ÀҾ˹éÒ˹ѧÊ×Í
PDF
ePub

tralia there are instances reported of young colonists employing the Sunday in shooting blacks for the sake of sport. "The life of a native," says Mr. Lumholtz, "has but little value, particularly in the northern part of Australia, and once or twice colonists offered to shoot blacks for me so that I might get their skulls. On the borders of civilisation men would think as little of shooting a black man as a dog. The law imposes death by hanging as the penalty for murdering a black man, but people live so far apart in these uncivilised regions that a white man may in fact do what he pleases with the blacks.

In the courts the blacks are defenceless, for their testimony is not accepted. The jury is not likely to declare a white man guilty of murdering a black man. On the other hand if a white man happens to be killed by the blacks, a cry is heard throughout the whole colony."

1

1 Lumholtz, Among Cannibals, p. 346 sqq. See also Mathew, in Jour. & Proceed. Roy. Soc. N. S. Wales, xxiii.

390; Breton, Excursions in New South Wales, p. 200 sq.; Stokes, Discoveries in Australia, ii. 459 sqq.

CHAPTER XVI

HOMICIDE IN GENERAL (concluded)

In the last two chapters we have only been concerned with the statement of facts; we shall now make an attempt to explain those facts. What is the source of the moral commandment, "Thou shalt not kill"? And what is the cause of its original narrowness and of its subsequent extension?

Mr. Spencer suggests that the taking of life was regarded as a wrong done to the family of the dead man or to the society of which he was a member, before it came to be conceived of as a wrong done to the murdered man himself. But considering the mutual sympathy which prevails in small savage communities, it seems extremely probable that sympathetic resentment felt on account of the injury suffered by the victim has from the beginning been a potent cause of the condemnation of homicide. Savages, no less than civilised mankind, practically regard a man's life as his highest good. Whatever opinions may be held about the existence after death, whatever blessings may be supposed to await the disembodied soul, nobody likes to be hurried into that existence by another's will. According to early beliefs, the soul of a murdered man is furious with the person who slew him, and finds no rest until his death has been avenged. His friends and comrades pity his fate and 1 Spencer. Principles of Ethics, . 2 See infra, on Blood-revenge.

feel resentment on his behalf; whereas, in a state of culture where sympathy is restricted to a narrow group of people, no such resentment will be felt if the victim is a member of another group. On the contrary, when he is regarded as an actual or potential enemy, or when the slaying of him is taken for a test of courage, the manslayer will be applauded by his own people, and his deed will be styled good or meritorious. In some cases superstition, also, is an encouragement to extra-tribal homicide. The Kukis believe that, in paradise, all the enemies whom a man has killed will be in attendance on him as slaves.1 A similar belief partly lies at the bottom of the custom of head-hunting; 2 whilst, according to other notions, the soul of the man whose head is procured is transformed into a guardian spirit. A Kayan chief said of the custom in question, "It brings us blessings, plentiful harvests, and keeps off sickness and pains; those who were once our enemies, hereby become our guardians, our friends, our benefactors." Now, progress in civilisation is generally marked by an expansion of the altruistic sentiment: and this largely explains why the prohibition of homicide has come to embrace more and more comprehensive circles of men, and finally, in the most advanced cases, the whole human race.

But whilst homicide is censured as a wrong done to the person slain, it is at the same time viewed as an injury inflicted upon the survivors. It deprived his friends of his company, his family and community of a useful member. In Arabia, when a man was killed, his tribesmen, instead of mentioning his name, used to say, "Our blood has been spilt." 5 According to Lafitau, the loss of a single person seemed to the North American Indians a subject of great regret, because it weakened the family."

1 Dalton, Descriptive Ethnology of Bengal, p. 46.

2 Ling Roth, Natives of Sarawak, ii. 141. Haddon, Head-Hunters, p. 394. 3 Wilken, Het animisme bij de volken van den Indischen Archipel, p. 124.

4 Furness, Home-Life of Borneo Head-Hunters, p. 59.

5 Robertson Smith, Marriage and Kinship in Early Arabia, p. 26.

6

Lafitau, Maurs des sauvages ameriquains, ii, 163.

