Chapter XLVIII: Duties to Gods (1)

MEN not only believe in the existence of supernatural beings, but enter into frequent relations with them. In every religion we may distinguish between two elements: a belief, and a regardful attitude towards the object of this belief. At the same time the assumption that supernatural beings exist is not necessarily connected with religious veneration of them. Relations may be established with some of them to the exclusion of others. If the relations between man and a certain supernatural being are of a more or less permanent character, the latter is generally called his god.

As man attributes to his gods a variety of human qualities, his conduct towards them is in many respects determined by considerations similar to those which regulate his conduct towards his fellow men. He endows them with rights quite after human fashion, and imposes on himself corresponding duties.

Gods have the rights to life and bodily integrity. They are not necessarily either invulnerable or immortal.[1] According to ancient Egyptian beliefs, the life of a god is indeed longer than that of a man, but death puts an end to the one as well as to the other.[2] The Vedic gods were mortal at first; immortality was only bestowed upon them by Savitr or by Agni, or they obtained it by drinking {603} _soma_, or by practising continence and austerity, or by the performance of certain ceremonies.[3] Nor were the Greek gods eternal by nature; they secured immortality by feasting on nectar and ambrosia.[4] The Scandinavian gods had in Idun's apples a means of preserving perpetual freshness and youth; but for all that they were subject to the encroachments of age, and their death is spoken of without disguise.[5]

[Footnote 1: See Frazer, _Golden Bough_, ii. 1 _sqq._]

[Footnote 2: Wiedemann, _Religion of the Ancient Egyptians_, p. 173. _Cf._ Maspero, _Dawn of Civilization_, p. 111; Erman, _Life in Ancient Egypt_, p. 265.]

[Footnote 3: Macdonell, _Vedic Mythology_, p. 17. Oldenberg, _Religion des Veda_, p. 176.]

[Footnote 4: _Iliad_, v. 339 _sqq._ _Odyssey_, v. 199. _Cf._ Grimm, _Teutonic Mythology_, i. 317 _sq._]

[Footnote 5: Grimm, _op. cit._ i. 318 _sqq._]

Though liable to death, the invisible anthropomorphic gods generally run little risk of being killed by men. But the case is different with such supernatural beings as live on earth in a visible and destructible shape. They may be, and occasionally are, slain by human hands, although in this case killing hardly means absolute destruction, the soul surviving the death of the body. But to kill such a being is in ordinary circumstances looked upon as a dangerous act. We have noticed above that people are often reluctant to slay animals of certain species for fear lest either the disembodied spirit of the slain animal or others of its kind should avenge the injury;[6] and the danger is naturally increased when the victim and its whole species are regarded as divine. Savages as a rule avoid killing animals of their own totem, and various statements imply that the act is disapproved of.[7]

[Footnote 6: _Supra_, ii. 491.]

[Footnote 7: Frazer, _Totemism_, p. 7 _sqq._; _Idem_, _Totemism and Exogamy_, iv. 6 _sq._]

It has been suggested that this regard for the life of a totemic animal is due to the notion that a man is akin to his totem.[8] But the various taboos imposed upon him with reference to it, and the nature of the penalties incurred by the taboo-breaker,[9] indicate that the relation between a human individual and the animal members of his totem are after all somewhat different from that between cousins. It seems that the totemic animal is in {604} the first place looked upon as a supernatural being, and that a person's attitude towards it depends on the degree of dread or veneration which he feels for it. Such sacred animals as are not conceived to be of one stock with their devotees are equally tabooed; in ancient Egypt, we are told, offences against holy animals were punished even with death.[10] On the other hand, so little respect is not seldom felt for the totem that it is treated in a way to which there is no parallel in the treatment of human relatives. Speaking of the native tribes of Central Australia, Messrs. Spencer and Gillen observe, "That the totemic animal or plant is not regarded exactly as a close relative, whom it would be wrong to kill, or to assist any one else to kill, is very evident; on the contrary, the members of one totem not only, as it were, give their permission to those who are not of the totem to kill and eat the totemic animal or plant, but . . . they will actually help in the destruction of their totems."[11] The South Australian Narrinyeri kill their totemic animals if they are good for food.[12] A Bechuana will kill his totem if it be a hurtful animal, for instance a lion; the slayer then only makes an apology to the beast and goes through a form of purification for the sacrilege.[13] Among the Menomini Indians a man belonging to the Bear clan may kill a bear, although he must first address himself to his victim and apologise for depriving it of life.[14] The Indian tribes in the South-Eastern States had no respect for their totems and would kill them when they got the chance.[15] Among the Thlinkets a Wolf man will hunt wolves without hesitation, although he calls them his relatives when praying them not to hurt him.[16]

[Footnote 8: Robertson Smith, _Religion of the Semites_, p. 285. _Cf._ Frazer, _Totemism_, p. 7.]

[Footnote 9: See Frazer, _Totemism_, p. 11 _sqq._; Spencer and Gillen, _Northern Tribes of Central Australia_, pp. 322, 324 _sq._]

[Footnote 10: Wiedemann, _Herodots zweites Buch_, p. 279.]

[Footnote 11: Spencer and Gillen, _Native Tribes of Central Australia_, p. 207.]

[Footnote 12: Taplin, 'Narrinyeri,' in Woods, _Native Tribes of South Australia_, p. 63.]

[Footnote 13: Casalis, _Basutos_, p. 211.]

[Footnote 14: Hoffman, 'Menomini Indians,' in _Ann. Rep. Bur. Ethn._ xiv. 44.]

[Footnote 15: Adair, _History of the American Indians_, p. 16.]

[Footnote 16: Boas, in _Fifth Report on the North-Western Tribes of Canada_, p. 23. For some other instances see Frazer, _Totemism_, p. 19.]

