At the close of the rice harvest in Boeroe, East Indies, each clan

(_fenna_) meets at a common sacramental meal, to which every member of the

clan is bound to contribute a little of the new rice. This meal is called

“eating the soul of the rice,” a name which clearly indicates the

sacramental character of the repast. Some of the rice is also set apart

and offered to the spirits.(249) Amongst the Alfoers of Celebes the priest

sows the first rice-seed and plucks the first ripe rice in each field.

This rice he roasts and grinds into meal, and gives some of it to each of

the household.(250) Shortly before the rice harvest in Bolang Mongondo,

Celebes, an offering is made of a small pig or a fowl. Then the priest

plucks a little rice, first on his own field and then on those of his

neighbours. All the rice thus plucked by him he dries along with his own,

and then gives it back to the respective owners, who have it ground and

boiled. When it is boiled the women take it back, with an egg, to the

priest, who offers the egg in sacrifice and returns the rice to the women.

Of this rice every member of the family, down to the youngest child, must

partake. After this ceremony every one is free to get in his rice.(251)

Amongst the Burghers, a tribe of the Neilgherry Hills in Southern India,

the first handful of seed is sown and the first sheaf reaped by a

Curumbar—a man of a different tribe, whom the Burghers regard as

sorcerers. The grain contained in the first sheaf “is that day reduced to

meal, made into cakes, and, being offered as a first-fruit oblation, is,

together with the remainder of the sacrificed animal, partaken of by the

Burgher and the whole of his family as the meat of a federal offering and

sacrifice.”(252)

Amongst the Coorgs of Southern India the man who is to cut the first sheaf

of rice at harvest is chosen by an astrologer. At sunset the whole

household takes a hot bath and then goes to the rice-field, where the

chosen reaper cuts an armful of rice with a new sickle, and distributes

two or more stalks to all present. Then all return to the threshing-floor.

A bundle of leaves is adorned with a stalk of rice and fastened to the

post in the centre of the threshing-floor. Enough of the new rice is now

threshed, cleaned, and ground to provide flour for the dough cakes which

each member of the household is to eat. Then they go to the door of the

house, where the mistress washes the feet of the sheaf-cutter, and

presents to him, and after him to all the rest, a brass vessel full of

milk, honey, and sugar, from which each person takes a draught. Then the

man who cut the sheaf kneads a cake of rice meal, plantains, milk, honey,

seven new rice corns, seven pieces of cocoa-nut, etc. Every one receives a

little of this cake on an Ashvatha leaf, and eats it. The ceremony is then

over and the sheaf-cutter mixes with the company. When he was engaged in

cutting the rice no one might touch him.(253) Among the Hindoos of

Southern India the eating of the new rice is the occasion of a family

festival called Pongol. The new rice is boiled in a new pot on a fire

which is kindled at noon on the day when, according to Hindoo astrologers,

the sun enters the tropic of Capricorn. The boiling of the pot is watched

with great anxiety by the whole family, for as the milk boils, so will the

coming year be. If the milk boils rapidly, the year will be prosperous;

but it will be the reverse if the milk boils slowly. Some of the new

boiled rice is offered to the image of Ganesa; then every one partakes of

it.(254) At Gilgit, in the Hindoo Koosh, before wheat-harvest begins, a

member of every household gathers a handful of ears of corn secretly at

dusk. A few of the ears are hung up over the door of the house, and the

rest are roasted next morning, and eaten steeped in milk. The day is spent

in rejoicings, and next morning the harvest begins.(255)

The ceremony of eating the new yams at Onitsha, on the Quorra River,

Guinea, is thus described: “Each headman brought out six yams, and cut

down young branches of palm-leaves and placed them before his gate,

roasted three of the yams, and got some kola-nuts and fish. After the yam

is roasted, the _Libia_, or country doctor, takes the yam, scrapes it with

a sort of meal, and divides it into halves; he then takes one piece, and

places it on the lips of the person who is going to eat the new yam. The

eater then blows up the steam from the hot yam, and afterwards pokes the

whole into his mouth, and says, ‘I thank God for being permitted to eat

the new yam;’ he then begins to chew it heartily, with fish

likewise.”(256) Amongst the Kafirs of Natal and Zululand, no one may eat

of the new fruits till after a festival which marks the beginning of the

Kafir year. All the people assemble at the king’s kraal, where they feast

and dance. Before they separate the “dedication of the people” takes

place. Various fruits of the earth, as corn, mealies, and pumpkins, mixed

with the flesh of a sacrificed animal and with “medicine,” are boiled in

great pots, and a little of this food is placed in each man’s mouth by the

king himself. After thus partaking of the sanctified fruits, a man is

himself sanctified for the whole year, and may immediately get in his

crops.(257)

Amongst the Creek Indians of North America, the _busk_ or festival of

first-fruits was the chief ceremony of the year.(258) It was held in July

or August, when the corn was ripe, and marked the end of the old year and

the beginning of the new one. Before it took place none of the Indians

would eat or even handle any part of the new harvest. Sometimes each town

had its own busk; sometimes several towns united to hold one in common.

Before celebrating the busk, the people provided themselves with new

clothes and new household utensils and furniture; they collected their old

clothes and rubbish, together with all the remaining grain and other old

provisions, cast them together in one common heap, and consumed them with

fire.(259) As a preparation for the ceremony, all the fires in the village

were extinguished, and the ashes swept clean away. In particular, the

hearth or altar of the temple was dug up and the ashes carried out. Then

the chief priest put some roots of the button-snake plant, with some green

tobacco leaves and a little of the new fruits, at the bottom of the

fireplace, which he afterwards ordered to be covered up with white clay,

and wetted over with clean water. A thick arbour of green branches of

young trees was then made over the altar.(260) Meanwhile the women at home

were cleaning out their houses, renewing the old hearths, and scouring all

the cooking vessels that they might be ready to receive the new fire and

the new fruits.(261) The public or sacred square was carefully swept of

even the smallest crumbs of previous feasts, “for fear of polluting the

first-fruit offerings.” Also every vessel that had contained or had been

used about any food during the expiring year was removed from the temple

before sunset. Then all the men who were not known to have violated the

law of the first-fruit offering and that of marriage during the year were

summoned by a crier to enter the holy square and observe a solemn fast.

But the women (except six old ones), the children, and all who had not

attained the rank of warriors were forbidden to enter the square.

Sentinels were also posted at the corners of the square to keep out all

persons deemed impure and all animals. A strict fast was then observed for

two nights and a day, the devotees drinking a bitter decoction of

button-snake root “in order to vomit and purge their sinful bodies.” That

the people outside the square might also be purified, one of the old men

laid down a quantity of green tobacco at a corner of the square; this was

carried off by an old woman and distributed to the people without, who

chewed and swallowed it “in order to afflict their souls.” During this

general fast, the women, children, and men of weak constitution were

allowed to eat after mid-day, but not before. On the morning when the fast

ended, the women brought a quantity of the old year’s food to the outside

of the sacred square. These provisions were then brought in and set before

the famished multitude, but all traces of them had to be removed before

noon. When the sun was declining from the meridian, all the people were

commanded by the voice of a crier to stay within doors, to do no bad act,

and to be sure to extinguish and throw away every spark of the old fire.

Universal silence now reigned. Then the high priest made the new fire by

the friction of two pieces of wood, and placed it on the altar under the

green arbour. This new fire was believed to atone for all past crimes

except murder. Then a basket of new fruits was brought; the high priest

took out a little of each sort of fruit, rubbed it with bear’s oil, and

offered it, together with some flesh, “to the bountiful holy spirit of

fire, as a first-fruit offering, and an annual oblation for sin.” He also

consecrated the sacred emetics (the button-snake root and the cassina or

black-drink) by pouring a little of them into the fire. The persons who

had remained outside now approached, without entering, the sacred square;

and the chief priest thereupon made a speech, exhorting the people to

observe their old rites and customs, announcing that the new divine fire

had purged away the sins of the past year, and earnestly warning the women

that, if any of them had not extinguished the old fire, or had contracted

any impurity, they must forthwith depart, “lest the divine fire should

spoil both them and the people.” Some of the new fire was then laid down

outside the holy square; the women carried it home joyfully, and laid it

on their unpolluted hearths. When several towns had united to celebrate

the festival, the new fire might thus be carried for several miles. The

new fruits were then dressed on the new fires and eaten with bear’s oil,

which was deemed indispensable. At one point of the festival the men

rubbed the new corn between their hands, then on their faces and

breasts.(262) During the festival which followed, the warriors, dressed in

their wild martial array, their heads covered with white down and carrying

white feathers in their hands, danced round the sacred arbour, under which

burned the new fire. The ceremonies lasted eight days, during which the

strictest continence was practised. Towards the conclusion of the festival

the warriors fought a mock battle; then the men and women together, in

three circles, danced round the sacred fire. Lastly, all the people

smeared themselves with white clay and bathed in running water. They came

out of the water “believing themselves out of the reach of temporal evil

for their past vicious conduct.” So they departed in joy and peace.

The solemn preparations thus made for eating the new corn prove that it

was eaten as a sacrament. In the Boeroe and Creek customs, this sacrament

is combined with a sacrifice, and in course of time the sacrifice of

first-fruits tends to throw the sacrament into the shade, if not to

supersede it. The mere fact of having offered the first-fruits to the gods

or ancestral spirits comes now to be thought a sufficient preparation for

eating the new corn; the gods having received their share, man is free to

enjoy the rest. This mode of viewing the new fruits implies that they are

regarded no longer as themselves instinct with divine life, but merely as

a gift bestowed by the gods upon man, who is bound to express his

gratitude and homage to his divine benefactors by presenting them with a

portion of the fruits of the earth. But with sacrifice, as distinct from

sacrament, we are not here concerned.(263)

The custom of eating bread sacramentally as the body of a god was

practised by the Aztecs before the discovery and conquest of Mexico by the

Spaniards. Twice a year, in May and December, an image of the great

Mexican god Huitzilopochtli or Vitzilipuztli was made of dough, then

broken in pieces, and solemnly eaten by his worshippers. The May ceremony

is thus described by the historian Acosta. “Two daies before this feast,

the virgins whereof I have spoken (the which were shut up and secluded in

the same temple and were as it were religious women) did mingle a

quantitie of the seede of beetes with roasted Mays [maize], and then they

did mould it with honie, making an idol of that paste in bignesse like to

that of wood, putting insteede of eyes graines of greene glasse, of blue

or white; and for teeth graines of Mays set forth with all the ornament

and furniture that I have said. This being finished, all the Noblemen came

and brought it an exquisite and rich garment, like unto that of the idol,

wherewith they did attyre it. Being thus clad and deckt, they did set it

in an azured chaire and in a litter to carry it on their shoulders. The

morning of this feast being come, an houre before day all the maidens came

forth attired in white, with new ornaments, the which that day were called

the Sisters of their god Vitzilipuztli, they came crowned with garlands of

Mays rosted and parched, being like unto azahar or the flower of orange;

and about their neckes they had great chaines of the same, which went

bauldricke-wise under their left arme. Their cheekes were died with

vermillion, their armes from the elbow to the wrist were covered with red

parrots’ feathers.” Young men, crowned like the virgins with maize, then

carried the idol in its litter to the foot of the great pyramid-shaped

temple, up the steep and narrow steps of which it was drawn to the music

of flutes, trumpets, cornets, and drums. “While they mounted up the idoll

all the people stoode in the Court with much reverence and feare. Being

mounted to the top, and that they had placed it in a little lodge of roses

which they held readie, presently came the yong men, which strawed many

flowers of sundrie kindes, wherewith they filled the temple both within

and without. This done, all the virgins came out of their convent,

bringing peeces of paste compounded of beetes and rosted Mays, which was

of the same paste whereof their idol was made and compounded, and they

were of the fashion of great bones. They delivered them to the yong men,

who carried them up and laide them at the idoll’s feete, wherewith they

filled the whole place that it could receive no more. They called these

morcells of paste the flesh and bones of Vitzilipuztli.” Then the priests

came in their robes of office, “and putting themselves in order about

these morsells and peeces of paste, they used certaine ceremonies with

singing and dauncing. By means whereof they were blessed and consecrated

for the flesh and bones of this idoll.... The ceremonies, dauncing, and

sacrifice ended, they went to unclothe themselves, and the priests and

superiors of the temple tooke the idoll of paste, which they spoyled of

all the ornaments it had, and made many peeces, as well of the idoll

itselfe as of the tronchons which were consecrated, and then they gave

them to the people in maner of a communion, beginning with the greater,

and continuing unto the rest, both men, women, and little children, who

received it with such teares, feare, and reverence as it was an admirable

thing, saying that they did eate the flesh and bones of God, wherewith

they were grieved. Such as had any sicke folkes demaunded thereof for

them, and carried it with great reverence and veneration.”(264)

