also frequently offered for the purpose of transferring curses.
In Morocco every _síyid_[89] of any importance is constantly
visited by persons who desire to invoke the saint to whom it is
dedicated with a view to being cured of some illness, or being
blessed with children, or getting a suitable husband or wife, or
receiving help against an enemy, or deriving some other benefit
from the saint. To secure his assistance the visitor makes
_[(]âr_ upon him; and the Moorish _[(]âr_, of which I have
spoken above,[90] implies the transference of a conditional
curse, whether it be made upon an ordinary man or a saint, living
or dead. The _[(]âr_ put upon a saint may consist in throwing
stones upon a cairn connected with his sanctuary, or making a
pile of {619} stones to him, or tying a piece of cloth at the
_síyid_, or knotting the leaves of some palmetto or the stalks of
white broom growing in its vicinity, or offering an animal
sacrifice to the saint.[91] This making of _[(]âr_ is
accompanied by a promise to reward the saint if he grants the
request; but the sacrifice offered in fulfilment of such a
promise (_l-wâ[(]da_) is totally distinct from that offered as
_[(]âr_. It is a genuine gift, whereas the _[(]âr_-sacrifice is
a means of constraining the saint. When an animal is killed as
_[(]âr_ the usual phrase _bismillâh_, "In the name of God," is
not used, and the animal may not be eaten, except by poor
people.[92] On the other hand, the animal which is sacrificed as
_wâ[(]da_ is always killed "in the name of God," and is offered
for the very purpose of being eaten by the saint's earthly
representatives. Nothing can better show than the Moorish
distinction between _l-[(]âr_ and _l-wâ[(]da_ how futile it
would be to try to explain every kind of sacrifice by one and the
same principle. The distinction between them is fundamental: the
former is a threat, the latter is a promised reward.[93] But at
the same time it is not improbable that the idea of transferring
curses to a supernatural being by means of a sacrifice was
originally suggested by the previous existence of sacrifice as a
religious act, combined with the ascription of mysterious
propensities to blood, and especially to sacrificial blood,
which, according to primitive ideas, made it a most efficient
conductor of curses.
[Footnote 89: For the meaning of this word see _supra_, ii. 584.]
[Footnote 90: _Supra_, i. 586 _sq._; ii. 584 _sq._]
[Footnote 91: Westermarck, '_L-[(]âr_, or the Transference of
Conditional Curses in Morocco,' in _Anthropological Essays
presented to E. B. Tylor_, p. 368 _sqq._ _Idem_, _The Moorish
Conception of Holiness (Baraka)_, p. 90 _sqq._]
[Footnote 92: However, if the _síyid_ has a _m[K.]áddem_, or
regular attendant, the petitioner often hands the animal over to
him alive, so that he may himself kill it "in the name of God,"
and thus make it eatable. Then the descendants of the saint, if
he has any, and the _m[K.]áddem_ himself, have no hesitation
in eating the animal, _bismillâh_ being a holy word which removes
the curse or evil energy inherent in _l-[(]âr_.]
[Footnote 93: When I have asked how it is that a saint, although
invoked with _l-[(]âr_, does not always grant the request made
to him, the answer has been that he can, but that he is not
all-powerful and the failure is due to the fact that God does not
listen to his prayer. But it also occurs that a person who has in
vain made _[(]âr_ upon a saint goes to another _síyid_ to
complain of him. There is a general belief that saints do not
help unless _[(]âr_ is made on them--an idea which is not very
flattering to their character.]
{620} There are obvious indications that the _[(]âr_-sacrifice
of the Moors is not unique of its kind, but has its counterpart
among certain other peoples. In ancient religions sacrifice is
often supposed to exercise a constraining influence on the god to
whom it is offered. We meet with this idea in Zoroastrianism,[94]
in many of the Vedic hymns,[95] and especially in Brahmanism.
"Here," says Barth, "the rites of religion are the real deities,
or at any rate they constitute together a sort of independent and
superior power, before which the divine personalities disappear,
and which almost holds the place allotted to destiny in other
systems. The ancient belief, which is already prominent in the
Hymns, that sacrifice conditionates the regular course of things,
is met with here in the rank of a commonplace, and is at times
accompanied with incredible details."[96] Now, there can be
little doubt that this ascription of a magic power to the
sacrifice, by means of which it could control the actions of the
gods, was due to the idea that it served as a conductor of
imprecations; for it was invariably accompanied by a formula
which was considered to possess irresistible force. In the
invocation lies the hidden energy which gives the efficacy to the
sacrifice; without Brahma[n.]aspati, the lord of prayer,
sacrifice does not succeed.[97] The Greeks actually offered
anathemata, or curses, to their gods.[98] The ancient Arabs,
again, after killing the sacrificial animal, threw its hair on a
holy tree as a curse.[99] But so little has the true import of
such sacrifices been understood even by eminent scholars, that
they have been represented as votive offerings or gifts to the
deity.[100]
[Footnote 94: Darmesteter, _Ormazd et Ahriman_, p. 330.]
[Footnote 95: _Rig-Veda_, iii. 45. 1; iv. 15. 5; vi. 51. 8; viii.
2. 6. Oldenberg, _Religion des Veda_, p. 311 _sq._]
[Footnote 96: Barth, _Religions of India_, p. 47 _sq._]
[Footnote 97: _Rig-Veda_, i. 18. 7.]
[Footnote 98: Rouse, _Greek Votive Offerings_, p. 337 _sqq._]
[Footnote 99: Wellhausen, _Reste arabischen Heidentums_, p. 124.]
[Footnote 100: Rouse, _op. cit._ p. 337. Wellhausen, _op. cit._
p. 124.]
Considering that the idea of sacrifice being a conductor of
imprecations has hitherto almost entirely escaped the notice of
students of early religion, it is impossible to say {621} how
widely it prevails and whether it also occurs in the savage
world. We know that the practice of cursing a god not only was
familiar to the ancient nations of culture, including the
Egyptians,[101] Hebrews, and other Semites,[102] but is common
among peoples like the South African Bechuanas[103] and the Nagas
of India.[104] And that the shedding of blood is frequently
applied as a means of transferring curses is suggested by various
cases in which, however, the object of the imprecation is not a
god but a man. We have previously noticed the reception
sacrifices offered to visiting strangers, presumably for the
purpose of transmitting to them conditional curses;[105] and a
very similar idea seems to underlie certain cases of oath-taking.
Sometimes the oath is taken in connection with a sacrifice made
to a god, and then the sanctity of the sacrificial animal
naturally increases the efficacy of the self-imprecation. In
other instances the oath is taken on the blood of an animal which
is killed for the purpose, apparently without being sacrificed to
a god. But in either case, I believe, the blood of the animal is
thought not only to add supernatural energy to the oath, but to
transfer, as it were, the self-imprecation to the very person who
pronounces it. The Mrús, a Chittagong hill tribe, "will swear by
one of their gods, to whom, at the same time, a sacrifice must be
offered."[106] Among the ancient Norsemen both the accused and
the accuser grasped the holy ring kept for that purpose on the
altar, stained with the blood of a sacrificial bull, and made
oath by invoking Freyr, Niordr, and the almighty among the
Asas.[107] At Athens a person who charged another with murder
made an oath with imprecations upon himself and his family and
his house, standing upon the entrails of a boar, a ram, and a
bull, {622} which had been sacrificed by special persons on the
appointed days.[108] Tyndareus "sacrificed a horse and swore the
suitors of Helen, making them stand on the pieces of the horse,"
the oath being to defend Helen and him who might be chosen to
marry her if ever they should be wronged.[109] One of the three
binding forms of oath prevalent among the Sânsiya in India is to
"kill a cock and pouring its blood on the ground swear over
it."[110] When the Annamese swear by heaven and earth, they often
kill a buffalo or he-goat and drink its blood.[111] Among the
ancient Arabs comrades in arms swore fidelity to each other by
dipping their hands in the blood of a camel killed for the
purpose.[112]
[Footnote 101: _Book of the Dead_, ch. 125.]
[Footnote 102: _Exodus_, xxii. 28. _1 Samuel_, xvii. 43.
_Isaiah_, viii. 21.]
[Footnote 103: Chapman, _Travels in the Interior of South
Africa_, i. 45 _sq._]
[Footnote 104: Woodthorpe, 'Wild Tribes inhabiting the so-called
Naga Hills,' in _Jour. Anthr. Inst._ xi. 70.]
[Footnote 105: _Supra_, i. 590 _sq._]
[Footnote 106: Lewin, _Wild Races of South-Eastern India_,
p. 233. _Cf._ _ibid._ p. 244 (Pankhos and Bunjogees).]
[Footnote 107: _Landnámabók_, iv. 7 (_Islendínga Sögur_, i. 258).
Lea, _Superstition and Force_, p. 27. Keyser, _Efterladte
Skrifter_, ii. pt. i. 388. Gummere, _Germanic Origins_, p. 301.]
[Footnote 108: Demosthenes, _Oratio (xxiii.) contra
Aristocratem_, 67 _sq._, p. 642.]
[Footnote 109: Pausanias, iii. 20. 9. For Homeric oath sacrifices
see _Iliad_, iii. 260 _sqq._; xix. 250 _sqq._; Keller, _Homeric
Society_, p. 176 _sqq._]
[Footnote 110: Crooke, _Tribes and Castes of the North-Western
Provinces_, iv. 281.]
[Footnote 111: Kohler, _Rechtsvergleichende Studien_, p. 208.]
[Footnote 112: Wellhausen, _Reste arabischen Heidentums_, p. 128.]
The last mentioned case, which implies shedding of blood as a
means of sealing a compact, leads us to a special class of
sacrifices offered to gods, namely, the covenant sacrifice, known
to us from Semitic antiquity. The Hebrews, as Professor Robertson
Smith observes,[113] thought of the national religion as
constituted by a formal covenant sacrifice at Mount Sinai, where
half of the blood of the sacrificed oxen was sprinkled on the
altar and the other half on the people,[114] or even by a still
earlier covenant rite in which the parties were Yahve and
Abraham;[115] and the idea of sacrifice establishing a covenant
between God and man is also apparent in the Psalms.[116] In
various cases recorded in the Old Testament sacrifice is
accompanied by a sacrificial meal;[117] "the god and his
worshippers are wont to eat and drink together, and by this token
their fellowship is declared {623} and sealed."[118] Robertson
Smith and his followers have represented this as an act of
communion, as a sacrament in which the whole kin--the god with
his clansmen--unite, and in partaking of which each member renews
his union with the god and with the rest of the clan. At first,
we are told, the god--that is, the totem god--himself was eaten,
whilst at a later stage the practice of eating the god was
superseded by the practice of eating with the god. Communion
still remains the core of sacrifice; and it is said that only
subsequently the practice of offering gifts to the deity develops
out of the sacrificial union between the worshippers and their
god.[119] But I venture to think that the whole of this theory is
based upon a misunderstanding of the Semitic evidence, and that
existing beliefs in Morocco throw new light upon the covenant
sacrifice.
[Footnote 113: Robertson Smith, _Religion of the Semites_, p. 318
_sq._]
[Footnote 114: _Exodus_, xxiv. 4 _sqq._]
[Footnote 115: _Genesis_, xv. 8 _sqq._]
[Footnote 116: _Psalms_, l. 5.]
[Footnote 117: _Genesis_, xxxi. 54. _Exodus_, xxiv. 11. _1
Samuel_, xi. 15. Wellhausen says (_Prolegomena to the History of
Israel_, p. 71) that, according to the practice of the older
period, a meal was nearly always connected with a sacrifice.]
[Footnote 118: Robertson Smith, _op. cit._ p. 271.]
[Footnote 119: _Ibid._ lec. ix. _sqq._ Hartland, _Legend of
Perseus_, ii. 236. Jevons, _Introduction to the History of
Religion_, p. 225.]
The Moorish covenant (_l-[(]ahd_) is closely connected with the
Moorish _[(]âr_. Whilst _l-[(]âr_ is one-sided, _l-[(]ahd_ is
mutual, both parties transferring conditional curses to one
another. And here again the transference requires a material
conductor. Among the Arabs of the plains and the Berbers of
Central Morocco chiefs, in times of rebellion, exchange their
cloaks or turbans, and it is believed that if any of them should
break the covenant he would be punished with some grave
misfortune. Among the Ulád Bu [(]Azîz, in the province of
Dukkâla, it is a common custom for persons who wish to be
reconciled after a quarrel to go to a holy man and in his
presence join their right hands so that the fingers of the one go
between the fingers of the other, after which the saint throws
his cloak over the united hands, saying, "This is _[(]ahd_
between you." Or they may in a similar manner join their hands at
a saint's tomb over the head of the box under which the saint is
buried, or they may perform the same ceremony simply in the
presence of some friends. In either case the joining of hands is
usually {624} accompanied by a common meal, and frequently the
hands are joined over the dish after eating. If a person who has
thus made a compact with another is afterwards guilty of a breach
of faith, it is said that "God and the food will repay him"; in
other words, the conditional curse embodied in the food which he
ate will be realised. All over Morocco the usual method of
sealing a compact of friendship is by eating together, especially
at the tomb of some saint. As we have noticed above,[120] the
sacredness of the place adds to the efficacy of the imprecation,
but its vehicle, the real punisher, is the eaten food, because it
contains a conditional curse.
[Footnote 120: _Supra_, i. 587.]
The _[(]ahd_ of the Moors helps us to understand the covenant
sacrifice of the ancient Semites. The only difference between
them is that the former is a method of establishing a compact
between men and men, whilst the latter established a compact
between men and their god. The idea of a mutual transference of
conditional curses undoubtedly underlies both. It should be
noticed that in the Old Testament also, as among the Moors, we
meet with human covenants made by the parties eating
together.[121] Thus the Israelites entered into alliance with the
Gibeonites by taking of their victuals, without consulting Yahve,
and the meal was expressly followed by an oath.[122] In other
instances, again, the common dish consisted of sacrificial food,
either because the sacredness of such food was supposed to make
the conditional curse embodied in it more efficacious, or because
the deity was included as a third party to the covenant.
[Footnote 121: _Genesis_, xxvi. 30; xxxi. 46. _2 Samuel_, iii. 20
_sq._ Robertson Smith, _op. cit._ p. 271. Nowack, _Lehrbuch der
hebräischen Archäologie_, i. 359.]
[Footnote 122: _Joshua_, ix. 14 _sq._]
Whilst in some cases the object of a sacrifice is to transfer
conditional curses either to the god to whom it is made, or to
both the god and the worshipper, the victim or article offered
may in other instances be used as a vehicle for transferring
benign virtue to him who offered it or to other persons. As we
have noticed {625} above, a sacrifice is very frequently believed
to be endowed with beneficial magic energy in consequence of its
contact or communion with the supernatural being to which it is
offered, and this energy is then supposed to have a salutary
effect upon the person who comes in touch with it. I have said
before that in Morocco magic virtue is ascribed to various parts
of the sheep which is sacrificed at the "Great Feast," and that
every offering to a holy person, especially a dead saint, is
considered to participate to some extent in his sanctity.[123]
The Vedic people regarded sacrificial food as a kind of
medicine.[124] The Siberian Kachinzes blessed their huts with
sacrificial milk.[125] The Lapps strewed the ashes of their
burnt-offerings upon their heads.[125] It is quite possible that
in some instances a desire to receive the benefit of the
supernatural energy with which the sacrifice is endowed is by
itself a sufficient motive for offering it to a god.
[Footnote 123: _Supra_, i. 445 _sq._ See also Westermarck, 'The
Popular Ritual of the Great Feast in Morocco,' in _Folk-Lore_,
xxii. 145 _sqq._; Hubert and Mauss, _loc. cit._ p. 133.]