In certain cases divine animals are killed as a religious {605} or magical ceremony. Several instances of this have been pointed out by Sir J. G. Frazer.[17] Sometimes, when the revered animal is habitually spared, it is nevertheless killed on rare and solemn occasions. In other cases, when the revered animal is habitually killed, there is a special annual atonement, at which a select individual of the species is slain with extraordinary marks of respect and devotion. Frazer has offered ingenious explanations of both customs. As regards the former one he argues that the savage apparently thinks that a species left to itself will grow old and die like an individual, and that the only means he can think of to avert the catastrophe is to kill a member of the species in whose veins the tide of life is still running strong and has not yet stagnated among the fens of old age; "the life thus diverted from one channel will flow, he fancies, more freshly and freely in a new one."[18] The latter custom, again, is explained by Frazer as a kind of atonement; by showing marked deference to a few chosen individuals of a species the savage thinks himself entitled to exterminate with impunity all the remainder upon which he can lay hands.[19] These explanations, as Frazer himself is the first to admit, are only hypothetical, but, so far as I know, they are the only ones yet offered. However, it is worth noticing that certain acts accompanying the slaughter of divine animals sometimes clearly indicate a desire in the worshippers to transfer to themselves supernatural benefits--as when they eat the flesh of the animal, or sprinkle themselves with its blood, or by other means place themselves in contact with it; and it may be that in such cases the animal is killed for the express purpose of communicating to the people the sanctity, or beneficial magic energy, with which it is endowed. The Madi or Moru tribe of Central Africa furnish an instructive example. Once a year, as it seems, a very choice lamb is killed by a man belonging to a kind of priestly order, who {606} sprinkles some of the blood four times over the assembled people and then smears each individual with the same fluid. But this ceremony is also observed on a small scale at other times--if a family is in any great trouble, through illness or bereavement, their friends and neighbours come together and a lamb is killed with a view to averting further evil.[20] Among the Arunta and some other tribes in Central Australia, as we have noticed above, at the time of Intichiuma, totemic animals are killed with the object of being eaten. But here the sacramental meal is a magical ceremony intended to multiply the species, so as to increase the food supply for other totemic groups; the fundamental idea being that the members of each totemic group are responsible for providing other individuals with a supply of their totem.[21]

[Footnote 17: Frazer, _Golden Bough_, ii. 366 _sqq._]

[Footnote 18: _Ibid._ ii. 368.]

[Footnote 19: _Ibid._ ii. 435.]

[Footnote 20: Felkin, 'Madi or Moru Tribe of Central Africa,' in _Proceed. Roy. Soc. Edinburgh_, xii. 336 _sq._]

[Footnote 21: _Supra_, ii. 210 _sq._ Spencer and Gillen, _Native Tribes of Central Australia_, ch. vi. _Iidem_, _Northern Tribes of Central Australia_, ch. ix. _sq._]

Frazer has also called attention to various instances in which a man-god or divine king is put to death by his worshippers, and has suggested the following explanation of this custom:--Primitive people sometimes believe that their own safety and even that of the world is bound up with the life of one of these god-men or human incarnations of the divinity. They therefore take the utmost care of his life, out of a regard for their own. But no amount of care and precaution will prevent the divine king from growing old and feeble and at last dying. And in order to avert the catastrophes which may be expected from the enfeeblement of his powers and their final extinction in death, they kill him as soon as he shows symptoms of weakness, and his soul is transferred to a vigorous successor before it has been seriously impaired by the threatened decay. But some peoples appear to have thought it unsafe to wait for even the slightest symptom of decay and have preferred to kill the divine king while he is still in the full vigour of life. Accordingly, they have fixed a term beyond which he {607} may not reign, and at the close of which he must die, the term fixed upon being short enough to exclude the probability of his degenerating physically in the interval. Thus it appears that in some places the people could not trust the king to remain in full bodily and mental vigour for more than a year; whilst in Ngoio, a province of the ancient kingdom of Congo, the rule obtains that the chief who assumes the cap of sovereignty one day shall be put to death on the next.[22]

[Footnote 22: Frazer, _Golden Bough_, ii. 5 _sqq._]

Every reader of _The Golden Bough_ must admire the ingenuity, skill, and learning with which its author has worked out his theory, even though he may fail to find the argument in every point convincing. It is obvious that the supernatural power of divine kings is frequently supposed to be influenced by the condition of their bodies. In some cases it is also obvious that they are killed on account of some illness, corporal defect, or symptom of old age, and that the ultimate reason for this lies in the supposed connection between physical deterioration and waning divinity. But, as Frazer himself observes, in the chain of his evidence a link is wanting: he can produce no direct proof of the idea that the soul of the slain man-god is transmitted to his royal successor.[23] In the absence of such evidence I venture to suggest a some what different explanation, which seems to me more in accordance with known facts--to wit, that the new king is supposed to inherit, not the predecessor's soul, but his divinity or holiness, which is looked upon in the light of a mysterious entity, temporarily seated in the ruling sovereign, but separable from him and transferable to another individual.

[Footnote 23: _Ibid._ ii. 56.]

This modification of Frazer's theory is suggested by certain beliefs prevalent among the Moors. The Sultan of Morocco, who is regarded by the people as "the vicegerent of God," appoints before his death some member of his family--by preference one of his sons--as his successor, and this implies that his _baraka_, or holiness, will {608} be transferred to the new sovereign. But his holiness may also be appropriated by a pretender during his lifetime, which proves that it is regarded as something quite distinct from his soul. Thus the people told me that the pretender Bu[h.]amâra had come into possession of the Sultan's _baraka_, and that he would subsequently hand it over to one of the Sultan's brothers, who was then denied his liberty. Like the sultans of Morocco, the divine Kafir kings of Sofala, who were put to death if afflicted with some disease, nominated their successors.[24] In ancient Bengal, again, whoever killed the king and succeeded in placing himself on the royal throne, was immediately acknowledged as king; the people said, "We are faithful to the throne, whoever fills the throne we are obedient and true to it."[25] In the kingdom of Passier, on the northern coast of Sumatra, whose sacred monarch was not allowed by his subjects to live long, "the man who struck the fatal blow was of the royal lineage, and as soon as he had done the deed of blood and seated himself on the throne he was regarded as the legitimate king, provided that he contrived to maintain his seat peaceably for a single day."[26] In these cases, it seems, the sanctity was considered to be inherent in the throne and to be partly communicated to persons who came into close contact with it.[27]

[Footnote 24: Frazer, _Golden Bough_, ii. 10.]

[Footnote 25: _Ibid._ ii. 16.]

[Footnote 26: _Ibid._ ii. 16.]

