XXII. BODILY INJURIES…

XXII. BODILY INJURIES

CLOSELY related to the right to life is the right to bodily integrity. Indeed, homicide is, generally speaking, the highest form of bodily injury which can, in the nature of things, be inflicted, although there are some forms of ill-treatment which are more terrible than death itself.[1]

[Footnote 1: Cf. Stephen, History of the Criminal Law of England, iii. 11.]

In the case of bodily injuries the magnitude of the offence is, other things being equal, proportionate to the harm inflicted. At the lower stages of civilisation we meet with the principle of an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth, or the offender has to pay an adequate compensation for the injury.[2] It is said in the Laws of Manu that, if a blow is struck against men in order to give them pain, the judge shall inflict a fine in proportion to the amount of pain caused.[3] According to Muhammedan law, retaliation for intentional wounds and mutilations is allowed, but a fine may be accepted instead. The fine for depriving a man of any of his five senses, or dangerously wounding him, or grievously disfiguring him for life, or cutting off a member that is single, as the {512} nose, is the whole price of blood; the fine for a member of which there are two and not more, as a hand or a foot, is half the price of blood; the fine for a member of which there are ten, as a finger or a toe, is a tenth of the price of blood.[4] The scale of fines for bodily injuries contained in many of the early Teutonic law-books is minute to a degree.[5] According to various texts of the Salic law, 100 solidi--that is, a moiety of the wergeld--must be paid for depriving a man of a hand, foot, eye, or the nose; the thumb and great toe were valued at 50 solidi; the second finger with which the bow was drawn, at 35.[6] With respect to other acts of violence, the fine varied according to several circumstances, as, whether the blow was given with a stick or with closed fist, whether the brain was laid bare, whether certain bones were obtruded and how much, whether blood flowed from the wound on the ground, and so forth.[7] In the Anglo-Saxon codes almost every part and particle of the body, every tooth, toe, and nail, had its price. According to the Laws of Aethelbirht, for instance, twenty shillings were paid for striking off a thumb, three for a thumb nail, eight for the forefinger, eleven for the little finger.[8] In early Celtic law different amounts of injury were taxed with a similar affected precision.[9] Nothing can better give us an idea of the business-like manner in which the whole subject was treated than the Irish law against castration. If the injured persons be people to whom the organs extirpated are of no use, "such as a decrepit old man or a man in orders, there is nothing due to them for the loss of them, but body-fine according to the severity of the wound."[10] {513} After this one is almost surprised to read in the ancient laws of Ireland that, when a person had once been maimed, and received part or all of his body-fine, no subsequent wrong-doer could insist that the injured person should be rated as a damaged article.[11]

[Footnote 2: Post, Afrikanische Jurisprudenz, ii. 61 sqq. Munzinger, Ostafrikanische Studien, pp. 208 (Takue), 502 (Barea and Kunáma). Burton, Two Trips to Gorilla Land, i. 105 (Mpongwe). Maclean, Compendium of Kafir Laws and Customs, p. 61 sq. Macpherson, Memorials of Service in India, p. 82 (Kandhs). Earl, Papuans, p. 83 (Papuans of Dory). Kubary, Die socialen Einrichtungen der Pelauer, p. 74 (Pelew Islanders). Petroff, 'Report on Alaska,' in Tenth Census of the United States, p. 105 (Thlinkets).]

[Footnote 3: Laws of Manu, viii. 286.]

[Footnote 4: Lane, Manners and Customs of the Modern Egyptians, p. 120. Sachau, Muhammedanisches Recht, p. 764.]

[Footnote 5: Wilda, Strafrecht der Germanen, p. 729. Stemann, Den danske Retshistorie indtil Christian V.'s Lov, p. 658. Stephen, History of the Criminal Law of England, i. 56. Lappenberg, History of England under the Anglo-Saxon Kings, ii. 422.]

[Footnote 6: Lex Salica, edited by Hessels, coll. 163-167, 170, 172-177, 179.]

[Footnote 7: Ibid. col. 100 sqq.]

[Footnote 8: Laws of Æthelbirht, 54.]

[Footnote 9: Ancient Laws of Ireland, iii. pp. cix., 349. Venedotian Code, iii. 23 (Ancient Laws and Institutes of Wales, p. 151 sqq.). Dimetian Code, ii. 17 (ibid. p. 246 sqq.). Gwentian Code, ii. 6 sq. (ibid. p. 340 sq.).]

[Footnote 10: Ancient Laws of Ireland, iii. 355.]

[Footnote 11: Ibid. iii. pp. cix., cxi., 349, 351.]

However, the degree of the offence depends not only on the suffering inflicted, but on the station of the parties concerned; and in some cases the infliction of pain is held allowable or even a duty.

By using violence against their parents, children grossly offend against the duty of filial regard and submissiveness. It is said in the Laws of [Hv]ammurabi, that a man who has struck his father shall lose his hands.[12] According to Exodus, "he that smiteth his father, or his mother, shall be surely put to death."[13] In Corea the man who strikes his father is beheaded.[14] On the other hand, parents are allowed to inflict corporal punishment on their children; but this is not the case everywhere--indeed, among many of the lower races children are never, or hardly ever, subject to such punishment.[15] Among the Australian Dieyerie the children are never beaten, and should any woman violate this law, she is in turn beaten by her husband.[16] The Efatese, says Mr. Macdonald, "are shocked to see Europeans correcting their children; I never saw an Efatese beating a child."[17] The Eskimo {514} visited by Mr. Hall never inflict physical chastisement upon the children; "if a child does wrong--for instance, if it becomes enraged, the mother says nothing to it till it becomes calm. Then she talks to it, and with good effect."[18] Among the Tehuelches of Patagonia "the children are indulged in every way, ride the best horses, and are not corrected for any misbehaviour."[19] Among the Gaika tribe of the Kafirs, again, parents may inflict corporal punishment on their children, but are fined for causing permanent injuries to their persons, such as the loss of an eye or a tooth.[20]

[Footnote 12: Laws of [Hv]ammurabi, 195.]

[Footnote 13: Exodus, xxi. 15.]

[Footnote 14: Griffis, Corea, p. 236.]

[Footnote 15: Curr, Recollections of Squatting in Victoria, p. 252 (Bangerang tribe). Angas, Savage Life and Scenes in Australia, i. 94 (tribes of the Lower Murray). Calvert, Aborigines of Western Australia, p. 30 sq. Lumholtz, Among Cannibals, p. 192 sq. (Northern Queensland aborigines). Kubary, 'Die Palau-Inseln in der Südsee,' in Journal des Museum Godeffroy, iv. 56 (Pelew Islanders). Man, Sonthalia and the Sonthals, p. 78. von Siebold, Die Aino auf der Insel Yesso, p. 11. Murdoch, 'Ethnological Results of the Point Barrow Expedition,' in Ann. Rep. Bur. Ethn. ix. 417 (Point Barrow Eskimo). Boas, 'Central Eskimo,' ibid. vi. 566. Richardson, in Franklin, Journey to the Shores of the Polar Sea, p. 68 (Crees). Lumholtz, Unknown Mexico, p. 274 (Tarahumares). Rautanen, in Steinmetz, Rechtsverhältnisse, p. 329 (Ondonga). See also Steinmetz, Ethnologische Studien zur ersten Entwicklung der Strafe, ii. ch. vi. § 2, especially p. 203; Idem, 'Das Verhältnis zwischen Eltern und Kindern bei den Naturvölkern,' in Zeitschrift für Socialwissenschaft, i. 610 sqq.]

[Footnote 16: Gason, 'Manners and Customs of the Dieyerie Tribe,' in Woods, Native Tribes of South Australia, p. 258.]

[Footnote 17: Macdonald, Oceania, p. 195.]

[Footnote 18: Hall, Arctic Researches, p. 568.]

[Footnote 19: Musters, At Home with the Patagonians, p. 197.]

[Footnote 20: Brownlee, in Maclean, Compendium of Kafir Laws and Customs, p. 118.]

The power which the husband possesses over his wife much more commonly implies the right of inflicting pain on her than of punishing her capitally; but even among savages and barbarians the former right is not universally granted to him. The Pelew Islanders do not allow a husband to beat his wife.[21] Among various Eskimo tribes the women are rarely, if ever, beaten.[22] Among the Central Eskimo the husband "is not allowed to maltreat or punish his wife; if he does, she may leave him at any time, and the wife's mother can always command a divorce."[23] Many, or most, of the North American Indians consider it disgraceful for a husband to beat his wife.[24] Among the Kalmucks a man has no right to raise his hand against a woman.[25] Among the Madis women are never beaten.[26] Among the Ondonga a man is not allowed to chastise his wife.[27] Among the Gaika tribe of the Kafirs "a husband may beat his wife for misconduct; but if he should strike out her eye or a tooth, or otherwise maim her, he is fined at the discretion of the Chief."[28] {515} According to the native code of Malacca, "a man may beat his wife, but not as he would chastise a slave, and not till blood flows"; if he should do so, he is fined.[29] According to Muhammedan law, a husband may chastise an obstinate wife, but he must not cause her great suffering, nor inflict on her a wound.[30] We read in the Laws of Manu:--"A wife, a son, a slave, a pupil, and a younger brother of the full blood, who have committed faults, may be beaten with a rope or a split bamboo, but on the back part of the body only, never on a noble part; he who strikes them otherwise will incur the same guilt as a thief."[31] In Europe the idea expressed by the ancient Roman that "he who beats his wife or children lays hands on that which is most sacred and holy,"[32] was shared neither by the ancient Teutons[33] nor by mediæval legislators. According to the Jydske Lov, a husband was allowed to chastise his wife with a stick or rod, though not with a weapon; but he had to take care not to break any limb of her body.[34] In the Coutumes du Beauvoisis it is said that a man may beat his wife if she belies or curses him, or disobeys his "reasonable" commands, or for some other similar reason, though he must not kill or maim her.[35] Among Russian and South Slavonian[36] peasants public opinion still permits the husband to inflict corporal punishment on his wife. In Russia "the bridegroom, while he is leading his bride to her future home, gives her from time to time light blows from a whip, saying at each stroke: 'Forget the manners of thine own {516} family, and learn those of mine.' As soon as they have entered their bedroom, the husband says to his wife, 'Take off my boots.' The wife immediately obeys her husband's orders, and, taking them off, finds in one of them a whip, symbol of his authority over her person. This authority implies the right of the husband to control the behaviour of his wife, and to correct her every time he thinks fit, not only by words, but also by blows. The opinion which a Russian writer of the sixteenth century . . . expresses as to the propriety of personal chastisement, and even as to its beneficial effects on the health, is still shared by the country people. . . . The customary Court seems to admit the use of such disciplinary proceedings by not interfering in the personal relations of husband and wife. 'Never judge the quarrel of husband and wife,' is a common saying, scrupulously observed by the village tribunals, which refuse to hear any complaint on the part of the aggrieved woman, at least so long as the punishment has not been of such a nature as to endanger life or limb."[37]

[Footnote 21: Kubary, 'Die Palau-Inseln,' in Jour. des Museum Godeffroy, iv. 43.]

[Footnote 22: King, in Jour. Ethn. Soc. i. 147. Cf. Murdoch, loc. cit. p. 414.]

[Footnote 23: Boas, in Ann. Rep. Bur. Ethn. vi. 579.]

[Footnote 24: Waitz, Anthropologie der Naturvölker, iii. 101. Cf. Powers, Tribes of California, p. 178 (Gallinomero).]

[Footnote 25: Liadov, in Jour. Anthr. Inst. i. 405.]

[Footnote 26: Ratzel, History of Mankind, iii. 40.]

[Footnote 27: Rautanen, in Steinmetz, Rechtsverhältnisse, p. 329.]

[Footnote 28: Brownlee, in Maclean, op. cit. p. 117.]

[Footnote 29: Newbold, British Settlements in the Straits of Malacca, ii. 311 sq.]

[Footnote 30: Sachau, Muhammedanisches Recht, pp. 10, 44, 849.]

[Footnote 31: Laws of Manu, viii. 299 sq.]

[Footnote 32: Plutarch, Cato Major, xx. 3.]

[Footnote 33: Nordström, Bidrag till den svenska samhällsförfattningens historia, ii. 61 sq. Stemann, op. cit. p. 323 sq.]

[Footnote 34: Jydske Lov, ii. 82.]

[Footnote 35: Beaumanoir, Coutumes du Beauvoisis, lvii. 6, vol. ii. p. 333: "Il loist bien à l'homme batre se feme, sans mort et sans mehaing, quant ele le meffet; si comme quant ele est en voie de fere folie de son cors, ou quant ele dement son baron ou maudist, ou quant ele ne veut obeir à ses resnables commandemens que prode feme doit fere: en tel cas et en sanllables est il bien mestiers que li maris soit castierres de se feme resnablement. . . . Li maris le doit castier et repenre selonc toutes les manieres qu'il verra que bon sera por li oster de tel visse, exepté mort ou mehaing."]

[Footnote 36: Krauss, Sitte und Branch der Südslaven, p. 526.]

[Footnote 37: Kovalewsky, Modern Customs and Ancient Laws of Russia, p. 44 sq. Cf. Meiners, Vergleichung des ältern und neuern Russlandes, ii. 167 sq.; Idem, History of the Female Sex, i. 160.]

It seems that, wherever slavery exists, the master has a right to inflict corporal punishment on his slave, even though he be forbidden to deprive him of any of his limbs. According to the Chinese Penal Code, the master, or relations of the master of a guilty slave, may chastise such slave in any degree short of occasioning his death, without being liable to any punishment;[38] whereas "all slaves who are guilty of designedly striking their masters, shall, without making any distinction between principals and accessories, be beheaded."[39] Among the Hebrews, if a man by blows destroyed an eye or a tooth, or any other member belonging to his man-servant or maid-servant, he was bound to let the injured person go free, though full retribution was legally ordained for bodily injuries done to free Israelites.[40] In the North American Slave States and {517} in the colonies of all European Powers the master could inflict any number of blows upon his slave, but if he mutilated him he was fined or subjected to a very moderate term of imprisonment.[41]

[Footnote 38: Ta Tsing Leu Lee, sec. cccxiv. p. 340.]

[Footnote 39: Ibid. sec. cccxiv. p. 338.]

[Footnote 40: Exodus, xxi. sqq.]

[Footnote 41: 'Negro Act' of 1740, § 37, in Brevard, Digest of the Public Statute Law of South Carolina, ii. 241. Stephen, Slavery of the British West India Colonies, i. 36 sq. Edwards, History of the British West Indies, ii. 192.]

The maltreatment of another person's slave has, even by civilised legislators, been regarded as an injury done to the master rather than to the slave. According to Muhammedan law, the fine imposed on a free person for injuring a slave varies according to the value of the slave.[42] In the Institutes of Justinian it is said that, "if a man were to flog another man's slave in a cruel manner, an action would, in this case, lie against him," but that the master has no right of action against a person who has struck the slave with his fist.[43] In the Negro Act of 1740 it was prescribed that, if a slave was beaten by any person who had not sufficient cause or lawful authority for so doing, and if he or she was maimed or disabled by such beating from performing his or her work, the offender should pay to the owner of the slave "the sum of 15 shillings current money per diem, for every day of his lost time, and also the charge of the cure of such slave."[44] But if the beating of the slave caused no loss of service to his master, the offender was not, as a rule, punished by law. A decision of the Supreme Court of Maryland established expressly the law to be, in that State, that trespass would not lie by a master for an assault and battery on his slave, unless it were attended with a loss of service.[45] If, on the other {518} hand, the offender was a slave and his victim a white man, the injury was regarded in a very different light. We read in an act of Georgia passed in 1770:--"If any slave shall presume to strike any white person, such slave . . . shall . . . for the second offence suffer death: But in case any such slave shall grievously wound, maim, or bruise any white person, though it shall be only the first offence, such slave shall suffer death."[46] And to offer violence, to strike, attempt to strike, struggle with, or resist any white person, was, even by the latest meliorating laws issued in the British Colonies, declared to be a crime in a slave which, if the white person had been wounded or hurt, and in some islands even without that condition, should subject the offender to death, dismemberment, or other severe penalties.[47] We read in one of the codes of ancient Wales:--"If a freeman strike a bondman, let him pay him twelve pence. . . . If a bondman strike any freeman, it is just to cut off his right hand, or his right foot."[48] According to Chinese law, a freeman striking a slave shall "be punished less severely by one degree than in the ordinary cases of the same offence"; whereas "a slave striking a freeman shall, in proportion to the consequences, be punished one degree more severely than is by law provided in similar cases between equals."[49]

[Footnote 42: Lane, Manners and Customs of the Modern Egyptians, p. 120.]

[Footnote 43: Institutiones, iv. 4. 3.]

[Footnote 44: Brevard, op. cit. ii. 231 sq.]

[Footnote 45: Harris and Johnson, Reports of Cases argued and determined in the General Court and Court of Appeals of the State of Maryland, i. 4. Of all the Slave States, so far as I know, Kentucky was the only one where the owner of a slave might bring an action of trespass against anyone who whipped, stroke, or otherwise **abused the slave without the owner's consent, notwithstanding the slave was not so injured that the master lost his services thereby (Morehead and Brown, Digest of the Statute Laws of Kentucky, ii. 1481). In Tennessee, according to an act of 1813, a person was punished if he "wantonly and without sufficient cause" beat or abused the slave of another (Caruthers and Nicholson, Compilation of the Statutes of Tennessee, p. 678).]

[Footnote 46: Prince, Digest of the Laws of the State of Georgia, p. 781.]

[Footnote 47: Stephen, Slavery of the British West India Colonies, i. 188. Edwards, History of the British West Indies, ii. 202 sq.]

[Footnote 48: Gwentian Code, ii. 5. 31 sq. (Ancient Laws and Institutes of Wales, p. 339). For ancient Swedish law on this subject, see Gotlands-Lagen, i. 19. 37.]

[Footnote 49: Ta Tsing Leu Lee, sec. cccxiii. p. 336.]

Very frequently the penalties or fines for bodily injuries are influenced by the class or rank of the parties even when both of them are freemen. Among the Marea, whilst a commoner who wounds another commoner simply pays him compensation for the hurt, a commoner who wounds a nobleman must abandon to him all his property and become his slave.[50] At Zimmé the fines for assaults "vary greatly, according to the rank of the party complaining."[51] {519} Among the Ossetes the limbs of a noble are rated at twice as much as the limbs of an ordinary freeman.[52] The Laws of [Hv]ammurabi contain the following provisions:--"If a man has caused the loss of a gentleman's eye, his eye one shall cause to be lost. If he has shattered a gentleman's limb, one shall shatter his limb. If he has caused a poor man to lose his eye or shattered a poor man's limb, he shall pay one mina of silver. If a man has made the tooth of a man that is his equal to fall out, one shall make his tooth fall out. If he has made the tooth of a poor man to fall out, he shall pay one-third of a mina of silver,"[53] According to the Laws of Manu, if a man of a low caste does hurt to a man of any of the three highest castes, the offending member shall be cut off;[54] and he who intentionally strikes a Brâhmana in anger, even if it were only with a blade of grass, "will be born during twenty-one existences in the wombs of such beings where men are born in punishment of their sins."[55] In early Teutonic and Celtic codes we meet with the principle that the compensation by which a bodily injury is to be atoned for varies according to the rank of the parties concerned.[56]

[Footnote 50: Munzinger, Ostafrikanische Studien, p. 244.]

[Footnote 51: Colquhoun, Amongst the Shans, p. 132.]

[Footnote 52: von Haxthausen, Transcaucasia, p. 409.]

[Footnote 53: Laws of [Hv]ammurabi, 196-198, 200 sq. Cf. ibid. 202 sq.]

[Footnote 54: Laws of Manu, viii. 279.]

[Footnote 55: Ibid. iv. 166. Cf. ibid. iv. 167.]

[Footnote 56: Kemble, Saxons in England, i. 134. Ancient Laws of Ireland, iii. p. cxi. Dimetian Code, ii. 17. 17 (Ancient Laws and Institutes of Wales, p. 248). Gwentian Code, ii. 7. 13 (ibid. 342). de Valroger, Les Celtes, p. 470. Innes, Scotland in the Middle Ages, p. 180.]

We have noticed that men in their estimation of human life, particularly at the earlier stages of culture, discriminate between fellow-tribesmen or compatriots and aliens. A similar distinction is made with reference to other bodily injuries. It reaches its pitch in the sufferings inflicted on vanquished enemies. The treatment to which the Kamchadales subjected their male prisoners of war included "burning, hewing them to pieces, tearing their entrails out when alive, and hanging them by the feet."[57] Some of the Dacotahs, when they had taken a captive, "secured him {520} to a stake and allowed their women to torture him by mutilating him previous to killing him";[58] and of many other North American Indians it is said that they "devote their captives to death, with the most agonising tortures."[59] The wars of the Society Islanders, Ellis observes, were most merciless and destructive; "invention itself was tortured to find out new modes of inflicting suffering."[60] On the other hand, there are not wanting instances of savage warfare being conducted on more humane principles. Dobrizhoffer tells us that "cruelty towards captives and enemies is abhorred by the Abipones, who never torture the dying";[61] and among the Somals no injury is done to enemies who have been severely wounded in the battle.[62] Civilised nations maintain that, in time of war, no greater injuries should be inflicted upon the enemy than are necessary to obtain the end of the war.

[Footnote 57: Krasheninnikoff, History of Kamschatka, p. 200.]

[Footnote 58: Dorsey, 'Omaha Sociology,' in Ann. Rep. Bur. Ethn. iii. 313.]

[Footnote 59: Adair, History of the American Indians, p. 388.]

[Footnote 60: Ellis, Polynesian Researches, i. 293. Cf. Williams, Narrative of Missionary Enterprises, p. 533 (Samoans); Foreman, Philippine Islands, p. 185; Ellis, Tshi-speaking Peoples of the Gold Coast, p. 172 sq.]

[Footnote 61: Dobrizhoffer, Account of the Abipones, ii. 411.]

[Footnote 62: Paulitschke, Ethnographie Nordost-Afrikas, p. 255.]

The right to bodily integrity is influenced by religious differences as well as national. According to Muhammedan law, the compensation for injuries inflicted on a Jew or a Christian is a third, for those inflicted on a Parsee only a fifteenth, of the sum to be paid for similar injuries done to a Moslem.[63] A mediæval Spanish law prescribes that a Christian who beats a Jew shall pay four maravedis, but that a Jew who beats a Christian shall pay ten.[64]

[Footnote 63: Sachau, op. cit. p. 764.]

[Footnote 64: 'Fuero de Sepulveda,' art. 37 sq., quoted by Du Boys, Histoire du droit criminel de l'Espagne, p. 74.]

The right to bodily integrity may be forfeited by the commission of a crime. As has been already noticed, physical injuries are frequently resented according to the law of like for like;[65] and in other cases, also, the infliction {521} of corporal suffering--by mutilation, scourging, and so forth--is a common penalty. Amputation or mutilation of the offending member has particularly been in vogue among so-called peoples of culture.[66] It is often **mentioned in the Code of [Hv]ammurabi[67] and in the Laws of Manu.[68] It occurred among the Greeks,[69] Romans,[70] and Teutons.[71] Mediæval codes contain numerous instances of it.[72] The Laws of Alfred prescribe that a male theow who commits a rape upon a female theow shall be emasculated;[73] and in a later age Bracton reserves the same punishment for the deflowerer of a virgin, with the addition that the offender shall also lose his eyes, "on account of his looking at the beauty, for which he coveted possession of the virgin."[74] According to a law of Cnut, an adulteress shall have her nose and ears cut off.[75] Aethelstan enjoined that an illicit coiner should lose his right hand;[76] whereas in later times this punishment was restricted to those who struck anybody in the king's presence or in his court.[77] By the statute law of Scotland the punishment of forgery, or falsifying of writings, was at first the amputation of the hand, afterwards dismembering of it, joined with other pains.[78] In some countries a perjurer lost the offending fingers or his right hand,[79] in others he had his tongue cut {522} off or pierced with a hot iron;[80] and in England, before the Conquest, a man might lose his tongue by bringing a false and scandalous accusation.[81] In the seventeenth century a person in Scotland was sentenced to have his tongue bored because he had libelled the Lord Justice General.[82] In German and Austrian codes we find, even in the eighteenth century, traces of the principle of punishing the offending member;[83] and in France the last survival of it--the amputation of the right hand of a parricide before his execution--disappeared only in 1832.[84] Growing refinement of feeling has made people averse from the use of surgery in the administration of justice; and in most European countries grown-up offenders are no longer liable to corporal punishment of any kind.[85]

[Footnote 65: Supra, p. 178. See also Laws of [Hv]ammurabi, 196, 197, 200; Exodus, xxi. 24 sq.; Leviticus, xxiv. 19 sq.; Deuteronomy, xix. 21; Koran, v. 49; Sachau, op. cit. p. 762 sq. (Muhammedan law); Leist, Alt-arisches Jus Gentium, p. 426 sq. (Greeks); Lex Duodecim Tabularum, viii. 2; Günther, Idee der Wiedervergeltung, p. 186 sqq. (Teutons).]

