THE
COVENANT OF SALT
AS BASED ON THE SIGNIFICANCE AND SYMBOLISM
OF SALT IN PRIMITIVE THOUGHT
BY
H. CLAY TRUMBULL
Author of "The Blood Covenant," "The Threshold Covenant,"
"Kadesh-barnea," "Studies in Oriental Social Life," etc.
NEW YORK
CHARLES SCRIBNER'S SONS
1899
Copyright, 1899
By H. CLAY TRUMBULL
PREFACE
In 1884 I issued a volume on "The Blood Covenant: A Primitive Rite
and its Bearings on Scripture." Later I was led to attempt, and to
announce as in preparation, another volume in the field of primitive
covenants, including a treatment of "The Name Covenant," "The Covenant
of Salt," and "The Threshold Covenant." In 1896, I issued a separate
volume on "The Threshold Covenant," that subject having grown into such
prominence in my studies as to justify its treatment by itself. These
two works, "The Blood Covenant" and "The Threshold Covenant," have been
welcomed by scholars on both sides of the ocean to an extent beyond
my expectations, and in view of this I venture to submit some further
researches in the field of primitive thought and customs.
Before the issuing of my second volume, I had prepared the main portion
of this present work on "The Covenant of Salt," but since then I have
been led to revise it, and to conform it more fully to my latest
conclusion as to the practical identity of all covenants. It is in
this form that I present it, as a fresh contribution to the study of
archeology and of anthropology.
As I have come to see it, as a result of my researches, the very
idea of a "covenant" in primitive thought is a union of being, or of
persons, in a common life, with the approval of God, or of the gods.
This was primarily a sharing of blood, which is life, between two
persons, through a rite which had the sanction of him who is the source
of all life. In this sense "blood brotherhood" and the "threshold
covenant" are but different forms of one and the same _covenant_. The
blood of animals shared in a common sacrifice is counted as the blood
which makes two one in a sacred covenant. Wine as "the blood of the
grape" stands for the blood which is the life of all flesh; hence the
sharing of wine stands for the sharing of blood or life. So, again,
salt represents blood, or life, and the covenant of salt is simply
another form of the one blood covenant. This is the main point of
this new monograph. So far as I know, this truth has not before been
recognized or formulated.
Similarly the sharing of a common name, especially of the name of God,
or of a god, is the claim of a divinely sanctioned covenant between
those who bear it. It is another mode of claiming to be in the one
vital covenant. A temporary agreement, or truce, between two who
share a drink of water or a morsel of bread, is a lesser and very
different thing from entering into a covenant, which by its very nature
is permanent and unchangeable. This difference is pointed out and
emphasized in the following pages.
In these new investigations, as in my former ones, I have been aided,
step by step, by specialists, who have kindly given me suggestions
and assistance by every means in their power. This furnishes a fresh
illustration of the readiness of all scholars to aid any fresh worker
in any line where their own labors render them an authority or a guide.
Besides my special acknowledgments in the text and footnotes of this
volume, I desire to express my indebtedness and thanks to these
scholars who have freely rendered me important assistance at various
points in my studies: Professor Dr. Hermann V. Hilprecht, the Rev. Drs.
Marcus Jastrow, K. Kohler, and Henry C. McCook, Professor Drs. Hermann
Collitz, H. Carrington Bolton, William H. Roberts, Morris Jastrow,
Jr., F. K. Sanders, William A. Lamberton, W. W. Keen, William Osler,
J. W. Warren, and D. C. Munro, Drs. J. Solis Cohen, Thomas G. Morton,
Charles W. Dulles, Henry C. Cattell, and Frederic H. Howard, Rev. Dean
E. T. Bartlett, President Robert E. Thompson, Drs. Talcott Williams,
Henry C. Lea, and T. H. Powers Sailer, Messrs. Clarence H. Clark and
Patterson Du Bois.
This third work is to be considered in connection with the two which
have preceded it in the same field. It is hoped that it will be
recognized as adding an important thought to the truths brought out in
those works severally.
A previously published monograph on "The Ten Commandments as a Covenant
of Love" is added to "The Covenant of Salt" as a Supplement, in order
that it may be available to readers of this series of volumes on
covenants, as a historical illustration of the subject under discussion.
H. C. T.
Philadelphia,
_October, 1899_.
CONTENTS
I.
PAGE
CHARACTERISTICS OF A COVENANT 1
II.
A COVENANT OF SALT 11
III.
BIBLE REFERENCES TO THE RITE 15
IV.
BREAD AND SALT 21
V.
SALT REPRESENTING BLOOD 35
VI.
SALT REPRESENTING LIFE 51
VII.
SALT AND SUN, LIFE AND LIGHT 71
VIII.
SIGNIFICANCE OF BREAD 77
IX.
SALT IN SACRIFICES 81
X.
SALT IN EXORCISM AND DIVINATION 97
XI.
FAITHLESSNESS TO SALT 107
XII.
SUBSTITUTE TOGETHER WITH REALITY 115
XIII.
ADDED TRACES OF THE RITE 121
XIV.
A SAVOR OF LIFE OR OF DEATH 131
XV.
MEANS OF A MERGED LIFE 139
SUPPLEMENT
THE TEN COMMANDMENTS AS A COVENANT OF LOVE 143
INDEXES
TOPICAL INDEX, 177. SCRIPTURAL INDEX, 183.
