The Making of Religion | Page 5

and confused. That is
granted; but there must have been a method in its madness. What that method was (from
my point of view) I have shown, and it must be as easy for opponents to set forth what,
from their point of view, the method was.
We are here concerned with what, since the time of the earliest Greek philosophers, has
been the crux of mythology: why are infamous myths told about 'the Father of gods and
men'? We can easily explain the nature of the myths. They are the natural flowers of
savage fancy and humour. But wherefore do they crystallise round Zeus? I have, at least,
shown some probable processes in the evolution.
Where criticism has not disputed the facts of the moral attributes, now attached to, say, an
Australian Being, it has accounted for them by a supposed process of borrowing from
missionaries and other Europeans. In this book I deal with that hypothesis as urged by Sir
A.B. Ellis, in West Africa (chapter xiii.). I need not have taken the trouble, as this
distinguished writer had already, in a work which I overlooked, formally withdrawn, as
regards Africa, his theory of 'loan-gods.' Miss Kingsley, too, is no believer in the
borrowing hypothesis for West Africa, in regard, that is, to the highest divine conception.
I was, when I wrote, unaware that, especially as concerns America and Australia, Mr.
Tylor had recently advocated the theory of borrowing ('Journal of Anthrop. Institute,' vol.
xxi.). To Mr. Tylor's arguments, when I read them, I replied in the 'Nineteenth Century,'
January 1899: 'Are Savage Gods Borrowed from Missionaries?' I do not here repeat my
arguments, but await the publication of Mr. Tylor's 'Gifford Lectures,' in which his
hypothesis may be reinforced, and may win my adhesion.
It may here be said, however, that if the Australian higher religious ideas are of recent

and missionary origin, they would necessarily be known to the native women, from
whom, in fact, they are absolutely concealed by the men, under penalty of death. Again,
if the Son, or Sons, of Australian chief Beings resemble part of the Christian dogma, they
much more closely resemble the Apollo and Hermes of Greece.[4] But nobody will say
that the Australians borrowed them from Greek mythology!
In chapter xiv., owing to a bibliographical error of my own, I have done injustice to Mr.
Tylor, by supposing him to have overlooked Strachey's account of the Virginian god
Ahone. He did not overlook Ahone, but mistrusted Strachey. In an excursus on Ahone, in
the new edition of 'Myth, Ritual, and Religion,' I have tried my best to elucidate the
bibliography and other aspects of Strachey's account, which I cannot regard as baseless.
Mr. Tylor's opinion is, doubtless, different, and may prove more persuasive. As to
Australia, Mr. Howitt, our best authority, continues to disbelieve in the theory of
borrowing.
I have to withdraw in chapters x. xi. the statement that 'Darumulun never died at all.' Mr.
Hartland has corrected me, and pointed out that, among the Wiraijuri, a myth represents
him as having been destroyed, for his offences, by Baiame. In that tribe, however,
Darumulun is not the highest, but a subordinate Being. Mr. Hartland has also collected a
few myths in which Australian Supreme Beings do (contrary to my statement) 'set the
example of sinning.' Nothing can surprise me less, and I only wonder that, in so savage a
race, the examples, hitherto collected, are so rare, and so easily to be accounted for on the
theory of processes of crystallisation of myths already suggested.
As to a remark in Appendix B, Mr. Podmore takes a distinction. I quote his remark, 'the
phenomena described are quite inexplicable by ordinary mechanical means,' and I
contrast this, as illogical, with his opinion that a girl 'may have been directly responsible
for all that took place.' Mr. Podmore replies that what was 'described' is not necessarily
identical with what occurred. Strictly speaking, he is right; but the evidence was copious,
was given by many witnesses, and (as offered by me) was in part contemporary (being
derived from the local newspapers), so that here Mr. Podmore's theory of illusions of
memory on a large scale, developed in the five weeks which elapsed before he examined
the spectators, is out of court. The evidence was of contemporary published record.
The handling of fire by Home is accounted for by Mr. Podmore, in the same chapter, as
the result of Home's use of a 'non-conducting substance.' Asked, 'what substance?' he
answered, 'asbestos.' Sir William Crookes, again repeating his account of the
performance which he witnessed, says, 'Home took up a lump of red-hot charcoal about
twice the size of an egg into his hand, on which certainly no asbestos was visible. He
blew into his