Chapter XII: Sir John Lubbock on Tradition (1)

DE MAISTRE'S VIEW.[234]

"We have little knowledge of the times which preceded the
Deluge.... A single consideration interests us, and it must
never be lost sight of, and that is, that chastisements are ever
proportioned to crimes, and crimes always proportioned to the
knowledge of the criminal; in such sort that the Deluge supposes
unheard-of crimes, and that these crimes suppose a knowledge
infinitely transcending that which we possess.... This knowledge,
freed from the evil which had rendered it so noxious, survived in
the first family the destruction of the human race. We are blinded
as to the nature and advance of science by a gross sophism which
has fascinated every eye; it is to judge of times when men saw
effects in their causes by those in which men painfully ascend from
effects to causes, in which they are only concerned with effects,
in which they say it is useless to occupy themselves with causes,
and in which they do not know what constitutes a cause. They never
cease repeating--'Think of the time that has been required to know
such and such a thing.' What inconceivable blindness! A moment only
was required. If man would know the cause of a single phenomenon of
nature, he would probably comprehend all the rest. We are unwilling
to see that truths, the most difficult to discover, are very easy
to understand.... 'These things,' as Plato says, 'are perfectly
and easily learned if any one teaches them, [Greek: ei didaskoi
tis]; but,' he adds, 'no one will teach them us, unless, indeed,
God shows him the road, [Greek: all oud an didaxeien ei mê Theos
yphêgoito].' 'I doubt not,' said Hippocrates, 'that the arts were
in the first instance favours ([Greek: theôn charitas]) granted to
men by the gods.'... Listen to sage antiquity in its account of the
first men: it will tell you that they were marvellous men, and that
beings of a superior order deigned to favour them with the most
precious communications. On this point there is no disagreement,
... reason, revelation, all human tradition make up a demonstration
which the mouth only can contradict. Not only, then, did mankind
commence with science, but with a science different from ours, and
superior to ours.... No one knows to what epoch remounts, I do not
say the early commencements of society, but the great institutions,
the profound knowledge, and the most magnificent monuments of
human industry and human power.... Asia, having been the theatre
of the greatest marvels, it is not astonishing that its people
should have preserved a leaning to the marvellous stronger than
what is natural to man in general, and than each one recognises in
himself individually. Hence it comes that they have always shown
so little taste and talent for our science of _conclusions_. One
would say rather that they recalled something of primitive science
and of the era of intuition. Would the enchained eagle ask for a
balloon to raise himself into the air? No, he would demand only
that his fetters should be broken. And who knows if these people
are not destined yet to contemplate sights which will be refused
to the cavilling genius of Europe? However this may be, observe,
I pray you, that it is impossible to think of modern art without
seeing it constantly environed with all the contrivances of the
intellect and all the methods of art.... On the contrary. So far as
it is possible to discover the science of primitive times at such
an enormous distance, we see it always free and isolated, flying
rather than marching, and presenting in all its characteristics
something of the ærial and supernatural.[235]... But then comes
the corollary.... If all men descend from the three couples who
repeopled the universe, and if the human race commenced with
knowledge, the savage cannot be more, as I have said to you, than
a branch detached from the social tree.... Now, what matter does
it make at what epoch such and such a branch was separated from
the tree? It suffices that it is detached: no doubt as to its
degradation; and I venture to say no doubt as to the cause of
degradation, which can only have been some crime. A chief of a
nation having altered the principle of morality in his household
by one of those prevarications which, so far as we can judge, are
no longer possible in the actual state of things, because happily
our knowledge is no longer such as to allow us to become culpable
in this degree; this chief of a nation, I say, transmits the curse
to his posterity; and every constant force being accelerating
in its nature, this degradation, weighing incessantly upon his
descendants, has ended in making them what we call _savages_. Two
causes extremely different have thrown a deceptive cloud over the
lamentable state of savages: the one of ancient date, the other
belonging to our century.... One cannot for an instant regard
the savage without reading the curse written, I do not say only
in his soul, but even in the exterior form of his body. He is an
infant, robust, yet deformed and ferocious, in whom the flame of
intelligence no longer throws more than a lurid and intermittent
glare.... I cannot abandon this subject without suggesting an
important observation: The barbarian who is intermediate between
the civilised man and the savage, has been and may be again
civilised by some sort of religion; but the savage, properly so
called, has never been so except by Christianity. It is a prodigy
of the first order, a species of redemption, exclusively reserved
to the true priesthood.[236]... For the rest, we must not confound
the _savage_ with the _barbarian_.

[234] I need not remind my reader that these speculations of De
Maistre anticipated by many years the analogous, though at the
same time independent, conclusions of Archbishop Whately, in
his lecture "On the Origin of Civilisation," published in 1854.

[235] "We ought then to recognise that the state of civilisation and
of science is, in a certain sense, the natural and primitive
state of man. Thus, all oriental traditions commenced with
a state of perfection and light, and, I repeat it, of
supernatural light; and Greece--lying Greece, which 'has dared
everything in history'--renders homage to this truth, in
placing its Golden Age at the beginning of things. It is no
less remarkable that it does not attribute to the following
ages, even to the iron age, the state of savagery, so that all
that it has told us of those primitive men living on acorns,
&c., puts it _in contradiction with itself_, and can only have
reference to particular cases, _i.e._ to some races degraded,
and then reclaimed to a state of nature, which is a state of
civilisation."--_De Maistre's "Soirées de St Petersbourg"_ i.
_Deux: Entretien_, p. 98.

[236] I consider that this remark has been fully substantiated in
Marshall's "Christian Missions."

