Читать книгу The Origin and Development of the Moral Ideas - Edward Westermarck - Страница 107

27 Scott Robertson, Káfirs of the Hindu-Kush, p. 194.

28 Krasheninnikoff, op. cit. p. 232.

29 Veniaminof, quoted by Petroff, ‘Report on Alaska,’ in Tenth Census of the Untied States, p. 155.

30 Sproat, Scenes and Studies of Savage Life, p. 152.

31 von Humboldt, Personal Narrative of Travels, v. 422.

32 Stirling, in South Ammerican Missionary Magazine, iv. 11. Bridges, in A Voice for South America, xiii. 210.

33 Curr, The Australian Race, i. 64, 85 sq. Mathew, in Jour. & Proceed. Roy. Soc. N. S. Wales, xviii. 398.

34 Codrington, Melanesians, p. 345.

In Savage Island the slaying of a member of another tribe—that is, a potential enemy—“was a virtue rather than a crime.”35 To a young Samoan it was the realisation of his highest ambition to be publicly thanked by the chiefs for killing a foe in mortal combat.36 “According to Fijian beliefs, men who have not slain any enemy are, in the other world, compelled to beat dirt with their clubs—the most degrading punishment the native mind can conceive—because they used their club to so little purpose;37 and in Futuna it was deemed no less necessary to have poured out blood on the field of battle in order to hold a part in the happy future life.38 In the Western islands of Torres Straits “it was a meritorious deed to kill foreigners either in fair fight or by treachery, and honour and glory were attached to the bringing home of the skulls of the inhabitants of other islands slain in battle.”39 In the Solomon Islands,40 New Guinea,41 and various parts of the Malay Archipelago, he who has collected the greatest number of human heads is honoured by his tribe as the bravest man; and some peoples do not allow a man to marry until he has cut off at least one human head.42 Among many of the North American Indians, again, he who can boast of the greatest number of scalps is the person most highly esteemed.43 Among the Seri Indians the highest virtue “is the shedding of alien blood; and their normal impulse on meeting an alien is to kill, unless deterred by fear.”44 Among the Chukchi “it is held criminal to thieve or murder in the family or race to which a person belongs; but these crimes committed elsewhere are not only permitted, but held honourable and glorious.”45 So, too, the Gallas consider it honourable to kill an alien, though criminal to kill a countryman.46

35 Thomson, Savage Island, p. 104. See also ibid. p. 94.

36 Pritchard, Polynesian Reminiscences, p. 57.

37 Seemann, Viti, p. 401. Cf. Williams and Calvert, op. cit. p. 97 sq.; Erskine, Islands of the Western Pacific, p. 248.

38 Smith, in Jour. Polynesian Society, i. 39.

39 Haddon, in Reports of the Cambridge Anthropological Expedition to Torres Straits, v. 277.

40 Romilly, Western Pacific, p. 73. Penny, Ten Years in Melanesia, p. 46. Codrington, op. cit. p. 345.

41 Romilly, Western Pacific, p. 76.

42 Bock, Head-Hunters of Borneo, pp. 216, 221, &c. (Dyaks). Bickmore, Travels in the East Indian Archipelago, p. 205 (Alfura of Ceram). Dalton, op. cit. p. 40 (Nagas of Upper Assam).

43 The well-known practice of scalping, though very common, was not universal among the North American Indians (see Gibbs, ‘Tribes of Western Washington and Northwestern Oregon,’ in Contributions to N. American Ethnology, i. 192; Powers, Tribes of California, p. 321).

44 McGee, ‘Seri Indians,’ in Ann. Rep. Bur. Ethnol. xvii. 132.

45 Georgi, Russia, iii. 183.

46 Macdonald, Africana, i. 229. For other instances, see Harmon, op. cit. p. 301 (Tacullies); Burton, City of the Saints, p. 139 (Dacotahs); Macpherson, Memorials of Service in India, p. 94 (Kandhs); MacMahon, Far Cathay, p. 262 (Indo-Burmese border tribes); Macdonald, Africana, i. 194 sq. (Eastern Central Africans); Johnston, Kilima-njaro Expedition, p. 419 (Masai).

