belief that should these =tabus= be broken dire consequences will befall
the offender. Occasionally the punishment is effected by the social
executive, through representatives of secret societies or by other
means; but usually it is left in the hands, so to speak, of the outraged
spiritual powers, and so strong is this belief that it drees its own
weird. For example, Father Merolla (54, xvi. 238) tells of a young Congo
negro who, being on a journey, lodged at a friend’s house; the latter
got a wild hen for his breakfast, and the young man asked if it were a
wild hen. His host replied ‘No.’ Then he fell on heartily, and afterwards
proceeded on his journey. After four years these two met together again,
and his old friend asked him ‘If he would eat a wild hen,’ to which he
answered that it was tabooed to him. ‘Hereat the host began immediately
to laugh, inquiring of him, “What made him refuse it now, when he had
eaten one at his table about four years ago?” At the hearing of this
the negro immediately fell a-trembling, and suffered himself to be so
far possessed with the effects of imagination that he died in less than
twenty-four hours after.’ Armit (2, 459) relates that an Australian
died of fright within a fortnight after he had discovered his sick wife
had lain upon his blanket. Nowhere is the power of taboo greater than
among the Polynesians. And examples of its potency in procuring its own
fulfilment in the Heroic Age of Ireland have already been given (p. 29).
No wonder then that belief in the magical powers of sorcerers can cause
the same effects. Messrs. Spencer and Gillen (64, 537) state that the
Australian natives believe that any bone, stick, spear, etc., which
has been ‘sung’ is supposed to be endowed with what the natives call
_Arungquiltha_, that is, magical poisonous properties, and any native who
believes that he has been struck by, say, a charmed spear, is almost sure
to die, whether the wound be slight or severe, unless he be saved by the
counter magic of a medicine-man. He simply lies down, refuses food, and
pines away. Actual instances are given of men with slight wounds dying in
a few days from this belief.
There can be no doubt that magical practices can act by =suggestion=
through =fear= and =fascination= upon human victims who are aware of
their occurrence, and it is probable that in most cases the victim is
made aware of such practices as in the instance given on p. 49. Also
there is every reason to believe that all backward peoples, including the
sorcerers themselves, believe in the power of magic. Casalis (10, 275)
gives an instructive instance in point. A chief of the Basutos once held
forth in his presence on the matter of sorcery: he said, ‘Sorcery only
exists in the mouths of those who speak of it. It is no more in the power
of man to kill his fellow by the mere effect of his will, than it would
be to raise him from the dead. This is my opinion. Nevertheless, you
sorcerers who hear me speak, use moderation.’
Probably more widely spread than is usually accepted is the belief of
some backward peoples, and therefore of their magicians, in a spiritual
force that accomplishes their desires; such, for example, as the =mana=
of the Melanesians. ‘The Melanesian mind,’ writes Dr. Codrington (12,
118), ‘is entirely possessed by the belief in a supernatural power or
influence, called almost universally _mana_. This is what works to effect
everything which is beyond the ordinary power of man, outside the common
processes of nature; it is present in the atmosphere of life, attaches
itself to persons and to things, and is manifested by results which can
only be ascribed to its operation. When one has got it he can use it and
direct it, but its force may break forth at some new point; the presence
of it is ascertained by proof. A man comes by chance upon a stone which
takes his fancy; its shape is singular, it is like something, it is
certainly not a common stone, there must be _mana_ in it. So he argues
with himself, and he puts it to the proof; he lays it at the root of a
tree to the fruit of which it has a certain resemblance, or he buries
it in the ground when he plants a garden; an abundant crop on the tree
or in the garden shows that he is right, the stone is _mana_, has that
power in it. Having that power, it is a vehicle to convey _mana_ to other
stones. In the same way certain forms of words, generally in the form
of a song, have power for certain purposes; a charm of words is called
_mana_. But this power, though itself impersonal, is always connected
with some person who directs it; all spirits have it, ghosts generally,
some men. If a stone is found to have a supernatural power it is because
a spirit has associated itself with it. A dead man’s bone has with it
_mana_, because the ghost is with the bone; a man may have so close a
connection with a spirit or ghost that he has _mana_ in himself also, and
can so direct it as to effect what he desires. All conspicuous success is
a proof that a man has _mana_; his influence depends on the impression
made on the people’s mind that he has it.’ If a man has been successful
in fighting, it is not through his own qualities, but ‘he has certainly
got the _mana_ of some deceased warrior to empower him, conveyed in an
amulet of a stone round his neck, or a tuft of leaves in his belt, in a
tooth hung upon the finger of his bow hand, or in the form of words with
which he brings supernatural assistance to his side.’