"No language could possibly have been invented, either by a single
man, who could not have extorted obedience, or by many who would
not have made themselves understood to each other.... But I would
wish, before concluding this subject, to recommend to your notice
an observation which has always struck me. Whence comes it that in
the primitive language of every ancient people, we find words which
necessarily suppose a knowledge foreign to these people? Whence,
for instance, have the Greeks, three thousand years ago at least,
found the epithet 'physizoos' (giving or possessing life), which
Homer sometimes gives to the earth?.... Where have they taken the
still more singular epithet of 'philomate' (liking or thirsting for
blood), given to this same earth in a tragedy? (Euripides, Phoen.
v. 179). Æschylus had alluded before 'to the earth drinking the
blood of the two rival brothers, the one slain by the other.'[237]
Humboldt ('Monum. des Peuples Indigènes de l'Amerique,' Paris,
1816) has said: 'Many idioms which at present belong only to
barbarous nations seem to be the remains of rich and flexible
languages, which indicate a high culture.... But tell me, I pray
you, how it entered the heads of the ancient Latins, at a time when
they were only acquainted with the arts of war and of tillage, to
express by the same word the idea of prayer and of punishment? Who
taught them to call fever the "purifier," or the "expiator"?'[238]
Would not one say that there was here a judgment, a veritable
knowledge of the cause, by virtue of which the people affirmed the
name so justly? But do you believe that these sorts of judgments
could possibly have belonged to a time when they scarcely knew
how to write, when the Dictator dug his garden, and in which they
composed verses which Varro and Cicero no longer understood?... The
Greeks had preserved some obscure traditions in this regard--[Mr
Gladstone has shown them to be neither few nor obscure],--and who
knows if Homer does not attest the same truth, perhaps without
knowing it, when he speaks of certain men and certain things 'which
the gods called after one manner, and men after another?'"--_Count
Joseph de Maistre, "Soirées de St Petersbourg,"_ i. _Deux:
Entretien._[239]

[237] Compare with Gainet, i. 92, 93.

[238] "Now it is clear that the train of thought which leads from
purification to penance, or from purification to punishment,
reveals a moral and even a religious sentiment in the
conception and naming of poena, and it shows us that in
the very infancy of criminal justice punishment was looked
upon (Mr Max Müller is speaking with reference to what I may
call briefly the Sanscrit epoch) not simply a retribution or
revenge, but as a correction, as a removal of guilt. We do not
feel the presence of these early thoughts when we speak of
corporal punishment or castigation; yet _castigation_ too was
originally chastening, from '_castus_,' pure; and 'incestum'
was impurity or sin, which, according to Roman law, the
priests had to make good, or to punish by a 'supplicium,' or
supplication or prostration before the gods."

[239] Compare with Max Müller, "Chips," ii. 256.

Against this view of De Maistre, which I consider to be indirectly sustained by the testimony of all antiquity, stands the theory of Sir John Lubbock. There is the constant historical tradition and testimony of the human race on one side, and there is the history of "Pre-historic Times" on the other. Nevertheless, I venture to say, that the author of "Pre-historic Times" only takes up with man at the point where De Maistre leaves him.

Of course I do not seek to detach Sir John Lubbock from the evidence he has collected; neither do I forget that he is the representative of an opinion and a school; at any rate, that there is an opinion of which he is the most conspicuous exponent.

So far as my limited acquaintance with the special subjects with which Sir John Lubbock deals extends (and with these I am only indirectly concerned), he appears perfectly straightforward and candid; and, moreover, I must acknowledge my obligations to him, for he has written with remarkable breadth and ability; and it is with the aid of the interesting matter which he has accumulated,[240] expressly in disparagement of tradition, that I venture to undertake to reinstate it in honour.

[240] _Vide_ chapter on Savage Life in "Pre-historic Times."

Neither do I wish to ignore that Sir John Lubbock's main argument is the geological argument derived from the discovery of the fossils and implements in the drift. But on this point I beg to be allowed to say a word in protest.

As a geologist Sir John Lubbock may be entitled to rely mainly upon the geological evidence of a palæolithic age;[241] but as an ethnologist dealing with history and writing on the subject of tradition, his argument, however incontrovertible he may deem it, sinks to the second rank; and secondary I shall take the liberty of considering it. On the same grounds, though I think with more reason, that Sir J. Lubbock seeks to be relieved from "the embarrassing interference of tradition" ("Pre-historic Times," p. 336), I protest, when tradition is the subject-matter of the discussion, against a geological argument being brought to take the ground from under our feet!

[241] It may perhaps be doubtful to what extent Sir J. Lubbock
maintains his theory of a Stone Age; although Sir John
formally excludes China and Japan from the argument, he
nevertheless appears to me to assume the existence of
universal transitional periods through which the human race
necessarily passed. "It would appear that pre-historic
archæology may be divided into four great epochs. Firstly,
that of the Drift: when man shared the possession of Europe
with the mammoth, &c. This we may call the 'palæolithic
period.' Secondly, the later or polished Stone Age; a period,
&c. Thirdly, the Bronze Age, &c. Fourthly, the Iron Age." Sir
John adds, certainly--"In order to prevent misapprehension,
it may be well to state at once, that for the present I only
apply this classification to Europe, though in all probability
it might be extended also to the neighbouring parts of Asia
and Africa. As regards other civilised countries, China
and Japan for instance, we as yet know nothing of their
pre-historic archæology. [I should rather say, as we as
yet have no reason to suppose that they have ever lost the
knowledge of metals.] It is evident also that some nations,
such as the Fuegians, Andamaners, &c., are _even now_ only
in an age of stone. But even in this limited sense, the
above classification has not met with general acceptance;
there _are still some_ archæologists who believe that the
arms and implements--stone, bronze, and iron--were used
contemporaneously."--_Pre-historic Times_, pp. 2, 3. I think
that the concluding sentence makes it quite clear that Sir
John assumes the existence of universal progressive periods
as above. In any case it may be proved in this way. Sir John
argues upon the hypothesis of the unity of the human race; and
I also think that he will not refuse the unbroken testimony
to the fact of the civilisation of Europe from Asia. Either,
then, the _first_ colonisation took place when Asia was in the
state of the "Drift," or in the "later polished Stone Age," or
else the migration left Asia with the knowledge of bronze or
iron. On the latter supposition the argument I contend for is
conceded, and original civilisation and subsequent degeneracy
is established. To escape this alternative the universality of
a Stone Age in Asia as well as in Europe, must be proved or
assumed. This assumption I maintain is essential to Sir John's
argument.

