DR. BDTILLE'S HIBBERT LECTURES.*

THE Hibbert Lectures of Dr. Reville form delightful reading. The impression, however, which the book has made on us, is that it is more the work of an artist and an advocate, than of a man of science or a historian. It paints a picture ; it maintains a thesis ; and difficulties are put out of sight. The theory of • Lectures on the Origin and Growth of Religion, as Illustrated by the Notice Religions of Mexico and Peru. Delivered at Oxford and London. By Albert Adville, DD. Translated by Philip H. Wiekstud, M.A. London: Williams and Norgate. evolution has its troubles in every sphere; and there are many special difficulties which hinder its applicatioh to the explana- tion of the origin and growth of religious belief. We do• not find any reference to these in the present work. How is it that in Mexico and Peru alone there are no diffi- culties to be explained and no objections to be obviated P It

is necessary, for instance, in the case of India and Persia, to show how the theory of the origin and growth of religion set forth by Dr. Reville is consistent with the fact that the oldest literature is the purest, loftiest, and most spiritual. According to the representation of Dr. Reville, no such difficulty emerges in the case of the native religions of Mexico and Peru. Over- looking the difficulty we have mentioned, Dr. Seville says :—

"Pray observe that we find in this group of connected beliefs and worships something quite analogous to the polytheism of the ancienb world. The only notable difference is that the God of Heaven, Dyaus, Varuna, Zeus, Ahura Mazda, or (in China) Tien, does not occupy the same pre-eminent place in the American mythology that he takes in its European and Asiatic counterparts. For the rest, the processes of the human spirit are absolutely identical in the two continents. In both alike, it is the phenomena of Nature, regarded as animated. and conscious, that wake and stimulate the religious sentiment and become the objects of the adoration of man. At the same time, and in virtue of the same process of internal logic, these personified beings come to be regarded more and more as possessed of a nature superior in power, indeed, but in all other respects closely conforming to that of man. If nature-worship, with the animism that it en- genders, shapes the first law to which nascent religion submits in the human race, anthropomorphism furnishes the second, disengaging itself ever more and more completely from the zoomorphiam which. generally serves as an intermediary. This is so everywhere." (PP- 39.40-)

This, then, is the formula—animism, zoomorphism, anthropo- morphism—which expresses, with more or less fulness, the law of the evolution of religion. Is it true P Is it adequate ?

We cannot sufficiently admire the clearness and skill with which Dr. Reville sets forth his thesis, and the deftness with which he marshals his facts. It is a necessary part of his argument to insist on the indigenous growth of the religious beliefs of Mexico and Peru. One of the most effective passages in the book, from a rhetorical point of view, is that which de- scribes the isolation of America. It was like the discovery of another planet. According to Dr. Wyllie, the whole organism of mythologies,—gods, goddesses, sacrifices, temples, and priest- hoods,—had grown up without influence from external sources. From which he infers that " given human nature anywhere, its

religious development is reared on the same identical bases, and passes through the same phases." We are not so sure as= Dr. Reville is, of the absolute independence of the evolution of

the religious beliefs of Mexico and Pern. It is proverbially difficult to prove a negative, and it is exceedingly difficult to maintain that the people of America were uninfluenced by their neighbours in Asia. Suppose we start with the hypothesis that America was first peopled when there was continuous land.

between Asia and America, that does not exclude the possibility of farther immigration up to the margin of historic times. Com- munication between East Asia and the West Coast of America was always possible. If, then, there are features in the civilisa- tion of Mexico and Peru, which can be most easily explained by the supposition that they were borrowed from Asia, there is no improbability in making that hypothesis. Of course, if we can account for all the peculiarities of Mexican belief by the ordinary laws of development, we shall have no occasion to seek the hypothesis of foreign sources. For the worship of the sun and moon, and the worship of objects of nature,—fire, trees, mountain, water,—it is enough to say that these are constant, as constant as man's capacity and need for worship. These beliefs' are sufficiently explained from the nature of the case. It is altogether different when we pass from the natural to the- artificial ; when, for example, we consider the Mexican calendar, and compare it with the calendar in use in Eastern Asia. It is pot probable that a mode of calculating time, highly artificial,. and even arbitrary, should spring up indigenously in different parts of the world among peoples who have no connection or- correspondence with each other. To many antiquarians of high authority and reputation, such as Humboldt and Mr. E. B.

Tylor, it has appeared probable that America has borrowed from Asia. The peremptory and categorical affirmation of Dr.

ItSville to the contrary appears, therefore, unwarranted, at least without setting forth in detail the grounds on which he rests his opinion.

