offers. Its exponents in fact, perhaps unconsciously, desire that the West African should commit a kind of racial suicide, not the less deadly in effect because it will be merely spiritual.

The direction of modern thought, both at home and in West Africa, has within the past few years been veering round happily to an attitude of mind which is the direct antithesis to what I have just described. This school of thought is a whole-hearted adherent of the slogan, 'the retention of all that is best in the African's own past culture.' The main difficulty, of course, lies in the fact that we and the educated African alike know so little of what that past really was. Some rather vague thinking and vaguer talking have resulted.

The African himself can assist us—at present-only indirectly. The few who possess the requisite knowledge which we would give almost anything to obtain are illiterate, and in consequence generally inarticulate for practical purposes, except when approached by the European who has spent a lifetime among them and has been able to gain their complete confidence. The literate African who is the highly educated product of one of our universities has had to pay a certain penalty for the acquisition of his western learning, for he has of necessity been cut off in great measure from his own country, customs, and beliefs. Of these he may have, it is true, some slight knowledge, but, with rare exceptions, it is only a fraction of what is possessed by the untutored ancients who are the real custodians of his country's traditions and learning. Again, he is apt to regard with suspicion the well-intentioned efforts of European enthusiasts, often ill-informed, for his race. He sees in their endeavours either a ruse to keep him in his place, or at best, a scheme so vague that it hardly seems worth substituting for the western studies and beliefs, where he feels at least that he and the Europeans are on familiar ground. He is, moreover, already beginning to find it difficult to reconstruct his own past, and is therefore sceptical of the ability of the European to do so. He wonders also, perhaps vaguely, To what end? I hardly know a more difficult or delicate question than that to answer. It always savours of patronage to describe the best of the so-called 'denationalized' Africans as 'highly intelligent' and 'cultured'; nevertheless that is high praise, and it might well be asked for what more need he seek.

Yet he seems to lack that indefinable something which often ennobles his wholly illiterate countryman, and raises him considerably above the common herd. I do not know exactly how to describe what it is that the one often possesses and the other seems to miss. It appears to me like some hand reaching out of the past and linking him with it. It gives the illiterate man confidence in himself at times when a man feels quite alone, which he is apt to do in the presence of strangers of an alien race or when in a foreign land. The cultured man has dropped that friendly contact, and I believe feels often lost in consequence, and is never quite at home anywhere, whether in the society of Europeans or of his own countrymen. If the educated African possesses an 'inferiority complex', a study of his own past must surely help to dispel it.

I now return again to my main theme, with an apology for what may seem an unnecessary digression.

The followers of the newer school of opinion are generally wholehearted advocates of what has come to be known as 'indirect rule'.' They see in it a remedy for many of those ills of 'denationalization' which they dread; they have focused their attention on that part of West Africa where this form of administration has proved successful, but have often failed, I think, to realize the one salient factor that, in my opinion, has there assured, at any rate, its initial success."

In Northern Nigeria, those who framed the administration on the existing foundation were also fostering legal institutions which were based on the existing religious beliefs. In that country, however, this religious foundation of the legal and constitutional system remained unassailed and unassailable because it is against the government policy to permit Christian propaganda within areas which are predominantly Muslim;3 the respect which we show in Nigeria to the

"The methods of rule which shall give the widest possible scope to Chiefs and people to manage their own affairs under the guidance of the controlling Power.' (The Dual Mandate in British Tropical Africa, Sir. F. D. Lugard.)

* I doubt, however, if the prospect of unlimited future advancement under Mohammedanism will be so great as under Christianity naturalized to suit a new environment.

3 The Northern Tribes of Nigeria, ii, p. 247, by C. K. Meek (Oxford University Press).

tenets of Islam could hardly be expected to be accorded in Ashanti to a religion, which, up to a few years ago, had been branded as one of the lowest forms of worship 'fetishism'. In the latter country indeed, there is some indication that its inhabitants may embrace Christianity -at any rate in a superficial and outward form-in years which may not be very remote. In introducing indirect rule into this country we would, therefore, appear to be encouraging on the one hand an institution which draws its inspiration and vitality from the indigenous religious beliefs, while on the other we are systematically destroying the very foundation upon which stands the structure that we are striving to perpetuate. Its shell and outward form might remain, but it would seem too much to expect that its vital energy could survive such a process.

A living Universe-the acknowledgement of a Supreme Godsanctity and reverence for dead ancestors-religion which is inseparable from law-these were the foundations on which the old order was based.