In the first place, I beg to urge that if Sir J. Lubbuck's argument be well founded, Professor Rawlinson's reconstruction of Assyrian history cannot be true. Now I assume that the one order of facts is as well established as the other.

If Professor Rawlinson takes back Assyrian history and corroborates history and tradition by the evidence of recent excavations to B.C. 2234, identifies the Erech of Scripture with the Huruk of the cuneiform tablets and the modern Urka; similarly identifies the other three cities of Nimrod; and, finally, identifies Nimrod himself as Bil-Nipru; and if, further, bronze implements are found (Rawlinson, i. 101, 123, 211), along with flint doubtless (but this was common throughout the bronze age, as Sir John himself admits), at an early period;--and bronze, though comparatively rare, yet exists among the very early Assyrian remains--there seems no good reason to suppose that the knowledge of metals, which we know (Gen. iv. 22) to have existed before the Deluge, and which the construction of the ark presupposes, was ever lost.

A stone age, exclusive of metals, common to the whole world and to all mankind, is therefore an untenable hypothesis according to the testimony of history. If it existed anywhere it must have been only partially, locally, and contemporaneously with this traditional knowledge of metals, which seems to be historically proved.[242] I may at least be permitted to believe in the accuracy of Professor Rawlinson's conclusions, and to regard them as the verdict of history: and if the historical arguments so pronounce, why should the geological or palæontological argument override it? Is not history supreme on its own ground--and if Scripture is always found in perfect consistency with history, is it not as much as in strictness we should have a right to expect? "Tradidit mundum disputationi eorum" (Eccles. iii. 11).

[242] Wilson ("Archæologia of Scotland," 360) says, "But after all
it is to Asia we are forced to return for the _true source
of nearly all our primitive arts_, nor will the canons of
archæology be established on a safe foundation till the
antiquities of that older continent have been explored and
classified." Not only bronze but iron has been found in the
East in use at an early period (_vide_ Layard, "Nineveh and
Babylon," 178-9, 194). At Nimroud, Dr Percy (_id._ 670) says
the iron was used to economise the bronze; if so it must have
been cheaper, and therefore probably more abundant; and he
is of opinion that "iron was more extensively used by the
ancients than seems to be generally admitted." Philology seems
also to establish an early common knowledge, and subsequent
tradition of the use of metals. Mr Max Müller (ii. 45) says,
"That the value and usefulness of some of the metals was known
before the separation of the Aryan race can be proved only
by a few words; for the names of most of the metals differ
in different countries. Yet there can be no doubt that iron
was known, and its value appreciated, whether for defence
or attack. Whatever its old Aryan name may have been, it is
clear that Sanscrit 'ayas,' Latin 'ahes,' in 'ahencus' and
even the contracted form 'æs, æris'; the Gothic 'ais,' the
old German 'er,' and the English iron, are names cast in the
same mould, and only slightly corroded even now by the rust of
so many centuries." The Swedish Gothic race had no tradition
but of weapons of iron. (Professor Nillson's "Stone Age," p.
192.) I find in Captain Cook's Voyages that in Otaheite their
word for iron is "eure-eure." Germans (_apud_ Tacitus) called
their iron lances "framea," which has great resemblance to
_ferrum_. (_Vide_ Wilson, 195.) The following passage from
Wilson's "Archæologia" seems to prove this common terminology
still more extensively--"The Saxon 'gold' differs not more
essentially from the Greek '[Greek: chrysos]' than from the
Latin 'aurum'; iron from '[Greek: sideros]' or 'ferrum';
_but_ when we come to examine the Celtic names of the metals
it is otherwise. The Celtic terms are: Gold: Gael, 'or,'
golden, 'orail'; Welsh, 'aur'; Latin, ' aurum.' Silver: Gael,
'airgiod,' made of silver, 'airgiodach'; Welsh, 'ariant';
Latin, 'argentum'--derived in the Celtic from 'arg,' white, or
milk, like the Greek '[Greek: argos],' whence they also formed
their '[Greek: argyros].' Now, is it improbable that the Latin
'ferrum' and the English 'iron' spring indirectly from the
same Celtic root? Gael, '_iarunn_'; Welsh, '_haiarn_'; Saxon,
iron; Danish, 'iern'; Spanish, 'hierro,' which last furnishes
no remote approximation to 'ferrum.' Nor with the older metals
is it greatly different, as bronze, Gael, 'umha' or '_prais_';
Welsh, 'pres,' whence our English 'brass,' a name bearing no
very indistinct resemblance to the Roman 'æs.' Lead in like
manner has its peculiar Gaelic name 'luaidha,' like the Saxon
'læd' (lead), while the Welsh 'plwm' closely approximates to
the Latin 'plumbum.' It may undoubtedly be argued that the
Latin is the root instead of the offshoot of these Celtic
names, but the entire archæological proofs are opposed to this
idea," p. 350.

Sir J. Lubbock, "Pre-historic Times" (p. 372) says, "The tools
of the Tahitians when first discovered were made of stone,
bone, shell, or wood. Of metal they had no idea. When they
first obtained nails they mistook them for the young shoots of
some very hard wood, and hoping that life might not be quite
extinct, planted a number of them carefully in their gardens."