The Omaha (19) believe that a man’s own will can act directly on his
fellows by singing certain songs; this act is called _wazhin-dhedhe_,
that is ‘directive energy, to send’; the Omaha term ‘signifies to
send forth one’s thought and =will power= toward another in order to
supplement his strength, and thereby affect his action,’ or, as we should
term it, =telepathy=. By an appeal to _Wakanda_ (that is ‘immanent life
manifest in all things,’ or the ‘hidden and mysterious power which brings
to pass’), in the rite of vision, the man’s powers could be supplemented
by the co-operation of the elements and of animals.
The innate spirituality of the savage appears to be largely ignored by
students, who usually dub the magic worker as a conscious cheat and
humbug, whereas it seems to be more correct to regard him as dealing with
material objects mainly as endowed with life (=Animism=; 50, 171), or as
the vehicles of spiritual or supernatural power, and by means of such
objects or by the shafts of speech he can effectively project his will.
If then, as Mr. Marett points out (51, 150), the occult projectiveness
of the magical act is naturally and almost inevitably interpreted as an
exertion of will that somehow finds its way to another will and dominates
it, the spell or uttered ‘must’ will tend to embody the very life and
soul of the affair. Nothing finds its way home to another’s mind more
sharply. It is the very type of a spiritual projectile.
In many examples of magical procedure the magician appears to act
directly upon nature, and seeks to enforce the action of his will by
the power of the spoken word or spell. In other cases he obtains power
from energy derived from something outside of himself; for example,
the shaman of Siberia may be possessed by a spirit, or the magician
may even be possessed by a god. Thus by insensible stages do we arrive
at actions that may better be described as religious or theurgic than
as magical. Numerous examples of transition stages are given by Mr. W.
W. Skeat (63). The god-inspired magician may become an actual deity,
for many royal magicians, who are more especially rain-makers, are
regarded, as Dr. Frazer has recently pointed out, as incarnate gods in
Africa and elsewhere (21). Concurrently with ideas of personification
and progressive deification the =spell evolves into prayer=. On the
other hand, power may be obtained over deities by practices that are
essentially magical, as, for example, by uttering the ineffable name, or
by spells and incantations, and these may at the same time be associated
with prayer, or the prayer itself may degenerate into a spell.
However it may be with human beings, few culture-folk will admit that
sorcerers can effect the ordinary phenomena of nature, and in this
respect, at all events, they should soon become discredited. On one
occasion in Murray Island, Torres Straits, a native showed me two stones
in a recess on the foreshore which were pointed at by men holding
certain leaves which were left there. A ‘big wind’ would immediately
arise which lasted until the plants were removed. This _zogo_ was
employed only in the season of the South-east trade wind. On my asking
whether the ceremony was done in the North-west monsoon, my informant
said emphatically, ‘Can’t do it in North-west.’ That is, the charm is
performed only at that season of the year when the required result is
possible—indeed, when it is of normal occurrence (28, 60; 29, vi.)
In this, as in other cases, I found that =the impossible was never
attempted=. A rain charm would not be made when there was no expectation
of rain coming, or a south-east wind be raised during the wrong season.
Probably this is the experience of others elsewhere, and thus it is not
remarkable if the desired result frequently follows the performance of
the charming.
A =loophole is generally provided in case of failure=. Either some
irregularity or mistake occurred in the performance of the charm, or
another sorcerer was performing contrary magic which proved of greater
potency.
