novelty of the “new world “— different stages of culture represented there — question of american monotheism — authorities and evidence cited — myths examined: eskimo, ahts, thlinkeets, iroquois, the great hare — dr. brinton’s theory of the hare — zuni myths — transition to mexican mythology.

the divine myths of the vast american continent are a topic which a lifetime entirely devoted to the study could not exhaust. at best it is only a sketch in outline that can be offered in a work on the development of mythology in general. the subject is the more interesting as anything like systematic borrowing of myths from the old world is all but impossible, as has already been argued in chapter xi. america, it is true, may have been partially “discovered” many times; there probably have been several points and moments of contact between the new and the old world. yet at the time when the spaniards landed there, and while the first conquests and discoveries were being pursued, the land and the people were to europeans practically as novel as the races and territories of a strange planet.1 but the new world only revealed the old stock of humanity in many of its familiar stages of culture, and, consequently, with the old sort of gods, and myths, and creeds.

in the evolution of politics, society, ritual, and in all the outward and visible parts of religion, the american races ranged between a culture rather below the ancient egyptian and a rudeness on a level with australian or bushman institutions. the more civilised peoples, aztecs and peruvians, had many peculiarities in common with the races of ancient egypt, china and india; where they fell short was in the lack of alphabet or syllabary. the mexican mss. are but an advanced picture-writing, more organised than that of the ojibbeways; the peruvian quipus was scarcely better than the red indian wampum records. mexicans and peruvians were settled in what deserved to be called cities; they had developed a monumental and elaborately decorated architecture; they were industrious in the arts known to them, though ignorant of iron. among the aztecs, at least, weapons and tools of bronze, if rare, were not unknown. they were sedulous in agriculture, disciplined in war, capable of absorbing and amalgamating with conquered tribes.

in peru the ruling family, the incas, enjoyed all the sway of a hierarchy, and the chief inca occupied nearly as secure a position, religious, social and political, as any rameses or thothmes. in mexico, doubtless, the monarch’s power was at least nominally limited, in much the same way as that of the persian king. the royal rule devolved on the elected member of an ancient family, but once he became prince he was surrounded by imposing ceremony. in both these two civilised peoples the priesthood enjoyed great power, and in mexico, though not so extensively, if at all, in peru, practised an appalling ritual of cannibalism and human sacrifice. it is extremely probable, or rather certain, that both of these civilisations were younger than the culture of other american peoples long passed away, whose cities stand in colossal ruin among the forests, whose hieroglyphs seem undecipherable, and whose copper-mines were worked at an unknown date on the shore of lake superior. over the origin and date of those “crowned races” it were vain to linger here. they have sometimes left the shadows of names — toltecs and chichimecs — and relics more marvellous than the fainter traces of miners and builders in southern and central africa. the rest is silence. we shall never know why the dwellers in palenque deserted their majestic city while “the staircases were new, the steps whole, the edges sharp, and nowhere did traces of wear and tear give certain proof of long habitation”.2 on a much lower level than the great urban peoples, but tending, as it were, in the same direction, and presenting the same features of state communism in their social arrangements, were, and are, the cave and cliff dwellers, the agricultural village indians (pueblo indians) of new mexico and arizona. in the sides of the ca?ons towns have been burrowed, and men have dwelt in them like sand-martins in a sand-bank. the traveller views “perpendicular cliffs everywhere riddled with human habitations, which resemble the cells of a honeycomb more than anything else”. in lowland villages the dwellings are built of clay and stone.

“the san juan valley is strewn with ruins for hundreds of miles; some buildings, three storeys high, of masonry, are still standing.”3 the moquis, zunis and navahos of to-day, whose habits and religious rites are known from the works of mr. cushing, mr. matthews, and captain john g. bourke, are apparently descendants of “a sedentary, agricultural and comparatively cultivated race,” whose decadence perhaps began “before the arrival of the spaniards.”4

rather lower in the scale of culture than the settled pueblo indians were the hunter tribes of north america generally. they dwelt, indeed, in collections of wigwams which were partially settled, and the “long house” of the iroquois looks like an approach to the communal system of the pueblos.5 but while such races as iroquois, mandans and ojibbeways cultivated the maize plant, they depended for food more than did the pueblo peoples on success in the chase. deer, elk, buffalo, the wild turkey, the bear, with ducks and other birds, supplied the big kettle with its contents. their society was totemistic, as has already been described; kinship, as a rule, was traced through the female line; the sachems or chiefs and counsellors were elected, generally out of certain totem-kindreds; the war-chiefs were also elected when a military expedition started on the war-path; and jossakeeds or medicine-men (the title varied in different dialects) had no small share of secular power.