Captain Wallis, however, speaking of the islands within the
Polynesian group, remarks "as an extraordinary circumstance
that although no sort of metal was seen on any of the lately
discovered islands, yet the nations were no sooner possessed
of a piece of _iron_, than they began to _sharpen it_, but did
not treat copper or brass in the same manner."--"Voyages of
English Navigators round the World," iii. 108.

Would not these different appreciations of iron and brass be
accounted for if we suppose iron to be the _last_ metal they
had been traditionally acquainted with? iron being the more
common and inexpensive metal.

Now, secondly, as it happens that bronze is only a combination of copper and tin in certain proportions, and as neither existed on the spot (in the Mesopotamian valley), it is a curious question how they could have hit upon the discovery through actual experiment. Tin, for instance, is only found in Cornwall, Banca (between Sumatra and Borneo), Spain, Saxony, and Siberia. Now, how did it enter the heads of even these wise Chaldæans to go to these distant countries in search of this metal unless they knew beforehand through tradition, that if procured along with copper it would produce the useful amalgam they sought? True, it might have been brought to them through commerce, but in that case there must have been some other race more advanced in civilisation than themselves. If the Phoenicians, much the same argument will recur. If some race in the countries where tin was procured, where is it now? If it exists it must be represented by some race at present or historically known to have been in a state of barbarism. This, however, at this stage of the argument, would be too precipitate an admission of degeneracy!

Now, in a certain modified sense, I should be quite prepared to admit a stone age. Nothing more probable than that in the dispersion certain families would have taken only what came readiest to hand. Those who made long marches, and came to countries where minerals were scarce, would have been in the way of losing the knowledge of metals altogether, except in so far as they preserved the tradition of them; and this would much depend upon how far they preserved other traditions.[243] Some instance should be given us--and as there are savages who are still using nothing but flint, there is still the chance--of some set of savages who have spontaneously hit upon the plan of fusing different metals, or even of smelting metals which were under their eye? Certainly not our supposed flint ancestors, who, as Professor Nillson and Sir J. Lubbock agree, must have got their knowledge of bronze from Asia: Sir J. Lubbock inclining to an Indo-European, Professor Nillson to a Phoenician "origin of the bronze age civilisation." ("Pre-historic Times," p. 49.) All this perfectly coincides with the view I have indicated, that the contrast arose through the divergence of the lines of the dispersion, leading the tribes to varied fortunes, some losing and others retaining the tradition; and those who retained it eventually communicating it to those who had lapsed. But then there are those unfortunate Bashkirs, who, Professor Nillson tells us, are still in their stone age, and who have remained Bashkirs since Herodotus described them as such 2300 years ago. As they have resisted the contact of civilisation so long, one can only watch with careful curiosity the transitionary process by which they will pass by internal development from their stone to their bronze age.[244]

[243] "Mr Vaux of the British Museum has added the following
interesting note on the metallurgy of the ancients. 1st, The
earliest form of metal work appears to have been employed
in the ornamentation of sacred vessels for temples, &c....
Occasionally the floor or foundation of some temples was of
brass: thus [Greek: chalkeos oudos] (Soph. OEd. Col.),
perhaps like the room at Delphi called [Greek: laïnos oudos],
itself also a treasury."--Layard, "Nineveh and Babylon," p.
673.

Boulanger, "L'antiquité dévoilée par ses usage," (iii. 359),
says, "Ce sont les mystères qui out tiré les hommes de la vie
sauvage pour les ramener à la vie sociale et policée. Ces
mystères étoient un composé de cérémonies religieuses ...
_leur origine remonte_ au temps des héros et des demi-dieux."

[244] "Of all the different phases of civilisation, those which a
nation _must pass_ before it attains the highest grade of
development, the first rude state is the most enduring and the
most difficult to get over."--Professor Nillson's "Stone Age,"
191.

"The evidence of the transition from a stone to a bronze
age among the Egyptians _appears merely to be_ the use of
a stone knife found in their catacombs, and used for the
_sacred_ incision into the dead, although they used bronze and
iron knives for ordinary purposes, and whereas the _stone_
knife was used by the early _Hebrews_ in circumcision,
and by the priests of Montezuma as instruments of human
sacrifice."--Wilson's "Archæologia," p. 29.

I must now revert to what I at present wish to limit the discussion, viz. Sir J. Lubbock's views on the subject of tradition.

Sir John says that history can throw no light upon the question of the stone and bronze age, "because the use of metals has in all cases preceded that of writing." I should like to know whether Sir John is prepared to adhere to this "dictum" under all circumstances, inasmuch as, if he does, he must allow me to trace the use of metals in Assyria even beyond the date at which Professor Rawlinson seems actually to have found evidence of their use; for (pp. 80, 198) "in the ruins of Warka, the ancient Huruk or Erech" (the city of Nimrod) we find inscriptions on bricks of the date of the reign of Urukh or Orchamus, who, according to classical tradition, was the seventh in succession from Bel or Nimrod; which tradition, says Rawlinson (p. 189), "accords very curiously with the information derived from the inscriptions." There is nothing to indicate that the bricks here discovered were the first bricks ever _inscribed_; on the contrary, wherever we find bricks and metals there will be a _prima facie_ presumption as to their previous use.[245] Only upon Sir John Lubbock's "dictum," finding evidence of writing at this date, we must necessarily conclude that the use of metals preceded it. This would bring us well up the seven reigns, and into close contact with the time of Nimrod.

[245] It amounts to this, that we are requested first of all to
discard and absolutely exclude all that we do know through
direct historical evidence of our origin, and to determine it
merely by scientific induction.