Before the festival in December, which took place at the winter solstice,

an image of the god Huitzilopochtli was made of seeds of various sorts

kneaded into a dough with the blood of children. The bones of the god were

represented by pieces of acacia wood, This image was placed on the chief

altar of the temple, and on the day of the festival the king offered

incense to it. Early next day it was taken down and set on its feet in a

great hall. Then a priest took a flint-tipped dart and hurled it into the

breast of the dough-image, piercing it through and through. This was

called “killing the god Huitzilopochtli so that his body might be eaten.”

One of the priests cut out the heart of the image and gave it to the king

to eat. The rest of the image was divided into minute pieces, of which

every man great and small, down to the male children in the cradle,

received one to eat. But no woman might taste a morsel. The ceremony was

called _teoqualo_, that is, “god is eaten.”(265)

At another festival the Mexicans made little images in human shape to

represent the cloud-capped mountains. These images were made of paste of

various seeds and were dressed in paper ornaments. Some people made five,

others ten, others as many as fifteen of these paste images. They were

placed in the oratory of each house and worshipped. Four times in the

course of the night offerings of food were made to them in tiny vessels;

and people sang and played the flute before them all night. At break of

day the priests stabbed the images with a weaver’s instrument, cut off

their heads, and tore out their hearts, which they presented to the master

of the house on a green saucer. The bodies of the images were then eaten

by all the family, especially by the servants, “in order that by eating

them they might be preserved from certain distempers, to which those

persons who were negligent of worship to those deities conceived

themselves to be subject.” (266)

We are now able to suggest an explanation of the proverb “there are many

Manii at Aricia.”(267) Certain loaves made in the shape of men were called

by the Romans _maniae_, and it appears that this kind of loaf was

especially made at Aricia.(268) Now, Mania, the name of one of these

loaves, was also the name of the Mother or Grandmother of Ghosts,(269) to

whom woollen effigies of men and women were dedicated at the festival of

the Compitalia. These effigies were hung at the doors of all the houses in

Rome; one effigy was hung up for every free person in the house, and one

effigy, of a different kind, for every slave. The reason was that on this

day the ghosts of the dead were believed to be going about, and it was

hoped that they would carry off the effigies at the door instead of the

living people in the house. According to tradition, these woollen figures

were substitutes for a former custom of sacrificing human beings.(270)

Upon data so fragmentary and uncertain, it is of course impossible to

build with certainty; but it seems worth suggesting that the loaves in

human form, which appear to have been baked at Aricia, were sacramental

bread, and that in the old days, when the divine King of the Wood was

annually slain, loaves were made in his image, like the paste figures of

the gods in Mexico, and were eaten sacramentally by his worshippers.(271)

The Mexican sacraments in honour of Huitzilopochtli were also accompanied

by the sacrifice of human victims. The tradition that the founder of the

sacred grove at Aricia was a man named Manius, from whom many Manii were

descended, would thus be an etymological myth invented to explain the name

_maniae_ as applied to these sacramental loaves. A dim recollection of the

original connection of these loaves with human sacrifices may perhaps be

traced in the story that the effigies dedicated to Mania at the Compitalia

were substitutes for human victims. The story itself, however, is probably

devoid of foundation, since the practice of putting up dummies to divert

the attention of demons from living people is not uncommon. For example,

when an epidemic is raging, some of the Dyaks of Borneo set up wooden

images at their doors, in the hope that the demons of the plague will be

deceived into carrying off the images instead of the people.(272) The

Minahassa of Celebes will sometimes transport a sick man to another house,

leaving on his bed a dummy made up of a pillow and clothes. This dummy the

demon is supposed to take by mistake for the sick man, who consequently

recovers.(273) Similarly in Burma it is thought that a patient will

recover if an effigy be buried in a small coffin.(274)

The custom of killing the god has now been traced amongst peoples who have

reached the agricultural stage of society. We have seen that the spirit of

the corn, or of other cultivated plants, is commonly represented either in

human or in animal form, and that a custom has prevailed of killing

annually either the human or the animal representative of the god. The

reason for thus killing the corn-spirit in the person of his

representative has been given implicitly in the earlier part of this

chapter. But, further, we have found a widespread custom of eating the god

sacramentally, either in the shape of the man or animal who represents the

god, or in the shape of bread made in human or animal form. The reasons

for thus partaking of the body of the god are, from the primitive

standpoint, simple enough. The savage commonly believes that by eating the

flesh of an animal or man he acquires not only the physical, but even the

moral and intellectual qualities which were characteristic of that animal

or man. To take examples. The Creeks, Cherokees, and kindred tribes of

North American Indians “believe that nature is possessed of such a

property, as to transfuse into men and animals the qualities, either of

the food they use, or of those objects that are presented to their senses;

he who feeds on venison is, according to their physical system, swifter

and more sagacious than the man who lives on the flesh of the clumsy bear,

or helpless dunghill fowls, the slow-footed tame cattle, or the heavy

wallowing swine. This is the reason that several of their old men

recommend, and say, that formerly their greatest chieftains observed a

constant rule in their diet, and seldom ate of any animal of a gross

quality, or heavy motion of body, fancying it conveyed a dulness through

the whole system, and disabled them from exerting themselves with proper

vigour in their martial, civil, and religious duties.”(275) The Zaparo

Indians of South America “will, unless from necessity, in most cases not

eat any heavy meats, such as tapir and peccary, but confine themselves to

birds, monkeys, deer, fish, etc., principally because they argue that the

heavier meats make them unwieldy, like the animals who supply the flesh,

impeding their agility, and unfitting them for the chase.”(276) The

Namaquas abstain from eating the flesh of hares, because they think it

would make them faint-hearted as a hare. But they eat the flesh of the

lion, or drink the blood of the leopard or lion to get the courage and

strength of these beasts.(277) The Arabs of Eastern Africa believe that an

unguent of lion’s fat inspires a man with boldness, and makes the wild

beasts flee in terror before him.(278) When a serious disease has attacked

a Zulu kraal, the medicine-man takes the bone of a very old dog, which has

died a natural death from mere old age, or the bone of an old cow, bull,

or other very old animal, and administers it to the healthy as well as to

the sick people, in order that they may live to be as old as the animal of

whose bone they have partaken.(279) The Miris of Northern India prize

tiger’s flesh as food for men; it gives them strength and courage. But “it

is not suited for women; it would make them too strong-minded.”(280)

Amongst the Dyaks of North-west Borneo young men and warriors may not eat

venison, because it would make them as timid as deer; but the women and

very old men are free to eat it.(281) Men of the Buro and Aru Islands,

East Indies, eat the flesh of dogs in order to be bold and nimble in

war.(282) Amongst the Papuans of the Port Moresby and Motumotu districts,

New Guinea, young lads eat strong pig, wallaby, and large fish, in order

to acquire the strength of the animal or fish.(283) In Corea the bones of

tigers fetch a higher price than those of leopards as a means of inspiring

courage. A Chinaman in Soul bought and ate a whole tiger to make himself

brave and fierce.(284) The special seat of courage, according to the

Chinese, is the gall-bladder; so they sometimes procure the gall-bladders

of tigers and bears, and eat the bile in the belief that it will give them

courage.(285) In Norse history, Ingiald, son of King Aunund, was timid in

his youth, but after eating the heart of a wolf he became very bold; and

Hialto gained strength and courage by eating the heart of a bear and

drinking its blood.(286) In Morocco lethargic patients are given ants to

swallow; and to eat lion’s flesh will make a coward brave.(287) When a

child is late in learning to speak, the Turks of Central Asia will give it

the tongues of certain birds to eat.(288) A North American Indian thought

that brandy must be a decoction of hearts and tongues, “Because,” said he,

“after drinking it I fear nothing, and I talk wonderfully.”(289) The

people of Darfur, in Central Africa, think that the liver is the seat of

the soul, and that a man may enlarge his soul by eating the liver of an

animal. “Whenever an animal is killed its liver is taken out and eaten,

but the people are most careful not to touch it with their hands, as it is

considered sacred; it is cut up in small pieces and eaten raw, the bits

being conveyed to the mouth on the point of a knife, or the sharp point of

a stick. Any one who may accidentally touch the liver is strictly

forbidden to partake of it, which prohibition is regarded as a great

misfortune for him.” Women are not allowed to eat liver, because they have

no soul.(290)

Again, the flesh and blood of brave men are commonly eaten and drunk to

inspire bravery. The Australian Kamilaroi eat the heart and liver of a

brave man to get his courage.(291) It is a common practice with the

Australian blacks to kill a man, cut out his caul-fat, and rub themselves

with it, “the belief being that all the qualifications, both physical and

mental, of the previous owner of the fat were thus communicated to him who

used it.”(292) The Italones of the Philippine Islands drink the blood of

their slain enemies, and eat part of the back of their heads and of their

entrails raw, in order to acquire their courage. For the same reason the

Efugaos, another tribe of the Philippines, suck the brains of their

foes.(293) Amongst the Kimbunda of Western Africa, when a new king

succeeds to the throne, a brave prisoner of war is killed in order that

the king and nobles may eat his flesh, and so acquire his strength and

courage.(294) The Basutos cut off pieces of their slain enemies and make

them into a powder, “which is supposed to communicate to them the courage,

skill, and good fortune of their adversaries.”(295) The Zulus think that

by eating the centre of the forehead and the eyebrow of an enemy they

acquire the power of looking steadfastly at a foe.(296) In the Shire

Highlands of Africa those who kill a brave man eat his heart to get his

courage.(297) For the same purpose the Chinese eat the bile of notorious

bandits who have been executed.(298) In New Zealand “the chief was an atua

[god], but there were powerful and powerless gods; each naturally sought

to make himself one of the former; the plan therefore adopted was to

incorporate the spirits of others with their own; thus, when a warrior

slew a chief he immediately gouged out his eyes and swallowed them, the

_atua tonga_, or divinity, being supposed to reside in that organ; thus he

not only killed the body, but also possessed himself of the soul of his

enemy, and consequently the more chiefs he slew the greater did his

divinity become.”(299)

It is now easy to understand why a savage should desire to partake of the

flesh of an animal or man whom he regards as divine. By eating the body of

the god he shares in the god’s attributes and powers. And when the god is

a corn-god, the corn is his proper body; when he is a vine-god, the juice

of the grape is his blood; and so by eating the bread and drinking the

wine the worshipper partakes of the real body and blood of his god. Thus

the drinking of wine in the rites of a vine-god like Dionysus is not an

act of revelry, it is a solemn sacrament.(300)

§ 12.—Killing the divine animal.

