the multiform elaboration of tradition. Multiformity in turn
makes it possible for tradition to play a number of mediating
roles in a civilization: to apply religious values flexibly, to me-
diate conflicts between different sets of values, to host cre-
ative interaction between different theoretical viewpoints,
and so on. The multiformity of classical traditions stops
short of radical pluralism, however. In the end, every tradi-
tion recognizes a hierarchy of values.
Several kinds of multiformity can be seen in the history
of classical traditions. One kind results from the sociocultur-
al differentiation of a tradition. Using terms that subsequent-
ly found wide application in the study of religion, the an-
thropologist Robert Redfield, in his Peasant Society and
Culture (1956), called the two basic forms of tradition result-
ing from this type of differentiation “the great tradition” and
“the little tradition.” The great tradition is literate, reflective,
cultivated by specialists working in cities, schools, temples,
monasteries, and the like. The little tradition is typically illit-
erate, customary, embodied in the common beliefs and prac-
tices of the mass of ordinary folk. Scholars and cultivated
practitioners of religion have always recognized that classical
and popular religion diverge, yet this recognition seldom led
to advances in understanding because of the tendency to re-
gard popular religion as a “lower” form of expression. The
contribution of modern anthropological studies of religion
has been to show, first, that popular religion is just as much
a tradition as classical religion, a tradition that can achieve
high levels of organization, complexity, and “rural cosmopol-
itanism”; and second, that the interaction between great and
little forms of tradition is a dynamic one in which the little
tradition not only receives from the great but also contributes
to it. Great and little traditions are, as Redfield put it, “two
currents of thought and action, distinguishable, yet ever
flowing into and out of each other” (Redfield, 1956, p. 72).
Redfield’s distinction has been criticized by other anthropol-
ogists for oversimplifying “great” and “little” traditions and
for underestimating the degree to which ordinary believers
are conversant with their great tradition via nonliterary
means, such as icons, oral tradition, preaching, rituals, and
authority structures (Tambiah, 1970, pp. 3–4, 367–377).
But these criticisms do not so much refute the distinction as
suggest a more nuanced version of it. Almost no responsible
scholar of religion wishes to return to the privileging of text-
based religiosity and the neglect of demotic factors.
A second kind of multiformity in classical traditions de-
velops from the recognition of the multiplicity of paths to
religious fulfillment. Classical Hinduism, for example, dis-
tinguishes at least three valid paths to the goal of liberation
(moks:a): the path of knowledge (jña ̄na ma ̄rga), the path of
devotion to a personal God (bhaktima ̄rga), and the path of
ritual and dutiful action in the world (karma-ma ̄rga). It is
fairly clear that the paths originated at different times and
in different circles and that they evolved in relative indepen-
dence of each other. Furthermore there has never been a con-
sensus in Hinduism about the relative merits of the paths.
Monist philosophers unanimously proclaim the superiority
of the path of knowledge, and their control of much of the
higher philosophical literature of Hinduism has led some ob-
servers to assume that this appraisal is shared by most Hin-
dus. Yet in the fervor of communion with God, the devo-
tionalist does not doubt the superiority of the devotional
path, nor in all probability has the majority of Indians doubt-
ed the practical superiority of dutiful action in the world.
Thus the idea that the three paths are expressions of a com-
mon aspiration cannot be explained as the natural outcome
of the paths themselves but must be seen as a traditum in its
own right—a tradition of handing down distinct paths in as-
sociation with each other on the assumption of their mutual
coherence. The assumption is an act of faith, since a system-
atic doctrine reconciling the different paths has never been
accepted by all Hindus.
The Hebrew Scriptures constitute another traditum em-
bodying a multiplicity of ways to religious insight. In Juda-
ism and Christianity this multiplicity, while recognized, has
not been emphasized in ways that would threaten strict mo-
notheism or ecclesiastical unity. Nevertheless, the religious
multiformity of the Bible has always been exploited by Jew-
ish and Christian traditionists. Certainly the Bible would be
a far less usable book if it admitted only the normative reli-
gion of priests and legists, only the charismatic religion of the
prophets, only the Logos of the wise men, or only the devo-
tionalism of the psalmist or if it lacked the rage of Job, the
skepticism of Ecclesiastes, the eroticism of the Song of Songs.
Nothing is more characteristic of the Hebrew Scriptures as
a traditum than the transmission of many ways of theological
insight together in a single canon of law, prophets, and writ-
ings. Historically, the various forms of religion represented
in the Bible originated in relative independence from each
other and were cultivated selectively by different groups.
One must not project back into the ancient period a general
fraternization of priests, legists, prophets, wise men, cult
singers, and skeptics united in the praise of the Lord of Israel.
Their solidarity in witness to and celebration of the One—
the “Bible” as distinguished from its component parts—was
the contribution of tradition.Other kinds of multiformity result from the adaptation
of a tradition to stages of life and degrees of religious virtuosi-
ty. An example is the classical Hindu doctrine of the four
a ̄ ́sramas, or stages of life (celibate student, householder, for-
est hermit, wandering ascetic). In the classical doctrine the
four a ̄ ́sramas are seen as successive stages through which a
pious male of the twice-born castes will pass in the course
of his life. It appears, however, that the distinction between
the a ̄ ́sramas antedates the notion that they represent “stages”
in a coherent succession. In any case only a minority of
Hindu householders have ever passed beyond the second
stage, and many hermits and ascetics in the history of Indian
religion were never householders. The doctrine of the
a ̄ ́sramas appears to be an attempt on the level of ideals to rec-
oncile the world-affirming, dutiful religion of the Indian9276 TRADITION