Sir J. Lubbock says in his introduction to Professor Nillson's
"Stone Age" (which is a summary of the whole question), "I
have purposely avoided all reference to history, all use of
historical data, because I have been _particularly anxious
to show_ that in archæology we can arrive at definite and
satisfactory conclusions, on independent grounds, without any
assistance from history; consequently regarding times before
writing was invented, and therefore before written history had
commenced" (p. xlii.) Compare with _supra_, ch. vii.

"Nor," says Sir J. Lubbock (p. 335), "will tradition supply the
place of history. At best it is untrustworthy and shortlived. Thus
in 1770 the New Zealanders had no recollection of Tasman's visit.
Yet this took place in 1643, less than one hundred and thirty
years before, and must have been to them an event of the greatest
possible importance and interest.... I do not mean to say that
tradition would never preserve for a long period the memory of any
remarkable event. The above-mentioned facts (De Soto's expedition
is also referred to) prove only that it will not always do so; but
it is unnecessary for us to discuss this question, as there is in
Europe no tradition of the Stone Age, and when arrow-heads are
found the ignorant peasantry refer them to the elves or fairies;
stone axes are regarded as thunderbolts, and are used not only in
Europe but also in various other parts of the world for magical
purposes" (p. 336).

_"Relieved" then_ "from _the embarrassing interference of
tradition_, the archæologist can only follow the methods which have
been so successfully pursued in geology" (p. 336).[246]

This is partly a limitation of the question to oral tradition, and partly an anticipated denial of what I shall now venture to assert, namely, that we can only look for the savages' traditions of things known to them before they were savages, religious impressions which have not been effaced from their minds, legends connected with their race, facts which have determined their destiny. The very characteristic of the savage is that he lives only for the present; that he has little memory for the past, and no forecast for the future; that his mind is stricken with a hopeless sterility and fixedness, so that he only seems to remember things that are bred in the bone, and the tradition of which he cannot divest himself.[247]

[246] "It must not be forgot to the honour of the Babylonians that
they are acknowledged, by all antiquity, to have been the
first who made use of writing in their public and judicial
acts, but at what period it is not known."--Goguet, "Origin of
Laws," i. 45.

Diodorus, however, says of the Egyptians (_vide_ p. 48),
"_Menes_ without doubt has been esteemed the first legislator
of Egypt, _because_ he was the first who put his _laws
in writing_. For before him Vulcan, Helius, and Osiris
(_vide ante_, p. 189) had given laws to
Egypt."--Diod. l. 1, 17-18.

But also it must be recollected that the copper mines of Egypt
were worked from the earliest period.

[247] But there are savages and savages; or rather there are savages
who are strictly such, and savages who have still the germ of
life and who are more properly distinguished as barbarians.
_Vide ante_, p. 285, De Maistre's definition of the
barbarian.

And so the ignorant peasantry when these flints were first dug up, although they had "no tradition," rushed instinctively upon these hatchets and considered them magical, apparently on no better grounds than that they had belonged to a former race of men whom they associated with elves and fairies. Was not this their way of saying with Cicero, "Antiquitas proxime accedit ad deos."[248]

[248] I find curious testimony to the belief in M. Maupertius'
(Pinkerton, i. 252-4) account of an expedition of thirty
leagues which he was induced to make into the interior of
Lapland, by the accounts which he had received of a monument
which the Laplanders "looked upon as the wonder of their
country, and in which they conceived was _contained the
knowledge of everything_ of which they were ignorant." In
the end a monument was found bearing on it the appearance of
great antiquity, and an inscription which M. Celsius, his
companion ("very well acquainted with the Runic"), could
not read. M. Maupertius indeed says, "If the tradition of
the country be consulted, all the Laplanders assure us that
they are characters of great antiquity, containing valuable
secrets; but what can one believe in regard to antiquity from
those people who do not even know their own age, and who
for the greater part are ignorant who were their mothers."
Without supposing that the mysterious stone actually concealed
any valuable and recondite knowledge, I am still struck
by this attestation to the belief that antiquity shrouded
such secrets; and if, which does not altogether accord with
other accounts, the Lapps are as ignorant as they are here
represented, then it would seem to be true that when mankind
lose the knowledge of everything else, they still retain
the tradition of their loss and the knowledge of their
degradation. Concerning the superstitious veneration for stone
arrow-heads very generally diffused, _vide_ Mr E. T. Stevens'
"Flint Chips" (Salisbury, 1870, p. 89.)

And so far from tradition supplying us with no clue to solve the problem of the stone age, does it not in this way suggest a very decided though an antagonistic view to that of Sir John Lubbock. The superstitious regard of the peasantry for these newly found relics--which I presume came under Sir John's own observation when exploring the northern coast-finds--is really very curious, because it shows that their ideas and feelings in these matters were, after the lapse of at any rate a thousand years, identical with those of their ancestors. In evidence of which I adduce the following passage from Professor Nillson, having reference to the legend of the "guse arrows" or "Orvar Odd's saga":--

"This ancient romance shows very clearly that at the time when
it was composed, neither arrows, nor other weapons of stone were
in common use as weapons, but _that even then_ the opinion was
_generally current_ that these stone weapons, which owed their
existence to the dwarf race skilled in sorcery, were endowed with a
magic power against witches and witchcraft which no other weapons
possessed."--Professor Nillson, "Stone Age," p. 199.

But this suggests the further reflection, whether this stone age among certain tribes was not as much in rejection as in ignorance of metals. Professor Nillson (p. 97, 98) shows that flint was used for _sacred_ sacrificial purposes by the Jews, Egyptians, Phoenicians, and Latins, long after they were acquainted with weapons of metal. Among these the traditional idea about flint, whatever it was, was kept in due subordination; but among tribes that had sunk into savagery it is conceivable that it may have become a superstition, and dominated.

