There is a remarkable method practised among some savages for quelling a refractory wild animal when caught alive; and here, as in some other instances, we find Western Africa in curious agreement with North America. Mr. Kane went out with a Cree Indian to hunt the buffalo, and killed a cow which was followed by her calf. “Wishing,” he says, “to take the calf alive, so that it might carry itself to the camp, I pursued and caught it, and, tying my sash round its neck, endeavoured to drag it along; but it plunged and tried so violently to escape that I was about to kill it, when the Indian took hold of its head, and turning up its muzzle, spat two or three times into it, when, much to my astonishment, the animal became perfectly docile, and followed us quietly to the camp, where it was immediately cooked for supper.”[269.1] There is no ground for doubting the facts related by the traveller, however we may account for them. The same procedure was adopted by a turtle-fisher with whom Mr. Winwood Reade went sporting on one occasion in Western Africa. A turtle was caught, and on being hauled into the canoe the man “welcomed him by patting him on the head and spitting down his mouth.” The turtles, however, are not always so submissive as Mr. Kane’s buffalo-calf; for the fisherman showed Mr. Reade a scar on his arm, which a turtle had once inflicted in retribution.[269.2] Exactly the same prescription is adopted by the Icelandic parson to lay a ghost. He spits down his throat, or in his face; and the performance is said to be effective.[269.3]
In some of the foregoing illustrations protection against the Evil Eye, or the driving away of evil spirits, has appeared as the reason for spitting. The habit is one almost universal as a counter-charm to witchcraft. If we look at it a little more closely we shall see that it is ultimately referable to the same idea as other spitting customs, namely, that of effecting union between the person spitting and the object on which his saliva falls. This may be done by spitting upon one’s clothes, money, or other property, so as to guard them against attack, as in the case of the gamester’s money or his chair. In Chester County, Pennsylvania, Dr. Brinton records that boys always used to spit on a pair of new boots; and it was important to prevent others from doing the same: hence frequent struggles and teasing at school.[270.1] The superstition is derived from Europe, where Reginald Scot prescribed, centuries ago, and Pliny centuries before him, spitting into the right shoe before putting it on: a similar practice to that said to be still in use in some parts of Scandinavia of spitting into one’s bed before lying down, spitting upon the floor before rising, upon the grass before sitting down, or into a spring before drinking from it.[270.2] Captain Binger’s host in one of the villages on the tributaries of the upper Niger never put on his trousers without spitting into them, and never sat down without spitting on the seat.[270.3] A Clal-lum of North America on meeting an enemy will spit into his own blanket if he happen to be wearing one at the time.[270.4] In the same way a maiden in Theocritus, on repelling a lover who attempted to kiss her, spat thrice in the breast of her gown.[270.5] Pliny describes the Roman practice of spitting into the lap as a method of asking pardon of the gods, when indulging in some extravagant hope. It is more probably to be assigned to the kind of superstitions we are now dealing with. In the same chapter he mentions the practice of spitting into one’s urine as a counter-charm.[271.1] Parallel with the latter practice is that alluded to by Delrio of spitting thrice on one’s hair-combings before throwing them away.[271.2] In various parts of Italy, if a stone become lodged in a horse’s hoof, it is usual to take the precaution of spitting on it before throwing it away.[271.3] In addition to the Scandinavian customs just mentioned we also find those of spitting on throwing water out of doors, of spitting on the straw worn in the shoe before throwing it away, into the bath-water of a new-born child, into the water in which another has washed before washing in it oneself (a practice not unknown in England) and others all referable to the same purpose.[271.4] The Transylvanian Saxons used to spit on the four corners of a new house, saying a prayer at each corner and kissing it; and to protect their belongings from envy they spit and repeat a certain spell every morning on stepping out over the threshold of the house.[271.5] In Silesia it is proper to spit into the fodder given to a horse, so as to protect it from witchcraft.[271.6] In Lesbos it is customary to spit on beholding a handsome person (man or woman), a sleek, well-fed horse, cow or sheep, a good milch-goat, or a fruitful tree, in order to preserve the object in question from the Evil Eye.[272.1] In America a Negro, on turning back in a path, makes a cross with his foot and spits in it, lest misfortune overtake him the next time he passes that way.[272.2]