It remains to show that hunting and pastoral tribes, as well as

agricultural peoples, have been in the habit of killing their gods. The

gods whom hunters and shepherds adore and kill are animals pure and

simple, not animals regarded as embodiments of other supernatural beings.

Our first example is drawn from the Indians of California, who, living in

a fertile country(301) under a serene and temperate sky, nevertheless rank

near the bottom of the savage scale. The Acagchemen tribe of San Juan

Capistrano adored the great buzzard. Once a year, at a great festival

called _Panes_ or bird-feast, they carried one of these birds in

procession to their chief temple, which seems to have been merely an

unroofed enclosure of stakes. Here they killed the bird without losing a

drop of its blood. The skin was removed entire and preserved with the

feathers as a relic or for the purpose of making the festal garment or

_paelt_. The carcass was buried in a hole in the temple, and the old women

gathered round the grave weeping and moaning bitterly, while they threw

various kinds of seeds or pieces of food on it, crying out, “Why did you

run away? Would you not have been better with us?” and so on. They said

that the Panes was a woman who had run off to the mountains and there been

changed into a bird by the god Chinigchinich. They believed that though

they sacrificed the bird annually, she came to life again and returned to

her home in the mountains. Moreover they thought that “as often as the

bird was killed, it became multiplied; because every year all the

different Capitanes celebrated the same feast of the Panes, and were firm

in the opinion that the birds sacrificed were but one and the same

female.”(302)

The unity in multiplicity thus postulated by the Californians is very

noticeable and helps to explain their motive for killing the divine bird.

The notion of the life of a species as distinct from that of an

individual, easy and obvious as it seems to us, appears to be one which

the Californian savage cannot grasp. He is unable to conceive the life of

the species otherwise than as an individual life, and therefore as exposed

to the same dangers and calamities which menace and finally destroy the

life of the individual. Apparently he thinks that a species left to itself

will grow old and die like an individual, and that therefore some step

must be taken to save from extinction the particular species which he

regards as divine. The only means he can think of to avert the catastrophe

is to kill a member of the species in whose veins the tide of life is

still running strong and has not yet stagnated among the fens of old age.

The life thus diverted from one channel will flow, he fancies, more

freshly and freely in a new one; in other words, the slain animal will

revive and enter on a new term of life with all the spring and energy of

youth. To us this reasoning is transparently absurd, but so too is the

custom. If a better explanation, that is, one more consonant with the

facts and with the principles of savage thought, can be given of the

custom, I will willingly withdraw the one here proposed. A similar

confusion, it may be noted, between the individual life and the life of

the species was made by the Samoans. Each family had for its god a

particular species of animal; yet the death of one of these animals, for

example an owl, was not the death of the god, “he was supposed to be yet

alive, and incarnate in all the owls in existence.”(303)

The rude Californian rite which we have just considered has a close

parallel in the religion of ancient Egypt. The Thebans and all other

Egyptians who worshipped the Theban god Ammon held rams to be sacred and

would not sacrifice them. But once a year at the festival of Ammon they

killed a ram, skinned it, and clothed the image of the god in the skin.

Then they mourned over the ram and buried it in a sacred tomb. The custom

was explained by a story that Zeus had once exhibited himself to Hercules

clad in the fleece and wearing the head of a ram.(304) Of course the ram

in this case was simply the beast-god of Thebes, as the wolf was the

beast-god of Lycopolis, and the goat was the beast-god of Mendes. In other

words, the ram was Ammon himself. On the monuments, it is true, Ammon

appears in semi-human form with the body of a man and the head of a

ram.(305) But this only shows that he was in the usual chrysalis state

through which beast-gods regularly pass before they emerge as full-fledged

anthropomorphic gods. The ram, therefore, was killed, not as a sacrifice

to Ammon, but as the god himself, whose identity with the beast is plainly

shown by the custom of clothing his image in the skin of the slain ram.

The reason for thus killing the ram-god annually may have been that which

I have assigned for the general custom of killing the god and for the

special Californian custom of killing the divine buzzard. As applied to

Egypt, this explanation is supported by the analogy of the bull-god Apis,

who was not suffered to outlive a certain term of years.(306) The

intention of thus putting a limit to the life of the god was, as I have

argued, to secure him from the weakness and frailty of age. The same

reasoning would explain the custom—probably an older one—of putting the

beast-god to death annually, as was done with the ram of Thebes.

One point in the Theban ritual—the application of the skin to the image of

the god—deserves special attention. If the god was at first the living

ram, his representation by an image must have originated later. But how

did it originate? The answer to this question is perhaps furnished by the

practice of preserving the skin of the animal which is slain as divine.

The Californians, as we have seen, preserved the skin of the buzzard; and

the skin of the goat, which is killed on the harvest-field as a

representative of the corn-spirit, is kept for various superstitious

purposes.(307) The skin in fact was kept as a token or memorial of the

god, or rather as containing in it a part of the divine life, and it had

only to be stuffed or stretched upon a frame to become a regular image of

him. At first an image of this kind would be renewed annually,(308) the

new image being provided by the skin of the slain animal. But from annual

images to permanent images the transition is easy. We have seen that the

older custom of cutting a new May-tree every year was superseded by the

practice of maintaining a permanent May-pole, which was, however, annually

decked with fresh leaves and flowers and even surmounted each year by a

fresh young tree.(309) Similarly when the stuffed skin, as a

representative of the god, was replaced by a permanent image of him in

wood, stone, or metal, the permanent image was annually clad in the fresh

skin of the slain animal. When this stage had been reached, the custom of

killing the ram came naturally to be interpreted as a sacrifice offered to

the image, and was explained by a story like that of Ammon and Hercules.

West Africa furnishes another example of the annual killing of a sacred

animal and the preservation of its skin. The negroes of Issapoo, in the

island of Fernando Po, regard the cobra-capella as their guardian deity,

who can do them good or ill, bestow riches or inflict disease and death.

The skin of one of these reptiles is hung tail downwards from a branch of

the highest tree in the public square, and the placing of it on the tree

is an annual ceremony. As soon as the ceremony is over, all children born

within the past year are carried out and their hands made to touch the

tail of the serpent’s skin.(310) The latter custom is clearly a way of

placing the infants under the protection of the tribal god. Similarly in

Senegambia a python is expected to visit every child of the Python clan

within eight days after birth;(311) and the Psylli, a Snake clan of

ancient Africa, used to expose their infants to snakes in the belief that

the snakes would not harm true-born children of the clan.(312)

In the Californian, Egyptian, and Fernando Po customs the animal slain

probably is, or once was, a totem. At all events, in all three cases the

worship of the animal seems to have no relation to agriculture, and may

therefore be presumed to date from the hunter or pastoral stage of

society. The same may be said of the following custom, though the people

who practise it—the Zuni Indians of New Mexico—are now settled in walled

villages or towns of a peculiar type, and practise agriculture and the

arts of pottery and weaving. But the Zuni custom is marked by certain

features which appear to place it in a somewhat different category from

the preceding cases. It may be well therefore to describe it at full

length in the words of an eye-witness.

“With midsummer the heat became intense. My brother [_i.e._ adopted Indian

brother] and I sat, day after day, in the cool under-rooms of our

house,—the latter [_sic_] busy with his quaint forge and crude appliances,

working Mexican coins over into bangles, girdles, ear-rings, buttons, and

what not for savage ornament.... One day as I sat watching him, a

procession of fifty men went hastily down the hill, and off westward over

the plain. They were solemnly led by a painted and shell-bedecked priest,

and followed by the torch-bearing Shu-lu-wit-si, or God of Fire. After

they had vanished, I asked old brother what it all meant.

“ ‘They are going,’ said he, ‘to the city of the Ka-ka and the home of our

others.’

“Four days after, toward sunset, costumed and masked in the beautiful

paraphernalia of the Ka-k’ok-shi, or ‘Good Dance,’ they returned in file

up the same pathway, each bearing in his arms a basket filled with living,

squirming turtles, which he regarded and carried as tenderly as a mother

would her infant. Some of the wretched reptiles were carefully wrapped in

soft blankets, their heads and forefeet protruding,—and, mounted on the

backs of the plume-bedecked pilgrims, made ludicrous but solemn

caricatures of little children in the same position. While I was at supper

upstairs that evening, the governor’s brother-in-law came in. He was

welcomed by the family as if a messenger from heaven. He bore in his

tremulous fingers one of the much abused and rebellious turtles. Paint

still adhered to his hands and bare feet, which led me to infer that he

had formed one of the sacred embassy.

“ ‘So you went to Ka-thlu-el-lon, did you?’ I asked.

“ ‘E’e,’ replied the weary man, in a voice husky with long chanting, as he

sank, almost exhausted, on a roll of skins which had been placed for him,

and tenderly laid the turtle on the floor. No sooner did the creature find

itself at liberty than it made off as fast as its lame legs would take it.

Of one accord the family forsook dish, spoon, and drinking-cup, and

grabbing from a sacred meal-bowl whole handfuls of the contents, hurriedly

followed the turtle about the room, into dark corners, around water-jars,

behind the grinding-troughs, and out into the middle of the floor again,

praying and scattering meal on its back as they went. At last, strange to

say, it approached the footsore man who had brought it.

“ ‘Ha!’ he exclaimed, with emotion; ‘see, it comes to me again; ah, what

great favours the fathers of all grant me this day,’ and passing his hand

gently over the sprawling animal, he inhaled from his palm deeply and

long, at the same time invoking the favour of the gods. Then he leaned his

chin upon his hand, and with large wistful eyes regarded his ugly captive

as it sprawled about, blinking its meal-bedimmed eyes, and clawing the

smooth floor in memory of its native element. At this juncture I ventured

a question:

“ ‘Why do you not let him go, or give him some water?’

“Slowly the man turned his eyes toward me, an odd mixture of pain,

indignation, and pity on his face, while the worshipful family stared at

me with holy horror.

“ ‘Poor younger brother!’ he said at last, ‘know you not how precious it

is? It die? It will _not_ die; I tell you, it cannot die.’

“ ‘But it will die if you don’t feed it and give it water.’

