fever, I received a visit from Gilmoro, who brought me a gourd of milk
as an expression of gratitude for saving him at an opportune moment his
position. Burning with fever, I drained at one draught a goblet full
of the foaming liquid ere the sense of taste could detect the nauseous
mixture; my stomach, however, quickly rebelled, and rejected in violent
retching the unsavory potion, seven eighths of which were simply the
urine of the cow!—a practice, by the by, common to all Central Africans,
who never drink milk unless thus mixed.”
“This fetish and superstition thereby insures protection for the cow
here, as on the Bahr-el Abiad, mysteriously connected with the unknown,—a
shadow possibly of the old Egyptian worship.”—(“Central Africa,” Chaille
Long, New York, 1877, p. 70.)
URINE IN BREAD-MAKING.
A comparatively late writer says of the Moquis of Arizona: “They are
not as clean in their housekeeping as the Navajoes, and it is hinted
that they sometimes mix their meal with chamber-lye for these festive
occasions; but I did not know that until I talked with Mormons who
visited them” (J. H. Beadle, “Western Wilds,” Cincinnati, Ohio, 1878, p.
279).
Beadle lived and ate with the Moquis for a number of days. This story,
coming from the Mormons, may refer to some imperfectly understood
ceremonial.
There is some ground for suspecting that urine may have been employed by
bakers in Europe prior to the introduction of the “barm” or ale yeast as
a ferment. Ammonia is at the present time made use of by the Germans in
this industry (see page 32).
It is possible that the following account of the manner of eating blubber
among the Patagonians may mean that urine was poured over it: “He put the
same piece on the fire again, and after an addition to it too offensive
to mention, again sucked it” (“Voyage of the Adventure and Beagle,”
London, 1839, vol. i. p. 343).
As bearing upon the ingestion of human excreta, which would seem to
excite a natural feeling of revulsion, the following statement may have
some significance: Spencer Saint John, in his “Life in the Far East,”
London, 1842, after describing a head feast among the Dyaks, says that,
after certain preliminary rites and amusements, “they commence eating
and drinking ... an extraordinary accumulation,—fowls roasted with their
feathers on, eggs black with age, decayed fruit, rice of all colors and
kinds, strong-smelling fish almost approaching a state of rottenness, and
their drink having the appearance and thickness of curds, in which they
mix pepper and other ingredients. It has a sickening effect upon them,
and they swallow it more as a duty than because they relish it.”
Evidently nastiness is an object, since “before they have added any
extraneous matter” this drink “is not unpleasant, having something the
taste of spruce-beer” (p. 66).
If the ceremony in question partakes of the nature of a sacrifice,—which
is not at all certain from the text, in which it is described as an
“entertainment,” but which appears probable from its being connected with
the organization and representation of the tribe and from its relation to
head-hunting,—then it may be assumed that the spoiled food and nauseous
drink are perfectly natural features, which have their counterparts in
many places.
As a rule, the more painful, costly, unnatural, and disgusting a rite is,
the more essentially sacrificial is its character,—for obvious reasons.
Von Stralenburg says of the Koraks that they use the same tubs as urinals
and for the purpose of holding drinking water (see citation on page 152
of this volume).
HUMAN ORDURE EATEN BY EAST INDIAN FANATICS.
Speaking of the remnants of the Hindu sect of the Aghozis, an English
writer observes:—
“In proof of their indifference to worldly objects they eat and drink
whatever is given to them, even ordure and carrion. They smear their
bodies also with excrement, and carry it about with them in a wooden cup,
or skull, either to swallow it, if by so doing they can get a few pice,
or to throw it upon the persons or into the houses of those who refuse to
comply with their demands.”—(“Religious Sects of the Hindus,” in “Asiatic
Researches,” vol. xvii. p. 205, Calcutta, India, 1832.)
