The Making of Religion | Page 6

hands, and the flames could be seen coming out between his fingers, and he
carried the charcoal round the room.'[5] Sir W. Crookes stood close beside Home. The
light was that of the fire and of two candles. Probably Sir William could see a piece of
asbestos, if it was covering Home's hands, which he was watching.
What I had to say, by way of withdrawal, qualification, explanation, or otherwise, I
inserted (in order to seize the earliest opportunity) in the Introduction to the recent edition
of my 'Myth, Ritual, and Religion' (1899). The reader will perhaps make his own kind
deductions from my rhetoric when I talk, for example, about a Creator in the creed of low
savages. They have no business, anthropologists declare, to entertain so large an idea. But
in 'The Journal of the Anthropological Institute,' N.S. II., Nos. 1, 2, p. 85, Dr. Bennett
gives an account of the religion of the cannibal Fangs of the Congo, first described by Du

Chaillu. 'These anthropophagi have some idea of a God, a superior being, their Tata
("Father"), a bo mam merere ("he made all things"), Anyambi is their Tata (Father), and
ranks above all other Fang gods, because _a'ne yap_ (literally, "he lives in heaven").' This
is inconsiderate in the Fangs. A set of native cannibals have no business with a creative
Father who is in heaven. I say 'creative' because 'he made all things,' and (as the bowler
said about a 'Yorker') 'what else can you call him?' In all such cases, where 'creator' and
'creative' are used by me, readers will allow for the imperfections of the English language.
As anthropologists say, the savages simply cannot have the corresponding ideas; and I
must throw the blame on people who, knowing the savages and their language, assure us
that they have. This Fang Father or Tata 'is considered indifferent to the wants and
sufferings of men, women, and children.' Offerings and prayers are therefore made, not to
him, but to the ghosts of parents, who are more accessible. This additional information
precisely illustrates my general theory, that the chief Being was not evolved out of ghosts,
but came to be neglected as ghost-worship arose. I am not aware that Dr. Bennett is a
missionary. Anthropologists distrust missionaries, and most of my evidence is from
laymen. If the anthropological study of religion is to advance, the high and usually
indolent chief Beings of savage religions must be carefully examined, not consigned to a
casual page or paragraph. I have found them most potent, and most moral, where
ghost-worship has not been evolved; least potent, or at all events most indifferent, where
ghost-worship is most in vogue. The inferences (granting the facts) are fatal to the current
anthropological theory.
The phrases 'Creator,' 'creative,' as applied to Anyambi, or Baiame, have been described,
by critics, as rhetorical, covertly introducing conceptions of which savages are incapable.
I have already shown that I only follow my authorities, and their translations of phrases in
various savage tongues. But the phrase 'eternal,' applied to Anyambi or Baiame, may be
misleading. I do not wish to assert that, if you talked to a savage about 'eternity,' he
would understand what you intend. I merely mean what Mariner says that the Tongans
mean as to the god Tá-li-y Tooboo. 'Of his origin they had no idea, rather supposing him
to be eternal.' The savage theologians assert no beginning for such beings (as a rule), and
no end, except where Unkulunkulu is by some Zulus thought to be dead, and where the
Wiraijuris declare that their Darumulun (not supreme) was 'destroyed' by Baiame. I do
not wish to credit savages with thoughts more abstract than they possess. But that their
thought can be abstract is proved, even in the case of the absolutely 'primitive Arunta,' by
their myth of the _Ungambikula_, 'a word which means "out of nothing," or
"self-existing,"' say Messrs. Spencer and Gillen.[6] Once more, I find that I have spoken
of some savage Beings as 'omnipresent' and 'omnipotent.' But I have pointed out that this
is only a modern metaphysical rendering of the actual words attributed to the savage: 'He
can go everywhere, and do everything.' As to the phrase, also used, that Baiame, for
example, 'makes for righteousness,' I mean that he sanctions the morality of his people;
for instance, sanctions veracity and unselfishness, as Mr. Howitt distinctly avers. These
are examples of 'righteousness' in conduct. I do not mean that these virtues were
impressed on savages in some supernatural way, as a critic has daringly averred that I do.
The strong reaction of some early men against the cosmical process by which 'the
weakest goes to the wall,' is, indeed, a curious moral phenomenon, and deserves the
attention of moralists. But I