in war these tribes displayed that deliberate cruelty which survived under the aztec rulers as the enormous cannibal ritual of human sacrifice. a curious point in red indian custom was the familiar institution of scalping the slain in war. other races are head-hunters, but scalping is probably peculiar to the red men and the scythians.6

on a level, yet lower than that of the algonkin and other hunter tribes, are the american races whom circumstances have driven into desolate infertile regions; who live, like the ahts, mainly on fish; like the eskimos, in a world of frost and winter; or like the fuegians, on crustaceans and seaweed. the minute gradations of culture cannot be closely examined here, but the process is upwards, from people like the fuegians and diggers, to the builders of the kitchen-middens — probably quite equals of the eskimos7— and so through the condition of ahts, thlinkeets, cahrocs and other rude tribes of the north-west pacific coast, to that of sioux, blackfeet, mandans, iroquois, and then to the settled state of the pueblo folk, the southern comforts of the natchez, and finally to the organisation of the mayas, and the summit occupied by the aztecs and incas.

through the creeds of all these races, whether originally of the same stock or not, run many strands of religious and mythical beliefs — the very threads that are woven into the varied faiths of the old world. the dread of ghosts; the religious adoration paid to animals; the belief in kindred and protecting beasts; the worship of inanimate objects, roughly styled fetishes; a certain reverence for the great heavenly bodies, sun, moon and pleiades; a tendency to regard the stars, with all other things and phenomena, as animated and personal — with a belief in a supreme creator, these are the warp, as it were, of the fabric of american religion.8

in one stage of culture one set of those ideas may be more predominant than in another stage, but they are present in all. the zoo-morphic or theriomorphic mythologies and creeds are nowhere more vivacious than in america. not content with the tribal zoomorphic guardian and friend, the totem, each indian was in the habit of seeking for a special animal protector of his own. this being, which he called his manitou, revealed itself to him in the long fasts of that savage sacrament which consecrates the entrance on full manhood. even in the elaborate religions of the civilised races, peruvians and aztecs, the animal deities survive, and sacred beasts gather in the shrine of pachacamac, or a rudimentary remnant of ancestral beak or feather clings to the statue of huitzilopochtli. but among the civilised peoples, in which the division of labour found its place and human ranks were minutely discriminated, the gods too had their divisions and departments. an organised polytheism prevailed, and in the temples of centeotl and tlazolteotl, herodotus or pausanias would have readily recognised the demeter and the aphrodite of mexico.

there were departmental gods, and there was even an obvious tendency towards the worship of one spiritual deity, the bretwalda of all the divine kings, a god on his way to becoming single and supreme. the religions and myths of america thus display, like the myths and religions of the old world, the long evolution of human thought in its seeking after god. the rude first draughts of deity are there, and they are by no means effaced in the fantastic priestly designs of departmental divinities.

the question of a primitive american monotheism has been more debated than even that of the “heno-theism” of the aryans in india. on this point it must be said that, in a certain sense, probably any race of men may be called monotheistic, just as, in another sense, christians who revere saints may be called polytheistic.9

it has been constantly set forth in this work that, in moments of truly religious thought, even the lowest tribes turn their minds towards a guardian, a higher power, something which watches and helps the race of men. this mental approach towards the powerful friend is an aspiration, and sometimes a dogma; it is religious, not mythological; it is monotheistic, not polytheistic. the being appealed to by the savage in moments of need or despair may go by a name which denotes a hawk, or a spider, or a grasshopper, but we may be pretty sure that little thought of such creatures is in the mind of the worshipper in his hour of need.10