[Footnote 124: Oldenberg, _Die Religion des Veda_, p. 328 _sqq._]
[Footnote 125: Georgi, _op. cit._ iii. 275.]
[Footnote 126: von Düben, _Lappland och Lapparne_, p. 258.]
As is the case with other rites, sacrifices also have a strong
tendency to survive the ideas from which they sprang. Thus when
the materialistic conception of the nature of gods faded away,
offerings continued to be made to them, though their meaning was
changed. As Sir E. B. Tylor observes, "the idea of practical
acceptableness of the food or valuables presented to the deity,
begins early to shade into the sentiment of divine gratification
or propitiation by a reverent offering, though in itself of not
much account to so mighty a divine personage,"[127] Sacrifice
then becomes mainly, or exclusively, a symbol of humility and
reverence. Even in the Rig-Veda, in spite of its crude
materialism, we meet with indications of the idea that the value
of a sacrifice lies in the feelings of the worshipper; if unable
to offer an ox or cow, the singer hopes that a small gift from
the heart, a fagot, a libation, a bundle of grass, offered with
reverence, {626} will be more acceptable to the god than butter
or honey.[128] In Greece, though the sacrificial ritual remained
unchanged till the end of paganism, we frequently come upon the
advanced reflection that righteousness is the best sacrifice,
that the poor man's slight offering avails more with the deity
than hecatombs of oxen.[129] According to Porphyry, the gods have
no need of banquets and magnificent sacrifices, but we should
with the greatest alacrity make a moderate oblation to them of
our own property, as "the honours which we pay to the gods should
be accompanied by the same promptitude as that with which we give
the first seat to worthy men."[130] It is said in the Talmud that
"he who offers humility unto God and man, shall be rewarded with
a reward as if he had offered all the sacrifices in the world."[131]
[Footnote 127: Tylor, _Primitive Culture_, ii. 394.]
[Footnote 128: _Rig-Veda_, viii. 19. 5. Kaegi, _op. cit._ p. 30.]
[Footnote 129: Farnell, _Cults of the Greek States_, i. 101.
Schmidt, _Die Ethik der alten Griechen_, ii. 43. Westcott,
_Essays in the History of Religious Thought_, p. 116.]
[Footnote 130: Porphyry, _De abstinentia ab esu animalium_, ii. 60.]
[Footnote 131: Deutsch, _Literary Remains_, p. 55.]
I have here spoken of the _practice_ of sacrifice and the ideas
on which it is based. But sacrifice has also a moral value
attached to it. Though no doubt in many cases optional, it is
under various circumstances regarded as a stringent duty. This is
particularly the case with the offerings regularly made by the
community at large on special occasions fixed by custom.
* * * * *
As supernatural beings have material needs like men, they also
possess property like men, and this must not be interfered with.
The Fjort of West Africa believe that the spirits of the rivers
kill those who drink their waters and sometimes punish those who
fish in them for greediness, by making them deaf and dumb.[132]
When their chief god "played" by thundering, the Amazulu said to
him who was frightened, "Why do you start, because the lord
plays? What have you taken which belongs to him?"[133] The
Fijians speak of a deluge {627} the cause of which was the
killing of a favourite bird belonging to the god Ndengei by two
mischievous lads, his grandsons.[134] In Efate, of the New
Hebrides, to steal cocoanuts which are consecrated to the worship
of the gods at some forthcoming festival "would be regarded as a
much greater offence than common stealing."[135] So, too, the
pillaging of a temple has commonly been looked upon as the worst
kind of robbery.[136] Among the Hebrews any trespass upon ground
which was hallowed by the localised presence of Yahveh was
visited with extreme punishment.[137] In Arabia people were
forbidden to cut fodder, fell trees, or hunt game within the
precincts of a sacred place.[138] The Moors believe that a person
would incur a very great risk indeed by cutting the branch of a
tree or shooting a bird in the _[h.]orm_ of a _síyid_, or dead
saint. The _[h.]orm_ is the homestead and domain of the saint,
and he is the owner of everything within its borders. But the
offence is not exclusively one against property, and it may be
doubted whether originally any clear idea of ownership at all was
connected with it. In a holy place all objects are endowed with
supernatural energy, and may therefore themselves, as it were,
avenge injuries committed against them. This is true of the
_[h.]orm_ of a saint, as well as of any other sanctuary, all his
belongings being considered to partake of his sanctity. But, as a
matter of fact, the so-called tomb of a saint is frequently a
place which was at first regarded as holy by itself, on account
of its natural appearance, and was only afterwards traditionally
associated with a holy person, when the need was felt of giving
an anthropomorphous interpretation of its holiness.[139]
According to early ideas a {628} sacred object cannot with
impunity be appropriated for ordinary purposes;[140] but, on the
other hand, visitors are allowed to take a handful of earth from
the tomb of the saint or in certain cases to cut a small piece of
wood from some tree growing in his _[h.]orm_, to be used as a
charm.[141] It also deserves notice that the saint protects not
only his own property, but any goods left in his care; hence the
country Arabs of Morocco often have their granaries in the
_[h.]ór[)u]mat_ of saints.
[Footnote 132: Dennett, _Folklore of the Fjort_, p. 5 _sq._]
[Footnote 133: Callaway, _Religious System of the Amazulu_, p. 57.]
[Footnote 134: Williams and Calvert, _op. cit._p. 212.]
[Footnote 135: Macdonald, _Oceania_, p. 208.]
[Footnote 136: Schmidt, _Ethik der alten Griechen_, ii. 19 _sq._
Cicero, _De legibus_, ii. 9, 16; Mommsen, _Römisches Strafrecht_,
p. 458. Wilda, _Strafrecht der Germanen_, p. 950; Dahn,
_Bausteine_, ii. 106 (Teutons). Du Boys, _Histoire du droit
criminel des peuples modernes_, ii. 605 _sq._ Filangieri, _La
scienza della legislazione_, iv. 205 (laws of Christian countries).]
[Footnote 137: Montefiore, _Hibbert Lectures on the Religion of
the Ancient Hebrews_, p. 38.]
[Footnote 138: Wellhausen, _Reste arabischen Heidentums_, p. 106.]
[Footnote 139: Westermarck, 'Sul culto dei santi nel Marocco,' in
_Actes du XII. Congrès International des Orientalistes_, iii.
175. _Cf._ Goldziher, _Muhammedanische Studien_, ii. 344 _sqq._]
[Footnote 140: See Robertson Smith, _op. cit._ lec. iv. and
Additional Note B.]
[Footnote 141: Westermarck, in _Actes du XII. Congrès des
Orientalistes_, iii. 167 _sq._]
Moreover, anybody who takes refuge at a _síyid_ is for the moment
safe. The right of sanctuary is regarded as very sacred in
Morocco, especially in those parts of the country where the
Sultan's government has no power. To violate it is an outrage
which the saint is sure to punish. I saw a madman whose insanity
was attributed to the fact that he once had forcibly removed a
fugitive from a saint's tomb; and of a late Grand-Vizier it is
said that he was killed by two powerful saints of Dukkâla, on
whose refugees he had laid violent hands. Even the descendants of
the saint or his manager (_m[k.]áddem_) can only by persuasion
and by promising to mediate between the suppliant and his pursuer
induce the former to leave the place.[142] As is well known, this
is not a custom restricted to Morocco. Among many peoples, at
different stages of civilisation, sacred places give shelter to
refugees.[143]
[Footnote 142: See Westermarck, _The Moorish Conception of
Holiness_, p. 116 _sqq._]
[Footnote 143: See Andree, 'Die Asyle,' in _Globus_, xxxviii. 301
_sq._; Frazer, 'Origin of Totemism,' in _Fortnightly Review_, N.
S. lxv. 650 _sqq._; Hellwig, _Das Asylrecht_, _passim_;
Bulmerincq, _Das Asylrecht_, _passim_. Fuld, 'Das Asylrecht im
Alterthum und Mittelalter,' in _Zeitschr. f. vergl. Rechtswiss._
vii. p. 103 _sqq._]
Among the Central Australian Arunta there is in each local totem
centre a spot called _ertnatulunga_, in the immediate
neighbourhood of which everything is sacred and must on no
account be hurt. The plants growing there are never interfered
with in any way; animals which come there are safe {629} from the
spear of the hunter; and a man who was being pursued by others
would not be touched so long as he remained at this spot.[144] In
Upolu, one of the Samoan Islands, a certain god, Vave, had his
residence in an old tree, which served as an asylum for murderers
and other great offenders; if that tree was reached by the
criminal he was safe, and the avenger could pursue no farther,
but had to wait for investigation and trial.[145] In the island
of Hawaii there were two _puhonuas_, or cities of refuge, which
afforded an inviolable sanctuary even to the vilest criminal who
entered their precincts, and during war offered safe retreat to
all the non-combatants of the neighbouring districts who flocked
into them, as well as to the vanquished. As soon as the fugitive
had entered, he repaired to the presence of the idol and made a
short ejaculatory address, expressive of his obligations to him
in reaching the place with security. The priests and their
adherents would immediately put to death anyone who should have
the temerity to follow or molest those who were once within the
pale of the _pahu tabu_, and, as they put it, under the shade or
protection of the spirit of Keave, the tutelary deity of the
place. After a short period, probably not more than two or three
days, the refugee was permitted to return unmolested to his home,
the divine protection being supposed still to abide with
him.[146] In Tahiti the _morais_, or holy places, likewise gave
shelter to criminals of every kind.[147] At Maiva, in the
South-Eastern part of New Guinea, "should a man be pursued by an
enemy and take refuge in the _dubu_ [or temple], he is perfectly
safe inside. Any one smiting another inside the _dubu_ would have
his arms and legs shrivelled up, and he could do nothing but wish
to die."[148]
[Footnote 144: Spencer and Gillen, _Native Tribes of Central
Australia_, p. 133 _sqq._]
[Footnote 145: Turner, _Samoa_, p. 64 _sq._]
[Footnote 146: Ellis, _Tour through Hawaii_, p. 155 _sqq._
Jarves, _History of the Hawaiian Islands_, p. 28 _sq._]
[Footnote 147: Turnbull, _Voyage round the World_, p. 366.
Wilson, _Missionary Voyage to the Southern Pacific Ocean_, p. 351.]
[Footnote 148: Chalmers and Gill, _Work and Adventure in New
Guinea_, p. 186.]
In many North American tribes certain sacred places or whole
villages served as asylums, in which those who were pursued by
the tribe or even an enemy were safe as soon as they had obtained
admission.[149] Among the Acagchemem Indians, in the valley and
neighbourhood of San Juan Capistrano in California, a criminal
who had fled to a _vanquech_, or place of worship, was secure not
only as long as he remained there, but {630} also after he had
left the sanctuary. It was not even lawful to mention his crime,
but all that the avenger could do to him was to point at him and
deride him, saying, "Lo, a coward, who has been forced to flee to
Chinigchinich!" This flight, however, turned the punishment from
the head of the criminal upon that of some of his relatives.[150]
[Footnote 149: Adair, _History of the American Indians_, pp. 158,
159, 416. Bradbury, _Travels in the Interior of America_, p. 165
_sq._ (Aricaras of the Missouri). Bourke, 'Medicine-Men of the
Apache,' in _Ann. Rep. Bur. Ethn._ ix. 453. Kohl, _Kitchi-Gami_,
p. 271 (Chippewas).]
[Footnote 150: Bancroft, _Native Races of the Pacific States_,
iii. 167. Boscana, in [Robinson,] _Life in California_, p. 262 _sq._]
The South-Central African Barotse have a city of refuge. "Anyone
incurring the king's wrath, or committing a crime, may find
safety by fleeing to this town. The man in charge of it is
expected to plead for him before the chief, and he can then
return to his house in peace."[151] Among the same people the
tombs of chiefs are sanctuaries or places of refuge,[152] and
this is also the case among the Kafirs.[153] So, too, in the
monarchical states of the Gallas homicides enjoy a legal right of
asylum if they have succeeded in taking refuge in a hut near the
burial-place of the king.[154] Among the Ovambo in South-Western
Africa the village of a great chief is abandoned at his death,
except by the members of a certain family, who remain there to
prevent it from falling into utter decay. Condemned criminals who
contrive to escape to one of these deserted villages are safe, at
least for a time; for not even the chief himself may pursue a
fugitive into the sacred place.[155] In Congo Français there are
several sanctuaries:--"The great one in the Calabar district is
at Omon. Thither mothers of twins, widows, thieves, and slaves
fly, and if they reach it are safe."[156] In Ashantee a slave who
flies to a temple and dashes himself against the fetish cannot
easily be brought back to his master.[157] Among the Negroes of
Accra criminals used to "seat themselves upon the fetish," that
is, place themselves under its protection; but murderers who
sought refuge with the fetish were always liable to be delivered
up to their pursuers.[158] A traveller in the seventeenth century
tells us that in Fetu, on the Gold Coast, a criminal who deserved
death was pardoned by taking refuge in the hut of the
high-priest.[159] Among the Krumen of the Grain Coast the house
of the high-priest (_bodio_) "is a sanctum to which culprits
{631} may betake themselves without the danger of being removed
by anyone except by the _bodio_ himself."[160] In Usambara a
murderer cannot be arrested at any of the four places where the
great wizards of the country reside.[161]
[Footnote 151: Arnot, _Garenganze_, p. 77.]
[Footnote 152: Decle, _Three Years in Savage Africa_, p. 75.]
[Footnote 153: Rehme, 'Das Recht der Amaxosa,' in _Zeitschr. f.
vergl. Rechtswiss._ x. 51.]
[Footnote 154: Paulitschke, _Ethnographie Nordost-Afrikas, Die
geistige Cultur der Danâkil, &c._ p. 157.]
[Footnote 155: Schinz, _Deutsch-Südwest-Afrika_, p. 312.]
[Footnote 156: Kingsley, _Travels in West Africa_, p. 466.]
[Footnote 157: Bowdich, _Mission to Ashantee_, p. 265. _Cf._
Monrad, _op. cit._ p. 42.]
[Footnote 158: Monrad, _op. cit._ p. 89.]
[Footnote 159: Müller, _Die Africanische Landschafft Fetu_,
p. 75.]
[Footnote 160: Wilson, _Western Africa_, p. 129.]
[Footnote 161: Krapf, _Reisen in Ost-Afrika_, ii. 132.]
In other Muhammedan countries besides Morocco the tombs of
saints, as also the mosques, are or have been places of
refuge.[162] In Persia the great number of such asylums proved so
injurious to public safety, that about the middle of the
nineteenth century only three mosques were left which were
recognised by the government as affording protection to criminals
of every description.[163] Among the Hebrews the right of asylum
originally belonged to all altars,[164] but on the abolition of
the local altars it was limited to certain cities of refuge.[165]
According to the Old Testament manslayers could find shelter
there only in the case of involuntary homicide; but this was
undoubtedly a narrowing of the ancient custom. Many heathen
sanctuaries of the Ph[oe]nicians and Syrians retained even in
Roman times what seems to have been an unlimited right of
asylum;[166] and at certain Arabian shrines the god likewise gave
shelter to all fugitives without distinction, and even stray or
stolen cattle that reached the holy ground could not be reclaimed
by their owners.[167]
[Footnote 162: Goldziher, _Muhammedanische Studien_, i. 237 _sq._
Quatremère, 'Mémoire sur les asiles chez les Arabes,' in
_Mémoires de l'Institut de France, Académie des Inscriptions et
Belles-Lettres_, xv. pt. ii. 313 _sq._]
[Footnote 163: Polak, _Persien_, ii. 83 _sqq._ Brugsch, _Im Lande
der Sonne_, p. 246.]