At the same time there are, among the lower races, various instances in which the rule, “Thou shalt not kill,” applies even to foreigners. Hospitality, as will be seen in a subsequent chapter, is a stringent duty in the savage world. Custom requires that the host should entertain and protect a stranger who comes as his guest, and by killing him the host would perpetrate an outrage hardly possible. Moreover, even in the case of intertribal relations, we must not conclude that what is allowed in war is also allowed in times of peace. The prohibition of homicide may extend beyond the tribal border, to members of different tribes who for some reason or other are on friendly terms with each other.47 We must not suppose that a tribe of savages generally either lives in a state of complete isolation, or is always at odds with its neighbours. In Australia, for instance, one tribe of natives, as a rule, entertains amicable relations with one, two, or more other tribes.48 Among the Central Australian natives, say Messrs. Spencer and Gillen, “there is no such thing as one tribe being in a constant state of enmity with another”; on the contrary, where two tribes come into contact with one another on the border land of their respective territories, friendly feelings are maintained between the members of the two.49 Some uncivilised peoples are even said to have no wars. The Veddahs of Ceylon never make war upon each other.50 According to the reports of the oldest inhabitants of Umnak and Unalaska, the people there had never been engaged in war either among themselves or with their neighbours, except once with the natives of Alaska.51 To the Greenlanders described by Dr. Nansen war is “incomprehensible and repulsive, a thing for which their language has no word.”52

47 See, e.g., Scott Robertson, op. cit. p. 194 (Káfirs of the Hindu-Kush).

48 Curr, The Australian Race, i. 62 sq.

49 Spencer and Gillen, Native Tribes of Central Australia, p. 32.

50 Sarasin, op. cit. iii. 488.

51 Coxe, op. cit. p. 244.

52 Nansen, Eskimo Life, p. 162.

That savages to some extent recognise the existence of intertribal rights in times of peace is obvious from certain customs connected with their wars. Some South Sea Islanders and North American Indians consider it necessary for a party which is about to attack another to give notice beforehand of their intention, in order that their opponents may be prepared to meet them.53 The cessation of hostilities is often accompanied by the conclusion of a special treaty and by ceremonies calculated to make it binding.54 The Tahitians, for instance, wove a wreath of green boughs furnished by each side, exchanged two young dogs, and, having also made a band of cloth together, offered the wreath and the band to the gods with imprecations on the side which should first violate so solemn a treaty of peace.55 Nor does savage custom always allow indiscriminate slaughter even in warfare. The inviolability of heralds is not infrequently recognised.56 Among the aborigines of New South Wales the tribal messenger known to be a herald by the red net which he wears round his forehead, passes in safety between and through hostile tribes;57 and among the North American Omahas “the bearer of a peace pipe was generally respected by the enemy, just as the bearer of a flag of truce is regarded by the laws of war among the so-called civilised nations.”58 And many uncivilised races have made it a rule in war to spare the weak and helpless.

53 Hale, U.S. Exploring Expedition. Vol. VI. Ethnography and Philology, p. 72 (Micronesians). Gibbs, loc. cit. p. 190 (Indians of Western Washington and North-Western Oregon).

54 See Farrer, Military Manners and Customs, p. 162 sq.

55 Ellis, Polynesian Researches, i. 318.

56 See Farrer, Militarv Manners and Customs, p. 161.

57 Fraser, Aborigines of New South Wales, p. 41.

58 Dorsey, ‘Omaha Sociology,’ in Ann. Rep. Bur. Ethn. iii. 368.

The Samoans considered it cowardly to kill a woman;59 and even in Fiji the “enlightened party” objected to the killing of women, urging that it is “just as cowardly to kill a woman as a baby.”60 The Abipones, in their wars, “generally spared the unwarlike, and carried away innocent boys and girls unhurt.”61 An old Spanish writer tells us of the Guanches of Gran Canaria that, “in their wars, they held it as base and mean to molest or injure the women and children of the enemy, considering them as weak and helpless, therefore improper objects of their resentment”;62 and similar views prevail among the Berbers (Shluḥ) of Southern Morocco, as also among the Algerian Kabyles63 and the Touareg.64 Though the Masai and Wa-kikuyu “are eternally at war to the knife with each other, there is a compact between them not to molest the womenfolk of either party.”65 “The Masai,” says Mr. Hinde, “never interfere with women in their raids, and the women cheer loudly and encourage their relatives during the fight.”66 Among the Latukas, though women are employed as spies and thus become exceedingly dangerous in war, there is nevertheless a general understanding that no woman shall be killed.67 The Basutos maintain that respect should be paid during war to women, children, and travellers, as also that those who surrender should be spared and open to ransom; and, though these rules are not invariably respected, the public voice always disapproves of their violation.68