again, the most ludicrous or infamous tales may be current about the adventures and misadventures of the grasshopper or the hawk. he may be, as mythically conceived, only one out of a crowd of similar magnified non-natural men or lower animals. but neither his companions nor his legend are likely to distract the thoughts of the bushman who cries to cagn for food, or of the murri who tells his boy that pund-jel watches him from the heavens, or of the solomon islander who appeals to qat as he crosses the line of reefs and foam. thus it may be maintained that whenever man turns to a guardian not of this world, not present to the senses, man is for the moment a theist, and often a monotheist. but when we look from aspiration to doctrine, from the solitary ejaculation to ritual, from religion to myth, it would probably be vain to suppose that an uncontaminated belief in one god only, the maker and creator of all things, has generally prevailed, either in america or elsewhere. such a belief, rejecting all minor deities, consciously stated in terms and declared in ritual, is the result of long ages and efforts of the highest thought, or, if once and again the intuition of deity has flashed on some lonely shepherd or sage like an inspiration, his creed has usually been at war with the popular opinions of men, and has, except in islam, won its disciples from the learned and refined. america seems no exception to so general a rule.

an opposite opinion is very commonly entertained, because the narratives of missionaries, and even the novels of cooper and others, have made readers familiar with such terms as “the great spirit” in the mouths of pawnees or mohicans. on the one hand, taking the view of borrowing, mrs. e. a. smith says: “‘the great spirit,’ so popularly and poetically know as the god of the red man,’ and ‘the happy hunting-ground,’ generally reported to be the indian’s idea of a future state, are both of them but their ready conception of the white man’s god and heaven”.11 dr. brinton, too,12 avers that “the great spirit is a post-christian conception.” in most cases these terms are entirely of modern origin, coined at the suggestion of missionaries, applied to the white man’s god. . . .

the jesuits’ relations state positively that there was “no one immaterial god recognised by the algonkin tribes, and that the title ‘the great manito’ was introduced first by themselves in its personal sense.” the statement of one missionary cannot be taken, of course, to bind all the others. the pere paul le jeune remarks: “the savages give the name of manitou to whatsoever in nature, good or evil, is superior to man. therefore when we speak of god, they sometimes call him ‘the good manitou,’ that is, ‘the good spirit’.”13 the same pere paul le jeune14 says that by manitou his flock meant un ange ou quelque nature puissante. il y’en a de bons et de mauvais. the evidence of pere hierosme lallemant15 has already been alluded to, but it may be as well to repeat that, while he attributes to the indians a kind of unconscious religious theism, he entirely denies them any monotheistic dogmas. with tertullian, he writes, exclamant vocem naturaliter christianam. “to speak truth, these peoples have derived from their fathers no knowledge of a god, and before we set foot in their country they had nothing but vain fables about the origin of the world. nevertheless, savages as they were, there did abide in their hearts a secret sentiment of divinity, and of a first principle, author of all things, whom, not knowing, they yet invoked. in the forest, in the chase, on the water, in peril by sea, they call him to their aid.”

this guardian, it seems, receives different names in different circumstances. myth comes in; the sky is a god; a manitou dwelling in the north sends ice and snow; another dwells in the waters, and many in the winds.16 the pere allouez17 says, “they recognise no sovereign of heaven or earth”. here the good father and all who advocate a theory of borrowing are at variance with master thomas heriot, “that learned mathematician“ (1588). in virginia “there is one chiefe god, that has beene from all eternitie,” who “made other gods of a principal order”.18 near new plymouth, kiehtan was the chief god, and the souls of the just abode in his mansions.19 we have already cited alione, and shown that he and the other gods found by the first explorers, are certainly not of christian origin.

a curious account of red indian religion may be extracted from a work styled a narrative of the captivity and adventures of john tanner during a thirty years’ residence among the indians (new york, 1830). tanner was caught when a boy, and lived as an indian, even in religion. the great spirit constantly appears in his story as a moral and protecting deity, whose favour and help may be won by “prayers, which are aided by magical ceremonies and dances. tanner accepted and acted on this part of the indian belief, while generally rejecting the medicine men, who gave themselves out for messengers or avaters of the great spirit. tanner had frequent visions of the great spirit in the form of a handsome young man, who gave him information about the future. “do i not know,” said the appearance, “when you are hungry and in distress? i look down upon you at all times, and it is not necessary you should call me with such loud cries”. (p. 189).