[ocr errors]

Among the Basutos, again, murder is condemned "as a violation of the sacred rights of a father, who is deprived of the services of his son, or of a widow and orphans, who are left without support.' Especially when a person is considered more or less the property of another, the taking of his life is largely looked upon as an offence against the owner. Mr. Warner states of the Kafirs, "All homicide must . . be atoned for; the principle assumed being, that the persons of individuals are the property of the Chief, and that having been deprived of the life of a subject, he must be compensated for it."2 We meet with a somewhat similar notion in the history of English legislation. In his book on the Commonwealth of England, Thomas Smith observes, "Attempting to impoison a man, or laying a waite to kill a man, though hee wound him dangerously, yet if death follow not, it is no fellony by the law of England, for the Prince hath lost no man, and life ought to be giuen we say for life only." In the Middle Ages homicide was conceived as a breach of the "King's peace"; and both before and afterwards it has been stigmatised as a disturbance of public tranquillity and an outrage on public safety. In the Anglo-Saxon wer and wite we find a clear distinction between the private and public aspects of homicide.*

"3

A manslayer not only causes a loss to the group which he deprives of a member, but he also may give trouble to his own people, who, in consequence, disapprove of his act. Among the Yahgans of Tierra del Fuego, says Mr. Bridges," many things conspire to make the shedding of blood a fearful thing. A murderer imperils all his friends and connections more or less, and consequently estranges them from himself. This state of things is the greatest safeguard to human life we can conceive."5 Among the Káfirs of the Hindu-Kush, "the mere killing of an

1 Casalis, Basutos, p. 224 sq.

2 Warner, in Maclean, Compendium of Kafir Laws, p. 60 sq.

3 Thomas Smith, Common-wealth of England, p. 194 sq.

4 Cf. Pollock and Maitland, History of English Law before the Time of Edward I. i. 48.

Bridges, in South American Missionary Magazine, xiii. 153.

individual is looked upon as a small affair, provided that he does not belong to the tribe, or to another near tribe with which it is at peace, for in the latter case it might result in war.'

[ocr errors]

We have still to notice the common idea that a manslayer is unclean. The ghost of the victim persecutes him, or actually cleaves to him like a miasma; and he must undergo rites of purification to get rid of the infection. Until this is done, he is among many peoples regarded as a source of danger, and is consequently cut off from free intercourse with his fellows.

3

Among the Ponka Indians Mr. Dorsey found the belief that a murderer is surrounded by the ghosts, who keep up a constant whistling; that he can never satisfy his hunger, though he eat much food; and that he must not be allowed to roam at large lest high winds arise. Of the warriors among certain North American Indians Adair wrote that, "as they reckon they are become impure by shedding human blood," they hasten to observe a fast of three days. Among the Natchez, according to Charlevoix, "those who for the first time have made a prisoner or taken off a scalp, must, for a month, abstain from seeing their wives, and from eating flesh. They imagine, that if they should fail in this, the souls of those whom they have killed or burnt, would effect their death, or that the first wound they should receive would be mortal; or at least, that they should never gain any advantage over their enemies."4 The Kafirs and Bechuanas practise various ceremonies of purification after their fights.5 The Basutos say, “Human blood is heavy, it prevents him who has shed it from running away." They consider it necessary that, on return from battle, "the warriors should rid themselves, as soon as possible, of the blood they have shed, or the shades of their victims would pursue them incessantly and disturb their slumbers"; hence they go in full armour to the nearest stream, and, as a rule, at the moment they enter the water a diviner, placed

996

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

2 Dorsey, Siouan Cults,' in Ann. Rep. Bur. Ethn. xi. 420.

Adair, History of the American Indians, p. 388.

• Charlevoix,

Voyage to North

America, ii. 203.

Arbousset and Daumas, Exploratory Tour to the Colony of the Cape of Good Hope, p. 394 sqq. Alberti, De Kaffers aan de Zuidkust van Afrika, p. 104.

6 Casalis, op. cit. p. 309.

« ¡è͹˹éÒ´Óà¹Ô¹¡ÒõèÍ
 »