I
CHARACTERISTICS OF A COVENANT
Our English word "covenant," like many another word in our language and
in other languages, fails to convey, or even to contain, its fullest
and most important meaning in comparison with the idea back of it. As
a matter of fact, this must be true of nearly all words. Ideas precede
words. Ideas have spirit and life before they are shaped or clothed
in words. Words have necessarily human limitations and imperfectness,
because of their purely human origin.
When an idea first seeks expression in words, it is inevitable that it
be cramped by the means employed for its conveyance. At the best the
word can only _suggest_ the idea back of it, rather than accurately
_define_ and explain that idea. In practice, or in continued and varied
use, in the development of thought and of language, changes necessarily
occur in the word or words selected to convey a primal idea, in order
to indicate other phases of the idea than that brought out or pointed
to by the first chosen word. While these changes and additions aid
some persons to an understanding of the root idea, they tend to confuse
others, especially those who are looking for exactness of definition.
As a rule, the earlier words chosen for the expression of an idea
are more likely than later ones to suggest the main thought seeking
expression. Hence there is often a gain in looking back among the Greek
and Sanskrit and Hebrew and Assyrian roots carried forward by religion
or commerce into our English words and idioms, when we are searching
for the true meaning of an important custom or rite or thought. Yet
this will ordinarily be confusing rather than clarifying to an exact
scholar. Only as a person is intent on the primal thought back of the
chosen word is he likely to perceive the true meaning and value of the
suggestions of the earlier word or words found in his searching.
Archeology is sometimes more valuable than philology in throwing light
on the meaning of ancient words. It is often easier to explain the use
of an archaic word by a disclosed primitive custom or rite, than to
discern a hidden primitive rite or custom by a study of the words used
in referring to it. An archeologist may suggest a solution of a problem
which hopelessly puzzles the lexicographer or grammarian. Sentiment
and the poetic instinct are often more helpful, in such research, than
prescribed etymological methods. He who looks for an exact definition
can never reach a conclusion. If he seeks a suggestion, he may find one.
"Covenant," as an English word, simply means, according to its
etymological signification, "a coming together." At times the word is
used interchangeably with such words as "an agreement," "a league,"
"a treaty," "a compact," "an arrangement," "an obligation," or "a
promise." Only by its context and connections are we shown in special
cases that a covenant bond has peculiar or pre-eminent sacredness
and perpetuity. This truth is, however, shown in many an instance,
especially in translations from earlier languages.
Even in our use of the English word "covenant" we have to recognize,
at times, its meaning as a sacred and indissoluble joining together of
the two parties covenanting, as distinct from any ordinary agreement
or compact. And when we go back, as in our English Bible, to the Greek
and Hebrew words rendered "covenant," or "testament," or "oath," in
a sworn bond, we find this distinction more strongly emphasized. It
is therefore essential to a correct view of any form of primitive
covenanting that we understand the root idea in this primal sort of
coming together.
Primitive covenanting was by two persons cutting into each other's
flesh, and sharing by contact, or by drinking, the blood thus brought
out. Earliest it was the personal blood of the two parties that was the
nexus of their covenant. Later it was the blood of a shared and eaten
sacrifice that formed the covenant nexus. In such a case the food of
the feast became a part of the life of each and both, and fixed their
union. In any case it was the common life into which each party was
brought by the covenant that bound them irrevocably. This fixed the
binding of the two as permanent and established.[1]
[1] See _Blood Covenant_ and _Threshold Covenant_, passim.
Lexicographers and critics puzzle over the supposed Hebrew or Assyrian
origin of the words translated "covenant" in our English Bible, and
they fail to agree even reasonably well on the root or roots involved.
Yet all the various words or roots suggested by them have obvious
reference to the primal idea of covenanting as a means of life-sharing;
therefore their verbal differences are, after all, of minor importance,
and may simply point to different stages in the progressive development
of the languages.
Whether, therefore, the root of the Hebrew _b[)e]reeth_ means, as
is variously claimed, "to cut," "to fetter," "to bind together,"
"to fix," "to establish," "to pour out," or "to eat," it is easy
to see how these words may have been taken as referring to the one
primitive idea of a compassed and established union.[2] So in the
Greek words _diath[=e]k[=e]_ and _horkion_ it can readily be seen
that the references to the new placing or disposing of the parties,
to their solemn appeal to God or the gods in the covenanting, and to
the testament to take effect after the death of the testator, or to
the means employed in this transaction, are alike consistent with the
primitive idea of a covenant in God's sight by which one gives over
one's very self, or one's entire possessions, to another. The pledged
or merged personality of the two covenantors fully accounts for the
different suggested references of the variously employed words.
[2] See Gesenius's _Hebraeisches und Aramaeisches Wörterbuch_, 12th
ed., p. 120; Norwach's _Lehrbuch der Hebræischen Archæologie_, I., p.
358, note 1; Friedrich Delitzsch's _The Hebrew Language Viewed in the
Light of Assyrian Research_, p. 41; _Blood Covenant_, 2d ed., p. 264.
True marriage is thus a covenant, instead of an arrangement. The twain
become no longer two, but one; each is given to the other; their
separate identity is lost in their common life. A ring, a bracelet, a
band, has been from time immemorial the symbol and pledge of such an
indissoluble union.[3]
[3] _Blood Covenant_, 2d ed., pp. 64, 75, 77.