“ ‘I tell you it _cannot_ die; it will only change houses to-morrow, and

go back to the home of its brothers. Ah, well! How should _you_ know?’ he

mused. Turning to the blinded turtle again: ‘Ah! my poor dear lost child

or parent, my sister or brother to have been! Who knows which? Maybe my

own great-grandfather or mother!’ And with this he fell to weeping most

pathetically, and, tremulous with sobs, which were echoed by the women and

children, he buried his face in his hands. Filled with sympathy for his

grief, however mistaken, I raised the turtle to my lips and kissed its

cold shell; then depositing it on the floor, hastily left the

grief-stricken family to their sorrows. Next day, with prayers and tender

beseechings, plumes, and offerings, the poor turtle was killed, and its

flesh and bones were removed and deposited in the little river, that it

might ‘return once more to eternal life among its comrades in the dark

waters of the lake of the dead.’ The shell, carefully scraped and dried,

was made into a dance-rattle, and, covered by a piece of buckskin, it

still hangs from the smoke-stained rafters of my brother’s house. Once a

Navajo tried to buy it for a ladle; loaded with indignant reproaches, he

was turned out of the house. Were any one to venture the suggestion that

the turtle no longer lived, his remark would cause a flood of tears, and

he would be reminded that it had only ‘changed houses and gone to live for

ever in the home of “our lost others.” ’ ”(313)

In this custom we find expressed in the clearest way a belief in the

transmigration of human souls into the bodies of turtles.(314) The same

belief in transmigration is held by the Moqui Indians, who belong to the

same race as the Zunis. The Moquis are divided into totem clans—the Bear

clan, Deer clan, Wolf clan, Hare clan, etc.; they believe that the

ancestors of the clans were bears, deer, wolves, hares, etc.; and that at

death the members of each clan become bears, deer, etc.(315) The Zuni are

also divided into clans, the totems of which agree closely with those of

the Moquis, and one of their totems is the turtle.(316) Thus their belief

in transmigration into the turtle is probably one of the regular articles

of their totem faith. What then is the meaning of killing a turtle in

which the soul of a kinsman is believed to be present? Apparently the

object is to keep up a communication with the other world in which the

souls of the departed are believed to be assembled in the form of turtles.

It is a common belief that the spirits of the dead return occasionally to

their old homes; and accordingly the unseen visitors are welcomed and

feasted by the living, and then sent upon their way.(317) In the Zuni

ceremony the dead are fetched back in the form of turtles, and the killing

of the turtles is the way of sending back the souls to the spirit-land.

Thus the general explanation given above of the custom of killing a god

seems inapplicable to the Zuni custom, the true meaning of which is

somewhat obscure.

Doubt also hangs over the meaning of the bear-sacrifice offered by the

Ainos, a primitive people who are found in the Japanese islands of Yesso

and Saghalien, and also in the southern of the Kurile Islands. It is not

quite easy to make out the attitude of the Ainos towards the bear. On the

one hand they give it the name of _Kamui_ or “god”; but as they apply the

same word to strangers,(318) it probably means no more than a being

supposed to be endowed with superhuman powers. Again, it is said “the bear

is their chief divinity;”(319) “in the religion of the Ainos the bear

plays a chief part;”(320) “amongst the animals it is especially the bear

which receives an idolatrous veneration;”(321) “they worship it after

their fashion.... There is no doubt that this wild beast inspires more of

the feeling which prompts worship than the inanimate forces of nature, and

the Ainos may be distinguished as bear-worshippers.”(322) Yet, on the

other hand, they kill the bear whenever they can;(323) “the men spend the

autumn, winter, and spring in hunting deer and bears. Part of their

tribute or taxes is paid in skins, and they subsist on the dried

meat;”(324) bear’s flesh is indeed one of their staple foods; they eat it

both fresh and salted;(325) and the skins of bears furnish them with

clothing.(326) In fact, the “worship” of which writers on this subject

speak appears to be paid only to the dead animal. Thus, although they kill

a bear whenever they can, “in the process of dissecting the carcass they

endeavour to conciliate the deity, whose representative they have slain,

by making elaborate obeisances and deprecatory salutations;”(327) “when a

bear is trapped or wounded by an arrow, the hunters go through an

apologetic or propitiatory ceremony.”(328) The skulls of slain bears

receive a place of honour in their huts, or are set up on sacred posts

outside the huts, and are treated with much respect; libations of _sake_,

an intoxicating liquor, are offered to them.(329) The skulls of foxes are

also fastened to the sacred posts outside the huts; they are regarded as

charms against evil spirits, and are consulted as oracles.(330) Yet it is

expressly said, “The live fox is revered just as little as the bear;

rather they avoid it as much as possible, considering it a wily

animal.”(331) The bear cannot, therefore, be described as a sacred animal

of the Ainos, and it certainly is not a totem; for they do not call

themselves bears, they appear to have no legend of their descent from a

bear,(332) and they kill and eat the animal freely.

But it is the bear-festival of the Ainos which concerns us here. Towards

the end of winter a young bear is caught and brought into the village. At

first he is suckled by an Aino woman; afterwards he is fed on fish. When

he grows so strong that he threatens to break out of the wooden cage in

which he is confined, the feast is held. But “it is a peculiarly striking

fact that the young bear is not kept merely to furnish a good meal; rather

he is regarded and honoured as a fetish, or even as a sort of higher

being.”(333) The festival is generally celebrated in September or October.

Before it takes place the Ainos apologise to their gods, alleging that

they have treated the bear kindly as long as they could, now they can feed

him no longer, and are obliged to kill him. A man who gives a bear-feast

invites his relations and friends; in a small village nearly the whole

community takes part in the feast. One of these festivals has been

described by an eyewitness, Dr. Scheube.(334) On entering the hut he found

about thirty Ainos present, men, women, and children, all dressed in their

best. The master of the house first offered a libation on the fireplace to

the god of the fire, and the guests followed his example. Then a libation

was offered to the house-god in his sacred corner of the hut. Meanwhile

the housewife, who had nursed the bear, sat by herself, silent and sad,

bursting now and then into tears. Her grief was obviously unaffected, and

it deepened as the festival went on. Next, the master of the house and

some of the guests went out of the hut and offered libations before the

bear’s cage. A few drops were presented to the bear in a saucer, which he

at once upset. Then the women and girls danced round the cage, their faces

turned towards it, their knees slightly bent, rising and hopping on their

toes. As they danced they clapped their hands and sang a monotonous song.

The housewife and a few old women, who might have nursed many bears,

danced tearfully, stretching out their arms to the bear, and addressing it

in terms of endearment. The young folks were less affected; they laughed

as well as sang. Disturbed by the noise, the bear began to rush about his

cage and howl lamentably. Next libations were offered to the _inabos_ or

sacred wands which stand outside of an Aino hut. These wands are about a

couple of feet high, and are whittled at the top into spiral

shavings.(335) Five new wands with bamboo leaves attached to them had been

set up for the festival. This is regularly done when a bear is killed; the

leaves mean that the bear may come to life again. Then the bear was let

out of his cage, a rope was thrown round his neck, and he was led about in

the neighbourhood of the hut. While this was being done the men, headed by

a chief, shot at the bear with arrows tipped with wooden buttons. Dr.

Scheube had to do so also. Then the bear was taken before the sacred

wands, a stick was put in his mouth, nine men knelt on him and pressed his

neck against a beam. In five minutes the bear had expired without uttering

a sound. Meantime the women and girls had taken post behind the men, where

they danced, lamenting, and beating the men who were killing the bear. The

bear’s carcass was next placed on a mat before the sacred wands; and a

sword and quiver, taken from the wands, were hung round the beast’s neck.

Being a she-bear, it was also adorned with a necklace and ear-rings. Then

food and drink were offered to it, in the shape of millet-broth,

millet-cakes, and a pot of _sake_. The men now sat down on mats before the

dead bear, offered libations to it, and drank deep. Meanwhile the women

and girls had laid aside all marks of sorrow, and danced merrily, none

more merrily than the old women. When the mirth was at its height two

young Ainos, who had let the bear out of his cage, mounted the roof of the

hut and threw cakes of millet among the company, who all scrambled for

them without distinction of age or sex. The bear was next skinned and

disembowelled, and the trunk severed from the head, to which the skin was

left hanging. The blood, caught in cups, was eagerly swallowed by the men.

None of the women or children appeared to drink the blood, though custom

did not forbid them to do so. The liver was cut in small pieces and eaten

raw, with salt, the women and children getting their share. The flesh and

the rest of the vitals were taken into the house to be kept till the next

day but one, and then to be divided among the persons who had been present

at the feast. Blood and liver were offered to Dr. Scheube. While the bear

was being disembowelled, the women and girls danced the same dance which

they had danced at the beginning—not, however, round the cage, but in

front of the sacred wands. At this dance the old women, who had been merry

a moment before, again shed tears freely. After the brain had been

extracted from the bear’s head and swallowed with salt, the skull,

detached from the skin, was hung on a pole beside the sacred wands. The

stick with which the bear had been gagged was also fastened to the pole,

and so were the sword and quiver which had been hung on the carcass. The

latter were removed in about an hour, but the rest remained standing. The

whole company, men and women, danced noisily before the pole; and another

drinking-bout, in which the women joined, closed the festival.

The mode of killing the bear is described somewhat differently by Miss

Bird, who, however, did not witness the ceremony. She says: “Yells and

shouts are used to excite the bear; and when he becomes much agitated a

chief shoots him with an arrow, inflicting a slight wound which maddens

him, on which the bars of the cage are raised, and he springs forth, very

furious. At this stage the Ainos run upon him with various weapons, each

one striving to inflict a wound, as it brings good luck to draw his blood.

As soon as he falls down exhausted his head is cut off, and the weapons

with which he has been wounded are offered to it, and he is asked to

avenge himself upon them.” At Usu, on Volcano Bay, when the bear is being

killed, the Ainos shout, “We kill you, O bear! come back soon into an

Aino.”(336) A very respectable authority, Dr. Siebold, states that the

bear’s own heart is frequently offered to the dead animal, in order to

assure him that he is still in life.(337) This, however, is denied by Dr.

Scheube, who says the heart is eaten.(338) Perhaps the custom may be

observed in some places, though not in others.

The Gilyaks, a Tunguzian people of Eastern Siberia,(339) hold a bear

festival of the same sort. “The bear is the object of the most refined

solicitude of an entire village and plays the chief part in their

religious ceremonies.”(340) An old she-bear is shot and her cub is reared,

but not suckled in the village. When the bear is big enough he is taken

from his cage and dragged through the village. But first he is led to the

bank of the river, for this is believed to ensure abundance of fish to

each family. He is then taken into every house in the village, where fish,

brandy, etc. are offered to him. Some people prostrate themselves before

the beast. His entrance into a house is supposed to bring a blessing; and

if he snuffs at the food offered to him, this also is a blessing.

Nevertheless they tease and worry, poke and tickle the animal continually,

so that he is surly and snappish.(341) After being thus taken to every

house, he is tied to a peg and shot dead with arrows. His head is then cut

off, decked with shavings, and placed on the table where the feast is set

out. Here they beg pardon of the beast and worship him. Then his flesh is

roasted and eaten in special vessels of wood finely carved. They do not

eat the flesh raw nor drink the blood, as the Ainos do. The brain and

entrails are eaten last; and the skull, still decked with shavings, is

placed on a tree near the house. Then the people sing and both sexes dance

in ranks, as bears.(342)

The Goldi, neighbours of the Gilyaks, treat the bear in much the same way.