almost all idea of a tendency towards monotheism vanishes when we turn from the religions to the myths of the american peoples. doubtless it may be maintained that the religious impulse or sentiment never wholly dies, but, after being submerged in a flood of fables, reappears in the philosophic conception of a pure deity entertained by a few of the cultivated classes of mexico and peru. but our business just now is with the flood of fables. from north to south the more general beliefs are marked with an early dualism, and everywhere are met the two opposed figures of a good and a bad extra-natural being in the shape of a man or beast. the eskimos, for example, call the better being torngarsuk. “they don’t all agree about his form or aspect. some say he has no form at all; others describe him as a great bear, or as a great man with one arm, or as small as a finger. he is immortal, but might be killed by the intervention of the god crepitus.”20

“the other great but malignant spirit is a nameless female,” the wife or mother of torngarsuk. she dwells under the sea in a habitation guarded by a cerberus of her own, a huge dog, which may be surprised, for he sleeps for one moment at a time. torngarsuk is not the maker of all things, but still is so much of a deity that many, “when they hear of god and his omnipotence, are readily led to the supposition that probably we mean their torngarsuk “. all spirits are called torngak, and soak = great; hence the good spirit of the eskimos in his limited power is “the great spirit”.21 in addition to a host of other spirits, some of whom reveal themselves affably to all, while others are only accessible to angakut or medicine-men, the eskimos have a pluto, or hades, or charos of their own. he is meagre, dark, sullen, and devours the bowels of the ghosts. there are spirits of fire, water, mountains, winds; there are dog-faced demons, and the souls of abortions become hideous spectres, while the common ghost of civilised life is familiar. the spirit of a boy’s dead mother appeared to him in open day, and addressed him in touching language: “be not afraid; i am thy mother, and love thee!” for here, too, in this frozen and haunted world, love is more strong than death.22

eskimo myth is practical, and, where speculative, is concerned with the fortunes of men, alive or dead, as far as these depend on propitiating the gods or extra-natural beings. the eskimo myth of the origin of death would find its place among the other legends of this sort.23

as a rule, eskimo myth, as far as it has been investigated, rather resembles that of the zulus. m?rchen or romantic stories are very common; tales about the making of things and the actions of the pre-human beings are singularly scarce. except for some moon and star myths, and the tale of the origin of death, hardly any myths, properly so called, are reported. “only very scanty traces,” says rink, “have been found of any kind of ideas having been formed as to the origin and early history of the world and the ruling powers or deities.”24

turning from the eskimos to the ahts of vancouver’s island, we find them in possession of rather a copious mythology. without believing exactly in a supreme, they have the conception of a superior being, quawteaht, no mere local nor tribal deity, but known in every village, like osiris in egypt. he is also, like osiris and baiame, the chief of a beautiful, far-off, spiritual country, but he had his adventures and misadventures while he dwelt on earth. the malevolent aspect of things — storms, disease and the rest — is either quawteaht enraged, or the manifestation of his opponent in the primitive dualism, tootooch or chay-her, the hades or pluto of the ahts. like hades, chay-her is both a person and a place — the place of the dead discomforted, and the ruler of that land, a boneless form with a long grey beard. the exploits of quawteaht in the beginning of things were something between those of zeus and of prometheus.

“he is the general framer — i do not say creator of all things, though some special things are excepted.”25 quawteaht, in the legend of the loon (who was once an injured indian, and still wails his wrongs), is represented as conscious of the conduct of men, and as prone to avenge misdeeds.26 in person quawteaht was of short stature, with very strong hairy arms and legs.27 there is a touch of unconscious darwinism in this description of “the first indian”. in quawteaht mingle the rough draughts of a god and of an adam, a creator and a first man. this mixture is familiar in the zulu unkulunkulu. unlike prometheus, quawteaht did not steal the seed of fire. it was stolen by the cuttlefish, and in some legends quawteaht was the original proprietor. like most gods, he could assume the form of the beasts, and it was in the shape of a great whale that he discomfited his opponent tootooch.28 it does not appear that tootooch receives any worship or adoration, such as is offered to the sun and moon.