[Footnote 164: _Exodus_, xxi. 13 _sq._ _Cf._ Robertson Smith,
_Religion of the Semites_, p. 148, n. 1.]
[Footnote 165: _Numbers_, xxxv. 11 _sqq._ _Deuteronomy_, iv. 41
_sqq._; xix. 2 _sqq._]
[Footnote 166: Robertson Smith, _op. cit._ p. 148.]
[Footnote 167: _Ibid._ p. 148 _sq._]
On the Coast of Malabar a certain temple situated to the
south-east of Calicut affords protection to thieves and
adulterous women belonging to the Brahmin caste, but this
privilege is reckoned among the sixty-four _anatcharams_, or
"abuses," which were introduced by Brahmanism.[168] Among the
Káfirs of the Hindu-Kush there are several "cities of refuge,"
the largest being the village of Mergrom, which is almost
entirely peopled by _chiles_, or descendants of persons who have
slain some fellow tribesman.[169] In the Caucasus holy groves
offer refuge to criminals, as also to animals, which cannot be
shot there.[170]
[Footnote 168: Graul, _Reise nach Ostindien_, iii. 332, 335.]
[Footnote 169: Scott Robertson, _Káfirs of the Hindu-Kush_, p. 441.]
[Footnote 170: Hahn, _Kaukasische Reisen_, p. 122.]
In Greece many sanctuaries possessed the right of asylum down to
the end of paganism, and any violation of this right {632} was
supposed to be severely punished by the deity.[171] According to
an old tradition, Romulus established a sanctuary, dedicated to
some unknown god or spirit, on the slope of the Capitoline Hill,
proclaiming that all who resorted to it, whether bond or free,
should be safe.[172] This tradition, and also some other
statements made by Latin writers,[173] seem to indicate that from
ancient times certain sacred places in Rome gave shelter to
refugees; but it was only in a comparatively late period of Roman
history that the right of sanctuary, under Greek influence,
became a recognised institution of some importance.[174] This
right was expressly conferred upon the temple which in the year
42 B.C. was built in honour of Cæsar;[175] and other imperial
temples, as also the statues of emperors, laid claim to the same
privilege.[176] When Christianity became the religion of the
State a similar claim was made by the churches; but a legal right
of asylum was only granted to them by Honorius in the West and
Theodosius in the East.[177] Subsequently it was restricted by
Justinian, who decreed that all manslayers, adulterers, and
kidnappers of women who fled to a church should be taken out of
it.[178]
[Footnote 171: Tacitus, _Annales_, iii. 60 _sqq._ Farnell, _op.
cit._ i. 73. Westcott, _op. cit._ p. 115. Schmidt, _Die Ethik der
alten Griechen_, ii. 285. Bulmerincq, _op. cit._ p. 35 _sqq._
Fuld, _loc. cit._ p. 118 _sqq._]
[Footnote 172: Dionysius of Halicarnassus, _Antiquitates Romanæ_,
ii. 15. Livy, i. 8. 5 _sq._ Plutarch, _Romulus_, ix. 5. Strabo,
v. 3. 2, p. 230.]
[Footnote 173: Valerius Maximus, _Facta dictaque memorabilia_,
viii. 9. 1. Dionysius of Halicarnassus, _Antiquitates Romanæ_,
vi. 45. Cicero, _De lege agraria oratio secunda_, 14 (36). See
also Hartung, _Die Religion der Römer_, ii. 58 _sq._]
[Footnote 174: See Tacitus, _Annales_, iii. 36; Plautus,
_Rudens_, 723; Dio Cassius, _Historia Romana_, xlvii. 19;
Bulmerincq, _op. cit._ p. 58 _sqq._; Mommsen, _Römisches
Strafrecht_, p. 458 _sq._]
[Footnote 175: Dio Cassius, xlvii. 19.]
[Footnote 176: Tacitus, _Annales_, iv. 67. Suetonius, _Tiberius_,
53. Mommsen, _op. cit._ p. 460.]
[Footnote 177: Mommsen, _op. cit._ p. 461 _sq._]
[Footnote 178: _Novellæ_, xvii. 7.]
The right of sanctuary existed among the pagan Slavs, or some of
them,[179] and probably also among the ancient Teutons.[180]
After their conversion to Christianity the privilege of asylum
within the church was recognised in most of their codes. In the
Middle Ages and later, persons who fled to a church or to certain
boundaries surrounding it were, for a time at least, safe from
all persecution, it being considered treason against God, an
offence beyond compensation, to force even the most flagrant
criminal from His altar. The ordinary of the sacred place, or
{633} his official, was the only one who could try to induce him
to leave it, but if he failed, the utmost that could be done was
to deny the refugee victuals so that he might go forth
voluntarily.[181] In the 'Lex Baiuwariorum' it is asserted in the
strongest terms that there is no crime which may not be pardoned
from the fear of God and reverence for the saints.[182] But the
right of sanctuary was gradually subjected to various
restrictions both by secular legislation and by the Church.[183]
Innocentius III. enjoined that refuge should not be given to a
highway robber or to anybody who devastated cultivated fields at
night;[184] and according to Beaumanoir's 'Coutumes du
Beauvoisis,' dating from the thirteenth century, it was also
denied to persons guilty of sacrilege or arson.[185] The
Parliament of Scotland enacted that whoever took the protection
of the Church for homicide should be required to come out and
undergo an assize, that it might be found whether it was
committed of "forethought felony" or in "chaudemelle"; and only
in the latter case was he to be restored to the sanctuary, the
sheriff being directed to give him security to that effect before
requiring him to leave it.[186] In England, in the reign of Henry
VIII., there were certain places which were allowed to be "places
of tuition and privilege," in addition to churches and their
precincts. They were in fact cities of permanent refuge for
persons who should, according to ancient usage, have abjured the
realm, after they had fled in the ordinary way to a church. There
was a governor in each of these privileged places, charged with
the duty of mustering every day his men, who were not to exceed
twenty in each town and who had to wear a badge whenever they
appeared out of doors. But when these regulations were made, the
protection of sanctuary was taken away from persons guilty of
murder, rape, burglary, highway robbery, or arson. The law of
sanctuary was then left unchanged till the reign of James I.,
when, in theory, the privilege in question was altogether denied
to criminals.[187] Yet {634} as a matter of fact, asylums
continued to exist in England so late as the reign of George I.,
when that of St. Peter's at Westminster was demolished.[188] In
the legislation of Sweden the last reference to the privilege of
sanctuary is found in an enactment of 1528.[189] In France it was
abolished by an _ordonnance_ of 1539.[190] In Spain it existed
even in the nineteenth century.[191] Not long ago the most
important churches in Abyssinia,[192] the monastery of Affaf
Woira in the same country,[193] and the quarter in Gondar where
the head of the Abyssinian clergy has his residence,[194] were
reported to be asylums for criminals. And the same is the case
with the old Christian churches among the Suanetians of the
Caucasus.[195]
[Footnote 179: Helmold, _Chronik der Slaven_, i. 83, p. 170.]
[Footnote 180: Wilda, _Das Strafrecht der Germanen_, p. 248 _sq._
Stemann, _Den danske Retshistorie indtil Christian V.'s Lov_, p.
578. Brunner, _Deutsche Rechtsgeschichte_, ii. 610. Fuld, _loc.
cit._ p. 138 _sq._ Frauenstädt, _Blutrache und Todtschlagsühne im
Deutschen Mittelalter_, p. 51.]
[Footnote 181: Milman, _History of Latin Christianity_, ii. 59.
Bulmerincq, _op. cit._ p. 73 _sqq._ Fuld, _loc. cit._ p. 136
_sqq._ Bracton, _De legibus et consuetudinibus Angliæ_, fol. 136
b, vol. ii. 392 _sq._ Réville, 'L'abjuratio regni,' in _Revue
historique_, l. 14 _sqq._ Pollock and Maitland, _History of
English Law before the Time of Edward I._ ii. 590 _sq._ Innes,
_Scotland in the Middle Ages_, p. 195 _sq._]
[Footnote 182: _Lex Baiuwariorum_, i. 7.]
[Footnote 183: Brunner, _op. cit._ ii. 611 _sq._ Bulmerincq, _op.
cit._ p. 91 _sqq._ Fuld, _loc. cit._ p. 140 _sq._]
[Footnote 184: Gregory IX. _Decretales_, iii. 49. 6.]
[Footnote 185: Beaumanoir, _Coutumes du Beauvoisis_, xi. 15
_sqq._, vol. i. 164 _sq._]
[Footnote 186: Innes, _op. cit._ p. 198.]
[Footnote 187: Pike, _History of Crime in England_, ii. 253.
Blackstone, _Commentaries on the Laws of England_, iv. 347, n. a.]
[Footnote 188: Jusserand, _English Wayfaring Life in the Middle
Ages_, p. 166.]
[Footnote 189: Nordström, _Bidrag till den svenska
samhälls-författningens historia_, ii. 405.]
[Footnote 190: Du Boys, _Histoire du droit criminel des peuples
modernes_, ii. 246.]
[Footnote 191: _Idem_, _Histoire du droit criminel de l'Espagne_,
p. 227 _sq._]
[Footnote 192: Hellwig, _op. cit._ p. 52.]
[Footnote 193: Harris, _Highlands of Æthiopia_, ii. 93.]
[Footnote 194: Rüppell, _Reise in Abyssinien_, ii. 74, 81. von
Heuglin, _Reise nach Abessinien_, p. 213.]
[Footnote 195: von Haxthausen, _Transcaucasia_, p. 160, n. *]
The right of sanctuary has been ascribed to various causes.
Obviously erroneous is the suggestion that places of refuge were
established with a view to protecting unintentional offenders
from punishment or revenge.[196] The restriction of the privilege
of sanctuary to cases of accidental injuries is not at all
general, and where it occurs it is undoubtedly an innovation due
to moral or social considerations. Very frequently this privilege
has been attributed to a desire to give time for the first heat
of resentment to pass over before the injured party could seek
redress.[197] But although I admit that such a desire may have
helped to preserve the right of asylum where it has once come
into existence, I do not believe that it could account for the
origin of this right. We should remember that the privilege of
sanctuary not only affords {635} temporary protection to the
refugee, but in many cases altogether exempts him from punishment
or retaliation, and that shelter is given even to animals which
have fled to a sacred place. And, if the theory referred to were
correct, how could we explain the fact that the right of asylum
is particularly attached to sanctuaries?
[Footnote 196: Hegel, _Grundlinien der Philosophie des Rechts_,
§ 117, p. 108. Powell, 'Outlines of Sociology,' in _Saturday
Lectures_, p. 82.]
[Footnote 197: Meiners, _Geschichte der Menschheit_, p. 189.
Nordström, _op. cit._ ii. 401. Pardessus, _Loi Salique_, p. 656.
Bulmerincq, _op. cit._ pp. 34, 47. Fuld, _loc. cit._ pp. 102,
118, 119, 294 _sqq._ Kohler, _Shakespeare vor dem Forum der
Jurisprudenz_, p. 185. Quatremère, _loc. cit._ p. 314. Mr.
Mallery (_Israelite and Indian_, p. 33 _sq._), also, thinks that
the original object of the right of sanctuary was to restrict
vengeance and maintain peace, and that this right only
subsequently appeared as a prerogative of religion.]
It has been said that the right of sanctuary bears testimony to
the power of certain places to transmit their virtues to those
who entered them.[198] But we have no evidence that the fugitive
is supposed to partake of the sanctity of the place which
shelters him. In Morocco persons who are permanently attached to
mosques or the shrines of saints are generally regarded as more
or less holy, but this is never the case with casual visitors or
suppliants; hence it is hardly for fear of the refugee that his
pursuer refrains from laying hands on him. Professor Robertson
Smith has stated part of the truth in saying that "the assertion
of a man's undoubted rights as against a fugitive at the
sanctuary is regarded as an encroachment on its holiness."[199]
There is an almost instinctive fear not only of shedding
blood,[200] but of disturbing the peace in a holy place; and if
it is improper to commit any act of violence in the house of
another man,[201] it is naturally considered equally offensive,
and also infinitely more dangerous, to do so in the homestead of
a supernatural being. In the Tonga Islands, for instance, "it is
forbidden {636} to quarrel or fight upon consecrated
ground."[202] But this is only one aspect of the matter; another,
equally important, still calls for an explanation. Why should the
gods or saints themselves be so anxious to protect criminals who
have sought refuge in their sanctuaries? Why do they not deliver
them up to justice through their earthly representatives?
[Footnote 198: Granger, _Worship of the Romans_, p. 223 _sq._]
[Footnote 199: Robertson Smith, _Religion of the Semites_, p. 148.]
[Footnote 200: _Supra_, i. 380.]
[Footnote 201: Among the Barea and Kunáma in Eastern Africa a
murderer who finds time to flee into another person's house
cannot be seized, and it is considered a point of honour for the
community to help him to escape abroad (Munzinger,
_Ostafrikanische Studien_, p. 503). In the Pelew Islands "no
enemy may be killed in a house, especially in the presence of the
host" (Kubary, 'Die Palau-Inseln in der Südsee,' in _Jour. d.
Museum Godeffroy_, iv. 25). In Europe the privilege of asylum
went hand in hand with the sanctity of the homestead (Wilda, _op.
cit._ pp. 242, 243, 538, 543; Nordström, _op. cit._ ii. 435;
Fuld, _loc. cit._ p. 152; Frauenstädt, _op. cit._ p. 63 _sqq._);
and the breach of a man's peace was proportionate to his rank.
Whilst every man was entitled to peace in his own house, the
great man's peace was of more importance than the common man's,
the king's peace of more importance than the baron's, and in the
spiritual order the peace of the Church commanded yet greater
reverence (Pollock, 'The King's Peace,' in _Law Quarterly
Review_, i. 40 _sq._).]
[Footnote 202: Mariner, _Natives of the Tonga Islands_, ii. 232.
_Cf._ _ibid._ i. 227.]