Another writer confirms the above. The Abbé Dubois says that the
Gurus, or Indian priests, sometimes, as a mark of favor, present to
their disciples “the water in which they had washed their feet, which
is preserved and sometimes drunk by those who receive it” (Dubois,
“People of India,” London, 1817, p. 64). This practice, he tells us,
is general among the sectaries of Siva, and is not uncommon with many
of the Vishnuites in regard to their vashtuma. “Neither is it the most
disgusting of the practices that prevail in that sect of fanatics, as
they are under the reproach of eating as a hallowed morsel the very
ordure that proceeds from their Gurus, and swallowing the water with
which they have rinsed their mouths or washed their faces, with many
other practices equally revolting to nature” (idem, p. 71).
Again, on page 331, Dubois alludes to the Gymnosophists “or naked
Samyasis of India ... eating human excrement, without showing the
slightest symptom of disgust.”
As bearing not unremotely upon this point, the author wishes to say that
in his personal notes and memoranda can be found references to one of the
medicine-men of the Sioux who assured his admirers that everything about
him was “medicine,” even his excrement, which could be transmuted into
copper cartridges.
“I was informed that vast numbers of Shordrus drank the water in which a
Brahmin has dipped his foot, and abstain from food in the morning till
this ceremony be over. Some persons do this every day.... Persons may be
seen carrying a small quantity of water in a cup and entreating the first
Brahmin they see to put his toe in it.... Some persons keep water thus
sanctified in their houses.”—(Ward, quoted by Southey in his “Commonplace
Book,” London, 1849, 2d series, p. 521.)
VIII.
THE ORDURE OF THE GRAND LAMA OF THIBET.
That the same disgusting veneration was accorded the person of the Grand
Lama of Thibet, was once generally believed. Maltebrun asserts it in
positive terms: “It is a certain fact that the refuse excreted from his
body is collected with sacred solicitude, to be employed as amulets and
infallible antidotes to disease.”
And, quoting from Pallas, book 1, p. 212, he adds: “Il est hors de
doute que le contenu de sa chaise percée est dévotement recueilli;
les parties solides sont distribuées comme des amulettes qu’on
porte au cou; le liquide est pris intérieurement comme une médécine
infaillible.”—(Maltebrun, Universal Geography, article “Thibet,” vol. ii.
lib. 45, American edition, Philadelphia, 1832.)
The Abbé Huc denies this assertion: “The Talé Lama is venerated by the
Thibetans and the Mongols like a divinity. The influence he exercises
over the Buddhist population is truly astonishing; but still it is going
too far to say that his excrements are carefully collected and made
into amulets, which devotees inclose in pouches and carry around their
necks.”—(Huc, “Travels in Tartary, Thibet, and China,” London, 1849, vol.
ii. p. 198.)
HUC AND DUBOIS COMPARED.
Huc was a keen and observing traveller; he was well acquainted with
the languages and customs of the Mongolians; his tour into Thibet was
replete with incident, and his narrative never flags in interest. Still,
in Thibet he was only a traveller; the upper classes of the Buddhist
priesthood looked upon him with suspicion. The lower orders of priesthood
and people did seem to consider him as a Lama from the far East, but
he did not succeed in gaining the confidence of the Thibetans to the
extent possessed by Dubois among the Brahminical sects. The history of
the latter author is a peculiar one: A French priest, driven from his
native land by the excesses of the revolution, he took refuge in India,
devoting himself for nearly twenty years to missionary labor among the
people, with whom he became so thoroughly identified that when his notes
appeared they were published at the expense of the British East India
Company, and distributed among its officials as a text-book.
