|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1968:281312). A series of propositions are presented after the chicken has been poisoned; for example, "If such is the case, poison oracle kill [or spare] the fowl." The chicken's movements and fatewhether or not it diesare interpreted in relation to the continuous questioning. "The main duty of the questioner," Evans-Pritchard points out, "is to see that the oracle fully understands the question put to it and is acquainted with all facts relevant to the problem it is asked to solve. They address it with all the care for detail that one observes in court cases before a prince" (297). The oracle thus serves to establish accountability, to determine the cause (usually witchcraft) of misfortune. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
After describing several sessions, Evans-Pritchard develops a lengthy interrogation of the Azande poison oracle from every imaginable angle (31351). Although the unidentified skeptic with whom he debates might be his English audience or possibly Lévy-Bruhl, one cannot avoid the impression that the debate is ultimately internal.
12 Evans-Pritchard assures us that while there are Zande skeptics and manipulators, Zande religion is not only internally consistent and rational but "Zande Man" constantly makes self-interested utilitarian use of his oracles in order to respond to witchcraft. To reach such conclusions, Evans-Pritchard has to distinguish between the "mystical" and the "objective" in Zande thought and argue that the Zande kept the two realms separate. He believes that Malinowski and Durkheim erred in portraying the operation of the magical world in the world of the practical (or the sacred in the profane) because each world follows its own rules.13 This position parallels Evans-Pritchard's criticism of agnostics for turning ''theological" facts into "sociological" facts in the study of religion. But his inability to appreciate that other peoples may not share the rigid European dichotomization of science and religion and may utilize different modes of thought, often in alternating fashion, is exactly what has generated much criticism today.14 Later we shall argue that Evans-Pritchard's analysis fails specifically because divination makes definite use of both modes of thinking. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Finally, Evans-Pritchard seems to have wearied in his defense of the Azande; by the end of his discourse on the poison oracle he observes that further formulation of Zande beliefs would simply "expose their hollowness" (347). Reflecting his own positivist stance (reminiscent of Junod's conclusions), he writes: |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
Their blindness is not due to stupidity, for they display great ingenuity in explaining away the failures and inequalities of the poison oracle and experimental keenness in testing it. It is due rather to the fact that their intellectual ingenuity and experimental keenness are conditioned by patterns of ritual behavior and mystical belief. Within the limits set by these patterns they show great intelligence, but it cannot operate beyond these limits. (338) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What a difference if he had only allowed at this point that this description could apply to most individuals in any culture! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Evans-Pritchard maintains that the anthropologist should only describe not explain religion"his problems are scientific, not metaphysical or ontological" (1965: |
|
|
|
|
|