priest, and as such exercises great political power, however low his origin. When he dies, the god is unrepresented until some one begins to go about in a wild, ecstatic, possessed" manner, with sufficient pertinacity eventually to convince the community, which at first laughs at him.1 In Guiana," the office of peaiman was formerly hereditary. If there was no son to succeed the father, the latter chose and trained some boy from the tribe-one with an epileptic tendency being preferred," and "the peaiman, when in the midst of his frantic performance, seems as though overcome by some fearful fit, or in the extreme of raving madness." 2 The Tinneh "have no regular order of Shamáns; anyone when the spirit moves him may take upon him their duties and pretensions." 3 Among the Thlinkeets, shamánism is mostly hereditary, but the son must be initiated, i.e. he must fast, kill an otter and keep the skin (it not being lawful to kill an otter save for this purpose), and his hair is never cut.* Amongst the Clallams the initiation takes the form of a pretended death and resurrection, which elsewhere is the condition of initiation into various mysteries: the candidate fasts till apparently dead, his body is plunged into a river (this they call "washing the dead "), he then runs off into a wood, and reappears equipped in the insignia of a medicine man.5 Where the priesthood forms a corporation, as for instance in the Sandwich Islands, where "the priests appear to be a distinct order or body of men, living for the most part together," some form of initiation is always required. The priests of the Batta tatoo themselves with the figures of beasts and birds, and eat buffalo flesh during the ceremony.7 A Roman Catholic missionary among the Suahili, describing the initiation of candidates for the priesthood, observes that a leading feature in the ceremony consisted in the candidate's eating a sacramental meal-a fact which, as the sacramental meal is the essence of every form of early religion, is not surprising, but which to him appeared "a satanic imitation. of the Communion." He could not, however, smile contempt 1 Bastian, Allerlei, i. 31. 3 Bancroft, Native Races, iii. 142. Mariner, Tonga Islands, ii. 127. 2 Im Thurn, Indians of Guiana, 334. • Ibid. 145. at the parody, the solemnity with which the proceedings were conducted was too awe-inspiring: a victim was slain, the blood sprinkled on the candidate, and the flesh eaten, before the morning dawn, by the priests and those who had previously partaken of a similar meal.1 Finally, the selection of a candidate may be made, as in the case of the Dalai Lama, by lot: this also is a direct expression of the divine will. Divination by water, i.e. by consultation of the waterspirit, we have already explained. Here we have only to add that our word "lot" is etymologically identical with κλádos, twig, small stick, from which comes the Greek word for "lot," λĥpos; and that the use of pieces of wood for drawing lots is due to the presence of the tree-god therein. 3 This review of the modes in which admission to the priesthood is obtained lends no countenance to the theory that it is by being a magician that a man becomes a priest or king or king-priest. On the contrary, it is inspiration by the god of the community which makes a man a priest; and this conclusion is confirmed by the fact that a clear line is drawn between priest and magician. In those who believe that the idol is an elaborated fetish, it is consistent to maintain that the priest is a successful sorcerer; but we have seen reason to reject the former idea, and the latter is not borne out by the facts of the case. Those facts are sometimes obscured by the European traveller's habit of applying the terms conjurer, witch, sorcerer to any native who professes to exercise supernatural powers, without inquiring as to the use or source of those powers, or even when he knows that the conjurer is the priest of the community, as, e.g., when it is said that "the jugglers perform the offices not only of soothsayers and physicians but also of priests." Fortunately, however, it is quite clear on examination in most cases that there are two distinct classes of men comprised under these undiscriminating epithets, one bringing about disease and death in the community, the other counteracting the machinations of the first class, and also bringing positive blessings to 1 Bastian, Allerlei, i. 142. 3 Schrader, Prehistoric Antiquities, 279. 2 Supra, p. 229. the community in the way of good crops, etc. This distinction is generally recognised by travellers in Africa, when they speak of the witch and the witch-finder; and amongst the Indians of Guiana we find kenaimas who cause mischief, and the peaiman who cures it: "it is almost impossible to overestimate the dreadful sense of constant and unavoidable danger in which the Indian would live, were it not for his trust in the protecting power of the peaiman."1 Further examination shows that the one class derive their powers from the god who protects and is worshipped by the community, the other from spirits who are bound by no ties of fellowship or goodwill to the community. Thus the Australian "sorcerer" is universally believed to get his powers from the good spirit who lives beyond the sky.2 In the Pelew Islands, besides the tribal and family gods, there are countless other spirits of earth, mountains, woods, and streams, all of which are mischievous, and of which the islanders are in daily fear. It is with these spirits that the sorcerers deal. The priests live generally in peace with the sorcerers, but the attitude of the community is shown by the fact that sorcerers are liable to be put to death for exercising their powers. The fact that it is in