[Footnote 27: Since the above was written, Sir J. G. Frazer himself has kindly drawn my attention to some statements in his _Lectures on the Early History of the Kingship_ (p. 121 _sqq._) from which it appears that in some parts of the Malay region the regalia are regarded as wonder-working talismans or fetishes, the possession of which carries with it the right to the throne. Among the Yorubas of West Africa, a miraculous virtue seems to be attributed to the royal crown, and the king sometimes sacrifices sheep to it (_ibid._ p. 124, n. 1). See _infra_, Additional Notes.]

Now, as we have noticed before, holiness is generally held to be exceedingly susceptible to any polluting influence,[28] and this would naturally suggest the idea that, in order to remain unimpaired, it has to be removed from a body which is defiled by disease or blemish. Such an idea may be supposed to underlie those cases in which {609} even the slightest bodily defect is a sufficient motive for putting the divine king to death. It is of the greatest importance for the community that the holiness on which its welfare depends should not be attached to an individual whose organism is no longer a fit receptacle for it, and who is consequently unable to fulfil the duties incumbent upon a divine monarch; and it may be thought that the only way of removing the holiness from him is to kill him. The same explanation would seem to apply to the killing of kings or magicians who have actually proved incapable of bringing about the benefits expected from them, such as rain or good crops,[29] although in these instances the murderous act may also be a precaution against the revenge they might otherwise take for being deposed, or it may be a punishment for their failure,[30] or have the character of a sacrifice to a god.[31] Moreover, the disease, weakness, or physical deterioration of the king might cause his death; and, owing to the extremely polluting effect ascribed to natural death, this would be the greatest catastrophe which could happen to the holiness seated in him. The people of Congo believed that if their pontiff, the Chitomé, were to die a natural death, the world would perish, and the earth, which he alone sustained by his power and merit, would immediately be annihilated; hence, when he fell ill and seemed likely to die, the man who was destined to be his successor entered the pontiff's house with a rope or a club and strangled or clubbed him to death.[32] Similar motives may also have induced people to kill their divine king after a certain period, as everybody is sooner or later liable to fall ill or grow weak and die. But I can also imagine another possible reason for this custom. Supernatural {610} energy is sometimes considered so sensitive to external influences that it appears to wear away almost by itself in the course of time. I have heard from Arabs in Morocco that a pretender's holiness usually lasts only for half a year. And it may be that some of the divine kings mentioned by Frazer were exposed to a similar fatality and therefore had to be slain in time.

[Footnote 28: See especially _supra_, ii. 294-296, 352, 353, 415 _sqq._]

[Footnote 29: Frazer, _Golden Bough_, i. 158 _sq._ Landtman, _Origin of Priesthood_, p. 144 _sqq._]

[Footnote 30: Landtman, _op. cit._ p. 144. Divine animals are sometimes treated in a similar way. In ancient Egypt, if the sacred beasts could not, or would not, help in emergency, they were beaten; and if this measure failed to prove efficacious, then the creatures were punished with death (Wiedemann, _Religion of the Ancient Egyptians_, p. 178; _Idem_, _Herodots zweites Buch_, p. 428 _sq._).]

[Footnote 31: _Supra_, i. 443.]

[Footnote 32: Frazer, _Golden Bough_, ii. 8.]

As the right to life, generally granted to gods, is thus in certain circumstances abrogated for the benefit of their worshippers, so their right to bodily integrity may be suspended if their behaviour does not answer the expectations of their devotees. Men punish their gods as they punish their fellow men. Among the Amazulu, when it thunders or, as they say, "the heaven is coming badly," the doctors go out and scold it; "they take a stick and say they are going to beat the lightning of heaven."[33] The negro cudgels his fetish unmercifully to make it submissive.[34] The Samoyede flogs his idol or throws it away if he does not succeed in his doings.[35] The idols of the Typees, in the Marquesas Islands, "received more hard knocks than supplications."[36] When his guardian spirit proves stubborn, the Hudson Bay Eskimo deprives it of food, or strips it of its garments.[37]

[Footnote 33: Callaway, _Religious System of the Amazulu_, p. 404.]

[Footnote 34: Bastian, _Afrikanische Reisen_, p. 61.]

[Footnote 35: von Struve, in _Ausland_, 1880 p. 795.]

[Footnote 36: Melville, _Typee_, p. 261.]

[Footnote 37: Turner, 'Ethnology of the Ungava District,' in _Ann. Rep. Bur. Ethn._ xi. 194.]

* * * * *

In normal circumstances men regard it as a duty, not only to refrain from killing or injuring their gods, but positively to promote their existence and comfort. According to early beliefs, supernatural beings are subject to human needs. The gods of the heathen Siberians laboured for their subsistence, engaged in hunting and fishing, and laid up provisions of roots against times of dearth.[38] When the heavens appear checkered with white clouds on a blue surface, the Maoris of New Zealand say that the god is planting his potatoes and {611} other divine edibles.[39] The Fijian gods are described as enormous eaters.[40] The Vedic gods wore clothes, were great drunkards, and suffered from constant hunger;[41] I need only refer to the numerous passages in the Rig-Veda where mention is made of the appetite or thirst of Indra and the pleasure he has in filling his belly.[42] An Egyptian god cannot be conceived without his house in which he lives, in which his festivals are solemnised, and which he never leaves except on professional days. His dwelling has to be cleaned, and he is assisted at his toilet by his attendants; the priest has to dress and serve his god, and places every day on his table offerings of food and drink.[43] So also the Chaldean gods had to be nourished, clothed, and amused; and the stone or wooden statues erected to them in the sanctuaries furnished them with bodies which they animated with their breath.[44]

[Footnote 38: Georgi, _Russia_, iii. 259.]

[Footnote 39: Polack, _Manners and Customs of the New Zealanders_, i. 244.]

[Footnote 40: Williams and Calvert, _Fiji_, pp. 184, 195.]

[Footnote 41: Oldenberg, _Religion des Veda_, pp. 304, 366 _sqq._ Barth, _Religions of India_, p. 36, n. 2.]

[Footnote 42: _Rig-Veda_, ii. 11. 11; viii. 4. 10; viii. 17. 4; viii. 78. 7; x. 86. 13 _sqq._]

[Footnote 43: Erman, _op. cit._ pp. 273, 275, 279. Maspero, _op. cit._ p. 110.]

[Footnote 44: Ball, 'Glimpses of Babylonian Religion,' in _Proceed. Soc. Biblical Archæology_, xiv. 153 _sqq._ Maspero, _op. cit._ p. 679.]

