To sum up all the facts which Dr. Steinmetz has adduced as evidence for his hypothesis of an original stage of "undirected" revenge only show, that under certain circumstances, either in a fit of passion, or when the actual offender is unknown or out of reach, revenge may be taken on an innocent being, wholly unconnected with the inflicter of the injury which it is sought to revenge. There is such an intimate connection between the experience of injury, and the hostile reaction by which the injured individual gives vent to his passion, that the reaction does not fail to appear even when it misses its aim. Anger, as Seneca said, "does not rage merely against its object, but against every obstacle which it encounters on its way. Many infants, when angry and powerless to hurt others, "strike their heads against doors, posts, walls of houses, and sometimes on the floor."2 Well known are the "amucks" of the Malays, in which "the desperado assails indiscriminately friend and foe,' and, with dishevelled hair and frantic look, murders or wounds all whom he meets without distinction. But all this is not revenge; it is sudden anger or blind rage. Nor is it revenge in the true sense of the word if a person who has been humiliated by his superior retaliates on those under him. It is only the outburst of a wounded “selffeeling," which, when not directed against its proper object, can afford no adequate consolation to a revengeful man. In the institution of the blood-feud some sort of collective responsibility is usually involved.* If the 1 Seneca, De ira, iii. 1. 2 Stanley Hall, 'A Study of Anger,' in American Jour. of Psychology, x. 554. 3 Crawfurd, History of the Indian Archipelago, i. 67. Cf. Ellis, 'The Amok of the Malays,' in Jour. of Mental Science, xxxix. 325 sqq. In the Andaman Islands, it is not uncommon for a man "to vent his ill-temper, or show his resentment at any act, by destroying his own property as well as that of his neighbours" (Man, 'Aboriginal Inhabitants of the Andaman Islands,' in Jour. Anthr. Inst. xii. III). Among the Kar Nicobarese, when a quarrel takes place, in serious cases, a man will probably burn his own house down (Kloss, In the Andamans and Nicobars, p. 310). But in these instances it is not certain whether the offended party destroys his own property in blind rage, or with some definite object in view. 4 Cf. Post, Anfänge des Staats- und Rechtsleben, p. 180; Rée, op. cit. p. 49 sq.; Steinmetz, op. cit. i. ch. vi. offender is of another family than his victim, some of his relatives may have to expiate his deed. If he belongs to another clan, the whole clan may be held responsible for it. And if he is a member of another tribe, the vengeance may be wreaked upon his fellow-tribesmen indiscriminately.3 ... 994 Among the Fuegians," says Mr. Bridges, " etiquette and custom require that all the relatives of a murdered person should . . . visit their displeasure upon every connection of the manslayers, each personally." The avengers of blood would by no means be satisfied with a party of natives if they should actually deliver up into their hands a manslayer, or kill him themselves, "but would yet exact from all the murderer's friends tribute or infliction of injuries with sticks or stones.' Among the Indians of British Columbia and Vancouver Island, "grudges are handed down from father to son for generations, and friendly relations are never free from the risk of being interrupted." Among the Greenlanders, the revenge for a murder generally "costs the executioner himself, his children, cousins, or other relatives their lives; or, if these are inaccessible, some other acquaintance in the neighbourhood." 6 Among the Maoris, blood-revenge might be taken on any relative of the homicide, "no matter how distant." In Tana, y Godwin-Austen, ibid. ii. 394 (Garo Hill tribes). 