FETISHISM
I. DEFINITION
The word Fetishism has been so misused of late that ethnologists
are apt to view it askance and hesitate to employ it in religious
classifications. It has been stretched to such an extent in various
directions that it has lost the definition and precision necessary for a
scientific term. Starting from a humble origin, referring in its native
land (Portugal) to the charms and amulets worn ‘for luck,’ and to relics
of saints, ‘fetish’ grew to such amazing proportions when transplanted
to West African soil, that at last there was nothing connected with West
African religion to which it was not applied. De Brosses introduced
Fétichisme as a general descriptive term (8), supposing the word to be
connected with _chose fée_, _fatum_. Comte[1] employed it to describe
the universal religious tendency to which Dr. Tylor has given the name
of Animism (71, chaps. xi.-xvii.). Bastholm claimed ‘everything produced
by nature or art, which receives divine honour, including the sun, moon,
earth, air, fire, water, with rivers, trees, stones, images and animals,
considered as objects of divine worship, as Fetishism;[2] and Lippert
(46) defines Fetishism as ‘a belief in the souls of the departed coming
to dwell in any thing that is tangible or visible in heaven or earth.’
Although Miss Kingsley (39, 139) expresses regret that the word Fetish
‘is getting very loosely used in England,’ she scarcely helps forward
the work of distinction and arrangement when a few lines further on
she announces ‘When I say Fetish, or Ju Ju, I mean the religion of the
natives of West Africa.’ Subsequently she overstepped her own definition,
describing the secret societies as ‘pure fetish’ (41, 139), although they
‘are not essentially religious,’ but ‘are mainly judicial.’
The Rev. R. H. Nassau perpetuates this vague use of the word, grouping
under the name of Fetishism all native customs even remotely connected,
as everything is in West Africa, with religious or magical beliefs,
until the ejaculation uttered when one sneezes or stumbles receives the
sounding title, ‘fetish prayer’ (53, 97).
These ‘lumpings’ are all the more to be regretted since Miss Kingsley and
the Rev. R. H. Nassau are among the chief authorities on West African
Fetishism in its most characteristic forms, and a clear definition of the
use of the word, with a rigid adherence to its proper meaning, would have
done great service in preventing many misconceptions.
The meaning of any word depends upon its definition, and it may
be defined in three ways: 1. etymologically; 2. historically; 3.
dogmatically.
1. The word fetish is derived through the Portuguese _feitiço_ from the
Latin _facticius_—_facere_ = to do. This shows the original conception at
the root of the word.
2. The historical definition shows the growth or evolution of the meaning
of the word, starting from its original conception. Dr. Tylor has pointed
out how magic has appropriated to itself the derivatives of ‘to do,’
such as _feitiço_ in Portuguese, _fattura_ in Italian, _faiture_ in Old
French, and many more, thus claiming to be ‘doing’ _par excellence_
(70, 135). This tendency is already noticeable even in classical times
(‘_potens et factiosus_,’ possessed of power and influence, Auct.
_Her._ 2, 26, 40), and is well marked in Plautus, who uses various
derivatives of _facere_ to mean ‘powerful’ or ‘influential,’ especially
with reference to influence due to family connection or to riches
(_factiones_, _Aul._ II. i. 45; _factiosus_, ib. II. ii. 50; _factio_,
_Cist._ II. i. 17, etc.). From this sense of =potent politically=,
later Latin developed the meaning of =potent magically=, as seen in
_facturari_, to bewitch, _factura_, witchcraft, from which latter is
descended the Old French _faiture_, witchcraft, and perhaps our slang
word ‘fake.’ =Fetish= as derived from the passive form _facticius_,
meaning made by art, artificial, was probably first applied to images,
idols or amulets made by hand, and later included =all objects possessing
magical potency=, _i.e._ bewitched or ‘faked.’[3]
3. The dogmatic definition of a word is the meaning attached to it by
individuals of authority.
Fetishism is defined as ‘the worship of inanimate objects,’ the worship
of stocks and stones, ‘the religious worship of material objects’ (61,
61), ‘tangible and inanimate objects worshipped for themselves alone’
(15, 196), and a fetish is defined as ‘differing from an idol in that
it is worshipped in its own character, not as the symbol, image, or
occasional residence of a deity’ (_New English Dictionary_, Oxford,
Clarendon Press, 1901).