[Footnote 66: For its occurrence in modern Persia, see Polak, Persien, i. 256, 329 sq.; in Fez, see Leo Africanus, History and Description of Africa, ii. 470. The Koran (v. 42) orders theft to be punished by cutting off the hands of the thief, but this punishment is now seldom practised in Muhammedan countries. Among the lower races I have met only with a few instances of punishing the offending member. In Ashanti intrigue with the female slaves of the royal household is punished by emasculation (Ellis, Tshi-speaking Peoples of the Gold Coast, p. 287); and the Kamchadales burn the hands of people who have been frequently caught in theft (Krasheninnikoff, op. cit. p. 179).]

[Footnote 67: Laws of [Hv]ammurabi, 192, 194, 195, 218, 226, 253.]

[Footnote 68: Laws of Manu, viii. 270-272, 279-283, 322, 334, 374; xi. 105.]

[Footnote 69: Günther, op. cit. i. 94 sqq.]

[Footnote 70: Ibid. i. 155 sqq.]

[Footnote 71: Ibid. i. 195 sqq. Wilda, op. cit. p. 510. Grimm, Deutsche Rechtsalterthümer, p. 740.]

[Footnote 72: Du Boys, Histoire du droit criminel des peuples modernes, ii. 699. Idem, Histoire du droit criminel de l'Espagne, p. 94. Cibrario, Economia politica del medio eve, i. 346 sq.]

[Footnote 73: Laws of Alfred, ii. 25.]

[Footnote 74: Bracton, De Legibus et Consuetudinibus Angliæ, fol. 147, vol. ii. 480 sq.]

[Footnote 75: Laws of Cnut, ii. 54.]

[Footnote 76: Laws of Æthelstan, 14.]

[Footnote 77: Strutt, View of the Manners, Customs, &c., of the Inhabitants of England, iii. 43.]

[Footnote 78: Erskine, Principles of the Law of Scotland, p. 571.]

[Footnote 79: Stemann, op. cit. p. 645. Charles V.'s Peinliche Gerichts Ordnung, art. 107, p. 235. Pollock and Maitland, History of English Law before the Time of Edward I. ii. 453. Günther, op. cit. ii. 57.]

[Footnote 80: Du Boys, Histoire du droit criminel des peuples modernes, ii. 699. Idem, Histoire du droit criminel de l'Espagne, p. 599 sq. Pitcairn, Criminal Trials in Scotland, iii. 539.]

[Footnote 81: Pollock and Maitland, op. cit. ii. 539.]

[Footnote 82: Rogers, Social Life in Scotland, ii. 35.]

[Footnote 83: Günther, op. cit. ii. 55-57, 65; iii. 79.]

[Footnote 84: Chauveau and Hélie, Théorie du Code Pénal, iii. 394.]

[Footnote 85: See von Liszt, Le droit criminel des états européens, passim; Wrede, Die Körperstrafen bei allen Völkern, passim.]

Corporal punishment has generally been, by preference, a punishment for poor and common people or slaves.[86] Blows and abusive language, says Plutarch, seem to be more fitting for slaves than the freeborn.[87] According to the religious law of the Hindus, a Brâhmana shall not suffer corporal punishment for any offence.[88] Among the Hebrews[89] and Muhammedans,[90] among the Romans[91] and in the Middle Ages,[92] the punishment of mutilation could generally be commuted to a fine. For a long period, in {523} Christian Europe, as well as in Pagan Rome during the Empire,[93] the punishment was more savage in proportion as the delinquent was more helpless. "En crimes," says Loysel, "les villains sont plus griévement punis en leurs corps que les nobles. . . . Et où le vilain perdroit la vie, ou un membre de son corps, le noble perdra l'honneur, et réponse en cour."[94] Indeed, whilst the slave incurred the penalty of mutilation for the most trifling offence, the noble might be exempted from corporal punishment of any kind.[95] In a similar manner the social status of a person has influenced his right to bodily integrity with reference to judicial torture. According to the Chinese Penal Code, "it shall not, in any tribunal of government, be permitted to put the question by torture to those who belong to any of the eight privileged classes, in consideration of the respect due to their character."[96] In Rome, under the Republic, torture was exclusively confined to the slaves.[97] In mediæval Christendom it was made use of to an extent and with a cold-blooded ferocity unknown to any heathen nation, and in cases of heresy and treason it was applied to every class of the community.[98] But the tortures inflicted on the nobles and the clergy were lighter than in the case of ordinary laymen, and proof of a more decided character was required to justify their being exposed to torment.[99] "Noble persons and persons of quality," says Dumoulin, "cannot so easily be subjected to torture as persons who are of mean and plebeian rank."[100] Guazzini, an eminent Italian jurisconsult and a recognised expositor of the law of torture in the days of its highest ascendency and ripest maturity, observes that the torment inflicted {524} on a person shall be proportionate to his age, his physical constitution, his mental habits, and his social status;[101] and he adds that bishops and others in high civil dignity are exempt from torture even under strong presumptions of guilt.[102]

[Footnote 86: See, for instance, the Laws of Manu, viii. 267, 279.]

[Footnote 87: Plutarch, De educatione puerorum, 12.]

[Footnote 88: Baudhâyana, i. 10. 18. 17. Institutes of Vishnu, v. 2.]

[Footnote 89: Günther, op. cit. i. 55.]

[Footnote 90: Ibid. i. 74 sq. Lane, Manners and Customs of the Modern Egyptians, p. 120. Sachau, op. cit. p. 764. According to Muhammedan law, it is not obligatory for the injured party to accept compensation in lieu of mutilation.]

[Footnote 91: Günther, op. cit. i. 124 sqq. Mommsen, Römisches Strafrecht, p. 981.]

[Footnote 92: Du Boys, Histoire du droit criminel des peuples modernes, ii. 557 sq. Strutt, op. cit. ii. 8.]

[Footnote 93: Cf. Mackenzie, Studies in Roman Law, p. 414 sq.]

[Footnote 94: Loysel, Institutes coutumières, vi. 2. 31 sq., vol. ii. 219 sq.]

[Footnote 95: Du Boys, Histoire du droit criminel de l'Espagne, p. 469.]

[Footnote 96: Ta Tsing Leu Lee, sec. cccciv. p. 441.]

[Footnote 97: Mommsen, Römisches Strafrecht, p. 405.]

[Footnote 98: Suarez de Paz, Praxis ecclesiastica et secularis, v. 1. 3. 12, fol. 154 b. Cf. Lecky, Rise and Influence of the Spirit of Rationalism in Europe, i. 328.]

[Footnote 99: Lea, Superstition and Force, p. 526 sq.]

[Footnote 100: Dumoulin, quoted by Welling, 'Law of Torture,' in The American Anthropologist, v. 210 sq.]

[Footnote 101: Guazzini, Tractatus ad defensam inquisitorum, xxx. 4. 24, vol. ii. 86.]

[Footnote 102: Ibid. xxx. 17, vol. ii. 102 sq.]

The moral notions regarding the infliction of bodily injuries require little comment. They are based on the principle of sympathetic resentment, modified by the ascription of particular rights to some and particular duties to others, on account of the relation in which the parties stand to each other; and they follow the same rules as the ideas concerning homicide, to the exclusion, of course, of all such considerations as result from fear of the slain man's ghost or from the religious horror of taking life. One point, however, calls for special attention. The forcible interference with another person's body not only causes physical pain but commonly entails disgrace upon the sufferer. This largely accounts for the fact that a person's right to bodily integrity varies so much according to his social standing.[103] Even among the lower races we meet with the notions that an act of bodily violence involves a gross insult, and that corporal punishment disgraces the criminal more than any other form of penalty. According to the Malay Code, "the persons who may be put to death without the previous knowledge of the king or nobles, are an adulterer, a person guilty of treason, a thief who cannot otherwise be apprehended, and a person who offers another a grievous affront, such as a blow over the face."[104] Among the Maoris a blow with the fist would lead to a combat with arms.[105] The Thlinkets consider corporal punishment to {525} be the greatest indignity to which a freeman can be subjected, hence they never inflict it.[106] And civilised nations who are ready to punish certain criminals with death, hold whipping to be a punishment too infamous to be employed.

[Footnote 103: Cf. Dimetian Code, ii. 17. 17 (Ancient Laws and Institutes of Wales, p. 248): "The Law says that the limbs of all persons are of equal worth; if a limb of the king be broken, that it is of the same worth as the limb of the villain: yet, nevertheless, the worth of saraad [or fine for insult] to the king, or to a breyr, is more than the saraad of a villain, if a limb belonging to him be cut." See also Gwentian Code, ii. 7. 12 sq. (ibid. p. 342).]

[Footnote 104: Crawfurd, History of the Indian Archipelago, iii. 105 sq.]

[Footnote 105: Shortland, Traditions and Superstitions of the New Zealanders, p. 227.]

[Footnote 106: Holmberg, 'Ethnograph. Skizzen über die Völker des russischen Amerika,' in Acta Societatis Scientiarum Fennicæ, iv. 321.]

XXIII. CHARITY AND GENEROSITY

IN previous chapters we have examined the regard for the life and physical well-being of others as displayed in moral ideas concerning homicide and the infliction of bodily harm. We shall now consider the same subject from another point of view, namely, the valuation of such conduct as positively promotes the existence and material comfort of a fellow-creature.

There is one duty so universal and obvious that it is seldom mentioned: the mother's duty to rear her children, provided that they are suffered to live. Another duty--equally primitive, I believe, in the human race--is incumbent on the married man: the protection and support of his family. We hear of this duty from all quarters of the savage world.

Among the North American Indians it was considered disgraceful for a man to have more wives than he was able to maintain.[1] Mr. Powers says that among the Patwin, a Californian tribe which he believes to rank among the lowest in the world, "the sentiment that the men are bound to support the women--that is to furnish the supplies--is stronger even than among us."[2] Among the Iroquois it was the office of the husband "to make a mat, to repair the cabin of his wife, or to construct a new one." The product of his hunting expeditions, {527} during the first year of marriage, belonged of right to his wife, and afterwards he shared it equally with her, whether she remained in the village, or accompanied him to the chase.[3] Among the Botocudos, whose girls are married very young, remaining in the house of the father till the age of puberty, the husband is even then obliged to maintain his wife, though living apart from her.[4] Among the Lengua Indians of the Paraguayan Chaco the child of a woman whose husband deserts her is generally killed at birth, the mother feeling that it is the man's part of married life to provide meat for his offspring.[5] Azara states that, among the Charruas, "du moment où un homme se marie, il forme une famille à part, et travaille pour la nourrir."[6] Of the Fuegians it is said that, "as soon as a youth is able to maintain a wife, by his exertions in fishing or bird-catching, he obtains the consent of her relations."[7] The wretched Rock Veddahs in Ceylon "acknowledge the marital obligation and the duty of supporting their own families."[8] Among the Maldivians, "although a man is allowed four wives at one time, it is only on condition of his being able to support them."[9] The Nairs, we are told, consider it a husband's duty to provide his wife with food, clothing, and ornaments;[10] and almost the same is said by Dr. Schwaner with reference to the tribes of the Barito district, in the south east part of Borneo.[11] Among the cannibals of New Britain the chiefs have to see that the families of the warriors are properly maintained.[12] Concerning the Tonga Islanders Mariner states that "a married woman is one who cohabits with a man, and lives under his roof and protection."[13] Among the Maoris "the mission of woman was to increase and multiply, that of man to defend his home."[14] With reference to the Kurnai in South Australia, Mr. Howitt states that "the man has to provide for his family with the assistance of his wife. His share is to hunt for their support, and to fight for their protection."[15] In Lado, in Africa, the bridegroom has to assure his father-in-law three times that he will {528} protect his wife, calling the people present to witness.[16] Among the Touareg a man who deserts his wife is blamed, as he has taken upon himself the obligation of maintaining her.[17]

[Footnote 1: Waitz, Anthropologie der Naturvölker, iii. 109. Carver, Travels through the Interior Parts of North America, p. 367.]

[Footnote 2: Powers, Tribes of California, p. 222.]

[Footnote 3: Heriot, Travels through the Canadas, p. 338.]

[Footnote 4: von Tschudi, Reisen durch Südamerika, ii. 283.]

[Footnote 5: Hawtrey, in Jour. Anthr. Inst. xxxi. 295.]

[Footnote 6: Azara, Voyages dans l'Amérique méridionale, ii. 22.]

[Footnote 7: King and Fitzroy, Voyages of the "Adventure" and "Beagle," ii. 182.]

[Footnote 8: Tennent, Ceylon, ii. 441.]

[Footnote 9: Rosset, 'Maldive Islands,' in Jour. Anthr. Inst. xvi. 168 sq.]

[Footnote 10: Stewart, 'Notes on Northern Cachar,' in Jour. Asiatic Soc. Bengal, xxiv. 614.]

[Footnote 11: Schwaner, Borneo, i. 199.]

[Footnote 12: Angas, Polynesia, p. 373.]

[Footnote 13: Mariner, Natives of the Tonga Islands, ii. 167.]

[Footnote 14: Johnston, Maoria, p. 28 sq.]

[Footnote 15: Fison and Howitt, Kamilaroi and Kurnai, p. 206.]

[Footnote 16: Wilson and Felkin, Uganda, ii. 90.]

[Footnote 17: Chavanne, Die Sahara, p. 209. Cf. Hanoteau and Letourneux, La Kabylie, ii. 167.]

Among many of the lower races a man is not even permitted to marry until he has given some proof of his ability to support and protect his family.[18] Indeed, so closely is the idea that a man is bound to maintain his family connected with that of marriage and fatherhood, that sometimes even repudiated wives with their children are, at least to a certain extent, supported by their former husbands.[19] And upon the death of a husband, the obligation of maintaining his wife and her children devolves on his heirs, the wide-spread custom of a man marrying the widow of his deceased brother being not only a privilege, but, among several peoples, even a duty.[20]

[Footnote 18: Westermarck, History of Human Marriage, p. 18.]

[Footnote 19: Ibid. p. 19.]

[Footnote 20: Ibid. p. 511 sq.]

Turning to peoples who have reached a higher stage of culture:--Abû Shugâ[(] says that, among Muhammedans, parents are obliged to support their families, "if the children are both poor and under age, or both poor and lastingly infirm, or both poor and insane."[21] But that this duty chiefly devolves on the father is evident from the fact that the mother is even entitled to claim wages for nursing them.[22] Buddhistic law goes so far as to prescribe that the parents shall provide their son with a beautiful wife, and give him a share of the wealth belonging to the family.[23] It has been observed that in the Confucian books there is no mention of any real duties incumbent upon the father towards his children;[24] nor does the Decalogue contain anything on the subject; nor any law of ancient Greece or Rome.[25] But, as has been justly {529} argued, if legal prescriptions are wanting, that is because they are thought to be superfluous, nature itself having sufficiently prepared men for the performance of their duties towards their offspring.[26] So, also, it is regarded as a matter of course that the husband shall support his wife, however great power he may possess over her. Among the Romans manus implied not only the wife's subordination to the husband, but also the husband's obligation to protect the wife.[27]

[Footnote 21: Sachau, Muhammedanisches Recht, p. 18.]

[Footnote 22: Ibid. p. 99 sq.]

[Footnote 23: Hardy, Manual of Budhism, p. 495.]

[Footnote 24: Faber, Digest of the Doctrines of Confucius, p. 82.]

[Footnote 25: Leist, Græco-italische Rechtsgeschichte, p. 13.]

[Footnote 26: Ibid., p. 13. Schmidt, Ethik der alten Griechen, ii. 141. Adam Smith, Theory of Moral Sentiments, p. 199 sq.]

[Footnote 27: Rossbach, Untersuchungen über die römische Ehe, p. 32. Cf. Laws of Manu, ix. 74, 75, 95.]

The parents' duty of taking care of their offspring is, in the first place, based on the sentiment of parental affection. That the maternal sentiment is universal in mankind is a fact too generally admitted to need demonstration; not so the father's love of his children. Savage men are commonly supposed to be very indifferent towards their offspring; but a detailed study of facts leads us to a different conclusion. It appears that, among the lower races, the paternal sentiment is hardly less universal than the maternal, although it is probably never so strong and in many cases distinctly feeble. But more often it displays itself with considerable intensity even among the rudest savages. In the often-quoted case of the Patagonian chief who, in a moment of passion, dashed his little son with the utmost violence against the rocks because he let a basket of eggs which the father handed to him fall down, we have only an instance of savage impetuosity. The same father "would, at any other time, have been the most daring, the most enduring, and the most self-devoted" in the support and defence of his child.[28] Similarly the Central Australian natives, in fits of sudden passion, when hardly knowing what they do, sometimes treat a child with great severity; but as a rule, to which there are very few exceptions, they are kind and considerate to their children, the men as well as the women carrying them when they get tired on the march, {530} and always seeing that they get a good share of any food.[29] All authorities agree that the Australian Black is affectionate to his children.[30] "From observation of various tribes in far distant parts of Australia," says Mr. Howitt, "I can assert confidently that love for their children is a marked feature in the aboriginal character. I cannot recollect having ever seen a parent beat or cruelly use a child; and a short road to the goodwill of the parents is, as amongst us, by noticing and admiring their children. No greater grief could be exhibited, by the fondest parents in the most civilised community at the death of some little child, than that which I have seen exhibited in an Australian native camp, not only by the immediate parents, but by the whole related group."[31] Other representatives of the lowest savagery, as the Veddahs[32] and Fuegians,[33] are likewise described as tender parents. Though few peoples have acquired a worse reputation for cruelty than the Fijians, even the greatest censurer of their character admits that the exhibition of parental love among them "is sometimes such as to be worthy of admiration";[34] whilst, according to another authority, "it is truly touching to see how parents are attached to their children."[35] The Bangala of the Upper Congo, "swayed one moment by a thirst for blood and indulging in the most horrible orgies, . . . may yet the next be found approaching their homes looking forward with {531} the liveliest interest to the caresses of their wives and children."[36] Carver asserts that he never saw among any other people greater proofs of parental or filial tenderness than among the North American Naudowessies.[37] Among the Point Barrow Eskimo "the affection of parents for their children is extreme";[38] and the same seems to be the case among the Eskimo in general.[39] Concerning the Aleuts Veniaminof wrote long ago:--"The children are often well fed and satisfied, while the parents almost perish with hunger. The daintiest morsel, the best dress, is always kept for them."[40] Mr. Hooper, again, found parental love nowhere more strongly exemplified than among the Chukchi; "the natives absolutely doat upon their children."[41] Innumerable facts might indeed be quoted to prove that parental affection is not a late product of civilisation, but a normal feature of the savage mind as it is known to us.[42]

[Footnote 28: King and Fitzroy, op. cit. ii. 155. Cf. ibid. ii. 154; Musters, At Home with the Patagonians, p. 196 sq.]

[Footnote 29: Spencer and Gillen, Native Tribes of Central Australia, p. 50 sq.]

[Footnote 30: Curr, The Australian Race, i. 402; iii. 155. Idem, Recollections of Squatting in Victoria, p. 252. Angas, Savage Life and Scenes in Australia, i. 94. Brough Smyth, Aborigines of Victoria, i. 51; ii. 311. Ridley, Aborigines of Australia, p. 23. Eyre, Journals of Expeditions of Discovery into Central Australia, ii. 214 sq. Sturt, Expedition into Central Australia, ii. 137. Calvert, Aborigines of Western Australia, p. 30 sq. Taplin, 'Narrinyeri,' in Woods, Native Tribes of South Australia, p. 15. Gason, 'Manners and Customs of the Dieyerie Tribe,' ibid. p. 258. Hill and Thornton, Aborigines of New South Wales, pp. 2, 4. Fraser, Aborigines of New South Wales, pp. 2, 44. Lumholtz, Among Cannibals, p. 193.]

[Footnote 31: Fison and Howitt, op. cit. p. 189. Cf. ibid. p. 259.]

[Footnote 32: Bailey, 'Wild Tribes of the Veddahs of Ceylon,' in Trans. Ethn. Soc. N.S. ii. 291. Deschamps, Carnet d'un voyageur au pays des Veddas, p. 380.]

[Footnote 33: King and Fitzroy, op. cit. i. 76; ii. 186. Weddell, Voyage towards the South Pole, p. 156. Pertuiset, Le Trésor des Incas à la Terre de Feu, p. 217.]

[Footnote 34: Williams and Calvert, Fiji and the Fijians, p. 116.]

[Footnote 35: Seemann, Viti, p. 193. Cf. ibid. p. 194.]

[Footnote 36: Ward, Five Years with the Congo Cannibals, p. 141. Cf. ibid. p. 139.]

[Footnote 37: Carver, op. cit. p. 240 sq. Cf. ibid. p. 378 sq.]

[Footnote 38: Murdoch, 'Ethnological Results of the Point Barrow Expedition,' in Ann. Rep. Bur. Ethn. ix. 417.]

[Footnote 39: Hall, Arctic Researches, p. 568. Parry, Second Voyage for the Discovery of a North-West Passage, p. 529. Boas, 'Central Eskimo,' in Ann. Rep. Bur. Ethn. vi. 566. Turner, 'Ethnology of the Ungava District,' ibid. xi. 191. Seemann, Voyage of "Herald," ii. 65. Cranz, History of Greenland, i. 174.]

[Footnote 40: Veniaminof, quoted by Dall, Alaska, p. 397. Cf. ibid. p. 393; Petroff, 'Report on Alaska,' in Tenth Census of the United States, p. 158.]

[Footnote 41: Hooper, Ten Months among the Tents of the Tuski, p. 201.]

[Footnote 42: Dobrizhoffer, Account of the Abipones, ii. 214 sq. Wied-Neuwied, Reise nach Brasilien, ii. 40 (Botocudos). Wallace, Travels on the Amazon, p. 518 sq. (Amazon Indians; but on the Brazilian Indians generally, cf. von Martius, in Jour. Roy. Geo. Soc. ii. 198, and Idem, Beiträge zur Ethnographie Amerika's, i. 125). Im Thurn, Among the Indians of Guiana, pp. 213, 219. MacCauley, 'Seminole Indians of Florida,' in Ann. Rep. Bur. Ethn. v. 491. Dunbar, 'Pawnee Indians,' in **Magazine of American History, viii. 745. Catlin, North American Indians, ii. 242. Ten Kate, Reizen en onderzoekingen in Noord-Amerika, p. 364 sq. Sproat, Scenes and Studies of Savage Life, p. 160 (Ahts). Franklin, Journey to the Shores of the Polar Sea, p. 68 (Crees). Elliott, 'Report on the Seal Islands,' in Tenth Census of the United States, p. 238. Krasheninnikoff, History of Kamschatka, p. 232 (Koriaks). Georgi, Russia, i. 25 (Laplanders); iii. 13 (Tunguses), 158 (Kamchadales). Castrén, Nordiska resor och forskningar, ii. 121 (Ostyaks). Prejevalsky, Mongolia, i. 71. Scott Robertson, Káfirs of the Hindu-Kush, p. 189. Blunt, Bedouin Tribes of the Euphrates, ii. 214. Dalton, Desiriptive Ethnology of Bengal, p. 68 (Garos). Marshall, A Phrenologist amongst the Todas, p. 200; Shortt, 'Hill Tribes of the Neilgherries,' in Trans. Ethn. Soc. N.S. vii. 254 (Todas). Kloss, In the Andamans and Nicobars, p. 228 (Nicobarese). Man, Sonthalia and the Sonthals, p. 78. Wallace, Malay Archipelago, p. 450 (Malays). Schwaner, op. cit. i. 162 (Malays of the Barito River Basin in Borneo). Low, Sarawak, p. 148 (Malays). Bock, Head-Hunters of Borneo, p. 210 (Dyaks). Ling Roth, Natives of Sarawak and British North Borneo, i. 68 (Land Dyaks). Forbes, A Naturalist's Wanderings in the Eastern Archipelago, p. 321 (natives of Timor-laut). Forbes, Insulinde, p. 182 (natives of Ritobel) Seligmann, in Reports of the Cambridge Anthropological Expedition to Torres Straits, v. 199; Haddon, ibid. v. 229, 274 (Western Islands). Romilly, From my Verandah in New Guinea, p. 51. Chalmers, Pioneering in New Guinea, p. 163. Christian, Caroline Islands, p. 72 (Ponapeans). Kubary, 'Die Bewohner der Mortlock Inseln,' in Mittheilungen der Geogr. Gesellsch. in Hamburg, 1878-9, p. 261. Macdonald, Oceana, p. 195 (Efatese). Turner, Samoa, p. 317 (natives of Tana), von Kotzebue, Voyage of Discovery, iii. 165 (Natives of Radack). Mariner, op. cit. ii. 179 (Tongans). Dieffenbach, Travels in New Zealand, ii. 26, 107; Crozet, Voyage to Tasmania, p. 66 (Maoris). Dove, 'Aborigines of Tasmania,' in Tasmanian Journal of Natural Science, i. 252. Reade, Savage Africa, p. 245 (Equatorial Africans). Casati, Ten Years in Equatoria, i. 186 (Central African Negroes). Caillié, Travels through Central Africa, i. 352 (Mandingoes). Holub, Seven Years in South Africa, ii. 296 (Marutse). Livingstone, Missionary Travels, p. 126 (Bechuanas). Johnston, Uganda Protectorate, ii. 539 (Pigmies). Sparrman, Voyage to the Cape of Good Hope, i. 219 (Hottentots). Shaw, 'Betsileo Country and People,' in Antananarivo Annual and Madagascar Magazine, iii. 82. See also supra, p. 405; Steinmetz, 'Verhältnis zwischen Eltern und Kindern bei den Naturvölkern,' in Zeitschrift für Socialwissenschaft, i. 610 sqq.; Idem, Ethnologische Studien zur ersten Entwicklung der Strafe, ii. ch. vi. §2.]