The answer lies in certain ideas which refer to human as well as
divine protectors of refugees. The god or saint is in exactly the
same position as a man to whose house a person has fled for
shelter. Among various peoples the domicile of the chief or king
is an asylum for criminals;[203] nobody dares to attack a man who
is sheltered by so mighty a personage, and from what has been
said above, in connection with the rules of hospitality, it is
also evident why the chief or king feels himself compelled to
protect him. By being in close contact with his host, the
suppliant is able to transfer to him a dangerous curse. Sometimes
a criminal can in a similar way be a danger to the king even from
a distance, or by meeting him, and must in consequence be
pardoned. In Madagascar an offender escaped punishment if he
could obtain sight of the sovereign, whether before or after
conviction; hence criminals at work on the highroad were ordered
to withdraw when the sovereign was known to be coming by.[204]
Among the Bambaras "une fois la sentence prononcée, si le
condamné parvient à cracher sur un {637} prince, non-seulement sa
personne est sacrée, mais elle est nourrie, logée, etc., par le
grand seigneur qui a eu l'imprudence de se tenir à portée de cet
étrange projectile."[205] In Usambara even a murderer is safe as
soon as he has touched the person of the king.[206] Among the
Marutse and neighbouring tribes a person who is accused of any
crime receives pardon if he lays a _cupa_--the fossilised base of
a conical shell, which is the most highly valued of all their
instruments--at the feet of his chief; and a miscreant likewise
escapes punishment if he reaches and throws himself on the king's
drums.[207] On the Slave Coast "criminals who are doomed to death
are always gagged, because if a man should speak to the king he
must be pardoned."[208] In Ashantee, if an offender should
succeed in swearing on the king's life, he must be pardoned,
because such an oath is believed to involve danger to the king;
hence knives are driven through the cheeks from opposite sides,
over the tongue, to prevent him from speaking.[209] So also among
the Romans, according to an old Jewish writer, a person condemned
to death was gagged to prevent him from cursing the king.[210]
Fear of the curses pronounced by a dissatisfied refugee likewise,
in all probability, underlay certain other customs which
prevailed in Rome. A servant or slave who came and fell down at
the feet of Jupiter's high-priest, taking hold of his knees, was
for that day freed from the whip; and if a prisoner with irons
and bolts at his feet succeeded in approaching the high-priest in
his house, he was let loose and his fetters were thrown into the
road, not through the door, but from the roof.[211] Moreover, if
a criminal who had been sentenced to death accidentally met a
Vestal virgin on his way to the place of execution, his {638}
life was saved.[212] So sensitive to imprecations were both
Jupiter's high-priest and the priestesses of Vesta, that the
Praetor was never allowed to compel them to take an oath.[213]
Now, as a refugee may by his curse force a king or a priest or
any other man with whom he establishes some kind of contact to
protect him, so he may in a similar manner constrain a god or
saint as soon as he has entered his sanctuary. According to the
Moorish expression he is then in the _[(]âr_ of the saint, and
the saint is bound to protect him, just as a host is bound to
protect his guest. It is not only men that have to fear the
curses of dissatisfied refugees. Let us once more remember the
words which Aeschylus puts into the mouth of Apollo, when he
declares his intention to assist his suppliant, Orestes:--"Terrible
both among men _and gods_ is the wrath of a refugee, when one
abandons him with intent."[214]
[Footnote 203: Harmon, _Voyages and Travels in the Interior of
North America_, p. 297 (Tacullies). Lewin, _Hill Tracts of
Chittagong_, p. 100 (Kukis). Junghuhn, _Die Battaländer auf
Sumatra_, (Macassars and Bugis of Celebes). Tromp, 'Uit de
Salasila van Koetei,' in _Bijdragen tot de taal- land- en
volkenkunde van Nederlandsch-Indië_, xxxvii. 84 (natives of
Koetei, a district of Borneo). Jung, quoted by Kohler, 'Recht der
Marschallinsulaner,' in _Zeitschr. f. vergl. Rechtswiss._ xiv.
447 (natives of Nauru in the Marshall Group). Turner, _Nineteen
Years in Polynesia_, p. 334 (Samoans). Rautanen, in Steinmetz,
_Rechtsverhältnisse_, p. 342 (Ondonga). Schinz, _op. cit._ p. 312
(Ovambo). Rehme, 'Das Recht der Amaxosa,' in _Zeitschr. f. vergl.
Rechtswiss._ x. 50. Merker, quoted by Kohler, 'Banturecht in
Ostafrika,' _ibid._ xv. 55 (Wadshagga). Merker, _Die Masai_, p.
206. Among the Barotse the residences of the Queen and the Prime
Minister are places of refuge (Decle, _op. cit._ p. 75).]
[Footnote 204: Ellis, _History of Madagascar_, i. 376.]
[Footnote 205: Raffenel, _Nouveau voyage dans le pays des
nègres_, i. 385.]
[Footnote 206: Krapf, _Reisen in Ost-Afrika_, ii. 132, n. * See
also Schinz, _op. cit._ p. 312 (Ovambo).]
[Footnote 207: Gibbons, _Exploration in Central Africa_, p. 129.
I am indebted to Mr. N. W. Thomas for drawing my attention to
this statement.]
[Footnote 208: Ellis, _E[(w]e-speaking Peoples of the Slave
Coast_, p. 224.]
[Footnote 209: _Ibid._ p. 224.]
[Footnote 210: Quoted by Levias, 'Cursing,' in _Jewish
Encyclopedia_, iv. 390.]
[Footnote 211: Plutarch, _Questiones Romanæ_, 111. Aulus Gellius,
_Noctes Atticæ_, x. 15. 8, 10.]
[Footnote 212: Plutarch, _Numa_, x. 5.]
[Footnote 213: Aulus Gellius, _op. cit._ x. 15. 31.]
[Footnote 214: Aeschylus, _Eumenides_, 232 _sqq._]
CHAPTER XLIX
DUTIES TO GODS (_concluded_)
SUPERNATURAL beings are widely believed to have a feeling of
their worth and dignity. They are sensitive to insults and
disrespect, they demand submissiveness and homage.
"The gods of the Gold Coast," says Major Ellis, "are jealous
gods, jealous of their dignity, jealous of the adulation and
offerings paid to them; and there is nothing they resent so much
as any slight, whether intentional or accidental, which may be
offered them. . . . There is nothing that offends them so deeply
as to ignore them, or question their power, or laugh at them."[1]
The wrath of Yahveh burst forth with vehemence whenever his
honour or sanctity was in the least violated, however
unintentionally.[2] Many peoples consider it insulting and
dangerous merely to point at one of the celestial bodies;[3] and
among the North American Indians it is a widespread belief that,
if anybody points at the rainbow, the finger will wither or
become misshapen.[4]
[Footnote 1: Ellis, _Tshi-speaking Peoples of the Gold Coast_, p. 11.]
[Footnote 2: _Cf._ Montefiore, _Hibbert Lectures on the Religion
of the Ancient Hebrews_, pp. 38, 102.]
[Footnote 3: Liebrecht, _Zur Volkskunde_, p. 341, Dorman, _Origin
of Primitive Superstitions_, p. 344 (Chippewas). Wuttke, _Der
deutsche Volksaberglaube der Gegenwart_, § 11, p. 13 _sq._]
[Footnote 4: Mooney, 'Myths of the Cherokee,' in _Ann. Rep. Bur.
Ethn._ xix. 257, 442.]
Nor is it to supernatural danger only that a person exposes
himself by irreverence to a god, but in many cases he is also
punished by his fellow men. On the Slave Coast insults to a god
"are always resented and punished by the {640} priests and
worshippers of that god, it being their duty to guard his
honour."[5] Among the ancient Peruvians[6] and Hebrews,[7] as
also among Christian nations up to comparatively recent times,
blasphemy was a capital offence. In England, in the reign of
Henry VIII., a boy of fifteen was burned because he had spoken,
much after the fashion of a parrot, some idle words affecting the
sacrament of the altar, which he had chanced to hear but of which
he could not have understood the meaning.[8] According to
Muhammedan law a person guilty of blasphemy is to be put to death
without delay, even though he profess himself repentant, as
adequate repentance for such a sin is deemed impossible.[9] These
and similar laws are rooted in the idea that the god is
personally offended by the insult. It was the Lord himself who
made the law that he who blasphemed His name should be stoned to
death by all the congregation.[10] "Blasphemy," says Thomas
Aquinas, "as being an offence directly against God, outweighs
murder, which is an offence against our neighbour . . . . The
blasphemer intends to wound the honour of God."[11] That
blasphemy is, or should be, punished not as a sin against the
deity but as an offence against the religious feelings of men, is
an idea of quite modern origin.
[Footnote 5: Ellis, _E[(w]e-speaking Peoples of the Slave Coast_,
p. 81.]
[Footnote 6: Prescott, _History of the Conquest of Peru_, i. 42.]
[Footnote 7: _Leviticus_, xxiv. 14 _sqq._]
[Footnote 8: Pike, _History of Crime in England_, ii. 56.]
[Footnote 9: Lane, _Manners and Customs of the Modern Egyptians_,
p. 123.]
[Footnote 10: _Leviticus_, xxiv. 16.]
[Footnote 11: Thomas Aquinas, _Summa theologica_, ii.-ii. 13. 3. 1.]
In many cases it is considered offensive to a supernatural being
merely to mention his name. Sometimes the name is tabooed on
certain occasions only or in ordinary conversation, sometimes it
is not to be pronounced at all.
In Morocco the _jnûn_ (_jinn_) must not be referred to by name in
the afternoon and evening after the _[(]â[s.]ar_. If speaking of
them at all, the people then make use of some circumlocution; the
Berbers of Southern Morocco call them _w[=i]d-iá[d.]nin_, "those
others," or _w[=i]d-ur[d.]-h[)e]r'nin_, "those unseen," or
_w[=i]d-tntl-tísnt_, "those who shun salt." The Greenlanders dare
not pronounce the name of a glacier {641} as they row past it,
for fear lest it should be offended and throw off an iceberg.[12]
Some North American Indians believe that if, when travelling,
they mention the names of rocks or islands or rivers, they will
have much rain or be wrecked or be devoured by some monster in
the river.[13] The Omahas, again, "are very careful not to use
names which they regard as sacred on ordinary occasions; and no
one dares to sing sacred songs except the chiefs and old men at
the proper times."[14] Some other Indians considered it a
profanation to mention the name of their highest divinity.[15]
Among certain Australian natives the elders of the tribe impart
to the youth, on his initiation, the name of the god
Tharam[=u]l[)u]n; but there is such a disinclination to pronounce
his name that, in speaking of him, they generally use elliptical
expressions, such as "He," "the man," or "the name I told you
of," and the women only know him by the name of Papang
(father).[16] The Marutse and allied tribes along the Zambesi
shrink from mentioning the real name of their chief god Nyambe
and therefore substitute for it the word _molemo_, which has a
very comprehensive meaning, denoting, besides God, all kinds of
good and evil spirits, medicines, poisons, and amulets.[17]
According to Cicero, there was a god, a son of Nilus, whose name
the Egyptians considered it a crime to pronounce;[18] and
Herodotus is unwilling to mention the name of Osiris on two
occasions when he is speaking of him.[19] The divine name of
Indra was secret, the real name of Agni was unknown.[20] The gods
of Brahmanism have mystic names, which nobody dares to speak.[21]
The real name of Confucius is so sacred that it is a statutable
offence in China to {642} pronounce it; and the name of the
supreme god of the Chinese is equally tabooed. "_Tien_," they
say, "means properly only the material heaven, but it also means
Shang-Te (supreme ruler, God); for, as it is not lawful to use
his name lightly, we name him by his residence, which is in
_tien_."[22] The "great name" of Allah is a secret name, known
only to prophets, and possibly to some great saints.[23] Yahveh
said, "Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain;
for the Lord will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in
vain";[24] and orthodox Jews avoid mentioning the word Yahveh
altogether.[25] Among Christian nations, as Professor Nyrop
observes, there is a common disinclination to use the word "God"
or its equivalents in everyday speech. The English say _good_
instead of God ("good gracious," "my goodness," "thank
goodness"); the Germans, _Potz_ instead of _Gotts_ ("Potz Welt,"
"Potz Wetter," "Potz Blitz"); the French, _bleu_ instead of
_Dieu_ ("corbleu," "morbleu," "sambleu"); the Spaniards, _brios_
or _diez_ instead of _Dios_ ("voto á brios," "juro á brios," "par
diez").[26]
[Footnote 12: Nansen, _Eskimo Life_, p. 233.]
[Footnote 13: Nyrop, 'Navnets magt,' in _Mindre Afhandlinger
udgivne af det philologisk-historiske Samfund_, 1887, p. 28.]
[Footnote 14: Dorsey, 'Omaha Sociology,' in _Ann. Rep. Bur.
Ethn._ iii. 370.]
[Footnote 15: Adair, _History of the American Indians_, p. 54.]
[Footnote 16: Howitt, 'Some Australian Beliefs,' in _Jour. Anthr.
Inst._ xiii. 192. See also _Idem_, _Native Tribes of South-East
Australia_, pp. 489, 495.]
[Footnote 17: Holub, _Seven Years in South Africa_, ii. 301.]
[Footnote 18: Cicero, _De natura deorum_, iii. 22 (56).]
[Footnote 19: Herodotus, ii. 132, 171.]
[Footnote 20: Hopkins, _Religions of India_, pp. 93, 111.]
[Footnote 21: _Ibid._ p. 184.]
[Footnote 22: Friend, 'Euphemism and Tabu in China,' in
_Folk-Lore Record_, iv. 76. _Cf._ Edkins, _Religion in China_, p. 72.]
[Footnote 23: Sell, _Faith of Islám_, p. 185. Lane, _Modern
Egyptians_, p. 273.]
[Footnote 24: _Exodus_, xx. 7.]
[Footnote 25: Herzog-Plitt, _Real-Encyklopädie für
protestantische Theologie_, vi. 501 _sq._]
[Footnote 26: Nyrop, _loc. cit._ p. 155 _sqq._]
These taboos have sprung from fear. There is, first, something
uncanny in mentioning the name of a supernatural being, even
apart from any definite ideas connected with the act. But to do
so is also supposed to summon him or to attract his attention,
and this may be considered dangerous, especially if he is looked
upon as malevolent or irritable, as is generally the case with
the Moorish _jnûn_. The uncanny feeling or the notion of danger
readily leads to the belief that the supernatural being feels
offended if his name is pronounced; we have noticed a similar
association of thought in connection with the names of the dead.
But a god may also have good reason for wishing that his name
should not be used lightly or taken in vain. According {643} to
primitive ideas a person's name is a part of his personality,
hence the holiness of a god may be polluted by his name being
mentioned in profane conversation. Moreover, it may be of great
importance for him to prevent his name from being divulged, as
magic may be wrought on a person through his name just as easily
as through any part of his body. In early civilisation there is a
common tendency to keep the real name of a human individual
secret so that sorcerers may not make an evil use of it;[27] and
it is similarly believed that gods must conceal their true names
lest other gods or men should be able to conjure with them.[28]
The great Egyptian god Râ declared that the name which his father
and mother had given him remained hidden in his body since his
birth, so that no magician might have magic power over him.[29]
The list of divine names possessed by the Roman pontiffs in their
_indigitamenta_ was a magical instrument which laid at their
mercy all the forces of the spirit world;[30] and we are told
that the Romans kept the name of their tutelary god secret in
order to prevent their enemies from drawing him away by pronouncing
it.[31] There is a Muhammedan tradition that whosoever calls upon
Allah by his "great name" will obtain all his desires, being able
merely by mentioning it to raise the dead to life, to kill the
living, in fact to perform any miracle he pleases.[32]
[Footnote 27: Tylor, _Early History of Mankind_, p. 139 _sqq._
Andree, _Ethnographische Parallelen_, p. 179 _sqq._ Frazer,
_Golden Bough_, i. 403 _sqq._ Clodd, _Tom Tit Tot_, pp. 53-55, 81
_sqq._ Haddon, _Magic and Fetishism_, p. 22 _sq._]
[Footnote 28: Tylor, _op. cit._ p. 124 _sq._ Frazer, _op. cit._
i. 443. Clodd, _op. cit._ p. 173. Haddon, _op. cit._ p. 23 _sqq._]
[Footnote 29: Frazer, _op. cit._ i. 444.]
[Footnote 30: Granger, _Worship of the Romans_, pp. 212, 277.
_Cf._ Jevons, in Plutarch's _Romane Questions_, p. lvii.]
[Footnote 31: Plutarch, _Questiones Romanæ_, 61. Pliny, _Historia
naturalis_, xxviii. 4. Macrobius, _Saturnalia_, iii. 9.]
[Footnote 32: Sell, _op. cit._ p. 185. Lane, _Modern Egyptians_,
p. 273.]