The account of the native of Fida given by Bosman (54, xvi. 493) is often
quoted as the classic example of fetishism:—
‘I once asked a negro with whom I could talk very freely ...
how they celebrated their divine worship, and what number of
gods they had; he, laughing, answered that I had puzzled him;
and assured me that nobody in the whole country could give
me an exact account of it. “For, as for my own part, I have
a very large number of gods, and doubt not but that others
have as many.” “For any of us being resolved to undertake
anything of importance, we first of all search out a god to
prosper our designed undertaking; and going out of doors with
the design, take the first creature that presents itself to
our eyes, whether dog, cat, or the most contemptible creature
in the world for our god: or perhaps instead of that, any
inanimate that falls in our way, whether a stone, a piece of
wood, or anything else of the same nature. This new-chosen
god is immediately presented with an offering, which is
accompanied by a solemn vow, that if it pleaseth him to prosper
our undertakings, for the future we will always worship and
esteem him as a god. If our design prove successful, we have
discovered a new and assisting god, which is daily presented
with a fresh offering; but if the contrary happen, the new god
is rejected as a useless tool, and consequently returns to
his primitive estate.” “We make and break our gods daily, and
consequently are the masters and inventors of what we sacrifice
to.”’
Bosman goes on to say:—
‘I was very well pleased to hear the negro talk in this manner
concerning his country gods; but, having conversed with him
for some time, I observed that he ridiculed his own country
gods, for, having lived amongst the French, whose language he
perfectly understood and spoke, he had amongst them imbibed the
principles of the Christian religion, and somewhat towards a
just notion of the true God and how he is to be worshipped, ...
wherefore he no further concerned himself with the gods of the
country than as engaged to it for quietness’ sake, or to make
his friends easy.’
A sceptic is scarcely likely to give a sympathetic report of a religion
he has discarded, and Bosman’s negro is no exception to the rule. He
describes the outward tangible aspect of fetishism, but ignores its
spiritual interpretation, and the dogmatic definitions above follow in
the same path of error.
Fetishism and the fetish, as thus defined, do not exist, except in
‘incomplete observations’; they certainly are nowhere to be found in West
Africa, the typical land of fetishism.
‘Every native with whom I have conversed on the subject,’ writes Ellis,
‘has laughed at the possibility of it being supposed that he could
worship or offer sacrifice to some such object as a stone, which of
itself it would be perfectly obvious to his senses was a stone only and
nothing more’ (15, 192). So the Maori _wakapakoko_ were only thought
to possess virtue or peculiar sanctity from the presence of the god
they represented when dressed up for worship; at other times they were
regarded only as bits of ordinary wood (69, 212), and Brinton affirms
that ‘nowhere in the world did man ever worship a stick or a stone as
such’ (6, 131).
All cases of Fetishism, when examined, show that the worship is paid to
an intangible power or spirit incorporated in some visible form, and
that the fetish is merely the link between the worshipper and the object
of his worship. Any definition therefore which takes no account of the
spiritual force behind the material object is seen to be incomplete and
superficial, as it ignores the essential conception of the worship.
Dr. Tylor enlarges the scope of the word, classing Fetishism as a
subordinate department of Animism, and defining it as the doctrine of
spirits embodied in, or conveying influence through, certain material
objects. He includes in it the worship of stocks and stones, ‘and thence
it passes by an imperceptible gradation into idolatry’ (71, ii. 144).
It is these imperceptible gradations which blur all the outlines of the
rigid systematist, and make an exclusive classification impossible.
Encouragement is found in the reflection that exclusive classifications
are almost unknown to science, and, where met with, are generally due
to ignorance, waiting for greater knowledge or further research to
provide the intermediate links which everywhere blend class with class,
species with species. But when the group is studied in its area of
characterisation, certain features stand prominently forward, and by a
study of these the essential characteristics of the whole class can be
determined.
II. ESSENTIAL CHARACTERS OF FETISHISM
The characteristic features of fetishism, and particularly of West
African fetishism, are as follows:—
The fetish may consist of any object whatsoever, but the object chosen
is generally either a wonderful ornament or curiosity, a symbolic charm
with sympathetic properties, or a sign or token representing an ideal
notion or being. It is credited with mysterious power, owing to its
being, temporarily or permanently, the vessel or habitation, vehicle
for communication, or instrument of some unseen power or spirit, which
is conceived to possess personality and will, and ability to see, hear,
understand, and act. It may act by the will or force of its own power
or spirit, or by force of a foreign power entering it or acting on it
from without, and the material object and the power or spirit may be
dissociated. It is worshipped, prayed to, sacrificed to, talked with, and
petted or ill-treated with regard to its past or future behaviour. In its
most characteristic form a fetish must be consecrated by a priest.
1. =A fetish may be any object whatsoever=, but there is always a reason
for its choice.
