Chapter XI: Faithlessness to Salt

The fact that in its primitive conception a covenant of salt is a permanent and unalterable covenant, naturally suggests to the primitive mind the idea of treachery as faithlessness to salt. The Persian term for a "traitor" is _namak harâm_, "untrue to salt," "one faithless to salt;"[193] and the same idea runs through the languages of the Oriental world.

[193] Gesenius's _Thesaurus_, p. 790.

Baron du Tott, referring to the sharing of bread and salt, says: "The Turks think it the blackest ingratitude to forget the man from whom we have received food, which is signified by the bread and salt."[194] But it is obvious that it is faithlessness to salt, not to bread or ordinary food, that is deemed blackest ingratitude. This is in India, as in Turkey. Tamerlane, the Mongol-Tatar chieftain, speaking, in his institutes, of one Share Behraum, who had deserted his service for the enemy and afterwards returned to his allegiance, says: "At length my salt which he had eaten overwhelmed him with remorse, he again threw himself on my mercy, and humbled himself before me."[195] Frazer quotes a rebel chief in India as saying, when he capitulated after a siege, and was asked if he would return to his old allegiance, "No, I can no more visit my country; I must look for service elsewhere. I can never face the rajah again; for I have eaten Ghoorka salt. I was in trust, and I have not died at my post. We can never return to our country."[196]

[194] _Memoirs of the Turks and Tartars_, Part I., p. 214; cited in
Bush's _Illustrations of the Holy Scriptures_, at Numbers 18 : 19.

[195] Quoted in Burder's _Oriental Customs_, 2d ed., p. 77.

[196] Frazer's _Journal of Tour through Himala Mountains_, quoted in
Burder, p. 77, at Ezra 4 : 14.

Burton says that the Bed'ween of Arabia denounce the Syrians as "abusers of the salt," because they cannot be depended on in their agreements.[197] And Dr. Thomson says that Orientals "often upbraid the civilized Frank because he does not keep bread and salt, is not faithful to the covenant of brotherhood."[198]

[197] _Pilgrimage to El Medinah and Meccah_, III., 114.

[198] _The Land and the Book_, II., 41.

Burton says also, of the Bed'ween of El Hejaz: "'We have eaten salt together' (_nahnu malihin_) is still a bond of friendship: there are, however, some tribes who require to renew the bond every twenty-four hours, as otherwise, to use their own phrase, 'the salt is not in their stomachs.'"[199] And he quotes the advice to him of Shaykh Hamid, concerning the Bed'ween who were to escort him from El Medinah, "never to allow twenty-four hours to elapse without dipping hand in the same dish with them, in order that the party might always be 'malihin,' on terms of salt."[200] Treachery on the part of one who has even partaken of an ordinary meal with another is, however, counted, among Orientals, a peculiar crime, as surprising as it is unusual.[201]

[199] _Pilgrimage_, III., 84.

[200] _Pilgrimage_, II., 334.

[201] Psa. 41 : 9; John 13 : 18.

Of course, there is no human bond which will guard human nature against all possible treachery. These references to the measure of fidelity among different peoples or tribes are an indication of the relative degree of faithfulness prevailing among them severally. Those who are faithless to salt cannot be depended on for anything. If a man would not be true to one who is of his own blood, of his own life, and to whom he is bound in a sacred covenant of which his God is a party, he could not be depended on in any emergency. The covenant of salt is all this in the thought of the primitive mind.

Don Raphel says, of the estimate of faithlessness to salt entertained by Arabs generally: "When they have eaten bread and salt with any one, it would be a horrid crime not only to rob him, but even to touch the smallest part of his baggage, or of the goods which he takes with him through the desert. The smallest injury done to his person would be considered as an equal wickedness. An Arab who should be guilty of such a crime would be looked upon as a wretch who might expect reproof and detestation from everybody. He would appear despicable to himself, and never be able to wash away his shame. It is almost unheard of for an Arab to bring such disgrace upon himself."[202]

[202] _The Bedouins or Arabs of the Desert_, Part II., p. 59; quoted in
Burder's _Oriental Customs_, 2d ed., p. 72.

It was said by the ancient Jews that Sodom was destroyed because its inhabitants had been faithless to salt, in maltreating guests who had partaken of salt in their city. In a Talmudic comment on Lot's wife, the record is: "Rabbi Isaac asked, 'Why did she become a pillar of salt?' 'Because she had sinned through salt. For in the night in which the men came to Lot she went to her neighbors, and said to them, Give me salt, for we have guests. But her purpose was to make (the evil-minded) people of the city acquainted with the guests. Therefore was she turned into a pillar of salt.'"[203]

[203] Rev. Dr. Marcus Jastrow refers to this in an article on "The
Symbolical Meaning of Salt," in _The Sunday School Times_ for April 28,
1894.

This idea of foul treachery as equivalent to faithlessness in the matter of salt, seems to be perpetuated in Da Vinci's famous painting of the Last Supper, where Judas Iscariot is represented as having overturned the salt-cellar.[204] And even among English-speaking peoples the spilling of salt between two persons is said to threaten a quarrel; as though they had already broken friendship.

[204] It has indeed been questioned whether the overturned salt-cellar
in Da Vinci's picture, as shown in many an engraving of it, was in the
original painting, as it is not to be seen there now. But it would
seem clear that the copy of this painting by Da Vinci's pupil, Marco
d'Oggoni, in the Brera, shows the overturned salt-cellar, while the
original painting has had several retouchings and renovations. (See
_Notes and Queries_, 6th Series, Vol. X., p. 92 f.)

Gayton, describing two friends (who were proof even against this ill sign), says:

"I have two friends of either sex, which do
Eat little salt, or none, yet are friends too;
Of both which persons I can truly tell,
They are of patience most invincible,--
When out of temper no mischance at all
Can put,--no, not if towards them the salt should fall."[205]

[205] Thistleton Dyer's _Domestic Folk-Lore_, p. 104.

In both the Old Testament and the New faithlessness to a formal covenant is reckoned a crime of peculiar enormity as distinct from any ordinary transgression of a specific law. Transgressing a covenant with the Lord is counted on the part of Israel much the same as worshiping the gods of the heathen. This is shown in repeated instances in the Old Testament.[206] In the New Testament, Paul includes among the grossest evil-doers of paganism those who are "filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malignity; whisperers, backbiters, hateful to God," and so down to "covenant-breakers," and those "without natural affection," as among the lowest and worst of all.[207] This idea shows itself continually in records and traditions, sacred and secular.

[206] Gen. 17 : 14; Deut. 17 : 2-7; Josh. 7 : 11-15; Judg. 2 : 20-23; 2
Kings 18 : 11, 12; Psa. 55 : 19-21; Isa. 24 : 5, 6; Jer. 11 : 9-11; 34 :
17-20; Hosea 6 : 4-7; 8 : 1.

[207] Rom. 1 : 31.