Footnote 133: The victim, by the offer of which the wrath of the god was appeased or his favour solicited, must always be some valued possession of the sacrificer. Hence, e. g., among the Hebrews "wild animals, as not being property, were generally considered unfit for sacrifice." (Mackay, op. cit. ii. 398.) Among the Aztecs (Prescott, loc. cit.) on certain occasions of peculiar solemnity the clan offered some of its own members, usually children. In the lack of prisoners such offerings would more often be necessary, hence one powerful incentive to war. The use of prisoners to buy the god's favour was to some extent a substitute for the use of the clan's own members, and at a later stage the use of domestic animals was a further substitution. The legend of Abraham and Isaac (Genesis, xxii. 1-14) preserves the tradition of this latter substitution among the ancient Hebrews. Compare the Bœotian legend of the temple of Dionysos Aigobolos:—θύοντες γὰρ τῷ θεῷ προήχθησάν ποτε ὑπὸ μέθης ἐς ὕβριν, ὥστε καὶ τοῦ Διονύσου τὸν ἱερέα ἀποκτείνουσιν· ἀποκτείναντας δὲ αὐτίκα ἐπέλαβε νόσος λοιμώδης· καί σφισιν ἀφίκετο ἅμα ἐκ Δελφῶν, τῷ Διονύσῳ θύειν παῖδα ὡραῖον· ἔτεσι δὲ οὐ πολλοῖς ὕστερον τὸν θεόν φασιν αἶγα ἱερεῖον ὑπαλλάξαι σφίσιν ἀντὶ τοῦ παιδός. Pausanias, ix. 8. A further stage of progress was the substitution of a mere inanimate symbol for a living victim, whether human or brute, as shown in the old Roman custom of appeasing "Father Tiber" once a year by the ceremony of drowning a lot of dolls in that river. Of this significant rite Mommsen aptly observes, "Die Ideen göttlicher Gnade und Versöhnbarkeit sind hier ununterscheidbar gemischt mit der frommen Schlauigkeit, welche es versucht den gefährlichen Herrn durch scheinhafte Befriedigung zu berücken und abzufinden." Römische Geschichte, 4e Aufl., 1865, Bd. i. p. 176. After reading such a remark it may seem odd to find the writer, in a footnote, refusing to accept the true explanation of the custom; but that was a quarter of a century ago, when much less was known about ancient society than now.[Back to Main Text]
Footnote 134: Bandelier, op. cit. p. 611.[Back to Main Text]
Footnote 135: There was, however, in this extreme case, a right of sanctuary. If the doomed slave could flee and hide himself in the tecpan before the master or one of his sons could catch him, he became free and recovered his clan-rights; and no third person was allowed to interfere in aid of the pursuer. Torquemada, Monarquía indiana, ii. 564-566.[Back to Main Text]
Footnote 136: Bancroft, Native Races of the Pacific States, vol. ii. p. 251.[Back to Main Text]
Footnote 137: Bandelier, op. cit. pp. 429, 570, 620.[Back to Main Text]
Footnote 138: I here use these world-famous names without any implication as to their historical character, or their precise date, which are in themselves interesting subjects for discussion. I use them as best symbolizing the state of society which existed about the northern and eastern shores of the eastern Mediterranean, several centuries before the Olympiads.[Back to Main Text]
Footnote 139: Morgan, Ancient Society, p. 186, note.[Back to Main Text]
Footnote 140: North Amer. Review, April, 1876. The substance of it was reproduced in his Houses and House-Life, chap. x.[Back to Main Text]
Footnote 141: Houses and House-Life, p. 241.[Back to Main Text]
Footnote 142: Mr. Andrew Lang asks some similar questions in his Myth, Ritual, and Religion, vol. ii. p. 349, but in a tone of impatient contempt which, as applied to a man of Mr. Morgan's calibre, is hardly becoming.[Back to Main Text]