THE NATURE OF THE MORAL EMOTIONS
IN the preceding chapter it was asserted, in general terms, that the
moral concepts are based on emotions, and the leading arguments to the
contrary were met. We shall now proceed to examine the nature of the
moral emotions.
These emotions are of two kinds: disapproval, or indignation, and
approval. They have in common characteristics which make them moral
emotions, in distinction from others of a non-moral character, but at
the same time both of them belong to a wider class of emotions, which
I call retributive emotions. Again, they differ from each other in
points which make each of them allied to certain non-moral retributive
emotions, disapproval to anger and revenge, and approval to that kind
of retributive kindly emotion which in its most developed form is
gratitude. They may thus, on the one hand, be regarded as two distinct
divisions of the moral emotions, whilst, on the other hand,
disapproval, like anger and revenge, forms a sub-species of
resentment, and approval, like gratitude, forms a sub-species of
retributive kindly emotion. The following diagram will help to
elucidate the matter:--
Retributive Emotions.
|
----------------------------------------
| |
Resentment. Retributive Kindly Emotion.
| |
----------------- ---------------------------
| | | |
Anger and Moral Moral Non-moral retributive
Revenge. disapproval. approval Kindly Emotion,
| | including Gratitude.
---------------
|
Moral Emotions.
{22} That moral disapproval is a kind of resentment and akin to anger
and revenge, and that moral approval is a kind of retributive kindly
emotion and akin to gratitude, are, of course, statements which call
for proof. An analysis of all these emotions, and a detailed study of
the causes which evoke them, will, I hope, bear out the correctness of
my classification. In this connection only the analysis can be
attempted. The study of causes will be involved in the treatment of
the subjects of moral judgments.
Resentment may be described as an aggressive attitude of mind towards
a cause of pain. Anger is sudden resentment, in which the hostile
reaction against the cause of pain is unrestrained by deliberation.
Revenge, on the other hand, is a more deliberate form of non-moral
resentment, in which the hostile reaction is more or less restrained
by reason and calculation.[1] It is impossible, however, to draw any
distinct limit between these two types of resentment, as also to
discern where an actual desire to inflict pain comes in. In its
primitive form, anger, even when directed against a living being,
contains a vehement impulse to remove the cause of pain without any
real desire to produce suffering.[2] Anger is strikingly shown by many
fish, and notoriously by sticklebacks when their territory is invaded
by other sticklebacks. In such circumstances of provocation the whole
animal changes colour, and, darting at the trespasser, shows rage and
fury in every movement;[3] but we can hardly believe that any idea of
inflicting pain is present to its mind. As we proceed still lower down
the scale of animal life we find the conative element itself gradually
dwindle away until nothing is left but mere reflex action.
[Footnote 1: _Cf._ Ribot, _Psychology of the Emotions_, p. 220 _sqq._]
[Footnote 2: There are some good remarks on this in Mr. Hiram
Stanley's _Studies in the Evolutionary Psychology of Feeling_,
p. 138 _sq._]
[Footnote 3: Romanes, _Animal Intelligence_, p. 246 _sqq._]
That the fury of an injured animal turns against the real or assumed
cause of its injury is a matter of notoriety, and everybody knows that
the same is the case with the {23} anger of a child. No doubt, as
Professor Sully observes, "hitting out right and left, throwing things
down on the floor and breaking them, howling, wild agitated movements
of the arms and whole body, these are the outward vents which the gust
of childish fury is apt to take."[4] But, on the other hand, we know
well enough that Darwin's little boy, who became a great adept at
throwing books and sticks at any one who offended him,[5] was in this
respect no exceptional child. Towards the age of one year, according
to M. Perez, children "will beat people, animals, and inanimate
objects if they are angry with them; they will throw their toys, their
food, their plate, anything, in short, that is at hand, at the people
who have displeased them."[6] That a similar discrimination
characterises the resentment of a savage is a fact upon which it is
necessary to dwell at some length for the reason that it has been
disputed, and because there are some seeming anomalies which require
an explanation.
[Footnote 4: Sully, _Studies in Childhood_, p. 232 _sq._]
[Footnote 5: Darwin, 'Biographical Sketch of an Infant,' in _Mind_,
ii. 288.]
[Footnote 6: Perez, _first Three Years of Childhood_, p. 66 _sq._]
In a comprehensive work,[7] Dr. Steinmetz has made the feeling of
revenge the object of a detailed investigation, which cannot be left
unnoticed. The ultimate conclusions at which he has arrived are these:
Revenge is essentially rooted in the feeling of power and superiority.
It arises consequently upon the experience of injury, and its aim is
to enhance the "self-feeling" which has been lowered or degraded by
the injury suffered. It answers this purpose best if it is directed
against the aggressor himself, but it is not essential to it that it
should take any determinate direction, for, _per se_, and originally,
it is "undirected."[8]
[Footnote 7: _Ethnologische Studien zur ersten Entwicklung der
Strafe_.]
[Footnote 8: Strictly speaking, this theory is not new. Dr. Paul Rée,
in his book _Die Entstehung des Gewissens_, has pronounced revenge to
be a reaction against the feeling of inferiority which the aggressor
impresses upon his victim. The injured man, he says (_ibid._ p. 40) is
naturally reluctant to feel himself inferior to another man, and
consequently strives, by avenging the aggression, to show himself
equal or even superior to the aggressor. A similar view was previously
expressed by Schopenhauer (_Parerga und Paralipomena_, ii. 475 _sq._).
But Dr. Steinmetz has elaborated his theory with an independence and
fulness which make any question of priority quite insignificant.]
{24} We are told, in fact, that the first stage through which revenge
passed within the human race was characterised by a total, or almost
total, want of discrimination. The aim of the offended man was merely
to raise his injured "self-feeling" by inflicting pain upon somebody
else, and his savage desire was satisfied whether the man on whom he
wreaked his wrath was guilty or innocent.[9] No doubt, there were from
the outset instances in which the offender himself was purposely made
the victim, especially if he was a fellow-tribesman; but it was not
really due to the feeling of revenge if the suffering was inflicted
upon him, in preference to others. Even primitive man must have found
out that vengeance directed against the actual culprit, besides being
a strong deterrent to others, was a capital means of making a
dangerous person harmless. However, Dr. Steinmetz adds, these
advantages should not be overestimated, as even indiscriminate revenge
has a deterring influence on the malefactor.[10] In early times, then,
vengeance, according to Dr. Steinmetz, was in the main "undirected."
[Footnote 9: Steinmetz, _op. cit._ i. 355, 356, 359, 561.]
[Footnote 10: _Ibid._ i. 362.]
At the next stage it becomes, he says, somewhat less indiscriminate. A
proper victim is sought for even in cases of what we should call
natural death, which the savage generally attributes to the ill-will
of some foe skilled in sorcery;[11] though indeed Dr. Steinmetz doubts
whether in such cases the unfortunate sufferer is really supposed to
have committed the deed imputed to him.[12] At all events, a need is
felt of choosing somebody for a victim, and "undirected" vengeance
gradually gives way to "directed" vengeance. A rude specimen of this
is the blood-feud, in which the individual culprit is left out of
consideration, but war is carried on against the group of which he is
a member, either his family or his tribe. And {25} from this system of
joint responsibility we finally come, by slow degrees, says Dr.
Steinmetz, to the modern conception, according to which punishment
should be inflicted upon the criminal and nobody else.[13] Dr.