Men have thus, many times and in many ways, signified their
covenanting, and their consequent interchange of personality and of
being, by the exchange of certain various tokens and symbols; but these
exchanges have not in any sense been the covenant itself, they have
simply borne witness to a covenant. Thus men have exchanged pledges of
their covenant to be worn as phylacteries, or caskets, or amulets, or
belts, on neck, or forehead, or arm, or body;[4] they have exchanged
weapons of warfare or of the chase; they have exchanged articles of
ordinary dress, or of ornament, or of special utility;[5] they have
exchanged with each other their personal names.[6] All these have been
in token of an accomplished covenant, but they have not been forms or
rites of the covenant itself.
[4] _Blood Covenant_, 2d ed., pp. 232-238, 326-330.
[5] _Ibid._, pp. 14, 24, 28, 35 f., 62, 270; 1 Sam. 18 : 4; 20 : 1-13.
[6] _Ibid._, 2d ed., p. 334 f.
Circumcision is spoken of in the Old Testament as the token of a
covenant between the individual and God. It is so counted by the Jew
and the Muhammadan. In Madagascar, as illustrative of outside nations,
it is counted as the token of a covenant between the individual and
his earthly sovereign. The ceremonies accompanying it all go to prove
this.[7] Again, men have covenanted with one another to merge their
common interests, and to obliterate or ignore their racial, tribal, or
social distinctions, as no mere treaty or league could do.
[7] _Ibid._, pp. 215-233; Gen. 17 : 1-14; Ellis's _History of
Madagascar_, pp. 176-186.
In tradition and in history men have covenanted with God, or with their
gods, so that they could claim and bear the divine name as their own,
thus sharing and representing the divine personality and power.[8] Thus
also in tradition different gods of primitive peoples and times have
covenanted with one another, so that each was the other, and the two
were the same.[9]
[8] _Blood Covenant_, 2d ed., p. 335.
[9] See Trumbull's _Friendship the Master-Passion_, p. 73 f.
There are seeming traces of this root idea of covenanting, through
making two one by merging the life of each in a common life, in words
that make "union" out of "one." In the Welsh _un_ is "one;" _uno_ is
"to unite." In the English, from the Latin, a unit unites with another
unit, and the two are unified in the union. The two by this merging
become not a _double_, but a larger _one_. Thus it is always in a true
covenant.
We have to study the meaning and growth of words in the light of
ascertained primitive customs and rites and ideas, instead of expecting
to learn from ascertained root-words what were the prevailing primal
ideas and rites and customs in the world. In the line of such studying,
covenants and the covenant relation have been found to be an important
factor, and to have had a unique significance in the development of
human language and in the progress of the human race from its origin
and earliest history. The study and disclosures of the primitive
covenant idea in its various forms and aspects have already brought to
light important truths and principles, and the end is not yet.
II
A COVENANT OF SALT
Among the varied forms of primitive covenanting, perhaps none is more
widely known and honored, or less understood, the world over, than
a covenant of salt, or a salt covenant. Religion and superstition,
civilization and barbarism, alike deal with it as a bond or rite, yet
without making clear the reasons for its use. The precise significance
and symbolism of salt as the nexus of a lasting covenant is by no
means generally understood or clearly defined by even scholars
and scientists. The subject is certainly one worthy of careful
consideration and study.
A covenant of salt has mention, in peculiar relations, in the Bible.
It is prominent in the literature and traditions of the East. Here in
our Western world there are various folk-lore customs and sayings that
show familiarity with it as a vestige of primitive thought. Among the
islands of the sea, and in out-of-the-way corners of the earth, it
shows itself as clearly as in Europe, Asia, Africa, and America.
In some regions salt is spoken of as if it were merely an accompaniment
of bread, and thus a common and indispensable article of food; but,
again, its sharing stands out as signifying far more than is meant by
an ordinary meal or feast. An explanation of its meaning, frequently
offered or accepted by students and specialists, is that in its nature
it is a preservative and essential, and therefore its presence adds
value to an offering or to a sacramental rite.[10] But the mind cannot
be satisfied with so superficial an interpretation as this, in view of
many things in text and tradition that go to show a unique sacredness
of salt as salt, rather than as a preserver and enlivener of something
that is of more value. It is evident that the true symbolism and
sanctity of salt as the nexus of a covenant lie deeper than is yet
admitted, or than has been formally stated by any scholar.
[10] See W. Robertson Smith's _Religion of the Semites_, pp. 203, 252;
Art. "Salt," by W. R. S. in _Encyc. Brit._; Trumbull's _Studies in
Oriental Social Life_, pp. 106-112, with citations; Norwach's _Lehrbuch
der Hebræischen Archæologie_, II, p. 245, etc.
III
BIBLE REFERENCES TO THE RITE
A "covenant of salt" seems to stand quite by itself in the Bible
record. Covenants made in blood, and again as celebrated by sharing
a common meal, and by the exchange of weapons and clothing, and in
various other ways, are of frequent mention; but a covenant of salt is
spoken of only three times, and in every one of these cases as if it
were of peculiar and sacred significance; each case is unique.
The Lord speaks of his covenant with Aaron and his sons, in the
privileges of the priesthood in perpetuity, as such a covenant. To
him he says: "All the heave offerings of the holy things, which the
children of Israel offer unto the Lord, have I given thee, and thy sons
and thy daughters with thee, as a due for ever: it is a _covenant of
salt_ for ever before the Lord unto thee and to thy seed with thee."[11]
[11] Num. 18 : 19.
Of the Lord's covenant with David and his seed, in the rights and
privileges of royalty, Abijah the king of Judah says to Jeroboam, the
rival king of Israel: "O Jeroboam and all Israel; ought ye not to know
that the Lord, the God of Israel, gave the kingdom over Israel to David
for ever, even to him and to his sons by a _covenant of salt_?"[12]
[12] 2 Chron. 13 : 5.
