[134] Parkyns, Life in Abyssinia, ii. 182.
[135] Chavanne, Die Sahara, p. 392.
[136] St. John, Adventures in the Lybian Desert, p. 31.
[137] Herodotus, iii. 8.
[138] Burckhardt, Notes on the Bedouins and Wahábys, p. 190 sq.
[139] Wallin, Reseanteckningar från Orienten, iii. 116.
[140] Burckhardt, op. cit. p. 104 sq. Cf. Wallin, op. cit. iv. 89 sq.; Doughty, Arabia Deserta, i. 241.
[141] Blunt, Bedouin Tribes of the Euphrates, ii. 203 sq. Cf. Niebuhr, Travels through Arabia, ii. 302:—“There is no instance of false testimony given in respect to the descent of a horse. Every Arabian is persuaded that himself and his whole family would be ruined, if he should prevaricate in giving his oath in an affair of such consequence.”
Various statements of travellers thus directly contradict the common opinion that want of truthfulness is mostly a characteristic of uncivilised races.[142] And we have much reason to assume that a foreigner visiting a savage tribe is apt rather to underrate than to overestimate its veracity. Mr. Savage Landor gives us a curious insight into an explorer’s method of testing it. “If you were to say to an Ainu, ‘You are old, are you not?’ he would answer ’Yes’; but if you asked the same man, ‘You are not old, are you?’ he would equally answer ‘Yes.’” And then comes the conclusion:—“Knowingly speaking the truth is not one of their characteristics; indeed, they do not know the difference between falsehood and truth.”[143] It is hardly surprising to hear from other authorities that the Ainu are remarkably honest, and regard veracity as one of the most imperative duties.[144] Speaking of the Uaupés and other Brazilian tribes, Mr. Wallace observes:—“In my communications and inquiries among the Indians on various matters, I have always found the greatest caution necessary, to prevent one’s arriving at wrong conclusions. They are always apt to affirm that which they see you wish to believe, and, when they do not at all comprehend your question, will unhesitatingly answer, ‘Yes.’”[145] Savages who are inclined to give inaccurate answers to questions made by strangers, may nevertheless be truthful towards each other. As the regard for life and property, so the regard for truth varies according as the person concerned is a foreigner or a tribesman. “Perfidy and faithlessness,” says Crawfurd, “are vices of the Indian islanders, and those vices of which they have been most frequently accused by strangers. This sentence against them must, however, be understood with some allowances. In their domestic and social intercourse, they are far from being a deceitful people, but in reality possess more integrity than it is reasonable to look for with so much misgovernment and barbarity. It is in their intercourse with strangers and with enemies that, like other barbarians, the treachery of their character is displayed.”[146] The natives of the interior of Sumatra are “dishonest in their dealings with strangers, which they esteem no moral defect.”[147] Dalager states that the same Greenlanders who, among themselves, in the sale of an object which, the buyer had not seen, would depreciate it rather than overpraise it—even though the seller was anxious to get rid of it—told frightful lies in their transactions with Danish traders.[148] The Touareg, whilst scrupulously faithful to a promise given to one of their own people, do not regard as binding a promise given to a Christian;[149] and their Arab neighbours say that their word, “like water fallen on the sand, is never to be found again.”[150] The Masai, according to Herr Merker, hold any kind of deceit to be allowable in their relations with persons of another race.[151] The Hovas of Madagascar even considered it a duty for anyone speaking with foreigners on political matters to state the exact opposite to the truth, and punished him who did otherwise.[152]
[142] Burton, City of the Saints, p. 130. Vierkandt, Naturvölker und Kulturvölker, p. 273. von Jhering, Der Zweck im Recht, ii. 606.