How the corpus carries pharmacology, ethical reasoning and historical precedent, and how far the comparison between ẹsẹ Ifá and case law actually holds.
The Yorùbá wey dem quote, the proverbs, oríkì, ẹsẹ Ifá, word list headwords, Odù names and citations dey exactly as the corpus record dem, for every language.
The Ifá corpus no be only material for divination. Na there dem keep plenti Yorùbá knowledge, because society wey no get writing system need place where dem go put things, and the 256 address-dem na the filing system wey dey available. Wetin Abimbola take summarize am na say the Yorùbá recognize Ifá "as a repository for Yoruba traditional body of knowledge embracing history, philosophy, medicine and folklore"
This file dey look wetin that one mean concretely for four different areas, and after that e go examine the strongest structural claim wey dem make about the corpus, say e dey work like case law. That claim make sense well-well and e good make person explain am clearly enough so that we go see where e fit break down.
The connection between Ifá and healing no be just for decoration. Abimbola talk say: "In traditional Yoruba society, Ifa priests were the physicians, midwives and psychiatrists of their own communities" Person wey dem just initiate as priest suppose specialize for one of these areas, and e go spend at least another five years dey learn under recognized expert .
The way Bascom describe the practical work of the babaláwo make the same point from the client side. The diviner dey direct sacrifices and worshippers enter different cults, dey recommend wetin dem go give to dead people or how dem go take deal with witches and àbíkú, children wey no wan live, and e dey prepare medicine for protection and to fight back .
The physical link dey show across the verses. Every verse get the particular sacrifice wey dem prescribe, wey dem memorize join am , and plenti of dem get medicine preparations join. Abimbola point out say plenti Ifá medicinal preparations dey use iyèròsùn, the divination powder , and this one dey put the pharmacological part and the divination part inside the same physical procedure.
The big level of the pharmacology content show well for Pierre Verger book Ewé, wey reach 744 pages and present 2,216 recipes wey dem make from leaves, barks, seeds, fruits, flowers and roots, wey dem gather for about forty years of fieldwork . Verger arrange the material with attention to the incantations (ọfọ̀) wey dey follow each preparation, and the connection wey dey between the preparations and Ifá divination signs . Dem initiate Verger as babaláwo for Kétu for 1953, and na so e take get access to the material .
Two things follow wey person fit easily miss:
The plant knowledge dey indexed by Odù. Preparation no dey stored as single recipe wey stand alone, but e dey attached to verse under one address. To bring out the remedy and to bring out the diagnosis na the same operation.
The incantation na part of the preparation. The ọfọ̀ no be just commentary on top the recipe; na part of am, and e dey express the qualities of the ingredients inside poetic language . If person separate the pharmacology from the spoken formula, like modern reader go naturally wan do, that one go spoil the true way wey dem take hold the knowledge.
The clear question, whether the pharmacology dey work, na matter for pharmacological research and no be for this file. Some Yorùbá medicinal plants get documented activity and some no get, and the corpus no separate the two categories. Wetin person fit talk be say the corpus preserve very big body of plant knowledge wey dem arrange systematically, and the principle wey dem use arrange am na the divination system.
The corpus get ethical content, and e carry am in a specific way: no be as commandments, but as results wey tie to cases.
The structural method na the eight-part verse form wey dem explain for file 04. Parts 5, 6 and 7 dey record whether the client follow the prescription, wetin happen after, and how e react, while part 8, wey be compulsory part, dey bring out the moral lesson . So, every complete verse dey end with clear ethical conclusion wey come out from the story of wetin happen.
The main theme na to follow the prescribed offering, and Abimbola note say plenti verses dey end by stressing say e dey important, while dem dey warn about the consequences if person neglect am . But the moral content wide pass just ritual compliance. The verses dey reward patience, generosity, good character and respect, and dem dey punish pride, long throat, impatience and failure to do duty, and dem dey do so by showing wetin really happen.
The central ethical concept, ìwà pẹ̀lẹ́, which mean gentle or good character, belong to the cosmology section and dem no expand am here. The way e connect to Ifá as discipline be say dem dey treat character as professional qualification: the initiation exam for forest dey test the candidate on top hin "competence in the Ifa system and outlook on life"
Wetin make this one interesting for ethics instead of just teaching lessons na the conditional structure. The verse no dey talk say good person must prosper. E dey talk say one particular person for particular situation, dem tell am make e do particular thing, e do am or e no do am, and particular result follow. To make generalization na the work of the person wey dey interpret am. This one close pass to casuistry, reasoning from cases, instead of ethics based on rules, and na the same feature support the jurisprudence comparison wey dey below.
Verses dey store events, movement of people, claims about kingship, and how towns take start, and UNESCO citation note say the ẹsẹ dey reflect Yorùbá history, language, beliefs and modern issues .