* * * * *
One of the greatest insults which can be offered a god is to deny
his existence. Plutarch was astonished at people's saying that
atheism is impiety, while at the same time they attribute to gods
all kinds of less creditable qualities. "I for my part," he adds,
"would much rather have men to say of me that there never was a
{644} Plutarch, at all, nor is now, than to say that Plutarch is
a man inconstant, fickle, easily moved to anger, revengeful for
trifling provocations, vexed at small things."[33] But Plutarch
seems to have forgotten that a person is always most sensitive on
his weak points, and that the weakest point in a god is his
existence. Religious intolerance is in a large measure the result
of that feeling of uncertainty which can hardly be eradicated
even by the strongest will to believe. It is a means of
self-persuasion in a case where such persuasion is sorely needed.
Moreover, a god who is not believed to exist can be no object of
worship, and to be worshipped is commonly held to be the chief
ambition of a god. But atheism is a sin of civilisation.
Uncultured people are ready to believe that all supernatural
beings they hear of also exist.
[Footnote 33: Plutarch, _De superstitione_, 10.]
Some gods are extremely ungenerous towards all those who do not
recognise them, and only them, as _their_ gods. To believe in
Ahura Mazda was the first duty which Zoroastrianism required of a
man; it was Angra Mainyu, the evil spirit, that had
countercreated the sin of unbelief.[34] Doubt destroyed even the
effects of good actions;[35] indeed, only the true believer was
to be regarded as a man.[36] The faithful were summoned to a war
to the death against the opposing spirits, the Daevas, and their
followers.[37] And to judge from ancient writers, the Persians,
when they came into contact with nations of another religion,
also carried into practice the intolerant spirit of their
own.[38] Yahveh said:--"Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
. . . Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them:
for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God."[39] In the
pre-prophetic period the existence of other gods was
recognised,[40] but they were not {645} to be worshipped by
Yahveh's people. Nor was any mercy to be shown to their
followers, for Yahveh was "a man of war."[41] The God of
Christianity inherited his jealousy. In the name of Christ wars
were waged, not, it is true, for the purpose of exterminating
unbelievers, but with a view to converting them to a faith which
alone could save their souls from eternal perdition. So far as
the aim of the persecution is concerned we can thus notice a
distinct progress in humanity. But whilst the punishment which
Yahveh inflicted upon the devotees of other gods was merely
temporal and restricted to a comparatively small number of
people--he took notice of such foreign nations only which came
within his sphere of interests,--Christianity was a proselytising
religion on a large scale, anxious to save but equally ready to
condemn to everlasting torments all those who refused to accept
it, nay even the milliards of men who had never heard of it. In
this point Christianity was even more intolerant than the Koran
itself, which does not absolutely confine salvation to the
believers in Allah and his Prophet, but leaves some hope of it to
Jews, Christians, and Sabæans, though all other infidels are
hopelessly lost.[42]
[Footnote 34: _Vendîdâd_, i. 8. 16.]
[Footnote 35: Darmesteter, _Ormazd et Ahriman_, p. 330, n. 4.]
[Footnote 36: _Dînâ-î Maînôg-î Khirad_, xlii. 6 _sqq._]
[Footnote 37: See Darmesteter, in _Sacred Books of the East_, iv.
p. lii.; Spiegel, _Erânische Alterthumskunde_, iii. 692.]
[Footnote 38: Spiegel, _op. cit._ iii. 708.]
[Footnote 39: _Exodus_, xx. 3, 5.]
[Footnote 40: Kuenen, _Hibbert Lectures on National Religions and
Universal Religions_, p. 119. Baudissin, _Studien zur semitischen
Religionsgeschichte_, i. 49 _sqq._]
[Footnote 41: _Exodus_, xv. 3.]
[Footnote 42: _Koran_, v. 73.]
That Muhammedanism has in course of time become the most
fanatical of existing religions is due to political rather than
religious causes. For a thousand years the Christian and
Muhammedan world were engaged in a deadly contest, in which the
former came off victorious. Most nations confessing Islam have
either lost their independence or are on the verge of losing it.
The memory of past defeats and cruelties, the present state of
subjection or national weakness, the fear of the future--are all
factors which must be taken into account when we judge of Moslem
fanaticism. In its younger days Islam was undoubtedly, not only
in theory but in practice, less intolerant than its great rival,
Christian subjects of Muhammedan rulers being on the whole
treated with {646} consideration.[43] Earlier travellers in
Arabia also speak favourably of the tolerance of its inhabitants.
Niebuhr was able to write:--"I never saw that the Arabs have any
hatred for those of a different religion. They, however, regard
them with much the same contempt with which Christians look upon
the Jews in Europe . . . . The Mahometans in India appear to be
even more tolerant than those of Arabia . . . . The Mussulmans in
general do not persecute men of other religions, when they have
nothing to fear from them, unless in the case of an intercourse
of gallantry with a Mahometan woman."[44] In China the
Muhammedans live amicably with the infidel, regarding their
Buddhist neighbours "with a kindly feeling which it would be hard
to find in a mixed community of Catholics and Evangelicals."[45]
Muhammedanism looks upon the founder of Christianity with
profound reverence, as one of the apostles of God, as the only
man without sin. Christian writers, on the other hand, till the
middle of the eighteenth century universally treated Muhammed as
a false prophet and rank impostor. Luther called him "a devil,
and a first-born child of Satan," whilst Melanchthon was inclined
to see in him both Gog and Magog.[46]
[Footnote 43: See von Kremer, _Culturgeschichte des Orients_,
ii. 166 _sq._]
[Footnote 44: Niebuhr, _Travels through Arabia_, ii. 192, 189
_sq._ _Cf._ d'Arvieux, _Travels in Arabia the Desart_, p. 123;
Wallin, _Notes taken during a Journey through Northern Arabia_,
p. 21.]
[Footnote 45: Lane-Poole, _Studies in a Mosque_, p. 298 _sq._]
[Footnote 46: [Deutsch,] 'Islam,' in _Quarterly Review_, cxxvii.
295 _sq._ Bosworth Smith, _Mohammed and Mohammedanism_, pp. 67,
69. Pool, _Studies in Mohammedanism_, p. 406.]
Equal in enormity with the sin of not believing in a certain god
is sometimes the sin of having a false belief about him. It seems
strange that a god should be so easily offended as to punish with
the utmost severity those who hold erroneous notions regarding
some attribute of his which in no way affects his honour or
glory, or regarding some detail of ritual. Thomas Aquinas himself
admits that the heretic _intends_ to take the word of Christ,
although he fails "in the election of articles whereon to take
that word." But it is in this election that his sin consists.
{647} Instead of choosing those articles which are truly taught
by Christ, he chooses those which his own mind suggests to him.
Thus he perverts the doctrines of Christ, and in consequence
deserves not only to be separated from the Church by
excommunication, but to be banished from the world by death.[47]
Moreover, the heretic is an apostate, a traitor who may be forced
to pay the vow which he has once taken.[48] The extreme rigour of
this sophistical argumentation can only be understood in
connection with its historical surroundings. It presupposes a
Church which not only regards itself as the sole possessor of
divine truth, but whose cohesion and power depend upon a strict
adherence to its doctrines.[49] Nor was it a religious motive
only that induced Christian sovereigns to persecute heretics.
Certain heresies, as Manichæism and Donatism, were expressly
declared to affect the common welfare;[50] and the Frankish kings
treated heretics not only as rebels against the Church, but as
traitors to the State, as confederates of hostile Visigoths or
Burgundians or Lombards.[51]
[Footnote 47: Thomas Aquinas, _op. cit._ ii.-ii. 11. 1, 3.]
[Footnote 48: _Ibid._ ii.-ii. 10. 8.]
[Footnote 49: _Cf._ Ritchie, _Natural Rights_, p. 183.]
[Footnote 50: Milman, _History of Latin Christianity_, ii. 33.]
[Footnote 51: _Ibid._ ii. 61.]
Whilst intolerance is a characteristic of all monotheistic
religions which attribute human passions and emotions to their
godhead, polytheism is by nature tolerant. A god who is always
used to share with other gods the worship of his believers cannot
be a very jealous god. The pious Hennepin was struck by the fact
that Red Indians were "incapable of taking away any person's life
out of hatred to his religion."[52] Among the natives of the
African Gold and Slave Coasts, though a man must show outward
respect for the gods so as not to provoke calamities, he may
worship many gods or none, just as he pleases. "There is perfect
liberty of thought in matters of religion. . . . At this stage,
man tolerates any form of religion that tolerates others; and as
he thinks it perfectly {648} natural that different people should
worship different gods, he does not attempt to force his own
personal opinions upon anyone, or to establish conformity of
ideas."[53] On the Slave Coast even a sacrilege committed by a
European is usually regarded with indifference, as the gods of a
country are supposed to be concerned about the actions of the
people of that country only.[54] "The characteristics of Natural
Religion," says Sir Alfred Lyall, "the conditions of its
existence as we see it in India, are complete liberty and
material tolerance; there is no monopoly either of divine powers
or even of sacerdotal privilege."[55] In China the hatred of
foreigners has not its root in religion. The Catholics residing
there were left undisturbed until they began to meddle with the
civil and social institutions of the country;[56] and the
difficulty in persuading the Chinese to embrace Christianity is
said by a missionary to be due to their notion that one religion
is as good as another provided that it has a good moral code.[57]
Among the early Greeks and Romans it was a principle that the
religion of the State should be the religion of the people, as
its welfare was supposed to depend upon a strict observance of
the established cult; but the gods cared for external worship
rather than for the beliefs of their worshippers, and evidently
took little notice even of expressed opinions. Philosophers
openly despised the very rites which they both defended and
practised; and religion was more a pretext than a real motive for
the persecutions of men like Anaxagoras, Protagoras, Socrates,
and Aristotle.[58] So also the measures by which the Romans in
earlier times repressed the introduction of new religions were
largely suggested by worldly considerations; "they grew out of
that intense national spirit which sacrificed every {649} other
interest to the State, and resisted every form of innovation,
whether secular or religious, that could impair the unity of the
national type, and dissolve the discipline which the predominance
of the military spirit and the stern government of the Republic
had formed."[59] It has also been sufficiently proved that the
persecutions of the Christians during the pagan Empire sprang
from motives quite different from religious intolerance. Liberty
of worship was a general principle of the Imperial rule. That it
was denied the Christians was due to their own aggressiveness, as
also to political suspicion. They grossly insulted the pagan
cult, denouncing it as the worship of demons, and every calamity
which fell upon the Empire was in consequence regarded by the
populace as the righteous vengeance of the offended gods. Their
proselytism disturbed the peace of families and towns. Their
secret meetings aroused suspicion of political danger; and this
suspicion was increased by the doctrines they professed. They
considered the Roman Empire a manifestation of Antichrist, they
looked forward with longing to its destruction, and many of them
refused to take part in its defence. The greatest and best among
the pagans spoke of the Christians as "enemies," or "haters of
the human race."[60]
[Footnote 52: Hennepin, _New Discovery of a Vast Country in
America_, ii. 70.]
[Footnote 53: Ellis, _Yoruba-speaking Peoples of the Slave
Coast_, p. 295. See also _Idem_, _E[(w]e-speaking Peoples of the
Slave Coast_, p. 81; Monrad, _Skildring af Guinea-Kysten_, p. 28;
Kubary, 'Die Verbrechen und das Strafverfahren auf den
Pelau-Inseln,' in _Original-Mittheil. aus d. ethnol. Abtheil. d.
königl. Museen zu Berlin_, i. 90.]
[Footnote 54: Ellis, _E[(w]e-speaking Peoples_, p. 81.]
[Footnote 55: Lyall, _Natural Religion in India_, p. 52.]
[Footnote 56: Davis, _China_, ii. 7. _Cf._ Edkins, _op. cit._
p. 178.]
[Footnote 57: Edkins, _op. cit._ p. 75.]
[Footnote 58: See Schmidt, _Die Ethik der alten Griechen_, ii. 24
_sqq._]
[Footnote 59: Lecky, _History of European Morals_, i. 493. _Cf._
Dio Cassius, _Historia Romana_, lii. 36.]
[Footnote 60: Lecky, _op. cit._ i. 408 _sqq._ Ramsay, _The Church
in the Roman Empire_, p. 346 _sqq._ See also _supra_, i. 345
_sq._; ii. 178 _sq._]
The same difference in toleration between monotheistic and
polytheistic religions shows itself in their different attitudes
towards witchcraft. A monotheistic religion is not necessarily
averse from magic; its god may be supposed to have created
magical as well as natural energy, and also to have given mankind
permission to utilise it in a proper manner. Both Christianity in
its earlier phases and Muhammedanism are full of magical
practices expressly sanctioned by their theology--for instance,
the use made of sacred words and of the relics of saints. But
besides this sort of magic there is another kind--witchcraft, in
the narrow sense of the term,--which is ascribed to the {650}
assistance of exorcised spirits, regarded not as the willing
agents but as the adversaries of God; and this practice is
naturally looked upon as highly offensive to His feelings. In
Christianity witchcraft was esteemed the most horrible form of
impiety.[61] The religious law of the Hebrews--which generally
prohibited all practices that savoured of idolatry, such as
soothsaying and oracles--punished witches and wizards with
death.[62] Islam disapproves of all magic which is practised with
the assistance of evil spirits, or _jinn_, although such magic is
very prevalent and popularly tolerated in Muhammedan
countries.[63] Among polytheistic peoples, again, witchcraft is
certainly in many cases treated with great severity; a large
number of uncivilised races punish it with death,[64] and among
some of them it is the only offence which is capital.[65] But
then witchcraft is punished because it is considered destructive
to human life or welfare.[66] "In Africa," says Mr. Rowley,
"there is what is regarded as lawful as well as unlawful
witchcraft, the lawful being practised professedly for the
welfare of mankind, and in opposition to the unlawful, which is
resorted to for man's injury." But "the purposes of witchcraft
{651} are now generally wicked; its processes generally involve
moral guilt; the spirits invoked are, for the most part, avowedly
evil and maleficent."[67] Among the Gaika tribe of the Kafirs
"witchcraft is supposed to be an influence for evil, possessed by
one individual over another, or others."[68] Among the Bondeis
"the meaning of witchcraft is simply murder."[69] That
witchcraft, as a malicious practice, must be a grave and at the
same time frequent offence among savages, is obvious from the
common belief that death, disease, and misfortunes of every
description are caused by it. From a similar point of view it is
condemned by polytheistic nations of a higher type. Among the
Aztecs of ancient Mexico anybody who employed sorcery or
incantations for the purpose of doing harm to the community or to
individuals was sacrificed to the gods.[70] The Chinese Penal
Code punishes with death those who have been convicted of writing
and editing books of sorcery, or of employing spells and
incantations, "in order to agitate and influence the minds of the
people."[71] But, according to Mr. Dennys, the hatred of witches
and wizards cherished in the West does not seem to exist in
China; "those reputed to possess magic powers are regarded with
dread, but it is rare to hear of any of them coming to untimely
end by mob violence."[72] The Laws of [Hv]ammurabi, the
ancient Babylonian legislator, enjoin that "if a man weave a
spell and put a ban upon a man, and has not justified himself, he
that wove the spell upon him shall be put to death."[73] It is
said in 'Vishnu Purâna' that he who practises magical rites "for
the harm of others" is punished in the hell called Krimîsa.[74]
Among the ancient Teutons not every kind of magic but only such
as was considered of injurious nature was criminal.[75] {652} In
Rome, also, what was deemed harmless magic was left undisturbed,
whereas, according to the 'Law of the Twelve Tables,' "he who
affects another by magical arts or with poisonous drugs" is to be
put to death;[76] and during the Empire persons were severely
persecuted for political astrology or divination practised with a
view to discovering the successors to the throne.[77] Plato,
writes in his 'Laws':--"He who seems to be the sort of man who
injures others by magic knots or enchantments or incantations or
any of the like practices, if he be a prophet or divine, let him
die; and, if not being a prophet, he be convicted of witchcraft,
as in the previous case, let the court fix what he ought to pay
or suffer."[78] As Mr. Lecky justly remarks, both in Greece and
Rome the measures taken against witchcraft seem to have been
almost entirely free from religious fanaticism, the magician
being punished because he injured man and not because he offended
God.[79] Sometimes we find even among a polytheistic people that
sorcery is particularly opposed by its priesthood;[80] but the
reason for this is no doubt hatred of rivals rather than
religious zeal. Miss Kingsley, however, does not think that the
dislike of witchcraft in West Africa at large has originally
anything to do with the priesthood.[81]
[Footnote 61: Lea, _History of the Inquisition_, iii. 422, 453.