Again, the Lord, through Moses, enjoins it upon the people of Israel
to be faithful in the offering of sacrifices at his altar, according
to the prescribed ritual. "Neither shalt thou suffer the _salt of the
covenant_ of thy God," he says, "to be lacking from thy meal offering:
with all thine oblations thou shalt offer salt."[13]
[13] Lev. 2 : 13.
While the word "covenant" appears more than two hundred and fifty
times in the Old Testament, it is a remarkable fact that the term
"covenant of salt" occurs in only these three instances, and then in
such obviously exceptional connections. The Lord's covenant with Aaron
and his seed in the priesthood, and with David and his seed in the
kingship, is as a covenant of salt, perpetual and unalterable. And
God's people in all their holy offerings are to bear in mind that the
salt is a vital element and factor, if they would come within the terms
of the perpetual and unalterable covenant.
In the Bible, God speaks to men by means of human language; and in the
figures of speech which he employs he makes use of terms which had and
have a well-known significance among men. His employment of the term
"covenant of salt" as implying permanency and unchangeableness to a
degree unknown to men, except in a covenant of blood as a covenant of
very life, is of unmistakable significance.
There are indeed incidental references, in another place in the Old
Testament, to the prevailing primitive idea that salt-sharing is
covenant-making. These references should not be overlooked.
In many lands, and in different ages, salt has been considered the
possession of the government, or of the sovereign of the realm, to
be controlled by the ruler, as a source of life, or as one of its
necessaries, for his people. In consequence of this the receiving of
salt from the king's palace has been deemed a fresh obligation of
fidelity on the part of his subjects. This is indicated in a Bible
passage with reference to the rebuilding by Zerubbabel of the Temple at
Jerusalem, under the edict of Cyrus, king of Persia. "The adversaries
of Judah and Benjamin" protested against the work as a seditious act.
In giving their reason for this course they said: "Now because we eat
the salt of the palace [because we are bound to the king by a covenant
of salt], and it is not meet for us to see the king's dishonor,
therefore have we sent and certified the king."[14]
[14] Ezra 4 : 14.
And so again when King Darius showed his confidence in the Jews by
directing a supply, from the royal treasury, of material for sacrifices
at the Temple, and a renewal of the means of covenanting, he declared:
"Moreover I make a decree what ye shall do to these elders of the Jews
for the building of this house of God: that of the king's goods, even
of the tribute beyond the river, expenses be given with all diligence
unto these men, that they be not hindered. And that which they have
need of, both young bullocks, and rams, and lambs, for burnt offerings
to the God of heaven, wheat, salt, wine, and oil, according to the word
of the priests which are at Jerusalem, let it be given them day by day
without fail: that they may offer sacrifices of sweet savor unto the
God of heaven, and pray for the life of the king, and of his sons."[15]
And again, in further detail: "Unto an hundred talents of silver, and
to an hundred measures of wheat, and to an hundred baths of wine, and
to an hundred baths of oil, and salt without prescribing how much;"[16]
the more salt they took, the more surely and firmly they were bound.
[15] Ezra 6 : 8-10.
[16] Ezra 7 : 22.
IV
BREAD AND SALT
"There would be nothing eatable," says Plutarch, "without salt, which,
mixed with flour, seasons bread also. Hence it was that Neptune and
Ceres [or Poseidon and Demeter as the Greeks called them] had both the
same temple."[17] And from the days of Plutarch until now, as has been
already mentioned, it has been customary to speak of the "covenant
of salt" as synonymous with the "covenant of bread and salt;" or as
identical with the covenant of food-sharing in the rite of hospitality.
But the covenant of salt among primitive peoples has, and ever has had,
a sacredness and depth of meaning far beyond what is involved in the
ordinary sharing of food.
[17] Plutarch's _Sympos._ (Goodwin's edition), Book IV. Ques. IV., § 3.
Even the sharing of water between two persons, or the giving and
receiving of a drink of water, is a compact of peace for the time
being, as a truce between enemies.[18] The sharing of bread, or of
flesh, means yet more than the sharing of water. It brings those who
join in it into the league or treaty of hospitality, by which the host
is pledged to his guest while he is a guest, and for a reasonable time
after his departure.[19]
[18] See Trumbull's _Studies in Oriental Social Life_, pp. 361-363.
[19] See Burckhardt's _Travels in Syria_, p. 294 f.; _Beduinen und
Wahaby_, p. 144 f.; Niebuhr's _Beschreibung von Arabien_, p. 48;
Lane's _The Thousand and One Nights_, II., 423, note 21; Wetzstein's
_Sprachliches_, p. 28 f.; Denham and Clapperton's _Travels and
Discoveries in Africa_, p. xli; Warburton's _The Crescent and the
Cross_, fifth ed., II., 167 f.; Pierrotti's _Customs and Traditions of
Palestine_, p. 210 f.; Burton's _Pilgrimage to El Medinah and Meccah_,
III., 86; Thomson's _The Land and the Book_, II., 40-43; Merrill's
_East of the Jordan_, pp. 488-491; Harmer's _Observations_, fifth ed.,
I., 388 f.; Doughty's _Travels in Arabian Deserts_, I., 228; _Studies
in Oriental Social Life_, pp. 73-142; W. Robertson Smith's _Kinship and
Marriage in Early Arabia_, p. 149 f. Compare also Gen. 24 : 12-14; Deut.