{532} When dealing with the origin of the altruistic sentiment we shall find reason to believe that paternal affection not only prevails among existing men, savage and civilised, but that it belonged to the human race from the very beginning, and that the same was the case with the germ of marital affection, inducing the male to remain with the female till after the birth or the offspring, and to defend and support her during the periods of pregnancy and motherhood. It is true that among several savage peoples conjugal love is said to be unknown; but what is meant by this is, I think, typically expressed in Major Ellis's statement referring to some Gold Coast natives, that among them "love, as understood by the people of Europe, has no existence."[43] The love of a savage is certainly very different from the love of a civilised man; nevertheless we may discover in it traces of the same ingredients. Even rude savages, such as the Bushmans, Fuegians, Andaman Islanders, and Australian aborigines, seem often to be lovingly attached to their wives.[44]

[Footnote 43: Ellis, Tshi-speaking Peoples of the Gold Coast, p. 285. I have dealt with this subject in my History of Human Marriage, p. 356 sqq.]

[Footnote 44: Ibid. p. 358 sq.]

{533} The prevalence of paternal and marital affection accounts for the origin of the family (consisting of parents and children), and for the functions of the man as father and husband. The growing intensity of these sentiments has naturally increased the stability of the family tie; and other factors, of a selfish nature, have contributed towards the same result. From various points of view it is desirable for a man to have children. They are to him objects of pride; when grown-up, they add to his safety and power; they support him when he gets old; they make offerings to his spirit when he is dead. And no less useful is the possession of a wife. When the generative power is no longer restricted to a certain season of the year, she becomes a lasting cause of sensual delight; she is a mother of children; she manages the household; she acts as a carrier, she works in the field.

Every social institution has a tendency to become a matter of moral concern because of the persistence of habit. But the simplest paternal and marital duties have a deeper foundation than the mere force of the habitual. If a man leaves his wife and children without protection and support, the other members of the community will sympathise with them, and feel resentment towards the neglectful husband and father. He will be looked upon as the cause of their sufferings, because he omitted to do what other men in his position would have done. His conduct will be repulsive to everyone who himself possesses those sentiments of which he proves destitute. He will be held guilty of a breach of contract, since by marrying he took upon himself the burden of maintaining his wife and their common offspring. To thoughtful minds his responsibility towards his children is further increased by the fact that he is the author of their being, and for that reason the source of their misery. Finally, the community as a whole will suffer by his negligence.

The parents' duty of taking care of their offspring lasts until the latter are able to shift for themselves. On the other hand, when the parents, in their turn, get in need of {534} support, their care is to be reciprocated by the children. The practice of killing or abandoning decrepit parents is an exception even in the savage world, and, as we have seen, restricted to extreme cases in which it may be regarded as an act of kindness or of hard necessity. There are always savage peoples among whom aged parents, though suffered to live, are said to be grossly neglected by their children. But, so far as I know, these peoples are not numerous, and can hardly be regarded as representatives of a custom common to any larger ethnic group.

Thus, according to Hearne, "old age is the greatest calamity that can befall a Northern Indian; for when he is past labour, he is neglected, and treated with great disrespect, even by his own children. They not only serve him last at meals, but generally give him the coarsest and worst of the victuals; and such of the skins as they do not chuse to wear, are made up in the clumsiest manner into clothing for their aged parents."[45] Yet among the same people Richardson witnessed "several unquestionable instances of tenderness and affection shown by children to their parents, and of compliance with their whims, much to their own personal inconvenience."[46] In his work on the tribes of California Mr. Powers observes:--"filial piety cannot be said to be a distinguishing quality of the Wailakki, or, in fact, of any Indians. No matter how high may be their station, the aged and decrepit are counted a burden. The old man, hero of a hundred battles, sometime 'lord of the lion heart and eagle eye,' when his fading eyesight no more can guide the winged arrow as of yore, is ignominiously compelled to accompany his sons into the forest, and bear home on his poor old shoulders the game they have killed."[47] But concerning the Indians of Upper California Beechey writes, "When any of their relations are indisposed, the greatest attention is paid to their wants, and it was remarked by Padre Arroyo that filial affection is stronger in these tribes than in any civilised nation on the globe with which he was acquainted."[48] Among the Indians on the east side of the Rocky Mountains, "the aged are commonly treated with much respect, which they consider themselves as entitled to claim"; and they "are not suffered to want any thing which they need, and which {535} it is in the power of their relations to procure for them."[49] The religious teachers of the Iroquois inculcated the duty of protecting aged parents, as divinely enjoined:--"It is the will of the Great Spirit that you reverence the aged, even though they be as helpless as infants."[50] The Aleuts described by Veniaminof considered disregard of one's parents to be the greatest and most dishonourable of crimes; "we should sincerely love them," they said, "do all we could toward their support, remain with them, and care for them until their death."[51] The children of the Central Eskimo are very dutiful, obeying the wishes of their parents and taking care of them in their old age;[52] and statements to the same effect are made with reference to other Eskimo tribes.[53] Cranz, who did not generally panegyrise the moral qualities of the Greenlanders, wrote that the bonds of filial and parental love seem stronger in them than amongst other nations, and that "ingratitude in up-grown children towards their old decrepit parents, is scarcely exemplified among them."[54] Among the Botocudos Prince Wied-Neuwied saw a young man carrying about his blind father, not leaving him alone for a single moment.[55] Among the Fuegians "grown-up children are expected to support their parents when they become aged; the son generally makes his father, if he is past work, a canoe every season, and if the aged man is a widower he lives entirely under the charge of his eldest son."[56] The Australian natives are much praised for the regard with which they treat their parents and elders. With reference to the Western tribes, Bishop Salvado observes:--"Les fils adultes payent de retour l'affection de leurs parents. S'ils sont vieux, ils réservent pour eux les meilleurs pièces de gibier, ou de tout autre mets, et se chargent de venger leurs offenses."[57] Among the Kukis of India, "when past work, the father and mother are supported by their children."[58] Among the Bódo and Dhimáls "it is {536} deemed shameful to leave old parents entirely alone; and the last of the sons, who by his departure does so, is liable to fine as well as disinheritance."[59] Among the Betsileo of Madagascar "the old are never left destitute or to their own devices. . . . It is by no means uncommon to see the son carrying the aged parent on his back, when necessity or inclination demands locomotion."[60] Among the Mandingoes "the aged who are unable to support themselves are always maintained and treated with respect by their children."[61] That uncivilised races commonly regard it a stringent duty for children to maintain their aged parents and to administer to their wants, is also obvious from statements testifying their filial regard in general terms.[62] On the other hand, the fact that some peoples are said to be deficient in this sentiment, does not imply that they fail to recognise the simple duty of supporting old and helpless parents.

[Footnote 45: Hearne, Journey to the Northern Ocean, p. 345 sq.]

[Footnote 46: Richardson, Arctic Searching Expedition, ii. 17.]

[Footnote 47: Powers, op. cit. p. 118 sq.]

[Footnote 48: Beechey, Voyage to the Pacific and Behring's Strait, ii. 402.]

[Footnote 49: Harmon, Voyages and Travels in the Interior of North America, p. 348.]

[Footnote 50: Morgan, League of the Iroquois, p. 171.]

[Footnote 51: Veniaminof, quoted by Petroff, loc. cit. p. 155.]

[Footnote 52: Boas, 'Central Eskimo,' in Ann. Rep. Bur. Ethn. vi. 566.]

[Footnote 53: Murdoch, 'Point Barrow Expedition,' in Ann. Rep. Bur. Ethn. ix. 417. Turner, 'Ungava District,' ibid. xi. 191.]

[Footnote 54: Cranz, op. cit. i. 174, 150. Cf. Egede, Description of Greenland, p. 147; Holm, 'Ethnologisk Skizze af Angmagsalikerne,' in Meddelelser om Grönland, x. 93.]

[Footnote 55: Wied-Neuwied, op. cit. ii. 40.]

[Footnote 56: Bridges, 'Manners and Customs of the Firelanders,' in A Voice for South America, xiii. 206.]

[Footnote 57: Salvado, Mémoires historiques sur l'Australie, p. 277. Cf. Curr, The Australian Race, iii. 155; Gason, 'Dieyerie Tribe,' in Woods, Native Tribes of South Australia, p. 258; Mathew, 'Australian Aborigines,' in Jour. & Proceed. Roy. Soc. N. S. Wales, xxiii. 388.]

[Footnote 58: Lewin, Wild Races of South-Eastern India, p. 256.]

[Footnote 59: Hodgson, Miscellaneous Essays, i. 123.]

[Footnote 60: Shaw, in Antananarivo Annual, iii. 82.]

[Footnote 61: Caillié, op. cit. i. 352.]

[Footnote 62: See infra, on the Subjection of Children.]

At a higher stage of civilisation reverence for parents reaches its pitch, and the duty of maintaining them in their old age is taken for a matter of course. Among the present Hindus "it would certainly be regarded as a most disgraceful thing were a man who could do anything for the support of an aged father or mother to allow the burden of their maintenance to fall on strangers";[63] and it is common for unmarried soldiers to stint themselves almost to starvation point, that they may send home money to their parents.[64] The priesthood of modern Buddhism teach that children shall "respect their parents, and perform all kinds of offices for them, even though they should have servants whom they could command to do all that they require."[65] At ancient Athens, before a man could become a magistrate, evidence was to be produced that he had treated his parents properly; and a person who refused his parents food and dwelling lost his right of speaking in the national assembly.[66] According to {537} the Icelandic Grágás, a man should maintain in the first place his mother, in the second his father, in the third his own children.[67] The Talmud enjoins the duty of maintaining parents;[68] and so does Muhammedan law, "if the parents are both poor and lastingly infirm, or both poor and insane."[69]

[Footnote 63: Wilkins, Modern Hinduism, p. 418.]

[Footnote 64: Monier Williams, Indian Wisdom, p. 440, n. 1.]

[Footnote 65: Hardy, op. cit. p. 494. Cf. ibid. p. 495.]

[Footnote 66: Schmidt, Ethik der alten Griechen, ii. 144.]

[Footnote 67: Grágás, Omaga-balkr, 1, vol. i. 232.]

[Footnote 68: Katz, Der wahre Talmudjude, p. 119.]

[Footnote 69: Sachau, op. cit. p. 17 sq.]

Christianity, as will be shown, in one essential point changed the notions of antiquity regarding children's duties towards their parents: it made these duties subordinate to men's duties towards God. "Verily I say unto you, There is no man that hath left house, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my sake, and the gospel's, but he shall receive an hundredfold now in this time, houses, and brethren, and sisters, and mothers, and children, and lands, with persecutions; and in the world to come eternal life."[70] There are numerous legends and lives of saints in which the desertion of the nearest relations is recorded as one of the leading features of their sanctity, and as one of their chief titles to honour.[71] Some Catholic writers were of opinion that a man might lawfully abandon his parents, even though they could not be supported without him, and enter religion, committing the care of them to God. But Thomas Aquinas says that this would be tempting God, adding however that he who has already professed religion "ought not, on any plea of supporting his parents, to quit the cloister in which he is buried with Christ, and entangle himself again in worldly business."[72] Yet our duties towards our parents come next to our duties towards God. We ought to aid them when in want, and to supplicate God in their behalf that they may lead prosperous and happy lives.[73]

[Footnote 70: St. Mark, x. 29 sq.]

[Footnote 71: Cf. Farrer, Paganism and Christianity, p. 196.]

[Footnote 72: Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, ii.-ii. 101. 4.]

[Footnote 73: Catechism of the Council of Trent, iii. 5. 10 sq.]

The duty of supporting aged parents has its root in {538} the sentiments of affection, gratitude, and regard, and, to some extent, in superstitious fear. However feeble they be, the parents have in their hands a powerful weapon--the curse; or, when they are dead, their ghosts may avenge their wrongs on their neglectful children. All these circumstances will be discussed in the chapter dealing with the subjection of children.

We have further to consider the duty of assisting brothers and sisters and more distant relatives. Among the Aleuts, says Veniaminof, a brother "must always aid his brother in war as well as in the chase, and each protect the other; but if anybody, disregarding this natural law, should go to live apart, caring only for himself, such a one should be discarded by his relatives in case of attack by enemies or animals, or in time of storms; and such dishonourable conduct would lead to general contempt."[74] Among the Point Barrow Eskimo "the older children take very good care of the smaller ones";[75] and of the Sia Indians (Pueblos) we are told that "a marked trait is their loving kindness and care for younger brothers and sisters."[76] Dr. Schweinfurth writes:--"Notwithstanding . . . that certain instances may be alleged which seem to demonstrate that the character of the Dinka is unfeeling, these cases never refer to such as are bound by the ties of kindred. Parents do not desert their children, nor are brothers faithless to brothers, but are ever prompt to render whatever aid is possible."[77] I presume that these examples of fraternal relations may, on the whole, be regarded as expressive of universal facts. According to Confucius, the love which brother should bear to brother is second only to that which is due from children to parents.[78]

[Footnote 74: Veniaminof, quoted by Petroff, loc. cit. p. 155.]

[Footnote 75: Murdoch, in Ann. Rep. Bur. Ethn. ix. 417.]

[Footnote 76: Stevenson, 'Sia,' in Ann. Rep. Bur. Ethn. xi. 22.]

[Footnote 77: Schweinfurth, Heart of Africa, i. 169.]

[Footnote 78: Douglas, Confucianism and Taouism, p. 123.]

The duty of assisting more distant relatives is much more variable. It may be said that, as a general rule, among {539} savages and barbarians--with the exception, perhaps, of those who live in small family-groups--as also among the peoples of archaic culture, this duty is more prominent and extends further than amongst ourselves. The blood-tie has much greater strength, related families keep more closely together for mutual protection and aid. The Angmagsaliks of Eastern Greenland, says Lieutenant Holm, consider that the tie of blood imposes mutual assistance as a duty under all circumstances.[79] The Omahas maintain that "generosity cannot be exercised toward kindred, who have a natural right to our assistance."[80] Among the natives of Madagascar "the claims of relationship are distinctly recognised by custom and law. If one branch of a family becomes poor, the members of the same family support him; if he be sold into slavery for debt, they often unite in furnishing the price of his redemption. . . . The laws facilitate and encourage, and sometimes even enforce, such acts of kindness."[81] In his description of the Australian Bangerang, Mr. Curr observes, "Though their ways were different from ours, it always seemed to me that the bonds of friendship between blood relations were stronger, as a rule, with savages than amongst ourselves."[82] Among the Philippine Islanders "families are very united, and claims for help and protection are admitted, however distant the relationship may be."[83] Of the Burmans it is said, "No people can be more careful in preserving and acknowledging the bonds of family relationship to the remotest degrees, and not merely as a matter of form, but as involving the duty of mutual assistance."[84] Among the ancient Hindus, Persians, Greeks, and Romans, persons belonging to the four generations of near relatives--the Sapindas, Syngeneis, Anchisteis, or Propinqui--were expected to assist {540} each other whenever it was needed.[85] The Scandinavians considered him to be a bad man who did not help his kindred against strangers, even though there was enmity between the relatives.[86]

[Footnote 79: Holm, in Meddelelser om Grönland, x. 87.]

[Footnote 80: Dorsey, 'Omaha Sociology,' in Ann. Rep. Bur. Ethn. iii. 274.]

[Footnote 81: Ellis, History of Madagascar, i. 138. Cf. Sibree, The Great African Island, p. 256 sq.]

[Footnote 82: Curr, Recollections of Squatting in Victoria, p. 274.]

[Footnote 83: Foreman, Philippine Islands, p. 186.]

[Footnote 84: Forbes, British Burma, p. 59.]

[Footnote 85: Leist, Alt-arisches Jus Civile, i. 47 sqq., 231 sqq.]

[Footnote 86: Rosenberg, Nordboernes Aandsliv, i. 488.]

But the duty of helping the needy and protecting those in danger goes beyond the limits of the family and the kin. Uncivilised peoples are, as a rule, described as kind towards members of their own community or tribe. Between themselves charity is enjoined as a duty, and generosity is praised as a virtue. Indeed, their customs regarding mutual aid are often much more stringent than our own. And this applies even to the lowest savages.[87]

[Footnote 87: The prevalence of mutual aid in uncivilised communities has been duly emphasised by Prince Kropotkin, Mutual Aid, p. 76 sqq.]

"La disposition à la générosité," says M. Hyades, "est un trait charactéristique des Fuégiens. Ils aiment à partager ce qu'ils ont avec tous ceux qui les entourent."[88] Captain Weddell likewise speaks of "the philanthropic principle which these people exhibit towards one another."[89] Burchell tells us that the Bushmans, between themselves, "exercise the virtues of hospitality and generosity, often in an extraordinary degree."[90] The Veddahs of Ceylon are friendly towards each other, and ready to help a person in distress.[91] The Andamanese display much mutual affection in their social relations, and frequently make presents of the best that they possess. "Every care and consideration," says Mr. Man, "are paid by all classes to the very young, the weak, the aged, and the helpless, and these, being made special objects of interest and attention, invariably fare better in regard to the comforts and necessaries of daily life than any of the otherwise more fortunate members of the community."[92] The Australian natives are almost universally praised for their friendly behaviour towards persons {541} belonging to their own people.[93] Presents given to one of a group are speedily divided as far as possible among the rest, and when a black man has employment at a station he generally gives away most of his earnings to his comrades in the camp.[94] "Between the males of a tribe," says Mr. Curr, "there always exists a strong feeling of brotherhood, so that, come weal come woe, a man can always calculate on the aid, in danger, of every member of his tribe."[95] Regarding the Central Australian natives, Messrs. Spencer and Gillen observe that their treatment of one another "is marked on the whole by considerable kindness, that is, of course, in the case of members of friendly groups, with every now and then the perpetration of acts of cruelty."[96] Collins says that the aborigines about Botany Bay and Port Jackson "applauded acts of kindness and generosity, for of both these they were capable."[97]

[Footnote 88: Hyades and Deniker, Mission scientifique du Cap Horn, vii. 243.]

[Footnote 89: Weddell, op. cit. p. 168. According to other authorities, the Fuegians, though free from malevolence and cruelty, are not distinguished for active benevolence (Bridges, in A Voice for South America, xiii. 208, 213. Bove, Patagonia, pp. 133, 137. Lovisato, 'Appunti etnografici sulla Terra del Fuoco,' in Cosmos di Guida Cora, viii. 145, 151. Cf. also Hyades and Deniker, op. cit. vii. 238, 240, 243 sq.).]

[Footnote 90: Burchell, Travels in the Interior of Southern Africa, ii. 54.]

[Footnote 91: Sarasin, Ergebnisse naturwissenschaftlicher Forschungen auf Ceylon, iii. 545, 550. Schmidt, Ceylon, p. 276.]

[Footnote 92: Man, in Jour. Anthr. Inst. xii. 93 sq. Cf. Portman, ibid. xxv. 368.]

[Footnote 93: Curr, The Australian Race, i. 49. Hodgson, Reminiscences of Australia, p. 88. Oldfield, 'Aborigines of Australia,' in Trans. Ethn. Soc. N.S. iii. 226. Eyre, op. cit. ii. 385 sq. Brough Smyth, op. cit. ii. 279. Lumholtz, Among Cannibals, p. 176. Mathew, in Jour. & Proceed. Roy. Soc. N.S. Wales, xxiii. 387 sq. Breton, Excursions in New South Wales, p. 218. Fison and Howitt, op. cit. p. 259. Wyatt, 'Manners and Superstitions of the Adelaide and Encounter Bay Aboriginal Tribes,' in Woods, Native Tribes of South Australia, p. 162. Schuermann, 'Aboriginal Tribes of Port Lincoln,' ibid. pp. 243, 244, 247.]

[Footnote 94: Schuermann, loc. cit. p. 244. Ridley, Kámilarói, p. 158. Fison and Howitt, op. cit. p. 256. Lumholtz, Among Cannibals, pp. 199, 343. Stirling, Report of the Horn Expedition to Central Australia. Part IV. Anthropology, p. 36.]

[Footnote 95: Curr, The Australian Race, i. 62.]

[Footnote 96: Spencer and Gillen, Native Tribes of Central Australia, p. 50.]

[Footnote 97: Collins, English Colony in New South Wales, i. 549.]

Passing to savages and barbarians who have reached a somewhat higher level of culture:--We are told by Mr. Catlin, with reference to the North American Indians, that, "to their friends, there are no people on earth that are more kind."[98] According to Adair, "they are very kind and liberal to every one of their own tribe, even to the last morsel of food they enjoy"; Nature's school "teaches them the plain easy rule, 'do to others, as you would be done by.'"[99] Harmon praises the generosity of the Indians:--"They are more ready, in proportion to their means, to assist a neighbour who may be in want, than the inhabitants, generally, of civilised countries. An Indian rarely kills an animal, without sending a part of it to a neighbour if he has one near him."[100] The Naudowessies "supply the deficiency of their friends with any superfluity of their own," and "in dangers they readily give assistance to those of their band {542} who stand in need of it, without any expectation of return."[101] Among the Iroquois "kindness to the orphan, hospitality to all, and a common brotherhood, were among the doctrines held up for acceptance by their religious instructors"; an Iroquois "would surrender his dinner to feed the hungry, vacate his bed to refresh the weary, and give up his apparel to clothe the naked."[102] Among the Omahas grades of merit or bravery were of two sorts: to the first class belonged such as had given to the poor on many occasions, and had invited guests to many feasts. To the second class belonged those who, besides having done these things many times, had killed several of the foe, and had brought home many horses. When a person sees a poor man or woman, they said, he should make presents to the unfortunate being; thus he can gain the goodwill of Wakanda as well as that of his own people.[103] The Ahts of Vancouver Island succour any one in need of help, without looking for any ulterior benefit.[104] The Aleuts were instructed to be kind to others and to refrain from selfishness; it was the custom for the successful hunter or fisher, particularly in times of scarcity, to share his prize with all, not only taking no larger share, but often less than the others.[105] Among the Eskimo about Behring Strait, whenever a successful trader accumulates property and food, and is known to work solely for his own welfare, he becomes an object of enmity and hatred among his fellow-villagers, which ends in one of two ways--the villagers may compel him to make a feast and distribute his goods, or they may kill him and divide his property among themselves.[106] According to the Greenland creed, all those who had striven and suffered for the benefit of their fellow-men should find a happy existence after death in the abodes of the supreme being, Tornarsuk.[107] "The Greenlander," says Dr. Nansen, "is the most compassionate of creatures with regard to his neighbour. His first social law is to help others."[108] Captain Hall holds an equally favourable opinion of those Eskimo with whom he came in contact. "As between themselves," he says, "there can be no people exceeding them in this virtue kindness of heart. Take, for instance, times of great scarcity of food. If one family happens to have any provisions on {543} hand, these are shared with all their neighbours. If one man is successful in capturing a seal, though his family may need it all to save them from the pangs of hunger, yet the whole of his people about, including the poor, the widow, the fatherless, are at once invited to a seal-feast."[109] They believe that all Innuits who have been good, "that is, who have been kind to the poor and hungry," will after death go to Koodleparmiung, or heaven, whereas those who have been bad, "that is, unkind to one another," will go to Adleparmeun, or hell.[110] Many of the South American peoples are praised for their kind disposition of mind;[111] the Guiana Indians seemed to a Christian missionary to be "generous to a fault."[112] The Caribs had all their interests in common, lived in great harmony, and loved each other heartily.[113]

[Footnote 98: Catlin, North American Indians, ii. 241.]

[Footnote 99: Adair, History of the American Indians, pp. 431, 429.]

[Footnote 100: Harmon, op. cit. p. 349.]

[Footnote 101: Carver, op. cit. p. 247.]

[Footnote 102: Morgan, League of the Iroquois, pp. 172, 329.]

[Footnote 103: Dorsey, 'Omaha Sociology,' in Ann. Rep. Bur. Ethn. iii. 333, 274. Cf. Idem, 'Siouan Sociology,' ibid. xv. 232 (Kansas).]

[Footnote 104: Sproat, op. cit. p. 166.]

[Footnote 105: Veniaminof, quoted by Petroff, loc. cit. p. 155, and Dall, Alaska, p. 392.]

[Footnote 106: Nelson, 'Eskimo about Bering Strait,' in Ann. Rep. Bur. Ethn. xviii. 305.]

[Footnote 107: Rink, Greenland, p. 141.]

[Footnote 108: Nansen, First Crossing of Greenland, ii. 304. Cf. ibid. ii. 334; Nansen, Eskimo Life, pp. 116, 177; Egede, op. cit. pp. 123, 126 sq.]

[Footnote 109: Hall, Arctic Researches, p. 567.]