Pollock and Maitland, _History of English Law before the Time
of Edward I._ ii. 552 _sqq._ Milman, _op. cit._ ix. 69.
Lecky, _Rise and Influence of Rationalism in Europe_, i. 26.
Keary, _Outlines of Primitive Belief among the Indo-European
Races_, p. 511 _sqq._ Rogers, _Social Life in Scotland_, iii.
265, 268. Ralston, _Songs of the Russian People_, pp. 386, 416
_sq._]
[Footnote 62: _Exodus_, xxii. 18. _Leviticus_, xix. 26, 31; xx.
6, 27. _Deuteronomy_, xviii. 10 _sqq._]
[Footnote 63: Polak, _Persien_, i. 348. Lane, _Modern Egyptians_,
i. 333.]
[Footnote 64: _Supra_, i. 189 _sq._ Cruickshank, _Eighteen Years
on the Gold Coast_, ii. 179. Bowdich, _Mission to Ashantee_,
p. 260. Johnston, _British Central Africa_, p. 403 (Bakongo).
Cunningham, _Uganda_, pp. 35 (Banyoro), 140 (Bavuma), 305
(Basukuma), Arnot, _Garenganze_, p. 75. Decle, _Three Years in
Savage Africa_, p. 76 (Barotse). Casalis, _Basutos_, p. 229.
Kidd, _The Essential Kafir_, p. 148 _sq._ Sibree, _The Great
African Island_, p. 292 (Malagasy). Swettenham, _Malay Sketches_,
p. 196 (Malays of Perak). Dalton, _Ethnology of Bengal_,
(Oraons). Egede, _Description of Greenland_, p. 123 _sq._ Krause,
_Die Tlinkit-Indianer_, p. 293 _sq._ Jones, quoted by Kohler,
'Die Rechte der Urvölker Nordamerikas,' in _Zeitschr. f. vergl.
Rechtswiss._ xii. 412 (Chippewas). Morgan, _League of the
Iroquois_, p. 330; Seaver, _Life of Mrs. Jemison_, p. 167
(Iroquois). Powell, 'Wyandot Government,' in _Ann. Rep. Bur.
Ethn._ i. 67. Stevenson, 'Sia,' _ibid._ xi. 19. Lumholtz,
_Unknown Mexico_, i. 325 (Tarahumares). Forbes, 'Aymara Indians
of Bolivia and Peru,' in _Jour. Ethn. Soc._ N. S. ii. 236, n. *]
[Footnote 65: _Supra_, i. 189.]
[Footnote 66: _Cf._ Dorsey, 'Omaha Sociology,' in _Ann. Rep. Bur.
Ethn._ iii. 364.]
[Footnote 67: Rowley, _Religion of the Africans_, p. 125 _sq._
See also Kidd, _The Essential Kafir_, p. 148.]
[Footnote 68: Maclean, _Compendium of Kafir Laws_, p. 123.]
[Footnote 69: Dale, in _Jour. Anthr. Inst._ xxv. 223.]
[Footnote 70: Bancroft, _Native Races of the Pacific States_,
ii. 462.]
[Footnote 71: _Ta Tsing Leu Lee_, sec. cclvi. p. 273.]
[Footnote 72: Dennys, _Folk-Lore of China_, p. 80.]
[Footnote 73: _Laws of [Hv]ammurabi_, 1.]
[Footnote 74: _Vish['n]u Purá['n]a_, p. 208.]
[Footnote 75: Brunner, _Deutsche Rechtsgeschichte_, ii. 678.]
[Footnote 76: _Lex Duodecim Tabularum_, viii. 25.]
[Footnote 77: Lecky, _History of European Morals_, i. 420.]
[Footnote 78: Plato, _Leges_, xi. 933.]
[Footnote 79: Lecky, _Rationalism in Europe_, i. 18.]
[Footnote 80: Kingsley, _West African Studies_, p. 137. Rink,
_Greenland_, p. 201.]
[Footnote 81: Kingsley, _West African Studies_, p. 135 _sq._]
The religious intolerance which has accompanied the rise of
monotheism is, as we have just observed, the result of the nature
attributed to its godhead. But the evolution of religion does not
end with the triumph of a jealous and irritable heavenly despot.
There is a later stage where men believe in a god or supernatural
power which is absolutely free from all human weakness, and in
such a religion intolerance has no place. It has been said that
the tolerant spirit of Buddhism[82] is due to religious {653}
indifference,[83] but the original cause of it seems to be the
absence of a personal god; and the increasing tolerance of modern
Christianity is undoubtedly connected with the more ethical view
it takes of the Deity when compared with the opinions of earlier
ages. It should be remembered, however, that religious toleration
does not mean passive indifference with regard to dissenting
religious ideas. The tolerant man may be a great propagandist. He
may do his utmost to eradicate, by means of persuasion, what he
considers to be a false belief. He may even resort to stronger
measures against those who do mischief in the name of their
religion. But he does not persecute anybody for the sake of his
faith; nor does he believe in an intolerant and persecuting god.
[Footnote 82: Hardy, _Eastern Monachism_, p. 412. Monier-Williams,
_Buddhism_, p. 126. Waddell, _Buddhism of Tibet_, p. 568. Edkins,
_Religion in China_, p. 127. Gutzlaff, _Sketch of Chinese
History_, i. 70. Forbes, _British Burma_, p. 322 _sq._]
[Footnote 83: Forbes, _op. cit._ p. 322. _Cf._ Kuenen, _Hibbert
Lectures on National and Universal Religions_, p. 290.]
* * * * *
Supernatural beings, according to the belief of many races,
desire to be worshipped not only because they depend upon human
care for their subsistence or comfort, but because worship is an
act of homage. We have seen that sacrifice, after losing its
original significance, still survives as a reverent offering. So
also prayer is frequently a tribute to the self-regarding pride
of the god to whom it is addressed. A supplication is an act of
humility, more or less flattering to the person appealed to and
especially gratifying where, as in the case of a god, the
granting of the request entails no deprivation or loss, but on
the contrary is rewarded by the worshipper. Moreover, the request
is very commonly accompanied by reverential epithets or words of
eulogy; and praise, nay even flattery, is just as pleasant to
superhuman as to human ears. Gods are addressed as great or
mighty, as lords or kings, as fathers or grandfathers.[84] A
prayer of the ancient Peruvians began with the following
words:--"O conquering Viracocha! Ever present Viracocha! Thou art
in the ends of the earth without equal!"[85] {654} The ancient
Egyptians flattered their gods,[86] the Vedic and Zoroastrian
hymns are full of praise. Muhammedans invoke Allah by sentences
such as, "God is great," "God is merciful," "God is he who seeth
and heareth." Words of praise, as well as words of thanks,
addressed to a god, may certainly be the expressions of
unreflecting admiration or gratitude, free from all thought of
pleasing him; but where laudation is demanded by the god as a
price for good services, it is simply a tribute to his vanity.
There is a Chinese story which amusingly illustrates this little
weakness of so many gods:--At the hottest season of the year
there was a heavy fall of snow at Soochow. The people, in their
consternation, went to the temple of the Great Prince to pray.
Then the spirit moved one of them to say, "You now address me as
Your Honour. Make it Your Excellency, and, though I am but a
lesser deity, it may be well worth your while to do so."
Thereupon the people began to use the latter term, and the snow
stopped at once.[87] The Hindus say that by praise a person may
obtain from the gods whatever he desires.[88]
[Footnote 84: See Brinton, _Religions of Primitive Peoples_, p. 105.]
[Footnote 85: de Molina, 'Fables and Rites of the Yncas,' in
_Narratives of the Rites and Laws of the Yncas_, p. 33.]
[Footnote 86: Amélineau, _L'évolution des idées morales dans
l'Égypte ancienne_, p. 214.]
[Footnote 87: Giles, _Strange Stories from a Chinese Studio_,
ii. 294.]
[Footnote 88: Ward, _View of the History, Literature, and
Religion of the Hindoos_, ii. 69.]
We have different means of gratifying a person's self-regarding
pride: one is to praise him, another is to humiliate ourselves.
Both have been adopted by men with reference to their gods.
Besides hymns of praise there are hymns of penitence, the object
of which is largely to appease the angry feelings of offended
gods. Prayers for remission of sins form a whole literature among
peoples like that of the Vedic age, the Chaldeans,[89] and the
Hebrews, who commonly regarded calamities to which men were
subject not as the result of an inexorable fate nor as the
machinations of evil spirits, but as divine punishments.
According to early ideas, as we have seen, sin is a substance
charged with injurious {655} energy, from which the infected
person tries to rid himself by mechanical means.[90] But at the
same time the effect of sin is conceived as a divine punishment,
and this suggests atonement. In the Rig-Veda we not only hear of
the removal of sins by magical operations, but the gods are
requested to free the sufferer from his sin.[91]
[Footnote 89: Zimmern, _Babylonische Busspsalmen_, _passim_.
Mürdter-Delitzsch, _Geschichte Babyloniens und Assyriens_, p. 38
_sq._ Delitzsch, _Wo lag das Paradies?_ p. 86. Hommel, _Die
semitischen Völker und Sprachen_, p. 315 _sqq._ Meyer,
_Geschichte des Alterthums_, i. 178.]
[Footnote 90: _Supra_, i. 52 _sqq._]
[Footnote 91: See Oldenberg, _Die Religion des Veda_, pp. 292,
296, 317 _sq._]
Gods are fond of prayers not only as expressions of humility or
repentance but for other reasons as well. In early religion a
prayer is commonly connected with an offering, since the god is
not supposed to bestow his favours gratuitously.[92] By the call
contained in it he is invited to partake of the offering, or his
attention is drawn to it.[93] "Compassionate father!" says the
Tanna priest when he offers first-fruits to a deified ancestor;
"here is some food for you, eat it, and be kind to us on account
of it!"[94] In one of the Pahlavi texts it is said that when the
guardian spirits of the righteous are invited they accept the
sacrifice, whereas if they are not invited "they go up the height
of a spear and will remain."[95] Throughout the Yasts we hear of
the claims of deities to be worshipped with sacrifices in which
they are invoked by their own names and with the proper
words.[96] Mithra complains, "If men would worship me with a
sacrifice in which I were invoked by my own name, as they worship
the other Yazatas with sacrifices in which they are invoked by
their own names, then I would come to the faithful at the
appointed time."[97] {656} According to Vedic and Zoroastrian
texts the gods were purified, strengthened, and encouraged not
only by offerings but by prayers, although it is difficult in
this respect to distinguish between two elements in one and the
same rite which are so closely interwoven with each other.[98] By
his invocations man assists the gods in their combats with evil
demons, he sends his prayer between the earth and the heavens
there to smite the fiends.[99] In a Vedic hymn the people are
exhorted to "sing to Indra a song very destructive to the
demons."[100] By pronouncing the praise of Asha, Zarathustra
brings the Daevas to naught;[101] by mentioning the name of Ahura
Mazda their malice is most effectually destroyed.[102] Thus
prayer may be a religious duty also on account of the magic
efficacy ascribed to it, and the same is the case with
incantations directed against evil spirits.
[Footnote 92: Tylor, _Primitive Culture_, ii. 364 _sqq._ Georgi,
_Russia_, iii. 272 (shamanistic peoples of Siberia). Maspero,
_Études de mythologie et d'archéologie égyptiennes_, i. 163;
_Idem_, _Dawn of Civilization_, p. 124, n. 5 (ancient Egyptians).
Darmesteter, in _Sacred Books of the East_, iv. (1st ed.) p.
lxix. (Zoroastrians). Oldenberg, _op. cit._ p. 430 _sqq._; Barth,
_Religions of India_, p. 34 (Vedic people). Donaldson, 'Expiatory
and Substitutionary Sacrifices of the Greeks,' in _Trans. Roy.
Soc. Edinburgh_, xxvii. 430. Grimm, _Teutonic Mythology_, i. 29.
Among the Kafirs of Natal "a soldier wounded in battle would only
pray if his hurt were slight; but if it were serious, he would
vow a sacrifice on his return, naming perhaps the particular
beast" (Shooter, _Kafirs of Natal_, p. 164).]
[Footnote 93: _Cf._ Brinton, _Religions of Primitive Peoples_,
p. 104.]
[Footnote 94: Turner, _Nineteen Years in Polynesia_, p. 88.]
[Footnote 95: _Shâyast Lâ-Shâyast_, ix. 12.]
[Footnote 96: _Yasts_, viii. 23 _sqq._; x. 30.]
[Footnote 97: _Ibid._ x. 55. _Cf._ _ibid._ x. 74.]
[Footnote 98: See Bergaigne, _La religion védique_, ii. 237, 250,
273 _sqq._; Zimmer, _Altindisches Leben_, p. 337 _sqq._;
Oldenberg, _Religion des Veda_, p. 437; Macdonell, _Vedic
Mythology_, p. 60; Meyer, _Geschichte des Alterthums_, i. 534
_sq._ (Zoroastrianism).]
[Footnote 99: _Yasna_, xxviii. 7. _Yasts_, iii. 5. _Vendîdâd_,
xix. 1, 2, 8 _sqq._ Darmesteter, _Ormazd et Ahriman_, pp. 101,
119, 131, 193. _Idem_, in _Sacred Books of the East_, iv. (1st
ed.) p. lxix.]
[Footnote 100: _Rig-Veda_, viii. 78. 1.]
[Footnote 101: _Yasts_, xiii. 89. _Cf._ _ibid._ xiii. 90.]
[Footnote 102: _Ibid._ i. 3, 4, 10, 11, 19.]
In earlier chapters we have often noticed how curses gradually
develop into genuine prayers, and _vice versa_ may a prayer
develop into a curse or spell. Dr. Rivers observes that the
formulæ used in Toda magic have the form of prayers.[103] So also
Assyrian incantations are often dressed in the robe of
supplication, and end with the formula, "Do so and so, and I
shall gladden thine heart and worship thee in humility."[104]
Vedic texts which were not originally meant as charms became so
afterwards. Incantations are comparatively rare in the Rig-Veda,
and seem even to be looked upon as objectionable, but towards the
end of the Vedic period the reign of Brahma, the power of prayer,
as the supreme god in the Indian Pantheon began to dawn.[105]
{657}_Brahma_ is a force by which the gods act, by which they are
born, and by which the world has been formed;[106] but it is also
the prayer which ascends from the altar to heaven and by means of
which man wrests from the gods the boon he demands[107]--"the
prayer governs them."[108] This omnipresent force is personified
in Brahma[n.]aspati, the lord of prayer, who resides in the
highest heaven but of whom not only every separate god but the
priest himself becomes a manifestation at the moment he
pronounces the mantras or sacred texts.[109] It is a current
saying in India that the whole universe is subject to the gods,
that the gods are subject to the mantras, that the mantras are
subject to the Brahmans, and that therefore the Brahmans are the
real gods.[110] In Zoroastrianism prayers are not made
efficacious by devotion and fervency, but to the words themselves
belongs a mysterious power and the mere recitation of them, if
correct and faultless, brings that power into action;[111] in the
Yasts prayer is regarded as a goddess, as the daughter of Ahura
Mazda.[112] In ancient Egypt, M. Maspero observes, "la prière
n'était pas comme chez nous une petition que l'homme présente au
dieu, et que le dieu est libre d'accepter ou de refuser à son
gré: c'était une formule dont les terms ont une valeur
impérative, et dont l'énonciation exacte oblige le dieu à
concéder ce qu'on lui demande."[113] Greek literature supplies
other instances of men conjuring their gods by incantations;[114]
the word [Greek: a)ra/] means both prayer and curse.[115] And "in
the Roman, as in the majority of the old Italian cults, prayer is
a magic formula, producing its effect by its own inherent
quality."[116]
[Footnote 103: Rivers, _Todas_, pp. 450, 453.]
