[280] This is presented admirably and at length by M. Kulischer in an article “Der Dualismus der Ethik bei den primitiven Völkern,” in the Zeitschrift für Ethnologie, Bd. xvii., pp. 205, sqq. He also sees clearly enough that the same principle, masked and denied though it be, reigns to-day. The “categorical imperative” of Kant, is as far from realisation as is “the golden rule.”
[281] There were, of course, some hobgoblins always ready to eat up or injure man; but not for any moral or ethical reason. “They afflict men, not out of anger or to punish sin, but because it is their nature to do so,” as Dalton says of the devils of the Oraons. Ethnology of Bengal, p. 256.
[282] This explains what Dr. Robertson Smith, in his Religion of the Semites, p. 140, says is so difficult to grasp,—that the primitive idea of holiness is apart from personal character, and even shameful wretches could lay claim to it. Entirely parallel instances are found in the history of Christian heresies, as the Anomians and Anabaptists, who were so holy that they could commit no sin, and hence allowed themselves the wildest licence.
[283] It is in this sense that Wilhelm von Humboldt wrote: “Wahre Tugend ist unverträglich mit auf Autorität geglaubter Religion.” (Gesammelte Werke, Bd. vii., p. 72.) This is a cardinal principle in studying the history of ethics.
[284] Ling Roth, Natives of Sarawak, vol. i., p. 271; Hoffman, Secret Societies of the Ojibway, passim.
[285] They were called the Abecedarians, because they distrusted even the ABC. Some learned scholars actually threw away their books and joined them.
[286] Bain, The Senses and the Intellect, p. 607.
[287] The Descent of Man, p. 581.
[288] As Wilhelm von Humboldt remarked: “Das Streben der Natur ist auf etwas Unbeschränktes gerichtet.” The meaning of this profound observation is ably discussed by Steinthal, Die sprachphilosophischen Werke W. von Humboldt’s, p. 178.
[289] Bull. Amer. Museum Nat. History, vol. viii., p. 227.