They hunt and kill it; but sometimes they capture a live bear and keep him

in a cage, feeding him well and calling him their son and brother. Then at

a great festival he is taken from his cage, paraded about with marked

consideration, and afterwards killed and eaten. “The skull, jaw-bones, and

ears are then suspended on a tree, as an antidote against evil spirits;

but the flesh is eaten and much relished, for they believe that all who

partake of it acquire a zest for the chase, and become courageous.”(343)

In the treatment of the captive bear by these tribes there are features

which can hardly be distinguished from worship. Such in particular is the

Gilyak custom of leading him from house to house, that every family may

receive his blessing—a custom parallel to the European one of taking a

May-tree or a personal representative of the tree-spirit from door to door

in spring, in order that all may share the fresh energies of reviving

nature. Again the expected resurrection of the bear is avowedly indicated

by the bamboo leaves and by the prayer addressed to him to “come back soon

into an Aino.” And that the eating of his flesh is regarded as a sacrament

is made probable by the Gilyak custom of reserving special vessels to hold

the bear’s flesh on this solemn occasion. How is the reverence thus paid

to particular bears to be reconciled with the fact that bears in general

are habitually hunted and killed by these tribes for the sake of their

flesh and skins? On the one hand, the bear is treated as a god; on the

other hand, as a creature wholly subservient to human needs. The apparent

contradiction vanishes when we place ourselves at the savage point of

view. The savage, we must remember, believes that animals are endowed with

feelings and intelligence like those of men, and that, like men, they

possess souls which survive the death of their bodies either to wander

about as disembodied spirits or to be born again in animal form. To the

savage, therefore, who regards all living creatures as practically on a

footing of equality with man,(344) the act of killing and eating an animal

must wear a very different aspect from that which the same act presents to

us who regard the intelligence of animals as far inferior to our own and

deny them the possession of immortal souls. Thus on the principles of his

rude philosophy the savage who slays an animal believes himself exposed to

the vengeance either of its disembodied spirit or of all the other animals

of the same species, whom he considers as knit together, like men, by the

ties of kin and the obligations of the blood feud, and therefore as bound

to resent the injury done to one of their number. Accordingly the savage

makes it a rule to spare the life of those animals which he has no

pressing motive for killing, at least such fierce and dangerous animals as

are likely to exact a bloody vengeance for the slaughter of one of their

kind. Crocodiles are animals of this sort. They are only found in hot

countries where, as a rule, food is abundant and primitive man has

therefore no reason to kill them for the sake of their tough and

unpalatable flesh. Hence it is a general rule among savages to spare

crocodiles, or rather only to kill them in obedience to the law of blood

feud, that is, as a retaliation for the slaughter of men by crocodiles.

For example, the Dyaks of Borneo will not kill a crocodile unless a

crocodile has first killed a man. “For why, say they, should they commit

an act of aggression, when he and his kindred can so easily repay them?

But should the alligator take a human life, revenge becomes a sacred duty

of the living relatives, who will trap the man-eater in the spirit of an

officer of justice pursuing a criminal. Others, even then, hang back,

reluctant to embroil themselves in a quarrel which does not concern them.

The man-eating alligator is supposed to be pursued by a righteous Nemesis;

and whenever one is caught they have a profound conviction that it must be

the guilty one, or his accomplice.”(345) So the natives of Madagascar

never kill a crocodile “except in retaliation for one of their friends who

has been destroyed by a crocodile. They believe that the wanton

destruction of one of these reptiles will be followed by the loss of human

life, in accordance with the principle of _lex talionis_.” The people who

live near the lake Itasy in Madagascar make a yearly proclamation to the

crocodiles, announcing that they will revenge the death of some of their

friends by killing as many crocodiles in return and warning all

well-disposed crocodiles to keep out of the way, as they have no quarrel

with them, but only with their evil-minded relations who have taken human

life.(346) The Foulahs of Senegambia respect crocodiles on similar

grounds.(347) The Seminoles, Sioux, and Iowa Indians of North America

spare the rattle-snake because they fear that the ghost of the dead

rattle-snake would incite its kinsfolk to take vengeance.(348) No

consideration will induce a Sumatran to catch or wound a tiger except in

self-defence or immediately after the tiger has destroyed a friend or

relation. When a European has set traps for tigers, the people of the

neighbourhood have been known to go by night to the place and explain to

the tiger that the traps are not set by them nor with their consent.(349)

But the savage clearly cannot afford to spare all animals. He must either

eat some of them or starve, and when the question thus comes to be whether

he or the animal must perish, he is forced to overcome his superstitious

scruples and take the life of the beast. At the same time he does all he

can to appease his victims and their kinsfolk. Even in the act of killing

them he testifies his respect for them, endeavours to excuse or even

conceal his share in procuring their death, and promises that their

remains will be honourably treated. By thus robbing death of its terrors

he hopes to reconcile his victims to their fate and to induce their

fellows to come and be killed also. For example, it was a principle with

the Kamtchatkans never to kill a land or sea animal without first making

excuses to it and begging that the animal would not take it ill. Also they

offered it cedar-nuts, etc. to make it think that it was not a victim but

a guest at a feast. They believed that this prevented other animals of the

same species from growing shy. For instance, after they had killed a bear

and feasted on its flesh, the host would bring the bear’s head before the

company, wrap it in grass, and present it with a variety of trifles. Then

he would lay the blame of the bear’s death on the Russians, and bid the

beast wreak his wrath upon them. Also he would ask the bear to tell the

other bears how well he had been treated, that they too might come without

fear. Seals, sea-lions, and other animals were treated by the Kamtchatkans

with the same ceremonious respect.(350) When the Ostiaks have hunted and

killed a bear, they cut off its head and hang it on a tree. Then they

gather round in a circle and pay it divine honours. Next they run towards

the carcass uttering lamentations and saying, “Who killed you? It was the

Russians. Who cut off your head? It was a Russian axe. Who skinned you? It

was a knife made by a Russian.” They explain, too, that the feathers which

sped the arrow on its flight came from the wing of a strange bird, and

that they did nothing but let the arrow go. They do all this because they

believe that the wandering ghost of the slain bear would attack them on

the first opportunity, if they did not thus appease it.(351) Or they stuff

the skin of the slain bear with hay; and after celebrating their victory

with songs of mockery and insult, after spitting on and kicking it, they

set it up on its hind legs, “and then, for a considerable time, they

bestow on it all the veneration due to a guardian god.”(352) When a party

of Koriaks have killed a bear or a wolf, they skin the beast and dress one

of themselves in the skin. Then they dance round the skin-clad man, saying

that it was not they who killed the animal, but some one else, generally a

Russian. When they kill a fox they skin it, wrap the body in grass, and

bid him go tell his companions how hospitably he has been received, and

how he has received a new cloak instead of his old one.(353) The Finns

used to try to persuade a slain bear that he had not been killed by them,

but had fallen from a tree, etc.(354) When the Lapps had succeeded in

killing a bear with impunity, they thanked him for not hurting them and

for not breaking the clubs and spears which had given him his death

wounds; and they prayed that he would not visit his death upon them by

sending storms or in any other way.(355) His flesh then furnished a feast.

The reverence of hunters for the bear whom they regularly kill and eat may

thus be traced all along the northern region of the Old World, from

Behring’s Straits to Lappland. It reappears in similar forms in North

America. With the American Indians a bear hunt was an important event for

which they prepared by long fasts and purgations. Before setting out they

offered expiatory sacrifices to the souls of bears slain in previous

hunts, and besought them to be favourable to the hunters. When a bear was

killed the hunter lit his pipe, and putting the mouth of it between the

bear’s lips, blew into the bowl, filling the beast’s mouth with smoke.

Then he begged the bear not to be angry at having been killed, and not to

thwart him afterwards in the chase. The carcass was roasted whole and

eaten; not a morsel of the flesh might be left over. The head, painted red

and blue, was hung on a post and addressed by orators, who heaped praise

on the dead beast.(356) When men of the Bear clan in the Otawa tribe

killed a bear, they made him a feast of his own flesh, and addressed him

thus: “Cherish us no grudge because we have killed you. You have sense;

you see that our children are hungry. They love you and wish to take you

into their bodies. Is it not glorious to be eaten by the children of a

chief?”(357) Amongst the Nootka Indians of British Columbia, when a bear

had been killed, it was brought in and seated before the head chief in an

upright posture, with a chief’s bonnet, wrought in figures, on its head,

and its fur powdered over with white down. A tray of provisions was then

set before it, and it was invited by words and gestures to eat. The animal

was then skinned, boiled, and eaten.(358)

A like respect is testified for other dangerous animals by the hunters who

regularly trap and kill them. When Kafir hunters are in the act of

showering spears on an elephant, they call out, “Don’t kill us, great

captain; don’t strike or tread upon us, mighty chief.”(359) When he is

dead they make their excuses to him, pretending that his death was a pure

accident. As a mark of respect they bury his trunk with much solemn

ceremony; for they say that “The elephant is a great lord; his trunk is

his hand.”(360) Amongst some tribes of Eastern Africa, when a lion is

killed, the carcass is brought before the king, who does homage to it by

prostrating himself on the ground and rubbing his face on the muzzle of

the beast.(361) In some parts of Western Africa if a negro kills a leopard

he is bound fast and brought before the chiefs for having killed one of

their peers. The man defends himself on the plea that the leopard is chief

of the forest and therefore a stranger. He is then set at liberty and

rewarded. But the dead leopard, adorned with a chief’s bonnet, is set up

in the village, where nightly dances are held in its honour.(362) “Before

leaving a temporary camp in the forest, where they have killed a tapir and

dried the meat on a babracot, Indians [of Guiana] invariably destroy this

babracot, saying that should a tapir passing that way find traces of the

slaughter of one of his kind, he would come by night on the next occasion

when Indians slept at that place, and, taking a man, would babracot him in

revenge.”(363)

But it is not merely dangerous animals with whom the savage desires to

keep on good terms. It is true that the respect which he pays to wild

beasts is in some measure proportioned to their strength and ferocity.

Thus the savage Stiens of Cambodia, believing that all animals have souls

which roam about after their death, beg an animal’s pardon when they kill

it, lest its soul should come and torment them. Also they offer it

sacrifices, but these sacrifices are proportioned to the size and strength

of the animal. The ceremonies observed at the death of an elephant are

conducted with much pomp and last seven days.(364) Similar distinctions

are drawn by North American Indians. “The bear, the buffalo, and the

beaver are manidos [divinities] which furnish food. The bear is

formidable, and good to eat. They render ceremonies to him, begging him to

allow himself to be eaten, although they know he has no fancy for it. We

kill you, but you are not annihilated. His head and paws are objects of

homage.... Other animals are treated similarly from similar reasons....

Many of the animal manidos, not being dangerous, are often treated with

contempt—the terrapin, the weasel, polecat, etc.”(365) The distinction is

instructive. Animals which are feared, or are good to eat, or both, are

treated with ceremonious respect; those which are neither formidable nor

good to eat are despised. We have had examples of reverence paid to

animals which are both feared and eaten. It remains to prove that similar

respect is shown for animals which, without being feared, are either eaten

or valued for their skins.

When Siberian sable-hunters have caught a sable, no one is allowed to see

it, and they think that if good or evil be spoken of the captured sable,

no more sables will be caught. A hunter has been known to express his

belief that the sables could hear what was said of them as far off as

Moscow. He said that the chief reason why the sable hunt was now so

unproductive was that some live sables had been sent to Moscow. There they

had been viewed with astonishment as strange animals, and the sables

cannot abide that. Another, though minor, cause of the diminished take of

sable was, he alleged, that the world is now much worse than it used to

be, so that nowadays a hunter will sometimes hide the sable which he has

got instead of putting it into the common stock. This also, said he, the

sables cannot abide.(366) Alaskan hunters preserve the bones of sables and

beavers out of reach of the dogs for a year and then bury them carefully,

“lest the spirits who look after the beavers and sables should consider

that they are regarded with contempt, and hence no more should be killed

or trapped.”(367) The Canadian Indians were equally particular not to let

their dogs gnaw the bones, or at least certain of the bones, of beavers.