1 Besides the authorities quoted infra, see Leuschner, in Steinmetz, Rechtsverhältnisse von eingeborenen Völkern in Afrika und Ozeanien, p. 23 (Bakwiri); ibid. p. 49 (Banaka and Bapuku); Rautanen, ibid. p. 341 (Ondonga); Walter, ibid. p. 390 (natives of Nossi-Bé and Mayotte, near Madagascar); von Langsdorf, Voyages and Travels, i. 132 (Nukahivans); Forbes, A Naturalist's Wanderings in the Eastern Archipelago, p. 473 (Timorese); Foreman, Philippine Islands, p. 213 (Igorrotes of Luzon); Kovalewsky, in Jour. Anthr. Inst. xxv. 113 (people of Daghestan); Idem, Coutume_contemporaine et loi ancienne, p. 248 sq. (Ossetes); Merzbacher, Aus den Hochregionen des Kaukasus, ii. 51 (Khevsurs). 2 ^ Bridges, in A Voice for South America, xiii. 207 (Fuegians). Dorsey, 'Omaha Sociology,' in Ann. Rep. Bur. Ethn. iii. 369. Ridley, in Jour. Anthr. Inst. ii. 268 (Kamilaroi in Australia). 3 7 von Martius, Beiträge zur Ethnographie Amerika's, i. 127 sqq. (Brazilian Indians). Crawfurd, op. cit. iii. 124 (natives of Celebes). Kohler, in Zeitschr. f. vgl. Rechtswiss. vii. 383 (Goajiros of Columbia). Ibid. vii. 376 (Papuans of New Guinea). Curr, The Australian Race, i. 70. Scaramucci and Giglioli, 'Notizie sui Danakil,' in Archivio per l'antropologia e la etnologia, xiv. 39. Leuschner, in Steinmetz, Rechtsverhältnisse, p. 23 (Bakwiri). Ibid. p. 49 (Banaka and Bapuku). Bridges, in South American Missionary Magazine, xiii. 151 sqq. 5 Macfie, Vancouver Island and British Columbia, p. 470. 6 Cranz, History of Greenland, i. 178. 7 Shortland, Traditions and Superstitions of the New Zealanders, p. 213 sq. Cf. ibid. p. 218 sq. revenge" is often sought in the death of the brother, or some other near relative of the culprit."1 Among the Kabyles, "la vengeance peut porter sur chacun des membres de la famille du meurtrier, quel qu'il soit.” 2 The Bedouins, according to Burckhardt, "claim the blood not only from the actual homicide, but from all his relations; and it is these claims that constitute the right of thár, or the blood-revenge."3 Among the people of Ibrim, in Nubia, on the other hand, the same traveller observes, "it is not considered as sufficient to retaliate upon any person within the fifth degree of consanguinity, as among the Bedouins of Arabia; only the brother, son, or first cousin can supply the place of the murderer."4 Traces of collective responsibility in connection with blood-revenge are found among the Hebrews. It has prevailed, or still prevails, among the Japanese and Coreans, the Persians and Hindus, the ancient Greeks 10 and Teutons.11 It was a rule among the Welsh 12 and the Scotch in former days, 13 and is so still in Corsica,14 Albania,15 and among some of the Southern Slavs. 16 In Montenegro, if a homicide who cannot be caught himself has no relatives, revenge is sometimes taken on some inhabitant of the village or district to which he belongs, or even on a person who only is of the same religion and nationality as the murderer.17 In Albania, under similar circumstances, the victim may be a person who has had nothing else to do with the offender than that he has perhaps once been speaking to him.18 6 There is no difficulty in explaining these facts. The following statement made by Mr. Romilly with reference 1 Turner, Samoa, p. 317. 2 Hanoteau and Letourneux, La Kabylie, iii. 61. 3 Burckhardt, Notes on the Bedouins and Wahábys, p. 85. See, also, Layard, Discoveries in the Ruins of Nineveh and Babylon, p. 306; Lane, Manners and Customs of the Modern Egyptians, i. 133. 4 Burckhardt, Travels in Nubia, p. 128. 5 2 Samuel, xiv. 7. Cf. ibid. xxi. 7 Griffis, Corea, p. 227. People of India, p. 195. 10 Leist, Alt-arisches Jus Gentium, P. 424. 11 Gotlands-Lagen, 13. 12 Walter, Das alte Wales, p. 138. 13 Mackintosh, History of Civilisation in Scotland, ii. 279. 14 Gregorovius, Wanderings in Corsica, i. 179. 15 Gopčević, Obaralbanien und seine Liga, p. 324 sqq. 16 Miklosich, Die Blutrache bei den Slaven,' in Denkschriften der kaiserl. Akademie d. Wissensch. Philos.-histor. Classe, Vienna, xxxvi. 131, 146 sq. Krauss, Sitte und Brauch der Südslaven, P. 39. 17 Lago, Memorie sulla Dalmazia, ii. 90. 