59 Turner, Nineteen Years in Polynesia, p. 304.

60 Seemann, Viti, p. 180.

61 Dobrizhoffer, op. cit. ii. 141.

62 Abreu de Galindo, History of the Discovery and Conquest of the Canary Islands, p. 66.

63 Hanoteau and Letourneux, La Kabylie, ii. 76.

64 Hourst, Sur le Niger et au pays des Touaregs, p. 223 sq.

65 Thomson, Through Masai Land, p. 177.

66 Hinde, The Last of the Masai, p. 6, n.*

67 Baker, Albert N’yanza, i. 355.

68 Casalis, op. cit. p. 223 sq. For regard paid to women, old people, and children in war, see also Richardson, Arctic Searching Expedition, i. 367 (Western Eskimo); Catlin, North American Indians, ii. 240; Azara, Voyages, ii. 145 (Payaguas).

Sometimes custom even requires that the life of the captive shall be spared.

It is against Masai tradition to kill prisoners of war.69 Among the Kabyles “il faut que l’exaspération des partis soit extrême pour qu’un blessé ou un prisonnier soit mis à mort.”70 The Touareg do not kill their prisoners after a fight.71 Among the Bedouins of the Euphrates “the person of the enemy is sacred when disarmed or dismounted; and prisoners are neither enslaved nor held to other ransom than their mares.”72 “Captives,” says Mr. Dorsey, “were not slain by the Omahas and Ponkas. When peace was declared the captives were sent home, if they wished to go. If not they could remain where they were, and were treated as if they were members of the tribe.”73 Among the Wyandots prisoners of war were frequently adopted into the tribe. “The warrior taking the prisoner has the first right to adopt him. If no one claims the prisoner for this purpose, he is caused to run the gauntlet as a test of his courage. If at his trial he behaves manfully claimants are not wanting, but if he behaves disgracefully he is put to death.”74

69 Hinde, op. cit. p. 64.

70 Hanoteau and Letourneux, op. cit. 75.

71 Hourst, op. cit. p. 207.

72 Blunt, op. cit. ii. 239.

73 Dorsey, ‘Omaha Sociology,’ in Ann. Rep. Bur. Ethn. iii. 332.

74 Powell, ibid. i. 68.

Thus we notice even among uncivilised races very obvious traces of what is called “international law,”75 if not as a rule, at least as an exception. On the other hand, the readiness with which war is engaged in, not only in self-defence or out of revenge, but for the sake of gain, indicates how little regard is paid to human life outside the tribe. The Kandhs, for instance, maintain “that a state of war may be lawfully presumed against all tribes and nations with whom no express agreement to the contrary exists.”76 And if a few savage peoples live in perpetual peace, it seems that the chief reason for this is not a higher standard of morality, but the absence of all inducements to war.

75 See also Wheeler, The Tribe, and Intertribal Relations in Australia, passim.

76 Hunter, Annals of Rural Bengal, iii. 75.

When we from the lower races pass to peoples more advanced in culture, we find that the social unit has grown larger, that the nation has taken the place of the tribe, and that the circle within which homicide is prohibited as a crime of the first order has been extended accordingly. But the old distinction between injuries committed against compatriots and harm done to foreigners remains. Even when the subject is not touched upon in the laws referring to homicide we may, from the general attitude of the people towards members of other nations, infer that public opinion is not very scrupulous as to the taking of their lives. How the Chinese looked upon the “red-haired barbarians,” the “foreign devils,” is well known from recent history. In former days, Japan’s attitude towards her neighbours and the whole world was that of an enemy and not of a friend.77 The Vedic hymns are full of imprecations of misfortune upon men of another race.78 That among the ancient Teutons the lot of a stranger was not an enviable one is testified even by language; the German word elender has acquired its present meaning from the connotation of the older word which meant an “outlandish” man.79 The stranger as such—unless he belonged to a friendly, neighbouring tribe—had originally no legal rights at all; for his protection he was dependent on individual hospitality, and hospitality was restricted by custom to three days only.80 According to the Swedish Westgöta-Lag, he who killed a foreigner had to pay no compensation to the dead man’s relatives, nor was he outlawed, nor exiled.81 The Laws of King Ine let us understand in what light a stranger was looked upon:—“If a far-coming man, or a stranger, journey through a wood out of the highway, and neither shout nor blow his horn, he is to be held for a thief, either to be slain or redeemed.”82 However, as commerce increased and the stranger was more often seen in Teutonic lands, royal protection was extended to him; and a consequence of this was that thenceforth he who killed the stranger had to pay a wergeld, part, or the whole, of which went to the king.83 In Greece, in early times, the “contemptible stranger”84 had no legal rights, and was protected only in case he was the guest of a citizen;85 and even later on, at Athens, whilst the intentional killing of a citizen was punished with death and confiscation of the murderer’s property, the intentional killing of a non-citizen was punished only with exile.86 The Latin word hostis was originally used to denote a foreigner;87 and the saying of Plautus, that a man is a wolf to a man whom he does not know,88 was probably an echo of an old Roman proverb. Mommsen suggests that in ancient days the Romans did not punish the killing of a foreigner, unless he belonged to an allied nation; but already in the prehistoric period a change was introduced, the foreigner being placed under the protection of the State.89