leaving the ahts for the thlinkeets, we find yehl, the god or hero of the introduction of the arts, who, like the christ of the finnish epic or maui in new zealand, was born by a miraculous birth. his mother was a thlinkeet woman, whose boys had all been slain. as she wandered disconsolate by the sea-shore, a dolphin or whale, taking pity upon her. bade her drink a little salt water and swallow a pebble. she did so, and in due time bore a child, yehl, the hero of the thlinkeets. once, in his youth, yehl shot a supernatural crane, skinned it, and whenever he wished to fly, clothed himself in the bird’s skin. yet he is always known as a raven. hence there is much the same confusion between yehl and the bird as between amun in egypt and the ram in whose skin he was once pleased to reveal himself to a mortal. in yehl’s youth occurred the deluge, produced by the curse of an unfriendly uncle of his own; but the deluge was nothing to yehl, who flew up to heaven, and anchored himself to a cloud by his beak till the waters abated. like most heroes of his kind, yehl brought light to men. the heavenly bodies in his time were kept in boxes by an old chief. yehl, by an ingenious stratagem, got possession of the boxes. to fly up to the firmament with the treasure, to open the boxes, and to stick stars, sun and moon in their proper places in the sky, was to the active yehl the work of a moment.

fire he stole, like prometheus, carrying a brand in his beak till he reached the thlinkeet shore. there the fire dropped on stones and sticks, from which it is still obtained by striking the flints or rubbing together the bits of wood. water, like fire, was a monopoly in those days, and one khanukh kept all of it in his own well. khanukh was the ancestor of the wolf family among the thlinkeets, as yehl is the first father of the stock called ravens. the wolf and raven thus answer to the mythic creative crow and cockatoo in australian mythology, and take sides in the primitive dualism. when yehl went to steal water from khanukh, the pair had a discussion, exactly like that between joukahainen and waina-moinen in the epic of the finns, as to which of them had been longer in the world. “before the world stood in its place, i was there,” says yehl; and wainamoinen says, “when earth was made, i was there; when space was unrolled, i launched the sun on his way”. similar boasts occur in the poems of empedocles and of taliesin. khanukh, however, proved to be both older and more skilled in magic than yehl. yet the accomplishment of flying once more stood yehl in good stead, and he carried off the water, as odin, in the form of a bird, stole suttung’s mead, by flying off with it in his beak. yehl then went to his own place.29

in the myths of the other races on the north-west pacific coast nothing is more remarkable than the theriomorphic character of the heroes, who are also to a certain extent gods and makers of things.

the koniagas have their ancestral bird and dog, demiurges, makers of sea, rivers, hills, yet subject to “a great deity called schljam schoa,” of whom they are the messengers and agents.30 the aleuts have their primeval dog-hero, and also a great old man, who made people, like deucalion, and as in the macusi myth, by throwing stones over his shoulder.31

concerning the primal mythical beings of the great hunter and warrior tribes of america, algonkins, hurons and iroquois, something has already been said in the chapter on “myths of the origin of things”.

it is the peculiarity of such heroes or gods of myth as the opposing red indian good and evil deities that they take little part in the affairs of the world when once these have been started.32 ioskeha and tawiscara, the good and bad primeval brothers, have had their wars, and are now, in the opinion of some, the sun and the moon.33 the benefits of ioskeha to mankind are mainly in the past; as, for example, when, like another indra, he slew the great frog that had swallowed the waters, and gave them free course over earth.34

ioskeha is still so far serviceable that he “makes the pot boil,” though this may only be a way of recalling the benefits conferred on man by him when he learned from the turtle how to make fire. ioskeha, moreover is thanked for success in the chase, because he let loose the animals from the cave in which they lived at the beginning. as they fled he spoiled their speed by wounding them with arrows; only one escaped, the wind-swift wolf. some devotees regarded ioskeha as the teacher of agriculture and the giver of great harvests of maize. in 1635 ioskeha was seen, all meagre and skeleton-like, tearing a man’s leg with his teeth, a prophecy of famine. a more agreeable apparition of loskeha is reported by the pere barthelemy vimont.35 when an iroquois was fishing, “a demon appeared to him in the shape of a tall and beautiful young man. ‘be not afraid,’ said this spirit; ‘i am the master of earth, whom you hurons worship under the name of ioskeha; the french give me the erroneous name of jesus, but they know me not.’” ioskeha then gave some directions for curing the small-pox. the indian’s story is, of course, coloured by what he knew of missionary teaching, but the incident should be compared with the “medicine dream” of john tanner.