Steinmetz believes that the _vis agens_ in this long process of
evolution lies in the intellectual development of the human race: man
found out more and more distinctly that the best means of restraining
wrongs was to punish a certain person, namely, the wrong-doer.[14] On
this utilitarian calculation our author lays much stress in the latter
part of his investigation; whereas in another place he observes that a
revenge which is directed against the offender is particularly apt to
remove the feeling of inferiority, by effectually humiliating the
hitherto triumphant foe.[15]
[Footnote 11: _Ibid._ i. 356 _sq._]
[Footnote 12: _Ibid._ i. 359 _sq._]
[Footnote 13: Steinmetz, _op. cit._ i. 361.]
[Footnote 14: _Ibid._ i. 358, 359, 361 _sq._]
[Footnote 15: _Ibid._ i. 111.]
In this historical account the main points of interest are the initial
stage of "undirected" vengeance, and the way in which such vengeance
gradually became discriminate. If, in primitive times, a man did not
care in the least on whom he retaliated an injury, then of course the
direction of his vengeance could not be essential to the revenge
itself, but would be merely a later appendix to it. The question is,
what evidence can Dr. Steinmetz adduce to support his theory? Of
primitive man we have no direct experience; no savage people now
existing is a faithful representative of him, either physically or
mentally. Yet however greatly the human race has changed, primitive
man is not altogether dead. Traits of his character still linger in
his descendants; and of primitive revenge, we are told, there are
sufficient survivals left.[16]
[Footnote 16: _Ibid._ i. 364.]
Under the heading "Perfectly Undirected Revenge," Dr. Steinmetz
sets out several alleged cases of such so-called survivals[17] 1. An
Indian of the Omaha tribe, who was kicked out of a trading
establishment which he had been forbidden to enter, declared in a rage
that he would revenge himself for an injury so gross, and, "seeking
some object to destroy, he encountered a {26} sow and pigs, and
appeased his rage by putting them all to death." 2. The people of that
same tribe believe that if a man who has been struck by lightning is
not buried in the proper way, and in the place where he has been
killed, his spirit will not rest in peace, but will walk about till
another person is slain by lightning and laid beside him. 3. At the
burial of a Loucheux Indian, the relatives sometimes will cut and
lacerate their bodies, or, as sometimes happens, will, "in a fit of
revenge against fate," stab some poor, friendless person who may be
sojourning among them. 4. The Navahoes, when jealous of their wives,
are apt to wreak their spleen and ill-will upon the first person whom
they chance to meet. 5. The Great Eskimo, as it is reported, once
after a severe epidemic swore to kill all white people who might
venture into their country. 6. The Australian father, whose little
child happens to hurt itself, attacks his innocent neighbours,
believing that he thus distributes the pain among them and
consequently lessens the suffering of the child. 7. The Brazilian
Tupis ate the vermin which molested them, for the sake of revenge; and
if one of them struck his foot against a stone, he raged over it and
bit it, whilst, if he were wounded with an arrow, he plucked it out
and gnawed the shaft. 8. The Dacotahs avenge theft by stealing the
property of the thief or of somebody else. 9. Among the Tshatrali
(Pamir), if a man is robbed of his meat by a neighbour's dog, he will,
in a fit of rage, not only kill the offending dog, but will, in
addition, kick his own. 10. In New Guinea the bearers of evil tidings
sometimes get knocked on the head during the first outburst of
indignation evoked by their news. 11. Some natives of Motu, who had
rescued two shipwrecked crews and safely brought them to their home in
Port Moresby, were attacked there by the very friends of those they
had saved, the reason for this being that the Port Moresby people were
angry at the loss of the canoes, and could not bear that the Motuans
were happy while they themselves were in trouble. 12. Another story
from New Guinea tells us of a man who killed some innocent persons,
because he had been disappointed in his plans and deprived of valuable
property. 13. Among the Maoris it sometimes happened that the friends
of a murdered man killed the first man who came in their way, whether
enemy or friend. 14. Among the same people, chiefs who had suffered
some loss often used to rob their subjects of property in order to
make good the damage. 15. If the son of a Maori is hurt, his maternal
relatives, to whose tribe he is considered to belong, come to pillage
his father's house or village. 16. If {27} a tree falls on a Kuki his
fellows chop it up, and if one of that tribe kills himself by falling
from a tree the tree from which he fell is promptly cut down. 17. In
some parts of Daghestan, when the cause of a death is unknown, the
relatives of the deceased declare some person chosen at random to have
murdered him, and retaliate his death upon that person.
[Footnote 17: _Ibid._ i. 318 _sqq._]
I have been obliged to enumerate all these cases for the reason that a
theory cannot be satisfactorily refuted unless on its own ground. I
may confess at once that I scarcely ever saw an hypothesis vindicated
by the aid of more futile evidence. The cases 7 and 16 illustrate just
the reverse of "undirected" revenge, and, when we take into
consideration the animistic beliefs of savages, present little to
astonish us. In case 17 the guilt is certainly imputed to somebody at
random, but only when the culprit is unknown. Cases 1, 4, 10 and 12
and perhaps also 11, imply that revenge is taken upon an innocent
party in a fit of passion; in cases 1 and 12 the offender himself
cannot be got at, in case 10 the man who is knocked on the head
appears for the moment as the immediate cause of the grief or
indignation evoked, while case 11 exhibits envy combined with extreme
ingratitude. In case 9 the anger is chiefly directed against the
"guilty" dog, and against the "innocent" one evidently by an
association of ideas. Cases 8 and 14 illustrate indemnification for
loss of property, and in case 8 the thief himself is specifically
mentioned first. In case 15 the revenging attack is made upon the
property of those people among whom the child lives, and who may be
considered responsible for the loss its maternal clan sustains by the
injury. Case 6 merely shows the attempt of a superstitious father to
lessen the suffering of his child. As regards case 5, Petitot, who has
recorded it, says expressly that the white people were supposed to
have caused the epidemic by displeasing the god Tornrark.[18] Case 2
points to a superstitious belief which is interesting enough in
itself, but which, so far as I can see, is without any bearing
whatever on the point we are discussing. Case 3 looks like a
death-offering. The stabbing of an innocent person is mentioned in
connection with, or rather as an alternative to, the self-laceration
of the mourners, which last has probably a sacrificial character.
Moreover, there is in this case no question of a culprit. In case 13,
finally, the idea of sacrifice is very conspicuous. Dr. Steinmetz has
borrowed his statement from Waitz, whose account is incomplete.
Dieffenbach, the original authority, says that the custom in question
was called by the Maori _taua tapu_, _i.e._, sacred fight, {28} or
_taua toto_, _i.e._, fight for blood. He describes it as follows:--"If
blood has been shed, a party sally forth and kill the first person
they fall in with, whether an enemy or belonging to their own tribe;
even a brother is sacrificed. If they do not fall in with anybody, the
_tohunga_ (that is, the priest) pulls up some grass, throws it into a
river, and repeats some incantation. After this ceremony, the killing
of a bird, or any living thing that comes in their way, is regarded as
sufficient, provided that blood is actually shed. All who participate
in such an excursion are _tapu_, and are not allowed either to smoke
or to eat anything but indigenous food."[19] It seems probable that
this ceremony was undertaken in order to appease the enraged spirit of
the dead,[20] and at the same time it may have been intended to
refresh the spirit with blood.[21] The question, however, is, Why was
not his death avenged upon the actual culprit? To this Dr. Steinmetz
would answer that the deceased was thought to be indiscriminate in his
craving for vengeance.[22] But so far as the resentment of the dead is
concerned, the "sacred fight" of the Maoris only seems to illustrate
the impulsive character of anger. From Dieffenbach's description of
it, it is obvious that the friends of the slain man considered it to
be a matter of paramount importance that blood should be shed
immediately. If no human being came in their way, an animal was
killed, but then an incantation was uttered beforehand. I presume that
the reason for this was the terror which the supposed wrath of the
dead man's spirit struck into the living, combined perhaps with the
idea that it was in immediate need of fresh blood. The Maoris
considered all spirits of the dead to be maliciously inclined towards
them,[23] and the ghost of a person who had died a violent death was
certainly looked upon as especially dangerous. The craving for
instantaneous shedding of blood is even more conspicuous in another
case which may be appropriately mentioned in this connection. The
Aetas of the Philippine Islands, we are told, "do not always {29} wait
for the death of the afflicted before they bury him. Immediately after
the body has been deposited in the grave, it becomes necessary,
according to their usages, that his death should be avenged. The
hunters of the tribe go out with their lances and arrows to kill the
first living creature they meet with, whether a man, a stag, a wild
hog, or a buffalo."[24] Dr. Steinmetz himself quotes some other
instances from the same group of islands, in which, when a man dies,
his nearest kinsmen go out to requite his death by the death of the
first man who comes in their way.[25] It is worth noticing that the
Philippine Islanders have the very worst opinion of their ghosts, and
believe that these are particularly bloodthirsty soon after death.[26]
[Footnote 18: Petitot, _Les Grands Esqimaux_, p. 207 _sq._]
[Footnote 19: Dieffenbach, _Travels in New Zealand_, ii. 127.]
