70. Marriage.

The transfer of the reckoning of kinship and descent from the

mother's to the father's side may perhaps be associated with the full

recognition of the physical fact of paternity. Though they may not

have been contemporaneous in all or even the majority of societies,

it would seem that the former was in most cases the logical outcome

of the latter, regard being had also to the man's natural function

as protector of the family and provider of its sustenance. But this

transition from female to male kinship was a social revolution of the

first importance. Under the system of female descent there had been

generally no transfer of clanship; both the woman and her partner or

husband retained their own clans, and the children belonged to their

mother's clan. In the totemic stage of society the totem-clan was the

vital organism, and the individual scarcely realised his own separate

existence, but regarded himself as a member of his totem-clan, being

a piece or fraction of a common life which extended through all the

members of the clan and all the totem animals of the species. They

may have thought also that each species of animals and plants had a

different kind of life, and consequently also each clan whose life

was derived from, and linked to, that of its totem-species. For the

name, and life, and qualities, and flesh and blood were not separate

conceptions, but only one conception; and since the name and qualities

were part of the life, the life of one species could not be the same

as that of another, and every species which had a separate name must

have been thought to have a different kind of life. Nor would man have

been regarded as a distinct species in the early totem-stage, and there

would be no word for man; but each totem-clan would regard itself as

having the same life as its totem-species. With the introduction of the

system of male kinship came also the practice of transferring a woman

from her own clan to that of her husband. It may be suggested that

this was the origin of the social institution of marriage. Primitive

society had no provision for such a procedure, which was opposed

to its one fundamental idea of its own constitution, and involved a

change of the life and personality of the woman transferred.

71. Marriage by capture.

The view seems to have been long held that this transfer could only

be effected by violence or capture, the manner in which presumably

it was first practised. Marriage by capture is very widely prevalent

among savage races, as shown by Mr. M'Lennan in _Primitive Marriage_,

and by Dr. Westermarck in _The History of Human Marriage_. Where the

custom has given place to more peaceable methods of procuring a wife,

survivals commonly occur. In Bastar the regular capture of the girl is

still sometimes carried out, though the business is usually arranged

by the couple beforehand, and the same is the case among the Kolams of

Wardha. A regular part of the marriage procedure among the Gonds and

other tribes is that the bride should weep formally for some hours,

or a day before the wedding, and she is sometimes taught to cry in the

proper note. At the wedding the bride hides somewhere and has to be

found or carried off by the bridegroom or his brother. This ritualistic

display of grief and coyness appears to be of considerable interest. It

cannot be explained by the girl's reluctance to marriage as involving

the loss of her virginity, inasmuch as she is still frequently not a

virgin at her wedding, and to judge from the analogy of other tribes,

could seldom or never have been one a few generations back. Nor is

affection for her family or grief at the approaching separation from

them a satisfactory motive. This would not account for the hiding

at all, and not properly for the weeping, since she will after all

only live a few miles away and will often return home; and sometimes

she does not only weep at her own house but at all the houses of

the village. The suggestion may be made that the procedure really

indicates the girl's reluctance to be severed from her own clan and

transferred to another; and that the sentiment is a survival of the

resistance to marriage by capture which was at first imposed on the

women by the men from loyalty to the clan totem and its common life,

and had nothing to do with the conjugal relationship of marriage. But

out of this feeling the sexual modesty of women, which had been

non-existent in the matriarchal condition of society, was perhaps

gradually developed. The Chamars of Bilaspur have sham fights on the

approach of the wedding party, and in most Hindu castes the bridegroom

on his arrival performs some militant action, such as striking the

marriage-shed or breaking one of its festoons. After the marriage

the bride is nearly always sent home with the bridegroom's party for

a few days, even though she may be a child and the consummation of

the marriage impossible. This may be in memory of her having formerly

been carried off, and some analogous significance may attach to our

honeymoon. When the custom of capture had died down it was succeeded

by the milder form of elopement, or the bride was sold or exchanged

against a girl from the bridegroom's family or clan, but there is

usually a relic of a formal transfer, such as the Hindu _Kanyadan_ or

gift of the virgin, the Roman _Traditio in manum_ or her transfer from

her father's to her husband's power, and the giving away of the bride.

72. Transfer of the bride to her husband's clan.

These customs seem to mark the transfer of the woman from her

father's to her husband's clan, which was in the first instance

effected forcibly and afterwards by the free gift of her father or

guardian, and the change of surname would be a relic of the change of

clan. Among the Hindus a girl is never called by her proper name in

her husband's house, but always by some other name or nickname. This

custom seems to be a relic of the period when the name denoted the

clan, though it no longer has any reference either to the girl's

clan or family. Another rite portraying the transfer in India is the

marking of the bride's forehead with vermilion, which is no doubt a

substitute for blood. The ceremony would be a relic of participation

in the clan sacrifice when the bride would in the first place drink

the blood of the totem animal or tribal god with the bridegroom in

sign of her admission to his clan and afterwards be marked with the

blood as a substitute. This smear of vermilion a married woman always

continues to wear as a sign of her state, unless she wears pink powder

or a spangle as a substitute. [167] Where this pink powder _(kunku)_

or spangles are used they must always be given by the bridegroom to

the bride as part of the _Sohag_ or trousseau. At a Bhaina wedding the

bride's father makes an image in clay of the bird or animal of the

groom's sept and places it beside the marriage-post. The bridegroom

worships the image, lighting a sacrificial fire before it, or offers

to it the vermilion which he afterwards smears upon the forehead of

the bride. The Khadals at their marriages worship their totem animal

or tree, and offer to it flowers, sandalwood, vermilion, uncooked rice,

and the new clothes and ornaments intended for the bride, which she may

not wear until this ceremony has been performed. Again, the sacrament

of the Meher or marriage cakes is sometimes connected with the clan

totem in India. These cakes are cooked and eaten sacramentally by all

the members of the family and their relatives, the bride and bridegroom

commencing first. Among the Kols the relatives to whom these cakes are

distributed cannot intermarry, and this indicates that the eating of

them was formerly a sacrament of the exogamous clan. The association of

the totem with the marriage cakes is sometimes clearly shown. Thus in

the Dahait caste members of the clans named after certain trees, go to

the tree at the time of their weddings and invite it to be present at

the ceremony. They offer the marriage cakes to the tree. Those of the

Nagotia or cobra clan deposit the cakes at a snake's hole. Members of

the Singh (lion) and Bagh (tiger) clans draw images of these animals on

the wall at the time of their weddings and offer the cakes to them. The

Basors of the Kulatia or somersault clan do somersaults at the time of

eating the cakes; those of the Karai Nor clan, who venerate a well,

eat the cakes at a well and not at home. Basors of the Lurhia clan,

who venerate a grinding-stone, worship this implement at the time

of eating the marriage cakes. M. Fustel de Coulanges states that

the Roman Confarreatio, or eating of a cake together by the bride

and bridegroom in the presence of the family gods of the latter,

constituted their holy union or marriage. By this act the wife was

transferred to the gods and religion of her husband. [168] Here the

gods referred to are clearly held to be the family gods, and in the

historical period it seems doubtful whether the Roman _gens_ was still

exogamous. But if the patriarchal family developed within the exogamous

clan tracing descent through males, and finally supplanted the clan as

the most important social unit, then it would follow that the family

gods were only a substitute for the clan gods, and the bride came to

be transferred to her husband's family instead of to his clan. The

marriage ceremony in Greece consisted of a common meal of a precisely

similar character, [169] and the English wedding cake seems to be a

survival of such a rite. At their weddings the Bhils make cakes of

the large millet juari, calling it Juari Mata or Mother Juari. These

cakes are eaten at the houses of the bride and bridegroom by the

members of their respective clans, and the remains are buried inside

the house as sacred food. Dr. Howitt states of the Kurnai tribe: "By

and by, when the bruises and perhaps wounds received in these fights

(between the young men and women) had healed, a young man and a young

woman might meet, and he, looking at her, would say, for instance,

'Djiitgun! [170] What does the Djiitgun eat?' The reply would be

'She eats kangaroo, opossum,' or some other game. This constituted a

formal offer and acceptance, and would be followed by the elopement of

the couple as described in the chapter on Marriage." [171] There is

no statement that the question about eating refers to the totem, but

this must apparently have been the original bearing of the question,

which otherwise would be meaningless. Since this proposal of marriage

followed on a fight between the boys and girls arising from the fact

that one party had injured the other party's sex-totem, the fight

may perhaps really have been a preliminary to the proposal and have

represented a symbolic substitute for or survival of marriage by

capture. Among the Santals, Colonel Dalton says, "the social meal

that the boy and girl eat together is the most important part of the

ceremony, as by the act the girl ceases to belong to her father's tribe

and becomes a member of the husband's family." Since the terms tribe

and family are obviously used loosely in the above statement, we may

perhaps substitute clan in both cases. Many other instances of the rite

of eating together at a wedding are given by Dr. Westermarck. [172]

If, therefore, it be supposed that the wedding ceremony consisted

originally of the formal transfer of the bride to the bridegroom's

clan, and further that the original tie which united the totem-clan

was the common eating of the totem animal, then the practice of the

bride and bridegroom eating together as a symbol of marriage can be

fully understood. When the totem animal had ceased to be the principal

means of subsistence, bread, which to a people in the agricultural

stage had become the staff or chief support of life, was substituted

for it, as argued by Professor Robertson Smith in _The Religion of the

Semites_. If the institution of marriage was thus originally based on

the forcible transfer of a woman from her own to her husband's clan,

certain Indian customs become easily explicable in the light of this

view. We can understand why a Brahman or Rajput thought it essential to

marry his daughter into a clan or family of higher status than his own;

because the disgrace of having his daughter taken from him by what

had been originally an act of force, was atoned for by the superior

rank of the captor or abductor. And similarly the terms father-in-law

and brother-in-law would be regarded as opprobrious because they

originally implied not merely that the speaker had married the sister

or daughter of the person addressed, but had married her forcibly,

thereby placing him in a position of inferiority. A Rajput formerly

felt it derogatory that any man should address him either as father-or

brother-in-law. And the analogous custom of a man refusing to take food

in the house of his son-in-law's family and sometimes even refusing

to drink water in their village would be explicable on precisely the

same grounds. This view of marriage would also account for the wide

prevalence of female infanticide. Because in the primitive condition

of exogamy with male descent, girls could not be married in their

own clan, as this would transgress the binding law of exogamy, and

they could not be transferred from their own totem-clan and married

in another except by force and rape. Hence it was thought better to

kill girl children than to suffer the ignominy of their being forcibly

carried off. Both kinds of female infanticide as distinguished by Sir

H. Risley [173] would thus originally be due to the same belief. The

Khond killed his daughter because she could not be married otherwise

than by forcible abduction; not necessarily because he was unable to

protect her, but because he could not conceive of her being transferred

from one totem-clan to another by any other means; and he was bound to

resist the transfer because by acquiescing in it, he would have been

guilty of disloyalty to his own totem, whose common life was injured

by the loss of the girl. The Rajput killed his daughter because it

was a disgrace to him to get her married at all outside his clan,

and she could not be married within it. Afterwards the disgrace was

removed by marrying her into a higher clan than his own and by lavish

expenditure on the wedding; and the practice of female infanticide

was continued to avoid the ruinous outlay which this primitive view of

marriage had originally entailed. The Hindu custom of the Swayamvara

or armed contest for the hand of a Rajput princess, and the curious

recognition by the Hindu law-books of simple rape as a legitimate

form of marriage would be explained on the same ground.