The idea that supernatural beings have human appetites and human wants leads to the practice of sacrifice. Whatever means they may have of earning their livelihood, they are certainly not indifferent to gifts offered by men. If such offerings fail them they may even suffer want and become feeble and powerless. The Egyptian gods, says M. Maspero, "were dependent upon the gifts of mortals, and the resources of each individual deity, and consequently his power, depended on the wealth and number of his worshippers."[45] We meet with the same idea at every step in the Vedic hymns.[46] Should sacrifices cease for an instant to be offered, the gods would cease to send rain, {612} to bring back at the appointed hour Aurora and the sun, to raise and ripen harvests--not only because they would be unwilling, but because they would be unable to do so.[47] It was by sacrifice that the gods delivered the world from chaos, and it is by sacrifice that man prevents it from lapsing back into the same state;[48] in the 'Laws of Manu' it is said that sacrifices support "both the movable and the immovable creation."[49] The Zoroastrian books likewise represent the sacrifice as an act of assistance to the gods, by which they become victorious in their combats with the demons.[50] When not strengthened by offerings they fly helpless before their foes. Overcome by the demon Apaosha, the bright and glorious Tistrya cries out in distress:--"Woe is me, O Ahura Mazda! . . . Men do not worship me with a sacrifice in which I am invoked by my own name. . . . If men had worshipped me with a sacrifice in which I had been invoked by my own name, as they worship the other Yazatas with sacrifices in which they are invoked by their own names, I should have taken to me the strength of ten horses, the strength of ten camels, the strength of ten bulls, the strength of ten mountains, the strength of ten rivers."[51]

[Footnote 45: Maspero, _op. cit._ p. 302. _Cf._ Wiedemann, _Ancient Egyptian Doctrine of the Immortality of the Soul_, p. 19.]

[Footnote 46: _Rig-Veda_, ii. 15. 2; x. 52. 5 _sq._; x. 121. 7. _Cf._ _Atharva-Veda_, xi. 7. 14 _sq._; Hopkins, _Religions of India_, p. 149; Kaegi, _Rigveda_, p. 31; Darmesteter, _Ormazd et Ahriman_, p. 329.]

[Footnote 47: Barth, _op. cit._ p. 36.]

[Footnote 48: _Rig-Veda_, x. 130. Barth, _op. cit._ p. 37.]

[Footnote 49: _Laws of Manu_, iii. 75 _sqq._]

[Footnote 50: See Darmesteter, _Ormazd et Ahriman_, p. 327; _Idem_, in _Sacred Books of the East_ (1st edit.), iv. p. lxviii.]

[Footnote 51: _Yasts_, viii. 23 _sq._]

Men are induced by various motives to offer sacrificial gifts to supernatural beings. In early religion the most common motive is undoubtedly a desire to avert evils; and we have reason to believe that such a desire was the first source of religious worship. In spite of recent assertions to the contrary, the old saying holds true that religion was born of fear. Those who maintain that the savage is little susceptible to this emotion,[52] and that he for the most part takes his gods joyously,[53] show ignorance {613} of facts. One of his characteristics is great nervous susceptibility,[54] and he lives in constant apprehension of danger from supernatural powers. We are told of the Samoyedes that a sudden blow on the outside of a tent will sometimes throw the occupants into spasms. "The Indian," says Parkman, "lived in perpetual fear. The turning of a leaf, the crawling of an insect, the cry of a bird, the creaking of a bough, might be to him the mystic signal of weal or woe."[55] From all quarters of the uncivilised world we hear that terror or fear is the predominant element in the religious sentiment, that savages are more inclined to ascribe evil than good to the influence of supernatural agents, that their sacrifices and other acts of worship more frequently have in view to avert misfortunes than to procure positive benefits, or that, even though benevolent deities are believed in, much more attention is paid to malignant ones.[56] And even among peoples who have passed beyond the stage of {614} savagery fear still remains a prominent factor in their religion. The great bulk of Homeric cult-operations lay in propitiatory rites in avoidance of evil.[57] "No one," says Sir Monier-Williams, "who has ever been brought into close contact with the Hind[=u]s in their own country can doubt the fact that the worship of at least ninety per cent. of the people of India in the present day is a worship of fear."[58] In one of the Pahlavi texts we read that "he is not to be considered as faithful who has no fear of the sacred beings."[59] The Egyptian Amon Râ, who is praised as "the beautiful and beloved god, who giveth life by all manner of warmth, by all manner of fair cattle," is at the same time styled "Lord of fear, great one of terror."[60] The Psalmist says that "the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom,"[61] and, as Nöldeke points out, "the fear of God" was used in its literal sense.[62] Although the Koran has much to tell about the loving kindness of God, the god of Islam evokes much more fear than love. Faith is said by Muhammedan theologians to "stand midway between hope and fear."[63]

[Footnote 52: Gruppe, _Die griechischen Culte und Mythen_, p. 244 _sq._]

[Footnote 53: Grant Allen, _Evolution of the Idea of God_, p. 347.]

[Footnote 54: See Brinton, _Religions of Primitive Peoples_, p. 14.]

[Footnote 55: Parkman, _Jesuits in North America_, p. lxxxiv.]