They took the greatest pains to collect and preserve these bones and, when

the beaver had been caught in a net, they threw them into the river. To a

Jesuit who argued that the beavers could not possibly know what became of

their bones, the Indians replied, “You know nothing about catching beavers

and yet you will be talking about it. Before the beaver is stone dead, his

soul takes a turn in the hut of the man who is killing him and makes a

careful note of what is done with his bones. If the bones are given to the

dogs, the other beavers would get word of it and would not let themselves

be caught. Whereas, if their bones are thrown into the fire or a river,

they are quite satisfied; and it is particularly gratifying to the net

which caught them.”(368) Before hunting the beaver they offered a solemn

prayer to the Great Beaver, and presented him with tobacco; and when the

chase was over, an orator pronounced a funeral oration over the dead

beavers. He praised their spirit and wisdom. “You will hear no more,” said

he, “the voice of the chieftains who commanded you and whom you chose from

among all the warrior beavers to give you laws. Your language, which the

medicine-men understand perfectly, will be heard no more at the bottom of

the lake. You will fight no more battles with the otters, your cruel foes.

No, beavers! But your skins shall serve to buy arms; we will carry your

smoked hams to our children; we will keep the dogs from eating your bones,

which are so hard.”(369)

The elan, deer, and elk were treated by the North American Indians with

the same punctilious respect, and for the same reason. Their bones might

not be given to the dogs nor thrown into the fire, nor might their fat be

dropped upon the fire, because the souls of the dead animals were believed

to see what was done to their bodies and to tell it to the other beasts,

living and dead. Hence, if their bodies were ill used, the animals of that

species would not allow themselves to be taken, neither in this world nor

in the world to come.(370) A sick man would be asked by the medicine-man

whether he had not thrown away some of the flesh of the deer or turtle,

and if he answered yes, the medicine-man would say, “That is what is

killing you. The soul of the deer or turtle has entered into your body to

avenge the wrong you did it.”(371) The Sioux will not stick an awl or

needle into a turtle, for they are sure that, if they were to do so, the

turtle would punish them at some future time.(372) The Canadian Indians

would not eat the embryos of the elk, unless at the close of the hunting

season; otherwise the mother-elks would be shy and refuse to be

caught.(373) Some of the Indians believed that each sort of animal had its

patron or genius who watched over and preserved it. An Indian girl having

once picked up a dead mouse, her father snatched the little creature from

her and tenderly caressed and fondled it. Being asked why he did so, he

said that it was to appease the genius of mice, in order that he might not

torment his daughter for eating the mouse. With that he handed the mouse

to the girl and she ate it.(374)

For like reasons, a tribe which depends for its subsistence, chiefly or in

part, upon fishing is careful to treat the fish with every mark of honour

and respect. The Indians of Peru “adored the fish that they caught in

greatest abundance; for they said that the first fish that was made in the

world above (for so they named Heaven) gave birth to all other fish of

that species, and took care to send them plenty of its children to sustain

their tribe. For this reason they worshipped sardines in one region, where

they killed more of them than of any other fish; in others, the skate; in

others, the dogfish; in others, the golden fish for its beauty; in others,

the crawfish; in others, for want of larger gods, the crabs, where they

had no other fish, or where they knew not how to catch and kill them. In

short, they had whatever fish was most serviceable to them as their

gods.”(375) The Otawa Indians of Canada, believing that the souls of dead

fish passed into other bodies of fish, never burned fish bones, for fear

of displeasing the souls of the fish, who would come no more to the

nets.(376) The Hurons also refrained from throwing fish bones into the

fire, lest the souls of the fish should go and warn the other fish not to

let themselves be caught, since the Hurons would burn their bones.

Moreover, they had men who preached to the fish and persuaded them to come

and be caught. A good preacher was much sought after, for they thought

that the exhortations of a clever man had a great effect in drawing the

fish to the nets. In the Huron fishing village where the French missionary

Sagard stayed, the preacher to the fish prided himself very much on his

eloquence, which was of a florid order. Every evening after supper, having

seen that all the people were in their places and that a strict silence

was observed, he preached to the fish. His text was that the Hurons did

not burn fish bones. “Then enlarging on his theme with extraordinary

unction, he exhorted and conjured and invited and implored the fish to

come and be caught and to be of good courage and to fear nothing, for it

was all to serve their friends who honoured them and did not burn their

bones.”(377) The disappearance of herring from the sea about Heligoland in

1530 was attributed by the fishermen to the fact that two lads had whipped

a freshly-caught herring and then flung it back into the sea.(378) The

natives of the Duke of York Island annually decorate a canoe with flowers

and ferns, lade it, or are supposed to lade it, with shell-money, and set

it adrift to pay the fish for those they lose by being caught.(379) It is

especially necessary to treat the first fish caught with consideration in

order to conciliate the rest of the fish, for their conduct may be

supposed to be influenced by the reception given to the first of their

kind which is taken. Accordingly the Maoris always put back into the sea

the first fish caught, “with a prayer that it may tempt other fish to come

and be caught.”(380)

Still more stringent are the precautions taken when the fish are the first

of the season. On salmon rivers, when the fish begin to run up the stream

in spring, they are received with much deference by tribes who, like the

Indians of the Pacific Coast of North America, subsist largely upon a fish

diet. In British Columbia the Indians used to go out to meet the first

fish as they came up the river. “They paid court to them, and would

address them thus. ‘You fish, you fish; you are all chiefs, you are; you

are all chiefs.’ ”(381) Amongst the Thlinket of Alaska the first halibut

of the season is carefully handled, addressed as a chief, and a festival

is given in his honour, after which the fishing goes on.(382) In spring,

when the winds blow soft from the south and the salmon begin to run up the

Klamath river, the Karoks of California dance for salmon, to ensure a good

catch. One of the Indians, called the Kareya or God-man, retires to the

mountains and fasts for ten days. On his return the people flee, while he

goes to the river, takes the first salmon of the catch, eats some of it,

and with the rest kindles the sacred fire in the sweating-house. “No

Indian may take a salmon before this dance is held, nor for ten days after

it, even if his family are starving.” The Karoks also believe that a

fisherman will take no salmon if the poles of which his spearing-booth is

made were gathered on the river-side, where the salmon might have seen

them. The poles must be brought from the top of the highest mountain. The

fisherman will also labour in vain if he uses the same poles a second year

in booths or weirs, “because the old salmon will have told the young ones

about them.”(383) Among the Indians of the Columbia River, “when the

salmon make their first appearance in the river, they are never allowed to

be cut crosswise, nor boiled, but roasted; nor are they allowed to be sold

without the heart being first taken out, nor to be kept over night, but

must be all consumed or eaten the day they are taken out of the water. All

these rules are observed for about ten days.”(384) They think that if the

heart of a fish were eaten by a stranger at the beginning of the season,

they would catch no more fish. Hence, they roast and eat the hearts

themselves.(385) There is a favourite fish of the Ainos which appears in

their rivers about May and June. They prepare for the fishing by observing

rules of ceremonial purity, and when they have gone out to fish, the women

at home must keep strict silence or the fish would hear them and

disappear. When the first fish is caught he is brought home and passed

through a small opening at the end of the hut, but not through the door;

for if he were passed through the door, “the other fish would certainly

see him and disappear.”(386) This explains the custom observed by other

savages of bringing game into their huts, not by the door, but by the

window, the smoke-hole, or by a special opening at the back of the

hut.(387)

With some savages a special reason for respecting the bones of game, and

generally of the animals which they eat, is a belief that, if the bones

are preserved, they will in course of time be reclothed with flesh, and

thus the animal will come to life again. It is, therefore, clearly for the

interest of the hunter to leave the bones intact, since to destroy them

would be to diminish the future supply of game. Many of the Minnetaree

Indians “believe that the bones of those bisons which they have slain and

divested of flesh rise again clothed with renewed flesh, and quickened

with life, and become fat, and fit for slaughter the succeeding

June.”(388) Hence on the western prairies of America, the skulls of

buffalos may be seen arranged in circles and symmetrical piles, awaiting

the resurrection.(389) After feasting on a dog, the Dacotas carefully

collect the bones, scrape, wash, and bury them, “partly, as it is said, to

testify to the dog-species, that in feasting upon one of their number no

disrespect was meant to the species itself, and partly also from a belief

that the bones of the animal will rise and reproduce another.”(390) In

sacrificing an animal the Lapps regularly put aside the bones, eyes, ears,

heart, lungs, sexual parts (if the animal was a male), and a morsel of

flesh from each limb. Then, after eating the rest of the flesh, they laid

the bones etc. in anatomical order in a coffin and buried them with the

usual rites, believing that the god to whom the animal was sacrificed

would reclothe the bones with flesh and restore the animal to life in

Jabme-Aimo, the subterranean world of the dead. Sometimes, as after

feasting on a bear, they seem to have contented themselves with thus

burying the bones.(391) Thus the Lapps expected the resurrection of the

slain animal to take place in another world, resembling in this respect

the Kamtchatkans, who believed that every creature, down to the smallest

fly, would rise from the dead and live underground.(392) On the other

hand, the North American Indians looked for the resurrection of the

animals in the present world. The habit, observed especially by Mongolian

peoples, of stuffing the skin of a sacrificed animal, or stretching it on

a framework,(393) points rather to a belief in a resurrection of the

latter sort. The objection commonly entertained by primitive peoples to

break the bones of the animals which they have eaten or sacrificed(394)

may be based either on a belief in the resurrection of the animals, or on

a fear of intimidating the other creatures of the same species and

offending the ghosts of the slain animals. The reluctance of North

American Indians to let dogs gnaw the bones of animals(395) is perhaps

only a precaution to prevent the bones from being broken. There are traces

in folk-tales of the same primitive belief that animals or men may come to

life again, if only their bones are preserved; not uncommonly the animal

or man in the story comes to life lame of a limb, because one of his bones

has been eaten, broken, or lost.(396) In a Magyar tale, the hero is cut in

pieces, but the serpent-king lays the bones together in their proper

order, and washes them with water, whereupon the hero comes to life again.

His shoulder-blade, however, had been lost, so the serpent-king supplied

its place with one of gold and ivory.(397) Such stories, as Mannhardt has

seen, explain why Pythagoras, who claimed to have lived many lives, one

after the other, was said to have exhibited his golden leg as a proof of

his supernatural pretensions.(398) Doubtless he was reported to have

explained that at one of his resurrections a leg had been broken or

mislaid, and that it had been replaced with one of gold. Similarly, when

the murdered Pelops was restored to life, the shoulder which Demeter had

eaten was replaced with one of ivory.(399) The story that one of the

members of the mangled Osiris was eaten by fish, and that, when Isis

collected his scattered limbs, she replaced the missing member with one of

wood,(400) may perhaps belong to the same circle of beliefs.