[Footnote 104: Tallqvist, 'Die assyrische Beschwörungsserie
Maqlû,' in _Acta Soc. Scient. Fennicæ_, xx. 22.]
[Footnote 105: Oldenberg, _op. cit._ p. 311 _sqq._ Hopkins, _op.
cit._ p. 149. Roth, 'Brahma und die Brahmanen,' in _Zeitschr. d.
Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellsch._ i. 67, 71. Darmesteter,
_Essais orientaux_, p. 132.]
[Footnote 106: _Atharva-Veda_, xi. 5. 5. Barth, _op. cit._ p. 38.]
[Footnote 107: Roth, _loc. cit._ p. 66 _sqq._ Barth, _op. cit._
p. 38. Darmesteter, _Ormazd et Ahriman_, p. 101.]
[Footnote 108: _Rig-Veda_, vi. 51. 8.]
[Footnote 109: Barth, _op. cit._ p. 15 _sq._ Roth, _loc. cit._
p. 71.]
[Footnote 110: Monier-Williams, _Br[=a]hmanism and Hind[=u]ism_,
p. 201 _sq._]
[Footnote 111: See Geiger, _Civilization of the Eastern
Ir[=a]nians_, i. 71.]
[Footnote 112: _Yasts_, xiii. 92; xvii. 16.]
[Footnote 113: Maspero, _Études de mythologie et archéologie
égyptiennes_, i. 163.]
[Footnote 114: See Usener, _Götternamen_, p. 335 _sq._]
[Footnote 115: _Cf._ von Lasaulx, _Der Fluch bei Griechen und
Römern_, p. 6. So also the Manx word _gwee_ means both prayer and
curse (Rhys, _Celtic Folklore_, i. 349).]
[Footnote 116: Renan, _Hibbert Lectures on the Influence of the
Institutions, &c. of Rome on Christianity_, p. 10 _sq._ _Cf._
Jevons, in Plutarch's _Romane Questions_, p. xxviii.; Granger,
_Worship of the Romans_, p. 158.]
{658} Whilst an ordinary curse readily develops into a prayer
when the name of a god is brought in for the purpose of giving
magic efficacy to the curse, a prayer may contrariwise assume a
magic character by being addressed to a god--just as a sacrifice
becomes endowed with magic energy in consequence of its contact
or communion with the supernatural being to which it is offered;
and the constraining force in the prayer or sacrifice may then be
directed even against the god himself. But there can be little
doubt that the extreme importance which the magic element in the
cult attained among the nations of ancient civilisation was
chiefly due to the prevalence of a powerful priesthood or class
of persons well versed in sacred texts. A successful incantation
presupposes a certain knowledge in him who utters it. The words
of the formulæ are fixed and may not suffer the slightest
modification under penalty of losing their potency. Right
intonation is equally important.[117] The Brahmanic mantras "must
be pronounced according to certain mystic forms and with absolute
accuracy, or their efficacy is destroyed"; nay, if in the
repetition of a mantra the slightest mistake is made, either by
omission of a syllable or defective pronunciation, the calamity
which it was intended to bring down on an enemy will inevitably
recoil on the head of the repeater.[118] The potency of the
incantation largely lies in the voice, which is the magical
instrument _par excellence_.[119] A Buddhist priest who was asked
what advantage he could expect to derive from merely repeating a
number of words with the sense of which he was entirely
unacquainted, gave the answer that the advantage of often
repeating the sounds was incalculable, infinite;[120] and a
Muhammedan writer argues that prayers which are offered in any
other language than {659} Arabic are profane and useless, because
"the sounds of this language"--whether understood or
not--"illuminate the darkness of men" and "purify the hearts of
the faithful."[121] Ideas of this sort are of course most
strongly advocated by those who derive the greatest profit from
them--priests or scribes. And it is easy to understand that with
their increasing influence among a superstitious and credulous
people the magic significance which is so readily ascribed to a
religious act also has a tendency to grow in importance.
[Footnote 117: Maspero, _Études_, i. 109; _Idem_, _Dawn of
Civilization_, pp. 146, 213 (ancient Egyptians). Sayce, _Hibbert
Lectures on the Religion of the Andent Babylonians_, p. 319.
Darmesteter, _Ormazd et Ahriman_, p. 9. Sell, _Faith of Islám_,
pp. 53, 79, 334, 341.]
[Footnote 118: Monier-Williams, _Br[=a]hmanism and Hind[=u]ism_,
p. 199.]
[Footnote 119: _Yasts_, iv. 5. Maspero, _Études_, ii. 373 _sq._;
_Idem_, _Dawn of Civilization_, p. 146 (ancient Egyptians). Sell,
_op. cit._ p. 318 (Muhammedans).]
[Footnote 120: _Indo-Chinese Gleaner_, iii. 145.]
[Footnote 121: _Indo-Chinese Gleaner_, iii. 146.]
* * * * *
Among all sins there is none which gods resent more severely than
disobedience to their commandments. Mr. Macdonald says of the
Efatese, in the New Hebrides, that no people under the sun is
more obedient to what they regard as divine mandates than these
savages, who believe that an offence against a spiritual being
means calamity and death.[122] The Chaldeans had a lively sense
of the risks entailed upon the sinner by disobedience to the
gods.[123] According to the Bible disobedience was the first sin
committed by man, and death was introduced into the world as its
punishment. "Rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, and
stubbornness is as iniquity and idolatry."[124] On the history of
morals this demand of obedience has exercised considerable
influence. It gives emphasis to moral rules which are looked upon
as divine injunctions, and it helps to preserve such rules after
the conditions from which they sprang have ceased to exist. The
fact that they have become meaningless does not render them less
binding; on the contrary, the mystery surrounding them often
increases their sanctity. The commandments of a god must be
obeyed independently of their contents, simply because
disobedience to him is a sin. Acts totally different in
character, crimes of the worst description and {660} practices by
themselves perfectly harmless, are grouped together as almost
equally offensive to the deity because they have been forbidden
by him.[125] And moral progress is hampered by a number of
precepts which, though rooted in obsolete superstitions or
antiquated ideas about right and wrong, have an obstinate
tendency to persist on account of their supposed divine
origin.[126]
[Footnote 122: Macdonald, _Oceania_, p. 201.]
[Footnote 123: Maspero, _Dawn of Civilization_, p. 682.
Delitzsch, _Wo lag das Paradies?_ p. 86.]
[Footnote 124: _1 Samuel_, xv. 23. Schultz, _Old Testament
Theology_, ii. 286. For other instances see _Rig-Veda_, vii. 89.
5; Geiger, _Civilization of the Eastern Ir[=a]nians_, i. p. li.;
Schmidt, _Die Ethik der alten Griechen_, ii. 51 _sq._]
[Footnote 125: _Cf._ _supra_, i. 193 _sqq._]
[Footnote 126: _Cf._ Pollock, _Essays on Jurisprudence and
Ethics_, p. 306 _sq._]
* * * * *
Duties to gods are in the first place based on prudential
considerations. Supernatural beings, even when on the whole of a
benevolent disposition, are no less resentful than men, and,
owing to their superhuman power, much more dangerous. On the
other hand, they may also bestow wonderful benefits upon those
who please them. The general rule that prudence readily assumes a
moral value holds particularly true of religious matters, where
great individual interests are at stake. Waterland says in his
Sermon on Self-love:--"The wisest course for any man to take is
to secure an interest in the life to come. . . . He may love
himself, in this instance, as highly and as tenderly as he
pleases. There can be no excess of fondness, or self-indulgence,
in respect of eternal happiness. This is loving himself in the
best manner, and to the best purposes. All virtue and piety are
thus resolvable into a principle of self-love. . . . It is with
reference to ourselves, and for our own sakes, that we love even
God himself."[127]
[Footnote 127: Waterland, 'On Self-Love,' in _The English
Preacher_, i. 101 sq._ Cf._ Paley's definition of virtue in his
_Principles of Moral and Political Philosophy_, i. 7 (_Complete
Works_, ii. 38; _supra_, i. 300).]
At the same time it may be not only in people's own interests,
but in the interests of their fellow men as well, for them to be
on friendly terms with supernatural beings. These beings often
visit the iniquity of fathers or forefathers upon children or
descendants, or punish the community for the sins of one of its
members;[128] and, on the other hand, they reward the whole
family or group for the virtues of a single individual.[129] So
also, when the {661} members of a community join in common acts
of worship, each worshipper promotes not only his own welfare,
but the welfare of his people. In early religion it is of the
utmost importance for the tribe or nation that the established
cult should be strictly observed. This is a fact which cannot be
too much emphasised when we have to explain how conduct which is
pleasing to a god has come to be regarded as a moral duty; for,
if the latest stages of religious development be excepted, the
relations between men and their gods are communal rather than
individual in character. Ahura Mazda said, "If men sacrifice unto
Verethraghna, made by Ahura, if the due sacrifice and prayer is
offered unto him just as it ought to be performed in the
perfection of holiness, never will a hostile horde enter the
Aryan countries, nor any plague, nor leprosy, nor venomous
plants, nor the chariot of a foe, nor the uplifted spear of a
foe!"[130] Thus the duties to gods are at the same time social
duties of the first order, owing to the intensely social
character of religious relationships.
[Footnote 128: _Supra_, i. 48 _sqq._]
[Footnote 129: _Supra_, i. 96 _sqq._]
[Footnote 130: _Yasts_, xiv. 48.]
Another circumstance which has contributed to the moral
condemnation of offences against gods is that people are anxious
to punish such offences in order to prevent the divine wrath from
turning against themselves;[131] for punishment, as we have seen,
easily leads to moral disapproval. But although prudential
considerations of some kind or other be the chief cause of the
obligatory character attached to men's conduct towards their
gods, they are not the only cause. We must also remember that
gods are regarded with genuine reverence by their worshippers;
and where this is the case offences against religion naturally
excite sympathetic resentment in the latter, whilst great piety
calls forth sympathetic approval and is praised as a virtue.
[Footnote 131: _Supra_, i. 194.]
I have here spoken of duties which men consider they owe to their
gods, not of duties to supernatural beings in general. This
distinction, though not always easy to {662} follow in detail, is
yet of vital importance. People may no doubt be afraid to offend
and even anxious to please other spirits besides their gods, but
religious duties chiefly arise where there are established
relationships between men and supernatural beings; indeed, it may
even be a duty to refrain from worshipping or actually to
persecute other spirits, as is the case in monotheistic
religions. Men depend for their welfare on their gods more than
on any other members of the spiritual world. They select as their
gods those supernatural beings from whom they think they have
most to fear or most to hope. Hence it is generally in the
relations to them only that those factors, prudential and
reverential, are to be found which lead to the establishment of
religious duties.
CHAPTER L
GODS AS GUARDIANS OF MORALITY
AS men are concerned about the conduct of their fellow men
towards their gods, so gods are in many cases concerned about
men's conduct towards one another--disapproving of vice and
punishing the wicked, approving of virtue and rewarding the good.
But this is by no means a universal characteristic of gods. It is
a quality attributed to certain deities only and, as it seems, in
most instances slowly acquired.
We are told by competent observers that the supernatural beings
of savage belief frequently display the utmost indifference to
all questions of worldly morality. According to Messrs. Spencer
and Gillen, the Central Australian natives, though they assume
the existence of both friendly and mischievous spirits, "have not
the vaguest idea of a personal individual other than an actual
living member of the tribe who approves or disapproves of their
conduct, so far as anything like what we call morality is
concerned."[1] The Society Islanders maintained that "the only
crimes that were visited by the displeasure of their deities were
the neglect of some rite or ceremony."[2] The religious belief of
the Gonds of Central India is said to be wholly unconnected with
any idea of morality; a moral deity demanding righteous conduct
from his creatures, our informant adds, is a religious {664}
conception far beyond the present capacity either of the Indian
savage or the ordinary Hindu.[3] Of the E[(w]e-, Yoruba-, and
Tshi-speaking peoples of the West African Slave and Gold Coasts
Major Ellis writes:--"Religion, at the stage of growth in which
we find it among these three groups of tribes, has no connection
with morals, or the relations of men to one another. It consists
solely of ceremonial worship, and the gods are only offended when
some rite or ceremony has been neglected or omitted. . . .
Murder, theft, and all offences against the person or against
property, are matters in which the gods have no immediate
concern, and in which they take no interest, except in the case
when, bribed by a valuable offering, they take up the quarrel in
the interests of some faithful worshipper."[4] So also among the
Bambala, a Bantu tribe in the Kasai, south of the River Congo,
"there is no belief that the gods or spirits punish wrong-doing
by afflicting the criminal or his family, nor are the acts of a
man supposed to affect his condition after death."[5] The Indians
of Guiana, says Sir E. F. Im Thurn, observe an admirable code of
morality, which exists side by side with a simple animistic form
of religion, but the two have absolutely no connection with one
another.[6] With reference to the Tarahumares of Mexico Dr.
Lumholtz states that the only wrong towards the gods of which an
Indian may consider himself guilty is that he does not dance
enough. "For this offence he asks pardon. Whatever bad thoughts
or actions toward man he may have on his conscience are settled
between himself and the person offended."[7] In the primitive
Indian's conception of a god," Mr. Parkman observes, "the idea of
moral good {665} has no part. His deity does not dispense justice
for this world or the next."[8]
[Footnote 1: Spencer and Gillen, _Northern Tribes of Central
Australia_, p. 491.]
[Footnote 2: Ellis, _Polynesian Researches_, i. 397.]
[Footnote 3: Forsyth, _Highlands of Central India_, p. 145. See
also Hodgson, _Miscellaneous Essays_, i. 124 (Bódo and Dhimáls);
Caldwell, _Tinnevelly Shanars_, p. 36; Lyall, _Asiatic Studies_,
p. 45; Radloff, _Das Schamanenthum_, p. 13 (Turkish tribes of the
Altai).]
[Footnote 4: Ellis, _Yoruba-speaking Peoples of the Slave Coast_,
p. 293. _Idem_, _Tshi-speaking Peoples of the Gold Coast_, p. 10.
The E[(w]e god Mawu is represented as an exception to this rule
(_infra_, p. 686).]
[Footnote 5: Torday and Joyce, 'Ethnography of the Ba-Mbala,' in
_Jour. Anthr. Inst._ xxxv. 415.]
[Footnote 6: Im Thurn, _Indians of Guiana_, p. 342.]
[Footnote 7: Lumholtz, _Unknown Mexico_, i. 332.]
[Footnote 8: Parkman, _Jesuits in North America_, p. lxxviii. See
also Eastman, _Dacotah_, p. xx.; Schoolcraft, _Indian Tribes of
the United States_, ii. 195 (Dacotahs).]
