[182] Boas, in Fifth Report on the North-Western Tribes of Canada, pp. 46, 52.
[183] Bry, Narrative of Le Moyne, Descriptions of the Illustrations, 34, p. 13. Cf. Lafitau, Mœurs des sauvages ameriquains, i. 181; Strachey, op. cit. p. 84.
[184] Krapf, Travels, p. 69 sq.
[185] Mone, quoted by Frazer, Golden Bough, ii. 52.
[186] Exodus, xiii. 2, 15.
[187] Numbers, xviii. 15.
[188] See Ghillany, op. cit. p. 494 sqq.; Kuenen, Religion of Israel, ii. 92; Frazer, op. cit. ii. 47 sqq.
[189] Rájendralála Mitra, op. cit. ii. 70, 76.
In some instances the firstborn seems to be killed, not in sacrifice to a god, but for the purpose of being eaten as a kind of medicine.[190] In other cases the act is a sacrifice in the true sense of the word and, apparently, substitutional in character. Considering that children are occasionally sacrificed to save the lives of their parents, or for the health of the families, or to promote fecundity, it seems probable that the regular sacrifice of the firstborn has similar objects in view. This supposition, indeed, is strongly supported by some statements in which the motive of the act is expressly mentioned.[191] Among the Coast Salish of British Columbia the first child is sacrificed to the sun “to secure health and happiness to the whole family.”[192] The same is reported of a neighbouring people, the Kutonaqa. The mother prays to the sun:—“I am with child. When it is born I shall offer it to you. Have pity upon us.”[193] Among some tribes of South-Eastern Africa it is a rule that, when a woman’s husband has been killed in battle and she marries again, the first child to which she gives birth after her second marriage must be put to death, whether she has it by her first or her second husband. Such a child is called “the child of the assegai,” and if it were not killed, death or accident would be sure to befall the second spouse, and the woman herself would be barren.[194] Among some peoples, including the ancient Hindus, we find the belief that the son is in some sense identical with his father, that he is a new birth, a new manifestation of the same person.[195] The new birth might be supposed to endanger the life of the father, just as, according to a notion prevalent among the ancient Teutons[196] and in some parts of Italy,[197] a person would soon die if his name were given to his son or grandson whilst he was still alive. Among the Brazilian Tupis the father was accustomed to take a new name after the birth of each new son;[198] whilst, on killing an enemy, a person used to take the enemy’s name so as to annihilate not only his body but also his soul.[199] Among the Kafirs, “if a mother gives birth to twins, one is frequently killed by the father, for the natives think that unless the father places a lump of earth in the mouth of one of the babies he will lose his strength.”[200] In some cases the practice of killing the firstborn son might possibly be traced back to a similar belief. But I can quote no fact directly supporting this suggestion.