From the point of view of comparative psychology this fact is easily explained. The distance between an impromptu recital of a recent occurrence and historical art and literature, as we understand them to-day, however short it may appear, covers perhaps the most momentous progress that man has made in his advancement towards culture. Whether commemorative art is to be considered as retrospective with regard to something that is past, the memory of which it endeavours to revive, or as directed towards future generations whom the artist would wish to make participators of the present, it presupposes a power of conferring attention upon matters the interest in which is not confined to the immediate present. No psychologist would include this faculty among the attributes of those in the lowest stage of mental development. Ethnological science, on the other hand, shows that it is as yet lacking in some of the existing tribes of the lower savages. In an æsthetic research it is of the highest importance to know exactly when and where this attribute appears. In the general history of art no date can be more significant than that which marks the commencement of a larger conception in the mind of the artist of the public for whom he works, bringing in its train, as it does, wider aims concerning his work.
CHAPTER XIII
HISTORICAL ART
It is exceedingly difficult to decide at what precise stage in the evolution of mankind we can first distinguish signs of a true commemorative art. It seems pretty evident that the lowest of the known tribes—such as the Veddas, the Bubis, the Kubus—live exclusively in and for the present, without any memories or traditions as to their past. When we turn our attention, however, to tribes in the somewhat higher condition of culture we find that the statements of travellers are not at one with regard to this. The Fuegians are said by M. Hyades to lack any kind of history and tradition.[210] But, on the other hand, one of their pantomimical dances (or rather dramas) has been explained by M. Martial, another member of the Cape Horn expedition, as commemorating the revolt of the men against the women, “who formerly had the authority and possessed the secrets of sorcery.”[211] The inconsistency between these two assertions can, however, be explained by the fact that Hyades evidently had in view only the oral tradition. The interpretation of M. Martial again seems to be merely hypothetical. Mr. Bridges, who is more competent than any one else to speak about this tribe, does not allude to any commemorative element in the “Kina,” although even he thinks that these plays, in which the parts were formerly acted by women, are old and traditional in their form.[212]
A similar inconsistency in the use of terms has no doubt been the cause of the conflicting reports on the traditional poetry of the Greenlanders. In his account of their “Wissenschaften” Cranz says that they have no heroic songs describing the doings of their ancestors. But the very wording of this negation—“They know nothing about them except that they were brave hunters, and slew the old Norsemen”—shows that it can by no means be adduced to prove complete default of oral tradition.[213] And in another passage Cranz expressly says that the Eskimos, at their sunfeasts, praise the feats of their ancestors.[214]
It is more difficult to bring into accord the various statements concerning the Melanesians. Mr. Codrington sees a distinguishing feature of this ethnological group in the fact that they, in contrast to the Polynesians, are conspicuously devoid of native history and oral tradition.[215] But this rule is evidently subject to at least one important exception, as the Fijians are known to celebrate subjects from their legendary history in their choral dance-songs.[216] One is led to believe, therefore, that in some other island, also of the Melanesian group, traditional poetry and traditional dramas may have existed, but escaped the attention of the ethnologists. Negative statements are never to be unreservedly relied upon, least of all perhaps in accounts of uncivilised men. The case of the Navajo affords an instructive and warning example, which falls exactly within the limits of the present investigation. In spite of the statement by Dr. Letherman, who is acknowledged to have been a “man of unusual ability,” that the Navajos had “no knowledge of their origin or of the history of their tribe,”[217] Dr. Washington Matthews has been able to gather his imposing collection of historical songs and traditional commemorative customs.[218]
An incident of this kind is apt to make us sceptical with regard to the assertion of Captain Cook, which has, however, been unreservedly quoted by Lubbock and Spencer, that the Maoris, a race noted for old legends and ancient lore, in 1770 had no recollection of Tasman’s visit to their island.[219] And one is inclined to doubt the trustworthiness of Schoolcraft’s informant when he says that the Appalachian Indians had lost all recollection of De Soto’s expedition.[220] Compared with the statements concerning the Lenape and the Mohicans, who still remember Hudson, and the Iroquois and the Algonquins, who preserve traditions of the first white immigrants,[221] this assertion will, in any case, lose its force as a judgment upon the whole North American race, in which sense it has, however, been used by Lubbock.[222] On a closer investigation the Chinooks will perhaps be also discharged from the unfavourable verdict passed upon them by Kane, who could never hear any traditions as to their former origin.[223]
It is safest, therefore, merely to state generally and approximately that among the lower savages the commemorative element is lost sight of amid the prevailing impromptu productions. With higher culture the commemorative inclination appears to become intensified. But its growth cannot be considered as closely accompanying the general mental evolution. Whatever great treasures of epical poetry and literature may some day be found amongst the Melanesians, their relative inferiority in this respect can never be contested. When a group like this, notwithstanding its unsurpassed ability in formative art,—which, however, seems to suggest a commemorative purpose,[224]—can be outdone in matters of oral history and tradition, not only by the Polynesians but even, it would seem, by the Australians,[225] there is of course no possibility of applying the general scheme of evolution to fix the definite beginnings of commemorative art. A priori assertions do not count in a question in which the reality defeats the assumptions of probability in such a surprising manner. Before the ethnological knowledge becomes more complete no statement as to traditional art can be accepted as definite.