the sky, conceived as a person, held a place rather in the religion than in the mythology of the indians. he was approached with prayer and sacrifice, and “they implored the sky in all their necessities”.36 “the sky hears us,” they would say in taking an oath, and they appeased the wrath of the sky with a very peculiar semi-cannibal sacrifice.37

what ioskeha was to the iroquois, michabo or manibozho was to the algonkin tribes. there has been a good deal of mystification about michabo or manibozho, or messou, who was probably, in myth, a hare sans phrase, but who has been converted by philological processes into a personification of light or dawn. it has already been seen that the wild north pacific peoples recognise in their hero and demiurge animals of various species; dogs, ravens, muskrats and coyotes have been found in this lofty estimation, and the utes believe in “cin-au-av, the ancient of wolves”.38 it would require some labour to derive all the ancient heroes and gods from misconceptions about the names of vast natural phenomena like light and dawn, and it is probable that michabo or mani-bozho, the great hare of the algonkins, is only a successful apotheosised totem like the rest. his legend and his dominion are very widely spread. dr. brinton himself (p. 153) allows that the great hare is a totem. perhaps our earliest authority about the mythical great hare in america is william strachey’s travaile into virginia.39

among other information as to the gods of the natives, strachey quotes the remarks of a certain indian: “we have five gods in all; our chief god appears often unto us in the likeness of a mighty great hare; the other four have no visible shape, but are indeed the four wynds”. an indian, after hearing from the english the biblical account of the creation, explained that “our god, who takes upon him the shape of a hare, . . . at length devised and made divers men and women”. he also drove away the cannibal manitous. “that godlike hare made the water and the fish and a great deare.” the other four gods, in envy, killed the hare’s deer. this is curiously like the bushman myth of cagn, the mantis insect, and his favourite eland. “the godly hare’s house” is at the place of sun-rising; there the souls of good indians “feed on delicious fruits with that great hare,” who is clearly, so far, the virginian osiris.40 dr. brinton has written at some length on “this chimerical beast,” whose myth prevails, he says, “from the remotest wilds of the north-west to the coast of the atlantic, from the southern boundary of carolina to the cheerless swamps of hudson’s bay. . . . the totem” (totem-kindred probably is meant) “clan which bore his name was looked up to with peculiar respect.” from this it would appear that the hare was a totem like another, and had the same origin, whatever that may have been. according to the pere allouez, the indians “ont en veneration toute particuliere, une certaine beste chimerique, qu’ils n’ont jamais veue sinon en songe, ils tappelient missibizi,” which appears to be a form of michabo and mani-bozho.41

in 1670 the same pere allouez gives some myths about michabo. “c’est-a-dire le grand lievre,” who made the world, and also invented fishing-nets. he is the master of life, and can leap eight leagues at one bound, and is beheld by his servants in dreams. in 1634 pere paul le jeune gives a longer account of messou, “a variation of the same name,” according to dr. brinton, as michabo. this messou reconstructed the drowned world out of a piece of clay brought him by an otter, which succeeded after the failure of a raven sent out by messou. he afterwards married a muskrat, by whom he became the father of a flourishing family. “le brave reparateur de l’univers est le frere aisné de toutes les bestes,” says the mocking missionary.42 messou has the usual powers of shape-shifting, which are the common accomplishments of the medicine-man or conjuror, se transformant en mille sortes d’animaux.43 he is not so much a creator as a demiurge, inferior to a mysterious being called atahocan. but atahocan is obsolescent, and his name is nearly equivalent to an old wife’s fable, a story of events au temps jadis.44 “le mot nitatoho-can signifie, ‘je dis un vieux conte fait à plaisir’.”

these are examples of the legends of michabo or manibozho, the great hare. he appears in no way to differ from the other animals of magical renown, who, in so many scores of savage myths, start the world on its way and instruct men in the arts. his fame may be more widely spread, but his deeds are those of eagle, crow, wolf, coyote, spider, grasshopper, and so forth, in remote parts of the world. his legend is the kind of legend whose origin we ascribe to the credulous fancy of early peoples, taking no distinction between themselves and the beasts. if the hare was indeed the totem of a successful and honoured kindred, his elevation is perfectly natural and intelligible.