23 : 3, 4; 1 Sam. 25 : 10, 11; 1 Kings 18 : 4; Job 22 : 7; Matt. 10 : 42;
Mark 9 : 41; John 4 : 9.
Durzee Bey, a native chieftain in Mesopotamia, having put a bit of
roast meat into the mouth of Dr. Hamlin, as they sat together in his
domicil, said: "By that act I have pledged you every drop of my blood,
that _while you are in my territory_ no evil shall come to you. _For
that space of time_ we are brothers."[20] "Where enmity subsists, the
fiercer Arabs will not sit down at the same table with their adversary;
sitting down together betokens reconciliation."[21]
[20] Hamlin's _Among the Turks_, p. 175 f.
[21] Russell's _Natural History of Aleppo_, Book II., chap. 4 (I., 232).
A covenant of salt is, however, permanent and unalterable, as the truce
or treaty is not. Yet this distinction, recognized by Orientals, does
not seem to be observed by all writers on Oriental customs, even by
those who are generally observant and experienced.
It is true that the sharing of salt is usually an accompaniment of
bread-sharing; hence, a covenant of salt between two parties is
generally, although not always, made by their partaking of bread
and salt together. Moreover, because salt is a common ingredient in
Oriental bread, the eating of bread with another in the East may
include the sharing of salt with him; but in such a case it is the
salt, and not the bread, which is the nexus of the perpetual covenant,
in its distinction from the temporary compact of hospitality in the
sharing of bread. The bread is the vehicle of the covenant-making salt.
Indeed, they have it for a proverb among Arabs and Syrians, "My bread
had no salt in it," as a mode of accounting for any act of treachery,
or failure in fidelity toward one who was a partaker of the bread of
hospitality.
In the famous Oriental story of "Ali Baba and the Forty Thieves,"
the captain of the robber band who had visited Ali Baba in order to
murder him was unwilling to partake of any food which had salt in it.
This carefulness it was that excited the suspicion of Morgiana, the
faithful slave girl, and led her to ask, "Who is he that eateth [only]
meat wherein is no salt?" And when she recognized the robber captain
under his disguise, she said to herself: "So ho! this is the cause why
the villain eateth not of salt, for that he seeketh now an opportunity
to slay my master, whose mortal enemy he is."[22] This man was ready
enough to partake of bread and flesh as a guest, and then strike his
host to the heart in violation of all the obligations of hospitality;
as, indeed, has been done in many a case in the East in early and in
recent times,[23] but he could not consent, robber and murderer as he
was, to disregard a sacred "covenant of salt."
[22] Burton's _Thousand and One Nights_, "Supplemental Nights," III.,
398 f.
[23] See, for example, Layard's account of the murder of a Koordish
Bey by Ibrâheem Agha, after the latter had risen from the table of the
former (_Nineveh and its Remains_, I., 96 f.); also his account of
other murderous violations of the rites of hospitality (_Ibid._, I.,
107 f.; _Nineveh and Babylon_, p. 38).
The story of the origin of the dynasty of the Saffaride Kaleefs, in
the ninth century, is an illustration of the surpassing power of the
covenant of salt. Laiss-el-Safar, or Laiss the coppersmith, was an
obscure worker in brass and copper, in Khorassan, a province of Persia.
His son Yakoob wrought for a time at his father's trade, and then
became a robber chieftain.
Having on one occasion found his way by night through a subterranean
passage into the treasury of the palace of the governor, Nassar Seyar,
who was then in control of Seiestan, Yakoob gathered jewels and costly
stuffs, and was proceeding to carry them off. Striking his bare foot,
in the darkness, against a hard and sharp substance on the floor of
the room, he thought it might be a jewel, and stooped to pick it up.
Putting it to his tongue, to test it after the manner of lapidaries, he
discovered that it was rock salt that he had tasted in the governor's
palace. At once he threw down his bale of stolen goods, and left the
palace by the way he had entered.
The signs of attempted robbery being found the next morning, the
governor caused a proclamation to be made throughout the city, that, if
the man who had entered the treasury would make himself known at the
palace, he should be pardoned, and should be shown marks of special
favor. Yakoob accordingly presented himself at the palace, and freely
told his story. The governor felt that a man who would hold thus sacred
the covenant of salt could be depended on, and Yakoob was given a
position near his person.
Step by step Yakoob went forward to power and honors, until he was
chief ruler of Khorassan, and founder of the Saffaride dynasty in the
Persian khaleefate. He died A.D. 878, and was succeeded by his brother,
Omar II.[24]
[24] Price's _Mohammedan History_, II., 229 f.
Baron du Tott, the Hungarian French traveler among the Turks and
Tatars, tells of his experience in this line with one Moldovanji
Pasha, who desired a closer intimacy than was practicable in the brief
time the two were to be together. "I had already," says the Baron du
Tott, "attended him halfway down the staircase [of my house], when
stopping, and turning briskly to one of my domestics who followed me,
'Bring me directly,' said he, 'some bread and salt.' I was not less
surprised at this fancy than at the haste which was made to obey him.
What he requested was brought, when, taking a little salt between his
fingers, and putting it with a mysterious air on a bit of bread, he ate
it with a devout gravity, assuring me that I might now rely on him."[25]
[25] Baron du Tott's _Memoirs of the Turks and Tartars_, Part I., p.
214, quoted in Bush's _Illustrations of the Holy Scriptures_.
