Essays Upon Some Controverted QuestionsHuxley, Thomas Henry
Religion
Essays Upon Some Controverted Questions
Huxley, Thomas Henry
Science
As the Israelites had great yearly feasts, so had the Polynesians; as the
Israelites practised circumcision, so did many Polynesian people; as the
Israelites had a complex and often arbitrary-seeming multitude of
distinctions between clean and unclean things, and clean and unclean states
of men, to which {182} they attached great importance, so had the
Polynesians their notions of ceremonial purity and their _tabu_, an equally
extensive and strange system of prohibitions, violation of which was
visited by death. These doctrines of cleanness and uncleanness no doubt may
have taken their rise in the real or fancied utility of the prescriptions,
but it is probable that the origin of many is indicated in the curious
habit of the Samoans to make fetishes of living animals. It will be
recollected that these people had no "gods made with hands," but they
substituted animals for them.
At his birth
every Samoan was supposed to be taken under the care of some tutelary
god or _aitu_ [ = Atua] as it was called. The help of perhaps half a
dozen different gods was invoked in succession on the occasion, but the
one who happened to be addressed just as the child was born was marked
and declared to be the child's god for life.
These gods were supposed to appear in some _visible incarnation_, and
the particular thing in which his god was in the habit of appearing
was, to the Samoan, an object of veneration. It was in fact his idol,
and he was careful never to injure it or treat it with contempt. One,
for instance, saw his god in the eel, another in the shark, another in
the turtle, another in the dog, another in the owl, another in the
lizard; and so on, throughout all the fish of the sea and birds and
four-footed beasts and creeping things. In some of the shell-fish even,
gods were supposed to be present. A man would eat freely of what was
regarded as the incarnation of the god of another man, but the
incarnation of his own particular god he would consider it death to
injure or eat.[48]
We have here that which appears to be the origin, or one of the origins, of
food prohibitions, on the one {183} hand, and of totemism on the other.
When it is remembered that the old Israelities sprang from ancestors who
are said to have resided near, or in, one of the great seats of ancient
Babylonian civilisation, the city of Ur; that they had been, it is said for
centuries, in close contact with the Egyptians; and that, in the theology
of both the Babylonians and the Egyptians there is abundant evidence,
notwithstanding their advanced social organisation, of the belief in
spirits, with sorcery, ancestor-worship, the deification of animals, and
the converse animalisation of gods--it obviously needs very strong evidence
to justify the belief that the rude tribes of Israel did not share the
notions from which their far more civilised neighbours had not emancipated
themselves.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account