[Footnote 110: Ibid. p. 571 sq.]

[Footnote 111: von Martius, Beiträge zur Ethnographie Amerika's, i. 217, 641 (Guarayos, Macusis). Musters, op. cit. p. 195 (Patagonians).]

[Footnote 112: Brett, Indian Tribes of Guiana, p. 276.]

[Footnote 113: de Poircy-Rochefort, Histoire naturelle et morale des Iles Antilles, p. 460.]

Among the Tonga Islanders the sentiment of humanity, or a fellow-feeling for one another, is universally approved. They "are not only not selfish, but admire liberality, and are practically liberal." When any one is about to eat, he always shares what he has with those about him without any hesitation, and not to do so would be considered exceedingly vile and selfish. So, also, "if one chief sees something in the possession of another, which he has a strong desire to have, he has only to ask him for it, and in all probability it is readily and liberally given."[114] Not even the Fijians, who took great pains to instil into the minds of their youth a contempt for compassionate impulses and an admiration for relentless cruelty,[115] were destitute of humanity and friendly feelings.[116] In Aneiteum, of the New Hebrides, the people believed that the sin which would be visited with the severest punishment in the land of the dead was stinginess or niggardliness in giving away food, and that the virtue which received the highest reward was a generous hospitality and a giving liberally at feasts.[117] In Tana, another island belonging to the same group, "one man has only to ask anything from his neighbours, and he gets it."[118] Of the New Caledonians Mr. Atkinson states that, among themselves, they are "of a generosity that seems to arise mainly from aversion to refuse any request."[119] The Dyaks are described as hospitable, {544} kindly, and humane, "to a degree which well might shame ourselves";[120] whilst the practice of head-hunting is carried on by every tribe at the expense of its neighbour, the members of each community have strong feelings of sympathy for each other.[121] Among the Sea Dyaks, says Grassland, "if any are sick or unable to work, the rest help; and there seems to me a much stronger bond of union amongst them than I have ever seen among the labouring classes in England."[122]

[Footnote 114: Mariner, op. cit. ii. 153, 154, 165.]

[Footnote 115: Erskine, Cruise among the Islands of the Western Pacific, p. 247.]

[Footnote 116: Ibid. pp. 247, 273. Williams and Calvert, op. cit. pp. 93, 115 sq. Seemann, Viti, p. 192.]

[Footnote 117: Inglis, In the New Hebrides, p. 31.]

[Footnote 118: Campbell, A Year in the New Hebrides, p. 169.]

[Footnote 119: Atkinson, in Folk-Lore, xiv. 248.]

[Footnote 120: Boyle, Adventures among the Dyaks of Borneo, p. 215.]

[Footnote 121: Bock, Head-Hunters of Borneo, p. 210 sq. Brooke, Ten Years in Saráwak, i. 57.]

[Footnote 122: Crossland, quoted by Ling Roth, Natives of Sarawak, i. 85.]

The Santals are gentle and very obliging, and sociable to a fault among their own people.[123] The Hos "are charitable to those deserving aid."[124] The Todas believe that, after death, the souls of good people will have enjoyment in heaven, whilst the souls of bad people will suffer punishment; "a good man is, in the Toda estimation, one who is given to deeds of charity, and a bad man one who is uncharitable (this in order of precedence), quarrelsome, thieving, &c."[125] Mr. Batchelor states that "a more kind, gentle, and sympathetic people than the Ainos of Japan would be very difficult to find"; anything given to them they always divide with their friends.[126] The Samoyedes are ready to share their last morsel with their companions; and it is said that nobody can surpass the poor Ostyak in benevolence and other virtues of the heart.[127] "The finest trait in the character of a Bedouin (next to good faith)," Burckhardt observes, "is his kindness, benevolence, and charity. . . . Among themselves, the Bedouins constitute a nation of brothers; often quarrelling, it must be owned, with each other, but ever ready, when at peace, to give mutual assistance."[128] Generosity is a virtue which always commands particular respect in the desert.[129] The Arabs of the Soudan have a saying that "you must always put other people's things on your head, and your own under your arm. Then, if there be danger of the things falling off your head, you must raise your arm, and let fall your own things to save those of others."[130]

[Footnote 123: Man, Sonthalia, p. 19 sq. Hunter, Annals of Rural Bengal, i. 215.]

[Footnote 124: Tickell, 'Memoir on the Hodésum,' in Jour. Asiatic Soc. Bengal, ix. (pt. ii.) 807.]

[Footnote 125: Thurston, 'Todas of the Nilgiris,' in the Madras Government Museum's Bulletin, i. 166 sq.]

[Footnote 126: Batchelor, Ainu of Japan, p. 19. Holland, 'Ainos,' in Jour. Anthr. Inst. iii. 235.]

[Footnote 127: Castrén, op. cit. i. 238; ii. 55.]

[Footnote 128: Burckhardt, Notes on the Bedouins and Wahábys, p. 208.]

[Footnote 129: Wallin, Reseanteckningar från Orienten, iii. 244. Blunt, Bedouin Tribes of the Euphrates, ii. 224.]

[Footnote 130: Richardson, Mission to Central Africa, i. 117.]

{545} The Barea are a benevolent people, kind even to strangers.[131] The Manganja, in the neighbourhood of Lake Nyassa, "are generous in the distribution of food," and even when starving they share the last morsel with their friends.[132] Sir H. Johnston says that he has never met with "a more kindly, sensible, considerate set of beings" than the Wa-taveita.[133] The Eastern Central Africans, the Rev. D. Macdonald observes, "are not mere animals composed of greed and selfishness. They often shew great bravery and devotedness. I can point to one man who saved my life on three separate occasions at the risk of his own."[134] Among the Bechuanas a regard for the poor, for widows, and for orphans, is everywhere considered to be a sacred duty.[135] Among all the virtues the Basutos appreciate none more than kindness. They have a saying that "one link only sounds because of another"--which implies that we cannot do without the help of our fellow-creatures,--and another saying that "one does not skin one's game without showing it to one's friends"--that is, when we have been successful in our undertakings, it becomes us to be generous. If any food is brought to them while they are in each other's society, however small may be the quantity, every one must have a taste.[136] The Kafirs are a kindly race; Lichtenstein says that "whenever anyone kills an ox he must invite all his neighbours to partake of it, and they remain his guests till the whole is eaten."[137] Of the Hottentots Kolben states:--"They are certainly the most friendly, the most liberal, and the most benevolent people to one another that ever appear'd upon earth . . . . They are charmed with opportunities of obliging each other, and one of their greatest pleasures lies in interchanging gifts and good offices."[138] "A Hottentot," says Barrow, "would share his last morsel with his companions."[139] Drury wrote of the people of Madagascar:--"They certainly treat one another with more humanity than we do. Here is no one miserable, if it is in the power of his neighbours to help him. Here is love, tenderness, and generosity which might {546} shame us; and . . . . this is . . . . all over the island."[140] Ellis likewise observes that, in Madagascar, assisting in distress, and lending and borrowing property and money, are carried on much more commonly and freely than amongst neighbours or relatives in England, and that a kindness of heart in these things is always esteemed excellent.[141]

[Footnote 131: Munzinger, Ostafrikanische Studien, p. 534.]

[Footnote 132: Rowley, Africa Unveiled, p. 47.]

[Footnote 133: Johnston, Kilima-njaro Expedition, p. 436.]

[Footnote 134: Macdonald, Africana, i. 270, 266.]

[Footnote 135: Arbousset and Daumas, Exploratory Tour to the North-East of the Colony of the Cape of Good Hope, p. 402.]

[Footnote 136: Casalis, Basutos, pp. 206, 207, 301, 306, 309 sqq.]

[Footnote 137: Leslie, Among the Zulus and Amatongas, p. 203. Lichtenstein, Travels in Southern Africa, i. 272.]

[Footnote 138: Kolben, Present State of the Cape of Good Hope, i. 334 sq. Cf. ibid. i. 167.]

[Footnote 139: Barrow, Travels into the Interior of Southern Africa, i. 151.]

[Footnote 140: Drury, Adventures during Fifteen Years' Captivity on the Island of Madagascar, p. 172 sq.]

[Footnote 141: Ellis, History of Madagascar, i. 139. For other African instances, see Mungo Park, Travels in the Interior of Africa, p. 17 (Mandingoes); Burton, Abeokuta, i. 303 (Yoruba); Idem, Two Trips to Gorilla Land, i. 106 (Mpongwe); Monrad, Guinea-Kysten og dens Indbyggere, p. 7; Johnston, River Congo, p. 423 (races of the Upper Congo); Wilson and Felkin, op. cit. i. 225 (Waganda).]

Among many savages the old people, in particular, have a claim to support and assistance, not only from their own children or relatives, but from the younger members of the community generally.

Among the Australian natives the old men get the best and largest share of everything, and are allowed to monopolise the youngest and best-looking women, whilst a young man must consider himself fortunate if he can get an old woman for wife.[142] Among the Tonga Islanders "every aged man and woman enjoys the attentions and services of the younger branches of society."[143] In the Kingsmill Islands "generosity, hospitality, and attention to the aged and infirm are virtues highly esteemed and generally practised among all the natives."[144] Among the Kafirs, when persons advanced in years become sick and helpless, "everyone is eager to afford them assistance."[145] In the opinion of the Aleuts, "feeble old men must be respected and attended when they need aid, and the young and strong should give them a share of their booty and help them through all their troubles, endeavouring to obtain in exchange their good advice only."[146]

[Footnote 142: Eyre, op. cit. ii. 385 sq. Mathew, in Jour. & Proceed. Roy. Soc. N.S. Wales, xxiii. 407. Lumholtz, Among Cannibals, p. 163. Cf. Grey, Journals of Two Expeditions of Discovery in North-West and Western Australia, ii. 248; Brough Smyth, op. cit. i. 138; Spencer and Gillen, Native Tribes of Central Australia, p. 51.]

[Footnote 143: Mariner, op. cit. ii. 155.]

[Footnote 144: Hale, U.S. Exploring Expedition. Vol. VI. Ethnography and Philology, p. 95.]

[Footnote 145: Lichtenstein, op. cit. i. 265.]

[Footnote 146: Veniaminof, quoted by Petroff, loc. cit. p. 155.]

The sick, also, are often very carefully attended to.

Among the coast tribes of British Columbia Mr. Duncan "always found one or two nurses to an invalid, if the case was {547} at all bad; the sympathy of the nurses, too, seemed very great."[147] Beechey says of the wild Indians of Upper California:--"The very great care taken of all those who are affected with any disease ought not to be allowed to escape a remark. When any of their relations are indisposed, the greatest attention is paid to their wants."[148] Keating noticed the kind and humane treatment which the Potawatomis extended even to the idiots.[149] The Koriaks "carefully attend those who are sick."[150] The same is said of the Ainos of Japan,[151] and the Tagbanuas of the Philippine Islands.[152] In Sarawak no relative is abandoned because an injury or illness may have incapacitated him for work.[153] When a Dyak is ill at home, the women nurse the patient in turn.[154] In Samoa "the treatment of the sick was invariably humane."[155] In Tana,[156] Humphrey's Island,[157] Erromanga,[158] and Tasmania,[159] they were likewise kindly attended to; and the same is the case at least among many of the Australian tribes.[160] Concerning the aborigines of Herbert River, in Northern Queensland, Lumholtz writes:--"The natives are very kind and sympathetic towards those who are ill, and they carry them from camp to camp. This is the only noble trait I discovered in the Australian natives."[161] In various parts of Australia the blind, and especially the aged blind, are carefully tended; travellers on the northern coast of the continent have noticed that these are generally the fattest of the company, being supplied with the best of everything.[162] "No trait in the character of the Malagasy," says Ellis, "is more creditable to their humanity, and more gratifying to our benevolent feelings, than the kind, patient, and affectionate manner in which they attend upon the sick."[163] A similar praise is bestowed upon the {548} Mandingoes[164] and Kafirs.[165] Among the Zulus, says Mr. J. Tyler, "work, however important, is at once suspended that they may help their afflicted friends."[166]

[Footnote 147: Duncan, quoted by Mayne, Four Years in British Columbia, p. 292 sq.]

[Footnote 148: Beechey, op. cit. ii. 402.]

[Footnote 149: Keating, Expedition to the Source of St. Peter's River, i. 100.]

[Footnote 150: Krasheninnikoff, op. cit. p. 233.]

[Footnote 151: von Siebold, Die Aino auf der Insel Yesso, p. 11.]

[Footnote 152: Worcester, Philippine Islands, p. 494.]

[Footnote 153: St. John, Life in the Forests of the Far East, ii. 323.]

[Footnote 154: Bock, Head-Hunters of Borneo, p. 211.]

[Footnote 155: Turner, Samoa, p. 141. Cf. Pritchard, Polynesian Reminiscences, p. 146.]

[Footnote 156: Turner, Samoa, p. 323.]

[Footnote 157: Ibid. p. 276.]

[Footnote 158: Robertson, Erromanga, p. 399.]

[Footnote 159: Ling Roth, Aborigines of Tasmania, p. 47. Bonwick, Daily Life and Origin of the Tasmanians, p. 10.]

[Footnote 160: Brough Smyth, op. cit. ii. 284 (West Australian natives). Schuermann, 'Aboriginal Tribes of Port Lincoln,' in Woods, Native Tribes of South Australia, p. 225.]

[Footnote 161: Lumholtz, Among Cannibals, p. 183.]

[Footnote 162: Ridley, Kámilarói, p. 169. Eyre, op. cit. ii. 382 Barrington, History of New South Wales, p. 23. Stirling, op. cit. p. 36.]

[Footnote 163: Ellis, History of Madagascar, i. 231 sq.]

[Footnote 164: Caillié, op. cit. i. 354.]

[Footnote 165: Lichtenstein, op. cit. i. 266.]

[Footnote 166: Tyler, Forty Years among the Zulus, p. 195.]

Whilst the information which I have been able to gather on the social customs of uncivilised races seems to indicate that, in the majority of cases, mutual kindness and goodwill prevail within their communities, there are not wanting statements of a different character. But these statements are, after all, exceptional, and some of them are either ambiguous or obviously inexact. Only too often travellers represent to us the savage, not as he is in his daily life amidst his own people, but as he behaves towards his enemy, or towards a stranger who enters his country uninvited. As an experienced observer remarks, "the savage, passionate and furious with the feeling of revenge, slaughtering and devouring his enemy and drinking his blood, is no longer the same being as when cultivating his fields in peace; and it would be as unjust to estimate his general character by his actions in these moments of unrestrained passion, as to judge of Europeans by the excesses of an excited soldiery or an infuriated mob."[167] Moreover, many accounts of savages date from a period when they have already been affected by contact with a "higher culture," as we call it, a culture which almost universally has proved to exercise a deteriorating influence on the character of the lower races. Among the North American Indians, for instance, "there was more good-will, hospitality, and charity, practised towards one another" before white people came and resided among them;[168] whereas contact with civilisation has made them "false, suspicious, avaricious and hard-hearted."[169] As has been truly said, "search modern history, and in the North {549} and South and East and West the story is ever the same--we come, we civilise, and we corrupt or exterminate."[170]

[Footnote 167: Dieffenbach, Travels in New Zealand, ii. 130 sq.]

[Footnote 168: Warren, in Schoolcraft, Indian Tribes of the United States, ii. 139.]

[Footnote 169: Domenech, Seven Years' Residence in the Great Deserts of North America, ii. 69.]

[Footnote 170: Boyle, op. cit. p. 108.]

Among the semi-civilised and civilised nations charity has universally been regarded as a duty, and has often been strenuously enjoined by their religions. When Spain and Peru first came into contact, the Americans surpassed the Spaniards in brotherly love and systematic care for the needy. They had a poor-law according to which the blind, lame, aged, and infirm, who could not till their own lands so as to clothe and feed themselves, should receive sustenance from the public stores.[171] The ancient Mexicans, according to Clavigero, seemed to give without reluctance what had cost them the utmost labour to acquire.[172] "The great virtue of the Coreans is their innate respect for and daily practice of the laws of human brotherhood. Mutual assistance and generous hospitality among themselves are distinctive national traits."[173] According to Chinese law, "all poor destitute widowers and widows, the fatherless and childless, the helpless and the infirm, shall receive sufficient maintenance and protection from the magistrates of their native city or district, whenever they have neither relations nor connections upon whom they can depend for support."[174] "Benevolence," said Confucius, "is more to man than either water or fire."[175] To assist the needy, to feed the hungry, to clothe the naked, to succour the sick, to save men in danger--these and similar acts of kindness are, according to Chinese beliefs, merits which will be rewarded by the unseen powers that watch human conduct, whereas the uncharitable and parsimonious are threatened with divine punishments.[176] In a book of Buddhistic-Confucian flavour, {550} as familiar to the youth of Japan as the Sermon on the Mount is to us, it is said, "Above all things, men must practise charity; it is by almsgiving that wisdom is fed."[177] According to the Dhammapada, "the uncharitable do not go to the world of the gods; fools only do not praise liberality; a wise man rejoices in liberality, and through it becomes blessed in the other world."[178] Indeed, in the didactic poetry of Buddhism the virtue of beneficence occupies the most prominent place; without any regard to what is the measure of the real benefit thereby extended to the recipient of the gift, the legends set before us as a duty the most unbounded generosity, pushed even to the extreme of self-destruction.[179] And in its conception of charity and liberality, as in all other points of worldly morality, Buddhism does not differ from the standard recognised in India since ancient times.[180] Already in the Vedic hymns praise is bestowed on those who from their abundance willingly dispense to the needy, on those who do not turn away from the hungry, on those who are kind to the poor.[181] In the Hitopadesa it is said that the good man shows pity even to the worthless, as the moon does not withdraw its light even from a member of the lowest caste.[182] The sacred law-books of India are full of prescriptions enjoining almsgiving as a duty on all twice-born men.[183] "A householder must give as much food as he is able to spare to those who do not cook for themselves, and to all beings one must distribute food without detriment to one's own interest."[184] The student "should always without sloth give alms out of whatever he has for food."[185] The Brâhmana who has completed his studentship should without tiring "perform works of {551} charity with faith."[186] Almsgiving confers merit on the giver, it frees him from guilt, it destroys sin;[187] "for whatever purpose a man bestows any gift, for that purpose he receives in his next birth with due honour its reward."[188] On the other hand, he who cooks for himself alone eats nothing but sin.[189] Speaking of the modern Hindus, Mr. Wilkins observes:--"The charity of the Hindus is great. . . . There is no poor-law in India, no guardians of the poor, no workhouses, excepting for the Europeans in the Presidency towns. The poor of a family, the halt, the lame, the blind, the weak, the insane, are provided for by their family, if it is at all able to do it; in cases where there are few or no relatives, then the burden is taken up by others. It is a 'work of merit.'"[190]

[Footnote 171: Garcilasso de fa Vega, First Part of the Royal Commentaries of the Yncas, ii. 34.]

[Footnote 172: Clavigero, History of Mexico, i. 81.]

[Footnote 173: Griffis, Corea, p. 288.]

[Footnote 174: Ta Tsing Leu Lee, sec. lxxxix. p. 93. On the charitable institutions of the Chinese, see Staunton, ibid. p. 93 n. *; Smith, Chinese Characteristics, p. 186 sq.]

[Footnote 175: Douglas, Confucianism and Taouism, p. 109.]

[Footnote 176: 'Merits and Errors Scrutinized,' in Indo-Chinese Gleaner, iii. 159, 161 sqq. Thâi Shang, 3. 'Divine Panorama,' in Giles, Strange Stories from a Chinese Studio, ii. 370, 371, 374, 379. Douglas, Confucianism and Taouism, pp. 259, 272 sq. Davis, China, ii. 48. Edkins, Religion in China, p. 89 sq.]

[Footnote 177: Chamberlain, Things Japanese, p. 309.]

[Footnote 178: Dhammapada, 177.]

[Footnote 179: Oldenberg, Buddha, p. 301.]

[Footnote 180: Cf. Kern, Manual of Indian Buddhism, p. 72.]

[Footnote 181: Rig-Veda, x. 117. Kaegi, Rigveda, p. 18.]

[Footnote 182: Hitopadesa, Mitralâbhâ, 63.]

[Footnote 183: Gautama, v. 21; x. 1 sq. Institutes of Vishnu, lix. 28. Baudhâyana, ii. 7. 13. 5. Laws of Manu, ix. 333; x. 75, 79; xi. 1 sqq.]

[Footnote 184: Laws of Manu, iv. 32.]

[Footnote 185: Anugîtâ, 31.]

[Footnote 186: Laws of Manu, iv. 226. Cf. ibid. iv. 227.]

[Footnote 187: Institutes of Vishnu, lix. 15, 30; ch. xc. sqq. Gautama, xix. 11, 16. Vasishtha, xx. 47; xxii. 8. Laws of Manu, iii. 95; iv. 229 sqq.; xi. 228.]

[Footnote 188: Laws of Manu, iv. 234.]

[Footnote 189: Institutes of Vishnu, lxvii. 43. Laws of Manu, iii. 118. Cf. Rig-Veda, x. 117. 6.]

[Footnote 190: Wilkins, Modern Hinduism, p. 416 sq.]

Of the ancient Persians Thucydides said that they preferred giving to receiving.[191] To be charitable towards the poor of their own faith was among them a religious duty of the first order.[192] Zoroaster thus addressed Vîshtâspa:--"Let no thought of Angra Mainyu ever infect thee, so that thou shouldst indulge in evil lusts, make derision and idolatry, and shut to the poor the door of thy house."[193] The holy Sraosha is the protector of the poor.[194] In the Shâyast it is said that the clothing of the soul in the next world is formed out of almsgiving.[195]

[Footnote 191: Thucydides, ii. 97. 4.]

[Footnote 192: See Geiger, Civilization of the Eastern Ir[=a]nians, i. 164 sqq.; Mills, in Sacred Books of the East, xxxi. p. xxii.]

[Footnote 193: Yasts, xxiv. 37.]

[Footnote 194: Ibid. xi. 3.]

[Footnote 195: Shâyast Lâ-Shâyast, xii. 4. Cf. Bundahis, xxx. 28.]

It seems that among the ancient Egyptians charity was considered no less meritorious.[196] "The god," M. Maspero observes, "does not confine his favour to the prosperous and the powerful of this world; he bestows it also upon {552} the poor. His will is that they be fed and clothed, and exempted from tasks beyond their strength; that they be not oppressed, and that unnecessary tears be spared them."[197] In the memorial inscriptions, where the dead plead their good deeds, charity is often referred to. "I harmed not a child," says one Egyptian, "I injured not a widow; there was neither beggar nor needy in my time; none were hungered, widows were cared for as though their husbands were still alive."[198] In the inscription in honour of a lady who had been charitable to persons of her own sex, whether girls, wives, or widows, it is said, "The god rewarded me for this, rejoicing me with the happiness which he has granted me for walking after his way."[199]

[Footnote 196: Brugsch, History of Egypt under the Pharaohs, i. 29 sq. Tiele, History of the Egyptian Religion, p. 226 sq. Renouf, Hibbert Lectures on the Religion of Egypt, p. 72 sqq. Amélineau, L'évolution des idées morales dans l'Égypt Ancienne, pp. 145, 354.]

[Footnote 197: Maspero, Dawn of Civilization, p. 191. Cf. Schiapparelli, Del sentimento religioso degli antichi egiziani, p. 18; Amélineau, op. cit. p. 268.]

[Footnote 198: Wiedemann, Religion of the Ancient Egyptians, p. 253.]

[Footnote 199: Renouf, op. cit. p. 75.]

Charity was urgently insisted upon by the religious law of the Hebrews.[200] "Thou shalt open thine hand wide unto thy brother, to thy poor, and to thy needy, in thy land"; "for this thing the Lord thy God shall bless thee in all thy works, and in all that thou puttest thine hand unto."[201] Even "if thine enemy be hungry, give him bread to eat; and if he be thirsty, give him water to drink: . . . the Lord shall reward thee."[202] Especially in the Old Testament Apocrypha and in Rabbinical literature almsgiving assumed an excessive prominence--so much so that the word which in the older writings means "righteousness" in general, came to be used for almsgiving in particular.[203] "Shut up alms in thy storehouses: and it shall deliver thee from all affliction."[204] "As water will quench a flaming fire, so alms maketh an atonement for sins."[205] "For alms doth deliver from death, and shall purge away all sin. Those that exercise alms and {553} righteousness shall be filled with life."[206] The charitable man is rewarded with the birth of male issue.[207] Almsgiving is equal in value to all other commandments.[208] He who averts his eyes from charity commits a sin equal to idolatry.[209] To such an extreme was almsgiving carried on by the Jews, that some Rabbis at length decreed that no man should give above a fifth part of his goods in charity.[210]

[Footnote 200: Deuteronomy, xiv. 29; xv. 7 sqq.; xvi. 11, 14. Leviticus, xix. 9 sq.; xxv. 35.]

[Footnote 201: Deuteronomy, xv. 11, 10.]

[Footnote 202: Proverbs, xxv. 21 sq.]

[Footnote 203: Addis, 'Alms,' in Encyclopædia Biblica, i. 118. Cf. Montefiore, Hibbert Lectures on the Religion of the Ancient Hebrews, p. 484 sq.]