I am not sure that we do not underrate the capacity for tradition among savages where it has once taken hold; still, if it had been a question of mere savages, at the first glance I should have been disposed to agree with Sir John Lubbock. But let us take the case of Tasman, which Sir John puts forward as a sort of crucial case, and which may be accepted as such, seeing that the New Zealanders may fairly claim to be regarded as "barbarians."[249]

[249] _Vide_ Sir George Grey's "Polynesian Mythology," p. xiii.;
F. A. Weld's (Governor of Western Australia) "Notes on New
Zealand," pp. 15, 60.

In the first place, I find the following in a note to "Cook's Voyages" (Smith, 1846):--"Mr Polack, in his 'Narrative of Travels and Adventures during a residence in New Zealand between the years 1831-37,' collected all the particulars relating to Cook's brush with the natives, 1769, on the spot."

Next, let us see what Cook says on the subject of Tasman ("Cook's Voyages," i. 164)--

"But the Indians still continued _near the ship_, rowing round many
times [hardly the most favourable conditions under which to recover
a tradition], conversing with Tupia [the Otaheitan interpreter]
chiefly concerning the traditions they had among them with respect
to the antiquities of their country. To this subject they were led
by the inquiries which Tupia had been directed to make, whether
they had ever seen such a vessel as ours, or had ever heard that
any such had been on their coast. These inquiries were all answered
in the negative, _so that_ tradition has preserved among them no
memorial of Tasman, though by an observation made this day we find
we are _only fifteen_ miles south of Murderers' Bay!"

Evidently the shrewd and gallant investigator himself was not satisfied with the cross-examination, for we find at p. 170--

"When we were under sail one old man, Topaa [a native], came on
board to take leave of us; and as we were still desirous of making
further inquiries whether any memory of Tasman had been preserved
among their people, Tupia was directed to ask him whether he had
ever heard that such a vessel as ours had before visited the
country. To this he replied in the negative; but said that _his
ancestors had told him_ there had once come to this place a _small_
vessel from a distant country called Ulimaroa, in which were _four_
men, who upon coming on shore were _all killed_. Upon being asked
where this distant land lay he pointed to the northward."

But what does Tasman himself say?--

"On the 17th December these savages began to grow a little bolder
and more familiar, insomuch that at last they ventured on board
the _Heemskirk_, in order to trade with those in the vessel. As
soon as I perceived it, being apprehensive that they might attempt
to surprise that ship, _I sent my shallop_, with seven men, to
put the people in the _Heemskirk_ on their guard, and to direct
them not to place any confidence in these people. My seven men,
being _without arms_, were attacked by these savages, who _killed
three_ of the seven, and _forced_ the other _four_ to swim for
their lives; _which_ occasioned my giving that place the name of
the Bay of Murderers.[250] Our ship's company _would undoubtedly_
have taken a severe revenge if the rough weather had not prevented
them."--_Tasman's Voyage of Discovery, Pinkerton_, xi.

[250] This was a recognition on Tasman's part that there was a
violation of the law of nations, which he evidently considered
ought to have been recognised by these people. For killing
unarmed men he does not stigmatise them as savages, but
as murderers, which name has clung to the spot and to the
transaction to this day.

Now, I submit that this old man Topaa's recollection of the tradition of an event which occurred one hundred and thirty years before his time, was much more perfect than Captain Cook's, Sir Joseph Banks', Dr Solander's, and Sir J. Lubbock's recollection of the same event from geographical records.

Emboldened by this instance of the fallibility of scientific men, I now proceed to question the truth of the two following propositions of Sir J. Lubbock, after which I shall ask to be allowed to enunciate a proposition of my own.

First, Sir J. Lubbock says: "It has been asserted over and over again that there is no race of man so degraded as to be entirely without a religion--without some idea of the Deity. So far from this being true, the very reverse is the case" (p. 467).[251]

[251] I am aware that what I have opposed to Sir J. Lubbock is only
the contrary and not the contradictory of his proposition.
I find, however, that a very competent authority, Wilson,
"Archæology and Pre-historic Annals of Scotland," p. 42, says:
"No people, however rude or debased be their state, have yet
been met with so degraded to the level of the brutes as to
entertain no notion of a Supreme Being, or no anticipation
of a future state." "All polytheism is based on monotheism;
idolatry implies religious feeling."--_Bunsen's Egypt_, iv.
69. But in truth it was not a priest or a missionary who
first enunciated the contradictory of Sir John Lubbock's
proposition--it was Cicero. "Itaque ex tot generibus nullum
est animal, præter hominem, quod habeat notitiam aliquam dei:
ipsisque in hominibus nulla gens est, neque _tam immansueta_,
neque _tam fera_, quæ non _etiam si ignoret qualem habere deum
deceat_, tamen _habendum sciat_." De Legibus; i. 8.

Second, "It is a common opinion that savages are, as a general rule, only the miserable remnants of nations once more civilised; but although there are some well-established cases of national decay, there is no scientific evidence which would justify us in asserting that this is generally the case" (p. 337).

In opposition to the first proposition, I maintain that there is no race of men so degraded as to be without some vestige of religion.

And in opposition to the second, I assert that if they have a vestige of religion, and nothing else, they have still that which will convict them of degeneracy.

First, To say that a savage has no idea of the Deity, is to say merely that he is a savage; and it appears to me that this extinction of all knowledge of the Deity among a people, precisely marks the point where the barbarian lapses into the savage.

