The Origin of Man and of His SuperstitionsRead, Carveth
Philosophy
The Origin of Man and of His Superstitions
Read, Carveth
Animism; Human beings -- Origin; Magic; Superstition; Totemism
Anything, then, may have “soul” after its kind: relatively inert
things have relatively inert souls, but never true ghosts; some
animals may have ghosts, especially if they have attained to a certain
individuality, but generally only in so far as they are imagined to
attend upon human ghosts or spirits. Inasmuch as the word “soul”
is often used as equivalent to “ghost,” it would be convenient
always to speak of the soul which is ghost-food, or ghost-body, “as
soul-stuff.”[194] Soul-stuff is conceived of as material, though subtle
and normally invisible. A man’s soul-stuff may be regarded not only
as permeating his body, but also as infecting everything he possesses
or touches: no doubt by analogy with his odour; for a man’s odour is
a personal quality, distinguishable by dogs and (I believe) by some
savages and hypnotic subjects; and the stench of his putrefying corpse
may be supposed to convey his courage and skill to those who inhale
it.[195] And the savour of a burnt-offering is food for gods. Indeed,
Ellis says explicitly that, in Tahiti, food was put to the mouth of a
chieftain’s corpse; because, they said, there was a spiritual as well
as a material part of food, a part which they could smell.[196]
Savage ideas are generally so little thought out, and are so
irregularly thought out by different tribes, that the relation of
a thing to its soul-stuff varies widely from one tribe to another.
In many cases the extraction by ghost or god of the soul-stuff from
an offering may affect it so little, that the devotee or the priest
proceeds to feast upon it; and I have nowhere met with the notion
(which logic requires) that such metaphysically eviscerated food can
only nourish a man’s body and not his soul. However, since the eating
of the sacrifice may be an act of communion with the ghost, he then
naturally extracts the goodness only from his own share. In other
cases, the breaking of weapons and utensils buried with a corpse
implies an intimate unity between the wholeness of an object and its
soul-stuff; and the Rev. J. H. Weeks says of the considerable wealth
put into a grave by the Bakongo, that only the shell or semblance of
anything is supposed to remain there.[197]
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