On the same principle, when a parent has lost a child by any disease which, as is usually the case, can be attributed to fascination or other demoniacal influence, it is a common practice to call the next baby by some opprobrious name, with the intention of so depreciating it that it may be regarded as worthless, and so protected from the Evil Eye of the envious. Thus a male child is called Kuriya or “Dunghill;” Kadheran or Ghasîta, “He that has been dragged along the ground;” Dukhi or Dukhita, “The afflicted one;” Phatingua, “Grasshopper;” Jhingura, “Cricket;” Bhîkhra or Bhîkhu, “Beggar;” Gharîb, “Poor,” and so on. So, a girl is called Andhrî, “Blind;” Tînkauriyâ or Chhahkauriyâ, “She that was sold for three or six cowry shells;” Dhuriyâ, “Dusty;” Machhiyâ, “Fly,” and so on.[7]
All this is connected with what the Scotch call “fore-speaking,” when praise beyond measure, praise accompanied with a sort of amazement or envy, is considered likely to be followed by disease or accident.[8] Thus Professor Rhys writes of the Isle of Man:[9] “You will never get a Manxman to say that he is very well. He usually admits that he is ‘middling;’ and if by any chance he risks a stronger adjective, he hastens to qualify it by saying ‘now’ or ‘just now,’ with an emphasis indicative of his anxiety not to say too much. His habits of speech point back to the time when the Manx mind was dominated by the fear of awaking malignant influences in the spirit world around him.” So, in Ireland, to avoid being suspected of having the Evil Eye, it is necessary when looking at a child to say, “God bless it!” and when passing a farmyard where the cows are collected for milking to say, “The blessing of God be on you and all your labour!”[10]
The same customs prevail in India. Thus, if a native gentleman brings his child to visit a European, he dislikes to hear it praised, unless the praise be accompanied with some pious ejaculation. And it is safer to speak in a complimentary way of some conspicuous ornament or piece of dress, which is always put on as a protective.
In connection with the question of naming, a reference may be made to some taboos which are probably based on similar principles. A name is part of a person in the belief of savages, and a man can be injured through his name as well as through the parings of his nails or hair, which are carefully looked after. Thus with all Hindus two names are given to children, one secret and used only for ceremonial purposes, and the other for ordinary use. The witch if she learns the real name can work her evil charms through it.[11] Hence arises the use of many contractions and perversions of the real name and many of the nicknames which are generally given to children, as well as the ordinary terms of endearment which are constantly employed. We have this name taboo coming out in a cycle of folk-tales, such as “Rumpelstilzchen,” “Tom Titty Tot,” and “Whuppity Stoorie.” Here the imp or gnome has a secret name of his own, which he thinks it impossible for any one to find out, and he himself uses it only when he thinks he is sure to be alone.
This seems to be the most rational explanation of the curious taboo according to which a Hindu woman will not name her husband, or if she wants to refer to him, does so in some indirect way as the father of her child and so on. To this, however, there is one notable exception. Thus, writing of Bombay, Mr. Campbell says:[12] “At marriages, coming of age, first pregnancy and festive days, such as the Nâgpanchamî and Mangalâ Gaurî in August, it is usual for the woman to recite some couplet or verse in which the husband’s name occurs. At marriages this naming is, in practice, little more than a game. An old man or an old lady gets close to the door and refuses to allow the young women to go until they have told their husbands’ name. At the pregnancy ceremony the same custom is observed.” Mr. Campbell takes this to be “part of a ceremony whose object is to drive to a distance any spirits whose influence might blight the tender life of the unborn child. This seems natural when it is remembered that the names of men are either the names of gods, of precious stones, or of spices, all of which have a power to scare spirits; and as repeating the thousand names of Mahâdeva is a service in which he greatly delights, apparently because it keeps spirits at a distance, so this repeating of the husband’s and wife’s name seems to have the same object.” The name, in other words, is kept secret on account of its sanctity, and the custom would be based on the same rules of taboo which have been designed among most savages for the protection of kings and other persons of dignity from the influence of evil spirits.
Another mode of protecting boys from demoniacal influence is based on the same idea of the blot of imperfection. Boys of rich parents are often dressed in mean or filthy clothes so that they may be considered unworthy of the malicious glance of some envious neighbour or enemy.
Still another device, that of dressing up the boy during infancy as a girl, in other words a pretended change of sex, may perhaps lead us on the track of a possible explanation of some very curious and obscure practices in Europe. We know that legends of actual change of sex are not unknown in Indian folk-lore. Thus, we have the very primitive legend of Idâ or Ilâ, who was the daughter of the Manu Vaivaswata, who prayed to Mitra and Varuna for a boy and was given a girl. But the prayers of her father to the deities resulted in her being changed into a man, Sudyumna. Siva changed him back again into a woman, and she, as Ilâ, became the wife of Budha. In more modern times we have the very similar story of the daughter of the Bhadauriya Râja. He had a daughter, who was seized by force for the seraglio of the Emperor at Delhi, but she fled to the temple of Devî at Batesar and by the aid of the goddess was changed into a boy. By another version of the tale he arranged with another Râja that their children should be contracted, if one chanced to be a boy and the other a girl. Both had daughters, but the Râja concealed the circumstance and allowed the marriage to go on as if his child was a son. When the fraud was detected the girl tried to commit suicide in the Jumnâ, but came out a boy, and everyone was satisfied.[13]
One explanation of the custom of pretended change of sex as shown in the case of the Amazons, has been thus explained by Mr. Abercromby:[14] “The great desire of women, more especially during a period of warlike barbarism, is to bear male children. Turning our attention to the result of flattening a girl’s breasts and letting her wear male attire, it is obvious that a sex distinction has been obliterated, and she has become externally assimilated to a male youth. Moreover, the object has evidently been intentional. It would be no outrage to the reasoning powers of the Sarmatians to suppose that they believed a woman’s chances of bearing male children were vastly enhanced by her wearing a man’s dress, and by being in some degree conformed to the male type by forcible compression of the breasts during maidenhood. They would argue thus: a woman wants to bear male children, therefore she ought to be made as much like a man as possible. A conviction of this kind is gained by a process identical with the immature reasoning that underlies what is called sympathetic magic.”
This may possibly be one explanation of the practice among Chamârs and other low castes in Northern India, when at marriages boys dress up as women and perform a rude and occasionally obscene dance. Among the Modh Brâhmans of Gujarât, at marriages, the bridegroom’s maternal uncle, whose special position is almost certainly a survival from times when descent through the mother was the only recognized form, dresses as a Jhanda or Pathân Faqîr, whose ghost is dangerous, in woman’s clothes from head to waist, and in men’s clothes below, rubs his face with oil, daubs it with red powder, goes with the bride and bridegroom to a place where two roads meet (which, as we have seen, is a haunt of spirits), and stays there till the pair offer the goddess food.[15]
Now, there are numerous customs which have been grouped in Europe under the name of the False Bride. Thus, among the Esthonians the false bride is enacted by the bride’s brother dressed in woman’s clothes; in Polonia by a bearded man called the Wilde Brant; in Poland, by an old woman veiled in white, and lame; again, among the Esthonians, by an old woman with a birch-bark crown; in Brittany, where the substitutes are first a little girl, then the mistress of the house, and lastly, the grandmother.[16]