[Footnote 204: Ecclesiasticus, xxix. 12.]

[Footnote 205: Ibid. iii. 30.]

[Footnote 206: Tobit, xii. 9. Cf. ibid. i. 3, 16; ii. 14; iv. 7 sqq.; xii. 8.]

[Footnote 207: Bava Bathra, fol. 10 B, quoted by Hershon, Treasures of the Talmud, p. 24.]

[Footnote 208: Rab Assi, quoted by Kohler, 'Alms,' in Jewish Encyclopedia, i. 435.]

[Footnote 209: Kethuboth, fol. 68 A, quoted by Katz, Der wahre Talmudjude, p. 36.]

[Footnote 210: Katz, op. cit. p. 42.]

Almsgiving, prayer, and fasting were the three cardinal disciplines which the synagogue transmitted to both the Christian Church and the Muhammedan mosque.[211] According to Islam, the duty next in importance to prayer is that of giving alms.[212] Muhammed repeatedly announces that the path which leads to God is the helping of the orphans and the relieving of the poor.[213] "Ye cannot attain to righteousness until ye expend in alms of what ye love."[214] "Those who expend their wealth by night and day, secretly and openly, they shall have their hire with their lord."[215] It is said that "prayer carries us half-way to God, fasting brings us to the door of His palace, and alms procure us admission."[216] Certain alms, called Zakât, are prescribed by law; it is an indispensable duty for every Muhammedan of full age to bestow in charity about one-fortieth of all such property as has been a year in his possession, provided that he has sufficient for his subsistence and has an income equivalent to about £5 per annum.[217] Other charitable gifts are voluntary, and confer merit upon the giver.

[Footnote 211: Cf. Tobit, xii. 8; Kohler, in Jewish Encyclopedia, i. 435.]

[Footnote 212: See Sale's 'Preliminary Discourse,' in Wherry, Commentary on the Qurán, i. 172; Lane, Manners and Customs of the Modern Egyptians, p. 105.]

[Footnote 213: Koran, ii. 267, 269, 275; viii. 42; ix. 60; xc. 12, 14 sq.; xciii. 6 sqq.; &c.]

[Footnote 214: Ibid. iii. 86.]

[Footnote 215: Ibid. ii. 275]

[Footnote 216: Sell, Faith of Islám, p. 284.]

[Footnote 217: Ibid. p. 283. Palmer, 'Introduction' to his translation of The Qur'án, i. p. lxxiii. Ameer Ali, Life and Teaching of Mohammed, p. 268.]

By Christianity charity of the religious type which we {554} find in the East was introduced into Europe. We have certainly no reason to blame the ancient Greeks and Romans for neglecting their poor. Among them slavery in a great measure replaced pauperism; and what slavery did for the very poor, the Roman system of clientage did for those of a somewhat higher rank.[218] Moreover, the relief of the indigent was an important function of the State.[219] The Areopagus provided public works for the poor.[220] At Rome gratuitous distribution of corn was the rule for many centuries;[221] agrarian laws furnished free homesteads to the landless, on conquered or public territory;[222] since the days of Nerva a systematic support of poor children was enjoined in all the cities of Italy.[223] A few examples of private charity, also, have descended to us already from early times, such as Epaminondas collecting dowers for poor girls,[224] and Cimon feeding and clothing the poor;[225] and from the days of the Pagan Empire there are recorded several cases of individual beneficence. Charitable bequests are alluded to in the burial inscriptions; when some great catastrophe happened, relief was willingly given to the sufferers; private infirmaries were established for slaves.[226] The duty of charity was forcibly enjoined by some of the moralists. The wise man, says Seneca, "will dry the tears of others, but will not mingle his own with them; he will stretch out his hand to the shipwrecked mariner, will offer hospitality to the exile, and alms to the needy."[227] But his alms are not thrown away by chance; his purse will open easily, but never leak. He will choose out the worthiest with the utmost care, and never give without sufficient reason; for unwise gifts must be reckoned among foolish extravagances.[228] So also Cicero, {555} whilst styling beneficence and liberality "virtues that are the most agreeable to the nature of man," is anxious to warn his readers against imprudence in practising them, "lest our kindness should hurt both those whom it is meant to assist, and others."[229]

[Footnote 218: See Lecky, History of European Morals, ii. 73.]

[Footnote 219: Boissier, Religion Romaine, ii. 206.]

[Footnote 220: Farrer, Paganism and Christianity, p. 183.]

[Footnote 221: Naudet, 'Des secours publics chez les Romains,' in Mémoires de l'Académie des inscriptions et belles-lettres, xiii. 43 sq.]

[Footnote 222: Ibid. p. 71 sq.]

[Footnote 223: Aurelius Victor, Epitome, xii. 8.]

[Footnote 224: Cornelius Nepos, Epaminondas, 3.]

[Footnote 225: Plutarch, Cimon, 10.]

[Footnote 226: Lecky, History of European Morals, ii. 77 sq. Boissier, op. cit. ii. 213 sq. Farrer, Paganism and Christianity, p. 182.]

[Footnote 227: Seneca, De clementia, ii. 6.]

[Footnote 228: Idem, De vita beata, 23 sq.]

[Footnote 229: Cicero, De officiis, i. 14 sq.]

In a very different light was charity viewed by the Christians. Unlimited open-handedness became a cardinal virtue. An ideal Christian was he who did what Jesus commanded the young man to do: who went and sold what he had and gave it to the poor.[230] Promiscuous almsgiving was enjoined as a duty:--"Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away."[231] The discharge of this duty was even more profitable to the giver than to the receiver. There is perhaps no precept in the Gospel to which a promise of recompense is so frequently annexed as to that concerning charity. Eternal life is promised to those who feed the hungry, give drink to the thirsty, take in the stranger, clothe the naked, visit the sick.[232] Charity was regarded as an atonement. "God," says St. Augustine, "is to be propitiated through alms for sins past";[233] and countless times is the thought expressed, that almsgiving is a safe investment of money at good interest with God in heaven.[234] Cyprian, who is the father of the Romish doctrine of good works, establishes an arithmetical relation between the number of alms-offerings and the blotting out of sins.[235] "The food of the needy," says Leo the Great, "is the purchase-money of the kingdom of heaven."[236] "As long as the market lasts," says St. Chrysostom, "let us buy alms, or rather let us purchase salvation through alms."[237] The rich man is only a debtor; all that he possesses beyond {556} what is necessary, belongs to the poor, and ought to be given away.[238] The poor, no longer looked down upon, became instruments of salvation. To them was given the first place in the Church and in the Christian community. St. Chrysostom says of them, "As fountains flow near the place of prayer that the hands that are about to be raised to heaven may be washed, so were the poor placed by our fathers near to the door of the Church, that our hands might be consecrated by benevolence before they are raised to God."[239] Gregory the Great announces, and the Middle Ages re-echo, "The poor are not to be lightly esteemed and despised, but to be honoured as patrons."[240] Thus it happened that even in the darkest periods, when all other Christian virtues were nearly extinct, charity survived unimpaired.[241] Later on Protestantism, by denying the atoning effect of good deeds, deprived charity of a great deal of its religious attraction. And in modern times the enlightened opinion on the subject, recognising the demoralising influence of indiscriminate almsgiving, rather agrees with the principles laid down by Cicero and Seneca, than with the literal interpretation of the injunctions of Christ.

[Footnote 230: Cf. Acts, ii. 45.]

[Footnote 231: St. Matthew, v. 42. Cf. St. Luke, vi. 30.]

[Footnote 232: St. Matthew, xxv. 34 sqq.]

[Footnote 233: St. Augustine, Enchiridion, 70 (Migne, Patrologiæ cursus, xl. 265).]

[Footnote 234: See Uhlhorn, Die christliche Liebesthätigkeit, i. 270.]

[Footnote 235: Cyprian, De opere et eleemosynis, 24 (Migne, op. cit. iv. 620). Cf. Harnack, History of Dogma, ii. 134, n. 2.]

[Footnote 236: Leo Magnus, Sermo X., de Collectis, 5 (Migne, op. cit. liv. 165 sq.).]

[Footnote 237: St. Chrysostom, Homilia VII., de P[oe]nitentia (Migne, op. cit. Ser. Graeca, xlix. sq. 333).]

[Footnote 238: Uhlhorn, op. cit. p. 294 sq.]

[Footnote 239: St. Chrysostom, De verbis Apostoli, Habentes eumdem spiritum, iii. 11 (Migne, op. cit. Ser. Graeca, li. sq. 300).]

[Footnote 240: Quoted by Uhlhorn, op. cit. i. 315.]

[Footnote 241: Cf. Milman, History of Latin Christianity, ix. 33 sq.]

In the course of progressing civilisation the obligation of assisting the needy has been extended to wider and wider circles of men. The charity and generosity which savages require as a duty or praise as a virtue have, broadly speaking, reference only to members of the same community or tribe. Kindness towards foreigners is looked upon in a very different light. "The virtues of the Negroes," Monrad observes, "are entirely restricted to their own tribe. The doing good to a stranger they would generally find ridiculous."[242] To the Greenlander a foreigner, especially if he be of another race, is "an indifferent object, whose welfare he has no interest in furthering."[243] {557} The Bedouin, says Doughty, "has two faces, this of gentle kindness at home, the other of wild misanthropy and his teeth set against the world besides."[244] At higher stages of civilisation the duty of charity embraces a wider group of people, in proportion to the largeness of the social unit or to the scope of the religion by which it is enjoined. But it is still more or less restrained by national or religious boundaries. M. Amélineau observes that the charity referred to on ancient Egyptian papyri is "la charité limitée à ceux de la même nation."[245] According to Zoroastrianism, charity should be restricted to the followers of the true religion; to succour an unbeliever would be like a strengthening of the dominion of Evil.[246] The Zakât, or legal alms of the Muhammedans, must not be given to a non-Muslim, because it is regarded as a fundamental part of worship;[247] similarly the [S.]adaqah, or offering on the feast-day known as [(]Idu'l-Fi[t.]r, is confined to true believers.[248] Nor has Christian charity always been free from religious narrowness. Fleury says that the early Christians, in the care they took of the poor, always preferred Christians before infidels, because "their principal regard was to their spiritual concerns, and to their temporal welfare only in order to their spiritual."[249] The principle of the Church was, "Omnem hominem fidelem judica tuum esse fratrem."[250] In the seventeenth century the Scotch clergy taught that food or shelter must on no occasion be given to a starving man unless his opinions were orthodox.[251] On the other hand, Christianity of a higher type preaches charity towards all men; and so does advanced Judaism and Buddhism. It is said in the Talmud, with reference to the treatment of the poor, that no distinction should be made between such as are Jews and such as are not.[252] In modern times charity now and then {558} steps over the barriers of nationality even when the sufferers belong to distant nations. Whilst our indigent compatriots are generally recognised to have a greater claim on our pity than needy strangers, a great calamity in one country readily calls forth a charitable response in other nations. Mr. Pike believes that the contribution of one hundred thousand pounds sterling which England, in the year 1755, when Lisbon was laid in ruins by an earthquake, sent for the relief of the sufferers, inaugurated this new era of international charitableness. "Compassion." he observes, "was at last shown by Englishmen, not simply for Englishmen and Protestants, but for foreigners professing a different religion; pity, for once, triumphed over intolerance and national prejudice."[253] And in war, in the case of enemies rendered harmless by wounds or disease, the growth of human feeling has passed beyond the simple requirement that they shall not be killed or ill-used, and has cast upon belligerents the duty of tending them so far as is consistent with the primary duty to their own wounded.[254] However, it must not be imagined that this humane principle, which has only lately been recognised in Europe, is a unique outcome of Christian civilisation at its height. It is said in the Mahabharata that, when a quarrel arises among good men, a wounded enemy is to be cured in the conqueror's own country, or to be conveyed to his home.[255] Strangely enough, even from the savage world we hear of something like an anticipation of the Geneva Convention. Among certain tribes in New South Wales, as soon as the fight is concluded, "both parties seem perfectly reconciled, and jointly assist in tending the wounded men."[256]

[Footnote 242: Monrad, op. cit. p. 4.]

[Footnote 243: Nansen, Eskimo Life, p. 159.]

[Footnote 244: Doughty, Arabia Deserta, i. 368 sq.]

[Footnote 245: Amélineau, op. cit. p. 354.]

[Footnote 246: Geiger, op. cit. i. 165.]

[Footnote 247: Sell, op. cit. p. 284. Cf. Koran, ix. 60.]

[Footnote 248: Sell, op. cit. p. 318.]

[Footnote 249: Fleury, Manners and Behaviour of the Christians, p. 133 sq.]

[Footnote 250: Laurent, Études sur l'histoire del'Humanité, iv. 94.]

[Footnote 251: Buckle, History of Civilization in England, iii. 277.]

[Footnote 252: Gitin, fol. 61 A, quoted by Katz, Der wahre Talmudjude, p. 38. Cf. Chaikin, Apologie des Juifs, p. 10.]

[Footnote 253: Pike, History of Crime in England, ii. 346.]

[Footnote 254: 'Convention signed at Geneva, August 22, 1864, for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded in Armies in the Field,' in Lorimer, Institutes of the Law of Nations, ii. Appendix no. vi. Hall, Treatise on International **Law, p. 399. Heffter, Das Europäische Völkerrecht der Gegenwart, § 126, p. 267, n. 5.]

[Footnote 255: Mahabharata, xii. 3547, quoted by Lorimer, op. cit. ii. 431.]

[Footnote 256: Brough Smyth, op. cit. i. 160.]

{559} The gradual expansion of the duty of charity is due to the fact that this duty, in the first place, is based on the altruistic sentiment, and consequently follows the same general law of development. Many cases referred to above imply that savages are by no means strangers to affection, and that in their communities there is not only mutual assistance, but general kindness of heart. Numerous instances to the same effect might easily be added. When a Fuegian is very ill the near relatives show much grief;[257] and Darwin tells us that the Fuegian boy who was taken on board the Beagle and brought to Europe, used to go to the sea-sick and say, in a plaintive voice, "Poor, poor fellow!"[258] The Veddahs are praised not only for their charitable behaviour towards each other, but for their natural tenderness of heart.[259] The aborigines of Victoria are said to "have the greatest love for their friends and relatives," and to testify the liveliest joy when a companion after a long absence returns to the camp.[260] Forster mentions an instance of affection among the natives of Tana, which, as he says, "strongly proves that the passions and innate quality of human nature are much the same in every climate."[261] Melville declares that, after passing a few weeks in the Typee valley of the Marquesas, he formed a higher estimate of human nature than he ever before entertained.[262] It can hardly be doubted that in every human society there is, normally, some degree of social affection between its members;[263] and it seems that the evolution of this sentiment in mankind has been much more in the direction of greater extensiveness than of greater intensity.

[Footnote 257: Bridges, in A Voice for South America, xiii. 206.]

[Footnote 258: Darwin, Journal of Researches, p. 207.]

[Footnote 259: Sarasin, op. cit. iii. 545, 550.]

[Footnote 260: Brough Smyth, op. cit. i. 138.]

[Footnote 261: Forster, Voyage round the World, ii. 325.]

[Footnote 262: Melville, Typee, p. 297.]

[Footnote 263: See infra, on the Origin and Development of the Altruistic Sentiment.]

Where the members of a group have affection for each other, mutual aid will be regarded as a duty both because it will be practised habitually, and because a {560} failure to afford it will call forth sympathetic resentment on behalf of the sufferer, But we need, here again, to look below the surface. Men may be induced to do good to their fellow-creatures not only by kindly feelings towards them, but by egoistic motives; and such motives, through having a share in making beneficence a tribal habit, at the same time influence the moral estimation in which it is held. The Basutos say that "the knife that is lent does not return alone to its master"--a kindness is never thrown away.[264] Of the Asiniboin, a Siouan tribe, Mr. Dorsey states that "nothing is given except with a view to a gift in return."[265] When the Andaman Islanders make presents of the best that they possess, they tacitly understand that an equivalent should be rendered for every gift.[266] Among the Makololo "the rich show kindness to the poor, in expectation of services."[267] In his description of the Greenlanders, Dr. Nansen observes that all the small communities depend for their existence on the law of mutual assistance, on the principle of common suffering and common enjoyment. "A hard life has taught the Eskimo that even if he is a skilful hunter and can, as a rule, manage to hold his own well enough, there may come times when, without the help of his fellows, he would have to succumb. It is better, therefore, for him to help in his turn."[268] That similar considerations largely lie at the bottom of the custom of mutual aid and charity both in uncivilised and more advanced communities, we may assume from the experience of human nature which we have acquired at home. And such motives must be particularly active in a society the members of which are so dependent on each other's services and return-services, as is generally the case with a horde of savages.

[Footnote 264: Casalis, op. cit. p. 310.]

[Footnote 265: Dorsey, 'Siouan Sociology,' in Ann. Rep. Bur. Ethn. xv. 225 sq.]

[Footnote 266: Man, in Jour. Anthr. Inst. xii. 95.]

[Footnote 267: Livingstone, Missionary Travels, p. 511.]

[Footnote 268: Nansen, First Crossing of Greenland, ii. 304 sq. Cf. Cranz, History of Greenland, i. 173; Parry, op. cit. p. 525.]

Moreover, by niggardliness a person may expose himself {561} to supernatural dangers, whereas liberality may entail supernatural reward. In Morocco nobody would like to eat in the presence of other people without sharing his meal with them; otherwise they might poison his food by looking at it with an evil eye. So also, if anybody shows a great liking for a thing belonging to you, wanting, for instance, to buy your gun or your horse, it is best to let him have it, since otherwise an accident is likely to happen to the object of his desire.[269] But baneful energy, what the Moors call l-bas, is transferable not only by the eye, but by the voice. The poor and the needy have thus in their hands a powerful weapon and means of retaliation, the curse. The ancient Greeks believed that the beggar had his Erinys,[270] his avenging demon, which was obviously only a personification of his curse.[271] It is said in the Proverbs, "He that giveth unto the poor shall not lack: but he that hideth his eyes shall have many a curse."[272] The same idea is expressed in Ecclesiasticus:--"Turn not away thine eye from the needy, and give him none occasion to curse thee: for if he curse thee in the bitterness of his soul, his prayer shall be heard of him that made him. . . . A prayer out of a poor man's mouth reacheth to the ears of God, and his judgment cometh speedily."[273] According to the Zoroastrian Yasts, the poor man who follows the good law, when wronged and deprived of his rights, invokes Mithra for help, with hands uplifted.[274] Mr. Chapman states that, "though the Damaras are, generally speaking, great gluttons, they would not think of eating in the presence of any of their tribe without sharing their meal with all comers, for fear of being visited by a curse from their 'Omu-kuru' [or deity], and becoming impoverished."[275] There is all reason {562} to suppose that in this case the curse of the deity was originally the curse, or evil wish, of an angry man.

[Footnote 269: Similar beliefs prevail in modern Egypt (Klunzinger, Upper Egypt, p. 391).]

[Footnote 270: Odyssey, xvii. 475.]

[Footnote 271: Supra, p. 60.]

[Footnote 272: Proverbs, xxviii. 27.]

[Footnote 273: Ecclesiasticus, iv. 5 sq.; xxi. 5. Cf. Deuteronomy, xv. 9. Rabbi Johanan says that almsgiving "saves man from sudden, unnatural death" (Kohler, in Jewish Encyclopedia, i. 435). Cf. Proverbs, x. 2.]

[Footnote 274: Yasts, x. 84.]

[Footnote 275: Chapman, Travels in the Interior of South Africa, i. 341.]

A poor man is able not only to punish the uncharitable by means of his curses, but to reward the generous giver by means of his blessings. During my residence among the Andjra tribe in the mountains of Northern Morocco, our village was visited by a band of ambulant scribes who went from house to house, receiving presents and invoking blessings in return. When a goat was given them they asked God to increase the flocks of the giver, when money was given they asked God to increase his money, and so forth. Some of the villagers told me that it was a profitable bargain, since they would be tenfold repaid for their gifts through the blessings of the scribes. A town Moor who starts for a journey to the country generally likes to give a coin to one of the beggars who are sitting near the gate, so as to receive his blessings. It is said in Ecclesiasticus:--"Stretch thine hand unto the poor, that thy blessing may be perfected. A gift hath grace in the sight of every man living."[276] Whilst he that withholdeth corn shall be cursed by the people, "blessing shall be upon the head of him that selleth it."[277] Among the early Christians those who brought gifts for the poor were specially remembered in the prayers of the Church.[278] Of the Nay[=a]dis of Malabar Mr. Iyer says that the purport and object of their prayers are, among other things, "that all the superior castes, who give them alms, may enjoy long life and prosperity."[279] In various cases the nature of the rewards promised for charitable acts suggests that they are due to the blessings of the recipient. According to Vasishtha, "through liberality man obtains all his desires, even longevity."[280] In the Yasts it is said that the children of a charitable man will thrive.[281] According to Talmudic ideas, men acquire wealth for their children by {563} distributing alms among the poor.[282] Considering how widely spread is the belief in the efficacy of curses and blessings, there can be little doubt that charity and generosity are connected with this belief in many cases where no such connection has been noticed by the European visitor.

[Footnote 276: Ecclesiasticus, vii. 32. Cf. Proverbs, xxii. 9.]

[Footnote 277: Proverbs, xi. 26.]

[Footnote 278: Uhlhorn, op. cit. i. 141.]

[Footnote 279: Iyer, in the Madras Government Museum's Bulletin, iv. 72.]

[Footnote 280: Vasishtha, xxix. 1 sq.]

[Footnote 281: Yasts, xxiv. 36.]

[Footnote 282: Kohler, in Jewish Encyclopedia, i. 436. Cf. Proverbs, xxviii. 27.]

The curses and blessings of the poor partly account for the fact that charity has come to be regarded as a religious duty. Originally, it is true, they had not the character of an appeal to a god, but were believed to possess a purely magical power, independent of any superhuman will. This belief is rooted in the close association between the wish, more particularly the spoken wish, and the idea of its fulfilment. The wish is looked upon in the light of energy which may be transferred--by material contact, or by the eye, or by means of speech--to the person concerned, and then becomes a fact. This process, however, is not taken quite as a matter of course; there is always some mystery about it. Hence the words of a holy man, a magician or priest, are considered more efficacious than those of ordinary mortals. The Australian natives believe that the curse of a potent magician will kill at the distance of a hundred miles. Among the Maoris "the anathema of a priest is regarded as a thunderbolt that an enemy cannot escape."[283] Among the Gallas no man will under any circumstances slay either a priest or a wizard, from a dread of his dying curse.[284] Some of the Rabbis maintained that a curse uttered by a scholar is unfailing in its effect, even if undeserved.[285] In Muhammedan countries the curses of saints or shereefs are particularly feared. According to the Laws of Manu, a Brâhmana "may punish his foes by his own power alone," speech being his weapon.[286] But though a curse may derive particular potency from the person who utters it, {564} it is by no means ineffective even in the mouth of an ordinary man.[287] In the Old Testament children are forbidden to curse their parents,[288] subjects their rulers,[289] men their god;[290] and according to Talmudic conceptions, a curse should not be regarded lightly however ignorant be the person who utters it.[291] All that is required is that the words should possess that supernatural quality which alone can bring about the result desired, and this quality may be inherent in the curse quite independently of the person who utters it. It is inherent in certain mystic formulas or spells and in the invocations of some spirit or god. The will of the invoked being is not considered at all; his name is simply brought in to give the curse that mystic efficacy which the plain word lacks. Thus both in the Old Testament[292] and in the Talmud[293] there are traces of the ancient idea that the name of the Lord might be used with advantage in any curse however undeserved. But with the deepening of the religious sentiment this idea had to be given up. A righteous and mighty god cannot agree to be a mere tool in the hand of a wicked curser. Hence the curse comes to be looked upon in the light of a prayer, which is not fulfilled if undeserved; as it is said in the Proverbs, "the curse causeless shall not come."[294] And the same is the case with the blessing. Whilst in ancient days Jacob could take away his brother's blessing by deceit,[295] the efficacy of a blessing was later on limited by moral considerations.[296] The Psalmist declares that only the offspring of the righteous can be blessed;[297] and according to the Apostolic Constitutions, "although a widow who eateth and is filled from the wicked, pray for them, she shall not be heard."[298] {565} On the other hand, curses and blessings, when well deserved, continued to draw down calamity or prosperity upon their objects, by inducing God to put them into effect; this idea prevails both in post-exilic Judaism and in Muhammedanism,[299] and underlies the Christian oath and benediction. The final, but not the original view was that, as an uncharitable man deserves to be punished and a charitable man merits reward, the curses and blessings of the poor will naturally be heard by a righteous God. "The Lord will plead their cause."[300]

[Footnote 283: Polack, Manners and Customs of the New Zealanders, i. 248 sq.]

[Footnote 284: Harris, Highlands of Æthiopia, iii. 50.]

[Footnote 285: Makkoth, fol. 11 A. Berakhoth, fol. 56 A.]

[Footnote 286: Laws of Manu, xi. 32 sq.]

[Footnote 287: Taylor, Te Ika a Maui, p. 204 (Maoris). Wellhausen, Reste arabischen Heidentums, p. 139.]