The simplest reason is =that it attracts attention= (61, 61) (71,
ii. 145), and anything that attracts attention at once acquires an
exaggerated value, and appeals to that natural instinct of human nature,
found also among some birds and animals, the love for collecting.
‘In the love of abnormal curiosities there shows itself a craving for the
marvellous, an endeavour to get free from the tedious sense of law and
uniformity in nature’ (71, ii. 145).
So the fetish consists of a queer-shaped stone, a bright bead, a
stick, parrots’ feathers, a root, claw, seed, bone, or any curious or
conspicuous object.
In Benin they take everything which seems extraordinary in nature for a
god, and make offerings to him, and each is his own priest, in order to
worship his gods in what manner pleases him best (54, xvi. 530).
=Or= the object =may have attracted attention by its behaviour=.
A visitor to a fetish hut took up a stone about as big as a hen’s egg,
and its owner told its history. ‘He was once going out on important
business, but crossing the threshold he trod on this stone and hurt
himself. Ha, ha! thought he, art thou here? So he took the stone, and it
helped him through his undertaking for days’ (71, ii. 158).
=Sometimes the object= to be chosen =is revealed= to a man =in a dream=,
as among the natives of the Gold Coast, where a dead relation will return
to direct a man to go to a certain spot and there select a certain stone,
or piece of a tree, which he is to bring home with him, and guard and
reverence as the habitation of a protecting deity (15, 90).
This connects the fetish with the guardian spirits of the North American
Indians, which appear to young men in dreams, or visions, after prayer
and fasting. The vision generally takes the form of some tangible object,
often an animal, a portion of which is preserved by the man as his most
precious possession, and if not, some concrete form is taken to represent
the subject of the vision. A guardian spirit differs, however, from a
fetish, in that it is a life-long possession, some men are not privileged
to obtain one, and no man could possess more than one; while any man
could obtain a fetish, and could discard one and adopt another if it
proved to be unavailing.
2. It consists of a =symbolic charm with sympathetic properties=.
‘There is a relation between the selected substances and the object to
be obtained: to give the possessor bravery or strength, some part of
a leopard or an elephant; to give cunning, some part of a gazelle; to
give wisdom, some part of a human brain; to give courage, some part
of a heart; to give influence, some part of an eye,’ etc. etc. ‘These
substances are supposed to lure some spirit (being in some way pleasing
to it) which thenceforward is satisfied to reside in them and to aid the
possessor in the accomplishment of some specific wish’ (53, 82).
For convenience of carriage these substances are put into snail-shells,
nut-shells, or the small horns of gazelles, or of goats, and the whole
then forms the fetish.
Bosman describes the way in which a fetish, consisting of a pipe filled
with various substances, was generally made on the Guinea Coast in 1705.
‘They have a great wooden pipe filled with earth, oil, blood, bones
of dead men and beasts, feathers, hair, and to be short, all sorts of
excrementitious and filthy trash, which they do not endeavour to mould
into any shape, but lay it in a confused heap in the pipe’ (54, xvi. 398).
‘Human eyeballs, particularly of white men, are a great charm. This, I
fancy, is to secure the man “that lives in your eyes” for the service of
the village’ (40, 305).
Sometimes there is a tangible connection between the object chosen for
the fetish and the spirit occupying it. Thus among the Gold Coast
natives the object which is entered by the subordinate spirit of
Sasabonsum must be taken from the habitat of a Sasabonsum, from a place,
that is, which is marked with red earth, where the red earth marks the
blood of the victim of a Sasabonsum (15, 109).
3. It may consist of =a sign or token representing an ideal notion
or being=, and here it is difficult to draw any distinction between
fetishism and idolatry, ‘for a small line and a few streaks of colour
may change a fetish into an idol’ (61, 77). Certainly the lower forms
of idolatry present the aspect of fetishism, but the true fetish is not
shaped to resemble the spirit it represents, and the true idol is only
the symbol, not the vessel, vehicle, or instrument of deity. At the same
time, an image may be worshipped as a fetish, and regarded as a material
body provided for a spirit; or a fetish, being regarded merely as the
symbol or representative of a spirit, seems to develop the earliest form
of idolatry (71, ii. 169). The distinction lies in the attitude of mind
in which the objects are worshipped, and no objective differentiation is
possible, for the object will be a fetish for one worshipper and a pure
symbol of a spirit to another.