Billeder på siden
PDF
ePub

As

difference in their conditions. If the religion of one nation. differs from that of another in this way, it must be due to some difference in the two nations; the one nation is more capable than the other of distinguishing between the restrictions which are trivial and the restrictions which are of paramount importance for the progress of civilisation. But on examination it becomes apparent that it is not the mass of a nation which initiates any reform in religion, any discovery in science, any new form of art, any new teaching in morals. It is the individual reformer, artist or moral teacher, who starts the new idea, though it rests with the mass to accept his teaching. We have then two factors to take into account: the individual and the community. regards the former, no one pretends to have discovered the law of the distribution of genius, or to explain why one age or nation should be rich in men of genius and another barren. We can only accept the fact that Greece produced more geniuses in literature and art than any other country, and that there was a remarkable series of religious teachers in Israel. There is no law to account for the one fact or the other; nor can the manifestations of genius be exhibited as the natural consequence of any general conditions. On the other hand, the behaviour of the mass or generality of the nation in face of the new teaching may be traced to the general conditions at work upon them, and the law of the direction which the new teaching took among them may perhaps be ascertained; "and after all it is for the most part the conditions only, and not the originating causes of great spiritual movements, which admit of analysis at the hands of the historian." 1

It seems, then, that it is individual religious reformers who have carried out the selective process by which the innumerable taboos of savage life have been reduced to the reasonable restrictions which are essential to the well-being of mankind. And the prophets and religious teachers who have selected this and rejected that restriction have usually considered themselves in so doing to be speaking, not their own words or thoughts, but those of their God. This belief has been shared by the community they addressed, otherwise 1 Rashdall, Universities of Europe, i. 32.

the common man would not have gained the courage to break an ancient taboo. Certainly no mere appeal to reason would counterbalance that inveterate terror, just as it was no mere consideration of utility or of purely human interests which supplied the religious reformer with his zeal, or that prompted the denunciations of the prophets. Their message was a supernatural message; and in the same way the process by which mischievous taboos were weeded out may be termed a process not of Natural but of Supernatural Selection

CHAPTER IX

TOTEMISM

THE last three chapters, though absolutely necessary for our purpose, have been somewhat of a digression from the direct line of the argument. The occasion of the digression was the necessity of examining the subject of taboo generally, in order to ascertain whether the corpse-taboo necessarily implied hostility on the part of the spirit of the dead man and consequent fear on the part of the living. Various reasons have been suggested in the course of the digression1 for answering this question in the negative; and if these reasons be accepted, we are free to believe that the feasts in which the dead were invited to partake were the spontaneous expressions of natural affection; and that the possibility of dealings between man and spiritual beings may thus have been suggested in the first instance. That the desire existed in man to approach the supernatural beings by which he was surrounded, will hardly be doubted, for the importance of conciliating beings with irresistible power for good and for evil was of the highest. It is clear also that the friendship or alliance which man sought to establish between himself and the spirits that he conceived to be supernatural, would be modelled on that which bound together human friends or allies, for there was no other form of alliance or friendship known to him. We have therefore to ask what was the earliest tie which bound man to man; in other words, what was the earliest form of society?

That the nations of the world, before they settled in the countries now occupied by them, were wanderers on the face of the earth, nomads, is a matter which in the case of some 1 See above, pp. 80, 81.

peoples admits of historic proof, and is not doubted in the case of the rest. The form which society takes amongst nomads is that of tribes or clans, the members of which are akin (however they count kinship) to one another. The normal attitude of these clans to one another is that of hostility; consequently the very existence of a clan depends upon the promptitude and success with which the whole of the small community comes to the rescue of any one of its members when threatened with danger, or, if too late to save his life, inflicts punishment on the hostile clan. On the other hand, not merely the slayer but all his kin are responsible for his deed: if their clan is to exist, they must protect him as any other member with their united strength; and hence, as the kinsmen of the slain man have the whole of the slayer's clan arrayed against them, it is immaterial to them whether they avenge themselves upon the actual slayer! or not, as long as they kill some one of his clan. Thus the individual's only safety was in the help and protection of the clan to which he belonged outside that circle he was helpless and alone. In fine, the only type of friendship known to man, in this stage of society, is that of clansmen one to another, each of whom is ready to lay down his life to protect or avenge his kinsman.1 But if a man-or any other being, for the matter of that is not by birth one of your kin, how then is it possible to form any friendly relation, to enter into any engagement or compact with him? There is only one way: if he is not by birth one of your clan, he must become one; if the same blood does not circulate in your veins, it must be introduced into them; in a word, a blood-covenant must be made between you, and then the fellowship between you becomes sacred and inviolable, for you are now kinsmen, one flesh and one blood. Examples of this proceeding are to be found all over the world; one or two may be given here. "The exchange of blood is often practised amongst the blacks of Africa, as a token of alliance

1 That the blood-feud is a world-wide and universal institution is so well known that illustrations of it are unnecessary. A good collection will be found in Post, Die Geschlechtsgenossenschaft der Urzeit, 155-174. Other instances: Dobrizhoffer, Abipones, ii. 280; Im Thurn, Indians of Guiana, 329; Journ. of Anth. Inst. xxiv. 171 ff.; Bastian, Der Mensch, iii. 25, 26.

and friendship. The Mambettu people, after having inflicted small wounds upon each other's arms, reciprocally suck the blood which flows from the incision. In the Unyora country the parties dip two coffee-berries into the blood and eat them. Amongst the Sandeh the proceedings are not so repulsive; the operator, armed with two sharp knives, inoculates the blood of one person into the wound of the other."1 The exact manner in which this last operation is performed is described by Mr. Ward, who himself submitted to it. After noting that blood-brotherhood is "a form of cementing friendship and a guarantee of good faith, popular with all Upper Congo tribes," he proceeds: "An incision was made in both our right arms, in the outer muscular swelling just below the elbow, and as the blood flowed in a tiny stream, the charm doctor sprinkled powdered chalk and potash on the wounds, delivering the while, in rapid tones, an appeal to us to maintain unbroken the sanctity of the contract; and then our arms being rubbed together, so that the flowing blood intermingled, we were declared to be brothers of one blood, whose interests henceforth should be united as our blood now was." 2 In Surinam, when natives make a compact, the Godoman (priest) draws blood from the contracting parties, pours some on the ground, and gives them the rest to drink.3 The ancient Scyths preferred to drink the blood. Herodotus says they poured into a great bowl wine mixed with the blood of the contracting parties; then they dipped into the bowl a dagger, some arrows, an axe, and a javelin, and when they had done that, they made many imprecations and drank of the bowl, both they and the most distinguished of their followers. Again, " the drinking of blood on the occasion of an alliance, compact, or oath, was common among the ancient Magyars. The anonymous Notarius of King Béla (c. 5. 6) says, more paganismo fusis propriis sanguinibus in unum vas ratum fecerunt iuramentum."5 Among the Southern Slavs to this day blood-feuds are common, and may be terminated by the parties to the feud becoming blood-brothers. This is effected

[blocks in formation]
« ForrigeFortsæt »