That many savage gods are so thoroughly selfish as to care about
nothing else than what concerns their own interests, may also be
inferred from the character attributed to them. We have seen that
the altruistic sentiment is the chief source from which moral
emotions spring, and of the gods of various uncivilised peoples
we hear not only that they are totally destitute of benevolent
feelings, but that they are of a malicious nature and mostly
intent on doing harm to mankind.[9]
[Footnote 9: See Meiners, _Geschichte der Religionen_, i. 405;
Tylor, _Primitive Culture_, ii. 329; Avebury, _Origin of
Civilisation_, p. 232 _sqq._; Roskoff, _Geschichte des Teufels_,
i. 20 _sq._; Frazer, _Golden Bough_, iii. 40 _sqq._; Karsten,
_Origin of Worship_, p. 46 _sqq._]
The Maoris of New Zealand regarded their deities as the causes of
pain, misery, and death, as mighty enemies from whom nobody ever
thought of getting any aid or good, but who were to be rendered
harmless by means of charms or spells or by sacrifices offered to
appease their wrath.[10] The Tahitians "supposed their gods were
powerful spiritual beings, in some degree acquainted with the
events of this world, and generally governing its affairs; never
exercising any thing like benevolence towards even their most
devoted followers, but requiring homage and obedience, with
constant offerings; denouncing their anger, and dispensing
destruction on all who either refused or hesitated to
comply."[11] The Fijians "formed no idea of any voluntary
kindness on the part of their gods, except the planting of wild
yams, and the wrecking of strange canoes and foreign vessels on
their coast";[12] and that some of these beings were conceived as
positively wicked is indicated by the names given them--"the
adulterer," "the rioter," "the murderer," and so forth.[13] The
people of Aneiteum, in the New Hebrides, maintained that "earth
and air and ocean were filled with natmasses, spiritual beings,
but all malignant, who ruled over everything that affected the
human race. . . . Their deities, like themselves, were {666} all
selfish and malignant; they breathed no spirit of benevolence."[14]
[Footnote 10: Taylor, _Te Ika a Maui_, pp. 104, 148. Colenso,
_Maori Races of New Zealand_, p. 62. _Cf._ Dieffenbach, _Travels
in New Zealand_, ii. 118.]
[Footnote 11: Ellis, _Polynesian Researches_, i. 336.]
[Footnote 12: Williams and Calvert, _Fiji_, p. 195.]
[Footnote 13: _Ibid._ p. 185.]
[Footnote 14: Inglis, _In the New Hebrides_, pp. 30, 32.]
The Santal of India believes in no god from whose benignity he
may expect favour, but in "a multitude of demons and evil
spirits, whose spite he endeavours by supplications to avert."
Even his family god "represents the secret principle of evil,
which no bolts can shut out, and which dwells in unseen but
eternally malignant presence beside every hearth."[15] The
Kamchadales do not seem to have hoped for anything good from
their deities; Kutka himself, the creator of the universe and the
greatest of the gods, was once caught in adultery and
castrated.[16]
[Footnote 15: Hunter, _Annals of Rural Bengal_, i. 181 _sq._]
[Footnote 16: Klemm, _Cultur-Geschichte der Menschheit_, ii. 318
_sq._ Steller, _Beschreibung von Kamtschatka_, p. 264.]
According to the beliefs of the Koksoagmyut, or Hudson Bay
Eskimo, all the minor spirits are under the control of the great
spirit whose name is Tung ak, and this being "is nothing more or
less than death, which ever seeks to torment and harass the lives
of people that their spirits may go to dwell with him."[17] Nay,
even the special guardian spirit by which each person is supposed
to be attended is malignant in character and ever ready to seize
upon the least occasion to work harm upon the individual whom it
accompanies; its good offices can be obtained by propitiation
only.[18] Among the Nenenot, or Indians of Hudson Bay, "the rule
seems to be that all spirits are by nature bad, and must be
propitiated to secure their favour."[19] Of various Brazilian
tribes we are likewise told that they do not believe in the
existence of any benevolent spirits. Thus the Coroado Indian
acknowledges only an evil principle, which sometimes meets him in
the form of a lizard or a crocodile or an ounce or a man with the
feet of a stag, sometimes transforms itself into a swamp, and
leads him astray, vexes him, brings him into difficulty and
danger, and even kills him.[20] The Mundrucus of the Cuparí have
no notion of a good supreme being, but believe in an evil spirit,
regarded merely as a kind of hobgoblin, who is at the bottom of
all their little failures and gives them troubles in fishing,
hunting, and so forth.[21] The Uaupés, says Mr. Wallace, "appear
to have no definite idea of a God. . . . They have much more
definite ideas of a bad spirit, 'Juruparí,' or Devil, whom they
fear and {667} endeavour through their _pagés_ [or medicine men]
to propitiate. When it thunders, they say the 'Juruparí' is
angry, and their idea of natural death is that the 'Juruparí'
kills them."[22]
[Footnote 17: Turner, 'Ethnology of the Ungava District,' in
_Ann. Rep. Bur. Ethn._ xi. 272.]
[Footnote 18: _Ibid._ p. 194.]
[Footnote 19: _Ibid._ p. 193 _sq._]
[Footnote 20: von Spix and von Martius, _Travels in Brazil_, ii. 243.]
[Footnote 21: Bates, _The Naturalist on the River Amazons_, ii. 137.]
[Footnote 22: Wallace, _Travels on the Amazon_, p. 500.]
In Eastern Africa, according to Burton, "the sentiment generally
elicited by a discourse upon the subject of the existence of a
Deity is a desire to see him, in order to revenge upon him the
deaths of relatives, friends, and cattle."[23] The only quality
of a moral character which the Wanika are said to ascribe to the
supreme being, Mulungu, is that of vindictiveness and
cruelty.[24] To the Matabele the idea of a benevolent deity is
utterly foreign, but they have a vague notion of a number of evil
spirits always ready to do harm, and the chief among these are
the spirits of their ancestors.[25] All the good the Bechuanas
enjoy they ascribe to rainmakers, but "all the evil that comes
they attribute to a supernatural being";[26] of their principal
god, Morimo, Mr. Moffat never once, in the course of twenty-five
years spent in missionary labour, heard that he did good or was
capable of doing so.[27] Among various other African peoples,
travellers assure us, supernatural beings are supposed to
exercise a potent influence for evil rather than for good, or
beneficent spirits are, at any rate, almost unknown.[28] On the
Gold Coast, according to Major Ellis, the majority of spirits are
malignant, and every misfortune is ascribed to their action. "I
believe," he adds, "that originally all were conceived as
malignant, and that the indifference, or the beneficence (when
propitiated by sacrifice and flattery), which are now believed to
be characteristics of some of these beings, are later
modifications of the original idea."[29]
[Footnote 23: Burton, _Lake Regions of Central Africa_, ii. 348.]
[Footnote 24: New, _Life, Wanderings, and Labours in Eastern
Africa_, p. 103 _sq._]
[Footnote 25: Decle, _Three Years in Savage Africa_, p. 153.]
[Footnote 26: Campbell, _Second Journey in the Interior of South
Africa_, ii. 204.]
[Footnote 27: Moffat, _Missionary Labours in Southern Africa_
(ed. 1842), p. 262.]
[Footnote 28: Rowley, _Religion of the Africans_, p. 55.
Kingsley, _Travels in West Africa_, p. 443. Mockler-Ferryman,
_British Nigeria_, p. 255 _sq._]
[Footnote 29: Ellis, _Tshi-speaking Peoples_, pp. 12, 18, 20.
_Cf._ Cruickshank, _Eighteen Years on the Gold Coast_, ii. 134.]
Of many savages it is reported that they have notions of good, as
well as of evil spirits, but that they chiefly or exclusively
worship the evil ones, since the others are supposed to be so
good that they require no offerings or homage.[30] But adoration
of supernatural beings which are {668} considered at least
occasionally beneficent is also very prevalent among uncivilised
peoples.[31] The gods of the pagan Lapps were all good, although
they took revenge upon those who offended them.[32] Among the
Navaho Indians of New Mexico "the gods who are supposed to love
and help men the most receive the greatest honour"; whereas the
evil spirits are not worshipped except, rumour says, by the
witches.[33] The belief in guardian or tutelary spirits of
tribes, clans, villages, families, or individuals, is extremely
widespread.[34] These spirits may be exacting enough--they are
often greatly feared by their own worshippers, and sometimes
described as distinctly malignant {669} by nature;[35] but their
general function is nevertheless to afford assistance to the
person or persons with whom they are associated. At the same time
it should be noticed that the goodness of many savage gods only
consists in their readiness to help those who please them by
offerings or adoration; and in no case does their benevolence
prove that they take an active interest in morality at large. A
friendly supernatural being is not necessarily a guardian of
men's behaviour towards their fellow men. In Morocco the patron
saint of a town, village, or tribe is not in the least concerned
about any kind of conduct which has not immediate reference to
himself.[36] It is believed that even the robber may, by invoking
a dead saint, secure his assistance in an unlawful enterprise.
[Footnote 30: Wilken, _Het Animisme bij de volken van den
Indischen Archipel_, p. 207 _sq._ Perham, 'Sea Dyak Religion,' in
_Jour. Straits Branch Roy. Asiatic Soc._ no. 10, p. 220; St.
John, _Life in the Forests of the Far East_, i. 69 _sq._ (Sea
Dyaks). Blumentritt, 'Der Ahnencultus und die religiösen
Anschauungen der Malaien des Philippinen-Archipels,' in
_Mittheil. d. kais. u. kön. Geograph. Gesellsch. in Wien_, xxv.
166 _sqq._ Prain, 'Angami Nagas,' in _Revue coloniale
internationale_, v. 489. Forsyth, _op. cit._ pp. 141, 143
(Gonds). Hooker, _Himalayan Journals_, i. 126 (Lepchas).
Robertson, _History of America_, i. 383; Müller, _Geschichte der
Amerikanischen Urreligionen_, pp. 150, 151, 232, 260; Dorman,
_Origin of Primitive Superstition_, p. 30 (American Indians).
Sproat, _Scenes and Studies of Savage Life_, p. 212 (Ahts).
Falkner, _Description of Patagonia_, p. 116; Prichard, _Through
the Heart of Patagonia_, p. 97.]
[Footnote 31: See _supra_, ii. 615 _sq._]
[Footnote 32: von Düben, _Lappland_, pp. 227, 285. Friis,
_Lappisk Mythologi_, p. 106. Jessen, _Norske Finners og Lappers
Hedenske Religion_, p. 33.]
[Footnote 33: Matthews, _Navaho Legends_, p. 40. See also _ibid._
p. 33.]
[Footnote 34: Ellis, _Tshi-speaking Peoples of the Gold Coast_,
pp. 17, 18, 77, 92. _Idem_, _E[(w]e-speaking Peoples of the Slave
Coast_, p. 75. Wilson, _Western Africa_, p. 387 (Mpongwe).
Tuckey, _River Zaire_, p. 375. Ellis, _History of Madagascar_,
i. 395 _sq._ Ratzel, _History of Mankind_, i. 321 (various South Sea
Islanders). Turner, _Samoa_, p. 17 _sq._ Williams and Calvert,
_Fiji_, p. 185 _sq._ Inglis, _op. cit._ p. 30 (people of
Aneiteum). Christian, _Caroline Islands_, p. 75. Wilken, _Het
Animisme_, pp. 231 _sqq._ (Minahassers, Macassars, and Bugis of
Celebes), 243 (Javanese). Selenka, _Sonnige Welten_, p. 103 _sq._
(Dyaks). Forbes, _Insulinde_, p. 203 (natives of Tenimber). von
Brenner, _Besuch bei den Kannibalen Sumatras_, p. 221 (Bataks).
Mason, 'Religion, &c. among the Karens,' in _Jour. Asiatic Soc.
Bengal_, xxxiv. 196. Hunter, _Annals of Rural Bengal_, i. 182,
186 _sq._ (Santals). Hodgson, _Miscellaneous Essays_, i. 128
(Bódo and Dhimáls). Bailey, 'Veddahs of Ceylon,' in _Trans. Ethn.
Soc._ N.S. ii. 301; Nevill, 'Vaeddas of Ceylon,' in
_Taprobanian_, i. 194. Schmidt, _Ceylon_, p. 291 _sq._ (Tamils).
Bergmann, _Nomadische Streifereien unter den Kalmüken_, iii. 182
_sq._ Abercromby, _Pre- and Proto-historic Finns_, i. 160
(Ostiaks). Buch, 'Die Wotjaken,' in _Acta Soc. Scient. Fennicæ_,
xii. 595 _sq._ Castrén, _Nordiska resor och forskningar_, iii.
106, 107, 174 _sq._ (Finnish tribes). Boas, 'Central Eskimo,' in
_Ann. Rep. Bur. Ethn._ vi. 591. Turner, _ibid._ xi. 193 _sq._
(Hudson Bay Eskimo), 272 (Hudson Bay Indians). Hoffman, 'Menomini
Indians,' _ibid._ xiv. 65. McGee, 'Siouan Indians,' _ibid._ xv.
179; Parkman, _op. cit._ p. lxx; Dorman, _op. cit._ p. 227 (North
American Indians). Müller, _Geschichte der Amerikanischen
Urreligionen_, pp. 72 (North American Indians), 171 (Indians of
the Great Antilles). Couto de Magalhães, _Trabalho preparatorio
para aproveitamento do selvagem no Brazil--O selvagem_, p. 128
_sqq._ Tylor, _op. cit._ ii. 199 _sqq._]
[Footnote 35: Schmidt, _Ceylon_, p. 291 _sq._ (Tamils). Turner,
in _Ann. Rep. Bur. Ethn._ xi. 193 _sq._ (Hudson Bay Eskimo), 272
(Hudson Bay Indians). McGee, _ibid._ xv. 179; Müller, _op. cit._
p. 72 (North American Indians).]
[Footnote 36: For a singular exception to this rule see _supra_,
ii. 67 _sq._]
On the other hand, instances are not wanting in which savage gods
are supposed to punish the transgression of rules relating to
worldly morality. Occasionally, as we have noticed above, such
gods are represented as avengers of some special kind of
wrong-doing--murder,[37] theft,[38] niggardliness,[39] want of
hospitality,[40] or lying.[41] Of certain Negro tribes we are
told that, "when a man is about to commit a crime, or do that
which his conscience tells him he ought not to do, he lays aside
his fetiche, and covers up his deity, that he may not be privy to
the deed."[42] The Tonga Islanders "firmly believe that the gods
approve of virtue, and are displeased with vice; that every man
has his tutelar deity, who will protect him as long as he
conducts himself as he ought to do; but, if he does not, will
leave him to the approaches of misfortune, disease, and death. . . .
All rewards for virtue or punishments for vice happen to men
in this world only, {670} and come immediately from the
gods."[43] The Ainu of Japan are heard to say, "We could not go
contrary to the customs of our ancestors without bringing down
upon us the wrath of the gods."[44] And of various savages we are
told that they believe in the existence of a supreme being who is
a moral lawgiver or judge.
[Footnote 37: _Supra_, i. 378 _sq._]
[Footnote 38: _Supra_, ii. 59 _sq._]
[Footnote 39: _Supra_, i. 561 _sq._]
[Footnote 40: _Supra_, i. 578.]
[Footnote 41: _Supra_, ii. 114 _sq._]
[Footnote 42: Tuckey, _op. cit._ p. 377. _Cf._ Monrad, _Skildring
af Guinea-Kysten_, p. 27, n. *]
[Footnote 43: Mariner, _Natives of the Tonga Islands_, ii. 149, 107.]
[Footnote 44: Batchelor, _Ainu of Japan_, p. 243 _sq._]