[Footnote 288: Exodus, xxi. 17. Leviticus, xx. 9. Proverbs, xx. 20; xxx. 11.]

[Footnote 289: Exodus, xxii. 28. Ecclesiastes, x. 20.]

[Footnote 290: Exodus, xxii. 28.]

[Footnote 291: Meghilla, fol. 15 A.]

[Footnote 292: Supra, p. 564.]

[Footnote 293: Makkoth, fol. 11 A. Berakhoth, foll. 19 A, 56 A.]

[Footnote 294: Proverbs, xxvi. 2.]

[Footnote 295: Genesis, xxvii. 23 sqq.]

[Footnote 296: Cf. Cheyne, 'Blessings and Curses,' in Encyclopædia Biblica, i. 592.]

[Footnote 297: Psalms, xxxvii. 26.]

[Footnote 298: Constitutiones Apostolicæ, iv. 6. Cf. Jeremiah, vii. 16.]

[Footnote 299: Cf. Cheyne, in Encyclopædia Biblica, i. 592; Goldziher, Abhandlungen zur arabischen Philologie, i. 29 sqq.]

[Footnote 300: Proverbs, xxii. 23.]

The chief cause, however, of the extraordinary stress which the higher religions put on the duty of charity seems to lie in the connection between almsgiving and sacrifice. When food is offered as a tribute to a god, the god is supposed to enjoy its spiritual part only, whilst the substance of it is left behind and is eaten by the poor. And when the offering is continued in ceremonial survival in spite of the growing conviction that, after all, the deity does not need and cannot profit by it,[301] the poor become the natural heirs of the god, and the almsgiver inherits the merit of the sacrificer. The chief virtue of the act, then, lies in the self-abnegation of the donor, and its efficacy is measured by the "sacrifice" which it costs him.

[Footnote 301: For such a survival, see Tylor, Primitive Culture, ii. 396 sqq.]

Many instances may be quoted of sacrificial food being left for the poor or being distributed among them. At Scillus, where Xenophon had built an altar and a temple to Artemis and a sacrifice was afterwards made every year, the goddess supplied the poor people living there in tents with "barley-meal, bread, wine, sweetmeats, and a share of the victims offered from the sacred pastures, and of those caught in hunting."[302] According to Yasna, sacrifices to Mazda were given to his poor.[303] In ancient Arabia the poor were allowed to partake of the meal-offering {566} which was laid before the god Uqaiçir.[304] In Zinder, in the Soudan, there are some trees, regarded as divine, to which annual offerings of bullocks, sheep, and so forth, are made, "though the poor of the country get the benefit of them."[305] In Morocco even animals which are killed as [(]âr--a sacrifice embodying a conditional curse--on departed saints or living people, with a view to compelling them to grant a request, are commonly eaten by the poor, though nobody else would dare to partake of them.

[Footnote 302: Xenophon, Anabasis, v. 3. 9.]

[Footnote 303: Yasna, xxxiv. 5.]

[Footnote 304: Wellhausen, Reste arabischen Heidentums, p. 64. Robertson Smith, Religion of the Semites, p. 223.]

[Footnote 305: Richardson, Mission to Central Africa, ii. 259.]

In other cases we find that almsgiving is itself regarded as a form of sacrifice, or takes the place of it. In the sacred books of India the two things are repeatedly mentioned side by side. "The householder offers sacrifices, the householder practises austerities, the householder distributes gifts."[306] Of a Brâhmana who has completed his studentship it is said, "Let him always practise, according to his ability, with a cheerful heart, the duty of liberality, both by sacrifices and by charitable works, if he finds a worthy recipient for his gifts."[307] "In the Krita age the chief virtue is declared to be the performance of austerities, in the Tretâ divine knowledge, in the Dvâpara the performance of sacrifices, in the Kali liberality alone."[308] In the Egyptian 'Book of the Dead' the soul, on approaching to the gods who are in the Tuat, pleads:--"I have done that which man prescribeth and that which pleaseth the gods. I have propitiated the god with that which he loveth. I have given bread to the hungry, water to the thirsty, clothes to the naked, a boat to the shipwrecked. I have made oblations to the gods and funeral offerings to the departed."[309] In the Zoroastrian prayer Ahuna-Vairya, to which great efficacy is ascribed, it is said, "He who relieves the poor makes Ahura king."[310] {567} In the Koran almsgiving is often mentioned in connection with prayer;[311] and the Zakât, or alms prescribed by law, is regarded by the Muhammedans as a fundamental part of their religion, hence infidels, who cannot perform acceptable worship, have nothing to do with these alms.[312] Among the Muhammedans of India it is common for men and women to vow "that when what they desire shall come to pass, they will, in the name of God, the Prophet, his companions, or some wullee, present offerings and oblations." One of these offerings, called "an offering unto God," consists in preparing particular victuals, and in "distributing them among friends and the poor, and giving any sort of grain, a sacrificed sheep, clothes, or ready-money in alms to the indigent."[313] When the destruction of the Temple with its altar filled the Jews with alarm as they thought of their unatoned sins, Johanan ben Zakkai comforted them by saying, "You have another means of atonement, as powerful as the altar, and that is the work of charity, for it is said: 'I desired mercy, and not sacrifice.'"[314] Many other passages show how closely the Jews associated almsgiving with sacrifice. "He that giveth alms sacrificeth praise."[315] "As sin-offering makes atonement for Israel, so alms for the Gentiles."[316] "Almsdeeds are more meritorious than all sacrifices."[317] An orphan is called an "altar to God."[318] And as a sacrificer should be a person of a godly character, so it is better to perish by famine than to receive an oblation from the ungodly.[319] Alms were systematically collected in the synagogues, and officers were appointed to make the collection.[320] So, also, among the early Christians the collection of alms for the relief of the poor was an act of the Church life itself. Almsgiving took place in public worship, nay formed itself a part of worship. {568} Gifts of natural produce, the so-called oblations, were connected with the celebration of the Lord's Supper. They were offered to God as the first-fruits of the creatures (primitiæ creaturarum), and a prayer was said:--"O Lord, accept also the offerings of those who to-day bring an offering, as Thou didst accept the offerings of righteous Abel, the offering of our father Abraham, the incense of Zachariah, the alms of Cornelius, and the two mites of the widow." These oblations were not only used for the Lord's Supper, but they formed the chief means for the relief of the poor. They were regarded as sacrifice in the most special sense; and, as no unclean gift might be laid upon the Lord's altar, profit made from sinful occupations was not accepted as an oblation, neither were the oblations of impenitent sinners.[321] The author of the Epistle to the Hebrews speaks of almsgiving as a sacrifice of thanksgiving which continues after the Jewish altar has been done away with.[322] Like sacrifice, almsgiving is connected with prayer, as a means of making the prayer efficacious and furnishing it with wings; the angel said to Cornelius, "Thy prayers and thine alms are come up for a memorial before God."[323] When the Christians were reproached for having no sacrifices, Justin wrote, "We have been taught that the only honour that is worthy of Him is not to consume by fire what He has brought into being for our sustenance, but to use it for ourselves and those who need."[324] So, also, Irenæus observes that sacrifices are not abolished in the New Testament, though their form is indeed altered, because they are no longer offered by slaves, but by freemen, of which just the oblations are the proof.[325] And God has enjoined on Christians this sacrifice of oblations, not because He needs them, but "in order that themselves {569} might be neither unfruitful nor ungrateful."[326] St. Augustine says, "The sacrifice of the Christians is the alms bestowed upon the poor."[327]

[Footnote 306: Institutes of Vishnu, lix. 28.]

[Footnote 307: Laws of Manu, iv. 227. Cf. ibid. iv. 226.]

[Footnote 308: Ibid. i. 86.]

[Footnote 309: Book of the Dead, 125, Renouf's translation, p. 217.]

[Footnote 310: Vendîdâd, xix, 2.]

[Footnote 311: Koran, ii. 40, 104; ix. 54.]

[Footnote 312: Sell, op. cit. 284.]

[Footnote 313: Jaffur Shureef, Qanoon-e-Islam, p. 179.]

[Footnote 314: Kohler, in Jewish Encyclopedia, i. 467. Hosea, vi. 6.]

[Footnote 315: Ecclesiasticus, xxxv. 2.]

[Footnote 316: Quoted by Levy, Neuhebräisches und Chaldäisches Wörterbuch, iv. 173.]

[Footnote 317: Quoted ibid. iv. 173.]

[Footnote 318: Constitutiones Apostolicæ, iv. 3.]

[Footnote 319: Ibid. iv. 8.]

[Footnote 320: Addis, in Encyclopædia Biblica, i. 119.]

[Footnote 321: Uhlhorn, op. cit. i. 135 sqq. Harnack, History of Dogma, i. 205.]

[Footnote 322: Hebrews, xiii. 14 sqq. Cf. Addis, in Encyclopædia Biblica, i. 119.]

[Footnote 323: Act, x. 4. Cyprian, De opere et eleemosynis, 4. St. Chrysostom, Homilia VII., de P[oe]nitentia, 6 (Migne, Patrologiæ cursus, Ser. Gr. xlix. sq. 332).]

[Footnote 324: Justin, Apologia I. pro Christianis, 13.]

[Footnote 325: Irenæus, Adversus hæreses, iv. 18. 82.]

[Footnote 326: Ibid. iv. 17. 5.]

[Footnote 327: St. Augustine, Sermo XLII. 1 (Migne, op. cit. xxxviii. 252).]

The objection will perhaps be raised that I have here tried to trace back the most beautiful of all religious virtues to a magical and ritualistic origin without taking into due account the benevolent feelings attributed to the Deity. But in the present connection I have not had to show why charity, like other human duties, has been sanctioned by religious beliefs, but why, in the ethics of the higher religions, it has attained the same supreme importance as is otherwise attached only to devotional exercises. And this is certainly a problem by itself, for which the belief in a benevolent god affords no adequate explanation. That the religious duty of charity is not merely an outcome of the altruistic sentiment is well illustrated by the fact that Zoroastrianism, whilst exalting almsgiving to the rank of a cardinal virtue, at the same time excludes the sick man from the community of the faithful until he has been cured and cleansed according to prescribed rites.[328]

[Footnote 328: Darmesteter, 'Introduction' to the Zend-Avesta, in Sacred Books of the East, iv. p. lxxx.]

XXIV. HOSPITALITY

WE have seen that in early society regard for the life and physical well-being of a fellow-creature is, generally speaking, restricted to members of the social unit, whereas foreigners are subject to a very different treatment. But to this rule there are remarkable exceptions. Side by side with gross indifference or positive hatred to strangers we find, among the lower races, instances of great kindness displayed even towards persons of a foreign race. The Veddahs are ready to help any stranger in distress who asks for their assistance, and Sinhalese fugitives who have sought refuge in their wilds have always been kindly received.[1] Mr. Moffat was deeply affected by the sympathy which some poor Bushmans showed to him during an illness, although he was an utter stranger to them. Speaking of the mutual affection which the Andaman Islanders display in their social relations, Mr. Man adds that, "in their dealings with strangers, the same characteristic is observable when once a good understanding has been established."[2] We have also to remember the friendly manner in which the aborigines in various parts of the savage world behaved to the earliest European visitors. Nothing could be more courteous than the reception which Cook and his party met with in New Caledonia, where the natives guided and accompanied them on their {571} excursions. Forster says of the Society Islanders, "We should indeed be ungrateful if we did not acknowledge the kindness with which they always treated us."[3] De Clerque observes with reference to the Papuans on the north coast of New Guinea:--"The inhabitants seemed always ready to help. . . . On our visit to the village all the male and female inhabitants with their children flocked around me, and offered me cocoanuts and sugar-cane; which, for the first contact with Europeans, is certainly remarkable."[4] On the arrival of white people in various parts of Australia, the natives were not only inoffensive, but disposed to meet them on terms of amity and kindness.[5] "In a short intercourse," says Eyre, "they are easily made friends. . . . On many occasions where I have met these wanderers in the wild, far removed from the abodes of civilisation, and when I have been accompanied only by a single native boy, I have been received by them in the kindest and most friendly manner, had presents made to me of fish, kangaroo, or fruit, had them accompany me for miles to point out where water was to be procured, and been assisted by them in getting at it."[6] Nor must we forget the kind reception which Australian Blacks have given to men cast upon their mercy,[7] and the tenderness with which the natives of Cooper's Creek wept for the death of Burke and Wills, and comforted King, the survivor.[8] Unfortunately, native races have often received anything but favourable impressions from their earliest interviews with Europeans; and both in Australia and elsewhere prolonged intercourse with white people has, in many instances, induced them to change {572} their friendly behaviour into unkindness or hostility. The Canadian traders, for instance, when they first appeared among the Beaver and Rocky Mountain Indians, were treated by these people with the utmost hospitality and attention; but by their subsequent conduct they taught the natives to withdraw their respect, and sometimes to treat them with indignity.[9] Harmon writes, "I have always experienced the greatest hospitality and kindness among those Indians who have had the least intercourse with white people."[10] Many facts seem to verify the statement made by a missionary who speaks from forty years' experience among the natives of New Guinea and Polynesia, that our conduct towards savages determines their conduct towards us.[11]

[Footnote 1: Sarasin, Ergebnisse naturwissenschaftlicher Forschungen auf Ceylon, iii. 544.]

[Footnote 2: Man, 'Aboriginal Inhabitants of the Andaman Islands,' in Jour. Anthr. Inst. xii. 93.]

[Footnote 3: Forster, Voyage Round the World, ii. 157.]

[Footnote 4: De Clerque, in Glimpses of the Eastern Archipelago, p. 14.]

[Footnote 5: Breton, Excursions in New South Wales, p. 218. Curr, The Australian Race, i. 64. Salvado, Mémoires historiques sur l'Australie, p. 340. Ridley, Aborigines of Australia, p. 24. Eyre, Journals of Expeditions of Discovery into Central Australia, ii. 212, 382.]

[Footnote 6: Eyre, op. cit. ii. 211.]

[Footnote 7: Mathew, 'Australian Aborigines,' in Jour. & Proceed. Roy. Soc. N. S. Wales, xxiii. 388. Brough Smyth, Aborigines of Victoria, ii. 229. Ridley, Aborigines of Australia, p. 22.]

[Footnote 8: Jung, 'Aus dem Seelenleben der Australier,' in Mittheilungen des Vereins für Erdkunde zu Leipzig, 1877, p. 11 sq.]

[Footnote 9: Mackenzie, Voyage to the Frozen and Pacific Ocean, p. 149.]

[Footnote 10: Harmon, Journal of Voyages and Travels in the Interior of North America, p. 315.]

[Footnote 11: Murray, Forty Years' Mission Work in Polynesia and New Guinea, p. 499. For other instances of kindness displayed by savages towards white men, see von Kotzebue, Voyage of Discovery into the South Sea, iii. 174 (people of Radack); Yate, Account of New Zealand, p. 102 sq.; Dieffenbach, Travels in New Zealand, ii. 112; Keate, Account of the Pelew Islands, p. 329 sq.; Earl, Papuans, p. 79 (natives of Port Dory, New Guinea); Sarytschew, 'Voyage of ** Discovery to the North-East of Siberia,' in Collection of Modern and Contemporary Voyages and Travels, vi. 78 (Aleuts); King and Fitzroy, Voyages of the "Adventure" and "Beagle," ii. 168, 174 (Patagonians); Wilson and Felkin, Uganda, i. 225.]

The friendly reception which white men have met with in savage countries is closely connected with a custom which, as it seems, prevails universally among the lower races while in their native state,[12] as also among the {573} peoples of culture at the earlier stages of their civilisation[13] {574} --hospitality towards strangers. This custom presents several remarkable characteristics, which, to all appearance, ill agree with their tribal or national exclusiveness generally. The stranger is often welcomed with special marks of honour. The best seat is assigned to him; the best food at the host's disposal is set before {575} him; he takes precedence over all the members of the household; he enjoys extraordinary privileges. M. Hyades says of the Fuegians, "Quelque encombrée que soit une hutte, et si réduite que soit la quantité d'aliments dont on dispose, le nouvel arrivant est toujours assuré d'avoir une place près du foyer et une part de la nourriture."[14] The Mattoal of California, though they are sometimes heartlessly indifferent even to their parents, "will divide the last shred of dried salmon with any casual comer who has not a shadow of claim upon them, except the claim of that exaggerated and supererogatory hospitality that savages use."[15] A Creek Indian would not only receive into his house a traveller or sojourner of whatever nation or colour, but would treat him as a brother or as his own child, divide with him the last grain of corn or piece of flesh, and offer him the most valuable things in his possession.[16] Among the Arawaks, "when a stranger, and particularly an European, enters the house of an Indian, every thing is at his command."[17] Notwithstanding the Karen's suspicious nature, says Mr. Smeaton, his hospitality is unbounded. "He will entertain every stranger that comes, without asking a question. He feels himself disgraced if he does not receive all comers, and give them the very best cheer he has. The wildest Karen will receive a guest with a grace and dignity and entertain him with a lavish hospitality that would become a duke. Hundreds of their old legends inculcate the duty of receiving strangers without regard to pecuniary circumstances either of host or guest."[18] Among many uncivilised peoples it is customary for a man to offer even his wife, or one of his wives, to the stranger for the time he remains his guest.[19] The Bedouins of Nejd have a {576} saying that "the guest while in the house is its lord";[20] and in the Institutes of Vishnu we read that, as the Brâhmanas are lords over all other castes, and as a husband is lord over his wives, so the guest is the lord of his host.[21]

[Footnote 12: Azara, Voyages dans l'Amérique méridionale, ii. 91 (Guanas). Southey, History of Brazil, i. 247 (Tupis). Davis, El Gringo, p. 421 (Pueblos). Lafitau, M[oe]urs des sauvages amériquains, i. 106; ii. 88. Heriot, Travels through the Canadas, p. 318 sq. Buchanan, North American Indians, p. 6. Perrot, Mémoire sur les m[oe]urs, coustumes et relligion des sauvages de l'Amérique septentrionale, pp. 69, 202. Neighbors, in Schoolcraft, Indian Tribes of the United States, ii. 132 (Comanches). James, Expedition from Pittsburgh to the Rocky Mountains, i. 321 sq. (Omahas). Morgan, League of the Iroquois, p. 327 sqq.; Loskiel, History of the Mission of the United Brethren among the Indians in North America, i. 15; Colden, in Schoolcraft, op. cit. iii. 190 (Iroquois). Powers, Tribes of California, p. 183. Sproat, Scenes and Studies of Savage Life, p. 56 sqq. (Ahts). Boas, 'Report on the Indians of British Columbia,' in the Report read at the Meeting of the British Association, 1889, p. 36. Keating, Expedition to the Source of St. Peter's River, i. 101 (Potawatomis); ii. 167 (Chippewas). Richardson, Arctic Searching Expedition, ii. 18 (Crees and Chippewas). Idem, in Franklin, Journey to the Shores of the Polar Sea, p. 66; Mackenzie, Voyages to the Frozen and Pacific Oceans, p. xcvi. (Crees). Dall, Alaska, p. 397; Sarytschew, loc. cit. vi. 78; Sauer, Billing's Expedition to the Northern Parts of Russia, p. 274 (Aleuts). Lyon, Private Journal, p. 349 sq.; Parry, Second Voyage for the Discovery of a North-West Passage, p. 526 (Eskimo of Igloolik). Egede, Description of Greenland, p. 126; Cranz, History of Greenland, i. 172 sq.; Kane, Arctic Explorations, ii. 122; Holm, 'Ethnologisk Skizze af Angmagsalikerne,' in Meddelelser om Grönland, x. 87, 175 sq. (Greenlanders). Beechey, Voyage to the Pacific and Behring's Strait, ii. 571; Richardson, Arctic Searching Expedition, i. 367; Seemann, Voyage of "Herald," ii. 65 (Western Eskimo). Hooper, Ten Months among the Tents of the Tuski, pp. 160, 193, 194, 208; Nordenskiöld, Vegas färd kring Asien och Europa, ii. 145 (Chukchi). Dall, op. cit. pp. 381 (Tuski), 517 (Kamchadales), 526 (Ainos). Sarytschew, loc. cit. v. 67 (Kamchadales). Dobell, Travels in Kamtschatka and Siberia, i. 63, 82 sq. (Kamchadales); ii. 42 (Jakuts). Sauer, op. cit. p. 124 (Jakuts). Vámbéry, Das Türkenvolk, pp. 159 (Jakuts), 336 (natives of Eastern Turkestan), 411 (Turkomans), 451 (Tshuvashes), 509 (Baskirs), &c. Krasheninnikoff, History of Kamschatka, p. 236 (Kurile Islanders). Georgi, Russia, i. 113 (Mordvins); iii. 111 (Tunguses), 167 (Koriaks); iv. 22 (Kalmucks). Bergmann, Nomadische Streifereien unter den Kalmüken, ii. 281 sqq. Prejevalsky, Mongolia, i. 71 sq. Castrén, Nordiska resor och forskningar, i. 41 (Laplanders), 319 (Ostyaks). Scott Robertson, Káfirs of the Hindu-Kush, p. 187 sq. Fraser, Tour through the Him[=a]l[=a] Mountains, pp. 264 (people of Kunawar), 335 (Butias). Dalton, Descriptive Ethnology of Bengal, pp. 46 (Kukis), 68 (Garos). Hunter, Annals of Rural Bengal, i. 215 (Santals). Tickell, 'Memoir on the Hodésum,' in Jour. Asiatic Soc. Bengal, ix. (pt. ii.) 807 sq. (Hos). Lewin, Wild Races of South-Eastern India, p. 217 (Tipperahs). Colquhoun, Amongst the Shans, pp. 160 sq. (Steins), 371 (Shans). Foreman, Philippine Islands, p. 187. de Crespigny, 'Milanows of Borneo,' in Jour. Anthr. Inst. v, 34. Low, Sarawak, pp. 243 (Hill Dyaks), 336 (Kayans). Boyle, Adventures among the Dyaks of Borneo, p. 215. Ling Roth, Natives of Sarawak, i. 82 (Sea Dyaks). Marsden, History of Sumatra, p. 208 (natives of the interior of Sumatra). Raffles, History of Java, i. 249; Crawfurd, History of the Indian Archipelago, i. 53 (Javanese). Riedel, De sluik- en kroesharige rassen tusschen Selebes en Papua, p. 41 (natives of Ambon and Uliase). von Kotzebue, op. cit. iii. 165 (natives of Radack), 215 (Pelew Islanders). Hale, U.S. Exploring Expedition. Vol. VI.--Ethnography and Philology, p. 95 (Kingsmill Islanders). Macdonald, Oceania, p. 195 (Efatese). Erskine, Cruise among the Islands of the Western Pacific, p. 273 sq.; Williams and Calvert, Fiji and the Fijians, p. 110; Anderson, Travel in Fiji and New Caledonia, p. 134 sq. (Fijians). Ellis, Polynesian Researches, i. 95. Idem, Tour through Hawaii, p. 346 sq. Forster, op. cit. ii. 158 (Tahitians) 364 (natives of Tana), 394 (South Sea Islanders generally). Cook, Voyage round the World, p. 40 (Tahitians). Tregear, 'Niue,' in Jour. Polynesian Soc. ii. 13 (Savage Islanders), Turner, Samoa, p. 114; Pritchard, Polynesian Reminiscences, p. 132; Brenchley, Jottings during the Cruise of H.M.S. Curaçoa among the South Sea Islands, p. 76 (Samoans). Mariner, Natives of the Tonga Islands, ii. 154. Yate, op. cit. p. 100; Dieffenbach, op. cit. ii. 107 sq.; Polack, Manners and Customs of the New Zealanders, ii. 155 sq.; Angas, Savage Life and Scenes in Australia and New Zealand, ii. 22 (Maoris). Gason, 'Manners and Customs of the Dieyerie Tribe,' in Woods, Native Tribes of South Australia, p. 258; Brough Smyth, op. cit. i. 25; Salvado, op. cit. p. 340 (Australian aborigines). Ellis, History of Madagascar, i. 198; Sibree, The Great African Island, pp. 126, 129; Rochon, Voyage to Madagascar, p. 62; Little, Madagascar, p. 61; Shaw, 'Betsileo,' in Antananarivo Annual and Madagascar Magazine, ii. 82. Burchell, Travels in the Interior of Southern Africa, ii. 54 (Bushmans), 345 (Hottentots). Kolben, Present State of the Cape of Good Hope, i. 166, 337; Le Vaillant, Travels from the Cape of Good Hope, ii. 143 sq.; Schinz, Deutsch-Südwest-Afrika, p. 81 (Hottentots). Lichtenstein, Travels in Southern Africa, i. 272; Leslie, Among the Zulus and Amatongas, p. 203 (Kafirs). Casalis, Basutos, pp. 209, 224. Andersson, Lake Ngami, 198 (Ovambo). Macdonald, Africana, i. 27, 263 (Eastern Central Africans). Wilson and Felkin, op. cit. i. 211, 225 (Waganda). Rowley, Africa Unveiled, p. 47 (natives of Manganja, in the neighbourhood of Lake Nyassa). New, Life, Wanderings, and Labours in East Africa, pp. 102 (Wanika), 361 (Taveta). Thomson, Through Masai Land, p. 64 (Wa-kwafi, of the Taveta). Tuckey, Expedition to explore the River Zaire, p. 374 (Congo natives), Bosman, Description of the Coast of Guinea, p. 108. Burton, Two Trips to Gorilla Land, i. 106 (Mpongwe). Idem, Abeokuta, i. 303 (Yoruba). Caillié, Travels through Central Africa, i. 165 (Bagos). Chavanne, Die Sahara, p. 185 (Touareg). Hanoteau and Letourneux, La Kabylie, ii. 45 sqq. Munzinger, Ostafrikanische Studien, p. 534 (Barea). Lobo, Voyage to Abyssinia, p. 82 sq.