73. The exogamous clan with male descent and the village.

It has been seen that the exogamous clan with female descent contained

no married couples, and therefore it was necessary either that outside

men should live with it, or that the clans should continually meet each

other, or that two or more should live in the same village. With the

change to male descent and the transfer of women to their husbands'

clans, this unstable characteristic was removed. Henceforth the clan

was self-contained, having its married couples, both members of it,

whose children would also be born in and belong to it. Since the

clan was originally a body of persons who wandered about and hunted

together, its character would be maintained by living together, and

there is reason to suppose that the Indian exogamous clan with male

descent took its special character because its members usually lived

in one or more villages. This fact would account for the large number

and multiplication of clans in India as compared with other places. As

already seen one of the names of a clan is _khera_, which also means

a village, and a large number of the clan names are derived from, or

the same, as those of villages. Among the Khonds all the members of

one clan live in the same locality about some central village. Thus

the Tupa clan are collected about the village of Teplagarh in Patna

State, the Loa clan round Sindhekala, the Borga clan round Bangomunda

and so on. The Nunias of Mirzapur, Mr. Crooke remarks, [174] have

a system of local subdivisions called _dih_, each subdivision being

named after the village which is supposed to be its home. The word

_dih_ itself means a site or village. Those who have the same _dih_

do not intermarry. In the villages first settled by the Oraons, Father

Dehon states, [175] the population is divided into three _khunts_

or branches, the founders of the three branches being held to have

been sons of the first settler. Members of each branch belong to

the same clan or _got_. Each _khunt_ or branch has a share of the

village lands. The Mochis or cobblers have forty exogamous sections

or _gotras_, mostly named after Rajput clans, and they also have an

equal number of _kheras_ or groups named after villages. The limits of

the two groups seem to be identical; and members of each group have an

ancestral village from which they are supposed to have come. Marriage

is now regulated by the Rajput sept-names, but the probability is that

the _kheras_ were the original divisions, and the Rajput _gotras_

have been more recently adopted in support of the claims already

noticed. The Parjas have totemistic exogamous clans and marriage is

prohibited in theory between members of the same clan. But as the

number of clans is rather small, the rule is not adhered to, and

members of the same clan are permitted to marry so long as they do

not come from the same village. The Minas of Rajputana are divided

into twelve exogamous _pals_ or clans; the original meaning of the

word _pal_ was a defile or valley suitable for defence, where the

members of the clan would live together as in a Scotch glen.

Thus among the cultivating castes apparently each exogamous clan

consisted originally of the residents of one village, though they

afterwards spread to a number of villages. The servile labouring

castes may also have arranged their clans by villages as the primitive

forest-tribes did. How the menial castes formed exogamous clans is

not altogether clear, as the numbers in one village would be only

small. But it may be supposed that as they gradually increased,

clans came into existence either in one large village or a number

of adjacent ones, and sometimes traced their descent from a single

family or from an ancestor with a nickname. As a rule, the artisan

castes do not appear to have formed villages of their own in India, as

they did in Russia, though this may occasionally have happened. When

among the cultivating castes the lands were divided, separate joint

families would be constituted; the head only of each family would be

its representative in the clan, as he would hold the share of the

village land assigned to the family, which was their joint means

of subsistence, and the family would live in one household. Thus

perhaps the Hindu joint family came into existence as a subdivision

of the exogamous clan with male descent, on which its constitution

was modelled. In Chhattisgarh families still live together in large

enclosures with separate huts for the married couples. A human

ancestor gradually took the place of the totem as the giver of life

to the clan. The members thought themselves bound together by the tie

of his blood which flowed through all their veins, and frequently,

as in Athens, Rome and Scotland, every member of the clan bore his

name. In this capacity, as the source of the clan's life, the original

ancestor was perhaps venerated, and on the development of the family

system within the clan, the ancestors of the family were held in

a similar regard, and the feeling extended to the living ancestor

or father, who is treated with the greatest deference in the early

patriarchal family. Even now Hindu boys, though they may be better

educated and more intelligent than their father, will not as a rule

address him at meals unless he speaks to them first, on account of

their traditional respect for him. The regard for the father may be

strengthened by his position as the stay and support of the family,

but could scarcely have arisen solely from this cause.

Dr. Westermarck's view that the origin of exogamy lay in the feeling

against the marriage of persons who lived together, receives support

from the fact that a feeling of kinship still subsists between Hindus

living in the same village, even though they may belong to different

castes and clans. It is commonly found that all the households of a

village believe themselves in a manner related. A man will address

all the men of the generation above his own as uncle, though they may

be of different castes, and the children of the generation below his

own as niece and nephew. When a girl is married, all the old men of

the village call her husband 'son-in-law.' This extends even to the

impure castes who cannot be touched. Yet owing to the fact that they

live together they are considered by fiction to be related. The Gowari

caste do not employ Brahmans for their weddings, but the ceremony is

performed by the _bhanja_ or sister's son either of the girl's father

or the boy's father. If he is not available, any one whom either the

girl's father or the boy's father addresses as _bhanja_ or nephew

in the village, even though he may be no relation and may belong to

another caste, may perform the ceremony as a substitute. Among the

Oraons and other tribes prenuptial intercourse between boys and girls

of the same village is regularly allowed. It is not considered right,

however, that these unions should end in marriage, for which partners

should be sought from other villages. [176] In the Maratha country

the villagers have a communal feast on the occasion of the Dasahra

festival, the Kunbis or cultivators eating first and the members of

the menial and labouring castes afterwards.

74. The large exogamous clans of the Brahmans and Rajputs. The

Sapindas, the _gens_ and the g'enoc.

The Brahmans and Rajputs, however, and one or two other military

castes, as the Marathas and Lodhis, do not have the small exogamous

clans (which probably, as has been seen, represented the persons

who lived together in a village), but large ones. Thus the Rajputs

were divided into thirty-six royal races, and theoretically all these

should have been exogamous, marrying with each other. Each great clan

was afterwards, as a rule, split into a number of branches, and it is

probable that these became exogamous; while in cases where a community

of Rajputs have settled on the land and become ordinary cultivators,

they have developed into an endogamous subcaste containing small

clans of the ordinary type. It seems likely that the Rajput clan

originally consisted of those who followed the chief to battle and

fought together, and hence considered themselves to be related. This

was, as a matter of fact, the case. Colonel Tod states that the great

Rathor clan, who said that they could muster a hundred thousand swords,

spoke of themselves as the sons of one father. The members of the

Scotch clans considered themselves related in the same manner, and

they were probably of similar character to the Rajput clans. [177]

I do not know, however, that there is any definite evidence as to

the exogamy of the Scotch clans, which would have disappeared with

their conversion to Christianity. The original Rajput clan may perhaps

have lived round the chiefs castle or headquarters and been supported

by the produce of his private fief or demesne. The regular Brahman

_gotras_ are also few in number, possibly because they were limited

by the paucity of eponymous saints of the first rank. The word _gotra_

means a stall or cow-pen, and would thus originally signify those who

lived together in one place like a herd of cattle. But the _gotras_

are now exceedingly large, the same ones being found in most or all of

the Brahman subcastes, and it is believed that they do not regulate

marriage as a rule. Sometimes ordinary surnames have taken the place

of clan names, and persons with the same surname consider themselves

related and do not marry. But usually Brahmans prohibit marriage

between Sapindas or persons related to each other within seven degrees

from a common ancestor. The word Sapinda signifies those who partake

together of the _pindas_ or funeral cakes offered to the dead. The

Sapindas are also a man's heirs in the absence of closer relations;

the group of the Sapindas is thus an exact replica within the _gotra_

of the primitive totem clan which was exogamous and constituted by

the tie of living and eating together. Similarly marriage at Rome

was prohibited to seven degrees of relationship through males within

the _gens_, [178] and this exogamous group of kinsmen appear to have

been the body of agnatic kinsmen within the _gens_ who are referred

to by Sir H. Maine as a man's ultimate heirs. [179] At Athens, when

a contest arose upon a question of inheritance, the proper legal

evidence to establish kinship was the proof that the alleged ancestor

and the alleged heir observed a common worship and shared in the

same repast in honour of the dead. [180] The distant heirs were thus

a group within the Athenian g'enoc corresponding to the Sapindas and

bound by the same tie of eating together. Professor Hearn states that

there is no certain evidence that the Roman _gens_ and Greek g'enoc

were originally exogamous, but we find that of the Roman matrons whose

names are known to us none married a husband with her own Gentile name;

and further, that Plutarch, in writing of the Romans, says that in

former days men did not marry women of their own blood or, as in the

preceding sentence he calls them, kinswomen suggen'idac, just as in

his own day they did not marry their aunts or sisters; and he adds

that it was long before they consented to wed with cousins. [181]

Professor Hearn's opinion was that the Hindu _gotra_, the Roman

_gens_ and the Greek g'enoc were originally the same institution,

the exogamous clan with male descent, and all the evidence available,

as well as the close correspondence in other respects of early Hindu

institutions with those of the Greek and Latin cities would tend to

support this view.

75. Comparison of Hindu society with that of Greece and Rome. The

_gens_.

