Chapter 43
Part 43
[Footnote 60: Wiedemann, _Religion of the Ancient Egyptians_, p. 111 _sq._]
[Footnote 61: _Psalms_, cxi. 10.]
[Footnote 62: Nöldeke, in _Archiv für Religionswissenschaft_, i. 362.]
[Footnote 63: Sell, _Faith of Islám_, p. 165.]
Hope, indeed, forms an element in every religion, even the lowest. The assumed authors of painful or alarming events became objects of worship because they were conceived, not as mechanical causes, but as personal agencies which might be influenced by the regardful attitude of the worshipper. The savage is not so irrational as to make offerings to beings from whom he expects no benefits in return. And in proportion as the deities grew more benignant and their sphere of action was extended, their worshippers became more confident, expecting from them not only mercy but positive assistance.
We may suppose that already at an early stage of {615} culture man, occasionally, was struck by some unexpected fortunate event and ascribed it to the influence of a friendly spirit with which he was anxious to keep on amicable terms. Among the Tshi-speaking peoples of the Gold Coast worship is the result not only of fear, but also of the hope of obtaining some direct advantage or protection.[64] The pagans of Siberia accompanied their sacrifices with words like these:--"Behold what I bring you to eat; bring me then in return children, cattle, and a long life."[65] The Point Barrow Eskimo, when he arrives at a river, throws into the air a small piece of tobacco, crying out, "Spirits, spirits, I give you tobacco, give me plenty of fish!"[66] Of the Sia Indians (Pueblos) Mrs. Stevenson writes that their religion is not mainly one of propitiation, but rather of supplication for favours and payment for the same--they "do the will of and thereby please the beings to whom they pray."[67] We even hear of savages making thank-offerings to their gods. In Fiji, after successful fishing for turtle, or remarkable deliverance from danger in war or at sea, or recovery from sickness, a kind of thank-offering was sometimes presented to the deities.[68] When certain natives of Eastern Central Africa, after they have prayed for a successful hunting expedition, return home laden with venison or ivory, they know that they are indebted to "their old relative" for their good fortune, and give him a thank-offering.[69] We are told that in Northern Guinea, when a person has been repeatedly fortunate through the agency of a fetish, "he contracts a feeling of attachment and gratitude to it."[70] Yet we have reason to suspect that the gratitude of the sacrificer is commonly {616} of the kind which La Rochefoucauld defined as "a secret desire to receive greater benefits in the future."[71] Sometimes the thank-offering, if it may be called so, is expressly preceded by a vow. Among the Kansas the warrior, when going to war says, facing the East, "I wish to pass along the road to the foe! O Wakanda! I promise you a blanket if I succeed"; and turning to the West, "O Wakanda! I promise you a feast if I succeed."[72] Even in religions of a higher type the offering of sacrificial gifts is mainly a sort of bargain with the god to whom they are offered. In the Vedic hymns the gods are addressed by phrases like these, "If you give me this, I shall give you that," or, "As you have given me this, I shall give you that."[73] The singer naïvely confesses, "I looked forth in spirit, seeking good, O Indra and Agni, to relations and kinsmen; but I have no other helper than you; therefore I have made you a powerful song."[74] The Greeks expressed the idea connected with their sacrifices in the proverbial saying, [Greek: dô=ra theou\s pei/thei].[75] The ancient Hebrew view on the subject is illustrated by the vow of Jacob:--"If God will be with me, and will keep me in this way that I go, and will give me bread to eat, and raiment to put on, so that I come again to my father's house in peace; then shall the Lord be my God: And this stone, which I have set for a pillar, shall be God's house: and of all that thou shalt give me I will surely give the tenth unto thee."[76]
[Footnote 64: Ellis, _Tshi-speaking Peoples of the Gold Coast_, p. 17. _Cf._ _Idem_, _Yoruba-speaking Peoples of the Slave Coast_, p. 277.]
[Footnote 65: Georgi, _Russia_, iii. 284.]
[Footnote 66: Murdoch, in _Ann. Rep. Bur. Ethn._ ix. 433.]
[Footnote 67: Stevenson, 'Sia,' in _Ann. Rep. Bur. Ethn._ xi. 67.]
[Footnote 68: Williams and Calvert, _op. cit._ p. 195.]
[Footnote 69: Macdonald, _Africana_, i. 61. For other instances of thank-offerings see Shooter, _Kafirs of Natal_, p. 165; Smith, 'Myths of the Iroquois,' in _Ann. Rep. Bur. Ethn._ ii. 51. Jochelson, 'Koryak Religion and Myth,' in _Jesup North Pacific Expedition_, vi. 25, 92. Leem, _Beskrivelse over Finmarkens Lapper_, p. 431 (Lapps).]
