The duty of blood-revenge is, in the first place, regarded as a duty to the dead, not merely because he has been deprived of his highest good, his life, but because his spirit is believed to find no rest after death until the injury has been avenged.' The disembodied soul carries into its new existence an eager longing for revenge, and, till the crime has been duly expiated, hovers about the earth, molesting the manslayer or trying to compel its own relatives to take vengeance on him.

2

3

per

According to Yakut beliefs, a person who is murdered becomes a yor, that is, his ghost never comes to rest. The Cheremises imagine that the spirits of persons who have died a violent death cause illness, especially fever and ague. The Saoras of India seem to have most fear of the spirits of those who have died violent deaths.4 The Burmese believe that sons who meet a violent death become "nats" and haunt the place where they were killed.5 The Hudson Bay Eskimo regard the island of Akpatok as tabooed since the murder of part of the crew of a wrecked vessel, who camped on that island; a soul visits that locality lest the ghosts of the victims should appear and supplicate relief from the natives, who have not the proper offerings to make to appease them."6 The Omahas believe that the spirits of those who have been killed reappear after death, their errand being "to solicit vengeance on the perpetrators of the deed."7 According to Genesis, the voice of

Guinea); Modigliani, Viaggio a Nías, p. 471; Bowring, Visit to the Philippine Islands, p. 177; Macpherson, Memorials of Service in India, p. 82 (Kandhs); Radde, Die Chews'uren, P. 115; von Haxthausen, Transcaucasia, p. 406 sqq. (Ossetes); Munzinger, Die Sitten und das Recht der Bogos, p. 87; Mungo Park, Travels in the Interior of Africa, p. 13 (Feloops bordering on the Gambia); Leuschner, in Steinmetz, Rechtsverhältnisse von eingeborenen Völkern in Afrika und Ozeanien, p. 23 (Bakwiri); ibid. p. 49 (Banaka and Bapuku); Nicole, ibid. p. 132 (Diakité-Sarrakolese); Lang, ibid. p. 256 sq. (Washambala); Kraft, ibid. p. 292 (Wapokomo); Viehe, ibid. p. 311 (Ovaherero); Rautanen, ibid. p. 341 (Ondonga); Sorge, ibid. p. 418 (Nissan Islanders in the Bismarck VOL. I

Archipelago).

not

See Kohler, Shakespeare vor dem Forum der Jurisprudenz, p. 131 sq.; Steinmetz, Ethnol. Studien zur ersten Entwicklung der Strafe, i. 291 sqq.; Idem, Rechtsverhältnisse, p. 49 (Banaka and Bapuku); Nicole, ibid. p. 132 (Diakité-Sarrakolese); Lang, ibid. p. 257 (Washambala).

2 Sumner, in Jour. Anthr. Inst. xxxi. 101.

3 Abercromby, Pre- and Proto-historic Finns, i. 168 sq.

Fawcett, in Jour. Anthrop. Soc. Bombay, i. 59.

5 Schway Yoe, The Burman, i. 286. 6 Turner, Ethnology of the Ungava District,' in Ann. Rep. Bur. Ethn. xi. 186.

blood shed cried for vengeance until the murderer was punished.1 A similar notion prevailed among the Bedouins, hence they thought they might escape the taking of revenge by covering up the blood with earth.2 One of the most popular ghost stories in folk-tales is that which treats of the ghost of a murdered person flitting about the haunts of the living with no gratification but to terrify them.3 According to Rohde, this belief was in full force at Athens in the fifth and fourth centuries before Christ. Aeschylus attributes an Erinys to the heinous crime of a man's neglecting his duty as avenger of blood 5—in other words, the soul of the slain turned its anger against the neglectful relative. Traces of the same belief still survive in various parts of Europe. In Wärend, in Sweden, the people maintain that the unsatisfied ghost of a murdered man visits his relatives at night, and disturbs their rest; and it was an ancient custom among them that, if the murderer was not known, the nearest relation of the dead, before the knell began, went forward to the corpse and asked the dead himself to avenge his murder.7

From one point of view, blood-revenge is thus a form of human sacrifice. Sometimes it even formally bears a strong resemblance to certain other human sacrifices which are offered to the dead. Among some Queensland tribes, when the assassin has been caught red-handed, the slayer and slain are buried together in the same grave; and among the ancient Teutons the avenger by preference slew the culprit at the feet of the murdered man, or at his tomb.9 Blood-revenge also resembles other kinds of human sacrifice so far that it serves as a safeguard for the sacrificer—in this case the avenger, who would otherwise expose himself to the persecutions of the revengeful spirit of the dead.

But the practice of blood-revenge is not exclusively

1 Genesis, iv. 10.

2 Jacob, Leben der vorislamischen Beduinen, p. 146. Cf. Schwally, Leben nach dem Tode, p. 52 sq.

See Dyer, The Ghost World, p. 65 sqq.; Andree, Ethnographische Parallelen, p. 80 sqq.

4 Rohde, Psyche, p. 240. Cf. Idem, 'Paralipomena,' in Rheinisches Museum für Philologie, 1895, p. 19 sq.; Schmidt, Ethik der alten Griechen, ii. 125 sqq.

5 Aeschylus, Choephori, 283 sqq. Cf. ibid. 400 sqq.; Plato, Leges, ix. 866. 6 Dyer, op. cit. p. 68 sqq. Thorpe, Northern Mythology, ii. 19 sq. 7 Hyltén-Cavallius, Wärend och Wirdarne, ii. 274; i. 473.