In the admirable account of the early constitution of the city-states

of Greece and Italy contained in the work of M. Fustel de Coulanges,

_La Cité Antique_, a close resemblance may be traced with the main

strata of Hindu society given earlier in this essay. The Roman state

was composed of a number of _gentes_ or clans, each _gens_ tracing

its descent from a common ancestor, whose name it usually bore. The

termination of the Gentile name in _ius_ signified descendant, as

Claudius, Fabius, and so on. Similarly the names of the Athenian

g'enh or clans ended in _ides_ or _ades_, as Butades, Phytalides,

which had the same signification. [182] The Gentile or clan name

was the _nomen_ or principal name, just as the personal names of

the members of the totem-clans were at first connected with the

totems. The members of the _gens_ lived together on a section of

the city land and cultivated it under the control of the head of the

_gens_. The original _ager Romanus_ is held to have been 115 square

miles or about 74,000 acres, [183] and this was divided up among the

clans. The heads of clans originally lived on their estates and went

in to Rome for the periodical feasts and other duties. The principal

family or eldest branch of the _gens_ in the descent from a common

ancestor ranked above the others, and its head held the position of

a petty king in the territory of the _gens_. In Greece he was called

>'anax or basile'uc. [184] Originally the Roman Senate consisted

solely of the heads of _gentes,_ and the consuls, flamens and augurs

were also chosen exclusively from them; they were known as _patres_;

after the expulsion of the kings, fresh senators were added from

the junior branches of the _gentes_, of which there were at this

period 160, and these were known as _patres conscripti_ [185]. The

distinction between the eldest and junior branches of the _gentes_

may have corresponded to the distinction between the Kshatriyas and

Vaishyas, though as practically nothing is known of the constitution

of the original Kshatriyas, this can only be hypothetical.

76. The clients.

Within the _gens_, and living in the household or households of its

members, there existed a body of slaves, and also another class of

persons called clients. [186] The client was a servant and dependant;

he might be assigned a plot of land by his patron, but at first could

not transmit it nor hold it against his patron. It is probable that

originally he had no right of property of his own, but he gradually

acquired it. First he obtained a right of occupancy in his land and

of its devolution to his son if he had one. Finally he was given the

power of making a will. But he was still obliged to contribute to such

expenses of the patron as ransom in war, fines imposed by the courts,

or the dowry of a daughter. [187] The client was considered as a

member of the family and bore its name. [188] But he was not a proper

member of the family or _gens_, because his pedigree never ascended

to a _pater_ or the head of a _gens_. [189] It was incumbent on the

patron to protect the client, and guard his interests both in peace and

war. The client participated in the household and Gentile sacrifices

and worshipped the gods of the _gens_. [190] At first the people

of Rome consisted of three classes, the patricians, the clients and

the plebeians. In course of time, as the rights and privileges of the

plebeians increased after the appointment of tribunes, their position,

from having originally been much inferior, became superior to that of

the clients, and the latter preferred to throw off the tie uniting them

to their patrons and become merged in the plebeians. In this manner the

intermediate class of clients at length entirely disappeared. [191]

These clients must not be confused with the subsequent class of the

same name, who are found during the later period of the republic

and the empire, and were the voluntary supporters or hangers-on of

rich men. It would appear that these early clients corresponded very

closely to the household servants of the Indian cultivators, from

whom the village menial castes were developed. The Roman client was

sometimes a freed slave, but this would not have made him a member

of the family, even in a subordinate position. Apparently the class

of clients may have to a great extent originated in mixed descent, as

the Indian household and village menials probably did. This view would

account satisfactorily for the client's position as a member of the

family but not a proper one. From the fact that they were considered

one of the three principal divisions of the people it is clear that

the clients must at one time have been numerous and important.

77. The plebeians.

Below the clients came the plebeians, whose position, as M. Fustel

de Coulanges himself points out, corresponded very closely to that

of the Sudras. The plebeians had no religion and no ancestors;

they did not belong to a family or a _gens_. [192] They were a

despised and abject class, who lived like beasts outside the proper

boundary of the city. The touch of the plebeian was impure. [193]

"When tribunes were created a special law was necessary to protect

their life and liberty, and it was promulgated as follows: 'It is

forbidden to strike or kill a tribune, as if he was an ordinary

plebeian.' It would appear then that a patrician had the right to

strike or kill an ordinary plebeian, or at least that he was amenable

to no legal punishment for doing so." [194] Similarly in the ancient

Greek cities the citizens were known as >agajo'i or good, and the

plebeians as kako'i or bad. This latter class is described by the

poet Theognis as having had aforetime neither tribunals nor laws;

they were not allowed even to enter the town, but lived outside like

wild beasts. They had no part in the religious feasts and could not

intermarry with the proper citizens. [195]

This position corresponds exactly with that of the Sudras and the

existing impure castes, who have to live outside the village and

cannot enter or even approach Hindu temples.

M. de Coulanges considers that the plebeians were to a large

extent made up of conquered and subjected peoples. An asylum was

also established at Rome for broken men and outlaws from other

cities, with a view to increasing the population and strength of

the state. Subsequently the class of clients became absorbed among

the plebeians.

78. The binding social tie in the city-states.

Thus the gradation of society in the city-states of Greece and

Italy, the account given above being typical of them all, is seen to

correspond fairly closely with that of the Hindus, as exemplified in

the Hindu classics and the microcosm of Hindu society, the village

community. It is desirable, therefore, to inquire what was the tie

which united the members of the _gens_, the _curia_ or _phratry_,

and the city, and which distinguished the patricians from the

plebeians. On this point M. Fustel de Coulanges leaves us in no

doubt at all. The bond of union among all these bodies was a common

sacrifice or sacrificial meal, at which all the members had to be

present. "The principal ceremony of the religion of the household was

a meal, which was called a sacrifice. To eat a meal prepared on an

altar was, according to all appearance, the first form of religious

worship." [196] "The principal ceremony of the religion of the city

was also a public feast; it had to be partaken of communally by all

the citizens in honour of the tutelary deities. The custom of holding

these public feasts was universal in Greece; and it was believed

that the safety of the city depended on their accomplishment." [197]

M. de Coulanges quotes from the _Odyssey_ an account of one of these

sacred feasts at which nine long tables were set out for the people

of Pylos; five hundred citizens were seated and nine bulls were

slaughtered for each table. When Orestes arrived at Athens after the

murder of his mother, he found the people, assembled round their king,

about to hold the sacred feast. Similar feasts were held and numerous

victims were slaughtered in Xenophon's time. [198] At these meals the

guests were crowned with garlands and the vessels were of a special

form and material, such as copper or earthenware, no doubt dating

from the antique past. [199] As regards the importance and necessity

of being present at the Gentile sacrificial feast, the same author

states: "The Capitol was blockaded by the Gauls; but Fabius left

it and passed through the hostile lines, clad in religious garb,

and carrying in his hand the sacred objects; he was going to offer

a sacrifice on the altar of his _gens_ which was situated on the

Quirinal. In the second Punic war another Fabius, he who was called

the buckler of Rome, was holding Hannibal in check; it was assuredly

of the greatest importance to the Republic that he should not leave

his army; he left it, however, in the hands of the imprudent Minucius;

it was because the anniversary day of the sacrifice of his _gens_ had

come and it was necessary that he should hasten to Rome to perform the

sacred rite." In Greece the members of the _gens_ were known by the

fact that they performed communal sacrifices together from a remote

period. [200] As already seen, a communal sacrifice meant the eating

together of the sacred food, whether the flesh of a victim or grain.

79. The Suovetaurilia.

The Roman city sacrifice of the Suovetaurilia, as described by M. de

Coulanges, is of the greatest interest. The magistrate whose duty it

was to accomplish it, that is in the first place the king, after him

the consul, and after him the censor, had first to take the auspices

and ascertain that the gods were favourable. Then he summoned the

people through a herald by a consecrated form of words. On the

appointed day all the citizens assembled outside the walls; and

while they stood silent the magistrate proceeded three times round

the assembly, driving before him three victims--a pig, a ram and a

bull. The combination of these three victims constituted with the

Greeks as well as the Romans an expiatory sacrifice. Priests and

attendants followed the procession: when the third round had been

accomplished, the magistrate pronounced a prayer and slaughtered

the victims. From this moment all sins were expiated, and neglect of

religious duties effaced, and the city was at peace with its gods.

There were two essential features of this ceremony: the first, that

no stranger should be present at it; and the second, that no citizen

should be absent from it. In the latter case the whole city might not

have been freed from impurity. The Suovetaurilia was therefore preceded

by a census, which was conducted with the greatest care both at Rome

and Athens. The citizen who was not enrolled and was not present at

the sacrifice could no longer be a member of the city. He could be

beaten and sold as a slave, this rule being relaxed only in the last

two centuries of the Republic. Only male citizens were present at

the sacrifice, but they gave a list of their families and belongings

to the censor, and these were considered to be purified through the

head of the family. [201]

This sacrifice was called a _lustratio_ or purification, and in the

historical period was considered to be expiatory. But it does not

seem probable that this was its original significance. For there would

not in that case have been the paramount necessity for every citizen

to be present. All females and children under power were purified

through the list given to the censor, and there seems no reason why

absent citizens could not have been purified in the same manner. But

participation in this sacrifice was itself the very test and essence

of citizenship. And it has been seen that a public meal was the

principal religious rite of the city. The conclusion therefore seems

reasonable that the Suovetaurilia was originally also a sacrificial

meal of which each citizen partook, and that the eating of the deified

domestic animals in common was the essence of the rite and the act

which conferred the privilege of citizenship. The driving of the

sacrificial animals round the citizens three times might well be a

substitute for the previous communal meal, if for any reason, such as

the large number of citizens, the practice of eating them had fallen

into abeyance. The original ground for the taking of a census was to

ensure that all the citizens were present at the communal sacrifice;

and it was by the place which a man occupied on this day that his rank

in the city was determined till the next sacrifice. If the censor

counted him among the senators, he remained a senator; if among the

equites, he remained a knight; if as a simple member of a tribe,

he belonged henceforward to the tribe in which he was counted. If the

censor refused to enumerate him, he was no longer a citizen. [202] Such

was the vital importance of the act of participation in the sacrifice.