While it is possible to consult earlier authorities, the determination
of this matter should not be allowed to remain in controversy. The first
Europeans known to have penetrated to Thibet (or Barantola, as they
called it) were the Jesuits Grueber and Dorville, who, returning from
China to Europe, walked through Thibet, and down through India to the
sea-coast. This was in 1661; another member of the same order, Father
Andrade, claimed to have succeeded in the same perilous undertaking at an
earlier date (1621), but the names of the cities he visited proves that
he did not get beyond what is now known as Afghanistan, at the foot of
the mountains bordering on Thibet. While Grueber and Dorville were making
their journey, or not many years after, Father Gerbillon, also a Jesuit,
had taken up his abode among the nomadic Tartars, acquiring an influence
with them of which the Emperor of China was glad to avail himself in
emergencies. None of these travellers claimed to have seen the Grand Lama
in person.
“Grueber assures us that the grandees of the kingdom are very anxious
to procure the excrements of this divinity (i. e., the Grand Lama),
which they usually wear about their necks as relics. In another place
he says that the Lamas make a great advantage by the large presents
they receive for helping the grandees to some of his excrements, or
urine; for, by wearing the first about their necks, and mixing the
latter with their victuals, they imagine themselves to be secure against
all bodily infirmities. In confirmation of this, Gerbillon informs us
that the Mongols wear his excrements, pulverized, in little bags about
their necks, as precious relics, capable of preserving them from all
misfortunes, and curing them of all sorts of distempers. When this Jesuit
was on his second journey into Western Tartary, a deputy from one of the
principal lamas offered the emperor’s uncle a certain powder, contained
in a little packet of very white paper, neatly wrapped up in a scarf
of very white taffety; but that prince told him that as it was not the
custom of the Manchews to make use of such things, he durst not receive
it. The author took this powder to be either some of the Great Lama’s
excrements, or the ashes of something that had been used by him.”—(“A
Description of Thibet,” in Pinkerton’s “Voyages and Travels,” London,
1814, vol. vii. p. 559).
“Grueber, in his late account of his return from China, A.D. 1661, by
way of Lassa, or Barantola, as Kircher calls it (see Kircher, China
Illustrata, part ii. c. 1), but Grueber himself Barantaka (where, he
saith, no Christian hath never been) ... above all, he wondered at
their pope (the Grand Lama of Thibet), to whom they give divine honors,
and worship his very excrements, and put them up in golden boxes, as a
most excellent remedy against all mischiefs.”—(Stillingfleet, “Defence
of Discourse concerning Idolatry in Church of Rome,” London, 1676, pp.
116-120, quoted by H. T. Buckle, in his “Commonplace Book,” p. 79, vol.
ii. of his Works, London, 1872).
Turner, “Embassy to Thibet,” London, 1806, makes no reference to the use
of the excrements of the Grand Lama.
Friar Odoric, of Pordenone, visited L’hassa, Thibet, between A.D. 1316
and 1330 (see Markham’s edition of Bogle’s “Thibet,” London, 1879, p.
46). Markham believes that the Jesuit Antonio Andrada, “in 1624,” whom he
styles “an undaunted missionary,” “found his way over the lofty passes
to Rudok,” “climbed the terrific passes to the source of the Ganges, and
eventually, after fearful sufferings, reached the shores of the sacred
lake of Mansorewar, the source of the Sutlej.”—(Introduction to Bogle’s
“Thibet,” London, 1879).
Warren Hastings speaks of the Thibetan priests of high degree, the
“Ku-tchuck-tus,” who, he says, “admit a superiority in the Dalai Lama,
so that his excrements are sold as charms, at great price, among all the
Tartar tribes of this religion.”—(“Memorandum on Thibet,” accompanying
the instructions to Mr. Bogle, the first English embassador to that
country. See in Markham’s “Thibet,” London, 1879, p. 11.)
It is truly remarkable that neither in the report nor letters of Bogle,
nor in the notes of Manning, nor in the fragments of Grueber, Desideri,
nor Horace Della Penna, preserved in Markham’s “Thibet,” can any allusion
be found to the use of the excrements of the Grand Lama in religion or
medicine.
