Dec. 1, 1885.1 



♦ KNOWLEDGE ♦ 



59 



There is. among the Algonquin myths, a story re- 

 sembling in places the tale of Cinderella : — 



There once dwelt in a lodge in an Indian village a 

 beautiful being who was always invisible, and his only 

 companion was his sister. If any girl could see him, it 

 would be her privilege to marry him, and the girls, being 

 aware of this, were very fond of visitinc; the sister, and 

 walking with her beside the lake in the evening. They 

 would often pretend to see the invisible one, but the 

 sister would ask them questions about him which they 

 were unable to answer correctly. They would then 

 return to the lodge together, and eat supper, and all that 

 could be seen of the brother would be his mocassins as 

 he took them off. 



This was aggravating. At last two sisters determined 

 to try their luck. They left their third sister to mind 

 the house, and sought the lodge arrayed in all their 

 finery. Here they were welcomed by the sister, who, 

 however, saw through their designs, and was prepared 

 for them. They took the usual walk by the lake, and 

 when the sister asked them if they could see her brother, 

 they declared that they did. She asked them, "What is 

 his moose-runner's haul? " or, " With what dot^ he draw 

 his sled ? " and she knew by their replies that they were 

 not telling the truth. She then said, " Very well ; let us 

 return to the wigwam. ' The sisters, however, did not 

 see her brother, and were very angry. 



Now their younger sister wished to try her luck, but 

 her face and hands were badly scarred where her sisters 

 had burnt her with hot coals. However, she made her- 

 self look as nice f.s possible, and although her sisters 

 jeered aud laughed at her she went on her way. As 

 soon as the sister saw her, she received her kindly, for 

 she knew that the girl had been ill-treated. Walking by 

 the lake, the despised girl saw the brother, and when 

 the sister asked her, " What is his sled-string ? " " It is 

 the Rainbow," she answered. "And what is his bow- 

 string r ' '-His bow-string is KetaJcsooicowclit" (the 

 Spirit's Road, the Milky Way). 



The sister knew by her replies that she had seen him, 

 and taking her home. b?.thed and dressed her. Her face 

 became radiant with bjciuty, her hair, which had been 

 burnt off, fell around her in long tresses, and her eyes 

 shone like stars. When the brother came home, he 

 admired her beauty, and seeing that she was dressed as a 

 bride, he smiled and said, " Wajoolkoos ! ' (So we are 

 found out !) "Alajulaa" (Yes), was the sister's reply; 

 and the girl became his wife.* 



the great 

 works bv 



MR, HERBERT SPENCER ON PRlESTHOODS.t 

 By Richakd A. Pp.ocioe. 



X the last number of Knowledge I fjave a 

 brief abstract of Mr. Spencer's discussion, 

 in the book before me, of the i-elations 

 between Church and State. I propose now 

 to consider more generally his discussion of 

 '■'Ecclesiastical Institutions.'' 



It is hardly necessary to point out that 

 value of this work, as of the whole series of 

 the great philosopher of our age, resides in 

 the application of the principles of evolution to the 

 subject of discussion. It would hj an injustice to !Mr. 

 Spencer to say that in regard to the general doctrine of 



* " Algonquin Legends," Leland, p. 303. 



t "Ecclesiastical Institutions' : being Part VI. of the -'Principles 

 o£ Sociolosry," bv Herbert Spencer. Williams & Norgate, London, 

 1885. 



evolution, he is as Francis Bacon where Darwin is as 

 Newton. For Bacon was in many respects but an 

 inexact student of science, and in regard to Newton's 

 special department not only held, but maintained, alto- 

 gether erroneous ideas, whereas Spencer in every 

 department of science required for his studies has 

 obtained that true general view which is all that his 

 genera] survey needed or would permit, while in 

 some, and in particular in Darwin's special department, 

 he hn,s been among the foremost leaders in exact 

 inquiry.* Nine-tenths of the subject-matter which my 

 friend Mr. Clodd proposes for example to deal with, 

 belongs to the domain surveyed by Mr. Spencer, where 

 one-tenth only which belongs to the region surveyed and 

 cleared by Charles Darwin. 



In the volume on "Ecclesiastical Institutions,' Mr. 

 Sjjeucer has completed the sixth part of the " Principles 

 of Sociology," the parts which remain to be included in 

 the second volume of that great work being those re- 

 lating to " Professional Institutions '' and '• Industrial 

 Institutions. " We read with much sorrow Mr. Spencer's 

 expression of anxiety lest the completion of these 

 remaining sections should be delayed, or even prevented, 

 by such ill-health as has delayed the appearance of the 

 present volume — which follows the fifth division, on 

 " P(jlitical Institutions,' after the long interval of three 

 ye.irs and a half. 



Rightly to understand the evolution of Ecclesiastical 

 Institutions we must recognise the origin and understand 

 the development of the religious idea in man. Is this 

 idea, and especiallj- the thought of deity, innate? This 

 is commonly assumed : but all the evidence is against it. 

 If the deaf and dumb, instructed at mature age, told us 

 that they had always had the idea of a Creator of the 

 world, that of itself would not prove the idea to be 

 innate, because it might well have been derived through 

 inheritance ; but as a matter of fact •■ it has not been 

 found in a single case that an uneducated deaf-mute has 

 had any idea of the existence of a Supreme Being as 

 Creator and Ruler of the universe. 'f This is manifestly 

 decisive against the theory that the idea is innate. 



The lowest savage has no religious conceptions at all. 

 Graduallj- the radiments of religion arise as ideas of 

 forces outside himself are suggested in various ways. 

 Mr. Spencer holds by the ghost-theory as explaining this 

 actual beginning of religion ; and he seems to be un- 

 doubtedly right in regarding it as belonging to the very 

 earliest stages of religious evolution. But I believe 

 there is a yet earlier and more rudimentary form of the 

 religious feeling, excited by the apparent existence of 

 power and volition in objects not really possessing 

 consciousness or even life. We fijid even the lower 

 animals impressed by a sense of wonder and fear when 

 any inanimate object shows signs of apparent life 



* In a sense, indeed, it was true of Darwin as Mr. Grant Allen 

 has said, that he took the whole world of science for his special 

 province, — which recalls Bacon's boast. l!ut it was also true, that 

 his mind with all its vastness was not profoundly analytical. The 

 task of working out the psychological and metaphysical a.'ipects of 

 evolution fell rather to the great organising and systeiiiatisiug 

 intellect of Herbert Spencer. So again in dealing with tho 

 phenomena of physical and mental heredity Darwin failed where 

 Spencer had achieved a great success. His hypothesis of Pan- 

 genesis is " purely materialistic," as Mr. Grant Allen points out, 

 while "Herbert Spencer's is built up by an acute and subtle 

 analytical perception of all the analogous facts in universal nature." 

 The former was "a singular instance of a crude and essentially 

 unphilosopliic conception endeavouring to replace a finished and 

 delicate philosophical idea. ' 



t " Church Work among the Deaf and Dumb,'' Kev. Samuel 

 Smiles, p. i. 