Taking the range of the authorities quoted by Sir J. Lubbock,[252] I find a great concurrence of testimony to the fact that there is some vestige of religion. One only--whose authority on any other point incidental to African travel I should regard as of the highest value--Captain Richard Burton, asserts without qualification, and in language sufficiently explicit, that "some of the tribes of the lake district of Central Africa admit neither God, nor angel, nor devil." Others assert the same negatively--they did not come upon any signs of religion, any external observances, any trace of ceremonial worship. For instance, it is said that the Tasmanians had no word for a Creator (p. 468, Lubbock), which need not excite surprise, as it is also said of them that they were incapable of forming any abstract ideas at all (p. 355, Lubbock). Again, in many of those cases where it is more or less roundly asserted that there is no vestige of religion, we find it plainly intimated that there is a belief in the devil, _e.g._ Lubbock, p. 469.

[252] I should not have considered it necessary to have entered so
elaborately into this argument, if I had previously read the
chapter on Animism in Mr Tylor's "Primitive Culture." The
instances, however, which follow will stand as supplementary.

"The Tonpinambas of Brazil had _no religion_, though if the name is
applied 'à des notions fantastiques d'êtres surnaturals et puissans
on ne sauroit nier qu'ils n'eussent une croyance religieuse et
_même une sorte_ de culte exterieur.'"--_Freycinet_, i. 153.

Now, although the devil may, and in many instances no doubt has,[253] made a special revelation of himself to his votaries, the ordinary channel of information concerning him is through tradition, and through the tradition of the fall of man.

[253] Sir J. Lubbock says (p. 370) of the Feegee islanders: "They
did not worship idols, but many of the priests seem to have
really thought that they had been in actual communication with
the Atona; and some of the early missionaries were inclined
to believe that Satan may have been permitted to practise a
deception upon them, in order to strengthen his power. However
extraordinary this may appear, the same was the case in
Tahiti."

But I ask further of those who dispute this, If savages are found with this fear of the supernatural world, after they have lost the idea of God, how do they get it? If not from tradition, then from reflection? But savages do not reason (Lubbock, p. 465). Moreover, at p. 470, Sir J. Lubbock says, what really brings us very nearly to agreement, "How, for instance, can a people who are unable to count their own fingers, possibly raise their minds so far as to admit even the rudiments of a religion?" This is said with reference to a previous allegation, "That those who assert that even the lowest savages believe in a Deity, affirm that which is entirely contrary to the evidence" (p. 470). But there is a great concurrence of evidence that "even the lowest savages" believe in the devil. Belief in the devil involves a realisation more or less obscure of the fallen angel, of the Spirit of Evil--and this for the savage who "cannot count his fingers" is as great an intellectual effort as would be, merely considered as an intellectual effort, a belief in the Deity. On any theory of growth or development how could he ("the lowest savage") have got the idea?

Several writers who are quoted, whilst they deny the existence of any notion of religion among a particular people, mention facts which are incompatible with that statement. I may also say, parenthetically, that to detect or elicit the sentiment of religion in others, one must have something of the sentiment in ourselves; _e.g._ there is the instance of Kolben (Lubbock, p. 469), "who, _in spite_ of the assertions of the natives themselves, _felt quite sure_ that certain dances _must be_ of a religious character, let the Hottentots say what they will." Now I must say there is great _à priori_ probability in the truth of Kolben's conviction, although he was probably led to it merely by the insight of his own mind. Let it be taken in connection with the following evidence in Washington Irving's "Life of Columbus," iii. 122-124:--

"The _dances_ to which the natives seemed so immoderately addicted,
and which had been _at first_ considered by the Spaniards mere
idle pastimes, were _found_ to be often _ceremonials of a serious
and mystic character_." Again--"Peter Martyn observes that they
performed these dances to the chant of certain metres and ballads
_handed down from_ generation to generation, in which were
rehearsed the deeds of their ancestors. Some of these ballads were
of a _sacred_ character, containing their _traditional_ notions of
theology, and the superstitions and fables which comprised their
religious creeds."

Pritchard, "Researches into Phys. Hist. of Man" (i. p. 205), quoting Oldendorp, and speaking of the African negroes, says:--"At the annual harvest feast, which _nearly all_ the nations of Guinea solemnise, thank-offerings are brought to the Deity. These festivals are days of rejoicing, which the negroes pass with feasting and dancing." _Vide_ also "Hist. of Indian Tribes of North America, 120 portraits from the Ind. Gal. in Depart. of War at Washington, by T. M'Kenney (late Ind. Dep. Wash.) and J. Hall of Cincinnati" (Philadelphia, 1837).

"Dancing is among the most prominent of the aboriginal
_ceremonies_; there is no tribe in which it is not practised. The
Indians have their _war_ dance and their _peace_ dance, their dance
of _mourning for the dead_, their _begging_ dance, their pipe
dance, their green-corn dance, and their Wabana (an offering to
the devil). Each of these is distinguished by some peculiarity ...
though to a stranger they appear much alike, except the last....
It is a ceremony and not a recreation, and is conducted with a
seriousness belonging to an important public duty."

At p. 437 (Lubbock) it is said, "Admiral Fitzroy never witnessed or heard of any act of a decidedly religious character among the Fuegians." Still, as Sir John admits, "some of the natives suppose that there is a great black man in the woods who knows everything, and cannot be escaped." If this is not the devil, it looks very like him. Again, p. 469, Mr Mathews says, speaking of the Fuegians, "he sometimes heard a great howling or lamentation about _sunrise_ in the morning; and upon asking Jemmy Button what occasioned the outcry, he could obtain no satisfactory answer; the boy only saying, 'people very sad, cry very much.'" Upon which Sir John remarks, "This appears so natural and sufficient an explanation, that why the outcry should be 'supposed to be devotional' I must confess myself unable to see" (469).