[Footnote 56: Dorman, _Origin of Primitive Superstitions_, p. 391 (American Indians generally). Müller, _Geschichte der Amerikanischen Urreligionen_, pp. 84, 171, 214, 260. von Spix and von Martius, _Travels in Brazil_, ii. 243 (Coroados). Brett, _Indian Tribes of Guiana_, p. 361 _sq._; Im Thurn, _Among the Indians of Guiana_, p. 367 _sq._ Dunbar, 'Pawnee Indians,' in _Magazine of American History_, viii. 736. McGee, 'Siouan Indians,' in _Ann. Rep. Bur. Ethn._ xv. 184. Murdoch, 'Ethn. Results of the Point Barrow Expedition,' _ibid._ ix. 432 (Point Barrow Eskimo). Ross, 'Eastern Tinneh,' in _Smithsonian Report_, 1866, p. 306. Radloff, _Schamanenthum_, p. 15 (Turkish tribes of the Altai). Fawcett, _Saoras_, p. 57. Campbell, _Wild Tribes of Khondistan_, p. 163 _sq._ Hunter, _Annals of Rural Bengal_, i. 181 _sq._ (Santals). Mouhot, _Travels in the Central Parts of Indo-China_, ii. 29 (Bannavs of Cambodia). Man, 'Aboriginal Inhabitants of the Andaman Islands,' in _Jour. Anthr. Inst._ xii. 157. Wilken, _Het animisme bij de volken van den Indischen Archipel_, p. 207 _sq._ St. John, _Life in the Forests of the Far East_, i. 69, 70, 178; Low, _Sarawak_, p. 253; Selenka, _Sonnige Welten_, p. in (Dyaks). von Brenner, _Besuch bei den Kannibalen Sumatras_, p. 216. Kubary, 'Die Palau-Inseln,' in _Jour. des Museum Godeffroy_, iv. 44 (Pelew Islanders). Williams and Calvert, _Fiji_, p. 189. Percy Smith, 'Uea,' in _Jour. Polynesian Soc._ i. 114. Turner, _Samoa_, p. 21. Ellis, _Polynesian Researches_, i. 336 (Tahitians). Taylor, _Te Ika a Maui_, pp. 104, 148; Yate, _Account of New Zealand_, p. 141; Polack, _op. cit._ i. 244 (Maoris). Fritsch, _Die Eingeborenen Süd-Afrika's_, pp. 338, 339, 341 (Hottentots). Decle, _Three Years in Savage Africa_, p. 153 (Matabele). Livingstone, _Missionary Travels_, p. 435 (peoples inhabiting the country north of the Zambesi). Monrad, _Skildring af Guinea-Kysten_, p. 2 (Negroes of Accra). See also Karsten, _Origin of Worship_, p. 44 _sqq._; _infra_, p. 665 _sqq._]

[Footnote 57: _Cf._ Keller, _Homeric Society_, p. 115 _sq._]

[Footnote 58: Monier-Williams, _Br[=a]hmanism and Hind[=u]ism_, p. 230.]

[Footnote 59: _Dînâ-î Maînôg-î Khirad_, xxxix. 33.]

[Footnote 60: Wiedemann, _Religion of the Ancient Egyptians_, p. 111 _sq._]

[Footnote 61: _Psalms_, cxi. 10.]

[Footnote 62: Nöldeke, in _Archiv für Religionswissenschaft_, i. 362.]

[Footnote 63: Sell, _Faith of Islám_, p. 165.]

Hope, indeed, forms an element in every religion, even the lowest. The assumed authors of painful or alarming events became objects of worship because they were conceived, not as mechanical causes, but as personal agencies which might be influenced by the regardful attitude of the worshipper. The savage is not so irrational as to make offerings to beings from whom he expects no benefits in return. And in proportion as the deities grew more benignant and their sphere of action was extended, their worshippers became more confident, expecting from them not only mercy but positive assistance.

We may suppose that already at an early stage of {615} culture man, occasionally, was struck by some unexpected fortunate event and ascribed it to the influence of a friendly spirit with which he was anxious to keep on amicable terms. Among the Tshi-speaking peoples of the Gold Coast worship is the result not only of fear, but also of the hope of obtaining some direct advantage or protection.[64] The pagans of Siberia accompanied their sacrifices with words like these:--"Behold what I bring you to eat; bring me then in return children, cattle, and a long life."[65] The Point Barrow Eskimo, when he arrives at a river, throws into the air a small piece of tobacco, crying out, "Spirits, spirits, I give you tobacco, give me plenty of fish!"[66] Of the Sia Indians (Pueblos) Mrs. Stevenson writes that their religion is not mainly one of propitiation, but rather of supplication for favours and payment for the same--they "do the will of and thereby please the beings to whom they pray."[67] We even hear of savages making thank-offerings to their gods. In Fiji, after successful fishing for turtle, or remarkable deliverance from danger in war or at sea, or recovery from sickness, a kind of thank-offering was sometimes presented to the deities.[68] When certain natives of Eastern Central Africa, after they have prayed for a successful hunting expedition, return home laden with venison or ivory, they know that they are indebted to "their old relative" for their good fortune, and give him a thank-offering.[69] We are told that in Northern Guinea, when a person has been repeatedly fortunate through the agency of a fetish, "he contracts a feeling of attachment and gratitude to it."[70] Yet we have reason to suspect that the gratitude of the sacrificer is commonly {616} of the kind which La Rochefoucauld defined as "a secret desire to receive greater benefits in the future."[71] Sometimes the thank-offering, if it may be called so, is expressly preceded by a vow. Among the Kansas the warrior, when going to war says, facing the East, "I wish to pass along the road to the foe! O Wakanda! I promise you a blanket if I succeed"; and turning to the West, "O Wakanda! I promise you a feast if I succeed."[72] Even in religions of a higher type the offering of sacrificial gifts is mainly a sort of bargain with the god to whom they are offered. In the Vedic hymns the gods are addressed by phrases like these, "If you give me this, I shall give you that," or, "As you have given me this, I shall give you that."[73] The singer naïvely confesses, "I looked forth in spirit, seeking good, O Indra and Agni, to relations and kinsmen; but I have no other helper than you; therefore I have made you a powerful song."[74] The Greeks expressed the idea connected with their sacrifices in the proverbial saying, [Greek: dô=ra theou\s pei/thei].[75] The ancient Hebrew view on the subject is illustrated by the vow of Jacob:--"If God will be with me, and will keep me in this way that I go, and will give me bread to eat, and raiment to put on, so that I come again to my father's house in peace; then shall the Lord be my God: And this stone, which I have set for a pillar, shall be God's house: and of all that thou shalt give me I will surely give the tenth unto thee."[76]

[Footnote 64: Ellis, _Tshi-speaking Peoples of the Gold Coast_, p. 17. _Cf._ _Idem_, _Yoruba-speaking Peoples of the Slave Coast_, p. 277.]

[Footnote 65: Georgi, _Russia_, iii. 284.]

[Footnote 66: Murdoch, in _Ann. Rep. Bur. Ethn._ ix. 433.]

[Footnote 67: Stevenson, 'Sia,' in _Ann. Rep. Bur. Ethn._ xi. 67.]

[Footnote 68: Williams and Calvert, _op. cit._ p. 195.]

