G.o.ds in ant.i.thetical cla.s.ses. In Mexican and Peruvian mythology this is so plainly false that historians no longer insist upon it, but as a popular error it still holds its ground with reference to the more barbarous and less known tribes.

Perhaps no myth has been so often quoted in its confirmation as that of the ancient Iroquois, which narrates the conflict between the first two brothers of our race. It is of undoubted native origin and venerable antiquity. The version given by the Tuscarora chief Cusic in 1825, relates that in the beginning of things there were two brothers, Enigorio and Enigohahetgea, names literally meaning the Good Mind and the Bad Mind.[63-1] The former went about the world furnis.h.i.+ng it with gentle streams, fertile plains, and plenteous fruits, while the latter maliciously followed him creating rapids, thorns, and deserts. At length the Good Mind turned upon his brother in anger, and crushed him into the earth. He sank out of sight in its depths, but not to perish, for in the dark realms of the underworld he still lives, receiving the souls of the dead and being the author of all evil. Now when we compare this with the version of the same legend given by Father Brebeuf, missionary to the Hurons in 1636, we find its whole complexion altered; the moral dualism vanishes; the names Good Mind and Bad Mind do not appear; it is the struggle of Ioskeha, the White one, with his brother Tawiscara, the Dark one, and we at once perceive that Christian influence in the course of two centuries had given the tale a meaning foreign to its original intent.

So it is with the story the Algonkins tell of their hero Manibozho, who, in the opinion of a well-known writer, "is always placed in antagonism to a great serpent, a spirit of evil."[64-1] It is to the effect that after conquering many animals, this famous magician tried his arts on the prince of serpents. After a prolonged struggle, which brought on the general deluge and the destruction of the world, he won the victory. The first authority we have for this narrative is even later than Cusic; it is Mr. Schoolcraft in our own day; the legendary cause of the deluge as related by Father Le Jeune, in 1634, is quite dissimilar, and makes no mention of a serpent; and as we shall hereafter see, neither among the Algonkins nor any other Indians, was the serpent usually a type of evil, but quite the reverse.[64-2]

The comparatively late introduction of such views into the native legends finds a remarkable proof in the myths of the Quiches, which were committed to writing in the seventeenth century. They narrate the struggles between the rulers of the upper and the nether world, the descent of the former into Xibalba, the Realm of Phantoms, and their victory over its lords, One Death and Seven Deaths. The writer adds of the latter, who clearly represent to his mind the Evil One and his adjutants, "in the old times they did not have much power; they were but annoyers and opposers of men, and in truth they were not regarded as G.o.ds. But when they appeared it was terrible. They were of evil, they were owls, fomenting trouble and discord." In this pa.s.sage, which, be it said, seems to have impressed the translators very differently, the writer appears to compare the great power a.s.signed by the Christian religion to Satan and his allies, with the very much less potency attributed to their a.n.a.logues in heathendom, the rulers of the world of the dead.[65-1]

A little reflection will convince the most incredulous that any such dualism as has been fancied to exist in the native religions, could not have been of indigenous growth. The G.o.ds of the primitive man are beings of thoroughly human physiognomy, painted with colors furnished by intercourse with his fellows. These are his enemies or his friends, as he conciliates or insults them. No mere man, least of all a savage, is kind and benevolent in spite of neglect and injury, nor is any man causelessly and ceaselessly malicious. Personal, family, or national feuds render some more inimical than others, but always from a desire to guard their own interests, never out of a delight in evil for its own sake. Thus the cruel G.o.ds of death, disease, and danger, were never of Satanic nature, while the kindliest divinities were disposed to punish, and that severely, any neglect of their ceremonies. Moral dualism can only arise in minds where the ideas of good and evil are not synonymous with those of pleasure and pain, for the conception of a wholly good or a wholly evil nature requires the use of these terms in their higher, ethical sense. The various deities of the Indians, it may safely be said in conclusion, present no stronger ant.i.thesis in this respect than those of ancient Greece and Rome.

FOOTNOTES:

[44-1] But there is no ground for the most positive of philosophers to reject the doctrine of innate ideas when put in a certain way. The instincts and habits of the lower animals by which they obtain food, migrate, and perpetuate their kind, are in obedience to particular congenital impressions, and correspond to definite anatomical and morphological relations. No one pretends their knowledge is experimental.

Just so the human cerebrum has received, by descent or otherwise, various sensory impressions peculiar to man as a species, which are just as certain to guide his thoughts, actions, and destiny, as is the cerebrum of the insectivorous aye-aye to lead it to hunt successfully for larvae.