“Les grands du royaume” (i. e., of Barantola), “recherchent fort les
excréments de cette divinité” (i. e., Lamacongiu). “Ils les portent
ordinairement à leur col comme des reliques.”—(“Voyage de P. Grueber à
Chine,” taken from Conversations with P. Grueber. See, in Thévenot, vol.
ii., “Relations de Divers Voyages curieux,” Melchisédec Thevenot, Paris,
1696, vol. ii.)
Several authorities from whom much was expected are absolutely silent.
No mention is to be found in Rubruquis of any use of human ordure or
urine among the Tartars among whom he travelled; all that he says is that
they baked their bread on cow-dung. This monk, a Franciscan, was sent by
King Louis IX. (Saint Louis), of France, on a mission to the Grand Khan
of Tartary in 1253, in the execution of which office he travelled for
thousands of miles through their territory. In Pinkerton it is said: “The
travels of Rubruquis are equally astonishing in whatever light they are
considered. Take them with respect to length, and they extend upwards of
five thousand miles one way and nearly six thousand another.”—(Vol. vii.
p. 96.)
During such a long journey he should have been able to notice much, but
we are to bear in mind that the manners of the Tartars of the Grand
Khan were at that time somewhat modified by contact with European
civilization, having among them many prisoners, as Rubruquis points out,
who officiated as artificers, while, on the other hand, we know that the
monk was thoroughly ignorant of all their dialects. Marco Polo, who lived
among the Tartars about the same time, says: “But now the Tartars are
mixed and confounded, and so are their fashions.”—(Marco Polo, “Travels,”
in Pinkerton’s “Voyages,” London, 1814, vol. vii. p. 124.)
Du Halde, although he gives an account of Thibet in his fourth volume,
and seems to be familiar with all the works on that country, mentioning
Fathers Grueber and Dorville, yet makes no allusion to the use of the
excrements of the Grand Lama as amulets or internally. (See Du Halde’s
“History of China,” London, 1736.) The fault may lie with his translator
in his zeal to “expurgate.”
Du Halde, a Jesuit missionary, had the assistance of all the members of
his order on duty in China; no less than a score or more aided him; one
of the number, Father Constancin, had a tour of service in the Flowery
Kingdom, as a missionary, of over thirty-two consecutive years. During
the generation preceding the appearance of Du Halde’s work, the Jesuits
had traversed China, Tartary, and Thibet. Tavernier, whose opportunities
for observation were excellent, asserted the fact without ambiguity.
The excrement of the Grand Lama was carefully collected, dried, and in
various ways used as a condiment, as a snuff, and as a medicine.
“The Butan merchants assured Tavernier that they strew his ordure,
powdered, over their victuals.”—(Tavernier, “Travels,” vol. ii. p. 185.
Footnote to page 559, vol. vii. Pinkerton’s “Voyages and Travels,”
London, 1814.)
“Unde tantis venerationis indiciis ab omnibus colitur, ut beatum ille se
reputet, cui Lamarum (quod summis et pretiosis muneribus eum in finem,
non sine magno eorum lucro corrumpere solent) benignitate aliquid ex
naturalis secessus sordibus aut urina Magnæ Lamæ obtigerit. Ex ejusmodi
enim collo portatis, urina quoque cibis commixta.”—(Letter of Father Adam
Schall, S. J., “Aulæ Sino-Tartaricæ Supremi Concilii Mandarinus,” in
Thevenot, vol. ii.; Thevenot’s second volume contains three short letters
in Latin from Grueber to members of his order, but in none is there any
mention made of the ordure of the Grand Lama.)
“There is no king in the world more feared and respected by his
subjects than the king of Butan; being in a manner adored by them....
The merchants assured Tavernier that those about the king preserve his
ordure, dry it, and reduce it to powder like snuff; that then putting it
into boxes, they go every market-day and present it to the chief traders
and farmers, who, recompensing them for their great kindness, carry it
home as a great rarity, and when they feast their friends, strew it upon
their meat. The author adds that two of them showed him their boxes with
the powder in them.”—(“A Description of Thibet,” in Pinkerton, London,
1814, vol. vii. 567.)