77 Griffis, Religions of Japan, p. 129.

78 Roth, ‘On the Morality of the Veda,’ in Jour. American Oriental Society, iii. 338.

79 Cf. Grimm, Deutsche Rechtsalterthümer, p. 396; Gummere, Germanic Origins, p. 288.

80 Grimm, op. cit. p. 397 sqq. Brunner, Deutsche Rechtgeschichte, i. 273.

81 Westgöta-Lagen I. Af mandrapi, v. 4 p. 13.

82 Laws of Ine, 20. Cf. Laws of Wihtræd, 28.

83 Brunner, op. cit. i. 273 sq. Gummere, op. cit. p. 288. Pollock and Maitland, History of English Law before the Time of Edward I. i. 52.

84 Iliad, ix. 648.

85 Hermann-Blümner, Lehrsbüch der griechischen Privatalterthümer, p. 492. Schmidt, Ethik der alten Griechen, ii. 325.

86 Meier and Schömann, Der altische Process, p. 379.

87 Cicero, De officiis, i. 12.

88 Plautus, Asinaria, ii. 4. 88.

89 Mommsen, Römisches Strafrecht, p. 622 sqq.

How little regard is felt for the lives of strangers also appears from the readiness with which war is waged on foreign nations, combined with the estimation in which the successful warrior is held by his countrymen. The ancient Mexicans were never at a loss for an excuse to pick a quarrel with their neighbours, so as to be able to procure victims for sacrifices to their gods.90 “No profession was held in more esteem amongst them than the profession of arms. The deity of war was the most revered by them, and regarded as the chief protector of the nation.”91 The Mayas not only wanted to increase their dominions by encroachments upon their neighbours’ territory, but undertook raids with no other object than that of obtaining captives for sacrifice.92 Speaking of the wars of the ancient Egyptians, M. Amélineau observes, “Nous n’avons pas un seul mot dans la littérature égyptienne, même dans les œuvres égypto-chrétiennes, qui nous fasse entendre le plus léger cri de réprobation pour la guerre et ses horreurs.”93 Among the Hebrews the most cruel wars of extermination were expressly sanctioned by their religion. That an idolatrous people had no right to live was taken as a matter of course; but wars were also unscrupulously waged from worldly motives, and in their moral code there is no attempt to distinguish between just and unjust war.94 Among the Mohammedans it is likewise the unbeliever, not the foreigner as such, that is regarded as the most proper object of slaughter. Although there is no precept in the Koran which, taken with the context, justifies unprovoked war,95 the saying that “Paradise is under the shadow of swords”96 is popularly applied to all warfare against infidels. Among the Celts97 and Teutons a man’s highest aspiration was to acquire military glory. The Scandinavians considered it a disgrace for a man to die without having seen human blood flow;98 even the slaying of a tribesman they often regarded lightly when it had been done openly and bravely. In Greece, in ancient times at least, war was the normal relation between different states, and peace an exception, for which a special treaty was required;99 while to conquer and enslave barbarians was regarded as a right given to the Greeks by Nature. The whole statecraft of the early Republic of Rome was no doubt based upon similar principles;100 and in later days, also, the war policy of the Romans was certainly not conducted with that conscientiousness which was insisted upon by some of their writers.