Are there not then any other alternatives except scrapping the African's past en bloc and the frank acceptance of European civilization in its widest sense, or making well-meaning efforts 'to preserve the best of the old culture' but without the courage, or perhaps the knowledge, to realize the fact that to the African 'religion' was coextensive with every action and thought, that it is not possible to pick and chose from his culture, and say 'I will retain this and this', if at the same time we destroy that which gave the whole its dynamic force, or, realizing this, is the administrator to say to the missionary bodies, 'We are compelled to restrict your activities in the best interests of tribal authority; we find that the development of this people along their national lines is wholly incompatible with the tenets which you preach'?

In other words, are we to decree that the African is not to be Christianized because thereby he becomes denationalized?

The first of these suggestions must be dismissed except by those who are prepared to sacrifice most of the inherent characteristics of the African race.

The second suggestion is in many ways even more dangerous, for it

is based on half-knowledge; it would preserve the outward form, without enquiring whence it derived the power which must lie behind every human effort if it is to be a success. It would retain a delicate machine and expect the mechanism to function when the original motive power had been removed and an entirely new driving force substituted, one wholly unsuited to the old type of machine. It would be better, in my opinion, to advance on modern western lines than to retain this parody on the old system.

We come now to the third suggestion. I had better confess at once that it is undesirable and impracticable. Ashanti might in time have produced its prophet who could have elevated the 'it may be inspired elements' in the religion of this people into a cult which would have called forth the admiration, or at least commanded the respect, of men of other creeds, and thus made possible a policy similar to that adopted in Nigeria, where the activities of Christian missions are restricted. It has not done so, however, and in the words of the 1921 annual report for Ashanti, 'in certain parts of Ashanti something in the nature of a "mass movement" towards Christianity has set in." It might therefore appear that we have reached a point, at which, to be frank, Christianity seems the stumbling-block in the way to real progress.

I am convinced, however, that in this very factor lies the means by which our ideal may be attained, and that it is from Christianity and Christian missions colonial administrations and Africans who love their own country will yet come to draw that inward power which alone will justify the retention of 'the best in the Africans' culture and beliefs.' The suggestion I now advocate has been made before, but I think has not been given anything like the publicity which its importance demands.

It is not easy perhaps for those at home to grasp the idea that the Christianity of England and our fathers is not suitable for Africa. Yet many of those who would deny this are constantly reiterating the necessity for remodelling western ideas of education to suit the African's particular genius.

Mr. Charles Harper,2 a former Chief Commissioner of Ashanti and 1 Report on Ashanti for 1921, paragraph 61, p. 15.

2 Now Governor of St. Helena.

the man at whose instigation the Anthropological Research Branch was first inaugurated in Ashanti, in his Report for 1921 expressed an opinion which deserves to be widely known.

'It may be' [he wrote, in speaking of the mass movement to Christianity to which I have just referred]—'It may be, and missions are alive to this fact, that such a movement has attendant dangers. Possibly set native habits of morality and the valuable and it may be the inspired elements in native religion,1 will be cast aside in an access of momentary enthusiasm without anything lasting or substantial to take their place.2

'There will probably be found much in native custom and habits of thought which can be carried over into a Christian community, and while, therefore, this great impulse towards Christianity is stirring among the Ashantis, there is the need of the constant guidance and supervision of European missionaries versed in and sympathetic towards native customs and beliefs.'

The most notable contribution to this question, which I believe to be vital in Africa to-day, is, so far as I am aware, to be found in a book written by a Christian missionary.3 His chapter on 'Christianity in Africa' is, in my humble opinion, a classic, and his argument is in favour of all I would like to advocate, did I possess the eloquence or the theological erudition which would fit me to do so.

'Our ideal' [writes Mr. Edwin W. Smith] 'is not a Christian world made of a uniform pattern throughout, but one that preserves within its unity all the diversities that the Almighty has given to the individual peoples. In the essential things let there be agreement, but in the forms which embody them, let there be variety.'

[Again] 'What can be done, then to naturalize Christianity in Africa? . . . It is necessary to urge that our religion be presented to the Africans, not in antagonism to, but as a fulfilment of their aspirations. . . . It implies not a paganization of Christianity for the purpose of making it easier to Africans, but the Christianization of everything that is valuable in the African's past experience and registered in his customs.'

With a few more such advocates, I feel that the campaign which has hardly been begun will yet be won. It is on these lines that the anthropologist will, I believe, find the most interesting and fruitful field for his researches—the interpretation of 'the idiom of the soul'

The italics are mine throughout.

* The African himself must, I think, guide us as to what should be retained. The Golden Stool, by the Rev. Edwin W. Smith.