80. The sacrifice of the domestic animal.

The Roman sacrifice of the Suovetaurilia was in no way peculiar,

similar rites being found in other Greek and Latin cities. Some

instances are recorded in the article on Kasai, and in _Themis_

[203] Miss Jane Harrison gives an account of a sacrifice at Magnesia

in which a bull, ram and he- and she-goats were sacrificed to the

gods and partaken of communally by the citizens. As already seen,

the act of participation in the sacrifice conferred the status of

citizenship. The domestic animals were not as a rule eaten, but their

milk was drunk, and they were used for transport, and clothes were

perhaps sometimes made from their hair and skins. Hence they were the

principal source of life of the tribe, as the totem had been of the

clan, and were venerated and deified. One common life was held to run

through all the members of the tribe and all the domestic animals of

the species which was its principal means of support. In the totem

or hunting stage the clan had necessarily been small, because a

large collection of persons could not subsist together by hunting

and the consumption of roots and fruits. When an additional means

of support was afforded by the domestication of an important animal,

a much larger number of persons could live together, and apparently

several clans became amalgamated into a tribe. The sanctity of the

domestic animals was much greater than that of the totem because they

lived with man and partook of his food, which was the strongest tie

of kinship; and since he still endowed them with self-consciousness

and volition, he thought they had come voluntarily to aid him in

sustaining life. Both on this account and for fear of injuring the

common life they were not usually killed. But it was necessary to

primitive man that the tie should take a concrete form and that he

should actually assimilate the life of the sacred animal by eating

its flesh, and this was accordingly done at a ceremonial sacrifice,

which was held annually, and often in the spring, the season of the

renewal and increase of life. Since this renewal of the communal life

was the concrete tie which bound the tribe together, any one who was

absent from it could no longer be a member of the tribe. The whole of

this rite and the intense importance attached to it are inexplicable

except on the supposition that the tie which had originally constituted

the totem-clan was the eating of the totem-animal, and that this tie

was perpetuated in the tribe by the communal eating of the domestic

animal. The communal sacrifice of the domestic animal was, as already

seen, typical of society in the tribal or pastoral stage. But one very

important case, in addition to those given above and in the article

on Kasai, remains for notice. The Id-ul-Zoha or Bakr-Id festival of

the Muhammadans is such a rite. In pre-Islamic times this sacrifice

was held at Mecca and all the Arab tribes went to Mecca to celebrate

it. The month in which the sacrifice was held was one of those of

truce, when the feuds between the different clans were in abeyance

so that they could meet at Mecca. Muhammad continued the sacrifice of

the Id-ul-Zoha and it is this sacrifice which a good Muhammadan takes

the pilgrimage to Mecca to perform. He must be at Mecca on the tenth

day of the month of Z'ul Hijjah and perform the sacrifice there, and

unless he does this there is no special merit in making the journey

to Mecca. It is incumbent on every Muhammadan who can afford it to

make the pilgrimage to Mecca or the Hajj once in his life and perform

the sacrifice there; and though as a matter of fact only a very small

minority of Muhammadans now carry out the rule, the pilgrimage and

sacrifice may yet be looked upon as the central and principal rite

of the Muhammadan religion. All Muhammadans who cannot go to Mecca

nevertheless celebrate the sacrifice at home at the Indian festival

of the Id-ul-Zoha and the Turkish and Egyptian Idu-Bairam. At the

Id-ul-Zoha any one of four domestic animals, the camel, the cow,

the sheep or the goat, may be sacrificed; and this rule makes it a

connecting link between the two great Semitic sacrifices described in

the article on Kasai, the camel sacrifice of the Arabs in pre-Islamic

times and the Passover of the Jews. At the present time one-third

of the flesh of the sacrificial animal should be given to the poor,

one-third to relations, and the remainder to the sacrificer's own

family. [204] Though it has now become a household sacrifice, the

communal character thus still partly survives.

81. Sacrifices of the _gens_ and phratry.

Both in Athens and Rome there was a division known as phratry or

_curia_. This apparently consisted of a collection of _gentes_, g'enh,

or clans, and would correspond roughly to a Hindu subcaste. The

evidence does not show, however, that it was endogamous. The bond

which united the phratry or _curia_ was precisely the same as that of

the _gens_ or clan and the city. It consisted also in a common meal,

which was prepared on the altar, and was eaten with the recitation

of prayers, a part being offered to the god, who was held to be

present. At Athens on feast-days the members of the phratry assembled

round their altar. A victim was sacrificed and its flesh cooked on

the altar, and divided among the members of the phratry, great care

being taken that no stranger should be present. A young Athenian

was presented to the phratry by his father, who swore that the boy

was his son. A victim was sacrificed and cooked on the altar in the

presence of all the members of the phratry; if they were doubtful

of the boy's legitimacy, and hence wished to refuse him admittance,

as they had the right to do, they refused to remove the flesh from

the altar. If they did not do this, but divided and partook of the

flesh with the candidate, he was finally and irrevocably admitted to

the phratry. The explanation of this custom, M. de Coulanges states,

is that food prepared on an altar and eaten by a number of persons

together, was believed to establish between them a sacred tie which

endured through life. [205] Even a slave was to a certain degree

admitted into the family by the same tie of common eating of food. At

Athens he was made to approach the hearth; he was purified by pouring

water on his head, and ate some cakes and fruit with the members of

the family. This ceremony was analogous to those of marriage and

adoption. It signified that the new arrival, hitherto a stranger,

was henceforth a member of the family and participated in the family

worship. [206]

82. The Hindu caste-feasts.

The analogy of Greece and Rome would suggest the probability that

the tie uniting the members of the Indian caste or subcaste is also

participation in a common sacrificial meal, and there is a considerable

amount of evidence to support this view. The Confarreatio or eating

together of the bride and bridegroom finds a close parallel in the

family sacrament of the _Meher_ or marriage cakes, which has already

been described. This would appear formerly to have been a clan rite,

and to have marked the admission of the bride to the bridegroom's

clan. It is obligatory on relations of the families to attend a wedding

and they proceed from great distances to do so, and clerks and other

officials are much aggrieved if the exigencies of Government business

prevent them from obtaining leave. The obligation seems to be of

the same character as that which caused Fabius to leave the army in

order to attend his Gentile sacrifice at Rome. If he did not attend

the Gentile sacrifice he was not a member of the _gens_, and if a

Hindu did not attend the feast of his clan in past times perhaps he

did not remain a member of the clan. Among the Maratha Brahmans the

girl-bride eats with her husband's relations on this day only to mark

her admission into their clan, and among the Bengali Brahmans, when

the wedding guests are collected, the bride comes and puts a little

sugar on each of their leaf-plates, which they eat in token of their

recognition of her in her new status of married woman. The members

of the caste or subcaste also assemble and eat together on three

occasions: at a marriage, which will have the effect of bringing

new life into the community; at a death, when a life is lost; and

at the initiation of a new member or the readmission of an offender

temporarily put out of caste. It is a general rule of the caste feasts

that all members of the subcaste in the locality must be invited, and

if any considerable number of them do not attend, the host's position

in the community is impugned. For this reason he has to incur lavish

expenditure on the feast, so as to avoid criticism or dissatisfaction

among his guests. These consider themselves at liberty to comment

freely on the character and quality of the provisions offered to

them. In most castes the feast cannot begin until all the guests

have assembled; the Maheshri Banias and one or two other castes are

distinguished by the fact that they allow the guests at the _pangat_

or caste feast to begin eating as they arrive. Those who bear the host

a grudge purposely stay away, and he has to run to their houses and beg

them to come, so that his feast can begin. When the feast has begun

it was formerly considered a great calamity if any accident should

necessitate the rising of the guests before its conclusion. Even if

a dog or other impure animal should enter the assembly they would not

rise. The explanation of this rule was that it would be disrespectful

to Um Deo, the food-god, to interrupt the feast. At the feast each man

sits with his bare crossed knees actually touching those of the men

on each side of him, to show that they are one brotherhood and one

body. If a man sat even a few inches apart from his fellows, people

would say he was out of caste; and in recent times, since those out

of caste have been allowed to attend the feasts, they sit a little

apart in this manner. The Gowaris fine a man who uses abusive language

to a fellow-casteman at a caste feast, and also one who gets up and

leaves the feast without the permission of the caste headman. The

Hatkars have as the names of two exogamous groups _Wakmar_, or one

who left the Pangat or caste feast while his fellows were eating; and

_Polya_, or one who did not take off his turban at the feast. It has

been seen also [207] that in one or two castes the exogamous sections

are named after the offices which their members hold or the duties

they perform at the caste feast. Among the Halbas the illegitimate

subcaste Surait is also known as Chhoti Pangat or the inferior feast,

with the implication that its members cannot be admitted to the proper

feast of the caste, but have an inferior one of their own.

83. Taking food at initiation.

When an outsider is admitted to the caste the rite is usually

connected with food. A man who is to be admitted to the Dahait caste

must clean his house, break his earthen cooking-vessels and buy new

ones, and give a feast to the caste-fellows in his house. He sits

and takes food with them, and when the meal is over he takes a grain

of rice from the leaf-plate of each guest and eats it, and drinks a

drop of water from his leaf-cup. After this he cannot be readmitted

to his own caste. A new Mehtar or sweeper gives water to and takes

bread from each casteman. In Mandla a new convert to the Panka caste

vacates his house and the caste _panchayat_ or committee go and live

in it, in order to purify it. He gives them a feast inside the house,

while he himself stays outside. Finally he is permitted to eat with

the _panchayat_ in his own house in order to mark his admission into

the caste. A candidate for admission in the Mahli caste has to eat

a little of the leavings of the food of each of the castemen at a

feast. The community of robbers known as Badhak or Baoria formerly

dwelt in the Oudh forests. They were accustomed to take omens from

the cry of the jackal, and they may probably have venerated it as

representing the spirit of the forest and as a fellow-hunter. They

were called jackal-eaters, and it was said that when an outsider was

admitted to one of their bands he was given jackal's flesh to eat.

Again, the rite of initiation or investiture with the sacred thread

appears to be the occasion of the admission of a boy to the caste

community. Before this he is not really a member of the caste and may

eat any kind of food. The initiation is called by the Brahmans the

second birth, and appears to be the birth of the soul or spirit. After

it the boy will eat the sacrificial food at the caste feasts and be

united with the members of the caste and their god. The bodies of

children who have not been initiated are buried and not burnt. The

reason seems to be that their spirits will not go to the god nor

be united with the ancestors, but will be born again. Formerly such

children were often buried in the house or courtyard so that their

spirits might be born again in the same family. The lower castes

sometimes consider the rite of ear-piercing as the initiation and

sometimes marriage. Among the Panwar Rajputs a child is initiated when

about two years old by being given cooked rice and milk to eat. The

initiation cannot for some reason be performed by the natural father,

but must be done by a _guru_ or spiritual father, who should thereafter

be regarded with a reverence equal to or even exceeding that paid to

the natural father.