Therefore, the corpus na historical source, and the history section of this corpus dey deal with the general problem of using oral literature as evidence. Four warnings wey specifically concern ẹsẹ Ifá make sense to state here.
The verses no dey chronological. Dem arrange dem by divination address, no be by date. No sequence dey to bring out and no internal dating dey.
Plenti of di character dem no be real historical pipo. Plenti main character inside di verse dem na ọ̀rìṣà, animal, or quality dem wey dem turn to person. Bascom note say di sixteen pair figure dem sef dey appear inside di verse dem as babalawo and main character, wey people wey give am tori describe say dem live for earth like human being for di time wey di deity dem sef live, even though "dem no dey consider dem as, or worship dem as, deity" To separate historical person from myth person inside verse many times no dey possible.
Di corpus dey open. UNESCO note say di number of verse dem dey continue to grow . New material dey enta, wey mean say if verse dey inside di corpus, dat one no mean say person fit know di exact time wey e come out.
Dem compose di verse dem make dem dey useful, no be say make dem accurate. Verse dey survive because babalawo dem see say e dey fit situation, no be because e record wetin happen.
Against all dis, di corpus get one strong evidence-value: because dem pass am down with fixed structure wey be compulsory , di part of verse wey no dey change, including name dem, dey fairly protected make dem no change. Anywhere wey verse call town, title, or person name, dat name dey more stable pass di story wey surround am.
How Abimbola describe am na di one wey person fit defend, say di corpus na di storehouse "wey Yoruba understanding of dia own historical experience and understanding of dia environment dey always dey inside" E dey record how di Yorùbá take understand dia history, wey be real and different thing from to record di history itself.
Dis na di strongest structural claim wey dem make about di corpus, and e hold ground pass most of di claims for dis section.
Di way ẹsẹ Ifá and law report take match dey close, and e close for di level of form pass ordinary analogy.
Law report dey name di party dem, state di fact dem, record di decision, and state di holding. ẹsẹ Ifá dey name di babalawo dem wey decide, name di client, state di occasion, record wetin dem prescribe, record whether dem do wetin dem tok, record di outcome, and state di moral . Di two of dem na record of particular decision for particular situation wey dem preserve because future situation go resemble am.
Di way dem dey take bring out verse dey work through analogy di same way legal reasoning dey work. Di client dey hear verse dem and stop di babalawo for di one wey resemble im situation . Di reasoning na: dis case resemble my case, therefore wetin guide dat case must guide my own. Na reasoning by precedent be dat, and na di person wey get di situation dey do di matching.
Dem dey treat di corpus as something wey get authority and wey person fit cite. Bascom: di verse dem "get myth dem wey dey narrate wetin di deity dem do and wey dey justify detail of ritual, and dem dey cite dem plenti times to settle argument on theological or ritual matter" To cite precedent make e settle dispute na exactly wetin body of precedent dey do.
Di babaláwo dey function as authority for doctrine generally, no be only for im own practice. Bascom: dem "accept am as authority for Yoruba religion. E be professional wey im work include to learn about all di deity dem, no be only di one wey im dey worship," and people wey dey worship different deity dem plus Muslim and Christian convert dey come consult am .
One scholar dey wey get special authority to make dis argument. Kọ́lá Abímbọ́lá hold doctorate for philosophy of science and second doctorate for law of evidence, don publish work on abductive reasoning for law, and dem consecrate am as babaláwo by di Ògeese conclave of diviners of di Aláàfin of Ọ̀yọ́ . Im book Yorùbá Culture: A Philosophical Account argue say di philosophical idea dem wey dey inside Ọ̀rìṣà religion na dem form di basis of Yorùbá culture . I no fit read di book directly, so I no go attribute di case-law comparison to am for any specific way; I only dey note say di person wey well-equipped pass to judge am dey work for exactly dis two field dem. Confidence: medium on how strong di comparison be, and I never verify say na so e frame am like how I do am here.
Di biggest support to see Ifá as discipline wey rule dey guide instead of intuition come from Bascom, and e make sense to quote am in full because na careful comparative claim.
E start by noting say "di rule dem of Ifa divination fit dey defined clearly like di ones for simpler method wey dey use four or sixteen cowrie" Den di contrast:
"For plenti other type of divination, for Africa and other place dem, di subjective side of interpretation dey leave room for dispute, even among diviner dem." E list case dem: how bone fall wey dem dey read by position, di angle of stick inside joint bone dem, di line for shoulder blade wey fire crack, di inside of fowl, tea leaf dem, line for palm . Den di sharper case: "For crystal- or water-gazing, wey nobody fit confirm or contradict wetin di diviner tok say e dey see, and for shamanistic performance or state of possession, wey spirit or deity dey follow or pass through im medium only to tok, interpretation dem no dey open to check by di client sef or by other diviner dem"
Against dat: "In contrast, di babalawo dey follow regular system of rule dem, wey if dem deviate from am, dia colleague dem go criticize am and dia client go condemn am. At least di basic rule dem dey clear to dia regular patron dem, and even when dem no know dem, client get recognized method to prevent babalawo make e no comot from di rule so dat e no go use wetin e personally know about dia matter to take benefit imself or any other person. Client no even need to tell di diviner wetin be di problem wey make am come find im advice"
Dis na argument about whether person fit verify di procedure pass whether e na truth, and na di correct argument be dat. Bascom no dey claim say Ifá predictions dey come pass. Wetin e dey claim na say Ifá, unlike scrying or possession, get rules wey everybody know, outcome wey di practitioner no dey control, audience wey get sense to know if person deviate, and structural arrangement wey dey prevent di practitioner make e no take client private tori do wayo. Na dis properties dey make practice become real discipline.