Another course is to spit on the witch. For this cause the Romans used to spit on meeting not only a lame man, but apparently also an epileptic; for although Pliny speaks of the latter habit as intended to repel contagion, it is more likely a modification of an earlier habit of spitting on the unfortunate person. In Sicily still it is the custom to spit behind a hunchback or a sorcerer. A mother will spit at any one who admires her child, the moment he has turned his back. And when a woman is in the pains of childbirth, one of her attendant friends will go to the window and spit thrice, looking sternly all about, as if she hoped to find and reach with her saliva the witch who is retarding delivery. The Roman nurses used to spit on the ground when a stranger entered, or when any one looked at their sleeping charges.[272.3] A Russian nurse, with less civilised manners, is said to spit straight in the face of anybody who praises the babe without adding: “God save the bargain!”[272.4] In Corsica a bewitched child is made to spit in the witch’s mouth.[272.5] It is a Norse custom to spit on meeting a witch. In the Gironde people sometimes spit thrice in passing a witch’s dwelling. In Germany there seems to be a similar practice when passing any haunted water by night. The Romans spat when passing a place where they had incurred any danger. The intention here is by spitting on the evil thing so to bring it on your side as to prevent its doing you any ill; and the same may be conjectured of the incident said to occur in a Russian tale where the Devil is made to flee by spitting upwards, and of the rite of exorcism on the Gaboon, where the practitioner spits to right and left of the possessed person. The Conibos of South America spit on the ground when they meet evil spirits or persons whom they suppose capable of injuring them.[273.1]
A third course is to get the witch to spit on her victim. This is considered effective in the Aran Islands, where the possessor of an evil eye is required to spit on any one whom he may have affected, and to say: “God bless you!”[273.2] Captain Bourke mentions a Mexican case where a horse was suffering from the Evil Eye. “The man accused of casting the spell admitted his guilt, but said that he would cure the animal at once. He filled his mouth with water, spat upon the horse’s neck, and rubbed and patted the place until it was dry.” The horse recovered in due course.[273.3] For the same reason in Italy the dust of the witch’s footprint is flung over the person or cattle bewitched, and the Persians scrape the mud from the sorcerer’s shoes and rub the part affected.[273.4] The principle is that of taking “a hair of the dog that bit you,” to which I have already sufficiently referred.
The saliva of sacred personages, as we might expect, is of much importance. In this connection the performances of Christian as well as heathen priests in exorcism and other rites will be remembered. The Tunguz shaman, called in to cure a sick man, “takes the patient’s head between his hands, sucks his brow, spits in his face, and fixedly looks at the affected part.”[274.1] A Tcheremiss conjuror pronounces his spells over a vessel of water, beer, milk or salt and bread, blows or spits upon the contents, and then gives them to the invalid to drink or eat, as the case may be.[274.2] In Central Australia the old men are the performers of all important tribal ceremonies. They are credited with shamanistic powers; and their treatment of disease is by spurting a mouthful of water over the stricken member and then sucking it.[274.3] On the Paraguay River, the Guaná medicine-man, when called to attend a patient, spits in the course of his ceremonies strenuously on the suffering spot.[274.4] Spitting, in fact, when performed by properly qualified practitioners, is a powerful remedy. Vespasian is said to have restored his sight to an inhabitant of Alexandria by spitting on his eyes.[274.5] The old thaumaturgists of the Church were not wont to be outdone by any one—not even by their Lord, still less by a heathen Pontifex Maximus. Accordingly, we find Hilarion (the saint, it will be recollected, who had so excellent a nose) repeating Vespasian’s miracle on a woman, also in Egypt.[274.6] More purely spiritual are some other uses of spitting. At Foochow, in China, when a family removes to a house previously occupied by another family, a priest first of all cleanses the dwelling by spirting water from his mouth, or scattering it direct from the bowl he carries; and on returning from a funeral the priest stands at the house-door and spirts from his mouth water over the members of the bereaved family to purify them, repeating as he does so a short formula.[275.1] Among the Khonds the Meriah, previous to his sacrifice, was paraded through the village, when hairs were plucked from his head by the people, while some begged for a drop of his saliva, with which they anointed their own heads.[275.2] Dr. Wolf, when in Abyssinia, being mistaken for the new Abuna, or bishop, was compelled to spit upon the people, and to have his feet washed that the devotees might drink the water of ablution.[275.3] Cases like these are ambiguous: a different and simpler interpretation may be put upon them. In view, however, of other customs relating to saliva, we shall probably not be straining the analogy by describing the fundamental idea rather as the desire for union with the divinity, than the ascription of an inherent power to his emanations.