84. Penalty feasts.

When a man is readmitted to caste after exclusion for some offence,

the principal feature of the rite is a feast at which he is again

permitted to eat with his fellows. There are commonly two feasts, one

known as the _Maili Roti_ or impure meal, and the other as _Chokhi_

or pure, both being at the cost of the offender. The former is eaten

by the side of a stream or elsewhere on neutral ground, and by it

the offender is considered to be partly purified; the latter is in

his own house, and by eating there the castemen demonstrate that no

impurity attaches to him, and he is again a full member. Some castes,

as the Dhobas, have three feasts: the first is eaten at the bank

of a stream, and at this the offender's hair is shaved and thrown

into the stream; the second is in his yard; and the third in his

house. The offender is not allowed to partake of the first two meals

himself, but he joins in the third, and before it begins the head

of the _panchayat_ gives him water to drink in which gold has been

dipped as a purificatory rite. Among the Gonds the flesh of goats is

provided at the first meal, but at the second only grain cooked with

water, which they now, in imitation of the Hindus, consider as the

sacred sacrificial food. Frequently the view obtains that the head

of the caste _panchayat_ takes the offender's sins upon himself by

commencing to eat, and in return for this a present of some rupees

is deposited beneath his plate. Similarly among some castes, as the

Bahnas, exclusion from caste is known as the stopping of food and

water. The Gowaris readmit offenders by the joint drinking of opium and

water. One member is especially charged with the preparation of this,

and if there should not be enough for all the castemen to partake of

it, he is severely punished. Opium was also considered sacred by the

Rajputs, and the chief and his kinsmen were accustomed to drink it

together as a pledge of amity. [208]

85. Sanctity of grain-food.

Grain cooked with water is considered as sacred food by the

Hindus. It should be eaten only on a space within the house called

_chauka_ purified with cowdung, and sometimes marked out with white

quartz-powder or flour. Before taking his meal a member of the higher

castes should bathe and worship the household gods. At the meal he

should wear no sewn clothes, but only a waist-cloth made of silk or

wool, and not of cotton. The lower castes will take food cooked with

water outside the house in the fields, and are looked down upon for

doing this, so that those who aspire to raise their social position

abandon the practice, or at least pretend to do so. Sir J.G. Frazer

quotes a passage showing that the ancient Brahmans considered the

sacrificial rice-cakes cooked with water to be transformed into human

bodies. [209] The Urdu word _bali_ means a sacrifice or offering,

and is applied to the portion of the daily meal which is offered to

the gods and to the hearth-fire. Thus all grain cooked with water is

apparently looked upon as sacred or sacramental food, and it is for

this reason that it can only be eaten after the purificatory rites

already described. The grain is venerated as the chief means of

subsistence, and the communal eating of it seems to be analogous to

the sacrificial eating of the domestic animals, such as the camel,

horse, ox and sheep, which is described above and in the article on

Kasai. Just as in the hunting stage the eating of the totem-animal,

which furnished the chief means of subsistence, was the tie which

united the totem-clan: and in the pastoral stage the domestic animal

which afforded to the tribe its principal support, not usually as

an article of food, but through its milk and its use as a means of

transport, was yet eaten sacrificially owing to the persistence of the

belief that the essential bond which united the tribe was the communal

eating of the flesh of the animal from which the tribe obtained its

subsistence: so when the community reaches the agricultural stage

the old communal feast is retained as the bond of union, but it now

consists of grain, which is the principal support of life.

86. The corn-sprit.

The totem-animal was regarded as a kinsman, and the domestic

animal often as a god. [210] But in both these cases the life of

the kinsman and god was sacrificed in order that the community

might be bound together by eating the body and assimilating the

life. Consequently, when grain came to be the sacrificial food, it

was often held that an animal or human being must be sacrificed in

the character of the corn-god or spirit, whether his own flesh was

eaten or the sacred grain was imagined to be his flesh. Numerous

instances of the sacrifice of the corn-spirit have been adduced by

Sir J.G. Frazer in _The Golden Bough_, and it was he who brought

this custom prominently to notice. One of the most important cases

in India was the Meriah-sacrifice of the Khonds, which is described

in the article on that tribe.

Two features of the Khond sacrifice of a human victim as a corn-spirit

appear to indicate its derivation from the sacrifice of the domestic

animal and the eating of the totem-animal, the ties uniting the clan

and tribe: first, that the flesh was cut from the living victim, and,

second, that the sacrifice was communal. When the Meriah-victim was

bound the Khonds hacked at him with their knives while life remained,

leaving only the head and bowels untouched, so that each man might

secure a strip of flesh. This rite appears to recall the earliest

period when the members of the primitive group or clan tore their prey

to pieces and ate and drank the raw flesh and blood. The reason for

its survival was apparently that it was the actual life of the divine

victim, existing in concrete form in the flesh and blood which they

desired to obtain, and they thought that this end was more certainly

achieved by cutting the flesh off him while he was still alive. In

the sacrifice of the camel in Arabia the same procedure was followed;

the camel was bound on an altar and the tribesmen cut the flesh from

the body with their knives and swallowed it raw and bleeding. [211]

M. Salomon Reinach shows how the memory of similar sacrifices in Greece

has been preserved in legend: [212] "Actaeon was really a great stag

sacrificed by women devotees, who called themselves the great hind

and the little hinds; he became the rash hunter who surprised Artemis

at her bath and was transformed into a stag and devoured by his own

dogs. The dogs are a euphemism; in the early legend they were the

human devotees of the sacred stag who tore him to pieces and devoured

him with their bare teeth. These feasts of raw flesh survived in the

secret religious cults of Greece long after uncooked food had ceased

to be consumed in ordinary life. Orpheus (_ophreus,_ the haughty),

who appears in art with the skin of a fox on his head, was originally

a sacred fox devoured by the women of the fox totem-clan; these women

call themselves Bassarides in the legend, and _bassareus_ is one

of the old names of the fox. Hippolytus in the fable is the son of

Theseus who repels the advances of Phaedra, his stepmother, and was

killed by his runaway horses because Theseus, deceived by Phaedra,

invoked the anger of a god upon him. But Hippolytus in Greek means

'one torn to pieces by horses.' Hippolytus is himself a horse whom the

worshippers of the horse, calling themselves horses and disguised as

such, tore to pieces and devoured." All such sacrifices in which the

flesh was taken from the living victim may thus perhaps be derived

from the common origin of totemism. The second point about the Khond

sacrifice is that it was communal; every householder desired a piece

of the flesh, and for those who could not be present at the sacrifice

relays of messengers were posted to carry it to them while it was

still fresh and might be supposed to retain the life. They did not

eat the strips of flesh, but each householder buried his piece in his

field, which they believed would thereby be fertilised and caused to

produce the grain which they would eat. The death of the victim was

considered essential to the life of the tribe, which would be renewed

and strengthened by it as in the case of the sacrifice of the domestic

animal. Lord Avebury gives in _The Origin of Civilisation_ [213] an

almost exact parallel to the Khond sacrifice in which the flesh of the

victim actually was eaten. This occurred among the Marimos, a tribe of

South Africa much resembling the Bechuanas. The ceremony was called

'the boiling of the corn.' A young man, stout but of small stature,

was usually selected and secured by violence or by intoxicating him

with _yaala_. "They then lead him into the fields, and sacrifice him in

the fields, according to their own expression, _for seed_. His blood,

after having been coagulated by the rays of the sun, is burned along

with the frontal bone, the flesh attached to it and the brain. The

ashes are then scattered over the fields to fertilise them and the

remainder of the body is eaten." In other cases quoted by the same

author an image only was made of flour and eaten instead of a human

being: [214] "In Mexico at a certain period of the year the priest of

Quetzalcoatl made an image of the Deity, of meal mixed with infants'

blood, and then, after many impressive ceremonies, killed the image

by shooting it with an arrow, and tore out the heart, which was eaten

by the king, while the rest of the body was distributed among the

people, every one of whom was anxious to procure a piece to eat,

however small." Here the communal sacrificial meal, the remaining

link necessary to connect the sacrifice of the corn-spirit with that

of the domestic animal and clan totem, is present. Among cases of

animals sacrificed as the corn-spirit in India that of the buffalo

at the Dasahra festival is the most important. The rite extends

over most of India, and a full and interesting account of it has

recently been published by Mr. W. Crooke. [215] The buffalo is

probably considered as the corn-spirit because it was the animal

which mainly damaged the crops in past times. Where the sacrifice

still survives the proprietor of the village usually makes the first

cut in the buffalo and it is then killed and eaten by the inferior

castes, as Hindus cannot now touch the flesh. In the Deccan after

the buffalo is killed the Mahars rush on the carcase and each one

secures a piece of the flesh. This done they go in procession round

the walls, calling on the spirits and demons, and asking them to

accept the pieces of meat as offerings, which are then thrown to them

backwards over the wall. [216] The buffalo is now looked upon in the

light of a scape-goat, but the procedure described above cannot be

satisfactorily explained on the scape-goat theory, and would appear

clearly to have been substituted for the former eating of the flesh. In

the Maratha Districts the lower castes have a periodical sacrifice of

a pig to the sun; they eat the flesh of the pig together, and even

the Panwar Rajputs of the Waringanga Valley join in the sacrifice

and will allow the impure caste of Mahars to enter their houses and

eat of this sacrifice with them, though at other times the entry of

a Mahar would defile a Panwar's house. [217] The pig is sacrificed

either as the animal which now mainly injures the crops or because

it was the principal sacrificial animal of the non-Aryan tribes,

or from a combination of both reasons. Probably it may be regarded

as the corn-spirit because pigs are sacrificed to Bhanisasur or the

buffalo demon for the protection of the crops.

87. The king.

When the community reached the national or agricultural stage some

central executive authority became necessary for its preservation. This

authority usually fell into the hands of the priest who performed

the sacrifice, and he became a king. Since the priest killed the

sacrificial animal in which the common life of the community was

held to be centred, it was thought that the life passed to him and

centred in his person. For the idea of the extinction of life was not

properly understood, and the life of a human being or animal might

pass by contact, according to primitive ideas, to the person or even

the weapon which killed it, just as it could pass by assimilation

to those who ate the flesh. In most of the city-states of Greece

and Italy the primary function of the kings was the performance of

the communal or national sacrifices. Through this act they obtained

political power as representing the common life of the people, and

its performance was sometimes left to them after their political

power had been taken away. [218] After the expulsion of the kings

from Rome the duty of performing the city sacrifices devolved on

the consuls. In India also the kings performed sacrifices. When a

king desired to be paramount over his neighbours he sent a horse to

march through their territories. If it passed through them without

being captured they became subordinate to the king who owned the

horse. Finally the horse was sacrificed at the Ashva-medha, the

king paramount making the sacrifice, while the other kings performed

subordinate parts at it. [219] Similarly the Raja of Nagpur killed

the sacrificial buffalo at the Dasahra festival. But the common life

of the people was sometimes conveyed from the domestic animal to the

king by other methods than the performance of a sacrifice. The king

of Unyoro in Africa might never eat vegetable food but must subsist

on milk and beef. Mutton he might not touch, though he could drink

beer after partaking of meat. A sacred herd was kept for the king's

use, and nine cows, neither more nor less, were daily brought to the

royal enclosure to be milked for his majesty. The boy who brought

the cows from the pasture to the royal enclosure must be a member of

a particular clan and under the age of puberty, and was subject to

other restrictions. The milk for the king was drawn into a sacred

pot which neither the milkman nor anybody else might touch. The

king drank the milk, sitting on a sacred stool, three times a day,

and any which was left over must be drunk by the boy who brought the

cows from pasture. Numerous other rules and restrictions are detailed

by Sir J.G. Frazer, and it may be suggested that their object was to

ensure that the life of the domestic animal and with it the life of

the people should be conveyed pure and undefiled to the king through

the milk. The kings of Unyoro had to take their own lives while their

bodily vigour was still unimpaired. When the period for his death

arrived the king asked his wife for a cup of poison and drank it. "The

public announcement of the death was made by the chief milkman. Taking

a pot of the sacred milk in his hands he mounted the house-top and

cried, 'Who will drink the milk?' With these words he dashed the pot

on the roof; it rolled off and falling to the ground was broken in

pieces. That was the signal for war to the death between the princes

who aspired to the throne. They fought till only one was left alive. He

was the king." [220] After completing the above account, of which

only the principal points have been stated, Sir J.G. Frazer remarks:

"The rule which obliged the kings of Unyoro to kill themselves or be

killed before their strength of mind and body began to fail through

disease or age is only a particular example of a custom which appears

to have prevailed widely among barbarous tribes in Africa and to some

extent elsewhere. Apparently this curious practice rests on a belief

that the welfare of the people is sympathetically bound up with the

welfare of their king, and that to suffer him to fall into bodily or

mental decay would be to involve the whole kingdom in ruin." [221]

Other instances connecting the life of the king with the ox or other

domestic animal are given in _Totemism and Exogamy_ and _The Golden

Bough_ [222] Among the Hereros the body of a dead chief was wrapped

up in the hide of an ox before being buried. [223] In the Vedic

horse-sacrifice in India the horse was stifled in robes. The chief

queen approached him; a cloak having been thrown over them both,

she performed a repulsively obscene act symbolising the transmission

to her of his fructifying powers. [224] In other cases the king was

identified with the corn-spirit, and in this manner he also, it may

be suggested, represented the common life of the people.

The belief that the king was the incarnation of the common life of the

people led to the most absurd restrictions on his liberty and conduct,

a few instances of which from the large collection in _The Golden

Bough_ have been quoted in the article on Nai. Thus in an old account

of the daily life of the Mikado it is stated: "In ancient times he

was obliged to sit on the throne for some hours every morning, with

the imperial crown on his head, but to sit altogether like a statue,

without stirring either hands or feet, head or eyes, nor indeed any

part of his body, because, by this means, it was thought that he could

preserve peace and tranquillity in his empire; for if, unfortunately,

he turned himself on one side or the other, or if he looked a good

while towards any part of his dominions, it was apprehended that war,

famine, fire or some great misfortune was near at hand to desolate

the country." [225] Here it would appear that by sitting absolutely

immobile the king conferred the quality of tranquillity on the common

life of his people incarnate in his person; but by looking too long in

any one direction he would cause a severe disturbance of the common

life in the part to which he looked. And when the Israelites were

fighting with the Amalekites, so long as Moses held up his hands

the Israelites prevailed; but when his hands hung down they gave

way before the enemy. Here apparently the common life was held to

be centred in Moses, and when he held his arms up it was vigorous,

but declined as he let them down. Similarly it was often thought that

the king should be killed as soon as his bodily strength showed signs

of waning, so that the common life might be renewed and saved from a

similar decay. Even the appearance of grey hair or the loss of a tooth

were sometimes considered sufficient reasons for putting the king

to death in Africa. [226] Another view was that any one who killed

the king was entitled to succeed him, because the life of the king,

and with it the common life of the people, passed to the slayer,

just as it had previously passed from the domestic animal to the

priest-king who sacrificed it. One or two instances of succession by

killing the king are given in the article on Bhil. Sometimes the view

was that the king should be sacrificed annually, or at other intervals,

like the corn-spirit or domestic animal, for the renewal of the common

life. And this practice, as shown by Sir J.G. Frazer, tended to result

in the substitution of a victim, usually a criminal or slave, who was

identified with the king by being given royal honours for a short time

before his death. Sometimes the king's son or daughter was offered as

a substitute for him, and such a sacrifice was occasionally made in

time of peril, apparently as a means of strengthening or preserving

the common life. When Chitor, the home of the Sesodia clan of Rajputs,

was besieged by the Muhammadans, the tradition is that the goddess

of their house appeared and demanded the sacrifice of twelve chiefs

as a condition of its preservation. Eleven of the chiefs sons were

in turn crowned as king, and each ruled for three days, while on the

fourth he sallied out and fell in battle. Lastly, the Rana offered

himself in order that his favourite son, Ajeysi, might be spared and

might perpetuate the clan. In reality the chief and his sons seem

to have devoted themselves in the hope that the sacrifice of the

king might bring strength and victory to the clan. The sacrifice of

Iphigenia and possibly of Jephthah's daughter appear to be parallel

instances. The story of Alcestis may be an instance of the substitution

of the king's wife. The position of the king in early society and the

peculiar practices and beliefs attaching to it were brought to notice

and fully illustrated by Sir J.G. Frazer. The argument as to the clan

and the veneration of the domestic animal follows that outlined by

the late Professor Robertson Smith in _The Religion of the Semites_.

88. Other instances of the common meal as a sacrificial rite.

Some other instances of the communal eating of grain or other

food as a sacramental rite and bond of union have been given in the

articles. Thus at a Kabirpanthi Chauka or religious service the priest

breaks a cocoanut on a stone, and the flesh is cut up and distributed

to the worshippers with betel-leaf and sugar. Each receives it on his

knees, taking the greatest care that none falls on the ground. The

cocoanut is commonly regarded by the Hindus as a substituted offering

for a human head. The betel-leaves which are distributed have been

specially consecrated by the head priest of the sect, and are held

to represent the body of Kabir. [227]

Similarly, Guru Govind Singh instituted a _prasad_ or communion among

the Sikhs, in which cakes of flour, butter and sugar are made and

consecrated with certain ceremonies while the communicants sit round in

prayer, and are then distributed equally to all the faithful present,

to whatever caste they may belong. At a Guru-Mata or great council of

the Sikhs, which was held at any great crisis in the affairs of the

state, these cakes were laid before the Sikh scriptures and then eaten

by all present, who swore on the scriptures to forget their internal

dissensions and be united. Among the Rajputs the test of legitimacy

of a member of the chief's family was held to depend on whether

he had eaten of the chief's food. The rice cooked at the temple of

Jagannath in Orissa may be eaten there by all castes together, and,

when partaken of by two men together, is held to establish a bond of

indissoluble friendship between them.

Members of several low castes of mixed origin will only take food

with their relatives, and not with other families of the caste with

whom they intermarry. [228] The Chaukhutia Bhunjias will not eat food

cooked by other members of the same community, and will not take it

from their own daughters after the latter are married. At a feast

among the Dewars uncooked food is distributed to the guests, who

cook it for themselves; parents will not accept cooked food either

from married sons or daughters, and each family with its children

forms a separate commensal group. Thus the taking of food together

is a more important and sacred tie than intermarriage. In most Hindu

castes a man is not put out of caste for committing adultery with a

woman of low caste, but for taking cooked food from her hands; though

it is assumed that if he lives with her openly he must necessarily

have accepted cooked food from her. Opium and alcoholic liquor or

wine, being venerated on account of their intoxicating qualities,

were sometimes regarded as substitutes for the sacrificial food and

partaken of sacramentally. [229]

89. Funeral feasts.

An important class of communal meals remaining for discussion

consists in the funeral feasts. The funeral feast seems a peculiar

and unseasonable observance, but several circumstances point to

the conclusion that it was originally held in the dead man's own

interest. He or his spirit was indeed held to participate in the

feast, and it seems to have been further thought that unless he did

so and ate the sacred food, his soul would not proceed to the heaven

or god, but would wander about as an unquiet spirit or meet with

some other fate. Many of the lower Hindu castes, such as the Kohlis

and Bishnois, take food after a funeral, seated by the side of the

grave. This custom is now considered somewhat derogatory, perhaps in

consequence of a truer realisation of the fact of death. At a Baiga

funeral the mourners take one white and one black fowl to a stream and

kill and eat them there, setting aside a portion for the dead man. The

Gonds also take their food and drink liquor at the grave. The Lohars

think that the spirit of the dead man returns to join in the funeral

feast. Among the Telugu Koshtis the funeral party go to the grave

on the fifth day, and after the priest has worshipped the image of

Vishnu on the grave, the whole party take their food there. After a

Panka funeral the mourners bathe and then break a cocoanut over the

grave and distribute it among themselves. On the tenth day they go

again and break a cocoanut, and each man buries a little piece of it

in the earth over the grave. Among the Tameras, at the feast with

which mourning is concluded, a leaf-plate containing a portion for

the deceased is placed outside the house with a pot of water and a

burning lamp to guide his spirit to the food. On the third day after

death the Kolhatis sometimes bring back the skull of a corpse and,

placing it on the bed, offer to it powder, dates and betel-leaves, and

after a feast lasting for three days it is again buried. It is said

that the members of the Lingayat sect formerly set up the corpse in

their midst at the funeral feast and sat round it, taking their food,

but the custom is not known to exist at present. Among the Bangalas,

an African negro tribe, at a great funeral feast lasting for three

days in honour of the chief's son, the corpse was present at the

festivities tied in a chair. [230]

90. The Hindu deities and the sacrificial meal.

Thus there seems reason to suppose that the caste-tie of the Hindus is

the same as that which united the members of the city-states of Greece

and Italy, that is the eating of a sacramental food together. Among

the Vedic Aryans that country only was considered pure and fit for

sacrifice in which the Aryan gods had taken up their residence. [231]

Hindustan was made a pure country in which Aryans could offer

sacrifices by the fact that Agni, the sacrificial god of fire, spread

himself over it. But the gods have changed. The old Vedic deities

Indra, the rain-god, Varuna, the heaven-god, the Maruts or winds,

and Soma, the divine liquor, have fallen into neglect. These were the

principal forces which controlled the existence of a nomad pastoral

people, dependent on rain to make the grass grow for their herds,

and guiding their course by the sun and stars. The Soma or liquor

apparently had a warming, exhilarating effect in the cold climate

of the Central Asian steppes, and was therefore venerated. Since in

the hot plains of India abstinence from alcoholic liquor has become

a principal religious tenet of high-caste Hindus, Soma is naturally

no more heard of. Agni, the fire-god, was also one of the greatest

deities to the nomads of the cold uplands, as the preserver of life

against cold. But in India, except as represented by the hearth,

for cooking, little regard is paid to him, since fires are not

required for warmth. New gods have arisen in Hinduism. The sun was

an important Vedic deity, both as Mitra and under other names. Vishnu

as the sun, or the spirit of whom the sun is the visible embodiment,

has become the most important deity in his capacity of the universal

giver and preserver of life. He is also widely venerated in his

anthropomorphic forms of Rama, the hero-prince of Ajodhia and leader

of the Aryan expedition to Ceylon, and Krishna, the divine cowherd,

perhaps some fabled hero sprung from the indigenous tribes. Siva

is the mountain-god of the Himalayas and a moon-deity, and in his

character of god of destruction the lightning and cobra are associated

with him. But he is really worshipped in his beneficent form of the

phallic emblem as the agent of life, and the bull, the fertiliser

of the soil and provider of food. Devi, the earth, is the great

mother goddess. Sprung from her are Hanuman, the monkey-god, and

Ganpati, the elephant-god, and in one of her forms, as the terrible

goddess Kali, she is perhaps the deified tiger. [232] Lachmi, the

goddess of wealth, and held to have been evolved from the cow, is

the consort of Vishnu. It was thus not the god to whom the sacrifice

was offered, but the sacrifice itself that was the essential thing,

and participation in the common eating of the sacrifice constituted

the bond of union. In early times a sacrifice was the occasion for

every important gathering or festivity, as is shown both in Indian

history and legend. And the caste feasts above described seem to be

the continuation and modern form of the ancient sacrifice.