[Footnote 69: Macdonald, _Africana_, i. 61. For other instances of thank-offerings see Shooter, _Kafirs of Natal_, p. 165; Smith, 'Myths of the Iroquois,' in _Ann. Rep. Bur. Ethn._ ii. 51. Jochelson, 'Koryak Religion and Myth,' in _Jesup North Pacific Expedition_, vi. 25, 92. Leem, _Beskrivelse over Finmarkens Lapper_, p. 431 (Lapps).]

[Footnote 70: Wilson, _Western Africa_, p. 212.]

[Footnote 71: La Rochefoucauld, _Maximes_, 298.]

[Footnote 72: Dorsey, 'Mourning and War Customs of the Kansas,' in _American Naturalist_, xix. 678.]

[Footnote 73: Müller, _Physical Religion_, p. 100. Oldenberg, _Religion des Veda_, pp. 302-326, 430 _sqq._]

[Footnote 74: _Rig-Veda_, i. 109. 1. _Cf._ _ibid._ i. 71. 7.]

[Footnote 75: Plato, _Respublica_, iii. 390.]

[Footnote 76: _Genesis_, xxviii. 20 _sqq._]

In many cases the sacrificial victims are intended to serve as substitutes for other individuals, whose lives are in danger. We have previously noticed that the practice of human sacrifice is mainly based on the idea of substitution.[77] We have also seen that a growing reluctance to this practice often led to the offering of animals instead of {617} men.[78] But we have no right to assume that the sacrifice of an animal for the purpose of saving the life of a man is in every case a later modification of a previous human sacrifice. The idea that spirits which threaten the lives of men are appeased by other than human blood may in some instances be primary though in others it is derivative. The Moors invariably sacrifice an animal at the foundation of a new building; and though this is said to be _[(]âr_ upon the spirit owners of the place some idea of substitution seems also to be connected with the act, as they maintain that if no animal were killed the inmates of the house would die or remain childless. A similar practice prevails in Syria, where the people believe that "every house must have its death, either man, woman, child, or animal."[79] Among the Jews it is or has been the custom for the master of each house to kill a cock on the eve of the fast of atonement. Before doing so he strikes his head with the cock three times, saying at each stroke, "Let this cock be a commutation for me, let him be substituted for me"; and when he strangles his victim by compressing the neck with his hand, he at the same time reflects that he himself deserves to be strangled.[80] These customs can certainly not be regarded as survivals of an earlier practice of killing a human being. Moreover an animal is sometimes sacrificed for the purpose of saving the lives of other animals. Thus in a place in Scotland, in 1767, a young heifer was offered in the holy fire during a cattle-plague.[81] And in Great Benin, in West Africa, on the anniversary of the death of Adolo, king Overami's father, not only twelve men, but twelve cows, twelve goats, twelve sheep, and twelve fowls were offered, and Overami, addressing his father, asked him to look after the "cows, goats, and fowls, and everything in the farms," as well as the people.[82] Sacrifices which are {618} substitutional in character may or may not be intended to satisfy the material needs of supernatural beings. In some cases, as we have seen, their object is to appease a resentful god by the mere death of the victim.[83]

[Footnote 77: _Supra_, ch. xix.]

[Footnote 78: _Supra_, i. 469 _sq._]

[Footnote 79: Curtiss, _Primitive Semitic Religion To-day_, p. 224 _sq._]

[Footnote 80: Allen, _Modern Judaism_, p. 406.]

[Footnote 81: Grimm, _Teutonic Mythology_, ii. 608.]

[Footnote 82: Moor and Roupell, quoted by Read and Dalton, _Antiquities from the City of Benin_, p. 6, and by Ling Roth, _Great Benin_, p. 70 _sq._]

[Footnote 83: _Supra_, i. 438 _sqq._]

We have further noticed that, in the case of human sacrifice, the victim is occasionally regarded as a messenger between the worshippers and their god even though the primary object of the rite be a different one.[84] The same is sometimes true of other offerings as well.[85] The Iroquois sacrifice of the white dog[86] was, according to Mr. Morgan, intended "to send up the spirit of the dog as a messenger to the Great Spirit, to announce their continued fidelity to his service, and, also, to convey to him their united thanks for the blessings of the year"; and in their thanksgiving addresses they were in the habit of throwing leaves of tobacco into the fire from time to time that their words might ascend to the dwelling of the Great Spirit in the smoke of their offerings.[87] The Huichols of Mexico often use the arrows which they sacrifice to their gods as carriers of special prayers.[88]

[Footnote 84: _Supra_, i. 465 _sq._]

[Footnote 85: _Cf._ Hubert and Mauss, 'Essai sur la nature et la fonction du sacrifice,' in _L'année sociologique_, ii. 106, n. **1.]

[Footnote 86: See _supra_, i. 53, 64.]

[Footnote 87: Morgan, _League of the Iroquois_, p. 216 _sqq._]

[Footnote 88: Lumholtz, _Unknown Mexico_, ii. 205.]

Not only are sacrifices used as bearers of prayers, but they are also frequently offered for the purpose of transferring curses. In Morocco every _síyid_[89] of any importance is constantly visited by persons who desire to invoke the saint to whom it is dedicated with a view to being cured of some illness, or being blessed with children, or getting a suitable husband or wife, or receiving help against an enemy, or deriving some other benefit from the saint. To secure his assistance the visitor makes _[(]âr_ upon him; and the Moorish _[(]âr_, of which I have spoken above,[90] implies the transference of a conditional curse, whether it be made upon an ordinary man or a saint, living or dead. The _[(]âr_ put upon a saint may consist in throwing stones upon a cairn connected with his sanctuary, or making a pile of {619} stones to him, or tying a piece of cloth at the _síyid_, or knotting the leaves of some palmetto or the stalks of white broom growing in its vicinity, or offering an animal sacrifice to the saint.[91] This making of _[(]âr_ is accompanied by a promise to reward the saint if he grants the request; but the sacrifice offered in fulfilment of such a promise (_l-wâ[(]da_) is totally distinct from that offered as _[(]âr_. It is a genuine gift, whereas the _[(]âr_-sacrifice is a means of constraining the saint. When an animal is killed as _[(]âr_ the usual phrase _bismillâh_, "In the name of God," is not used, and the animal may not be eaten, except by poor people.[92] On the other hand, the animal which is sacrificed as _wâ[(]da_ is always killed "in the name of God," and is offered for the very purpose of being eaten by the saint's earthly representatives. Nothing can better show than the Moorish distinction between _l-[(]âr_ and _l-wâ[(]da_ how futile it would be to try to explain every kind of sacrifice by one and the same principle. The distinction between them is fundamental: the former is a threat, the latter is a promised reward.[93] But at the same time it is not improbable that the idea of transferring curses to a supernatural being by means of a sacrifice was originally suggested by the previous existence of sacrifice as a religious act, combined with the ascription of mysterious propensities to blood, and especially to sacrificial blood, which, according to primitive ideas, made it a most efficient conductor of curses.