For the deteriorating influence which contact with a "higher culture" exercises on savage hospitality, see Nansen, First Crossing of Greenland, ii. 306 sq.; Ellis, Tour through Hawaii, p. 346; von Kotzebue, op. cit. iii. 250 (Hawaiians); Meade, Ride through the Disturbed Districts of New Zealand, p. 164; Dieffenbach, op. cit. ii. 107, 108, 110.]

[Footnote 13: According to a law of the Peruvian Incas, strangers and travellers should be treated as guests, and public houses were provided for them (Garcilasso de la Vega, First Part of the Royal Commentaries of the Yncas, ii. 34). For Yucatan, see Landa, Relacion de las cosas de Yucatan, p. 134. Though hospitality, according to Mr. Wells Williams (Middle Kingdom, i. 835), is not a trait of the character of the modern Chinese, kindness to strangers and travellers is enjoined in their moral and religious books (Chalmers, 'Chinese Natural Theology,' in China Review, v. 281. Douglas, Confucianism and Taouism, p. 273. Indo-Chinese Gleaner, iii. 160). In Corea it would be a grave and shameful thing to refuse a portion of one's meal with any person, known or unknown, who presents himself at eating-time (Griffis, Corea, p. 288). For the Hebrews, see Genesis, xviii. 2 sqq., xxiv. 31 sqq.; Leviticus, xix. 9 sq., xxv. 35; Deuteronomy, xiv. 29, xvi. 11, 14; Judges, xix. 17 sqq.; Job, xxxiv. 32; also Bertholet, Die Stellung der Israeliten und der Juden zu den Fremden, p. 22 sqq., and Nowack, Lehrbuch der hebräischen Archäologie, p. 186 sq. For Muhammedans, see Lane, Manners and Customs of the Modern Egyptians, p. 296 sq.; Burckhardt, Notes on the Bedouins and Wahábys, pp. 100-102, 192 sqq.; Wood, Journey to the Source of the River Oxus, p. 148; Hamilton, Researches in Asia Minor, ii. 379. For ancient India, see Leist, Alt-arisches Jus Gentium, pp. 39, 40, 223 sqq. For Greece, see Schmidt, Ethik der alten Griechen, ii. 325 sqq. For Rome, see Leist, Alt-arisches Jus Civile, i. 355 sqq.; von Jhering, Geist des römischen Rechts, i. 227 sq. For ancient Teutons, see Grimm, Deutsche Rechtsalterthümer, p. 399 sq.; Gummere, Germanic Origins, p. 162 sqq.; Keyser, Efterladte Skrifter, ii. pt. ii. 93; Weinhold, Altnordisches Leben, p. 441 sqq.; Gudmundsson and Kålund, 'Sitte,' in Paul's Grundriss der germanischen Philologie, iii. 450 sq. For Slavonians, see Schrader, Reallexikon der indogermanischen Altertumskunde, i. 270; Krauss, Die Südslaven, p. 644 sqq.]

[Footnote 14: Hyades and Deniker, Mission scientifique du Cap Horn, vii. 243.]

[Footnote 15: Powers, op. cit. p. 112.]

[Footnote 16: Bartram, 'Creek and Cherokee Indians,' in Trans. American Ethn. Soc. iii. pt. i. 42.]

[Footnote 17: Hilhouse, in Jour. Roy. Geo. Soc. ii. 230. Idem, Indian Notices, p. 14. Cf. von Martins, Beiträge zur Ethnographie Amerika's, i. 692.]

[Footnote 18: Smeaton, Loyal Karens of Burma, p. 144 sq.]

[Footnote 19: Westermarck, History of Human Marriage, p. 73 sqq.]

[Footnote 20: Palgrave, Journey through Central and Eastern Arabia, i. 345.]

[Footnote 21: Institutes of Vishnu, lxvii. 31. For other instances of the precedence granted to guests, see Man, in Jour. Anthr. Inst. xii. 94, 148 (Andaman Islanders); Buchanan, North American Indians, p. 324 (Indians of Pennsylvania); Lyon, Private Journal, p. 350 (Eskimo of Igloolik); Seemann, Voyage of "Herald," ii. 65 (Western Eskimo); Krasheninnikoff, op. cit. p. 211 (Kamchadales), Georgi, op. cit. iii. 153 sq. (Kamchadales), 183 sq. (Chukchi). Ling Roth, Natives of Sarawak, i. 86 (Sea Dyaks); Mariner, op. cit. ii. 154 (Tonga Islanders); New, op. cit. p. 102 (Wanika); Hanoteau and Letourneux, op. cit. ii. 45 (Kabyles); Wells Williams, op. cit. i. 540 (Chinese): Krauss, op. cit. p. 649 sq. (Southern Slavs).]

Custom may require that hospitality should be shown even to an enemy. Captain Holm tells us of a Greenlander of bad character who, though he had murdered his step-father, was received, and for a long time entertained, when he paid a visit to the nearest kindred of the murdered man; and this, as it seems, was agreeable to old custom.[22] Among the Aeneze Bedouins, says Burckhardt, all means are reckoned lawful to avenge the blood of a slain relative, "provided the homicide be not killed while he is a guest in the tent of a third person, or if he has taken refuge even in the tent of his deadly foe."[23] In Afghanistan "a man's bitterest enemy is safe while he is under his roof."[24] We read in the Hitopadesa:--"On even an enemy arrived at the house becoming hospitality should be bestowed; the tree does not withdraw its sheltering shadow from the wood-cutter. . . . The guest is everyone's superior."[25] The old Norsemen considered it a duty to treat a guest hospitably even though it came out that he had killed the brother of his host.[26] A mediæval {577} knight granted safe conduct through his territories to all who required it, including those who asserted pretensions which, if established, would deprive him of his possessions.[27]

[Footnote 22: Nansen, First Crossing of Greenland, ii. 305 sq.]

[Footnote 23: Burckhardt, Bedouins and Wahábys, p. 87. Cf. Daumas, La vie Arabe, p. 317 (Algerian Arabs).]

[Footnote 24: Elphinstone, Kingdom of Caubul, i. 296.]

[Footnote 25: Hitopadesa, Mitralâbhâ, 60, 62.]

[Footnote 26: Grimm, Deutsche Rechtsalterthümer, p. 400. Weinhold, Altnordisches Leben, p. 441. For other instances of hospitality towards enemies, see James, Expedition to the Rocky Mountains, i. 322 (Omahas); Bartram, in Trans. American Ethn. Soc. iii. pt. i. 42 (Creeks and Cherokees); Lomonaco, 'Sullerazze indigene del Brasile,' in Archivio per l'antropologia e la etnologia, xix. 57 (Tupis); Krauss, op. cit. p. 650 (Montenegrines).]

[Footnote 27: Mills, History of Chivalry, p. 154.]

To protect a guest is looked upon as a most stringent duty under all circumstances. "Le Kabyle qui accorde son ânaïa doit, sous peine d'infamie, y faire honneur, dût-il s'exposer à tous les dangers. . . . La violation de leur ânaïa est la plus grave injure que l'on puisse infliger à des Kabyles. Un homme qui viole, ou, suivant l'expression consacrée, qui brise l'ânaïa de son village ou de sa tribu, est puni de mort et de la confiscation de tous ses biens; sa maison est démolie."[28] Among the Bedouins a breach of the law of dakheel "would be considered a disgrace not only upon the individual but upon his family, and even upon his tribe, which never could be wiped out. No greater insult can be offered to a man, or to his clan, than to say that he has broken the dakheel."[29] Among the Aenezes, according to Burckhardt, "a violation of hospitality, by the betraying of a guest, has not occurred within the memory of man."[30] In Egypt, "most Bedawees will suffer almost any injury to themselves or their families rather than allow their guests to be ill-treated while under their protection."[31] Among the Kandhs, "for the safety of a guest life and honour are pledged; he is to be considered before a child"; in order to save his guest a man is even allowed to speak falsely, which is otherwise condemned by them as a heinous sin.[32] Vámbéry tells us of cases in which the Kara-Kirghiz have preferred being harassed with war by the Chinese to surrendering to them such Chinese fugitives as have sought and received their hospitality.[33] Among the Ossetes the host not only considers himself responsible for the safety of his guest, {578} but "revenges the murder or wounding of the latter as he would that of a kinsman."[34] In Albania it is considered infamous to leave an injury inflicted on a guest unavenged.[35] Among the Takue, though a man would accept compensation for the murder of a relative, he would in all cases exact blood-revenge for the murder of his guest.[36] On the other hand, in Sierra Leone a guest "is scarcely accountable for any faults which he may commit, whether through inadvertency or design, the host being considered as responsible for the actions of 'his stranger.'"[37]

[Footnote 28: Hanoteau and Letourneux, op. cit. ii. 61 sq.]

[Footnote 29: Layard, Discoveries in the Ruins of Nineveh and Babylon, p. 317.]

[Footnote 30: Burckhardt, Bedouins and Wahábys, p. 100. Cf. ibid. p. 192.]

[Footnote 31: Lane, Modern Egyptians, p. 297.]

[Footnote 32: Macpherson, Memorials of Service in India, pp. 65, 94.]

[Footnote 33: Vámbéry, Das Türkenvolk, p. 268. Cf. ibid. p. 411 (Turkomans).]

[Footnote 34: von Haxthausen, Transcaucasia, p. 412.]

[Footnote 35: Gop[vc]evi['c], Oberalbanien und seine Liga, p. 328.]

[Footnote 36: Munzinger, Ostafrikanische Studien, p. 208. Among the Barea and Kunáma a man avenges the death of his guest by killing the guest of the murderer (ibid. p. 477).]

[Footnote 37: Winterbottom, Native Africans in the Neighbourhood of Sierra Leone, i. 214.]

Hospitality is not only regarded as a duty of the first order, but has, in a remarkable degree, been associated with religion. Among the doctrines held up for acceptance by the religious instructors of the Iroquois there was the following precept:--"If a stranger wander about your abode, welcome him to your home, be hospitable towards him, speak to him with kind words, and forget not always to mention the Great Spirit."[38] The natives of Aneiteum, of the New Hebrides, maintained that generous hospitality would receive the highest reward in the Land of the Dead.[39] The Kalmucks believe that want of hospitality will be punished by angry gods.[40] The Kandhs say that the first duty which the gods have imposed upon man is that of hospitality; and "persons guilty of the neglect of established observances are punished by the divine wrath, either during their current lives, or when they afterwards return to animate other bodies," the penalties being death, poverty, disease, the loss of children, or any other form of calamity.[41] In the sacred books of India hospitality is repeatedly spoken of as a most important duty, the discharge of which will be {579} amply rewarded. "The inhospitable man," the Vedic singer tell us, "acquires food in vain. I speak the truth--it verily is his death. . . . He who eats alone is nothing but a sinner."[42] "He who does not feed these five, the gods, his guests, those whom he is bound to maintain, the manes, and himself, lives not, though he breathes."[43] According to the Vishnu Purána, a person who neglects a poor and friendless stranger in want of hospitality, goes to hell.[44] On the other hand, by honouring guests a householder obtains the highest reward.[45] "He who entertains guests for one night obtains earthly happiness, a second night gains the middle air, a third heavenly bliss, a fourth the world of unsurpassable bliss; many nights procure endless worlds. That has been declared in the Veda."[46] It is said in the Mahabharata that "he who gives food freely to a fatigued wayfarer, whom he has never seen before, obtains great virtuous merit."[47] According to Hesiod, Zeus himself is wrath with him who does evil to a suppliant or a guest, and at last, in requital for his deed, lays on him a bitter penalty.[48] Plato says:--"In his relations to strangers, a man should consider that a contract is a most holy thing, and that all concerns and wrongs of strangers are more directly dependent on the protection of God, than wrongs done to citizens. . . . He who is most able is the genius and the god of the stranger, who follows in the train of Zeus, the god of strangers. And for this reason, he who has a spark of caution in him, will do his best to pass through life without sinning against the stranger. And of offences committed, whether against strangers or fellow-country-men, that against suppliants is the greatest."[49] Similar opinions prevailed in ancient Rome. Jus hospitii, whilst {580} forming no part of the civil law, belonged to fas; the stranger, who enjoyed no legal protection, was, as a guest, protected by custom and religion.[50] The dii hospitales and Jupiter were on guard over him;[51] hence the duties towards a guest were even more stringent than those towards a relative.[52] Cæsar[53] and Tacitus[54] attest that the Teutons considered it impious to injure a guest or to exclude any human being from the shelter of their roof. The God of Israel was a preserver of strangers.[55] In the Talmud hospitality is described as "the most important part of divine worship,"[56] as being equivalent to the duty of honouring father and mother,[57] as even more meritorious than frequenting the synagogue.[58] Muhammedanism likewise regards hospitality as a religious duty.[59] "Whoever," said the Prophet, "believes in God and the day of resurrection, must respect his guest."[60] But the idea that a guest enjoys divine protection prevailed among the Arabs long before the times of Muhammed.[61] The Bedouins say that the guests are "guests of God."[62] The Christian Church, again, regarded hospitality as a duty imposed by Christ.[63]

[Footnote 38: Morgan, League of the Iroquois, p. 172.]

[Footnote 39: Inglis, In the New Hebrides, p. 31.]

[Footnote 40: Bergmann, op. cit. ii. 281 sq.]

[Footnote 41: Macpherson, 'Religious Opinions and Observances of the Khonds,' in Jour. Roy. Asiatic Soc. vii. 196.]

[Footnote 42: Rig-Veda, x. 117. 6.]

[Footnote 43: Laws of Manu, iii. 72. Cf. Institutes of Vishnu, lxvii. 45.]

[Footnote 44: Vish['n]u Purá['n]a, p. 305.]

[Footnote 45: Institutes of Vishnu, lxvii. 28, 32.]

[Footnote 46: Âpastamba, ii. 3. 7. 16.]

[Footnote 47: Mahabharata, Vana Parva, ii. 61, pt. v. p. 5.]

[Footnote 48: Hesiod, Opera et dies, 331 sq. (333 sq.).]

[Footnote 49: Plato, Leges, v. 729 sq.]

[Footnote 50: Servius, In Virgilii Æneidos, iii. 55: "Fas omne; et cognationis, et iuris hospitii." von Jhering, Geist des römischen Rechts, i. 227. Leist, Alt-arisches Jus Civile, i. 103, 358 sq.]

[Footnote 51: Servius, In Virgilii Æneidos, i. 736. Livy, Historiæ Romanæ, xxxix. 51. Tacitus, Annales, xv. 52. Plautus, P[oe]nuli, v. 1. 25.]

[Footnote 52: Gellius, Noctes Atticæ, v. 13. 5: "In officiis apud maiores ita observatum est, primum tutelae, deinde hospiti, deinde clienti, tum cognato, postea affini."]

[Footnote 53: Cæsar, De bello Gallico, vi. 23.]

[Footnote 54: Tacitus, Germania, 21.]

[Footnote 55: Psalms, cxlvi. 9.]

[Footnote 56: Deutsch, Literary Remains, p. 57.]

[Footnote 57: Kiddushin, fol. 39 B, quoted by Hershon, Treasures of the Talmud, p. 145.]

[Footnote 58: Sabbath, fol. 127 A, quoted by Katz, Der wahre Talmudjude, p. 103.]

[Footnote 59: Koran, iv. 40 sqq.]

[Footnote 60: Lane, Arabian Society in the Middle Ages, p. 142.]

[Footnote 61: Wellhausen, Reste arabischen Heidentums, p. 223 sq.]

[Footnote 62: Doughty, Arabia Deserta, i. 228, 504.]

[Footnote 63: Laurent, Études sur l'histoire de l'Humanité, vii. 346.]

That a stranger, who under other circumstances is treated as an inferior being or a foe, liable to be robbed and killed with impunity, should enjoy such extraordinary privileges as a guest, is certainly one of the most curious contrasts which present themselves to a student of the moral ideas of mankind. It may be asked, why should {581} he be received at all? Of course, he stands in need of protection and support, but why should those who do not know him care for that?

One answer is that his helpless condition may excite pity; facts seem to prove that even among savages the altruistic feelings, however narrow, can be stirred by the sight of a suffering and harmless stranger. Another answer is that the host himself may expect to reap benefit from his act. And there can be little doubt that the rules of hospitality are in the main based on egoistic considerations.

It has been justly observed that in uncivilised countries, where there is no public accommodation for travellers, "hospitality is so necessary, and so much required by the mutual convenience of all parties, as to detract greatly from its merit as a moral quality."[64] When the stranger belongs to a community with which a reciprocity of intercourse prevails, it is prudent to give him a hearty reception; he who is the host to-day may be the guest tomorrow. "If the Red Indians are hospitable," says Domenech, "they also look for their hospitality being returned with the same marks of respect and consideration."[65] Moreover, the stranger is a bearer of news and tidings, and as such may be a welcome guest where communication between different places is slow and rare.[66] During my wanderings in the remote forests of Northern Finland I was constantly welcomed with the phrase, "What news?" But the stranger may be supposed to bring with him something which is valued even more highly, namely, good luck or blessings.

[Footnote 64: Winterbottom, op. cit. i. 214.]

[Footnote 65: Domenech, Seven Years' Residence in the Great Deserts of North America, ii. 319. Cf. Dunbar, 'Pawnee Indians.' in Magazine of American History, viii. 745; Brett, Indian Tribes of Guiana, p. 347; Bernau, Missionary Labours in British Guiana, p. 51; von den Steinen, Unter den Naturvölkern Zentral-Brasiliens, p. 333 sq. (Bakaïri); Georgi, op. cit. iii. 154 (Kamchadales); Smeaton, op. cit. p. 146 (Karens); Ellis, Polynesian Researches, i. 95 (Society Islanders); Pritchard, Polynesian Reminiscences, p. 132, and Brenchley, op. cit. p. 76 (Samoans); Williams and Calvert, op. cit. p. 110, and Anderson, Notes of Travel in Fiji and New Caledonia, p. 135 (Fijians); Chavanne, Die Sahara, p. 393 (Arabs of the Sahara).]

[Footnote 66: Wright, Domestic Manners and Sentiments in England during the Middle Ages, p. 329.]

During the first days of my stay at Demnat, in the Great Atlas, the natives in spite of their hostility towards Europeans, said they were quite pleased with my coming to see them, because I had brought with me rain and an increase of the import of victuals, which just before my arrival had been very scarce. So, too, whilst residing among the Andjra mountaineers in the North of Morocco, I was said to be a person with "propitious ankles," because, since I settled down among them, the village where I stayed was frequently visited by Shereefs--presumed descendants of the Prophet Muhammed--who are always highly valued guests on account of the baraka, or holiness, with which they are supposed in a smaller or greater degree to be endowed. The stranger may be a source of good fortune either involuntarily, as a bearer of luck, or through his good wishes; and there is every reason to hope that he will, if treated hospitably, return the kindness of his host with a blessing. According to the old traveller d'Arvieux, strangers, who come to an Arab village are received by the Sheikh with some such words as these:--"You are welcome; praised be God that you are in good health; your arrival draws down the blessing of heaven upon us; the house and all that is in it is yours, you are masters of it."[67] It is said in one of the sacred books of India that through a Brâhmana guest the people obtain rain, and food through rain, hence they know that "the hospitable reception of a guest is a ceremony averting evil."[68] When we read in the Laws of Manu that "the hospitable reception of guests procures wealth, fame, long life, and heavenly bliss,"[69] it is also reasonable to suppose that this supernatural reward is a result of blessings invoked on the host. In the 'Suppliants' of Aeschylus the Chorus sings:--"Let us utter for the Argives blessings in requital of their blessings. And may Zeus of Strangers watch to their fulfilment the rewards that issue from a stranger's tongue, that {583} they reach their perfect goal."[70] We can now understand the eagerness with which guests are sought for. When a guest enters the hut of a Kalmuck, "the host, the hostess, and everybody in the hut, rejoice at the arrival of the stranger as at an unexpected fortune."[71] Among the Arabs of Sinai, "if a stranger be seen from afar coming towards the camp, he is the guest for that night of the first person who descries him, and who, whether a grown man or a child, exclaims, 'There comes my guest.' Such a person has a right to entertain the guest that night. Serious quarrels happen on these occasions; and the Arabs often have recourse to their great oath--'By the divorce (from my wife) I swear that I shall entertain the guest'; upon which all opposition ceases."[72] It is also very usual in the East to eat before the gate of the house where travellers pass, and every stranger of respectable appearance is invariably requested to sit down and partake of the repast.[73] Among the Maoris, "no sooner does a stranger appear in sight, than he is welcomed with the usual cry of 'Come hither! come hither!' from numerous voices, and is immediately invited to eat of such provisions as the place affords."[74]

[Footnote 67: d'Arvieux, Travels in Arabia the Desart, p. 131 sq.]

[Footnote 68: Vasishtha, xi. 13.]

[Footnote 69: Laws of Manu, iii. 106.]

[Footnote 70: Aeschylus, Supplices, 632 sqq.]

[Footnote 71: Bergmann, op. cit. ii. 282.]

[Footnote 72: Burckhardt, Bedouin and Wahábys p. 198.]

[Footnote 73: Idem, Arabic Proverbs, p. 218. Chasseb[oe]uf de Volney, Travels through Syria and Egypt, i. 413.]

[Footnote 74: Yate, op. cit. p. 100. Cf. Turner, Nineteen Years in Polynesia, p. 325 (Samoans); Sproat, op. cit. p. 57 (Ahts).]

If efficacy is ascribed to the blessings even of an ordinary man, the blessings of a stranger are naturally supposed to be still more powerful. For the unknown stranger, like everything unknown and everything strange, arouses a feeling of mysterious awe in superstitious minds. The Ainos say, "Do not treat strangers slightingly, for you never know whom you are entertaining."[75] According to the Hitopadesa, "a guest consists of all the deities."[76] It is significant that in the writings of ancient India, Greece, and Rome, guests are mentioned next after gods as due objects of regard.[77] Thus Aeschylus speaks of a man's {584} "impious conduct to a god, or a stranger, or to his parents dear."[78] According to Homeric notions, "the gods, in the likeness of strangers from far countries, put on all manner of shapes, and wander through the cities, beholding the violence and the righteousness of men."[79] The author of the Epistle to the Hebrews writes, "Be not forgetful to entertain strangers: for thereby some have entertained angels unawares."[80]

[Footnote 75: Batchelor, Ainu and their Folk-Lore, p. 259.]

[Footnote 76: Hitopadesa, Mitralâbhâ, 65.]

[Footnote 77: Anugitâ, 3, 31 (Sacred Books of the East, viii. 243, 361). Gellius, Noctes Atticæ, v. 13. 5.]

[Footnote 78: Aeschylus, Eumenides, 270 sq.]

[Footnote 79: Odyssey, xvii. 485 sqq.]

[Footnote 80: Hebrews, xiii. 2.]

The visiting stranger, however, is regarded not only as a potential benefactor, but as a potential source of evil. He may bring with him disease or ill-luck. He is commonly believed to be versed in magic;[81] and the evil wishes and curses of a stranger are greatly feared, owing partly to his quasi-supernatural character, partly to the close contact in which he comes with the host and his belongings.

[Footnote 81: Frazer, Golden Bough, i. 298 sqq.]

