The Making of Religion | Page 4

Baiame, or
Mungun-ngaur, was regarded as their Father. How were these contradictions to be
reconciled? Easily, thus: Zeus was the Father, but, in each case, was the Father by an
amour in which he wore the form of the Totem-snake, swan, bull, ant, dog, or the like. At
once a degraded set of secondary erotic myths cluster around Zeus.
Again, it is notoriously the nature of man to attribute every institution to a primal
inventor or legislator. Men then, find themselves performing certain rites, often of a
buffooning or scandalous character; and, in origin, mainly magical, intended for the
increase of game, edible plants, or, later, for the benefit of the crops. Why do they
perform these rites? they ask: and, looking about, as usual, for a primal initiator, they
attribute what they do to a primal being, the Corn Spirit, Demeter, or to Zeus, or to
Baiame, or Manabozho, or Punjel. This is man's usual way of going back to origins.
Instantly, then, a new set of parasitic myths crystallises round a Being who, perhaps, was
originally moral. The savage mind, in short, has not maintained itself on the high level,
any more than the facetious mediaeval myths maintained themselves, say, on the original
level of the conception of the character of St. Peter, the keeper of the keys of Heaven.
All this appears perfectly natural and human, and in this, and in other ways, what we call
low Myth may have invaded the higher realms of Religion: a lower invaded a higher
element. But reverse the hypothesis. Conceive that Zeus, or Baiame, was _originally_,
not a Father and guardian, but a lewd and tricky ghost of a medicine-man, a dancer of
indecent dances, a wooer of other men's wives, a shape-shifter, a burlesque droll, a more
jocular bugbear, like Twanyirika. By what means did he come to be accredited later with
his loftiest attributes, and with regard for the tribal ethics, which, in practice, he daily
broke and despised? Students who argue for the possible priority of the lowest, or, as I
call them, mythical attributes of the Being, must advance an hypothesis of the concretion
of the nobler elements around the original wanton and mischievous ghost.
Then let us suppose that the Arunta Twanyirika, a confessed bugbear, discredited by
adults, and only invented to keep women and children in order, was the original germ of
the moral and fatherly Baiame, of South Eastern Australian tribes. How, in that case, did
the adults of the tribe fall into their own trap, come to believe seriously in their invented
bugbear, and credit him with the superintendence of such tribal ethics as generosity and
unselfishness? What were the processes of the conversion of Twanyirika? I do not deny

that this theory may be correct, but I wish to see an hypothesis of the process of
elevation.
I fail to frame such an hypothesis. Grant that the adults merely chuckle over Twanyirika,
whose 'voice' they themselves produce; by whirling the wooden tundun, or bull-roarer.
Grant that, on initiation, the boys learn that 'the great spirit' is a mere bogle, invented to
mystify the women, and keep them away from the initiatory rites. How, then, did men
come to believe in him as a terrible, all-seeing, all-knowing, creative, and potent moral
being? For this, undeniably, is the belief of many Australian tribes, where his 'voice' (or
rather that of his subordinate) is produced by whirling the tundun. That these higher
beliefs are of European origin, Mr. Howitt denies. How were they evolved out of the
notion of a confessed artificial bogle? I am unable to frame a theory.
From my point of view, namely, that the higher and simple ideas may well be the earlier,
I have, at least, offered a theory of the processes by which the lower attributes
crystallised around a conception supposed (_argumenti gratia_) to be originally high.
Other processes of degradation would come in, as (on my theory) the creed and practice
of Animism, or worship of human ghosts, often of low character, swamped and invaded
the prior belief in a fairly moral and beneficent, but not originally spiritual, Being. My
theory, at least, is a theory, and, rightly or wrongly, accounts for the phenomenon, the
combination of the highest divine and the lowest animal qualities in the same Being. But
I have yet to learn how, if the lowest myths are the earliest, the highest attributes came in
time to be conferred on the hero of the lowest myths. Why, or how, did a silly buffoon, or
a confessed 'bogle' arrive at being regarded as a patron of such morality as had been
evolved? An hypothesis of the processes involved must be indicated. It is not enough to
reply, in general, that the rudimentary human mind is illogical