Having now sketched the results arrived at by Professor Robertson Smith and other distinguished anthropologists in reference to the blood-covenant, and briefly discussed several forms of the rite, I have endeavoured to put before the reader a series of parallel usages with saliva. This has led us to other superstitions more closely related to those of sorcery, medicine and worship earlier passed in review. In all these alike we have found the same ideas—the ideas, namely, which form the core of the incident of the Life-token and the practices it embodies. Armed with the conclusions drawn from the consideration of the blood-covenant, we will go on to examine some other social institutions and ceremonies on various planes of civilisation.
CHAPTER XIII.
FUNERAL RITES.
If I have made clear the corporate character of the clan, or gens, as conceived by savage thought, the reader will have understood how completely the clan is regarded as an unity, literally and not metaphorically one body, the individual members of which are as truly portions as the fingers or the legs are portions of the external, visible body of each of them. We saw in previous chapters that a severed limb, a lock of hair or a nail-clipping, was still regarded as in some invisible but real union with the body whereof it once, in outward appearance also, formed part; and any injury inflicted on the severed portion was inflicted on the bulk. The individual member of a clan was in exactly the same position as a lock of hair cut from the head, or an amputated limb. He had no separate significance, no value apart from his kin. More than that: as we shall see hereafter, injury inflicted on him was inflicted on, and was felt by, the whole kin, just as an injury inflicted on the severed lock or limb was felt by the bulk. This unity of the clan is constantly renewed by the common meal, where the same food is partaken of, and becomes incorporated into the essence of all who share it. In strictness commensal rights belong only to the kin. To eat together means to be of the same flesh and blood, for none others could do so. Such a rule of course came to be modified as soon as hospitality was recognised as a duty or a privilege. But the stranger admitted as a guest to the meal became by that act a temporary member of the kin. The rights conceded to him so long as he remained a guest were the rights of kinship, and entailed corresponding liabilities. He could not, however, share the common meal in its most solemn form, namely, the totem sacrifice, without becoming a blood-brother, and thus entering the kin as a permanent member. In mingling his blood with the blood of the clan, and feeding with them on the totem-animal, he became one with them as much as if he had been already united with them in a common descent. Abandoning his former country and kin and worship, he identified himself with a new organism having a different domicile with different rights and interests and a different cult.
The common meal was thus the pledge and witness of the unity of the kin, because it was the chief means, if not of making, at least of repairing and renewing it. And its importance is emphasised everywhere by its repetition upon every solemn occasion, and by its forming the centre of the entire ritual. This may be taken for granted of many such occasions; but it may seem strange to assign it a position so prominent in some. It is not obvious, for instance, how it can be the most important act of a funeral. The funeral feast, however, is probably universal; and in savage communities it is difficult to overrate its significance. The most archaic form, if barbarity be a test of archaism, in which it is known to us, is where the meat is nothing less than the corpse of the departed kinsman. Cannibalism in any form excites so much horror in civilised mankind that we hesitate to believe it is a stage through which we have all passed. But it is certainly a custom very widely spread and characteristic of a low plane of culture. We cannot, and we need not, now discuss cannibalism in general. Of all the forms it has ever assumed, the most horrible is that of the eating of the bodies of our nearest and dearest; and that is the form we have to consider.