[Footnote 20: _Cf._ _ibid._ ii. 129.]
[Footnote 21: The latter object is suggested by some funeral
ceremonies which will be noticed in a following chapter. Among the
Dyaks, "a father who lost his child would go out and kill the first
man he met, as a funeral ceremony," believing that he thus provided
the deceased with a slave to accompany him to the habitation of souls
(Tylor, _Primitive Culture_, i. 459). Among the Garos, it was formerly
the practice, "whenever the death of a great man amongst them
occurred, to send out a party of assassins to murder and bring back
the head of the first Bengali they met. The victims so immolated
would, it was supposed, be acceptable to their gods" (Dalton,
_Descriptive Ethnology of Bengal_, p. 68).]
[Footnote 22: _Cf._ Steinmetz, _op. cit._ i. 343.]
[Footnote 23: Taylor, _Te Ika a Maui_, p. 221.]
[Footnote 24: Earl, _Papuans_, p. 132.]
[Footnote 25: Steinmetz, _op. cit._ i. 335 _sq._]
[Footnote 26: Blumentritt, 'Der Ahnencultus der Malaien des
Philippinen-Archipels' in _Mittheilungen der Geogr. Gesellsch. in
Wien_, xxv. 166 _sqq._ De Mas, _Informe sobre el estado de las Islas
filipinas en 1842_, _Orijen, &c._ p. 15.]
Dr. Steinmetz also refers to some statements according to which, among
certain Australian tribes, the relatives of a person who dies avenge
his death by killing an innocent man.[27] But in these cases the
avenged death, though "natural" according to our terminology, is, in
the belief of the savages, caused by sorcery, and the revenge is not
so indiscriminate as Dr. Steinmetz seems to assume. Among the
Wellington tribe, as appears from a statement which he quotes himself,
it is the sorcerer's life that must be taken for satisfaction.[28] In
New South Wales, after the dead man has been interrogated as to the
cause of his death, his kinsmen are resolute in taking vengeance, if
they "imagine that they have got sure indications of the perpetrator
of the wrong."[29] Among the Central Australian natives, "not
infrequently the dying man will whisper in the ear of a _Railtchawa_,
or medicine man, the name of the man whose magic is killing him," and
if this be not done, "there is no difficulty, by some other method, of
fixing sooner or later on the guilty party"; but only after the
culprit has been revealed by the medicine man is it decided by a
council of the old men whether an avenging party is to be arranged or
not.[30] Among the aborigines of West Australia, the survivors are
"pretty busy in seeking out" the sorcerer who is supposed to have
caused the death of their friend.[31]
[Footnote 27: Steinmetz, _op. cit._ i. 337 _sq._]
[Footnote 28: Hale, _U.S. Exploring Expedition Vol. VI.--Ethnography
and Philology_, p. 115; quoted by Steinmetz, _op. cit._ i. 337.]
[Footnote 29: Fraser, _Aborigines of New South Wales_, p. 86.]
[Footnote 30: Spencer and Gillen, _Native Tribes of Central
Australia_, p. 476 _sq._]
[Footnote 31: Calvert, _Aborigines of Western Australia_, p. 20 _sq._]
{30} To sum up: all the facts which Dr. Steinmetz has adduced as
evidence for his hypothesis of an original stage of "undirected"
revenge only show that, under certain circumstances, either in a fit
of passion, or when the actual offender is unknown or out of reach,
revenge may be taken on an innocent being, wholly unconnected with the
inflicter of the injury which it is sought to revenge. There is such
an intimate connection between the experience of injury and the
hostile reaction by which the injured individual gives vent to his
passion, that the reaction does not fail to appear even when it misses
its aim. Anger, as Seneca said, "does not rage merely against its
object, but against every obstacle which it encounters on its
way."[32] Many infants, when angry and powerless to hurt others,
"strike their heads against doors, posts, walls of houses, and
sometimes on the floor."[33] Well known are the "amucks" of the
Malays, in which "the desperado assails indiscriminately friend and
foe," and, with dishevelled hair and frantic look, murders or wounds
all whom he meets without distinction.[34] But all this is not
revenge; it is sudden anger or blind rage. Nor is it revenge in the
true sense of the word if a person who has been humiliated by his
superior retaliates on those under him. It is only the outburst of a
wounded "self-feeling," which, when not directed against its proper
object, can afford no adequate consolation to a revengeful man.
[Footnote 32: Seneca, _De ira_, iii. 1.]
[Footnote 33: Stanley Hall, 'A Study of Anger,' in _American Jour. of
Psychology_, x. 554.]
[Footnote 34: Crawfurd, _History of the Indian Archipelago_, i. 67.
_Cf._ Ellis, 'The Amok of the Malays,' in _Jour. of Mental Science_,
xxxix. 325 _sqq._ In the Andaman Islands, it is not uncommon for a man
"to vent his ill-temper, or show his resentment at any act, by
destroying his own property as well as that of his neighbours" (Man,
'Aboriginal Inhabitants of the Andaman Islands,' in _Jour. Anthr.
Inst._ xii. 111). Among the Kar Nicobarese, when a quarrel takes
place, in serious cases, a man will probably burn his own house down
(Kloss, _In the Andamans and Nicobars_, p. 310). But in these
instances it is not certain whether the offended party destroys his
own property in blind rage, or with some definite object in view.]
In the institution of the blood-feud some sort of collective
responsibility is usually involved.[35] If the {31} offender is of
another family than his victim, some of his relatives may have to
expiate his deed.[36] If he belongs to another clan, the whole clan
may be held responsible for it.[37] And if he is a member of another
tribe, the vengeance may be wreaked upon his fellow-tribesmen
indiscriminately.[38]
[Footnote 35: _Cf._ Post, _Anfänge des Staats- und Rechtsleben_,
p. 180; Rée, _op. cit._ p. 49 _sq._; Steinmetz, _op. cit._ i. ch. vi.]
[Footnote 36: Besides the authorities quoted _infra_, see Leuschner,
in Steinmetz, _Rechtsverhältnisse von eingeborenen Völkern in Afrika
und Ozeanien_, (Bakwiri); _ibid._ p. 49 (Banaka and Bapuku); Rautanen,
_ibid._ p. 341 (Ondonga); Walter, _ibid._ p. 390 (natives of Nossi-Bé
and Mayotte, near Madagascar); von Langsdorf, _Voyages and Travels_,
i. 132 (Nukahivans); Forbes, _A Naturalist's Wanderings in the Eastern
Archipelago_, p. 473 (Timorese); Foreman, _Philippine Islands_, p. 213
(Igorrotes of Luzon); Kovalewsky, in _Jour. Anthr. Inst._ xxv. 113
(people of Daghestan); _Idem_, _Coutume contemporaine et loi
ancienne_, p. 248 _sq._ (Ossetes); Merzbacher, _Aus den Hochregionen
des Kaukasus_, ii. 51 (Khevsurs).]
