[166] Tyler, Forty Years among the Zulus, p. 195.
Whilst the information which I have been able to gather on the social customs of uncivilised races seems to indicate that, in the majority of cases, mutual kindness and goodwill prevail within their communities, there are not wanting statements of a different character. But these statements are, after all, exceptional, and some of them are either ambiguous or obviously inexact. Only too often travellers represent to us the savage, not as he is in his daily life amidst his own people, but as he behaves towards his enemy, or towards a stranger who enters his country uninvited. As an experienced observer remarks, “the savage, passionate and furious with the feeling of revenge, slaughtering and devouring his enemy and drinking his blood, is no longer the same being as when cultivating his fields in peace; and it would be as unjust to estimate his general character by his actions in these moments of unrestrained passion, as to judge of Europeans by the excesses of an excited soldiery or an infuriated mob.”[167] Moreover, many accounts of savages date from a period when they have already been affected by contact with a “higher culture,” as we call it, a culture which almost universally has proved to exercise a deteriorating influence on the character of the lower races. Among the North American Indians, for instance, “there was more good-will, hospitality, and charity, practised towards one another” before white people came and resided among them;[168] whereas contact with civilisation has made them “false, suspicious, avaricious and hard-hearted.”[169] As has been truly said, “search modern history, and in the North and South and East and West the story is ever the same—we come, we civilise, and we corrupt or exterminate.”[170]
[167] Dieffenbach, Travels in New Zealand, ii. 130 sq.
[168] Warren, in Schoolcraft, Indian Tribes of the United States, ii. 139.
[169] Domenech, Seven Years’ Residence in the Great Deserts of North America, ii. 69.
[170] Boyle, op. cit. p. 108.
Among the semi-civilised and civilised nations charity has universally been regarded as a duty, and has often been strenuously enjoined by their religions. When Spain and Peru first came into contact, the Americans surpassed the Spaniards in brotherly love and systematic care for the needy. They had a poor-law according to which the blind, lame, aged, and infirm, who could not till their own lands so as to clothe and feed themselves, should receive sustenance from the public stores.[171] The ancient Mexicans, according to Clavigero, seemed to give without reluctance what had cost them the utmost labour to acquire.[172] “The great virtue of the Coreans is their innate respect for and daily practice of the laws of human brotherhood. Mutual assistance and generous hospitality among themselves are distinctive national traits.”[173] According to Chinese law, “all poor destitute widowers and widows, the fatherless and childless, the helpless and the infirm, shall receive sufficient maintenance and protection from the magistrates of their native city or district, whenever they have neither relations nor connections upon whom they can depend for support.”[174] “Benevolence,” said Confucius, “is more to man than either water or fire.”[175] To assist the needy, to feed the hungry, to clothe the naked, to succour the sick, to save men in danger—these and similar acts of kindness are, according to Chinese beliefs, merits which will be rewarded by the unseen powers that watch human conduct, whereas the uncharitable and parsimonious are threatened with divine punishments.[176] In a book of Buddhistic-Confucian flavour, as familiar to the youth of Japan as the Sermon on the Mount is to us, it is said, “Above all things, men must practise charity; it is by almsgiving that wisdom is fed.”[177] According to the Dhammapada, “the uncharitable do not go to the world of the gods; fools only do not praise liberality; a wise man rejoices in liberality, and through it becomes blessed in the other world.”[178] Indeed, in the didactic poetry of Buddhism the virtue of beneficence occupies the most prominent place; without any regard to what is the measure of the real benefit thereby extended to the recipient of the gift, the legends set before us as a duty the most unbounded generosity, pushed even to the extreme of self-destruction.[179] And in its conception of charity and liberality, as in all other points of worldly morality, Buddhism does not differ from the standard recognised in India since ancient times.[180] Already in the Vedic hymns praise is bestowed on those who from their abundance willingly dispense to the needy, on those who do not turn away from the hungry, on those who are kind to the poor.[181] In the Hitopadesa it is said that the good man shows pity even to the worthless, as the moon does not withdraw its light even from a member of the lowest caste.[182] The sacred law-books of India are full of prescriptions enjoining almsgiving as a duty on all twice-born men.[183] “A householder must give as much food as he is able to spare to those who do not cook for themselves, and to all beings one must distribute food without detriment to one’s own interest.”[184] The student “should always without sloth give alms out of whatever he has for food.”[185] The Brâhmana who has completed his studentship should without tiring “perform works of charity with faith.”[186] Almsgiving confers merit on the giver, it frees him from guilt, it destroys sin;[187] “for whatever purpose a man bestows any gift, for that purpose he receives in his next birth with due honour its reward.”[188] On the other hand, he who cooks for himself alone eats nothing but sin.[189] Speaking of the modern Hindus, Mr. Wilkins observes:—“The charity of the Hindus is great…. There is no poor-law in India, no guardians of the poor, no workhouses, excepting for the Europeans in the Presidency towns. The poor of a family, the halt, the lame, the blind, the weak, the insane, are provided for by their family, if it is at all able to do it; in cases where there are few or no relatives, then the burden is taken up by others. It is a ‘work of merit.’”[190]
[171] Garcilasso de fa Vega, First Part of the Royal Commentaries of the Yncas, ii. 34.
[172] Clavigero, History of Mexico, i. 81.
[173] Griffis, Corea, p. 288.