The expression “king of Butan,” as used by Tavernier, means the Grand
Lama of Thibet. Tavernier’s statement has been accepted by the most
careful writers. “Indorum nonnullos, incolas scilicet regni Boutan
Homerda seu excrementis alvinis Regis sui siccatis et pulverisatis
cibos amicis et convivis suis appositos condire, refert Johannes
Baptista Tavernier, Itinerar. Indic. lib. 3, cap. 15, fol. m.” (Schurig,
“Chylologia,” Dresden, 1725, p. 775.) The same paragraph quoted in the
Bibliotheca Scatalogica, pages 29, 93, and 96, to which the anonymous
author adds, “et les Tartares et les Japonais tenaient en pareille
vénération la merde du grand lama et du Dairi.”
Rosinus Lentilius, in the Ephemeridum Physico-Medicorum, Leipsig, 1694,
speaks of the Grand Lama of Thibet as held in such high veneration by
the devotees of his faith that his excrements, carefully collected,
dried, powdered, and sold at high prices by the priests, were used as a
sternutatory powder, to induce sneezing, and as a condiment for their
food, and as a remedy for all the graver forms of disease. He quotes all
this from Tavernier, and from Erasmus Franciscus, p. 1662. There is also
another citation from Tavernier, lib. 4, cap. 7.
“Nec de rege in Bantam, et summo Tangathani Regni Pontifice, magno
Lama, quos tanto in honore subditi habent ut merda eorum magno studio
collectam, et in pulverem comminutam (quam Brachmines ære multo
simplicibus divendunt) illi quidem scil. Boutamenses, loco pulvere
nasalis utantur, eoque lautius, victuri cibos condiant hi vero scil.
Tangat hani pro remedio longe presentissimo ad varios desperatissimosque
morbos habeant, aliisque medicamentis admisceant, per sæpe memoratum”
Tavernier, Itin. lib. 3, cap. 15, et Franciscus, loc. cit. p. 1662.
References to “amulets” among the peoples of Tartary and Thibet are made
by nearly all travellers; but few seem to have considered it worth while
to determine of what these amulets were composed.
Fathers Grueber and Dorville say of the Kalmuck Tartar women, “each with
a charm about their necks to preserve them from dangers.” These may have
been ordure amulets of the Grand Lama.
In his condensation of the travels into Thibet of Fathers Grueber and
Dorville, Pinkerton omits what they had to say about these amulets,
although in another place, already cited, he refers to it.
(Burats of Siberia.) “I could observe no images among them except
some relics given them by their priests which they had from the
Delay-Lama; these are commonly hung up in a corner of their tents, and
sometimes about their necks, by way of an amulet to preserve them from
misfortunes.” (Bell, “Travels in Asia,” with the Russian Embassy to
China, in 1714, in Pinkerton, vol. vii. p. 347). Undoubtedly, these were
amulets of human ordure, etc., received from the Grand Lama.
(Kalmucks of Siberia.) “Des pilules bénites qui viennent du Tibet
méritent attention; on les appelle Schalir. Les prêtres ne les donnent
qu’aux Kalmouks riches ou de distinction; ils les portent toujours sur
eux, et ils n’en font usage que dans les maladies graves où la mort
leur paraît presqu’inévitable. Ils prétendent que ces pilules servent à
distraire l’ame des choses temporelles, et à la sanctifier: elles sont
noires et de la grosseur d’un pois. Je presumai qu’elles renfermaient de
l’opium ou autre narcotique; mais on m’assure au contraire que leur vertu
était purgatif.”—(Voyages de Pallas, Paris, 1793, vol. i. pp. 567, 568.)
