Chapter 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.]