The scantiness of reliable information does not, however, constitute the greatest difficulty. The facts themselves, even if their authenticity is granted, are often liable to the most inconsistent interpretations. For an exact appreciation of the influence which the commemorative impulse has exercised on the history of art it is insufficient to enumerate examples, however many might be found, of traditionally preserved works of art. The really important thing is to distinguish works which can be considered as genuine specimens of historical art, i.e. as the outcome of a commemorative intention, from the mere survivals which resemble these in so confusing a manner. In almost every artistic manifestation we can read a story of the past. The tenacity with which the old forms and the old technical procedures are retained lends a documentary value to every ornament, picture, or poem. By authors with a predilection for historic interpretations this record element is apt to be considered as intentionally aimed at. The euhemeristic view will in this way be applied to the history of art, with results that are often as extravagant as the mythological theories themselves. For every detail in a dance or dramatic performance a reason has been looked for in some event of real occurrence. This method has its strong and sensible side—and a very sensible one indeed—in that it does away with the idea of a rich and creative imagination in primitive man. It can also be applied to with great advantage for the explanation of artistic manifestation, which would otherwise be quite incomprehensible.[226] But its use is not, any more than that of any other general theory, to be recommended as a master-key to all the mysteries of ceremonialism and ritual art. The shortcomings of the method are strongly emphasised by the fact that it has failed in cases which have been chosen expressly for its illustration.
Foremost amongst the advocates of euhemerism in the study of ceremonial stands Captain Bourke, who has taken up and extended to the rites and dramas of the living savages the theory of Higgins, that all ceremonies of antiquity were created with a view of preserving to the memory ancient learning and ancient traditions.[227] It would be extremely unfair to accuse this indefatigable hunter after analogies of a limited understanding. In questions of ritualistic detail, such, for instance, as those of the flour-sprinkling customs, his comparative studies are not only unsurpassed as proofs of learning, but are also full of valuable and instructive suggestions.[228] The stately array of facts which he has collected from all stages of culture does not, however, convince any impartial reader of the correctness of the main assertions in his books. A student of comparative psychology, for instance, will always remember the psycho-pathological influences which everywhere and always tend to provoke the same sort of horrid, scatological orgies, in which Captain Bourke has seen a commemoration of some old, exceptional conditions of life.[229] As to the snake-dance at Walpi, which forms the subject of his earliest great work, it cannot be denied that some details in the rite and some of the ceremonial paraphernalia are illustrative of a way of life which presumably predominated amongst the prehistoric Pueblo-Indians.[230] From the dance one might therefore reconstruct an epitomised history of the tribe, which would supplement the tales that are told by the constructional details of the “kiva” architecture and the decorative adornments of the Pueblo pottery.[231] But it seems unjustifiable to adduce, as Mr. Spencer has done, this rite as a typical specimen of commemorative ancestor-worship.[232] In attempting to explain the origin and the purpose of the rite, the later investigators have also on good grounds neglected to appeal to the commemorative intention. As has been conclusively shown by the consummate researches of Mr. Fewkes, the snake-ceremonials are mainly and chiefly to be considered as dramatic expressions of the water-cult, which permeates every department in the life of the Pueblo-Indians.[233] Through such an interpretation the drama is brought into close connection with the religious system as well as with the practical necessities of the Pueblo-Indians. Its significance as the most important of all the national ceremonies is easily understood, when the rite in its entirety is regarded as only an active form of the same prayer for rain, which is pictorially conveyed in the sand-mosaics and in the painted ornaments of the tribe.[234] Its various details, on the other hand, will find their most unsought-for explanation when considered as contributing to the great propitiatory purpose. Whatever value and interest an euhemeristic interpretation might have for a student of the prehistoric Pueblo-life, the psycho-sociological conditions of the rite, so to speak, can be fully comprehended only when they are investigated in connection with the ideas of ritual magic and religious propitiation. The same view holds good, we believe, with regard to almost all the religious ceremonies of uncivilised man, although it may be impossible to prove it in every individual case, as the facts themselves generally are entangled in a most exasperating manner. They must be detached not only from the theoretical constructions of the anthropologists, but also from the euhemeristic interpretations of the natives themselves. The native dogmatism will often be even more misleading than that of the scientists.
It is a well-known phenomenon, which often repeats itself, that when a higher stage of culture is reached the original significance of a rite or a custom falls into oblivion. The custom itself, will, however, with the tenacious conservatism that characterises man, be rigorously maintained long after its origin has been forgotten. Amongst the lower savages no other justification of these ceremonies—incomprehensible to the participants themselves—is necessary than the oft-quoted “our fathers did so before us.” But with increased intellectual development there must arise a craving for some reasonable explanation. The semi-civilised man never cares to admit to how great an extent his actions are automatical. Hence the rationalisation of rites and customs,—familiar to every student of Christian theology,—which has its beginnings even in the higher stages of savagery. The rationalisation most readily adopted by tribes without developed philosophical or ethical notions is the historical one. The simple and honest argument “because our fathers did so” is replaced by the fictitious motive of keeping up the memory of the doings of the fathers. When once this reasoning obtains full power it will soon cover the whole field of ritual life. Every incomprehensible feature in ceremonies or customs will be explained through reference to the past. And when knowledge of events falls short of affording such an explanation, popular imagination will always be prone to substitute itself for the missing reality.[235] In this way a commemorative excuse can easily be found for every apparently illogical action in life.