8 Roth, Ethnological Studies among the North-West-Central Queensland Aborigines, p. 165.

9 Wilda, Strafrecht der Germanen, pp. 170, 692.

based on a desire to avenge the injury done to a fellowcreature and to gratify the angry passion of his soul. The act which caused his death is at the same time an injury inflicted upon the survivors. Hence, in many cases, a murder committed within the family or kin is left unavenged. Among the Iroquois, says Loskiel, any one who has murdered his own relative escapes without much difficulty, since the family, who alone have a right to take revenge, do not choose to weaken their influence by depriving themselves of another member besides the one whom they have already lost. Again, when the murderer belongs to an extraneous family, the injury inflicted on the relatives of the murdered man suggests not only revenge, but reparation.

3

The taking of life for life may itself, in a way, serve as compensation. It seems that, in some cases, the blood of the slain homicide is supposed to restore, as it were, to the family of his victim the loss of life which he has caused them. Such an idea probably underlies a custom which Burckhardt heard existed among the Hallenga, who draw their origin from Abyssinia. When the slayer has been seized by the relatives of the deceased, a family feast is proclaimed, at which the murderer is brought into their midst. While his throat is then slowly cut with a razor, the blood is caught in a bowl and handed round amongst the guests, "every one of whom is bound to drink of it at the moment the victim breathes his last."4 Among various Arabic-speaking tribes in Morocco I have met with a practice which also, possibly, involves a vague idea of restoration. On the perpetration of his deed the avenger

1 Steinmetz, Ethnologische Studien zur ersten Entwicklung der Strafe, ii. 159 sqq. Mauss, La religion et les origines du droit pénal,' in Revue de l'histoire des religions, xxxv. 44. Kovalewsky, 'Les origines du devoir,' in Revue internationale de Sociologie, ii. 86. Cf. Seebohm, Tribal Custom in Anglo-Saxon Law, pp. 30, 42 (Welsh); Robertson Smith, Religion of the Semites, p. 420; Idem, Marriage and Kinship in early Arabia, p. 25.

licks off the blood from the blade of the dagger with which he killed his victim; and in one instance related to me, he bit off a piece of flesh from the dead body and sucked its blood. Mr. Trumbull even goes so far as to believe that, among the Hebrews, the primal idea of the goel's mission was not to wreak vengeance, but "to restore life for life, or to secure the adjusted equivalent of a lost life." But it is difficult to suppose that the exacting of blood-revenge ever could have been looked upon as an equivalent in the full sense of the term. If the loss of life is to be compensated some other practice must take its place.

2

3

Sometimes the manslayer, instead of being killed, is adopted as a member of the family of his victim. Among the Kabyles of Algeria, for instance, a person who has killed another unintentionally, goes to the parents of the dead and says to them :-"If you want to kill me, kill me, here is my winding-sheet. If not, pardon me, and I shall henceforth be one of your children." And from this day the manslayer is considered to belong to the kharouba, or gens, of the deceased. Among the Jbâla of Northern Morocco, again, a homicide sometimes induces the avenger to abstain from his persecutions by giving him his sister or daughter in marriage; and a similar custom has been noticed among the Beni Amer and Bogos. In other cases slaves are given to the relatives of the slain in order to atone for the guilt; but most commonly the compensation consists of cattle, money, or other property.

5

By giving presents to the relatives of his victim, the offender not only repairs the loss which he has inflicted

upon them, but also appeases their wounded feelings.1 The pleasure of gain tends to suppress their passion, and the loss and humiliation which the adversary suffers by the gift exercise a healing influence on their resentment.2 Sometimes the present is chiefly intended to serve as an apology. Among the Iroquois, according to Mr. Morgan, the white wampum which the murderer sent to the family of his victim and which, if accepted, for ever wiped out the memory of his deed, "was not in the nature of a compensation for the life of the deceased, but of a regretful confession of the crime, with a petition for forgiveness." 3 Compensation, moreover, has the advantage of saving the injured party the dangers involved in a blood-feud, the uncertainty of the issue, and the serious consequences which may result from the accomplished act of revenge. Whilst the carrying out of the principle of "life for life” often leads to protracted hostilities between the parties, compensation has a tendency to bring about a durable peace. For this reason it is to the interest of society at large to encourage the latter practice; and this encouragement naturally adds to its attractions.

But in spite of its merits, the practice of composition has, in comparison with blood-revenge, various disadvantages. It is not equally calculated to satisfy a revengeful mind. It has to contend with the conservatism of ancient custom. It may be taken as a token of cowardice or weakness, whereas the blood-feud gives to its perpetrator an opportunity to display his courage and skill. It may be considered offensive to the dead kinsman. Finally, if it is to flourish, it presupposes a certain amount of wealth.*

1 Rée, Entstehung des Gewissens, p. 57 sqq. Steinmetz, Studien, i. 472

sq.

2 Cf. Miklosich, loc. cit. p. 148; Kohl, op. cit. i. 426, 436 (Montenegrines and Albanians).

3 Morgan, League of the Iroquois, pp. 331, 333. Cf. Turner, Samoa, p. 326 (people of Aneiteum).

4 For the influence of wealth on the practice of composition, see Steinmetz,

Studien, i. 427 sqq., and Lippert, Kulturgeschichte der Menschheit, ii. 591. Occasionally, however, composition occurs even among such a poor people as the Yahgans of Tierra del Fuego. "Sometimes," says Mr. Bridges (in A Voice for South America, xiii. 207), "the murderer is suffered to live, but he is much beaten and hurt, and has to make many presents to the relatives of the dead."