We next have to meet the question as to the race origin of fairy beliefs, in so far as they are parallel to witch beliefs. If witchcraft represents ancient aboriginal belief in direct descent by the channels just examined, what part of the same aboriginal belief does fairycraft represent, and how is its separation from witchcraft to be accounted for? The theory that fairies are the traditional representatives of an ancient pigmy race has met with considerable support from folklorists. It is needless to repeat all the arguments in support of this theory which have been advanced during the past twenty years, because they are contained in works easily accessible and well known. But it is important to note that these beliefs must have originated not with the aboriginal pigmy race themselves, but with the conquering race who overpowered them and drove them to the hills and out-parts of the land. The influence of the despised out-driven aborigines did not cease after the conflict was over. It produced upon the minds of their conquerors mythic conceptions, which have during the lapse of time become stereotyped into certain well-defined lines of fairy lore. At this point we may discuss how the parallel between witchcraft and fairycraft is explained by the ethnological characteristics which have been advanced. Witchcraft has been explained as the survival of aboriginal beliefs from aboriginal sources. Fairycraft has been explained as the survival of beliefs about the aborigines from Aryan sources. The aborigines, as is proved from Indian and other evidence, not only believed in their own demoniacal powers, but sought in every way to spread this belief among their conquerors. Thus, then, the belief of the aborigines about themselves and of the conquering race about the aborigines would be on all material points identical; and by interpreting the essentials of witchcraft and of fairycraft as the survivals in folklore of the mythic influence of a conquered race upon their conquerors we are supported by the facts which meet us everywhere in folklore, and by an explanation which alone is adequate to account for all the phenomena. It has been held, indeed, by Grimm and others that witchcraft is a direct offshoot from fairy beliefs consequent upon the action of the Christian Church in stamping fairydom with a connection with the devil. But if this argument is worth anything it would account for the fact that fairydom, after throwing off such a powerful offshoot as witchcraft, should have itself continued in undiminished force with all the old beliefs attached to it. But it does not account for this difficulty. On the other hand, the explanation I have attempted is not involved with such a difficulty. The various phenomena fit into their places with remarkable precision; there is no twisting of any of the details, and not only analogies but differences are accounted for. I am tempted to put this argument into genealogical form to show more clearly the lines along which we have travelled. It would be set forth as follow : I do not suggest that this table should be hardened into an absolute rule. All that it is intended for, and all that folklore can attempt at present, is to indicate some of the results which may be attained by a close and systematic study of its details. These details in some departments will allow of something like precision in their arrangement; in others we must still grope about for some time to come yet. But if we attempt precision in arrangement, we must be careful not to allow it to become the means of detaching any items of folklore from their proper place amidst all the other items. Their relationship to each other is, indeed, the only means by which we may trace out their origins. The neglect of this principle in connection with the numerous accounts of the higher divinities, both of classical and modern times, has helped to bring about the idea that in Europe both higher and lower divinities belong to the same people. F CHAPTER IV THE LOCALISATION OF PRIMITIVE BELIEF It would seem that we may distinguish in the prehistoric ages of man certain data which point to a pretribal society. The argument as it stands at present is not one to insist upon with too much precision, either with reference to its illustration of earliest man, or with reference to its influence on later man. Rather, it must be continually borne in mind that the evolution of society does in some measure point back to an early phase of extreme localisation, and that biological evidence strongly supports such a view. So far as the survey of primitive belief has proceeded with reference to the origin of certain of its classes, there seems to be some proof of the same course of evolution. Thus Dormer says, 'If monotheism had been an original doctrine, traces of such a belief would have remained among all peoples; if the cure of disease by medication had been the original method, such a useful art would never have been so utterly lost that sorcery should wholly usurp its place; in savage animism we find no survivals which show inconsistencies with it.'1 1 Dormer, Origin of Primitive Superstitions, pp. 386–387. But savage animism is founded upon, and essentially bound up with, locality. One word only is required in proof of this, and for this purpose we naturally turn to Dr. Tylor. Studying his careful analysis of animism, and the evidence brought forward to support it, it appears clear enough that the emphasis of animism lies in its localisation the local spirits which belong to mountain and rock and valley, to well and stream and lake-in brief, to those natural objects which in early ages aroused the savage mind to mythological ideas.'1 I take it to be a distinct advance in culture when mankind began to separate himself from local worship. In the study of Semitic religions which Professor Robertson Smith has given us, he has touched upon this point in a chapter which contains many valuable suggestions, but he does not appear to me to mark sufficient distinction between the tribal gods which are, according to his evidence, tending to become local, and the primitive local gods of the land which had never become tribal.2 The distinction is an important one, and has a definite bearing upon the ethnology of Semitic ritual. It must, however, be approached from the savage side. No one has paid closer attention to this than Major Ellis in his studies of African beliefs, and it seems clear from these that the transition is from local to tribal, and not vice versa. 'The deified powers in nature,' says Major Ellis, 'the rivers and lagoons, being necessarily 1 Tylor, Primitive Culture, ii. 187. |