61. Similarity and identity.
Again, primitive man had no conception of likeness or similarity, nor did he realise an imitation as distinct from the thing imitated. Likeness or similarity and imitation are abstract ideas, for which he had no words, and consequently did not conceive of them. And clearly if one had absolutely no term signifying likeness or similarity, and if one wished to indicate say, that something resembled a goat, all one could do would be to point at the goat and the object resembling it and say ‘goat,’ ‘goat.’ Since the name was held to be part of the thing named, such a method would strengthen the idea that resemblance was equivalent to identity. This point of view can also be observed in children, who have no difficulty in thinking that any imitation or toy model is just as good as the object or animal imitated, and playing with it as such. Even to call a thing by the name of any object is sufficient with children to establish its identity with that object for the purposes of a game or mimicry, and a large part of children’s games are based on such pretensions. They also have not yet clearly grasped the difference between likeness and identity, and between an imitation of an object and the object itself. A large part of the category of substituted ceremonies and sacrifices are based on this confusion between similarity and identity. Thus when the Hindus put four pieces of stick into a pumpkin and call it a goat, they do not mean to cheat the god to whom it is offered, but fancy that when they have made a likeness of a goat and called it a goat, it is a goat, at any rate for the purpose of sacrifice. And when the Jains, desiring to eat after sunset against the rule of their religion, place a lamp under a sieve and call it the sun, and eat by it, they are acting on the same principle and think they have avoided committing a sin. A Baiga should go to his wedding on an elephant, but as he cannot obtain a real elephant, two wooden cots are lashed together and covered with blankets, with a black cloth trunk in front, and this arrangement passes muster for an elephant. A small gold image of a cat is offered to a Brāhman in expiation for killing a cat, silver eyes are offered to the goddess to save the eyes of a person suffering from smallpox, a wisp of straw is burnt on a man’s grave as a substitute for cremating the body, a girl is married to an image of a man made of kusha grass, and so on. In rites where blood is required vermilion is used as a substitute for blood; on the other hand castes which abstain from flesh sometimes also decline to eat red vegetables and fruits, because the red colour is held to make them resemble and be equivalent to blood. These beliefs survive in religious ceremonial long after the hard logic of facts has dispelled them from ordinary life.[133] Thus when an image of a god was made it was at once the god and contained part of his life. Primitive man had no idea of an imitation or an image nor of a lifeless object, and therefore could not conceive of the representation being anything else than the god. Only in later times was some ceremony of conveying life to the image considered requisite. The prohibition of sculpture among the Jews and of painting among the Muhammadans was based on this view,[134] because sculptures and paintings were not considered as images or representations, but as living beings or gods, and consequently false gods. The world-wide custom of making an image of a man with intent to injure him arises from the same belief. Since primitive man could conceive neither of an imitation nor of an inanimate object, the image of a man was to his view the man; there was nothing else which it could be. And thus it contained part of the man’s life, just as every idol of a god was the god himself and contained part of the god’s life. Since the man’s life was common to himself and the image, by injuring or destroying the image it was held that the man’s life would similarly be injured or destroyed, on the analogy already explained of injury to life being frequently observed to follow a hurt or wound of any part of the body. Afterwards the connection between the man and the image was strengthened by working into the material of the latter some fraction of his body, such as severed hair or the earth pressed by his foot. But this was not necessary to the original belief. The objection often raised by savages to having their photographs taken or pictures painted may be explained in the same manner. Here the photograph or picture cannot be realised as a simple imitation; it is held to be the man himself, and must therefore contain part of his life. Hence any one in whose possession it is can do him harm by injuring or destroying the photograph or picture, according to the method of reasoning already explained. The superstitions against looking in a mirror, especially after dark, or seeing one’s reflection in water, are analogous cases. Here the reflection in the mirror or water is held to be the person himself, because savages do not understand the nature of the reflected image. It is the person himself, but has no corporeal substance; therefore the reflection must be his ghost or spirit. But if the spirit appears once it is an omen that it will appear again; and in order that it may do so the man will have to die so that the spirit may be set free from the body in order to appear. The special reason for not looking into a mirror at night would thus be because the night is the usual time for the appearance of spirits. The fable of Narcissus, who fell in love with his own image reflected in the water and was drowned, probably arose from the superstition against seeing one’s image reflected in water. And similarly the belief was that a man’s clothes and other possessions contained part of his life by contact; this is the explanation of the custom of representing a person by some implement or article of clothing, such as performing the marriage ceremony with the bridegroom’s sword instead of himself, and sending the bride’s shoes home with the bridegroom to represent her. A barren woman will try to obtain a piece of a pregnant woman’s breast-cloth and will burn it and eat the ashes, thinking thereby to transfer the pregnant woman’s quality of fertility to herself. When a Hindu widow is remarried her clothes and ornaments are sometimes buried on the boundary of her second husband’s village and she puts on new clothes, because it is thought that her first husband’s spirit will remain in the old clothes and give trouble.