dr. brinton, in his myths of the new world (new york, 1876), adopts a different line of explanation. michabo, he says, “was originally the highest divinity recognised by them, powerful and beneficent beyond all others, maker of the heavens and the world”. we gladly welcome him in that capacity in religion. but it has already been shown that michabo is only, in myth, the reparateur de l’univers, and that he has a sleeping partner — a deity retired from business. moreover, dr. brinton’s account of michabo, “powerful and beneficent beyond all others, maker of the heavens and the world,” clashes with his own statement, that “of monotheism as displayed in the one personal definite god of the semitic races” (to whom dr. brinton’s description of michabo applies) “there is not a single instance on the american continent.”45 the residences and birthplaces of michabo are as many as those of the gods of greece. it is true that in some accounts, as in strachey’s, “his bright home is in the rising sun”. it does not follow that the hare had any original connection with the dawn. but this connection dr. brinton seeks to establish by philological arguments. according to this writer, the names (manibozho, nanibozhu, missibizi, michabo, messou) “all seem compounded, according to well-ascertained laws of algonkin euphony, from the words corresponding to great and hare or rabbit, or the first two perhaps from spirit and hare“.46 but this seeming must not be trusted. we must attentively examine the algonkin root wab, when it will appear “that in fact there are two roots having this sound. one is the initial syllable of the word translated hare or rabbit, but the other means white, and from it is derived the words for the east, the dawn, the light, the day, and the morning. beyond a doubt (sic) this is the compound in the names michabo and manibozho, which therefore mean the great light, the spirit of light, of the dawn, or the east.”

then the war of manibozho became the struggle of light and darkness. finally, michabo is recognised by dr. brinton as “the not unworthy personification of the purest conceptions they possessed concerning the father of all,”47 though, according to dr. brinton in an earlier passage, they can hardly be said to have possessed such conceptions.48 we are not responsible for these inconsistencies. the degeneracy to the belief in a “mighty great hare,” a “chimerical beast,” was the result of a misunderstanding of the root wab in their own language by the algonkins, a misunderstanding that not only affected the dialects in which the root wab occurred in the hare’s name, but those in which it did not!

on the whole, the mythology of the great hunting and warrior tribes of north america is peopled by the figures of ideal culture-heroes, partly regarded as first men, partly as demiurges and creators. they waver in outward aspect between the beautiful youths of the “medicine-dreams” and the bestial guise of totems and protecting animals. they have a tendency to become identified with the sun, like osiris in egypt, or with the moon. they are adepts in all the arts of the medicine-man, and they are especially addicted to animal metamorphosis. in the long winter evenings, round the camp-fire, the indians tell such grotesque tales of their pranks and adventures as the greeks told of their gods, and the middle ages of the saints.49

the stage in civilisation above that of the hunter tribes is represented in the present day by the settled pueblo indians of new mexico and arizona. concerning the faith of the zunis we fortunately possess an elaborate account by mr. frank cushing.50 mr. cushing was for long a dweller in the clay pueblos of the zu?is, and is an initiated member of their sacred societies. he found that they dealt at least as freely in metaphysics as the maoris, and that, like the australians, “they suppose sun, moon and stars, the sky, earth and sea, in all their phenomena and elements, and all inanimate objects, as well as plants, animals and men, to belong to one great system of all conscious and interrelated life, in which the degrees of relationship seem to be determined largely, if not wholly, by the degrees of resemblance”. this, of course, is stated in terms of modern self-conscious speculation. when much the same opinions are found among the kamilaroi and kurnai of australia, they are stated thus: “some of the totems divide not mankind only, but the whole universe into what may almost be called gentile divisions”.51

“everything in nature is divided between the classes. the wind belongs to one and the rain to another. the sun is wutaroo and the moon is yungaroo. . . . the south australian savage looks upon the universe as the great tribe, to one of whose divisions he himself belongs, and all things, animate or inanimate, which belong to his class are parts of the body corporate, whereof he himself is part. they are almost parts of himself”.