[Footnote 70: Wilson, _Western Africa_, p. 212.]
[Footnote 71: La Rochefoucauld, _Maximes_, 298.]
[Footnote 72: Dorsey, 'Mourning and War Customs of the Kansas,' in _American Naturalist_, xix. 678.]
[Footnote 73: Müller, _Physical Religion_, p. 100. Oldenberg, _Religion des Veda_, pp. 302-326, 430 _sqq._]
[Footnote 74: _Rig-Veda_, i. 109. 1. _Cf._ _ibid._ i. 71. 7.]
[Footnote 75: Plato, _Respublica_, iii. 390.]
[Footnote 76: _Genesis_, xxviii. 20 _sqq._]
In many cases the sacrificial victims are intended to serve as substitutes for other individuals, whose lives are in danger. We have previously noticed that the practice of human sacrifice is mainly based on the idea of substitution.[77] We have also seen that a growing reluctance to this practice often led to the offering of animals instead of {617} men.[78] But we have no right to assume that the sacrifice of an animal for the purpose of saving the life of a man is in every case a later modification of a previous human sacrifice. The idea that spirits which threaten the lives of men are appeased by other than human blood may in some instances be primary though in others it is derivative. The Moors invariably sacrifice an animal at the foundation of a new building; and though this is said to be _[(]âr_ upon the spirit owners of the place some idea of substitution seems also to be connected with the act, as they maintain that if no animal were killed the inmates of the house would die or remain childless. A similar practice prevails in Syria, where the people believe that "every house must have its death, either man, woman, child, or animal."[79] Among the Jews it is or has been the custom for the master of each house to kill a cock on the eve of the fast of atonement. Before doing so he strikes his head with the cock three times, saying at each stroke, "Let this cock be a commutation for me, let him be substituted for me"; and when he strangles his victim by compressing the neck with his hand, he at the same time reflects that he himself deserves to be strangled.[80] These customs can certainly not be regarded as survivals of an earlier practice of killing a human being. Moreover an animal is sometimes sacrificed for the purpose of saving the lives of other animals. Thus in a place in Scotland, in 1767, a young heifer was offered in the holy fire during a cattle-plague.[81] And in Great Benin, in West Africa, on the anniversary of the death of Adolo, king Overami's father, not only twelve men, but twelve cows, twelve goats, twelve sheep, and twelve fowls were offered, and Overami, addressing his father, asked him to look after the "cows, goats, and fowls, and everything in the farms," as well as the people.[82] Sacrifices which are {618} substitutional in character may or may not be intended to satisfy the material needs of supernatural beings. In some cases, as we have seen, their object is to appease a resentful god by the mere death of the victim.[83]
[Footnote 77: _Supra_, ch. xix.]
[Footnote 78: _Supra_, i. 469 _sq._]
[Footnote 79: Curtiss, _Primitive Semitic Religion To-day_, p. 224 _sq._]
[Footnote 80: Allen, _Modern Judaism_, p. 406.]
[Footnote 81: Grimm, _Teutonic Mythology_, ii. 608.]
[Footnote 82: Moor and Roupell, quoted by Read and Dalton, _Antiquities from the City of Benin_, p. 6, and by Ling Roth, _Great Benin_, p. 70 _sq._]
[Footnote 83: _Supra_, i. 438 _sqq._]
We have further noticed that, in the case of human sacrifice, the victim is occasionally regarded as a messenger between the worshippers and their god even though the primary object of the rite be a different one.[84] The same is sometimes true of other offerings as well.[85] The Iroquois sacrifice of the white dog[86] was, according to Mr. Morgan, intended "to send up the spirit of the dog as a messenger to the Great Spirit, to announce their continued fidelity to his service, and, also, to convey to him their united thanks for the blessings of the year"; and in their thanksgiving addresses they were in the habit of throwing leaves of tobacco into the fire from time to time that their words might ascend to the dwelling of the Great Spirit in the smoke of their offerings.[87] The Huichols of Mexico often use the arrows which they sacrifice to their gods as carriers of special prayers.[88]
[Footnote 84: _Supra_, i. 465 _sq._]
[Footnote 85: _Cf._ Hubert and Mauss, 'Essai sur la nature et la fonction du sacrifice,' in _L'année sociologique_, ii. 106, n. **1.]
[Footnote 86: See _supra_, i. 53, 64.]
[Footnote 87: Morgan, _League of the Iroquois_, p. 216 _sqq._]
[Footnote 88: Lumholtz, _Unknown Mexico_, ii. 205.]
Not only are sacrifices used as bearers of prayers, but they are 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.]