[Footnote 37: Bridges, in _A Voice for South America_, xiii. 207
(Fuegians). Dorsey, 'Omaha Sociology,' in _Ann. Rep. Bur. Ethn._
iii. 369. Ridley, in _Jour. Anthr. Inst._ ii. 268 (Kamilaroi in
Australia). Godwin-Austen, _ibid._ ii. 394 (Garo Hill tribes).]
[Footnote 38: von Martins, _Beiträge zur Ethnographie Amerika's_,
i. 127 _sqq._ (Brazilian Indians). Crawfurd, _op. cit._ iii. 124
(natives of Celebes). Kohler, in _Zeitschr. f. vgl. Rechtswiss._
vii. 383 (Goajiros of Columbia). _Ibid._ vii. 376 (Papuans of New
Guinea). Curr, _The Australian Race_, i. 70. Scaramucci and Giglioli,
'Notizie sui Danakil,' in _Archivio per l'antropologia e la etnologia_,
xiv. 39. Leuschner, in Steinmetz, _Rechtsverhältnisse_, p. 23 (Bakwiri).
_Ibid._ p. 49 (Banaka and Bapuku).]
"Among the Fuegians," says Mr. Bridges, "etiquette and custom
require that all the relatives of a murdered person should . . . visit
their displeasure upon every connection of the manslayers, each
personally." The avengers of blood would by no means be satisfied with
a party of natives if they should actually deliver up into their hands
a manslayer, or kill him themselves, "but would yet exact from all the
murderer's friends tribute or infliction of injuries with sticks or
stones."[39] Among the Indians of British Columbia and Vancouver
Island, "grudges are handed down from father to son for generations,
and friendly relations are never free from the risk of being
interrupted."[40] Among the Greenlanders, the revenge for a murder
generally "costs the executioner himself, his children, cousins, or
other relatives their lives; or if these are inaccessible, some other
acquaintance in the neighbourhood."[41] Among the Maoris,
blood-revenge might be taken on any relative of the homicide, "no
matter how distant."[42] In Tana, {32} revenge "is often sought in the
death of the brother, or some other near relative of the culprit."[43]
Among the Kabyles, "la vengeance peut porter sur chacun des membres de
la famille du meurtrier, quel qu'il soit."[44] The Bedouins, according
to Burckhardt, "claim the blood not only from the actual homicide, but
from all his relations; and it is these claims that constitute the
right of _thár_, or the blood-revenge."[45] Among the people of Ibrim,
in Nubia, on the other hand, the same traveller observes, "it is not
considered as sufficient to retaliate upon any person within the fifth
degree of consanguinity, as among the Bedouins of Arabia; only the
brother, son, or first cousin can supply the place of the
murderer."[46] Traces of collective responsibility in connection with
blood-revenge are found among the Hebrews.[47] It has prevailed, or
still prevails, among the Japanese[48] and Coreans,[49] the
Persians[50] and Hindus,[51] the ancient Greeks[52] and Teutons.[53]
It was a rule among the Welsh[54] and the Scotch in former days,[55]
and is so still in Corsica,[56] Albania,[57] and among some of the
Southern Slavs.[58] In Montenegro, if a homicide who cannot be caught
himself has no relatives, revenge is sometimes taken on some
inhabitant of the village or district to which he belongs, or even on
a person who only is of the same religion and nationality as the
murderer.[59] In Albania, under similar circumstances, the victim may
be a person who has had nothing else to do with the offender than that
he has perhaps once been speaking to him.[60]
[Footnote 39: Bridges, in _South American Missionary Magazine_,
xiii. 151 _sqq._]
[Footnote 40: Macfie, _Vancouver Island and British Columbia_, p. 470.]
[Footnote 41: Cranz, _History of Greenland_, i. 178.]
[Footnote 42: Shortland, _Traditions and Superstitions of the New
Zealanders_, p. 213 _sq._ _Cf._ _ibid._ p. 218 _sq._]
[Footnote 43: Turner, _Samoa_, p. 317.]
[Footnote 44: Hanoteau and Letourneux, _La Kabylie_, iii. 61.]
[Footnote 45: Burckhardt, _Notes on the Bedouins and Wahábys_, p. 85.
See, also, Layard, _Discoveries in the Ruins of Nineveh and Babylon_,
p. 306; Lane, _Manners and Customs of the Modern Egyptians_, i. 133.]
[Footnote 46: Burckhardt, _Travels in Nubia_, p. 128.]
[Footnote 47: _2 Samuel_, xiv. 7. _Cf._ _ibid._ xxi.]
[Footnote 48: Dautremer, 'The Vendetta or Legal Revenge in Japan,' in
_Trans. Asiatic Soc. Japan_, xiii. 84.]
[Footnote 49: Griffis, _Corea_, p. 227.]
[Footnote 50: Spiegel, _Erânische Alterthumskunde_, iii. 687. Polak,
_Persien_, ii. 96.]
[Footnote 51: Dubois, _Description of the Character, Manners, and
Customs of the People of India_, p. 195.]
[Footnote 52: Leist, _Alt-arisches Jus Gentium_, p. 424.]
[Footnote 53: _Gotlands-Lagen_, 13.]
[Footnote 54: Walter, _Das alte Wales_, p. 138.]
[Footnote 55: Mackintosh, _History of Civilisation in Scotland_,
ii. 279.]
[Footnote 56: Gregorovius, _Wanderings in Corsica_, i. 179.]
[Footnote 57: Gop[vc]evi['c], _**Oberalbanien und seine Liga_,
p. 324 _sqq._]
[Footnote 58: Miklosich, 'Die Blutrache bei den Slaven,' in
_Denkschriften der kaiserl. Akademie d. Wissensch. Philos.-histor.
Classe_, Vienna, xxxvi. 131, 146 _sq._ Krauss, _Sitte und Brauch der
Südslaven_, p. 39.]
[Footnote 59: Lago, _Memorie sulla Dalmazia_, ii. 90.]
[Footnote 60: Gop[vc]evi['c], _op. cit._ p. 325.]
There is no difficulty in explaining these facts. The following
statement made by Mr. Romilly with reference {33} to the Solomon
Islanders has, undoubtedly, a much wider application:--"In the cases
which call for punishment, the difficulties in the way of capturing
the actual culprits are greater than any one, who has not been engaged
in this disagreeable work, can imagine."[61] Though it may happen that
a manslayer is abandoned by his own people,[62] the system of
blood-revenge more often seems to imply, not only that all the members
of a group are engaged, more or less effectually, in the act of
revenge, but that they mutually protect each other against the
avengers. A homicide frequently provokes a war,[63] in which family
stands against family, clan against clan, or tribe against tribe. In
such cases the whole group take upon themselves the deed of the
perpetrator, and any of his fellows, because standing up for him,
becomes a proper object of revenge. The guilt extends itself, as it
were, in the eyes of the offended party. So, also, any person who
lives on friendly terms with the offender, or is supposed to
sympathise with him, is liable to arouse a feeling of resentment, and
may consequently, in extreme cases, have to expiate his crime.