18 Gopčević, op. cit. p. 325. " 1 3 2 to the Solomon Islanders has, undoubtedly, a much wider application :-" In the cases which call for punishment, the difficulties in the way of capturing the actual culprits are greater than any one, who has not been engaged in this disagreeable work, can imagine. Though it may happen that a manslayer is abandoned by his own people, the system of blood-revenge more often seems to imply, not only that all the members of a group are engaged, more or less effectually, in the act of revenge, but that they mutually protect each other against the avengers. A Α homicide frequently provokes a war, in which family v stands against family, clan against clan, or tribe against tribe. In such cases the whole group take upon themselves the deed of the perpetrator, and any of his fellows, because standing up for him, becomes a proper object of revenge. The guilt extends itself, as it were, in the eyes of the offended party. So, also, any person who lives on friendly terms with the offender, or is supposed to sympathise with him, is liable to arouse a feeling of resentment, and may consequently, in extreme cases, have to expiate his crime. Moreover, because of the close relationship which exists between the members of the same group, the actual culprit will be mortified by any successful attack that the avengers make on his people, and, if he be dead, its painful and humiliating effects may still be supposed to reach his spirit. "When the offender himself is beyond the reach of direct attack," says Mr. Wilkins, "it is not beneath a Bengali's view to try to wound him through his children or other members of his family." Among the South Slavonians, in a similar case, the avengers of blood first attempt to kill the father, brother, 1 Romilly, Western Pacific and New Guinea, p. 81. Cf. Friedrichs, 'Mensch und Person,' in Das Ausland, 1891, p. 299. 2 See, e.g., Scott Robertson, The Kafirs of the Hindu-Kush, p. 440. 3 Dr. Post's statement (Die Geschlechtsgenossenschaft der Urzeit, p. 156) that the blood-revenge "characVOL. I " 4 terisirt sich... ganz und gar als ein 4II. D " 2 or grown-up son of the murderer, "so as to inflict upon him a very heavy and painful loss "; and only when this has been tried in vain, are more distant relatives attacked.1 The Bedouins of the Euphrates even prefer killing the chief man among the murderer's relations within the second degree to taking his own life, on the principle, "You have killed my cousin, I will kill yours. And the Californian Nishinam "consider that the keenest and most bitter revenge which a man can take is, not to slay the murderer himself, but his dearest friend." In these instances vengeance is exacted with reference rather to the loss suffered by the survivors than to the injury committed against the murdered man, the culprit being subjected to a deprivation similar to that which he has inflicted himself. So, also, among the Marea, if a commoner is slain by a nobleman, his death is not avenged directly on the slayer, but on some commoner who is subservient to him.4 If, again, among the Quianganes of Luzon, a noble is killed by a plebeian, another nobleman, of the kin of the murderer, must be killed, while the murderer himself is ignored. If, among the Igorrotes, a man slays a woman of another house, her nearest kinsman endeavours to slay a woman belonging to the household of the homicide, but to the guilty man himself he does nothing. In all these cases the culprit is not lost sight of; vengeance is invariably wreaked upon somebody connected with him. But any consideration of guilt or innocence is overshadowed by the blind subordination to that powerful rule which requires strict equivalence between injury and punishment-an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth-and which, when strained to the utmost, cannot allow the life of a man to be sacrificed for that of a woman, or the life of a nobleman to be 1 Krauss, op. cit. p. 39. 2 Blunt, Bedouin Tribes of the Euphrates, ii. 206 sq. 3 Powers, Tribes of California, p. 320. 5 |