He arrives at [village]. He receives the chicken. He chops off its head. [The priest at this stage chops off the chicken’s head.] Even so [he says] I chop off the life of the fine collector. [The priest blows and swings his arm in the direction of the fine-collector’s house.] Travel thither, Ender, to the house of him who took from us the death blankets. Stay with him. If he goes to get wood, turn the axe into his body. If he travels, push him off the steep. If he sleeps, sleep with him. In the middle of the night stab him, and we will hear about it with the rising sun. For we are poverty stricken. We owed them no debt, yet they have taken our pigs and our chickens and our death blankets and our rice [etc.]. We are to be pitied, alas!”
Other deities that may be sent against the fine collector are the Spider-webbed One, the Smotherer, Dysentery, the Short-winded One, the Trapper, the Twister.
Appendix 3: Parricide
A rather startling case was called before the Court of First Instance in Kiangan in December, 1913. Limitit of Ayangan was charged with having murdered his father. The phrase “Are you guilty or not guilty?” translated into Ifugao changes significance slightly, and stands “Are you at fault or not at fault?” With a candor almost pitiable, Limitit admitted the facts in the case, but pleaded “not at fault.” “He was my father,” he said. “I had a right to kill him. I am blameless, for I provided a generous funeral feast for him.”
Interrogation developed that Dilagan, the father, was a spendthrift. He had raised a sum of money—possibly for the purpose of gambling—by pawning, balal, his son’s rice field. The son was angry, but Dilagan promised faithfully to redeem the field by planting time. But planting time came round, and Dilagan was unable to keep his promise and redeem the field. In a quarrel over this matter, the son lost patience and killed his father. So far as I am able to ascertain, his act is justified, or at the very least, condoned by his co-villagers. They excuse him on two grounds:
First, the old man was worthless, and deserved killing for having wronged his son. Even though the damage done was not irremediable, it was probable that it would be repeated, and that he would impoverish his son for life.
Second, the old man was Limitit’s father, and Limitit had the right on that account to kill him if he wanted to; at least it was the business of nobody else.
The American court, if I remember aright, sentenced Limitit to life imprisonment. He died shortly after being incarcerated.
Another case of parricide was that of Bayungubung of Kurug. He killed his father for the same reason that Limitit killed Dilagan: that is, for the wrongful pawning of a field.