Moreover, because of the close relationship which exists between the
members of the sam__e group, the actual culprit will be mortified by any
successful attack that the avengers make on his people, and, if he be
dead, its painful and humiliating effects may still be supposed to
reach his spirit. "When the offender himself is beyond the reach of
direct attack," says Mr. Wilkins, "it is not beneath a Bengali's view
to try to wound him through his children or other members of his
family."[64] Among the South Slavonians, in a similar case, the
avengers of blood first attempt to kill the father, brother, {34} or
grown-up son of the murderer, "so as to inflict upon him a very heavy
and painful loss"; and only when this has been tried in vain, are more
distant relatives attacked.[65] The Bedouins of the Euphrates even
prefer killing the chief man among the murderer's relations within the
second degree to taking his own life, on the principle, "You have
killed my cousin, I will kill yours."[66] And the Californian Nishinam
"consider that the keenest and most bitter revenge which a man can
take is, not to slay the murderer himself, but his dearest
friend."[67] In these instances vengeance is exacted with reference
rather to the loss suffered by the survivors than to the injury
committed against the murdered man, the culprit being subjected to a
deprivation similar to that which he has inflicted himself. So, also,
among the Marea, if a commoner is slain by a nobleman, his death is
not avenged directly on the slayer, but on some commoner who is
subservient to him.[68] If, again, among the Quianganes of Luzon, a
noble is killed by a plebeian, another nobleman, of the kin of the
murderer, must be killed, while the murderer himself is ignored.[69]
If, among the Igorrotes, a man slays a woman of another house, her
nearest kinsman endeavours to slay a woman belonging to the household
of the homicide, but to the guilty man himself he does nothing.[70] In
all these cases the culprit is not lost sight of; vengeance is
invariably wreaked upon somebody connected with him. But any
consideration of guilt or innocence is overshadowed by the blind
subordination to that powerful rule which requires strict equivalence
between injury and punishment--an eye for an eye and a tooth for a
tooth--and which, when strained to the utmost, cannot allow the life
of a man to be sacrificed for that of a woman, or the life of a
nobleman to be {35} sacrificed for that of a commoner, or the life of
a commoner to expiate the death of a noble. This rule, as we shall see
later on, is not suggested by revenge itself, but is due to the
influence of other factors which intermingle with this feeling, and
help, with it, to determine the action.
[Footnote 61: Romilly, _Western Pacific and New Guinea_, p. 81. _Cf._
Friedrichs, 'Mensch und Person,' in _Das Ausland_, 1891, p. 299.]
[Footnote 62: See, _e.g._, Scott Robertson, _The Káfirs of the
Hindu-Kush_, p. 440.]
[Footnote 63: Dr. Post's statement (_Die Geschlechtsgenossenschaft der
Urzeit_, p. 156) that the blood-revenge "characterisirt sich . . . ganz
und gar als ein Privatkrieg zwischen zwei Geschlechtsgenossenschaften,"
however, is not quite correct in this unqualified form, as may be
seen, _e.g._, from von Martius's description of the blood-revenge of
the Brazilian Indians, _op. cit._ i. 127 _sqq._]
[Footnote 64: Wilkins, _Modern Hinduism_, p. 411.]
[Footnote 65: Krauss, _op. cit._ p. 39.]
[Footnote 66: Blunt, _Bedouin Tribes of the Euphrates_, ii. 206 _sq._]
[Footnote 67: Powers, _Tribes of California_, p. 320.]
[Footnote 68: Munzinger, _Ostafrikanische Studien_, p. 243.]
[Footnote 69: Blumentritt, quoted by Spencer, _Principles of Ethics_,
i. 370 _sq._]
[Footnote 70: Jagor, _Travels in the Philippines_, p. 213.]
Nevertheless, the strong tendency to discrimination which
characterises resentment, is not wholly lost even behind the veil of
common responsibility. Mr. Howitt has come to the conclusion that,
among the Australian Kurnai, if a homicide has been committed by an
alien tribe, the feud "cannot be satisfied but by the death of the
offender," although it is carried on, not against him alone, but
against the whole group of which he is a member.[71] It is only "if
they fail to secure the guilty person" that the natives of Western
Victoria consider it their duty to kill one of his nearest
relatives.[72] Concerning the West Australian aborigines, Sir George
Grey observes, "The first great principle with regard to punishments
is, that all the relations of a culprit, in the event of his not being
found, are implicated in his guilt; if, therefore, the principal
cannot be caught, his brother or father will answer nearly as well,
and failing these, any other male or female relative, who may fall
into the hands of the avenging party."[73] Among the Papuans of the
Tami Islands, revenge may be taken on some other member of the
murderer's family only if it is absolutely impossible to catch the
guilty person himself.[74] That the blood-revenge is in the first
place directed against the malefactor, and against some relative of
his only if he cannot be found out, is expressly stated with reference
to various peoples in different parts of the world;[75] and it is {36}
probable that much more to the same effect might have been discovered,
if the observers of savage life had paid more attention to this
particular aspect of the matter. Among the Fuegians, the most serious
riots take place when a manslayer, whom some one wishes to punish,
takes refuge with his relations or friends.[76] Von Martius remarks of
the Brazilian Indians in general that, even when an intertribal war
ensues from the committing of homicide, the nearest relations of the
killed person endeavour, if possible, to destroy the culprit himself
and his family.[77] With reference to the Creek Indians, Mr. Hawkins
says that though, if a murderer flies and cannot be caught, they will
take revenge upon some innocent individual belonging to his family,
they are "generally earnest of themselves, in their endeavours to put
the guilty to death."[78] The same is decidedly the case in those
parts of Morocco where the blood-feud still prevails.
[Footnote 71: Fison and Howitt, _Kamilaroi and Kurnai_, p. 221.]
[Footnote 72: Dawson, _Australian Aborigines_, p. 71.]
[Footnote 73: Grey, _Journals of Expeditions_, ii. 239.]
[Footnote 74: Bamler, quoted by Kohler, in _Zeitschr. f. vergl.
Rechtswiss._ xiv. 380.]
[Footnote 75: Riedel, _De sluik- en kroesharige rassen tusschen
Selebes en Papua_, p. 434 (natives of Wetter). Chalmers, _Pioneering
in New Guinea_, p. 179. Kohler, in _Zeitschr. f. vergl. Rechtswiss._
xiv. 446 (some Marshall Islanders). Merker, quoted by Kohler, _ibid._
xv. 53 _sq._ (Wadshagga). Brett, _Indian Tribes of Guiana_, p. 357.
Bernau, _Missionary Labours in British Guiana_, p. 57. Dall, _Alaska_,
p. 416. Boas, 'The Central Eskimo,' in _Ann. Rep. Bur. Ethn._ vi. 582.
Jacob, _Leben der vorislâmischen Beduinen_, p. 144. Kovalewsky,
_Coutume contemporaine_, p. 248 (Ossetes). Popovi['c], _Recht und
Gericht in Montenegro_, p. 69; Lago, _op. cit._ ii. 90 (Montenegrines).
Miklosich, _loc. cit._ p. 131 (Slavs). Wilda, _Strafrecht der Germanen_,
p. 173 _sq._ (ancient Teutons).]
[Footnote 76: Hyades and Deniker, _Mission scientifique du Cap Horn_,
vii. 375.]
[Footnote 77: von Martius, _op. cit._ i. 128.]
[Footnote 78: Hawkins, in _Trans. American Ethn. Soc._ iii. 67.]
Not only has Dr. Steinmetz failed to prove his hypothesis that revenge
was originally "undirected," but this hypothesis is quite opposed to
all the most probable ideas we can form with regard to the revenge of
early man. For my own part I am convinced that we may obtain a good
deal of knowledge about the primitive condition of the human race, but
not by studying modern savages only. I have dealt with this question
at some length in another place,[79] and wish now merely to point out
that those general physical and psychical qualities which are not only
common to all races of mankind, but which are shared by them with the
animals most allied to man, may be assumed to have been present also
in the earlier stages of {37} human development. Now, concerning
revenge among animals, more especially among monkeys, many anecdotes
have been told by trustworthy authorities, and in every case the
revenge has been clearly directed against the offender.