(Mongolia.) “When famous lamas die and their bodies are burnt, little
white pills are reported as found among the ashes, and sold for large
sums to the devout, as being the concentrated virtue of the man and
possessing the power of insuring a happy future for him who swallows
one near death. This is quite common. I heard of one man who improved
on this by giving out that these little pills were in the habit of
coming out through the skin of various parts of the body. These pills,
called Sharil, met with a ready sale, and then the man himself reaped
the reward of his virtue and did not allow all the profit to go to his
heir.”—(“Among the Mongols,” Rev. James Gilmour, London, 1883, p. 231.)
This writer says that these sacred pills are white; another one, already
noted, describes them as black, while those obtained by the author from
Mr. W. W. Rockhill are red.
Vambéry instances one of the holy men of the Turkomans who, after
reciting a number of sacred verses, “used to place before him a cup of
water into which he spat at the end of each poem, and this composition
... was sold to the best bidder as a wonder-working medicine.”—(“Travels
in Central Asia,” New York, 1865, p. 272.)
Such use of the excrement of ecclesiastical dignitaries was indicated
in Oriental literature. In the “Arabian Nights” King Afrida says to the
Emirs, among other things, “‘And I purpose this night to sacre you all
with the Holy Incense.’ When the Emirs heard these words, they kissed
the ground before him. Now the incense which he designated was the
excrement of the Chief Patriarch, the denier, the defiler of the truth,
and they sought for it with such instance, and they so highly valued
it, that the high-priests of the Greeks used to send it to all the
countries of the Christians in silken wraps, after mixing it with musk
and ambergris; hearing of it, kings would pay a thousand gold pieces
for every dram, and they sent for and sought it to fumigate brides
withal; and the Chief Priests and the Great Kings were wont to use a
little of it as a Collyrium for the eyes, and as a remedy in sickness
and colic; and the Patriarchs used to mix their own skite (excrement)
with it, for that the skite of the Chief Patriarch would not suffice for
ten countries.”—(Burton’s edition, vol. ii. pp. 222, 223). In Burton’s
Index this is called “Holy Merde.” Burton also says, “The idea of the
Holy Merde might have been suggested by the Hindus; see Mandeville, of
the archiprotopapaton (prelate) carrying ox-dung and cow-urine to the
king, who therewith anoints his face and breast, etc. And, incredible
to relate, this is still practised by the Parsis, one of the most
progressive and sharpest-witted of the Asiatic races.”—(Idem.)
Rochefoucauld tells us that we ascribe to others the faults of which we
ourselves would be guilty, had we the opportunity. The Arabians no doubt
were fully acquainted with just such customs; possibly, the Greeks also.
The Kalmucks believe in spirits or genii called “Bourkans,” and in a
maleficent one known as “Erlik-khan.” They tell a story of three of
these “Bourkans,” one of them being Sakya-Muni: “Étant un jour assis
ensemble, firent leurs prières dans la plus grande ferveur, ayant les
yeux fermés, ainsi que cela se pratique chez les Kalmouks, le génie
infernal s’approche d’eux, et fit ses ordures dans la coupe sacrée
que les prêtres ont devant eux lorsqu’ils font la prière. Dès que les
dieux s’en aperçurent, ils tinrent conseil. Ils conclurent que s’ils
répandoient cette matière venimeuse dans les airs, ils féroient périr
tous les habitants de cet élément; et que s’ils la jétoient sur la
terre, ils féroient mourir tous les êtres vivans qui l’occupent. Ils
résolurent donc, pour le bien de l’humanité, de l’avaler. Sakya-Muni eut
pour sa part le fond de la coupe; le levain étoit si fort que son visage
devint tout bleu. C’est la raison pour laquelle on lui peint la figure
en bleu dans les images; ses idoles ont seulement le bonnet vernissé en
bleu.”—(Voyages de Pallas, Paris, 1793, vol. i. p. 548).
This is a lame explanation, invented by the Lamas after men had become
somewhat refined, and had begun to evince a repugnance to these
diabolical usages. Compare with the notes presented by Mr. W. W.
Rockhill, the Oriental scholar and Thibetan explorer, on p. 37.