There is a certain rule observed by savage hunters and fishers which,

obscure at first sight, may be explained by this savage belief in

resurrection. A traveller in America in the early part of this century was

told by a half-breed Choctaw that the Indians “had an obscure story,

somewhat resembling that of Jacob wrestling with an angel; and that the

full-blooded Indians always separate the sinew which shrank, and that it

is never seen in the venison exposed for sale; he did not know what they

did with it. His elder brother, whom I afterwards met, told me that they

eat it as a rarity; but I have also heard, though on less respectable

authority, that they refrain from it, like the ancient Jews. A gentleman,

who had lived on the Indian frontier, or in the nation, for ten or fifteen

years, told me that he had often been surprised that the Indians always

detached the sinew; but it had never occurred to him to inquire the

reason.”(401) James Adair, who knew the Indians of the South Eastern

States intimately, and whose theories appear not to have distorted his

view of the facts, observes that “when in the woods, the Indians cut a

small piece out of the lower part of the thighs of the deer they kill,

lengthways and pretty deep. Among the great number of venison-hams they

bring to our trading houses, I do not remember to have observed one

without it.... And I have been assured by a gentleman of character, who is

now an inhabitant of South Carolina, and well acquainted with the customs

of the Northern Indians, that they also cut a piece out of the thigh of

every deer they kill, and throw it away; and reckon it such a dangerous

pollution to eat it as to occasion sickness and other misfortunes of

sundry kinds, especially by spoiling their guns from shooting with proper

force and direction.”(402) In recent years the statement of Adair’s

informant has been confirmed by the French missionary Petitot, who has

also published the “obscure story” to which Hodgson refers. The Loucheux

and Hare-skin Indians who roam the bleak steppes and forests that stretch

from Hudson’s Bay to the Rocky Mountains, and northward to the frozen sea,

are forbidden by custom to eat the sinew of the legs of animals. To

explain this custom they tell the following “sacred story.” Once upon a

time a man found a burrow of porcupines, and going down into it after the

porcupines he lost his way in the darkness, till a kind giant called “He

who sees before and behind” released him by cleaving open the earth. So

the man, whose name was “Fireless and Homeless,” lived with the kind

giant, and the giant hunted elans and beavers for him, and carried him

about in the sheath of his flint knife. “But know, my son,” said the

giant, “that he who uses the sky as his head is angry with me, and has

sworn my destruction. If he slays me the clouds will be tinged with my

blood; they will be red with it, probably.” Then he gave the man an axe

made of the tooth of a gigantic beaver, and went forth to meet his enemy.

But from under the ice the man heard a dull muffled sound. It was a whale

which was making this noise because it was naked and cold. Warned by the

man, the giant went toward the whale, which took human shape, and rushed

upon the giant. It was the wicked giant, the kind giant’s enemy. The two

struggled together for a long time, till the kind giant cried, “Oh, my

son! cut, cut the sinew of the leg.” The man cut the sinew, and the wicked

giant fell down and was slain. That is why the Indians do not eat the

sinew of the leg. Afterwards, one day the sky suddenly grew red, so

Fireless and Homeless knew that the kind giant was dead, and he wept.(403)

This myth, it is almost needless to observe, does not really explain the

custom. No people ever observed a custom because a mythical being was said

to have once acted in a certain way. But, on the contrary, all peoples

have invented myths to explain why they observed certain customs.

Dismissing, therefore, the story of Fireless and Homeless as a myth

invented to explain why the Indians abstain from eating a particular

sinew, it may be suggested(404) that the original reason for observing the

custom was a belief that the sinew in question was necessary to

reproduction, and that deprived of it the slain animals could not come to

life again and stock the steppes and prairies either of the present world

or of the spirit land. We have seen that the resurrection of animals is a

common article of savage faith, and that when the Lapps bury the skeleton

of the male bear in the hope of its resurrection they are careful to bury

the genital parts along with it.(405)

Besides the animals which primitive man dreads for their strength and

ferocity, and those which he reveres on account of the benefits which he

expects from them, there is another class of creatures which he sometimes

deems it necessary to conciliate by worship and sacrifice. These are the

vermin that infest the crops. To rid himself of these deadly foes the

farmer has recourse to a thousand superstitious devices, of which, though

many are meant to destroy or intimidate the vermin, others aim at

propitiating them and persuading them by fair means to spare the fruits of

the earth. Thus Esthonian peasants, in the Island of Oesel, stand in great

awe of the weevil, an insect which is exceedingly destructive to the

grain. They give it a euphemistic title, and if a child is about to kill a

weevil they say, “Don’t do it; the more we hurt him, the more he hurts

us.” If they find a weevil they bury it in the earth instead of killing

it. Some even put the weevil under a stone in the field and offer corn to

it. They think that thus it is appeased and does less harm.(406) Amongst

the Saxons of Transylvania, in order to keep sparrows from the corn, the

sower begins by throwing the first handful of seed backwards over his

head, saying, “That is for you, sparrows.” To guard the corn against the

attacks of leaf-flies (_Erdflöhe_) he shuts his eyes and scatters three

handfuls of oats in different directions. Having made this offering to the

leaf-flies he feels sure that they will spare the corn. A Transylvanian

way of securing the crops against all birds, beasts, and insects, is this:

After he has finished sowing, the sower goes once more from end to end of

the field imitating the gesture of sowing, but with an empty hand. As he

does so he says, “I sow this for the animals; I sow it for everything that

flies and creeps, that walks and stands, that sings and springs, in the

name of God the Father, etc.”(407) The following is a German way of

freeing a garden from caterpillars. After sunset or at midnight the

mistress of the house, or another female member of the family, walks all

round the garden dragging a broom after her. She must not look behind her,

and must keep murmuring, “Good evening, Mother Caterpillar, you shall come

with your husband to church.” The garden gate is left open till the

following morning.(408)

Sometimes in dealing with vermin the farmer resorts neither to unmitigated

severity nor to unbounded indulgence, but aims at adopting a judicious

compromise between the two; kind but firm, he tempers severity with mercy.

An ancient Greek treatise on farming advises the husbandman who would rid

his lands of mice to act thus: “Take a sheet of paper and write on it as

follows: ‘I adjure you, ye mice here present, that ye neither injure me

nor suffer another mouse to do so. I give you yonder field’ (here you

specify the field); ‘but if ever I catch you here again, by the Mother of

the Gods I will rend you in seven pieces.’ Write this, and stick the paper

on an unhewn stone in the field before sunrise, taking care to keep the

written side uppermost.”(409) Sometimes the desired object is supposed to

be attained by treating with high distinction one or two chosen

individuals of the obnoxious species, while the rest are pursued with

relentless rigour. In the East Indian island of Bali, the mice which

ravage the rice-fields are caught in great numbers, and burned in the same

way that corpses are burned. But two of the captured mice are allowed to

live, and receive a little packet of white linen. Then the people bow down

before them, as before gods, and let them go.(410) In some parts of

Bohemia the peasant, though he kills field mice and gray mice without

scruple, always spares white mice. If he finds a white mouse he takes it

up carefully, and makes a comfortable bed for it in the window; for if it

died the luck of the house would be gone, and the gray mice would multiply

fearfully in the house.(411) When caterpillars invaded a vineyard or field

in Syria, the virgins were gathered, and one of the caterpillars was taken

and a girl made its mother. Then they bewailed and buried it. Thereafter

they conducted the “mother” to the place where the caterpillars were,

consoling her, in order that all the caterpillars might leave the

garden.(412) On the 1st of September, Russian girls “make small coffins of

turnips and other vegetables, enclose flies and other insects in them, and

then bury them with a great show of mourning.”(413)

In these latter examples the deference shown to a few chosen individuals

of the species is apparently regarded as entitling a person to exterminate

with impunity all the rest of the species upon which he can lay hands.

This principle perhaps explains the attitude, at first sight puzzling and

contradictory, of the Ainos towards the bear. The flesh and skin of the

bear regularly afford them food and clothing; but since the bear is an

intelligent and powerful animal, it is necessary to offer some

satisfaction or atonement to the bear species for the loss which it

sustains in the death of so many of its members. This satisfaction or

atonement is made by rearing young bears, treating them, so long as they

live, with respect, and killing them with extraordinary marks of sorrow

and devotion. Thus the other bears are appeased, and do not resent the

slaughter of their kind by attacking the slayers or deserting the country,

and thus depriving the Ainos of one of their means of subsistence.

Thus the primitive worship of animals assumes two forms, which are in some

respects the converse of each other. On the one hand animals are

respected, and are therefore neither killed nor eaten. Totemism is a form

of this worship, if worship it can be called; but it is not the only form,

for we have seen that dangerous and useless animals, like the crocodile,

are commonly revered and spared by men who do not regard the animal in

question as their totem. On the other hand animals are worshipped because

they are habitually killed and eaten. In both forms of worship the animal

is revered on account of some benefit, positive or negative, which the

savage hopes to receive from it. In the former worship the benefit comes

either in the positive form of protection, advice, and help which the

animal affords the man, or in the negative one of abstinence from injuries

which it is in the power of the animal to inflict. In the latter worship

the benefit takes the material form of the animal’s flesh and skin. The

two forms of worship are in some measure antithetical: in the one, the

animal is not eaten because it is revered; in the other, it is revered

because it is eaten. But both may be practised by the same people, as we

see in the case of the North American Indians, who, while they revere and

spare their totem animals, also revere the animals and fish upon which

they subsist. The aborigines of Australia have totemism in the most

primitive form known to us, but, so far as I am aware, there is no

evidence that they attempt, like the North American Indians, to conciliate

the animals which they kill and eat. The means which the Australians adopt

to secure a plentiful supply of game appear to be based not on

conciliation, but on sympathetic magic,(414) a principle to which the

North American Indians also resort for the same purpose.(415) If this is

so, it would appear that the totemistic respect for animals is older than

the other, and that, before hunters think of worshipping the game as a

means of ensuring an abundant supply of it, they seek to attain the same

end by sympathetic magic. This, again, would show—what there is good

reason for believing—that sympathetic magic is one of the earliest means

by which man endeavours to adapt the agencies of nature to his needs.

Corresponding to the two distinct types of animal worship, there are two

distinct types of the custom of killing the animal god. On the one hand,

when the revered animal is habitually spared, it is nevertheless

killed—and sometimes eaten—on rare and solemn occasions. Examples of this

custom have been already given and an explanation of them offered. On the

other hand, when the revered animal is habitually killed, the slaughter of

any one of the species involves the killing of the god, and is atoned for

on the spot by apologies and sacrifices, especially when the animal is a

powerful and dangerous one; and, in addition to this ordinary and everyday

atonement, there is a special annual atonement, at which a select

individual of the species is slain with extraordinary marks of respect and

devotion. Clearly the two types of sacramental killing—the Egyptian and

the Aino types, as we may call them for distinction—are liable to be

confounded by an observer; and, before we can say to which type any

particular example belongs, it is necessary to ascertain whether the

animal sacramentally slain belongs to a species which is habitually

spared, or to one which is habitually killed by the tribe. In the former

case the example belongs to the Egyptian type of sacrament, in the latter

to the Aino type.