Now, if this was not their traditional notion and mode of prayer, degraded according to the measure of their degeneracy, the degeneracy is at least proved in another way, for, being still reasonable beings, they had, according to the account, congregated together to send up a lamentation, which, if it was not prayer, could be likened only to the moonlight howling of wolves. This mode of prayer resembles what Father Loyer and the missionary Oldendorp (Pritchard, i. 197) tells us of the negroes. Father Loyer "declares that they have a belief in a universally powerful Being, and to him they address prayers. Every morning after _they rise_ they go to the river side to wash, and throwing a handful of water on their head, or pouring sand with it to express their humility, they join their hands and then open them, whisper softly the word 'exsuvais.'" Oldendorp says (p. 202): "The negroes profess their dependence on the Deity, ... they pray _at the rising_ and setting of the sun,[254] on eating and drinking, and when they go to war." Compare also Helps' "Spanish Conquest in America," i. 285:--

"The worship of the Peruvians was not the mere worship of the
sun alone as of the most beautiful and powerful thing which they
beheld; but they had _also_ a worship of a far more elevated and
refined nature, addressed to Pachacamac, the soul of the universe,
_whom_ they hardly dared to name; and when they were obliged to
name this Being, they did so inclining the head and the whole body,
now _lifting_ up the eyes to heaven, now lowering them to the
ground, and _giving kisses in the air_. To Pachacamac they made
no temple and offered no sacrifices, but they adored him in their
hearts."[255]

[254] After all, is there not something in their mode of prayer
which recalls the language of Psalm cxl., "Dirigatur oratio
mea sicut incensum in conspectu tuo: _elevatio manuum mearum
sacrificium vespertinum_."

If the reader will refer to Bunsen's "Egypt," &c. vol. i.
p. 497, he will find "a man with uplifted arms" as the
ideographic sign (19) for "to praise, glorification," which
is in evidence not only that it was the natural but the
traditional mode.

[255] Garcilasso de la Vega's authority is so unimpeachable, and at
the same time his testimony is so unmistakable on this point,
that it will be as well to give his own words, as he was well
acquainted with the Peruvian traditions, through his mother,
who was one of the Yncas. He adds: "When the Indians were
asked who Pachacamac was, they replied that he it was who gave
life to the universe, and supported it; but that they knew him
not, for they had never _seen_ him, and that for this reason
they did not build temples to him, nor offer him sacrifices;
but that they worshipped him in their hearts (mentally),
and considered him to be an _unknown God_.... From this it
is clear, that these Indians considered him to be the maker
of all things." Hakluyt ed. of Garcil. de la Vega's "Royal
Commentaries of the Yncas," ed. C. Markham, 1869, i. 107. He
further remarks that, whereas they hesitated to pronounce the
name of Pachacamac, "they spoke of the sun on every occasion."

Compare the accounts we have of the Guanches. M. Pegot Ogier,
"The Fortunate Isles" (Canaries), 1871, says (p. 283), that
a comparison of the Chronicles of the Conquest shows that,
"far from being idolaters, the Guanches worshipped one God,
the Creator and Preserver of the world," and that (p. 282),
"in their worship, they _raised their hands_ to heaven, and
sacrificed on the mountains by pouring milk on the ground
from a _height_; their milk was carried in a sacred vase
called _ganigo_." The name of their god, "Achoron Achaman"
= "He who upholds the heaven and earth," and "Achuhuyahan
Achuhucanac" = "He who sustains every one," has resemblances
with "Pachacamac" = "Pacha," the earth; and "camac" participle
of "camani," "I create."--(C. Markham, Hakluyt ed. of Garcil.
de la Vega, i. 101.)

At p. 468 Sir John somewhat too roundly asserts that "Dr Hooker tells us that the Lepchas of Northern India have _no religion_."

Turning to Dr Hooker's "Himalayan Journal," I find (i. 135), "The Lepchas profess no religion, _though_ acknowledging the existence of good and bad spirits.... Both Lepchas and Limboos _had, before the_ introduction of Lama Boodhism from Tibet, many features in common with the natives of Arracan, especially in _their creed_, _sacrifices_, faith in omens, worship of many spirits, absence of idols, and of the doctrine of metempsychosis" (p. 140). We have already seen (_supra_, p. 224) that they had a very distinct tradition of the Deluge; indeed there is much in the account of them which reminds us of the primitive monotheism.

So, too, Sir John asserts, p. 469, "Once more Dr Hooker states that the Khasias, an Indian tribe, _had no religion_. Col. Yule, on the contrary, says that they have, but he admits that breaking hens' eggs is the principal part of their religious practice."

It is true that Dr Hooker says (ii. 276), "The Khasias are superstitious, but have no religion;" he adds, however, "_like the Lepchas, they believe in a Supreme Being_, and in deities of the grove, cave, and stream." It seems, however, that the only outward manifestation of their religion is in "breaking hens' eggs"! What can be more ludicrous! yet here, too, would seem to be a vestige of primitive tradition. We know (_vide_ Wilkinson, "Ancient Egyptians," second series) how primitive truth was concealed under material symbols. Gainet (i. 127) also says, "Even upon the hypothesis that these fragments of the Egyptian cosmogony were lost, one of the hieroglyphics which this people has left us would suffice to convince us of their belief in a Creator. It is the image of the god Kneph, whom they represent with _an egg_ in his mouth; _this egg_ being the natural image of the world taking its birth from this divinity." Again, p. 115, "In the mysteries of Bacchus[256] the dogma of the Creation was proposed under the emblem of that celebrated _egg_, of which the poets have so often spoken, which contained the germ of all things." "_The egg_," says Plutarch, "is consecrated to the sacred ceremonies of Bacchus, as a representation of the Author of nature who produces and comprehends all things in himself." There is a passage in Athenagoras to the same effect.

[256] Compare with pp. 156, 214.