In considering it, and recalling, as we must, some of the repulsive details of the rite, we cannot do better than begin by reminding ourselves of the anecdote related by Herodotus of the Persian king, Darius, to illustrate the power of custom. He tells us that the monarch once called into his presence some Greeks, who were in the habit of burning their dead, and asked them for what reward they would be willing to devour the bodies of their parents. They replied, of course, that nothing would induce them to do such a thing. Then summoning certain Kalatiai, an Indian people who used to eat their dead, in the presence of the Greeks (who were informed by an interpreter of what was being said) he put the converse question to them, for how much they would burn their deceased parents. They, on the other hand, broke out into exclamations, begging him to desist from such ill-omened language. Leaving the moral of this story to be digested as we proceed, we may review some of the other accounts by ancient and modern travellers of the practice under consideration. The Father of History ascribes it not only to the Kalatiai. Among Indian peoples he mentions the Padaioi, concerning whom he furnishes us with a little more detail. The Padaioi were a race of nomads alleged to feed on raw flesh. When any of the tribesmen fell sick they were mercilessly put to death by their most intimate associates, by which expression is perhaps meant their fellow-clansmen. The men were killed by the men, and the women by the women. They sacrificed all who arrived at old age, and feasted upon them. But these were not numerous, because they slaughtered every one attacked by disease. That even the latter were intended to be eaten is clear from the reason for putting them to death, namely, that otherwise as they were wasted by sickness their flesh would be utterly spoilt.[280.1] In this respect they differed for the worse from the Massagetai, the Scythian nation whose fierce and masculine queen overcame the mighty Cyrus. They only ate the aged. Those who died of disease they stowed away in the earth, accounting it a misfortune that they had not come to be sacrificed. The kindred of an old man would assemble and immolate him, as well as other animals at the same time; and then boiling the flesh all together they would feast upon it. The Issedones, also Scythians, seem to have been somewhat less savage, for we gather that they waited until a natural death removed the aged. When once a man’s father was dead, the rite, however, was not different from that of the Massagetai, save that we are told they preserved the skull, set it in gold, and used it at their solemn yearly festivals.[280.2] Herodotus is not the only writer of antiquity who attributes this kind of cannibalism to savage tribes. The geographer Strabo likewise records of the Derbikes in the Caucasus that the men of seventy and upwards were put to death and eaten by their nearest kinsmen, but the women were buried; for they never used for food the flesh of any female animal. And the ancient Irish, more savage, he tells us, than the Britons, considered it praiseworthy to devour their dead fathers, though he admits very fairly that his authority for the statement is not decisive.[281.1] In the Middle Ages Marco Polo found a tribe in Tartary, whose capital he calls Chandul, who used to cook and eat men condemned to death. Those who died by natural means, on the other hand, they did not eat.[281.2] It is doubtful whether he refers to criminals as thus eaten; and he is silent as to who joined in the feast. No such ambiguity attaches to the usage reported by the Venetian adventurer as existing in the kingdom of Deragola on the island of Sumatra. The savages of this kingdom, when any kinsman fell sick, used to send for their shamans, who made incantations to ascertain whether he would recover. If the answer were favourable, nature was left to do her best; if unfavourable, they sent for the professional slaughterman, by whom he was suffocated and cooked. The next of kin then assembled and devoured him, afterwards enclosing his bones in a coffin, which was put away in a mountain cavern.[281.3] Less authentic are the accounts preserved by the author of Sir John Maundeville’s travels concerning the East Indian islands. He attributes a similar practice to the inhabitants of islands he calls Caffolos and Dondun. Of that of Rybothe he relates that a dead body is given to the birds of prey, but that the son of the deceased makes a feast, and serves the flesh of the head to his particular friends, making a drinking cup of the skull, which he uses for the rest of his life.[282.1] Other mediæval writers ascribe the same species of cannibalism to Tibetan tribes.[282.2]