In the Mentawey Islands, in the Malay Archipelago, "if a stranger enters a house where there are children, the father or some other member of the family who happens to be present, takes the ornament with which the children decorate their hair, and hands it to the stranger, who holds it in his hands for a while, and then gives it back"; this is supposed to protect the child from the evil effect which the eye of a stranger might have on it.[82] With reference to the Californian Pomo, Mr. Powers states, "Let a perfect stranger enter a wigwam and offer the lodge-father a string of beads for any object that takes his fancy--merely pointing to it, but uttering no word--and the owner holds himself bound in savage honour to make the exchange, whether it is a fair one or not." When we compare this idea of "savage honour" with certain cases mentioned in the last chapter, we cannot doubt that it is based on superstitious fear; indeed, the next day the former owner of the article "may thrust the stranger through with his spear, or crush his forehead with a pebble from his sling, and the bystanders will look {585} upon it as only the rectification of a bad bargain."[83] Among the African Herero "no curse is regarded as heavier than that which one who has been inhospitably treated would hurl at those who have driven him from the hearth."[84] According to Greek ideas, guests and suppliants had their Erinyes[85] --personifications of their curses; and it would be difficult to attribute any other meaning to "the genius ([Greek: dai/môn]) and the god of the stranger, who follow in the train of Zeus," spoken of by Plato, and to the Roman dii hospitales, in their capacity of avengers of injuries done to guests. Aeschylus represents Apollo as saying, "I shall assist him (Orestes), and rescue my own suppliant; for terrible both among men and gods is the wrath of a refugee, when one abandons him with intent."[86] It is no doubt the same idea that the Chorus in the 'Suppliants' expresses, in a modified form, when singing:--"Grievous is the wrath of Zeus Petitionary. . . . I must needs hold in awe the wrath of Zeus Petitionary, for that is the supremest on earth."[87] Âpastamba's Aphorisms contain a sûtra the object of which is to show the absolute necessity of feeding a guest, owing to the fact that, "if offended, he might burn the house with the flames of his anger";[88] for "a guest comes to the house resembling a burning fire,"[89] "a guest rules over the world of Indra."[90] According to the Institutes of Vishnu, "one who has arrived as a guest and is obliged to turn home disappointed in his expectations, takes away from the man to whose house he has come his religious merit, and throws his own guilt upon him";[91] and the {586} same idea is found in many other ancient books of India.[92] That a dissatisfied guest, or a Brâhmana,[93] thus takes with him the spiritual merit of his churlish host, allows of a quite literal interpretation. In Morocco, a Shereef is generally unwilling to let a stranger kiss his hand, for fear lest the stranger should extract from him his baraka, or holiness; and the Shereefs of Wazzari are reputed to rob other Shereefs, who visit them, of their holiness, should the latter leave behind any remainder of their meals, even though it be only a bone.

[Footnote 82: Rosenberg, Der Malayische Archipel, p. 198.]

[Footnote 83: Powers, op. cit. p. 153. The same privilege as "the perfect stranger" possesses among the Pomo, was granted by the tribes of the Niger Delta to the Ibo girl who was destined to be offered as a sacrifice. She "was allowed to claim any piece of cloth or any ornament she set her eyes upon, and the native to whom it belonged was obliged to present it to her" (Comte de Cardi, 'Ju-ju Laws and Customs,' in Jour. Anthr. Inst. xxix. 54).]

[Footnote 84: Ratzel, History of Mankind, 480.]

[Footnote 85: Plato, Epistolæ, viii. 357. Apollonius Rhodius, Argonautica, iv. 1042 sq.]

[Footnote 86: Aeschylus, Eumenides, 232 sqq.]

[Footnote 87: Idem, Supplices, 349, 489.]

[Footnote 88: Sacred Books of the East ii. 114, n. 3.]

[Footnote 89: Âpastamba, ii. 3. 6. 3.]

[Footnote 90: Laws of Manu, iv. 182.]

[Footnote 91: Institutes of Vishnu, lxvii. 33.]

[Footnote 92: Vasishtha, viii. 6. Laws of Manu, ii. 100. Hitopadesa, Mitralâbhâ, 64.]

[Footnote 93: Vasishtha, viii. 6. Laws of Manu, iii. 100.]

The efficacy of a wish or a curse depends not only upon the potency which it possesses from the beginning, owing to certain qualities in the person from whom it originates, but also on the vehicle by which it is conducted--just as the strength of an electric shock depends both on the original intensity of the current and on the condition of the conductor. As particularly efficient conductors are regarded blood, bodily contact, food, and drink. In Morocco, the duties of a host are closely connected with the institution of l-[(]âr, one of the most sacred customs of that country. If a person desires to compel another to help him, or to forgive him, or, generally, to grant some request, he makes [(]âr on him. He kills a sheep or a goat or only a chicken at the threshold of his house, or at the entrance of his tent; or he grasps with his hands either the person whom he invokes, or that person's child, or the horse which he is riding; or he touches him with his turban or a fold of his dress. In short, he establishes some kind of contact with the other person, to serve as a conductor of his wishes and of his conditional curses. It is universally believed that, if the person so appealed to does not grant the request, his own welfare is at stake, and that the danger is particularly great if an animal has been killed at his door, and he steps over the blood or only catches a glimpse of it. As appears from the expression, "This is [(]âr on you if you do not do this or that," the blood, or {587} the direct bodily contact, is supposed to transfer to the other person a conditional curse:--If you do not help me, then you will die, or your children will die, or some other evil will happen to you. So also the owner of a house or a tent to which a person has fled for refuge must, in his own interest, assist the fugitive, who is in his [(]âr; for, by being in his dwelling, the refugee is in close contact with him and his belongings. Again, the restraint which a common meal lays on those who partake of it is conspicuous in the usual practice of sealing a compact of friendship by eating together at the tomb of some saint. The true meaning of this is made perfectly clear by the phrase that "the food will repay" him who breaks the compact. The sacredness of the place adds to the efficacy of the imprecation, but its vehicle, the real punisher, is the eaten food, because it embodies a conditional curse.

Now the idea underlying these customs is certainly not restricted to Morocco. As will be shown in subsequent chapters, blood is very commonly used as a conductor of conditional curses; for instance, one object of the practice of sacrifice is to transfer an imprecation to the god by means of the blood of the victim. Bodily contact is another common means of communicating curses; and this accounts for many remarkable cases of compulsory hospitality and protection which have been noticed in different quarters of the world. In Fiji "the same native who within a few yards of his house would murder a coming or departing guest for sake of a knife or a hatchet, will defend him at the risk of his own life as soon as he has passed his threshold."[94] In the Pelew Islands "an enemy may not be killed in a house, especially not in the presence of the host."[95] If an Ossetian receives into his house a stranger whom he afterwards discovers to be a man to whom he owes blood-revenge, this makes no difference in his hospitality; but when the guest takes his leave, the {588} host accompanies him to the boundary of the village, and on parting from him exclaims, "Henceforth beware!"[96] Among the Kandhs, if a man can make his way by any means into the house of his enemy he cannot be touched, even though his life has been forfeited to his involuntary host by the law of blood-revenge.[97] In none of these cases is an explanation given of the extraordinary privilege granted to the stranger; but it seems highly probable that it has the same origin as the exactly similar custom prevalent among the Moors. In other words, as soon as the stranger has come in touch with a person by entering his house, he is thought to be able to transmit to that person and his family and his property any evil wishes he pleases. So, also, in the East any stranger may place himself under the protection of an Arab by merely touching his tent or his tent-ropes,[98] and after this is done "it would be reckoned a disgraceful meanness, an indelible shame, to satisfy even a just vengeance at the expense of hospitality."[99] "Amongst the Shammar," says Layard, "if a man can seize the end of a string or thread, the other end of which is held by his enemy, he immediately becomes his Dakheel [or protégé]. If he touch the canvas of a tent, or can even throw his mace towards it, he is the Dakheel of its owner. If he can spit upon a man or touch any article belonging to him with his teeth, he is Dakhal, unless of course, in case of theft, it be the person who caught him. . . . The Shammar never plunder a caravan within sight of their encampment, for as long as a stranger can see their tents they consider him their Dakheel."[100] But one of the Bedouin tribes described by Lady Anne and Mr. Blunt, whilst ready to rob the stranger who comes to their tents, {589} "count their hospitality as beginning only from the moment of his eating with them."[101] All Bedouins regard the eating of "salt" together as a bond of mutual friendship, and there are tribes who quite in accordance with the Moorish principle, "the food will repay you"--require to renew this bond every twenty-four hours, or after two nights and the day between them, since otherwise, as they say, "the salt is not in their stomachs,"[102] and can therefore no longer punish the person who breaks the contract. The "salt" which gives a claim to protection consists in eating even the smallest portion of food belonging to the protector.[103] The Sultan Saladin did not allow the Crusader Renaud de Chatillon, when brought before him as a prisoner, to quench his thirst in his tent, for, had he drunk water there, the enemy would have been justified in regarding his life as safe.[104] We find a similar custom among the Omaha Indians: "should an enemy appear in the lodge and receive a mouthful of food or water, or put the pipe in his mouth, he cannot be injured by any member of the tribe, as he is bound for the time being by the ties of hospitality, and they are compelled to protect him and send him home in safety."[105] In these and similar cases, where there is no common meal, the guest may nevertheless transmit to his host a curse by the exceedingly close contact established between him and the food or drink or tobacco of the host, according to the principle of pars pro toto. This is an idea very familiar to the primitive mind. It lies, for instance, at the bottom of the common belief that a person may bewitch his enemy by getting hold of some of his spittle or some leavings of his food--a belief which has led to the custom of guests carrying away with them all they are unable to eat of the food which is placed before them, {590} out of dread lest the residue of their meal should be eaten by somebody else.[106] The magic wire may conduct imprecations in either direction. In Morocco, if a person gives to another some food or drink, it is considered dangerous, not only for the recipient to receive it without saying, "In the name of God," but also for the giver to give it without uttering the same formula, by way of precaution.[107]

[Footnote 94: Wilkes, U.S. Exploring Expedition, iii. 77.]

[Footnote 95: Kubary, 'Die Palau-Inseln in der Südsee,' in Journal des Museum Godeffroy, iv. 25.]

[Footnote 96: von Haxthausen, Transcaucasia, p. 412.]

[Footnote 97: Macpherson, Memorials of Service in India, p. 66.]

[Footnote 98: Robertson Smith, Kinship and Marriage in Early Arabia, p. 48. Blunt, Bedouin Tribes of the Euphrates, ii. 211.]

[Footnote 99: Chasseb[oe]uf de Volney, op. cit. i. 412.]

[Footnote 100: Layard, op. cit. p. 317 sq. Burckhardt says (Bedouins and Wahábys, p. 72) that one of the most common oaths in the domestic life of the Bedouins is "to take hold with one hand of the wasat, or middle tent-pole, and to swear 'by the life of this tent and its owners.'"]

[Footnote 101: Blunt, op. cit. ii. 211.]

[Footnote 102: Burton, Pilgrimage to Al-Madinah and Meccah, ii. 112. Doughty, op. cit. i. 228.]

[Footnote 103: Burckhardt, Bedouins and Wahábys, p. 187. Quatremère, 'Mémoire sur les asiles chez les Arabes,' in Mémoires de l'Institut de France, Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres, xv. pt. ii. 346 sqq.]

[Footnote 104: Quatremère, loc. cit. p. 346.]

[Footnote 105: Dorsey, 'Omaha Sociology,' in Ann. Rep. Bur. Ethn. iii. 271.]

[Footnote 106: Shortland, Traditions and Superstitions of the New Zealanders, pp. 86, 97. Cf. Ellis, Tour through Hawaii, p. 347; Harmon, op. cit. p. 361 (Indians on the east side of the Rocky Mountains).]

[Footnote 107: Isaac also blessed his son by eating of his food (Genesis, xxvii. 4, 19, 24). The subject of hospitality has been incidentally dealt with by Mr. Crawley in his interesting book, The Mystic Rose (p. 239 sqq.; cf., also, p. 124 sqq.). I must leave the reader to decide how far the theory I am here advocating, which mainly rests upon my researches in Morocco, coincides with his. All through his book Mr. Crawley lays much emphasis on the principle of transference; but, if I understand him rightly, he also regards commensality as involving a supposed "exchange of personality" between the host and the guest, in consequence of which "injury done to B by A is equivalent to injury done by A to himself" (p. 237). To this opinion I cannot subscribe (cf. infra, on the Origin and Development of the Altruistic Sentiment). So far as I can see, the mutual obligations arising from eating together are fundamentally based on the idea that the common meal serves as a conductor of conditional imprecations.]

The stranger thus being looked upon as a more or less dangerous individual, it is natural that those who are exposed to the danger should do what they can to avert it. With this end in view certain ceremonies are often performed immediately on his arrival. Many such reception ceremonies have been described by Dr. Frazer,[108] but I shall add a few others which seem to serve the object of either transferring to the stranger conditional curses or purifying him from dangerous influences. I am told by a native that among some of the nomadic Arabs of Morocco, as soon as a stranger appears in the village, some water, or, if he be a person of distinction, some milk, is presented to him. Should he refuse to partake of it, he is not allowed to go freely about, but has to stay in the village mosque. On asking for an explanation of this custom, I was told that it is a precaution against the stranger; should he steal or otherwise misbehave himself, the drink would cause his knees to swell so that he could not escape. In other words, he has drunk a conditional curse.[109] The {591} Arabs of a tribe in Nejd "welcome" a guest by pouring on his head a cup of melted butter,[110] the South African Herero greet him with a vessel of milk.[111] Sir S. W. Baker describes a reception custom practised by the Arabs on the Abyssinian frontier, which is exactly similar to one form of l-[(]âr of the Moors:--"The usual welcome upon the arrival of a traveller, who is well received in an Arab camp, is the sacrifice of a fat sheep, that should be slaughtered at the door of his hut or tent, so that the blood flows to the threshold."[112] Reception sacrifices also occur among the Shulis,[113] in Liberia,[114] and in Afghanistan.[115] Among the Indians of North America, again, it is a common rule that a dish of food should be placed before the new-comer immediately on his arrival, that he should taste of it even though he has just arisen from a feast, and that no word should be spoken to him or no question put to him until he has partaken of the food.[116] Among the Omahas "the master of the house is evidently ill at ease, until the food is prepared for eating; he will request his squaws to expedite it, and will even stir the fire himself."[117] Among many peoples it is considered necessary that the host should give food to his guest before he eats himself. This is a rule on which much stress is laid in the literature of ancient India.[118] A Brâhmana never takes food "without having offered it duly to gods and guests."[119] "He who eats before his guest consumes the rood, the prosperity, the issue, the cattle, the merit which his family acquired by sacrifices and charitable works."[120] It is probable that this punishment has something to do {592} with the evil eye of the neglected guest, for the idea of eating the evil wishes of others was evidently quite familiar to the ancient Hindus. It is said in Âpastamba's Aphorisms:--"A guest who is at enmity with his host shall not eat his food, nor shall he eat the food of a host who hates him or accuses him of a crime, or of one who is suspected of a crime. For it is declared in the Veda that he who eats the food of such a person eats his guilt."[121] In Tonga Islands, "at meals strangers or foreigners are always shewn a preference, and females are helped before men of the same rank"--according to our informant, "because they are the weaker sex and require attention."[122] As to the correctness of this explanation, however, I have some doubts; the Moors, also, at their feasts, allow the women to eat first, and one reason they give for this custom is that otherwise the hungry women might injure the men with their evil eyes. In Hawaii the host and his family do not at all partake of the entertainment with which a passing visitor is generally provided on arriving among them;[123] and that their abstinence is due to superstitious fear is all the more probable as, among the same people, it is the custom for the guest invariably to carry away with him all that remains of the entertainment.[124]

[Footnote 108: Frazer, Golden Bough, i. 299 sqq.]

[Footnote 109: Cf. the "trial of jealousy" in Numbers. v. 11 sqq., particularly verse 22: "This water that causeth the curse shall go into thy bowels, to make thy belly to swell, and thy thigh to rot."]

[Footnote 110: Burckhardt, Bedouins and Wahábys, p. 102.]

[Footnote 111: Ratzel, op. cit. ii. 480.]

[Footnote 112: Baker, Nile Tributaries of Abyssinia, p. 94.]

[Footnote 113: Emin Pasha in Central Africa, p. 107.]

[Footnote 114: Trumbull, Threshold Covenant, p. 9.]

[Footnote 115: Frazer, Golden Bough, i. 303.]

[Footnote 116: Lafitau, op. cit. ii. 88. James, Expedition to the Rocky Mountains, i. 321 sq. Morgan, League of the Iroquois, p. 328. Sproat, op. cit. p. 57 (Ahts).]

[Footnote 117: James, op. cit. i. 322.]

[Footnote 118: Gautama, v. 25.]

[Footnote 119: Mahabharata, Shanti Parva, clxxxix. 2 sq., pt. xxviii. sq. p. 281.]

[Footnote 120: Âpastamba, ii. 3. 7. 3.]

[Footnote 121: Ibid. ii. 3. 6. 19 sq. Cf. Proverbs, xxiii. 6: "Eat not the bread of him that hath an evil eye."]

[Footnote 122: Mariner, op. cit. ii. 154.]

[Footnote 123: Ellis, Tour through Hawaii, p. 347.]

[Footnote 124: Ibid. p. 347.]

Among the precautions taken against the visiting stranger kind and respectful treatment is of particularly great importance. No traveller among an Arabic-speaking people can fail to notice the contrast between the lavish welcome and the plain leave-taking. The profuse greetings mean that the stranger will be treated as a friend and not as an enemy; and it is particularly desirable to secure his good-will in the beginning, since the first glance of an evil eye is always held to be the most dangerous. We can now realise that the extreme regard shown to a guest, and the preference given to him in every matter, must, in a {593} large measure, be due to fear of his anger, as well as to hope of his blessings. Even the peculiar custom which requires a host to lend his wife to a guest becomes more intelligible when we consider the supposed danger of the stranger's evil eye or his curses, as also the benefits which may be supposed to result from his love.[125] And when the guest leaves, it is wise of the host to accept no reward; for there maybe misfortune in the stranger's gift.

[Footnote 125: Egede informs us (op. cit. p. 140) that the native women of Greenland thought themselves fortunate if an Angekokk, or "prophet," honoured them with his caresses; and some husbands even paid him for having intercourse with their wives, since they believed that the child of such a holy man could not but be happier and better than others. Some similar belief may be held in regard to intercourse with a guest, though I can adduce no direct evidence for my supposition. Cf. also the jus primae noctis accorded to priests (Westermarck, History of Human Marriage, p. 76 sq.; cf. ibid. p. 80).]

That hospitality should be free of cost is implied in the very meaning of the word. Wherever the custom of entertaining guests has been preserved pure and genuine, remuneration is neither asked nor expected; indeed, to offer payment would give offence, and to accept it would be disgraceful.[126] Such a custom might no doubt result from absence or scarcity of money, as it cannot be expected that the wandering stranger shall carry with him heavy presents to all his future hosts; and where the intercourse is mutual, the hospitable man may hope one day to be paid back in his own coin. But it seems likely that the custom of not receiving payment from a guest is largely due to that same dread of strangers which underlies many other rules of hospitality. The acceptance of gifts is frequently considered to be connected with some danger. According to rules laid down in the sacred books of India, he who is about to accept gifts, or he who has accepted gifts, must repeatedly recite the four Vedic verses called Taratsamandîs;[127] or all gifts are to be preceded by pouring out {594} water into the extended palm of the recipient's right hand,[128] evidently because the water is supposed to cleanse the gift from the baneful energy with which it may be saturated. On the other hand, "without a full knowledge of the rules prescribed by the sacred law for the acceptance of presents, a wise man should not take anything, even though he may pine with hunger. But an ignorant man who accepts gold, land, a horse, a cow, food, a dress, sesamum-grains, or clarified butter, is reduced to ashes like a piece of wood. . . . Hence an ignorant man should be afraid of accepting any presents; for by reason of a very small gift even a fool sinks into hell as a cow into a morass."[129] Moreover, a gift, to be accepted by a Brâhmana, ought to be given voluntarily, not to be asked for.[130] So, too, Hebrew writers are anxious to inculcate the duty of giving alms with an ungrudging eye, as also of not giving anything before witnesses--the latter, perhaps, with a view to preventing the evil influence which is likely to emanate from an envious spectator.[131] An Atlas Berber, who had probably never before had anything to do with a European, spat on the coin which I gave him for rendering me a service, and my native friends told me that he did so for fear lest the coin, owing to some sorcery on my part, should not only itself return to me, but at the same time take with it all the money with which it had been in contact in his bag. Of the Annamites it is said that "for fear of bringing ill-luck into the place the people even decline presents."[132]

[Footnote 126: Veniaminof, quoted by Dall, op. cit. p. 397 (Aleuts). Bartram, in Trans. American Ethn. Soc. iii. pt. i. 42. Foreman, Philippine Islands, p. 187 (Tagalogs). Hunter, Annals of Rural Bengal, i. 216. Bogle, Narrative of Mission to Tibet, p. 109 sq. Vámbéry, Das Türkenvolk, p. 614 (Turks in Asia Minor). Robinson, Biblical Researches in Palestine, ii. 18 sq.; Burton, Pilgrimage to Al-Madinah & Meccah, i. 36; Blunt, op. cit. ii. 212; Lane, Modern Egyptians, p. 297 (Bedouins). Krauss, Die Südslaven, p. 648.]

[Footnote 127: Baudhâyana, iv. 2. 4.]

[Footnote 128: Âpastamba, ii. 4. 9. 8. Bühler, in Sacred Books of the East, ii. 122, n. ^8]

[Footnote 129: Laws of Manu, iv. 187, 188, 191.]

[Footnote 130: Ibid. iv. 247 sq.]

[Footnote 131: Tobit, iv. 7. Kohler, in Jewish Encyclopedia, i. 436. Cf. St. Matthew, vi. 1 sqq.; Brandt, Mandäische Schriften, pp. 28, 64: "If you give alms do not do it before witnesses." The Mandæans were also forbidden to eat food prepared by a stranger or to take a meal in his company (Brandt, Mandäische Religion, p. 94).]

[Footnote 132: Ratzel, op. cit. iii. 418.]

The duty of hospitality is probably always limited by time, even though, among some peoples, a guest is said to be entertained as long as he pleases to stay.[133] According {595} to Teutonic custom, a guest might tarry only up to the third day.[134] The Anglo-Saxon rule was, "Two nights a guest, the third night one of the household," that is, a slave.[135] A German proverb says, "Den ersten Tag ein Gast, den zweiten eine Last, den dritten stinkt er fast."[136] So, also, the Southern Slavs declare that "a guest and a fish smell on the third day."[137] Burckhardt states that, among the Bedouins, if the stranger intends to prolong his visit after a lapse of three days and four hours from the time of his arrival, it is expected that he should assist his host in domestic matters; should he decline this, "he may remain, but will be censured by all the Arabs of the camp."[138] The Moors say that "the hospitality of the Prophet lasts for three days"; the first night the guest is entertained most lavishly, for then, but only then, he is "the guest of God." The Prophet laid down the following rule: "Whoever believes in God and the day of resurrection, must respect his guest; and the time of being kind to him is one day and one night; and the period of entertaining him is three days; and after that, if he does it longer, he benefits him more; but it is not right for a guest to stay in the house of the host so long as to incommode him."[139] According to Javanese custom, it is a point of honour to supply a stranger with food and accommodation for a day and a night at least.[140] Among the Kalmucks special honour is paid to a stranger for one day only, whereas, if he remains longer, he is treated without ceremonies.[141] Growing familiarity with the stranger naturally tends to dispel the superstitious dread which he inspired at first, and this, combined with the feeling that it is unfair of him to live at his host's expense longer than necessity requires, seems to account for the {596} rapid decline of his extraordinary privileges and for the short duration of his title to hospitable treatment.

[Footnote 133: Veniaminof, quoted by Dall, op. cit. p. 397 (Aleuts). Morgan, League of the Iroquois, p. 328. Bartram, in Trans. American Ethn. Soc. iii. pt. i. 42 (Creeks and Cherokee Indians).]

[Footnote 134: Grimm, Deutsche Rechtsalterthümer, p. 400. Weinhold, Altnordisches Leben, p. 447.]

[Footnote 135: Quoted in Leges Edwardi Confessoris, 23: "Tuua nicte geste þe þirdde nicte agen hine." Cf. Laws of Cnut, ii. 28; Laws of Hlothhære and Eadric, 15; Leges Henrici I. viii. 5.]

[Footnote 136: Weinhold, op. cit. p. 447.]

[Footnote 137: Krauss, op. cit. p. 658.]

[Footnote 138: Burckhardt, Bedouins and Wahábys, p. 101 sq.]

[Footnote 139: Lane, Arabian Society, p. 142 sq.]

[Footnote 140: Crawfurd, op. cit. i. 53.]

[Footnote 141: Bergmann, op. cit. ii. 285.]

Contrary to what is the case with other duties which men owe to their fellow-creatures, in every progressive society we find hospitality on the wane. In the later days of Greece and Rome it almost dwindled into a survival.[142] In the Middle Ages hospitality was extensively practised by high and low; it was enjoined by the tenets of Chivalry,[143] and the poorer people, also, considered it disgraceful to refuse to share their meals with a needy stranger.[144] However, in the reign of Henry IV., Thomas Occlif complains of the decline of hospitality in England; and in the middle of the Elizabethan age, Archbishop Sandys says that "it is come to pass that hospitality itself is waxen a stranger."[145] The reasons for this decline are not difficult to find. Increasing intercourse between different communities or different countries not only makes hospitality an intolerable burden, but leads to the establishment of inns, and thus hospitality becomes superfluous. It habituates the people to the sight of strangers, and, in consequence, deprives the stranger of that mystery which surrounds the lonely wanderer in an isolated district whose inhabitants have little communication with the outside world. And, finally, increase of intercourse gives rise to laws which make an individual protector needless, by placing the stranger under the protection of the State.

[Footnote 142: Becker-Goll, Charikles, ii. 3 sqq. Idem, Gallus, iii. 28 sqq.]

[Footnote 143: Sainte-Palaye, Mémoires sur l'ancienne chevalerie, i. 310.]

[Footnote 144: Wright, Domestic Manners and Sentiments in England during the Middle Ages, p. 329 sqq.]

[Footnote 145: Sandys, Sermons, p. 401.]