[Footnote 79: _History of Human Marriage_, p. 3 _sqq._]
On the authority of a zoologist "whose scrupulous accuracy was
known to many persons," Darwin relates the following story:--"At the
Cape of Good Hope an officer had often plagued a certain baboon, and
the animal, seeing him approaching one Sunday for parade, poured water
into a hole and hastily made some thick mud, which he skilfully dashed
over the officer as he passed by, to the amusement of many bystanders.
For long afterwards the baboon rejoiced and triumphed whenever he saw
his victim."[80] Prof. Romanes considers this to be a good instance of
"what may be called brooding resentment deliberately preparing a
satisfactory revenge."[81] This, I think, is to put into the statement
somewhat more than it really contains; but at all events it records a
case of revenge, in the sense in which Dr. Steinmetz uses the word.
The same may be said of other instances mentioned by so accurate
observers as Brehm and Rengger in their descriptions of African and
American monkeys, and of various examples of resentment in elephants
and even in camels.[82] According to Palgrave, the camel possesses the
passion of revenge, and in carrying it out "shows an unexpected degree
of far-thoughted malice, united meanwhile with all the cold stupidity
of his usual character." The following instance, which occurred in a
small Arabian town, deserves to be quoted, since it seems to have
escaped the notice of the students of animal psychology. "A lad of
about fourteen had conducted a large camel, laden with wood, from that
very village to another at half an hour's distance or so. As the {38}
animal loitered or turned out of the way, its conductor struck it
repeatedly, and harder than it seems to have thought he had a right to
do. But not finding the occasion favourable for taking immediate
quits, it 'bode its time'; nor was that time long in coming. A few
days later the same lad had to re-conduct the beast, but unladen, to
his own village. When they were about half way on the road, and at
some distance from any habitation, the camel suddenly stopped, looked
deliberately round in every direction, to assure itself that no one
was within sight, and, finding the road far and near clear of
passers-by, made a step forward, seized the unlucky boy's head in its
monstrous mouth, and lifting him up in the air flung him down again on
the earth with the upper part of his skull completely torn off, and
his brains scattered on the ground."[83] We are also told that
elephants, though very sensitive to insults, are never provoked, even
under the most painful or distracting circumstances, to hurt those
from whom they have received no harm.[84] Sometimes animals show a
remarkable degree of discrimination in finding out the proper object
for their resentment. It is hardly surprising to read that a baboon,
which was molested in its cage with a stick, tried to seize, not the
stick, but the hand of its tormentor.[85] More interesting is the
"revenge" which an elephant at Versailles inflicted upon a certain
artist who had employed his servant to tease the animal by making a
feint of throwing apples into its mouth:--"This conduct enraged the
elephant; and, as if it knew that the painter was the cause of this
teasing impertinence, instead of attacking the servant, it eyed the
master, and squirted at him from its trunk such a quantity of water as
spoiled the paper on which he was drawing."[86]
[Footnote 80: Darwin, _Descent of Man_, p. 69.]
[Footnote 81: Romanes, _Animal Intelligence_, p. 478.]
[Footnote 82: Brehm, _Thierleben_, i. 156. _Idem_, _From North Pole to
Equator_, p. 305. Rengger (_Naturgeschichte der Säugethiere von
Paraguay_, p. 52) gives the following information about the
Cay:--"Fürchtet er . . . seinen Gegner, so nimmt er seine Zuflucht zur
Verstellung, und sucht sich erst dann an ihm zu rächen, wenn er ihn
unvermuthet überfallen kann. So hatte ich einen Cay, welcher mehrere
Personen die ihn oft auf eine grobe Art geneckt hatten, in einem
Augenblicke lass, wo sie im besten Vernehmen mit ihm zu sein glaubten.
Nach verübter That kletterte er schnell auf einen hohen Balken, wo man
ihm nicht beikommen konnte, und grinste schadenfroh den Gegenstand
seiner Rache an." See, moreover, Watson, _The Reasoning Power in
Animals_, especially pp. 20, 21, 24, 156 _sq._; Romanes, _op. cit._
p. 387 _sqq._; but also Morgan, _Animal Life and Intelligence_, p. 401
_sq._]
[Footnote 83: Palgrave, _Narrative of a Year's Journey through Central
and Eastern Arabia_, i. 40.]
[Footnote 84: Watson, _op. cit._ p. 26 _sq._]
[Footnote 85: Aas, _Sjaeleliv og intelligens hos Dyr_, i. 72.]
[Footnote 86: Smellie, _Philosophy of Natural History_, i. 448.]
I find it inconceivable that anybody, in the face of such facts, could
still believe that the revenge of early man was at first essentially
indiscriminating, and became gradually discriminating from
considerations of social expediency. But by this I certainly do not
mean to deny that violation of the "self-feeling" is an extremely
common and powerful incentive to resentment. It is so {39} among
savage[87] and civilised men alike; even dogs and monkeys get angry
when laughed at. Nothing more easily rouses in us anger and a desire
for retaliation, nothing is more difficult to forgive, than an act
which indicates contempt, or disregard of our feelings. Long after the
bodily pain of a blow has ceased, the mental suffering caused by the
insult remains and calls for vengeance. This is an old truth often
told. According to Seneca, "the greater part of the things which
enrage us are insults, not injuries."[88] Plutarch observes that,
though different persons fall into anger for different reasons, yet in
nearly all of them is to be found the idea of their being despised or
neglected.[89] "Contempt," says Bacon, "is that which putteth an edge
upon anger, as much, or more, than the hurt itself."[90] But, indeed,
there is no need to resort to different principles in order to explain
the resentment excited by different kinds of pain. In all cases
revenge implies, primordially and essentially, a desire to cause pain
or destruction in return for hurt suffered, whether the hurt be bodily
or mental; and, if to this impulse is added a desire to enhance the
wounded "self-feeling," that does not interfere with the true nature
of the primary feeling of revenge. There are genuine specimens of
resentment without the co-operation of self-regarding pride;[91] and,
on the other hand, the reaction of the wounded "self-feeling" is not
necessarily, in the first place, concerned with the infliction of
pain. If a person has written a bad book which is severely criticised,
he may desire to repair his reputation by writing a better book, not
by humiliating his critics; and if he attempts the latter rather than
the former, he does so, not merely in order to enhance his
"self-feeling," {40} but because he is driven on by revenge. Dr. Boas
tells us that the British Columbia Indian, when his feelings are hurt,
sits down or lies down sullenly for days without partaking of food,
and that, "when he rises his first thought is, not how to take
revenge, but to show that he is superior to his adversary.[92]
[Footnote 87: Turner, 'Ethnology of the Ungava District,' in _Ann.
Rep. Bur. Ethn._ xi. 270 (Hudson Bay Indians). Georgi, _Russia_, iii.
205 (Aleuts). Sarasin, _Ergebnisse naturwiss. Forschungen auf Ceylon_,
iii. 537 (Veddahs). von Wrede, _Reise in [H.]adhramaut_, p. 157
(Bedouins). Winterbottom, _Native Africans in the Neighbourhood of
Sierra Leone_, i. 211.]
[Footnote 88: Seneca, _De ira_, iii. 28.]
[Footnote 89: Plutarch, _De cohibenda ira_, 12.]
[Footnote 90: Bacon, 'Essay LVII. Of Anger,' in _Essays_, p. 514.]
[Footnote 91: Bain, _Emotions and the Will_, p. 177.]
[Footnote 92: Boas, _First General Report on the Indians of British
Columbia_, read at the Newcastle-upon-Tyne meeting of the British
Association, 1889, p. 19.]
