Evans-Pritchard and the Prophets
5
provided the paradigm for subsequent anthropological inquiry (see Middle-
ton and Tait 1958), this arena of investigation is now implicitly recognized,
35 indicated by the frequent reanalyses, as the major ethnographic and
theoretical problem of the Nuer trilogy. Chiefs, priests, prophets and “bulls”
m ake a shadowy appearance in every volume, but then quickly fade from
view with minimal commentary. Paradoxically, the original outline of the
Nuer political system has been demonstrated to be both the great strength
and weakness of the first volume.
The suggestion that these figures, especially the prophets, were more
important to an understanding of the traditional Nuer political system than
the author implied, is no longer debatable. The reanalyses of Beidelman
(1971), Burton (1982), and Johnson (1979 and 1981), the comparative
African literature, particularly Middleton’s (1971) and Peristiany’s (1975)
essays in honor of Evans-Pritchard, and the ancillary ethnography of others,
such as Howell (1954), are more than convincing on the score of the more
prominent political function of the prophet. What is not known, and is a
matter of worthwhile speculation, is why this consummate ethnographer por
trayed the Nuer prophets in such a dim and insignificant political light.
Moreover, it should be noted here that this was a consistent leaning on his
part as deduced from his portrayals of the reth of the Shilluk (Evans-Pritchard
1948a) and the “king” of the Anuak (19405). In both instances he contra
dicted prevailing interpretations of their political significance, with little
regard for the value of historical documentation and ethnographic factors
to the contrary (see Arens 1979; Mercer 1971). A brief overview of the
relevant ethnography will allow for a greater appreciation of the problem
and its possible resolution,
2. Prophets in Their Own Land
Discussing what he refers to as the “forma mentis of a prophet” (which
is bizarre, according to local standards), Evans-Pritchard notes in Nuer
Religion that the people themselves had an ambivalent attitude toward
these figures. As earthly representations of the divinity (kzvoth), prophets
were both “wanted” and “not wanted” by the Nuer at the same time (1956:
307), As Evans-Pritchard says: “A very complex representation would seem
to be involved here” (1956: 308). It appears that very complex and ambivalent
feelings toward the prophets also characterized the ethnographer’s position,
for he never defined their political role in a complete or consistent fashion.
For example, in opposition to earlier reports by travellers and government
officials, Evans-Pritchard argues in The Nuer:
“ . . . that the power of these prophets, even of the most successful
ones, has been exaggerated, and that their tribal position has been misunder
stood” (1940a: 178). A little further on, in discussing the prophet Gwek, he
writes that he “came nearest to exercising political functions and to impos
ing his authority outside his own district, but the hostility between tribes
and between tribal segments rendered effective personal control impossible”