Stephen Schultz, in his Travels through Europe, Asia, and Africa, gives
this illustration of the binding force of the covenant of salt: "On
the 13th of June [1754] the deacon, Joseph Diab, a custom-house clerk,
was at table with us. Referring to the salt which stood on the table,
he said that the Arabs make use of it as a token of friendship. While
they are fond of it, they do not like to place it on the table. On one
occasion, when he was with a caravan traveling to Babel [Bagdad], they
came into a neighborhood where Arabs were encamped. In the caravan
was a rich merchant. Seeing that one of the Arabs was making ready to
come to the caravan, he buried his money in the ground, built a fire
over it, and then sat down to eat with the others near the fire. When
the Arabs arrived they were welcomed pleasantly, and invited to eat.
They accepted the invitation and sat down at the table. But when their
leader saw the salt on the table, he said to the merchant, 'My loss is
your gain; for as I have eaten at a table on which is salt, I cannot,
must not, harm you.' When that caravan started on its way, the Arab
leader not only refrained from taking what he had intended to demand,
but he escorted them without reward as far as the Euphrates, and gave
them over into the care of the Pasha of Bagdad, as friends of his
prince Achsam. They were now safe."
Schultz adds: "It is not customary among Arabs to place salt on a
common table, but only when an Arab prince enters into an alliance with
a pacha, which is called _baret-millah_, or the salt alliance. This is
done as follows: The Arab prince, when he wishes to live within the
jurisdiction of a pacha sends messengers to him to ask whether he may
dwell in his territory as an ally. If the pacha consents, he sends
messengers to the prince, informing him that they will meet on such
a day. When the day arrives the pacha rides out to meet the prince,
in the field which he has selected for his dwelling, and conducts him
to his own quarters. Then the Arab prince asks the pacha how much he
is to pay for permission to dwell in that field. The bargain is soon
concluded, according to the extent of the Arab encampment.
"As soon as the bargain is concluded, a repast is prepared, and a
salt-cellar, with some pieces of bread on a flat dish, is carried round
the apartment by the pacha's servants. The dish is first presented
to the pacha, who takes a piece of bread, dips it in the salt, and,
holding it between two fingers toward the prince, calls out, 'Salaam!'
that is Peace, 'I am the friend of your friend, and the enemy of your
enemy.' The dish is now presented to the Arab prince, who likewise
takes a piece of bread, dips it in the salt, and says to the pacha,
'Peace! I am the friend of your friend, and the enemy of your enemy!'
Thereupon the dish with the bread is handed to the chief men of the
Arab prince, and to the ministers of the pacha, who receive it in the
same manner as their principals; with the exception that they simply
say, on taking the bread, 'Salaam!' 'Peace'"[26]
[26] Schultz's _Leitungen des Höchsten nach seinem Rath auf den
Reisen durch Europa, Asia, und Afrika_, Part V., p. 246, quoted in
Rosenmüller's _Des alte und neue Morgenland_, II., 152 f.
Don Raphel speaking of the "conventions," or rather the "covenants,"
which are recognized by the Bed'ween as sacredly binding on them, says:
"One kind of these conventions is made by their putting some grains of
salt with pieces of bread into each other's mouths, saying, 'By the
rite of bread and salt,' or, 'By this salt and bread, I will not betray
thee.' No oath is added; for the more sacred an oath appears to be,
the more easily does an Arab violate it. But a convention concluded in
this manner derives its force merely from opinion, and this is indeed
extraordinary.... If a stranger who meets with them in the desert, or
comes to a camp, or before he departs from a city, can oppose this
alliance to their rapacity, his baggage and his life are more safe,
even in the midst of the desert, than during the first days of his
journey with the securities of twenty hostages. The Arab with whom he
has eaten bread and salt, and all the Arabs of his tribe, consider him
as their countryman and brother. There is no kind of respect, no proof
of regard, which they do not show him."[27]
[27] Don Raphel's _The Bedouins, or Arabs of the Desert_, Part II, p.
59; quoted in Burder's _Oriental Customs_, 2d ed., p. 72 f.
Volney says of the Druzes, "When they have contracted with their guests
the sacred engagement of bread and salt, no subsequent event can make
them violate it."[28] This Volney illustrates by notable incidents.
[28] Volney's _Travels_, II., 76.
Mrs. Finn, wife of the English consul at Jerusalem, who was long
resident in the East, gives the following illustration of the
importance of salt as well as bread to a binding covenant. After a
feast in the Hebron district of Palestine, one of the persons who
shared it was waylaid and murdered by hired assassins. "One of the men
(Abdallah) concerned in the deed, not as an actor, but as spectator,
had been the night before actually eating with the victim. On hearing
what had happened, the poor fellah woman who had cooked their supper,
and who was much attached to the murdered man, bewailed herself,
beating her breast and crying, 'Wo is me! wo is me! I left out the salt
by mistake when making the bread last night for their supper. Oh that
I had put it in! then would not Abdallah have dared to let my lord be
murdered in his presence; he would have been compelled to defend him
after eating his bread and salt. Wo is me! wo is me!'"[29]
[29] _Survey of Western Palestine_, Special Papers, p. 355.
John Macgregor, while on the upper Jordan in his canoe Rob Roy, was
taken prisoner by the Arabs. As he parleyed with the old shaykh in his
tent, Macgregor opened a box of fine salt and proffered a pinch of
it to his captor. The shaykh had never before seen salt so white and
fine, and, therefore, thinking it was sugar, he tasted it. Instantly
Macgregor put a portion also into his own mouth, and with a loud,
laughing shout he clapped the old shaykh on his back.
The shaykh was dumbfounded. His followers wondered what had happened.