Di last word wey e talk get small hotness: as things dey so, "some of the early descriptions of Ifa are amusing reflections of the naïveté, prejudices, and superstitions of the observers who recorded them"
Four places dey where di analogy no match, and dem no small at all.
Dem dey select case by chance. Di precedent wey person wey dey court fit cite dey depend on whether e relevant. Di verse wey client go hear dey depend on how palm nuts fall. No legal system dey use chance take select di law wey dey govern case, and na dis be di deepest difference between di two.
Authority no get hierarchy. Law get structure for appeal, binding and persuasive authority, and way dem dey take overrule previous decision. Ifá get seniority among Odù, wey different lineage dey argue about , but e no get appellate court, e no get doctrine of overruling, and e no get any way to retire verse.
No adversarial testing dey. For law, opposing party dey argue against legal precedent before di person wey go judge. But for ẹsẹ Ifá, dem dey recite and interpret am without any structural opponent.
Dem no gather di whole corpus put for one place. No single practitioner hold everything, no written version dey wey be final authority, and different lineage get their own version . Law dey depend on record wey everybody share, wey dem fit check, and wey dem gather together well.
Di correct way to put am na say ẹsẹ Ifá na case-based reasoning without court. Di pattern of reasoning with precedent dey, but di institutional system wey dey make precedent binding no dey. Dat one na real and interesting intellectual structure, and if person exaggerate am claim say Ifá na legal system, na di same kind error e go be like di Leibniz claim for file 07.
Bascom write say di verses "in effect constitute their unwritten scriptures" , and e record one strong evidence wey show how far Yorùbá people take dis idea go.
Di religious syncretism wey pass mark wey come out from contact with Europeans, as e talk, na one church wey dem start for Lagos for 1934, di Ìjọ Ọ̀rúnmìlà Adúláwọ̀, "which was founded on the premise that the teachings of Ifa constitute the Yoruba Bible"
Dis thing dey important for di reader wey dem write dis corpus for. Yorùbá people wey dey respond to Christianity for 1930s no be say everybody just dump Ifá or reject di new religion totally. Some re-organise Ifá make e turn church, with di corpus as their scripture, because di way dem compare am to scripture make sense and useful to dem.
Di warning wey dey follow am na di one from file 04: di comparison to scripture no work well for canon, for fixity, for authority, and for closure. Di corpus no get fixed text, no closed canon, no body wey dey judge or decide, and e still dey grow . Any reader wey take "di Yorùbá Bible" as anything pass just strategic analogy go misunderstand how di corpus dey work.
Di features wey make Ifá dey epistemically interesting, wey dem gather from dis section:
Di practitioner no dey know di question . Di outcome dey happen by chance. Na di client get power to judge whether di message fit am . Di prescription attach directly to di verse instead of make practitioner invent am . Di rules dey open wey everybody know, and colleagues plus clients fit detect if person deviate . Di corpus dey spread out, so no single person dey control am . Di reasoning dey follow analogy from recorded cases instead of to deduce from doctrine .
None of dis show say di system dey bring true statement about di future, and nothing for inside scholarship claim say e dey do so. Wetin e show na say dem build di system with special kind care to put control on top di practitioner, and say di controls na structural instead of moral. Dis na something wey make sense to understand on its own terms, and person wey look Ifá as fortune telling or superstition no go fit see am at all.
The verses filed under each Odù are case reports in verse, built to a described eight-part structure, held collectively across practitioners rather than by any one person.
The mathematics of the system, the mnemonic architecture that makes a corpus this large holdable, and a careful separation of the documented claims from the popular ones.
The decade or more of memorisation before initiation, the stages of entry, how knowledge is checked between practitioners, and the real disagreement about women in Ifá.
The 2005 proclamation and 2008 inscription, the state of practice in Nigeria and the diaspora, commercialisation and the online problem, and what a curious outsider should and should not do.
Ifá is a Yorùbá system for reaching a decision by casting a signature, retrieving the memorised verses filed under it, and reasoning from the precedents they contain.
Each Odù is two columns of four marks, every mark single or double, giving four bits per column, eight bits in total, and exactly 256 possible signatures.