91. Development of the occupational caste from the tribe.

The Roman population, as already seen, consisted of a set of clans

or _gentes_. The clans were collected in tribal groups such as the

_curia_, but it does not appear that these latter were endogamous. The

rite which constituted a Roman citizen was participation in the

Suovetaurilia, the communal sacrifice of the domestic animals, the pig,

the ram, and the bull. Since all the Roman citizens at first lived

in a comparatively small area, they were all able to be present at

the sacrifice. The other states of Greece and Italy had an analogous

constitution, as stated by M. Fustel de Coulanges. It may be supposed

that the Aryans were similarly divided into clans and tribes. The

word _visha,_ the substantive root of Vaishya, originally meant

a clan. [233] But as pointed out by M. Senart, they did not form

city-states in India, but settled in villages over a large area of

country. Their method of government was by small states under kings,

and probably they had a kind of national constitution, of which the

king was the centre and embodiment. But these states gradually lost

their individuality, and were merged in large empires, where the king

could no longer be the centre of the state or of the common life

of his people, nor perform a sacrifice at which they could all be

present, as the Roman kings did. This religious idea of nationality,

based on participation in a common sacrifice, was the only one which

existed in early times. Thus apparently the Aryans retained their

tribal constitution instead of expanding it into a national one,

and the members of clans within a certain local area gathered for a

communal sacrifice. But there was a great class, that of the Sudras

or indigenous inhabitants, who could not join in the sacrifices at

all. And between the Sudras and the Vaishyas or main body of the

Aryans there gradually grew up another mixed class, which also could

not properly participate in them. The priests and rulers, Brahmans

and Kshatriyas, tended to form exclusive bodies, and in this manner a

classification by occupation gradually grew up, the distinction being

marked by participation in separate sacrificial feasts. The cause

which ultimately broke down the religious distinctions of the Roman

and Greek states was the development of a feeling of nationality. In

the common struggle for the preservation of the city the prejudices

of the patricians weakened, and after a long internal conflict, the

plebeians were admitted to full rights of citizenship. The plebeians

were employed as infantry in the Roman armies, while the patricians

rode, and the increased importance of infantry in war was one great

cause of the improvement in the position of the plebeians. [234] In

India, in the absence of any national feeling, and with the growth of

a large and powerful priestly order, religious barriers and prejudices

became accentuated rather than weakened. The class distinctions grew

more rigid, and gradually, as the original racial line of cleavage was

fused by intermarriage and the production of groups of varying status,

these came to arrange themselves on a basis of occupation. This is

the inevitable and necessary rule in all societies whose activities

and mode of life are at all complicated. Racial distinctions cannot

be preserved unless in the most exceptional cases, where they are

accentuated by the difference of colour, and such a moral and social

gulf as that which exists between the whites and negroes in North

America. In primitive society there is no such mental cleavage to

render the idea of fusion abhorrent to the superior race; the bar is

religious, and while it places the inferior race in a despised and

abject position, there is no prohibition of illicit unions nor any

such moral feeling or principle as would tend to restrict them. The

ideas of the responsibilities and duties of parentage in connection

with heredity, or the science of eugenics, are entirely modern, and

have no place at all in ancient society. As racial and religious

distinctions fade away, and social progress takes place, a fresh

set of divisions by wealth and occupation grows up. But though this

happened also in the Greek and Italian cities, the old religious

divisions were not transferred to the new occupational groups, but

fell slowly into abeyance, and the latter assumed the simply social

character which they have in modern communities. The main reason

for the obliteration of religious barriers, as already stated, was

the growth of the idea of nationality and the public interest. But

in India the feeling of nationality never arose. The Hindu states

and empires had no national basis, since at the period in question

the only way in which the idea of nationality could be conceived,

was by participation of the citizens in a common sacrifice, and this

participation is only possible to persons living in a small local

area. Hence Hindu society developed on its own lines independently

of the form of government to which it was subject, and in the new

grouping by occupation the old communal sacrifices were preserved

and adapted to the fresh divisions. The result was the growth of

the system of occupational castes which still exists. But since

the basis of society was the participation of each social group in

a communal meal, the group could not be extended to take in persons

of the same occupation over a large area, and as a result the widely

ramified system of subcastes came into existence. The subcaste or

commensal group was the direct evolutionary product of the pre-existing

tribe. Its size was limited by the fact that its members had to meet

at the periodical sacrificial feasts, by which their unity and the

tie which bound them together was cemented and renewed. As already

seen, when members of a subcaste migrated to a fresh local area,

and were cut off from communication with those remaining behind,

they tended as a rule to form a fresh endogamous and commensal

group. Since the tie between the members of the subcaste was

participation in a sacrificial meal of grain cooked with water, and

as this food was held to be sacred, the members of the subcaste came

to refuse to eat it except with those who could join in the communal

feast; and as the idea gradually gained acceptance, that a legitimate

child must be the offspring of a father and mother both belonging

to the commensal group, the practice of endogamy within the subcaste

became a rule.

92. Veneration of the caste implements.

Since all the citizens of the Roman State participated in a

common sacrifice, they might be considered as a single caste,

or even a subcaste or commensal group. The Hindu castes have a

common ceremony which presents some analogy to that of the Roman

state. They worship or pay homage once or twice a year to the

implements of their profession. The occasions for this rite are

usually the Dasahra festival in September and the fast after the Holi

festival in March. Both these are festivals of the goddess Devi or

Mother Earth, when a fast is observed in her honour, first before

sowing the spring crops and secondly before reaping them. On each

occasion the fast lasts for nine days and the Jawaras or pots of

wheat corresponding to the Gardens of Adonis are sown. The fasts and

festivals thus belong primarily to the agricultural castes, and they

worship the earth-mother, who provides them with subsistence. But the

professional and artisan castes also take the occasion to venerate the

implements of their profession. Thus among the Kasars or brass-workers,

at the festival of Mando Amawas or the new moon of Chait (March),

every Kasar must return to the community of which he is a member

and celebrate the feast with them. And in default of this he will

be expelled from the caste until the next Amawas of Chait comes

round. They close their shops and worship the implements of their

profession on this day. The rule is thus the same as that of the Roman

Suovetaurilia. He who does not join in the sacrificial feast ceases to

be a member of the community. And the object of veneration is the same;

the Romans venerated and sacrificed the domestic animals which in the

pastoral stage had been their means of subsistence. The Kasars and

other occupational castes worship the implements of their profession

which are also their means of livelihood, or that which gives them

life. Formerly all these implements were held to be animate, and to

produce their effect by their own power and volition. The Nats or

acrobats of Bombay say that their favourite and only living gods

are those which give them their bread: the drum, the rope and the

balancing-pole. The Murha or earth-digger invokes the implements of his

trade as follows: "O, my lord the basket, my lord the pickaxe shaped

like a snake, and my lady the hod! Come and eat up those who do not

pay me for my work!" Similarly the Dhimar venerates his fishing-net,

and will not wear shoes of sewn leather, because he thinks that the

sacred thread which makes his net is debased if used for shoes. The

Chamar worships his currier's knife; the Ghasia or groom his horse and

the peg to which the horse is secured in the stable; the Rajput his

horse and sword and shield; the writer his inkpot, and so on. The Pola

festival of the Kunbis has a feature resembling the Suovetaurilia. On

this occasion all the plough-bullocks of the cultivators are mustered

and go in procession to a _toran_ or arch constructed of branches

and foliage. The bullock of the village proprietor leads the way,

and has flaming torches tied to his horns. The bullocks of the other

cultivators follow according to the status of each cultivator in

the village, which depends upon hereditary right and antiquity of

tenure, and not on mere wealth. A Kunbi feels bitterly insulted if

his bullocks are not awarded the proper place in the procession. A

string across the arch is broken by the leading bullock, and the

cattle are then all driven helter-skelter through the arch and back

to the village. The rite would appear to be a relic of the communal

sacrifice of a bullock, the torches tied to the proprietor's bullock

signifying that he was formerly killed and roasted. It is now said

that this bullock is full of magic, and that he will die within

three years. The rite may be compared to the needfire as practised

in Russia when all the horses of the village were driven between two

fires, or through fire, and their bridles thrown into the fire and

burnt. The burning of the bridles would appear to be a substitute

for the previous sacrifice of the horse. [235] The Pola ceremony of

the Kunbis resembles the Roman Suovetaurilia inasmuch as all the

cultivators participate in it according to their status, just as

the rank of Roman citizens was determined by their position at the

ceremony. Formerly, if a bull was sacrificed and eaten sacramentally

it would have been practically an exact parallel to the Roman rite.