To us it seems that the affirmations of Dr. Wyllie are, all of them, too absolute and unqualified. He affirms that,— "There is not the smallest trace of an earlier monotheism pre- ceding the polytheism of one or the other nation. On the other hand, we may trace in both alike three stages of religious faith super- imposed, so to speak, one upon the other; at the bottom of all still lies the religion that we find to-day amongst peoples that are strangers to all civilisation. It is an incoherent and confused jumble of nature-worship and of animism, or the worship of spirits, but specially of the latter ; for the primitive nature-worship has been developed, enlarged, and more or less organised, on a higher level, whereas animism remained what it was." (pp. 246-7.)

We call attention to the assumption which Dr. Reville makes in this paragraph, because it is the fundamental assumption made by all who agree with him. It is open to grave doubt. What proof have we that animism remains what it was? Natives who are strangers to civilisation have also a past history, and there can be no more obvious fallacy than is con- tained in the view that takes the savage of the present day to represent the primitive man. It is convenient, no doubt, to suppose that the present state of the peoples of the world may be held to represent their past history, and that a cross- section may give us a true view of the successive stages of the growth of civilisation. This is so far true in geology, because strata are fixed, and rocks do not readily change. But in a subject so fluid as humanity, all the parts are subject to change ; and the animism of the existing savage may be as far removed from the religion of the primitive man as the civilisation of the present day is. At all events, before we can make the assump- tion we have a great deal of work to do.

The statement, also, that " nature-worship has been de- veloped, enlarged, organised on a higher level," goes beyond the evidence. As far as written evidence goes, we find evident proof that higher nature-worship has undergone a process of dissolution and degradation. Within historic time, and within extant literature, it has been so. Take the literatures of the world,—of India, Persia, Egypt, Greece, Rome, or Scandinavia,—and we find, the further back we go, the purer, loftier, and more spiritual are their beliefs. And the history of their degradation may be traced. Dr. Reville's theory finds supports only when we leave the solid ground of written words, and pass into the region of pre-historic speculation.

Nor does the evidence seem to warrant the tone of dogmatic assurance with which Dr. Revile asserts that there is no trace of an earlier monotheism preceding the polytheism of Mexico and Peru. It seems to us that even in these Lectures there is some trace of it. Dr. Reville tells us of Netzalhuatcoyotl, who has, he says, been called " the Mexican Solomon." He had a great pyramidal teoca]li of nine stages erected in his capital for the worship of the God of heaven, to whom he brought no offer- ings except flowers and perfumes." No doubt the age of the Mexican Solomon was late; but neither the names of the Deities he worships nor their nature can be explained as the result of speculation. At all events, this deity has an invisible power of tufty character. He is Tloquenahuaque, which Mr. Tylor renders, "He who is all in himself," or Ipalnemoan, "He by whom we live." A great conception of this kind must have its roots deep down in the history of the past. It does not rise suddenly in the heart or mind of an individual. Even the T.-eat thoughts of Plato had their origin in the past story of his people. Much more must this be the case in the present instance.

There is also to be taken into account the fact that the Mexicans had a word to express the divine. Teoll, indeed, may mean the divine quality in which all the Gods share ; but it is well to con- sider the question whether the extension of the word to all gods may not be a degradation of its original meaning. Into this large question we do not mean to enter at present; all we wish now to observe is, that the formula of Dr. Waffle is as yet only a hypothesis. Apart, how- ever, from these doubtful questions, it is to be admitted that Dr. Revile has written a most pleasant book. The story is fascinating ; the style is simple, direct, and lucid. In fact, even where Dr. Reville seems to go beyond the evidence, and shape the story into artistic form beyond what other in- quirers have been able to go, this only seems to add to the charm of the hook. Doubt, hesitation is painful, and readers of this volume will not be troubled with it—unless, indeed, which is very likely, the calm confidence and absolute assurance of the author may beget doubt and hesitation in the reader. We note that the author has no hesitation in giving a meaning to myths which other inquirers have found great difficulty in analysing. We must always remember, however, the conditions under which Dr. Winne has had to do his work. He has had to give us results, not processes. The limits of time, place, and spoken speech have hindered him from giving us the

evidence on which he bases his conclusions. While, therefore, we withhold our assent for the present from much of his philo- sophical theory, and also from much of his particular interpre- tations, we wait with patience for a detailed proof of his par- ticular averments. As the book stands, there is, apart from disputed points, a lucid account of the religious practices, rites, and beliefs of the peoples of Central America.