manifestly this is the very condition of mind out of which mythology, with all existing things acting as dramatis person?, must inevitably arise.

the zuni philosophy, then, endows all the elements and phenomena of nature with personality, and that personality is blended with the personality of the beast “whose operations most resemble its manifestation”. thus lightning is figured as a serpent, and the serpent holds a kind of mean position between lightning and man. strangely enough, flint arrow-heads, as in europe, are regarded as the gift of thunder, though the zunis have not yet lost the art of making, nor entirely abandoned, perhaps, the habit of using them. once more, the supernatural beings of zuni religion are almost invariably in the shape of animals, or in monstrous semi-theriomorphic form. there is no general name for the gods, but the appropriate native terms mean “creators and masters,” “makers,” and “finishers,” and “immortals”. all the classes of these, including the class that specially protects the animals necessary to men, “are believed to be related by blood “. but among these essences, the animals are nearest to man, most accessible, and therefore most worshipped, sometimes as mediators. but the zuni has mediators even between him and his animal mediators, and these are fetishes, usually of stone, which accidentally resemble this or that beast-god in shape. sometimes, as in the egyptian sphinx, the natural resemblance of a stone to a living form has been accentuated and increased by art. the stones with a natural resemblance to animals are most valued when they are old and long in use, and the orthodox or priestly theory is that they are petrifactions of this or that beast. flint arrow-heads and feathers are bound about them with string.

all these beliefs and practices inspire the zu?i epic, which is repeated, at stated intervals, by the initiated to the neophytes. mr. cushing heard a good deal of this archaic poem in his sacred capacity. the epic contains a zu?i cosmogony. men, as in so many other myths, originally lived in the dark places of earth in four caverns. like the children of uranus and g?a, they murmured at the darkness. the “holder of the paths of life,” the sun, now made two beings out of his own substance; they fell to the earth, armed with rainbow and lightning, a shield and a magical flint knife. the new-comers cut the earth with a flint-knife, as qat cut the palpable dark with a blade of red obsidian in melanesia. men were then lifted through the hole on the shield, and began their existence in the sunlight, passing gradually through the four caverns. men emerged on a globe still very wet; for, as in the iroquois and other myths, there had been a time when “water was the world “. the two benefactors dried the earth and changed the monstrous beasts into stones. it is clear that this myth accounts at once for the fossil creatures found in the rocks and for the merely accidental resemblance to animals of stones now employed as fetishes.52 in the stones is believed to survive the “medicine” or magic, the spiritual force of the animals of old.

the zu?is have a culture-hero as usual, po’shai-an-k’ia, who founded the mysteries, as demeter did in greece, and established the sacred orders. he appeared in human form, taught men agriculture, ritual, and then departed. he is still attentive to prayer. he divided the world into regions, and gave the animals their homes and functions, much as heitsi eibib did in namaqualand. these animals carry out the designs of the culture-hero, and punish initiated zu?is who are careless of their religious duties and ritual. the myths of the sacred beasts are long and dismal, chiefly aetiological, or attempts to account by a fictitious narrative for the distribution and habits of the various creatures. zu?i prayers are mainly for success in the chase; they are directed to the divine beasts, and are reinforced by magical ceremonies. yet a prayer for sport may end with such a truly religious petition as this: “grant me thy light; give me and my children a good trail across life “. again we read: “this day, my fathers, ye animal gods, although this country be filled with enemies, render me precious. . . . oh, give ye shelter of my heart from them!” yet in religious hymns the zu?is celebrate ahonawilona, “the maker and container of all, the all father,” the uncreated, the unbegotten, who “thought himself out into space”. here is monotheism among fetishists.53

the faith of the zu?is, with its metaphysics, its devoutness and its magic ritual, may seem a kind of introduction to the magic, the ritual and the piety of the ancient aztecs. the latter may have grown, in a long course of forgotten ages, out of elements like those of the zu?i practice, combined with the atrocious cruelty of the warrior tribes of the north. perhaps in no race is the extreme contrast between low myth, and the highest speculation, that of “the eternal thinking himself out into space,” so marked as among the zu?is. the highly abstract conception of ahonawilona was unknown to europeans when this work first appeared.