[45-1] _Die Kunst im Zusammenhang der Culturentwickelung_, i. pp. 50, 252.

[46-1] I offer these derivations with a certain degree of reserve, for such an extraordinary similarity in the sound of these words is discoverable in North and portions of South America, that one might almost be tempted to claim for them one original form. Thus in the Maya dialects it is _ku_, vocative _a kue_, in Natchez _kue-ya_, in the Uchee of West Florida _kauhwu_, in Otomi _okha_, in Mandan _okee_, Sioux _ogha_, _waughon_, _wakan_, in Quichua _waka_, _huaca_, in Iroquois _quaker_, _oki_, Algonkin _oki_, _okee_, Eskimo _aghatt_, which last has a singular likeness in sound to the German or Norse, _O Gott_, as some of the others have to the corresponding Finnish word _ukko_. _Ku_ in the Carib tongue means _house_, especially a temple or house of the G.o.ds. The early Spanish explorers adopted the word with the orthography _cue_, and applied it to the sacred edifices of whatever nation they discovered. For instance, they speak of the great cemetery of Teotihuacan, near Tezcuco, as the _Llano de los Cues_.

[46-2] "As the high heavens, the far-off mountains look to us blue, so a blue superficies seems to recede from us. As we would fain pursue an attractive object that flees from us, so we like to gaze at the blue, not that it urges itself upon us, but that it draws us after it." Goethe, _Farbenlehre_, secs. 780, 781.

[47-1] Loskiel, _Geschichte der Mission der Evang. Brueder_, p. 63: Barby, 1789.

[47-2] Cogolludo, _Historia de Yucathan_, lib. iv. cap. vii.

[48-1] _Rel. de la Nouv. France._ An 1636, p. 107.

[48-2] This word is found in Gallatin's vocabularies (_Transactions of the Am. Antiq. Soc._, vol. ii.), and may have partially induced that distinguished ethnologist to ascribe, as he does in more than one place, whatever notions the eastern tribes had of a Supreme Being to the teachings of the Quakers.

[48-3] Bruyas, _Radices Verborum Iroquaeorum_, p. 84. This work is in Shea's Library of American Linguistics, and is a most valuable contribution to philology. The same etymology is given by Lafitau, _Murs des Sauvages_, etc., Germ. trans., p. 65.

[50-1] My authorities are Riggs, _Dict. of the Dakota_, Boscana, _Account of New California_, Richardson's and Egede's Eskimo Vocabularies, Pandosy, _Gram. and Dict. of the Yakama_ (Shea's Lib. of Am.

Linguistics), and the Abbe Bra.s.seur for the Aztec.

[51-1] These terms are found in Gallatin's vocabularies. The last mentioned is not, as Adair thought, derived from _issto ulla_ or _ishto hoollo_, great man, for in Choctaw the adjective cannot precede the noun it qualifies. Its true sense is visible in the a.n.a.logous Creek words _ishtali_, the storm wind, and _hustolah_, the windy season.

[51-2] Webster derives hurricane from the Latin _furio_. But Oviedo tells us in his description of Hispaniola that "Hurakan, in lingua di questa isola vuole dire propriamente fortuna tempestuosa molto eccessiva, perche en effetto non e altro que un grandissimo vento e pioggia insieme."

_Historia dell' Indie_, lib. vi. cap. iii. It is a coincidence--perhaps something more--that in the Quichua language _huracan_, third person singular present indicative of the verbal noun _huraca_, means "a stream of water falls perpendicularly." (Markham, _Quichua Dictionary_, p. 132.)

[52-1] Oviedo, _Rel. de la Prov. de Cueba_, p. 141, ed. Ternaux-Compans.

[52-2] Garcia, _Origen de los Indios_, lib. iv. cap. xxii.

[53-1] See the _Rel. de la Nouv. France pour l'An 1637_, p. 49.

[53-2] Mr. Morgan, in his excellent work, _The League of the Iroquois_, has been led astray by an ignorance of the etymology of these terms. For Schoolcraft's views see his _Oneota_, p. 147. The matter is ably discussed in the _Etudes Philologiques sur Quelques Langues Sauvages de l'Amerique_, p. 14: Montreal, 1866; but comp. Shea, _Dict.

Francais-Onontague_, preface.

[54-1] "Qui ne prend aucun soin des choses icy bas." _Jour. Hist. d'un Voyage de l'Amerique_, p. 225: Paris, 1713.