[Footnote 89: For the meaning of this word see _supra_, ii. 584.]

[Footnote 90: _Supra_, i. 586 _sq._; ii. 584 _sq._]

[Footnote 91: Westermarck, '_L-[(]âr_, or the Transference of Conditional Curses in Morocco,' in _Anthropological Essays presented to E. B. Tylor_, p. 368 _sqq._ _Idem_, _The Moorish Conception of Holiness (Baraka)_, p. 90 _sqq._]

[Footnote 92: However, if the _síyid_ has a _m[K.]áddem_, or regular attendant, the petitioner often hands the animal over to him alive, so that he may himself kill it "in the name of God," and thus make it eatable. Then the descendants of the saint, if he has any, and the _m[K.]áddem_ himself, have no hesitation in eating the animal, _bismillâh_ being a holy word which removes the curse or evil energy inherent in _l-[(]âr_.]

[Footnote 93: When I have asked how it is that a saint, although invoked with _l-[(]âr_, does not always grant the request made to him, the answer has been that he can, but that he is not all-powerful and the failure is due to the fact that God does not listen to his prayer. But it also occurs that a person who has in vain made _[(]âr_ upon a saint goes to another _síyid_ to complain of him. There is a general belief that saints do not help unless _[(]âr_ is made on them--an idea which is not very flattering to their character.]

{620} There are obvious indications that the _[(]âr_-sacrifice of the Moors is not unique of its kind, but has its counterpart among certain other peoples. In ancient religions sacrifice is often supposed to exercise a constraining influence on the god to whom it is offered. We meet with this idea in Zoroastrianism,[94] in many of the Vedic hymns,[95] and especially in Brahmanism. "Here," says Barth, "the rites of religion are the real deities, or at any rate they constitute together a sort of independent and superior power, before which the divine personalities disappear, and which almost holds the place allotted to destiny in other systems. The ancient belief, which is already prominent in the Hymns, that sacrifice conditionates the regular course of things, is met with here in the rank of a commonplace, and is at times accompanied with incredible details."[96] Now, there can be little doubt that this ascription of a magic power to the sacrifice, by means of which it could control the actions of the gods, was due to the idea that it served as a conductor of imprecations; for it was invariably accompanied by a formula which was considered to possess irresistible force. In the invocation lies the hidden energy which gives the efficacy to the sacrifice; without Brahma[n.]aspati, the lord of prayer, sacrifice does not succeed.[97] The Greeks actually offered anathemata, or curses, to their gods.[98] The ancient Arabs, again, after killing the sacrificial animal, threw its hair on a holy tree as a curse.[99] But so little has the true import of such sacrifices been understood even by eminent scholars, that they have been represented as votive offerings or gifts to the deity.[100]

[Footnote 94: Darmesteter, _Ormazd et Ahriman_, p. 330.]

[Footnote 95: _Rig-Veda_, iii. 45. 1; iv. 15. 5; vi. 51. 8; viii. 2. 6. Oldenberg, _Religion des Veda_, p. 311 _sq._]

[Footnote 96: Barth, _Religions of India_, p. 47 _sq._]

[Footnote 97: _Rig-Veda_, i. 18. 7.]

[Footnote 98: Rouse, _Greek Votive Offerings_, p. 337 _sqq._]

[Footnote 99: Wellhausen, _Reste arabischen Heidentums_, p. 124.]

[Footnote 100: Rouse, _op. cit._ p. 337. Wellhausen, _op. cit._ p. 124.]

Considering that the idea of sacrifice being a conductor of imprecations has hitherto almost entirely escaped the notice of students of early religion, it is impossible to say {621} how widely it prevails and whether it also occurs in the savage world. We know that the practice of cursing a god not only was familiar to the ancient nations of culture, including the Egyptians,[101] Hebrews, and other Semites,[102] but is common among peoples like the South African Bechuanas[103] and the Nagas of India.[104] And that the shedding of blood is frequently applied as a means of transferring curses is suggested by various cases in which, however, the object of the imprecation is not a god but a man. We have previously noticed the reception sacrifices offered to visiting strangers, presumably for the purpose of transmitting to them conditional curses;[105] and a very similar idea seems to underlie certain cases of oath-taking. Sometimes the oath is taken in connection with a sacrifice made to a god, and then the sanctity of the sacrificial animal naturally increases the efficacy of the self-imprecation. In other instances the oath is taken on the blood of an animal which is killed for the purpose, apparently without being sacrificed to a god. But in either case, I believe, the blood of the animal is thought not only to add supernatural energy to the oath, but to transfer, as it were, the self-imprecation to the very person who pronounces it. The Mrús, a Chittagong hill tribe, "will swear by one of their gods, to whom, at the same time, a sacrifice must be offered."[106] Among the ancient Norsemen both the accused and the accuser grasped the holy ring kept for that purpose on the altar, stained with the blood of a sacrificial bull, and made oath by invoking Freyr, Niordr, and the almighty among the Asas.[107] At Athens a person who charged another with murder made an oath with imprecations upon himself and his family and his house, standing upon the entrails of a boar, a ram, and a bull, {622} which had been sacrificed by special persons on the appointed days.[108] Tyndareus "sacrificed a horse and swore the suitors of Helen, making them stand on the pieces of the horse," the oath being to defend Helen and him who might be chosen to marry her if ever they should be wronged.[109] One of the three binding forms of oath prevalent among the Sânsiya in India is to "kill a cock and pouring its blood on the ground swear over it."[110] When the Annamese swear by heaven and earth, they often kill a buffalo or he-goat and drink its blood.[111] Among the ancient Arabs comrades in arms swore fidelity to each other by dipping their hands in the blood of a camel killed for the purpose.[112]

[Footnote 101: _Book of the Dead_, ch. 125.]