the interests of the community that the powers derived from the tribal god are exercised, is shown by the frequent combination of the office of chief and priest in one person: amongst the Murrings (Australia) the "sorcerer" is respected highly, is chief at once and "sorcerer.' Amongst the Damaras "the chiefs of tribes have some kind of sacerdotal authority-more so than a military one. They bless the oxen.' "5 As for the Haidahs, the chief is the principal sorcerer," and "indeed possesses but little authority save from his connection with the preter-human powers.' "6 The chief of the Salish "is ex officio a kind of priest."7 Amongst the Eskimo the Angakuts (priests) are "a kind of civil magistrates," amongst the Zulus "the heaven is the chief's,' he can call up clouds and storms. in New Zealand every Rangatira has a supernatural power. . . among the Zulus 'the Itongo (spirit) dwells with the great man; he who 1 Im Thurn, Indians of Guiana, 333. 6 Bancroft, Native Races, iii. 150. . 3 "4 2 Bastian, Allerlei, i. 248. 5 Galton, South Africa, 189. 7 Ibid. 154. dreams is the chief of the village'. . . the Kaneka chiefs are medicine men."1 Thus we are brought round once more to the priest-king and to our question, how did a man come to be invested with the office? Negatively, we have urged reasons to reject Mr. Frazer's theory that it was by becoming so great a magician that his fellow-tribesmen thought he was a god. Positively, we have argued that in all cases the human "image" of the god is distinguished from the god, and that the divine spirit must enter the man before he can be the human representative of the god, just as the altar-stone must be dashed with blood, anointed with oil, clad in the skin of the sacred animal, etc., before the god can be considered to be present in it. Further, the modes of consecration-whether of priest or king-are various, but they can all be traced back to the primitive idea of the sacrificial meal, namely, that it is by participation in the blood of the god that the spirit of the god enters into the worshipper. It is therefore to some feature of the ritual of the primitive sacrificial meal that we must look for the solution of our problem. Now, the mere drinking of the blood would not suffice to mark off one of the worshippers, for all the clansmen drank of the blood, and all so far became possessed of the divine spirit. But on the man who was to be the king-priest that spirit descended in a larger measure; and it was some act performed by him, and him alone, during the rite, that marked him off as thenceforth more holy than his fellow-men. Now we have seen that in historic times the distinguishing function of the priest, and the key to his priestly power, is that he deals the first and fatal blow at the victim. Unless the victim is slain there can be no sacrifice, no drawing near to the god, and the community must be left defenceless against its supernatural foes. But the victim is the animal whose life the clan are bound to respect as the life of a clansman, to kill it is murder (as in the Bouphonia at Athens), nay! it is killing the god. The clansman, therefore, whose religious conviction of the clan's need of communion with the god was deepest, would eventually and after long waiting be the one to strike, and take upon himself the issue, Lang, Custom and Myth, 237. 1 for the sake of his fellow-men. "The dreadful sacrifice is performed not with savage joy but with awful sorrow." 1 So great was the difficulty of finding anyone to strike the first blow, that the practice of stoning the victim to death was frequently adopted, as thereby the responsibility was divided amongst all the clansmen-a practice which survived in the custom in Northern Europe of pelting the representative of the vegetation spirit, in the similar λoßoxía of the Greeks (e.g. in the Pentheus myth) and a New World custom already referred to.2 That shedding even human blood is a crime, the responsibility of which must be shared by all the community, appears from the fact that, when a criminal has to be executed, it is a negro custom to tear him to pieces. Amongst the Hottentots the chief gives the first blow, and then the rest fall on the criminal and beat him to death; 3 and amongst the Tuppin Imbas, when a captive is to be eaten, the man who deals him the first blow incurs the guilt, and, as blood must have blood, the king draws blood from his arm, and for the rest of the day he must remain in his hammock.4 But the fact that the priest in all religions slays the victim suffices to show that the earlier custom of stoning must have given place universally to that which gave rise to the priesthood. That blood-guiltiness would attach to the man who struck the first blow is evident. But the king-priest is distinguished from his fellows by his superior holiness, and it is not clear that the act of dealing the blow would ipso facto give him that larger measure of the divine afflatus which marked the priest off from his fellow-worshippers. In the Philippine Islands it does indeed seem to have been the belief that the slaying of the victim was, if not the cause, at any rate the occasion of the god's entering into the slayer, as appears from 1 Robertson Smith, s. v. "Sacrifice" in the Encyclopædia Britannica. 2 Supra, p. 215-6. For other instances, see G. B. i. 264; B. K. 413; Myth. Forsch. 209; Journal of Hellenic Studies, xiv. ii. 252-3; the Moßoxía in Troezen (Paus. ii. xxxii. 2), at the Eleusinia, the Lupercalia, and Nonæ Caprotinæ ; and cf. the stoning of the papuakos (Harp. s.v.). 3 So too the scapegoat in Asia Minor, the Mamurius Vetus in Rome, and the slave at the Charonean festival, were beaten-not as a piece of sympathetic magic. 4 Bastian, Der Mensch, iii. 3. |