"'What is it?' all asked from him. 'Is it sukker?' He answered
demurely, 'La, meleh!' ("No, it's salt!") Even his home secretary
laughed at his chief." "We had now eaten salt together," says
Macgregor, "and in his own tent, and so he was bound by the strongest
tie, and he knew it." The result was that Macgregor and his canoe were
carried back in triumph to the river, and speeded on their way, while
the people on the banks shouted "salaams" to their brother in the
covenant of salt.[30]
[30] Macgregor's _The Rob Roy on the Jordan_, p. 259 f.
Salt alone is a basis of an enduring covenant, but bread alone is not
so. Yet bread and salt may be such a basis, because there is salt as
well as bread there. So commonly does salt go with bread that it is the
exception when they are not together. Our English Bible asks, at Job
6: 6, "Can that which hath no savor be eaten without salt?" But the
Septuagint reads: "Can bread be eaten without salt?"[31]
[31] See Swete's version of _The Septuagint_, in loco.
In India it is much the same as in Arabia, Palestine, and Persia.
In the Mahabharata, the great treasure-house of Hindoo wisdom, the
covenant of bread and salt finds specific recognition. When Krishna
urges the hero Karna to join with him in the war against the Kauravas,
he says to him: "If you will accompany me and join the Pandavas, they
will all respect you as their elder brother, and exalt you to the
sovereignty." But Karna cannot be persuaded to this treacherous course,
although he knows that to be true will cost him his life. "I have seen
bad omens," he says, "and I know I shall be slain; but I have eaten the
bread and salt of the Kauravas, and I am resolved to fight on their
side."[32]
[32] Wheeler's _History of India_, I., 271.
Again, when Yudhishthira asked permission of Bhishma and Drona to fight
against the Kauravas, they granted his request, and at the same time
said: "We fight on the side of the Kauravas because for many years we
have eaten their bread and salt, or otherwise we would have fought for
you."[33]
[33] _Ibid._, I., 297 f. Compare this with Ezra 4 : 1-14.
In Madagascar also the covenant of salt is known, as in other parts of
the East.[34] And thus on every continent and on the islands of the sea.
[34] M. Hamelin's _Adventures in Madagascar_, quoted in "The Madagascar
News," Sept. 9, 1893.
V
SALT REPRESENTING BLOOD
There are indications in the customs of primitive peoples that "blood"
and "salt" are recognized as in some sense interchangeable in their
natures, qualities, and uses. And in this, as in many another matter,
the trend of modern science seems to be in the line of primitive
indications.
Peoples who have not salt available are accustomed to substitute for it
fresh blood, as though the essential properties of salt were obtainable
in this way. An observant medical scientist, writing of his travels in
eastern Equatorial Africa, tells of the habit of the Masai people of
drinking the warm blood fresh from the bullocks they kill; and this he
characterizes as "a wise though repulsive" proceeding, "as the blood
thus drunk provided the salts so necessary in human economy; for the
Masai do not partake of any salt in its common form."[35]
[35] Thomson's _Through Masai Land_, p. 430.
Similarly, Dr. David Livingstone noted the fact that when he was
among peoples who had difficulty in procuring salt, fresh-killed meat
seemed to satisfy the natural craving for salt, while vegetable diet
without salt caused indigestion.[36] In portions of China, also, where
salt is not obtainable, or where it is too expensive for ordinary use,
the blood of pigs or fowls is carefully preserved and eaten as if a
substitute for salt.
[36] Livingstone's _Travels in South Africa_, p. 26 f., 600.
Professor Bunge of Basel, who is quite an authority in the realm of
physiological and pathological chemistry, speaking on the relation of
salt and blood, says that "at every period, in every part of the world,
and in every climate, there are people who use salt as well as those
who do not. The people who take salt, though differing from each other
in every other respect, are all characterized by a vegetable diet; in
the same way, those who do not use any salt are all alike in taking
animal food."
He says, moreover: "It is ... noteworthy that the people who live on
an animal diet without salt, carefully avoid loss of blood when they
slaughter the animals. This was told me by four different naturalists
who have lived among flesh-eaters in various parts of northern Russia
and Siberia. The Samoyedes, when dining off reindeer flesh, dip every
mouthful in blood before eating it. The Esquimaux in Greenland are
said to plug the wound as soon as they have killed a seal." Like
testimony comes from India, Arabia, Africa, Australia, and various
parts of America.[37]
[37] Bunge's _Text-Book of Physiological and Pathological Chemistry_,
Wooldridge's translation, pp. 122-129.
The Jews of to-day, who are careful to drain the blood from slaughtered
animals prepared for food, are accustomed to put salt freely on the
meat thus drained. This is in accordance with the prescription of the
Talmud, for the purpose of absorbing the blood not drawn out from the
main bloodvessels. At the close of two hours from the slaughtering, the
meat is washed for cooking. Whatever be the reason rendered for this
application of salt, and its remaining on the flesh for a time, may
there not thus be an instinctive supplying of the salts taken away by
draining out the blood?
"Salt" and "salts" are terms often used interchangeably in the common
mind. While they are distinct as employed by a scientist, it is not
to be wondered at that they are confused by those who fail to note
the differences; nor is it important to consider these differences in
primitive thought and customs.
"A salt," as the chemists use the term, is a combination of an acid and
a base. There are many salts in use in the world; among these the one
best known and most widely used and valued is sodium chloride, or what
is popularly known as "common salt." This has been used and prized, the
world over, among all classes of men, from the earliest historic times.