The practice of pastoral tribes appears to furnish examples of both types

of sacrament. “Pastoral tribes,” says the most learned ethnologist of the

day, “being sometimes obliged to sell their herds to strangers who may

handle the bones disrespectfully, seek to avert the danger which such a

sacrilege would entail by consecrating one of the herd as an object of

worship, eating it sacramentally in the family circle with closed doors,

and afterwards treating the bones with all the ceremonious respect which,

strictly speaking, should be accorded to every head of cattle, but which,

being punctually paid to the representative animal, is deemed to be paid

to all. Such family meals are found among various peoples, especially

those of the Caucasus. When amongst the Abchases the shepherds in spring

eat their common meal with their loins girt and their staffs in their

hands, this may be looked upon both as a sacrament and as an oath of

mutual help and support. For the strongest of all oaths is that which is

accompanied with the eating of a sacred substance, since the perjured

person cannot possibly escape the avenging god whom he has taken into his

body and assimilated.”(416) This kind of sacrament is of the Aino or

expiatory type, since it is meant to atone to the species for the possible

ill-usage of individuals. An expiation, similar in principle but different

in details, is offered by the Kalmucks to the sheep whose flesh is one of

their staple foods. Rich Kalmucks are in the habit of consecrating a white

ram under the title of “the ram of heaven” or “the ram of the spirit.” The

animal is never shorn and never sold; but when it grows old and its owner

wishes to consecrate a new one, the old ram must be killed and eaten at a

feast to which the neighbours are invited. On a lucky day, generally in

autumn when the sheep are fat, a sorcerer kills the old ram, after

sprinkling it with milk. Its flesh is eaten; the skeleton, with a portion

of the fat, is burned on a turf altar; and the skin, with the head and

feet, is hung up.(417)

An example of a sacrament of the Egyptian type is furnished by the Todas,

a pastoral people of Southern India, who subsist largely upon the milk of

their buffaloes. Amongst them “the buffalo is to a certain degree held

sacred” and “is treated with great kindness, even with a degree of

adoration, by the people.”(418) They never eat the flesh of the cow

buffalo, and as a rule abstain from the flesh of the male. But to the

latter rule there is a single exception. Once a year all the adult males

of the village join in the ceremony of killing and eating a very young

male calf,—seemingly under a month old. They take the animal into the dark

recesses of the village wood, where it is killed with a club made from the

sacred tree of the Todas (the _tûde_ or _Millingtonia_). A sacred fire

having been made by the rubbing of sticks, the flesh of the calf is

roasted on the embers of certain trees, and is eaten by the men alone,

women being excluded from the assembly. This is the only occasion on which

the Todas eat buffalo flesh.(419) The Madi or Moru tribe of Central

Africa, whose chief wealth is their cattle, though they also practice

agriculture, appear to kill a lamb sacramentally on certain solemn

occasions. The custom is thus described by Dr. Felkin. “A remarkable

custom is observed at stated times—once a year, I am led to believe. I

have not been able to ascertain what exact meaning is attached to it. It

appears, however, to relieve the people’s minds, for beforehand they

evince much sadness, and seem very joyful when the ceremony is duly

accomplished. The following is what takes place: A large concourse of

people of all ages assemble, and sit down round a circle of stones, which

is erected by the side of a road (really a narrow path). A very choice

lamb is then fetched by a boy, who leads it four times round the assembled

people. As it passes they pluck off little bits of its fleece and place

them in their hair, or on to some other part of their body. The lamb is

then led up to the stones, and there killed by a man belonging to a kind

of priestly order, who takes some of the blood and sprinkles it four times

over the people. He then applies it individually. On the children he makes

a small ring of blood over the lower end of the breast bone, on women and

girls he makes a mark above the breasts, and the men he touches on each

shoulder. He then proceeds to explain the ceremony, and to exhort the

people to show kindness.... When this discourse, which is at times of

great length, is over, the people rise, each places a leaf on or by the

circle of stones, and then they depart with signs of great joy. The lamb’s

skull is hung on a tree near the stones, and its flesh is eaten by the

poor. This ceremony is observed on a small scale at other times. If a

family is in any great trouble, through illness or bereavement, their

friends and neighbours come together and a lamb is killed: this is thought

to avert further evil. The same custom prevails at the grave of departed

friends, and also on joyful occasions, such as the return of a son home

after a very prolonged absence.”(420) The sorrow thus manifested by the

people at the annual slaughter of the lamb clearly indicates that the lamb

slain is a divine animal, whose death is mourned by his worshippers,(421)

just as the death of the sacred buzzard was mourned by the Californians

and the death of the Theban ram by the Egyptians. The smearing each of the

worshippers with the blood of the lamb is a form of communion with the

divinity;(422) the vehicle of the divine life is applied externally

instead of being taken internally, as when the blood is drunk or the flesh

eaten.

The form of communion in which the sacred animal is taken from house to

house, that all may enjoy a share of its divine influence, has been

exemplified by the Gilyak custom of promenading the bear through the

village before it is slain. A similar form of communion with the sacred

snake is observed by a Snake tribe in the Punjaub. Once a year in the

month of September the snake is worshipped by all castes and religions for

nine days only. At the end of August the Mirasans, especially those of the

Snake tribe, make a snake of dough which they paint black and red, and

place on a winnowing basket. This basket they carry round the village, and

on entering any house they say—

“God be with you all!

May every ill be far!

May our patron’s (Gugga’s) word thrive!”

They then present the basket with the snake, saying—

“A small cake of flour:

A little bit of butter:

If you obey the snake,

You and yours shall thrive!”

Strictly speaking, a cake and butter should be given, but it is seldom

done. Every one, however, gives something, generally a handful of dough or

some corn. In houses where there is a new bride or whence a bride has

gone, or where a son has been born, it is usual to give a rupee and a

quarter, or some cloth. Sometimes the bearers of the snake also sing—

“Give the snake a piece of cloth,

And he will send a lively bride.”

When every house has been thus visited, the dough snake is buried and a

small grave is erected over it. Hither during the nine days of September

the women come to worship. They bring a basin of curds, a small portion of

which they offer at the snake’s grave, kneeling on the ground and touching

the earth with their foreheads. Then they go home and divide the rest of

the curds among the children. Here the dough snake is clearly a substitute

for a real snake. This is proved by the fact that in districts where

snakes abound the worship is offered, not at the grave of the dough snake,

but in the jungles where snakes are known to be. Besides this yearly

worship performed by all the people, the members of the Snake tribe

worship in the same way every morning after a new moon. The Snake tribe is

not uncommon in the Punjaub. Members of it will not kill a snake and they

say that its bite does not hurt them. If they find a dead snake, they put

clothes on it and give it a regular funeral.(423)

Ceremonies closely analogous to this Indian worship of the snake have

survived in Europe into recent times, and doubtless date from a very

primitive paganism. The best-known example is the “hunting of the wren.”

By many European peoples—the ancient Greeks and Romans, the modern

Italians, Spaniards, French, Germans, Dutch, Danes, Swedes, English, and

Welsh—the wren has been designated the king, the little king, the king of

birds, the hedge king, etc.,(424) and has been reckoned amongst those

birds which it is extremely unlucky to kill. In England it is thought that

if any one kills a wren or harries its nest, he will infallibly break a

bone or meet with some dreadful misfortune within the year;(425) sometimes

it is thought that the cows will give bloody milk.(426) In Scotland the

wren is called “the Lady of Heaven’s hen,” and boys say—

“Malisons, malisons, mair than ten,

That harry the Ladye of Heaven’s hen!”(427)

At Saint Donan, in Brittany, people believe that if children touch the

young wrens in the nest, they will suffer from the fire of St. Lawrence,

that is, from pimples on the face, legs, etc.(428) In other parts of

France it is believed that if a person kills a wren or harries its nest,

his house will be struck by lightning, or that the fingers with which he

did the deed will shrivel up and drop off, or at least be maimed, or that

his cattle will suffer in their feet.(429) Notwithstanding such beliefs,

the custom of annually killing the wren has prevailed widely both in this

country and in France. In the Isle of Man last century the custom was

observed on Christmas Eve or rather Christmas morning. On the 24th of

December, towards evening, all the servants got a holiday; they did not go

to bed all night, but rambled about till the bells rang in all the

churches at midnight. When prayers were over, they went to hunt the wren,

and having found one of these birds they killed it and fastened it to the

top of a long pole with its wings extended. Thus they carried it in

procession to every house chanting the following rhyme—

“We hunted the wren for Robin the Bobbin,

We hunted the wren for Jack of the Can,

We hunted the wren for Robin the Bobbin,

We hunted the wren for every one.”

After going from house to house and collecting all the money they could,

they laid the wren on a bier “with the utmost solemnity, singing dirges

over her in the Manks language, which they call her knell; after which

Christmas begins.” After the burial the company outside the churchyard

formed a circle and danced to music. About the middle of the present

century the burial of the wren took place in the Isle of Man on St.

Stephen’s Day (December 26th). Boys went from door to door with a wren

suspended by the legs in the centre of two hoops which crossed each other

at right angles and were decorated with evergreens and ribbons. The

bearers sang certain lines in which reference was made to boiling and

eating the bird. If at the close of the song they received a small coin,

they gave in return a feather of the wren; so that before the end of the

day the bird often hung almost featherless. The wren was then buried, no

longer in the churchyard, but on the sea-shore or in some waste place. The

feathers distributed were preserved with religious care, it being believed

that every feather was an effectual preservative from shipwreck for a

year, and a fisherman would have been thought very foolhardy who had not

one of them.(430)

In Ireland the “hunting of the wren” still takes place in parts of

Leinster and Connaught. On Christmas Day or St. Stephen’s Day the boys

hunt and kill the wren, fasten it in the middle of a mass of holly and ivy

on the top of a broomstick, and on St. Stephen’s Day go about with it from

house to house, singing—

“The wren, the wren, the king of all birds,

St. Stephen’s Day was caught in the furze;

Although he is little, his family’s great,

I pray you, good landlady, give us a treat.”

Money or food (bread, butter, eggs, etc.) were given them, upon which they

feasted in the evening. Sometimes in Ireland, as in the Isle of Man, the

bird was hung by the leg in the centre of two hoops crossing each other at

right angles.(431) In Essex a similar custom used to be observed at

Christmas, and the verses sung by the boys were almost identical with

those sung in Ireland.(432) In Pembrokeshire a wren, called the King, used

to be carried about on Twelfth Day in a box with glass windows surmounted

by a wheel, from which hung various coloured ribbons. The men and boys who

carried it from house to house sang songs, in one of which they wished

“joy, health, love, and peace” to the inmates of the house.(433)

In the first half of this century similar customs were still observed in

various parts of the south of France. Thus at Carcassone, every year on

the first Sunday of December the young people of the street Saint Jean

used to go out of the town armed with sticks, with which they beat the

bushes, looking for wrens. The first to strike down one of these birds was

proclaimed King. Then they returned to the town in procession, headed by

the King, who carried the wren on a pole. On the evening of the last day

of the year the King and all who had hunted the wren marched through the

streets of the town with torches and music. At the door of every house

they stopped, and one of them wrote with chalk on the door _vive le roi!_

with the number of the year which was about to begin. On the morning of

Twelfth Day the King again marched in procession with great pomp, wearing

a crown and a blue mantle and carrying a sceptre. In front of him was

borne the wren fastened to the top of a pole, which was adorned with a

wreath of olive, oak, and mistletoe. After hearing high mass in the

church, surrounded by his officers and guards, he visited the bishop,

mayor, magistrates, and the chief inhabitants, collecting money to defray

the expenses of the royal banquet which took place in the evening.(434) At

Entraigues men and boys used to hunt the wren on Christmas Eve. When they

caught one alive they presented it to the priest, who, after the midnight

mass, set the bird free in the church. At Mirabeau the priest blessed the

bird. If the men failed to catch a wren and the women succeeded in doing

so, the women had the right to mock and insult the men, and to blacken

their faces with mud and soot, if they caught them.(435) At La Ciotat,

near Marseilles, a large body of men armed with swords and pistols used to

hunt the wren every year about the end of December. When a wren was caught

it was hung on the middle of a pole which two men carried, as if it were a

heavy burden. Thus they paraded round the town; the bird was weighed in a

great pair of scales; and then the company sat down to table and made

merry.(436)