was saved.' So sensitive to imprecations were both Jupiter's high-priest and the priestesses of Vesta, that the Praetor was never allowed to compel them to take an oath." Now, as a refugee may by his curse force a king or a priest or any other man with whom he establishes some kind of contact to protect him, so he may in a similar manner constrain a god or saint as soon as he has entered his sanctuary. According to the Moorish expression he is then in the 'âr of the saint, and the saint is bound to protect him, just as a host is bound to protect his guest. It is not only men that have to fear the curses of dissatisfied refugees. Let us once more remember the words which Aeschylus puts into the mouth of Apollo, when he declares his intention to assist his suppliant, Orestes :"Terrible both among men and gods is the wrath of a refugee, when one abandons him with intent." 3

1 Plutarch, Numa, x. 5.

2 Aulus Gellius, op.cit. x. 15. 31.

3

Aeschylus, Eumenides, 232 sqq.

CHAPTER XLIX

DUTIES TO GODS (concluded)

SUPERNATURAL beings are widely believed to have a feeling of their worth and dignity. They are sensitive to insults and disrespect, they demand submissiveness and homage.

"The gods of the Gold Coast," says Major Ellis, "are jealous gods, jealous of their dignity, jealous of the adulation and offerings paid to them; and there is nothing they resent so much as any slight, whether intentional or accidental, which may be offered them. . . . There is nothing that offends them so deeply as to ignore them, or question their power, or laugh at them." 1 The wrath of Yahveh burst forth with vehemence whenever his honour or sanctity was in the least violated, however unintentionally. Many peoples consider it insulting and dangerous merely to point at one of the celestial bodies; and among the North American Indians it is a widespread belief that, if anybody points at the rainbow, the finger will wither or become misshapen.*

3

Nor is it to supernatural danger only that a person exposes himself by irreverence to a god, but in many cases he is also punished by his fellow men. On the Slave Coast insults to a god "are always resented and punished by the

3

priests and worshippers of that god, it being their duty to guard his honour." Among the ancient Peruvians and Hebrews, as also among Christian nations up to comparatively recent times, blasphemy was a capital offence. In England, in the reign of Henry VIII., a boy of fifteen was burned because he had spoken, much after the fashion of a parrot, some idle words affecting the sacrament of the altar, which he had chanced to hear but of which he could not have understood the meaning.* According to Muhammedan law a person guilty of blasphemy is to be put to death without delay, even though he profess himself repentant, as adequate repentance for such a sin is deemed impossible. These and similar laws are rooted in the idea that the god is personally offended by the insult. It was the Lord himself who made the law that he who blasphemed His name should be stoned to death by all the congregation. Blasphemy," says Thomas Aquinas, "as being an offence directly against God, outweighs murder, which is an offence against our neighbour The blasphemer intends to wound the honour of God. That blasphemy is, or should be, punished not as a sin against the deity but as an offence against the religious feelings of men, is an idea of quite modern origin.

In many cases it is considered offensive to a supernatural being merely to mention his name. Sometimes the name is tabooed on certain occasions only or in ordinary conversation, sometimes it is not to be pronounced at all.

In Morocco the jnûn (jinn) must not be referred to by name in the afternoon and evening after the 'aşar. If speaking of them at all, the people then make use of some circumlocution; the Berbers of Southern Morocco call them wid-idḍnin, "those others," "those others," or wid-urd-her'nin, "those unseen," or wid-tnil-tisnt, "those who shun salt." The Greenlanders dare not pronounce the name of a glacier

1 Ellis, Ewe-speaking Peoples of the Slave Coast, p. 81.

2 Prescott, History of the Conquest of Peru, i. 42.

3 Leviticus, xxiv. 14 sqq.

4 Pike, History of Crime in England,

ii. 56.

5 Lane, Manners and Customs of the Modern Egyptians, p. 123.

6 Leviticus, xxiv. 16.

7 Thomas Aquinas, Summa theolo gica, ii.-ii. 13.3.1.

3

as they row past it, for fear lest it should be offended and throw off an iceberg.' Some North American Indians believe that if, when travelling, they mention the names of rocks or islands or rivers, they will have much rain or be wrecked or be devoured by some monster in the river.2 The Omahas, again, "are very careful not to use names which they regard as sacred on ordinary occasions; and no one dares to sing sacred songs except the chiefs and old men at the proper times.' Some other Indians considered it a profanation to mention the name of their highest divinity. Among certain Australian natives the elders of the tribe impart to the youth, on his initiation, the name of the god Tharamalun; but there is such a disinclination to pronounce his name that, in speaking of him, they generally use elliptical expressions, such as "He," "the man," or "the name I told you of,' and the women only know him by the name of Papang (father). The Marutse and allied tribes along the Zambesi shrink from mentioning the real name of their chief god Nyambe and therefore substitute for it the word molemo, which has a very comprehensive meaning, denoting, besides God, all kinds of good and evil spirits, medicines, poisons, and amulets." According to Cicero, there was a god, a son of Nilus, whose name the Egyptians considered it a crime to pronounce; and Herodotus is unwilling to mention the name of Osiris on two occasions. when he is speaking of him.8 The divine name of Indra was secret, the real name of Agni was unknown.9 The gods of Brahmanism have mystic names, which nobody dares to speak.10 The real name of Confucius is so sacred that it is a statutable offence in

1

China to pronounce it; and the name of the supreme god of the Chinese is equally tabooed. "Tien," they say, "means properly only the material heaven, but it also means Shang-Te (supreme ruler, God); for, as it is not lawful to use his name lightly, we name him by his residence, which is in tien." The "great name" of Allah is a secret name, known only to prophets, and possibly to some great saints.2 Yahveh said, "Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain ; for the Lord will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain"; and orthodox Jews avoid mentioning the word Yahveh altogether.* Among Christian nations, as Professor Nyrop observes, there is a common disinclination to use the word "God" or its equivalents in everyday speech. The English say good instead of God ("good gracious," "my goodness," "thank goodness"); the Germans, Potz instead of Gotts ("Potz Welt," "Potz Wetter," "Potz Blitz"); the French, bleu instead of Dieu ("corbleu," "morbleu, "sambleu"); the Spaniards, brios or diez instead of Dios ("voto á brios," "juro á brios," " par diez ").5

These taboos have sprung from fear. There is, first, something uncanny in mentioning the name of a supernatural being, even apart from any definite ideas connected with the act. But to do so is also supposed to summon him or to attract his attention, and this may be considered dangerous, especially if he is looked upon as malevolent or irritable, as is generally the case with the Moorish jnûn. The uncanny feeling or the notion of danger readily leads to the belief that the supernatural being feels offended if his name is pronounced; we have noticed a similar association of thought in connection with the names of the dead. But a god may also have good reason for wishing that his name should not be used lightly or taken in vain. Accord