Salt has long been popularly claimed as an important element of the
liquids of the body, as shown in the blood, in the tears, and in the
perspiration, of mankind. Later scientific experiments have confirmed
ancient and traditional claims, that saline injections avail like blood
transfusion for the preservation of life in an emergency.[38]
[38] See _Des Injections sous-cutanées massives de Solutions salines_,
par le Dr. L. Fourmeaux, Paris, 1897, pp. 5-7; also Quain's _Dict. of
Med._, art. "Transf. of Salt."
It has long been common among ordinary people to administer salt to one
taken with a hemorrhage of the lungs, or stomach, or nose. This is the
folk-lore remedy in many regions. Moreover, under careful medical and
surgical direction it is now customary in the hospitals to keep on hand
a warm solution of salt to inject into the veins or tissues of persons
brought in sinking from a sudden loss of blood. Whatever connection the
two ideas--the popular and the scientific--may or may not have, it is
not to be wondered at that it has long been thought that, when blood
has gone out from the body, salt might well go in.
Blood transfusion, by which the blood or life of a stronger or fresher
person may permeate the being of a sinking one, has been known of for
centuries, and there are at least traces of it in tradition from the
earliest ages.[39] More recent experiments have shown that a saline
solution is even safer and more efficacious than the warm blood from
another life; now, therefore, this has largely taken the place of
blood in supplying the waste occasioned by severe hemorrhages.[40]
Various illustrations of this treatment are given as showing that
when persons were in a very low condition through loss of blood, they
have been rescued and restored through copious injections of a saline
solution.[41]
[39] See _Blood Covenant_, pp. 115-126, with references to Pliny, and
to Roussel, and others. See, also, Dr. Thomas G. Morton's _Transfusion
of Blood_; W. H. Howell's _American Text Book of Physiology_, p. 362.
[40] See Dr. Bartholow's _Hypodermatic Medication_, pp. 126-142.
[41] See, for example, _Capital Operations without Anæsthesia and the
Use of Large Saline Infusion in Acute Anæmia_, a paper read by Dr.
Buchanan before the National Association of Railway Surgeons, pp. 18,
79.
The use of blood as food was forbidden to Noah and his sons after
the Flood.[42] A tradition of the Turkish or Tatar nations says that
Noah's son Japheth was their immediate ancestor, and that Toutug, or
Toumuk, a grandson of Japheth, discovered salt as an article of diet
by accidentally dropping a morsel of food on to salt earth, and thus
becoming acquainted with the savor of salt.[43] This carries back the
traditional discovery of salt to the age when blood was first forbidden
as food.
[42] Gen. 9 : 4.
[43] Price's _Mohammedan History_, II., 458.
It was long ago claimed by some that the red corpuscles of the blood
are dependent for their color and vitality on the presence of salt,
and recent scientific experiments and discussion have continued in the
direction of the question thus raised.[44]
[44] See W. H. Howell's _American Text Book of Physiology_, p. 334.
It has been shown by experiment that many of the lower animals, as well
as man, are dependent for their life on salt in their blood. "When
an animal is fed with a diet as far as possible free from salts, but
otherwise sufficient, it dies of _salts-hunger_. The blood first loses
inorganic material, then the organs. The total loss is very small
in proportion to the quantity still retained in the body; but it is
sufficient to cause the death of a pigeon in three weeks, and of a dog
in six, with marked symptoms of muscular and nervous weakness."[45] A
mode of torture in former ages is said to have been to deprive a person
of salt, and cause him to waste away with painful salt-hunger. It is
said that this mode of torture is still employed in China.
[45] Voit, cited in Stewart's _Manual of Physiology_, Baillière,
Tindall, and Cox, 1895.
An Armenian story says that when a band of their people was in a
stronghold of the mountains, and was besieged by the Turks, the latter
failing to subdue the former by other means cut off the supply of salt
from the Armenians, and this quickly subdued them.
In 1830, a paper by Dr. W. Stevens, read before the London College
of Physicians, and afterwards elaborated and published in a volume,
contended that the salient ingredients of the blood, "the chief of
which is common culinary salt, ... is the cause of the red color, of
the fluidity, and of the stimulating property, of the vital current."
Dr. Stevens claimed that the poison of the rattlesnake, and various
other poisons, operate directly on the blood, and produce disease or
death "by interfering with the agency of the saline matter."[46]
[46] See _London Quarterly Review_, XLVIII., 96 (Dec., 1832, 375-391).
"On the subject of the poison of the rattlesnake," Dr. Stevens, in
this work, asserts that "when the muriate of soda (common salt) is
immediately applied to the wound, it is a complete antidote. 'When an
Indian,' he says, 'is bitten by a snake, he applies a ligature above
the part, and scarifies the wound to the very bottom; he then stuffs it
with common salt, and after this it soon heals, without producing any
effect on the general system.'" In view of the fact that it might be
objected that the salt is not the essential means of cure, but is an
addition to the curative treatment, Dr. Stevens says that he has "seen
a rabbit, that was under the influence of the rattlesnake poison, drink
a saturated solution of muriate of soda with great avidity, and soon
recover; while healthy rabbits would not taste one drop of the same
strong saline water when it was put before them."
Dr. Stevens gives various illustrations, out of primitive customs, and
in the experience of modern practitioners, of curative and prophylactic
uses of salt in the treatment of fevers, where the condition of the
blood seems to be a main source of evil. Aside from the question
whether the claims of Dr. Stevens have been substantiated by later
researches and experiments, his investigations and assertions are
of interest as showing that, in the realm of modern science as of
primitive practices, salt and blood have seemed to many to have
interchangeable values.