Page:Encyclopædia Britannica, Ninth Edition, v. 20.djvu/383

Rh RELIGIONS 365 worship and from what is known of the religious customs j of the Malagasy, especially the Hovas, the ancient Malay religions did not differ more from the Polynesian and the Melanesian than do the languages. There is one institu- tion especially which, though in principle and to a certain degree common to all ancient religions, has nowhere acquired that importance and that peculiar development which it has grown to in the Polynesian and the Melane- sian religions, the institution of the taboo, a kind of interdict laid on objects and persons, by which they are made sacred and inviolable. Now this taboo, which more than anything else characterizes these religions, was equally important in Madagascar before Radama's reforms, and exists also among the Malays, who call it Pamali, nay, even among the Australians, who call it Kuinyunda, There are some other customs common to all these nations, as the particular worship of the ghosts of the deceased, some ordeals, &c., but this is of minor importance. The general observance of such a peculiar custom as the taboo by all the peoples belonging to this ethnic family, a custom which rules their whole religion, gives us the right to speak of a Malayo-Polynesian family of religions. One distinct branch of this family is the Polynesian, which has everywhere the same myths with only local varieties, and the same supreme god Taaroa or Tangaroa. The Micronesian branch is only a subdivision of it. The Melanesian branch differs more widely, but agrees in the main, and the supreme god Ndengei, whether original or borrowed, is evidently the same as Tangaroa. That the Malay branch had its marked subdivisions is very pro- bable ; but the settlement of this difficult question must be left to further research. According to ethnologists the Australians and the now extinct Tasmauians do not belong to the Malayo-Polynesian race. But, as their religion shows the same prominent characteristic as the Polynesian, and, moreover, agrees with it in other respects, they must be in some way related. These are the rough outlines of a genealogical classifica- tion of religions. It embraces nearly all of them. Only a few have been purposely left out, such as those of the Dravidas, the Munda tribes, and the Sinhalese in India, partly for want of trustworthy information, partly because it is not yet certain what belongs to them originally and what is due to Hindu influence. At any rate we cannot consider their religions as allied to the Ural-Altaic. We have also omitted the religions of the Basque or Euscal- dunac, of which nothing particular is known, and for obvious reasons the Etrurian. Even if the intricate pro- blem with regard to their language could be solved, the Etrurians borrowed so much from the Greek mythology that it would be next to impossible to state what kind of religion they originally had as their own. Morphological Classification of Religions. In his Lec- J ta tures on the Science of Religion, pp. 123-143, Prof. Max ,, Miiller, who has done so much to raise the comparative study of religions to the rank of a science, criticizes the most usual modes of classification applied to religions, viz., (1) that into true and false, (2) that into revealed and natural, (3) that into national and individual, (4) that into polytheistic, dualistic, and monotheistic, and dis- misses each and all of them as useless and impracticable. In this we cannot but acquiesce in his opinion and hold his judgment as decisive. The only exception we should like to take refers to the classification under (3), which, as we shall presently show, contains more truth than he is dis- posed to admit. And when he winds up his argument with the assertion that "the only scientific and truly genetic classification of religions is the same as the classi- fication of languages " we must dissent from him. Even the genealogical classification of religions does not always run parallel with that of languages. Prof. Max Miiller says that, " particularly in the early history of the human intellect, there exists the most intimate relationship between language, religion, and nationality." This may be generally true ; we do not deny it. But the farther history advances the more does religion become inde- pendent of both language and nationality. And that the stage of development a religion has attained to the one thing to be considered for a morphological classification has nothing to do with the language of its adherents is obvious. Now for a really scientific study of religions such a morphological classification is absolutely necessary, and therefore we are bound by our subject to give our opinion with regard to the truly scientific principle on which it ought to be based. First let us see what has already been done to this effect by one of the best authorities. Prof. W. D. Whitney, in an interesting article "On the so-called Science of Religion, " declares for the well-known classifica- tion of religions into national and individual. To quote his own words, " There is no more marked distinction among religions than the one we are called upon to make between a race religion which, like a language, is the collective product of the wisdom of a community, the unconscious growth of generations and a religion pro- ceeding from an individual founder, who, as leading repre- sentative of the better insight and feeling of his time (for otherwise he would meet with no success), makes head against formality and superstition, and recalls his fellow- men to sincere and intelligent faith in a new body of doctrines, of specially moral aspect, to which he himself gives shape and coherence. Of this origin are Zoroas- trianism, Mohammedanism, Buddhism ; and, from the point of view of the general historian of religions, what- ever difference of character and authority he may recognize in its founder, Christianity belongs in the same class with them, as being an individual and universal religion, grow- ing out of one that was limited to a race." We hardly think that this reasoning can be unconditionally assented to. At any rate we must put it in another way. Before the American scholar's essay was published, it had already been judiciously observed by Prof. Max Miiller that, though neither a Brahman, nor a Greek, nor a Roman could name the name of the founder of his religion, we discover even there the influence of individual minds or schools or climates. So he thinks that this classification is useful for certain purposes, but fails as soon as we attempt to apply it in a more scientific spirit. This is partially true. What is the wisdom of a community but the wisdom of its more enlightened members, that is, of individuals'? Religions of which the origin and history lies in the dark may be called the unconscious growth of generations, but in a figurative sense only. If they have a mythology and a ritual of their own, it may be the result of something like natural selection ; but every myth meant to explain natural phenomena, every rite meant to still the wrath or to win the favour of the higher powers and accepted as an integral part of their faith and worship, perhaps first by some more advanced members of a tribe or nation or community only, afterwards by all of them, was originally the creation of one single human mind. On the other hand, if founders of higher religions are themselves "the leading representatives of the better insight and feeling of their time," then here too there is only growth ; they are at the head of their contemporaries, because the better insight and feeling of the latter culmin- ate_ in them, and because they are able to lend them a shape which makes the more advanced ideas and senti- ments agreeable to the minds and hearts of the many ; but they meet with success only when that which they