In the feeling of gratification which results from successful
resentment, the pleasure of power or superiority also may form a very
important element, but it is never the exclusive element.[93] As the
satisfaction of every desire is accompanied by pleasure, so the
satisfaction of the desire involved in resentment gives a pleasure by
itself. The angry or revengeful man who succeeds in what he aims at,
delights in the pain he inflicts for the very reason that he desired
to inflict it.
[Footnote 93: _Cf._ Ribot, _op. cit._ p. 221 _sq._]
Revenge thus only forms a link in a chain of emotional phenomena, for
which "non-moral resentment" may be used as a common name. In this
long chain there is no missing link. Anger without any definite desire
to cause suffering, anger with such a desire, more deliberate
resentment--all these phenomena are so inseparably connected with each
other that no one can say where one passes into another. Their common
characteristic is that they are mental states marked by an aggressive
attitude towards the cause of pain.
As to their origin, the evolutionist can hardly entertain a doubt.
Resentment, like protective reflex action, out of which it has
gradually developed, is a means of protection for the animal. Its
intrinsic object is to remove a cause of pain, or, what is the same, a
cause of danger. Two different attitudes may be taken by an animal
towards another which has made it feel pain: it may either shun or
attack its enemy. In the former case its action is prompted by fear,
in the latter by anger, and it depends on the circumstances which of
these emotions is the actual {41} determinant. Both of them are of
supreme importance for the preservation of the species, and may
consequently be regarded as elements in the animal's mental
constitution which have been acquired by means of natural selection in
the struggle for existence. We have already noted that, originally,
the impulse of attacking the enemy could hardly have been guided by a
representation of the enemy as suffering. But, as a successful attack
is necessarily accompanied by such suffering, the desire to produce it
naturally, with the increase of intelligence, entered as an important
element in resentment. The need for protection thus lies at the
foundation of resentment in all its forms.
This view is not new. More than one hundred and fifty years before
Darwin, Shaftesbury wrote of resentment in these words:--"Notwithstanding
its immediate aim be indeed the ill or punishment of another, yet it
is plainly of the sort of those [affections] which tend to the
advantage and interest of the self-system, the animal himself; and is
withal in other respects contributing to the good and interest of the
species."[94] A similar opinion is expressed by Butler, according to
whom the reason and end for which man was made liable to anger is,
that he might be better qualified to prevent and resist violence and
opposition, while deliberate resentment "is to be considered as a
weapon, put into our hands by nature, against injury, injustice, and
cruelty."[95] Adam Smith, also, believes that resentment has "been
given us by nature for defence, and for defence only," as being "the
safeguard of justice and the security of innocence."[96] Exactly the
same view is taken by several modern evolutionists as regards the
"end" of resentment, though they, of course, do not rest contented
with saying that this feeling has been given us by nature, but try to
explain in what way it has developed. "Among members of the same
species," says Mr. Herbert Spencer, "those individuals which have not,
in any considerable degree, resented aggressions, must have ever
tended to disappear, and to have left behind those which have with
some effect made counter-aggressions."[97] Mr. {42} Hiram Stanley,
too, quoting Junker's statement regarding the pigmies of Africa, that
"they are much feared for their revengeful spirit,"[98] observes that,
"other things being equal, the most revengeful are the most successful
in the struggle for self-conservation and self-furtherance."[99] This
evolutionist theory of revenge has been criticised by Dr. Steinmetz,
but in my opinion with no success. He remarks that the _feeling_ of
revenge could not have been of any use to the animal, even though the
_act_ of vengeance might have been useful.[100] But this way of
reasoning, according to which the whole mental life would be excluded
from the influence of natural selection, is based on a false
conception of the relation between mind and body, and, ultimately, on
a wrong idea of cause and effect.
[Footnote 94: Shaftesbury, 'Inquiry concerning Virtue or Merit,' ii.
2. 2, in _Characteristicks_, ii. 145.]
[Footnote 95: Butler, 'Sermon VIII.--Upon Resentment,' _op. cit._
p. 457.]
[Footnote 96: Adam Smith, _Theory of Moral Sentiments_, p. 113.]
[Footnote 97: Spencer, _Principles of Ethics_, i. 361.]
[Footnote 98: Junker, _Travels in Africa during the Years 1882-1886_,
p. 85.]
[Footnote 99: Hiram Stanley, _op. cit._ p. 180. _Cf._ also Guyau,
_Esquisse d'une Morale sans obligation ni sanction_, p. 162
_sq._]
[Footnote 100: Steinmetz, _Ethnol. Studien, &c._ i. 135.]
From non-moral resentment we shall pass to the emotion of moral
indignation. That this is closely connected with anger is indicated by
language itself: we may feel indignant on other than moral grounds,
and we may feel "righteous anger." The relationship between these
emotions is also conspicuous in their outward expressions, which, when
the emotion is strong enough, present similar characteristics. When
possessed with strong moral indignation, a person looks as if he were
angry,[101] and so he really is, in the wider sense of the term. This
relationship has not seldom been recognised by moralists, though it
has more often been forgotten. Some two thousand years ago Polybius
wrote:--"If a man has been rescued or helped in an hour of danger,
and, instead of showing gratitude to his preserver, seeks to do him
harm, it is clearly probable that the rest will be displeased and
offended with him when they know it, sympathising with their neighbour
and imagining themselves in his case. Hence arises a notion in every
breast of the meaning and theory of duty, which is in fact the
beginning and end of justice."[102] Hartley regarded resentment and
gratitude {43} as "intimately connected with the moral sense."[103]
Adam Smith made the resentment of "the impartial spectator" a
corner-stone of his theory of the moral sentiments.[104] Butler found
the essential difference between sudden and deliberate anger to
consist in this, that the "natural proper end" of the latter is "to
remedy or prevent only that harm which implies, or is supposed to
imply, injury or moral wrong."[105] And to Stuart Mill, the sentiment
of justice, at least, appeared to be derived from "the animal desire
to repel or retaliate a hurt or damage to oneself, or to those with
whom one sympathises."[106]
[Footnote 101: Notice, for instance, Michelangelo's Moses.]
[Footnote 102: Polybius, _Historiae_, vi. 6.]
[Footnote 103: Hartley, _Observations on Man_, i. 520.]
[Footnote 104: Adam Smith, _op. cit._ _passim_.]
[Footnote 105: Butler, _op. cit._ p. 458.]
[Footnote 106: Stuart Mill, _Utilitarianism_, p. 79.]
Moral indignation, or disapproval, like non-moral resentment, is a
reactionary attitude of mind directed towards the cause of inflicted
pain. In a subsequent chapter we shall see that both are in a similar
way determined by the answer given to the question, What is the cause
of the pain?--a fact which, whilst strongly confirming their affinity,
throws light upon some of the chief characteristics of the moral
consciousness. Nay, moral indignation resembles non-moral resentment
even in this respect that, in various cases, the aggressive reaction
turns against innocent persons who did not commit the injury which
gave rise to it. The collective responsibility assumed in certain
types of blood-revenge is an evidence of this in so far as such
revenge is not merely a matter of individual practice, but has the
sanction of custom. And even punishment, which, in the strict sense of
the term, is a more definite expression of public, or moral,
indignation than the custom of private retaliation, is often similarly
indiscriminate.
Like revenge, and for similar reasons, punishment sometimes falls on a
relative of the culprit in cases when he himself cannot be caught. In
Fiji, says Mr. Williams, "the virtue of vicarious suffering is
recognised." It once happened that a warrior left his charged musket
so {44} carelessly that it went off and killed and wounded some
individuals, whereupon he fled himself. His case was judged worthy of
death by the chiefs of the tribe, and the offender's aged father was
in consequence seized and strangled.[107]
[Footnote 107: Williams and Calvert, _Fiji_, p. 24.]