93. The caste _panchayat_ and its code of offences.

The tribunal for the punishment of caste offences is known as the

_panchayat_, because it usually consists of five persons (_panch_,

five). As a rule a separate _panchayat_ exists for every subcaste over

an area not too large for all the members of it to meet. In theory,

however, the _panchayat_ is only the mouthpiece of the assembly,

which should consist of all the members of the subcaste. Some castes

fine a member who absents himself from the meeting. The _panchayat_

may perhaps be supposed to represent the hand acting on behalf of

the subcaste, which is considered the body. The _panchayat_, however,

was not the original judge. It was at first the god before whom the

parties pleaded their cause, and the god who gave judgment by the

method of trial by ordeal. This was probably the general character

of primitive justice, and in some of the lower castes the ordeal is

still resorted to for decisions. The tribe or subcaste attended as

jurors or assessors, and carried out the proceedings, perhaps after

having united themselves to the god for the purpose by a sacrificial

meal. The _panchayat_, having succeeded the god as the judge, is

held to give its decisions by divine inspiration, according to the

sayings: 'God is on high and the _panch_ on earth,' and 'The voice

of the _panchayat_ is the voice of God.' [236] The headship of the

_panchayat_ and the subcaste commonly descends in one family, or did

so till recently, and the utmost deference is shown to the person

holding it, even though he may be only a boy for the above reason. The

offences involving temporary or permanent excommunication from caste

are of a somewhat peculiar kind. In the case of both a man and woman,

to take food from a person of a caste from whom it is forbidden to

do so, and especially from one of an impure caste, is a very serious

offence, as is also that of being beaten by a member of an impure

caste, especially with a shoe. It is also a serious offence to be

sent to jail, because a man has to eat the impure jail food. To be

handcuffed is a minor offence, perhaps by analogy with the major one

of being sent to jail, or else on account of the indignity involved

by the touch of the police. As regards sexual offences, there is no

direct punishment for a man as a rule, but if he lives with a low-caste

woman he is temporarily expelled because it is assumed that he has

taken food from her hands. Sometimes a man and woman of the caste

committing adultery together are both punished. A married woman who

commits adultery should in the higher and middle castes, in theory

at least, be permanently expelled, but if her husband does not put

her away she is sometimes readmitted with a severe punishment. A girl

going wrong with an outsider is as a rule expelled unless the matter

can be hushed up, but if she becomes pregnant by a man of the caste,

she can often be readmitted with a penalty and married to him or to

some other man. There are also some religious crimes, such as killing

a cow or a cat or other sacred domestic animal; and in the case of

a woman it is a very serious offence to get the lobe of her ear torn

apart at the large perforation usually made for earrings; [237] while

for either a man or a woman to get vermin in a wound is an offence of

the first magnitude, entailing several months' exclusion and large

expenditure on readmission. Offences against ordinary morality are

scarcely found in the category of those entailing punishment. Murder

must sometimes be expiated by a pilgrimage to the Ganges, but other

criminal offences against the person and property are not taken

cognisance of by the caste committee unless the offender is sent

to jail. Both in its negative and positive aspects the category

of offences affords interesting deductions on the basis of the

explanation of the caste system already given. The reason why there

is scarcely any punishment for offences against ordinary morality is

that the caste organisation has never developed any responsibility

for the maintenance of social order and the protection of life and

property. It has never exercised the function of government, because

in the historical Hindu period India was divided into large military

states, while since then it has been subject to foreign domination. The

social organisation has thus maintained its pristine form, neither

influenced by the government nor affording to it any co-operation or

support. And the aims of the caste tribunal have been restricted to

preserving its own corporate existence free from injury or pollution,

which might arise mainly from two sources. If a member's body was

rendered impure either by eating impure food or by contact with a

person of impure caste it became an unfit receptacle for the sacred

food eaten at the caste feast, which bound its members together in

one body. This appears to be the object of the rules about food. And

since the blood of the clan and of the caste is communicated by descent

through the father under the patriarchal system, adultery on the part

of a married woman would bring a stranger into the group and undermine

its corporate existence and unity. Hence the severity of the punishment

for the adultery of a married woman, which is a special feature of

the patriarchal system. It has already been seen that under the rule

of female descent, as shown by Mr. Hartland in _Primitive Paternity_,

the chastity of women was as a rule scarcely regarded at all or even

conceived of. After the change to the patriarchal system a similar

laxity seems to have prevailed for some period, and it was thought

that any child born to a man in his house or on his bed was his own,

even though he might not be the father. This idea obtained among the

Arabs, as pointed out by Professor Robertson Smith in _Kinship and

Marriage in Early Arabia_, and is also found in the Hindu classics,

and to some extent even in modern practice. It was perhaps based on

the virtue assigned to concrete facts; just as the Hindus think that a

girl is properly married by going through the ceremony with an arrow

or a flower, and that the fact of two children being suckled by the

same woman, though she is not their mother, establishes a tie akin

to consanguinity between them, so they might have thought that the

fact of a boy being born in a man's house constituted him the man's

son. Subsequently, however, the view came to be held that the clan

blood was communicated directly through the father, to whom the life

of the child was solely assigned in the early patriarchal period. And

the chastity of married women then became of vital importance to the

community, because the lack of it would cause strangers to be born

into the clan, which now based its tie of kinship on descent from

a common male ancestor. Thus the adultery of women became a crime

which would undermine the foundations of society and the state,

and as such was sometimes punished with death among communities

in the early patriarchal stage. It is this view, and not simply

moral principle, which has led to the severe caste penalties for the

offence. Some of the primitive tribes care nothing about the chastity

of unmarried girls, but punish unfaithful wives rigorously. Among the

Maria Gonds a man will murder his wife for infidelity, but girls are

commonly unchaste. Another rule sometimes found is that an unmarried

girl becoming with child by an outsider is put out of caste for the

time. When her child, which does not belong to the caste, has been

born, she must make it over to some outside family, and she herself

can then be readmitted to the community. Out of the view of adultery

as a religious and social offence, a moral regard for chastity is

however developing among the Hindus as it has in other societies.

94. The status of impurity.

It has been seen that the Sudras as well as the plebeians were regarded

as impure, and the reason was perhaps that they were considered to

belong to a hostile god. By their participation in the sacrifice

and partaking of the sacrificial food, the Indian Aryans and other

races considered that they were not only in fellowship with, but

actually a part of the god. And similarly their enemies were part

of the substance of a hostile god, whose very existence and contact

were abhorrent to their own. Hence their enemies should as far as

possible be completely exterminated, but when this was impossible

they must dwell apart and not pollute by contact of their persons,

or in any other way, the sacred soil on which the gods dwelt, nor

the persons of those who became part of the substance of the god by

participation in the sacrificial meal. For this reason the plebeians

had to live outside the Roman city, which was all sacred ground, and

the Sudras and modern impure castes have to live outside the village,

which is similarly sacred as the abode of the earth-goddess in her

form of the goddess of the land of that village. For the same reason

their contact had to be avoided by those who belonged to the village

and were united to the goddess by partaking of the crops which she

brought forth on her land. As already seen, the belief existed that the

life and qualities could be communicated by contact, and in this case

the worshippers would assimilate by contact the life of a god hostile

to their own. In the same manner, as shown by M. Salomon Reinach in

_Cults, Myths and Religions_, all the weapons, clothes and material

possessions of the enemy were considered as impure, perhaps because

they also contained part of the life of a hostile god. As already seen,

[238] a man's clothing and weapons were considered to contain part

of his life by contact, and since the man was united to the god by

partaking of the sacrificial feast, all the possessions of the enemy

might be held to participate in the life of the hostile god, and hence

they could not be preserved, nor taken by the victors into their own

houses or dwellings. This was the offence which Achan committed when

he hid in his tent part of the spoils of Jericho; and in consequence

Jehovah ceased to be with the children of Israel when they went up

against Ai, that is ceased to be in them, and they could not stand

before the enemy. Achan and his family were stoned and his property

destroyed by fire and the impurity was removed. For the same reason the

ancient Gauls and Germans destroyed all the spoils of war or burned

them, or buried them in lakes where they are still found. At a later

stage the Romans, instead of destroying the spoils of war, dedicated

them to their own gods, perhaps as a visible sign of the conquest and

subjection of the enemy's gods; and they were hung in temples or on

oak-trees, where they could not be touched except in the very direst

need, as when Rome was left without arms after Cannae. Subsequently

the spoils were permitted to decorate the houses of the victorious

generals, where they remained sacred and inviolable heirlooms. [239]

95. Caste and Hinduism.

In _The Religions of India_ M. Barth defined a Hindu as a man

who has a caste: 'The man who is a member of a caste is a Hindu;

he who is not, is not a Hindu.' His definition remains perhaps the

best. There is practically no dogma which is essential to Hinduism,

nor is the veneration of any deity or sacred object either necessary

or heretical. As has often been pointed out, there is no assembly more

catholic or less exclusive than the Hindu pantheon. Another writer

has said that the three essentials of a Hindu are to be a member

of a caste, to venerate Brahmans, and to hold the cow sacred. Of

the latter two, the veneration of Brahmans cannot be considered

indispensable; for there are several sects, as the Lingayats, the

Bishnois, the Manbhaos, the Kabirpanthis and others, who expressly

disclaim any veneration for Brahmans, and, in theory at least, make

no use of their services; and yet the members of these sects are

by common consent acknowledged as Hindus. The sanctity of the bull

and cow is a more nearly universal dogma, and extends practically

to all Hindus, except the impure castes. These latter should not

correctly be classed as Hindus; the very origin of their status is,

as has been seen, the belief that they are the worshippers of gods

hostile to Hinduism. But still they must now practically be accounted

as Hindus. They worship the Hindu gods, standing at a distance when

they are not allowed to enter the temples, perform their ceremonies

by Hindu rites, and employ Brahmans for fixing auspicious days,

writing the marriage invitation and other business, which the Brahman

is willing to do for a consideration, so long as he does not have to

enter their houses. Some of the impure castes eat beef, while others

have abandoned it in order to improve their social position. At the

other end of the scale are many well-educated Hindu gentlemen who

have no objection to eat beef and may often have done so in England,

though in India they may abstain out of deference to the prejudices

of their relatives, especially the women. And Hindus of all castes

are beginning to sell worn-out cattle to the butchers for slaughter

without scruple--an offence which fifty years ago would have entailed

permanent expulsion from caste. The reverence for the cow is thus not

an absolutely essential dogma of Hinduism, though it is the nearest

approach to one. As a definition or test of Hinduism it is, however,

obviously inadequate. Caste, on the other hand, regulates the whole of

a Hindu's life, his social position and, usually, his occupation. It

is the only tribunal which punishes religious and social offences,

and when a man is out of caste he has, for so long as this condition

continues, no place in Hinduism. Theoretically he cannot eat with any

other Hindu nor marry his child to any Hindu. If he dies out of caste

the caste-men will not bury or burn his body, which is regarded as

impure. The binding tie of caste is, according to the argument given

above, the communal meal or feast of grain cooked with water, and this,

it would therefore seem, may correctly be termed the chief religious

function of Hinduism. Caste also obtains among the Jains and Sikhs,

but Sikhism is really little more than a Hindu sect, while the Jains,

who are nearly all Banias, scarcely differ from Vaishnava Hindu Banias,

and have accepted caste, though it is not in accordance with the real

tenets of their religion. The lower industrial classes of Muhammadans

have also formed castes in imitation of the Hindus. Many of these

are however the descendants of converted Hindus, and nearly all of

them have a number of Hindu practices.

96. The Hindu reformers.