[55-1] In attributing this speech to the Inca Yupanqui, I have followed Balboa, who expressly says this was the general opinion of the Indians (_Hist. du Perou_, p. 62, ed. Ternaux-Compans). Others a.s.sign it to other Incas. See Garcila.s.so de la Vega, _Hist. des Incas_, lib. viii. chap. 8, and Acosta, _Nat. and Morall Hist. of the New World_, chap. 5. The fact and the approximate time are beyond question.

[56-1] Xeres, _Rel. de la Conq. du Perou_, p. 151, ed. Ternaux-Compans.

[57-1] Prescott, _Conq. of Mexico_, i. pp. 192, 193, on the authority of Ixtlilxochitl.

[57-2] Bra.s.seur, _Hist. du Mexique_, iii. p. 297, note.

[57-3] Of very many authorities that I have at hand, I shall only mention Heckewelder, _Acc. of the Inds._[TN-1] p. 422, Duponceau, _Mem. sur les Langues de l'Amer. du Nord_, p. 310, Peter Martyr _De Rebus Oceanicis_, Dec. i., cap. 9, Molina, _Hist. of Chili_, ii. p. 75, Ximenes, _Origen de los Indios de Guatemala_, pp. 4, 5, Ixtlilxochitl, _Rel. des Conq. du Mexique_, p. 2. These terms bear the severest scrutiny. The Aztec appellation of the Supreme Being _Tloque nahuaque_ is compounded of _tloc_, together, with, and _nahuac_, at, by, with, with possessive forms added, giving the signification, Lord of all existence and coexistence (alles Mitseyns und alles Beiseyns, bei welchem das Seyn aller Dinge ist.

Buschmann, _Ueber die Aztekischen Ortsnamen_, p. 642). The Algonkin term _Kittanittowit_ is derived from _kitta_, great, _manito_, spirit, _wit_, an adjective termination indicating a mode of existence, and means the Great Living Spirit (Duponceau, u. s.). Both these terms are undoubtedly of native origin. In the Quiche legends the Supreme Being is called _Bitol_, the substantive form of _bit_, to make pottery, to form, and _Tzakol_, substantive form of _tzak_, to build, the Creator, the Constructor. The Arowacks of Guyana applied the term _Aluberi_ to their highest conception of a first cause, from the verbal form _alin_, he who makes (Martius, _Ethnographie und Sprachenkunde Amerika's_, i. p. 696).

[59-1] _Geschichte der Amerikanischen Urreligionen_, p. 403.

[59-2] Bruyas, _Rad. Verb. Iroquaeorum_, p. 38.

[60-1] Alcazar, _Chrono-historia de la Prov. de Toledo_, Dec. iii., Ano viii., cap. iv: Madrid, 1710. This rare work contains the only faithful copies of Father Rogel's letters extant. Mr. Shea, in his History of Catholic Missions, calls him erroneously Roger.

[60-2] It is fully a.n.a.lyzed by Duponceau, _Langues de l'Amerique du Nord_, p. 309.

[61-1] _Discourse on the Religion of the Ind. Tribes of N. Am._, p. 252 in the Trans. N. Y. Hist. Soc.

[61-2] Mueller, _Amer. Urreligionen_, pp. 265, 272, 274. Well may he remark: "The dualism is not very striking among these tribes;" as a few pages previous he says of the Caribs, "The dualism of G.o.ds is anything but rigidly observed. The good G.o.ds do more evil than good. Fear is the ruling religious sentiment." To such a lame conclusion do these venerable prepossessions lead. "_Grau ist alle Theorie_."

[62-1] Loskiel, _Ges. der Miss. der evang. Brueder_, p. 46.

[62-2] Whipple, _Report on the Ind. Tribes_, p. 33: Was.h.i.+ngton, 1855.

Pacific Railroad Docs.

[62-3] Schoolcraft, _Indian Tribes_, i. p. 359.

[62-4] In Schoolcraft, _Ibid._, iv. p. 642.

[63-1] Or more exactly, the Beautiful Spirit, the Ugly Spirit. In Onondaga the radicals are _onigonra_, spirit, _hio_ beautiful, _ahetken_ ugly. _Dictionnaire Francais-Onontague, edite par Jean-Marie Shea_: New York, 1859.

[64-1] Squier, _The Serpent Symbol in America_.

[64-2] Both these legends will be a.n.a.lyzed in a subsequent chapter, and an attempt made not only to restore them their primitive form, but to explain their meaning.