In other cases an innocent person is killed for the offence of
another, not because the offender cannot be seized, but with a view to
inflicting on him a loss, according to the rule of like for like. The
punishment, then, is meant for the culprit, though the chief sufferer
is somebody else. According to the Laws of [Hv]ammurabi, "if a builder
has built a house for a man and has not made strong his work, and the
house he built has fallen, and he has caused the death of the owner,
that builder shall be put to death." But "if he has caused the son of
the owner of the house to die, one shall put to death the son of that
builder."[108] Similarly, "if a man has struck a gentleman's daughter
and caused her to drop what is in her womb, he shall pay ten shekels
of silver for what was in her womb." But "if that woman has died, one
shall put to death his daughter."[109] The following custom which Mr.
Gason reports, as existing among the Australian Dieyerie, in case a
man should unintentionally kill another in a fight, is probably based
on a similar principle:--"Should the offender have an elder brother,
then he must die in his place; or, should he have no elder brother,
then his father must be his substitute; but in case he has no male
relative to suffer for him, then he himself must die."[110]
[Footnote 108: _Laws of [Hv]ammurabi_, 229 _sq._]
[Footnote 109: _Ibid._ 209 _sq._]
[Footnote 110: Gason, 'Manners and Customs of the Dieyerie Tribe,' in
Woods, _Native Tribes of South Australia_, p. 265.]
This extreme disregard of the suffering of guiltless persons is
probably not so much due to downright callousness as to a strong
feeling of family solidarity. The same feeling is very obvious in
those numerous instances in which both the criminal himself and
members of his family are implicated in the punishment.
{45} Among the Atkha Aleuts, the punishment for certain offences was
sometimes carried so far as to include the wife of the offender.[111]
Among the E[(w]e-speaking peoples of the Slave Coast, "a person found
guilty of having procured, or endeavoured to procure, the death of
another through the agency of the gods Huntin and Loko, is put to
death, and his family is generally enslaved as well."[112] Among the
Matabele, if a person is declared by the witch-doctor to have caused
injury to somebody else by making charms, he "is immediately put to
death, his wife and the whole of his family sharing his fate."[113]
Among the Shilluks of the White Nile, "murder is punished with death
to the criminal and the forfeiture of wives and children to the
Sultan, who retains them in bondage."[114] Among the Kafirs, in cases
of trespasses against the king, the sentence falls not only on the
individual, but on his whole house.[115] In Madagascar, the code of
native laws, up to recent time, reduced for many offences the
culprit's wife and children to slavery.[116] In some parts of the
Malay Archipelago, according to Crawfurd, a father and child are
considered almost inseparable, hence when the one is punished the
other seldom escapes.[117] In Bali, the law prescribes that for
certain kinds of sorcery the offender shall be put to death. It adds,
"If the matter be very clearly made out, let the punishment of death
be extended to his father and his mother, to his children and to his
grand-children; let none of them live; let none connected with one so
guilty remain on the face of the land, and let their goods be in like
manner confiscated."[118]
[Footnote 111: Petroff, 'Report on Alaska,' in _Tenth Census of the
United States_, p. 158.]
[Footnote 112: Ellis, _E[(w]e-speaking Peoples of the Slave Coast_,
p. 225.]
[Footnote 113: Decle, _Three Years in Savage Africa_, p. 153.]
[Footnote 114: Petherick, _Travels in Central Africa_, ii. 3.]
[Footnote 115: Ratzel, _History of Mankind_, ii. 445.]
[Footnote 116: Sibree, _The Great African Island_, p. 181. Ellis,
_History of Madagascar_, i. 174, 175, 193.]
[Footnote 117: Crawfurd, _op. cit._ i. 82.]
[Footnote 118: _Ibid._ iii. 138.]
The Chinese doctrine of responsibility is to a great extent based
upon family solidarity; in great crimes all the male relatives of the
offender are held responsible for his deed. Every male relative, of
whatever degree, who may be dwelling under the roof of a man guilty of
treason, is doomed to death, with the exception of young boys, who are
allowed their lives, but on the condition that they are made eunuchs
for service in the imperial palace.[119] In ancient Mexico, traitors
and conspirators were not only themselves killed, but their children
and relatives {46} were made slaves to the fourth generation.[120]
According to an Athenian law, a man who committed sacrilege or
betrayed his country was banished with all his children.[121]
Aristotle mentions a case of sacrilege in which "the bones of the
guilty dead were disentombed and cast beyond the borders of Attica;
the living clan were condemned to perpetual exile, and the city was
subsequently purified."[122] The Macedonian law involved in punishment
the kindred of conspirators against the monarch.[123] Dionysius of
Halicarnassus states that some of the Greeks "think it reasonable to
put to death the sons of tyrants together with their fathers, whereas
others punish them with perpetual banishment"; and he contrasts this
with the Roman principle that "the sons shall be exempted from all
punishment, whose fathers are offenders, whether they happen to be the
sons of tyrants, of parricides, or of traitors."[124] But after the
end of the Marsic, and civil wars, this rule was transgressed;[125]
and later on Arcadius, though expressly ordaining that the punishment
of the crime shall extend to the criminal alone,[126] took a different
view of the punishment for treason. By a special extension of his
imperial clemency, he allows the sons of the criminal to live,
although in strict justice, being tainted with hereditary guilt, they
ought to suffer the punishment of their father. But they shall be
incapable of inheritance; they shall be abandoned to the extreme of
poverty and perpetual indigence; they shall be excluded from all
honours and from the participation of religious rites; the infamy of
their father shall ever attend them, and such shall be the misery of
their condition, that life shall be a punishment and death a
comfort.[127] Among the Anglo-Saxons, before the time of Cnut, the
child, even the infant in the cradle, was liable to be sold into
slavery for the payment of penalties incurred by the father, being
"held by the covetous to be equally guilty as if it had
discretion."[128] Even later, the child of an outlaw, following the
condition of the father, also became an outlaw; and this grievance was
only partly remedied by Edward the Confessor, who relieved from the
consequences of the father's outlawry such children as were born
before he was {47} outlawed, but not such as were born afterwards.[129]
During the Middle Ages it was the invariable rule to confiscate the
entire property of an impenitent heretic, a rule which was justified
on the ground that his crime is so great that something of his
impurity falls upon all related to him.[130] The Pope Alexander IV.
also excluded the descendants of an heretic to the second generation
from all offices in the Church.[131] Owing to religious influence,
illegitimate children were not only deprived of the title to
inheritance, but they were treated by some law-books as almost
rightless beings, on a par with robbers and thieves.[132] If a person
committed suicide, his goods were confiscated, and, according to a
French mediæval law, his wife was besides deprived of her own private
property.[133] Even in the latter half of the eighteenth century, in
France, in the case of an attempt made against the life of the king,
the whole family of the criminal was banished.[134] Nay, in various
European countries, up to quite recent times--in England till
1870--forfeiture of property has been the punishment prescribed for
certain crimes, including suicide;[135] which means, if not actually
the imposition of penalties on the survivors in a case where the
culprit himself is out of reach, at least a gross disregard of their
ordinary rights of property. It is hardly necessary to point out how
often, in the very society in which we live, "social punishments" are
inflicted upon children for their father's wrongs.
[Footnote 119: Douglas, _Society in China_, p. 71 _sq._ _Ta Tsing Leu
Lee_, sec. ccliv. p. 270.]
[Footnote 120: Bancroft, _Native Races of the Pacific States_, ii. 459.]
[Footnote 121: Meursius, _Themis Attica_, ii. 2, in Gronovius,
_Thesaurus Graecarum Antiquitatum_, v. 1968.]
[Footnote 122: Aristotle, _De republica Atheniensium_ 1. _Cf._
_ibid._ 20.]