[Footnote 102: _Exodus_, xxii. 28. _1 Samuel_, xvii. 43. _Isaiah_, viii. 21.]

[Footnote 103: Chapman, _Travels in the Interior of South Africa_, i. 45 _sq._]

[Footnote 104: Woodthorpe, 'Wild Tribes inhabiting the so-called Naga Hills,' in _Jour. Anthr. Inst._ xi. 70.]

[Footnote 105: _Supra_, i. 590 _sq._]

[Footnote 106: Lewin, _Wild Races of South-Eastern India_, p. 233. _Cf._ _ibid._ p. 244 (Pankhos and Bunjogees).]

[Footnote 107: _Landnámabók_, iv. 7 (_Islendínga Sögur_, i. 258). Lea, _Superstition and Force_, p. 27. Keyser, _Efterladte Skrifter_, ii. pt. i. 388. Gummere, _Germanic Origins_, p. 301.]

[Footnote 108: Demosthenes, _Oratio (xxiii.) contra Aristocratem_, 67 _sq._, p. 642.]

[Footnote 109: Pausanias, iii. 20. 9. For Homeric oath sacrifices see _Iliad_, iii. 260 _sqq._; xix. 250 _sqq._; Keller, _Homeric Society_, p. 176 _sqq._]

[Footnote 110: Crooke, _Tribes and Castes of the North-Western Provinces_, iv. 281.]

[Footnote 111: Kohler, _Rechtsvergleichende Studien_, p. 208.]

[Footnote 112: Wellhausen, _Reste arabischen Heidentums_, p. 128.]

The last mentioned case, which implies shedding of blood as a means of sealing a compact, leads us to a special class of sacrifices offered to gods, namely, the covenant sacrifice, known to us from Semitic antiquity. The Hebrews, as Professor Robertson Smith observes,[113] thought of the national religion as constituted by a formal covenant sacrifice at Mount Sinai, where half of the blood of the sacrificed oxen was sprinkled on the altar and the other half on the people,[114] or even by a still earlier covenant rite in which the parties were Yahve and Abraham;[115] and the idea of sacrifice establishing a covenant between God and man is also apparent in the Psalms.[116] In various cases recorded in the Old Testament sacrifice is accompanied by a sacrificial meal;[117] "the god and his worshippers are wont to eat and drink together, and by this token their fellowship is declared {623} and sealed."[118] Robertson Smith and his followers have represented this as an act of communion, as a sacrament in which the whole kin--the god with his clansmen--unite, and in partaking of which each member renews his union with the god and with the rest of the clan. At first, we are told, the god--that is, the totem god--himself was eaten, whilst at a later stage the practice of eating the god was superseded by the practice of eating with the god. Communion still remains the core of sacrifice; and it is said that only subsequently the practice of offering gifts to the deity develops out of the sacrificial union between the worshippers and their god.[119] But I venture to think that the whole of this theory is based upon a misunderstanding of the Semitic evidence, and that existing beliefs in Morocco throw new light upon the covenant sacrifice.

[Footnote 113: Robertson Smith, _Religion of the Semites_, p. 318 _sq._]

[Footnote 114: _Exodus_, xxiv. 4 _sqq._]

[Footnote 115: _Genesis_, xv. 8 _sqq._]

[Footnote 116: _Psalms_, l. 5.]

[Footnote 117: _Genesis_, xxxi. 54. _Exodus_, xxiv. 11. _1 Samuel_, xi. 15. Wellhausen says (_Prolegomena to the History of Israel_, p. 71) that, according to the practice of the older period, a meal was nearly always connected with a sacrifice.]

[Footnote 118: Robertson Smith, _op. cit._ p. 271.]

[Footnote 119: _Ibid._ lec. ix. _sqq._ Hartland, _Legend of Perseus_, ii. 236. Jevons, _Introduction to the History of Religion_, p. 225.]

The Moorish covenant (_l-[(]ahd_) is closely connected with the Moorish _[(]âr_. Whilst _l-[(]âr_ is one-sided, _l-[(]ahd_ is mutual, both parties transferring conditional curses to one another. And here again the transference requires a material conductor. Among the Arabs of the plains and the Berbers of Central Morocco chiefs, in times of rebellion, exchange their cloaks or turbans, and it is believed that if any of them should break the covenant he would be punished with some grave misfortune. Among the Ulád Bu [(]Azîz, in the province of Dukkâla, it is a common custom for persons who wish to be reconciled after a quarrel to go to a holy man and in his presence join their right hands so that the fingers of the one go between the fingers of the other, after which the saint throws his cloak over the united hands, saying, "This is _[(]ahd_ between you." Or they may in a similar manner join their hands at a saint's tomb over the head of the box under which the saint is buried, or they may perform the same ceremony simply in the presence of some friends. In either case the joining of hands is usually {624} accompanied by a common meal, and frequently the hands are joined over the dish after eating. If a person who has thus made a compact with another is afterwards guilty of a breach of faith, it is said that "God and the food will repay him"; in other words, the conditional curse embodied in the food which he ate will be realised. All over Morocco the usual method of sealing a compact of friendship is by eating together, especially at the tomb of some saint. As we have noticed above,[120] the sacredness of the place adds to the efficacy of the imprecation, but its vehicle, the real punisher, is the eaten food, because it contains a conditional curse.

[Footnote 120: _Supra_, i. 587.]

The _[(]ahd_ of the Moors helps us to understand the covenant sacrifice of the ancient Semites. The only difference between them is that the former is a method of establishing a compact between men and men, whilst the latter established a compact between men and their god. The idea of a mutual transference of conditional curses undoubtedly underlies both. It should be noticed that in the Old Testament also, as among the Moors, we meet with human covenants made by the parties eating together.[121] Thus the Israelites entered into alliance with the Gibeonites by taking of their victuals, without consulting Yahve, and the meal was expressly followed by an oath.[122] In other instances, again, the common dish consisted of sacrificial food, either because the sacredness of such food was supposed to make the conditional curse embodied in it more efficacious, or because the deity was included as a third party to the covenant.

[Footnote 121: _Genesis_, xxvi. 30; xxxi. 46. _2 Samuel_, iii. 20 _sq._ Robertson Smith, _op. cit._ p. 271. Nowack, _Lehrbuch der hebräischen Archäologie_, i. 359.]