X. THE SALT-CELLAR

In sooth, gentlemen, I seldome eate salte for feare of anger, and if you give me in token that I want wit, then will you make cholericke before I eate it; for women, be they never so foolish, would ever be thought wise.I staied not long for mine answer, but as well quickened by her former talke as desirous to cry quittance for her present tongue, said thus: “If to eat store ofsalt, cause one to fret; and to have nosalt, signifies lack of wit, then do you cause me to marvel, that eating nosalt, you are so captious; and loving nosalt, you are so wise, when indeed so much wit is sufficient for a woman, as when she is in the raine can warne her to come out of it.”[330]

I staied not long for mine answer, but as well quickened by her former talke as desirous to cry quittance for her present tongue, said thus: “If to eat store ofsalt, cause one to fret; and to have nosalt, signifies lack of wit, then do you cause me to marvel, that eating nosalt, you are so captious; and loving nosalt, you are so wise, when indeed so much wit is sufficient for a woman, as when she is in the raine can warne her to come out of it.”[330]

In a recent article in the “Journal of Hygiene,” the writer affirms that the general belief in the necessity of the use of salt for the maintenance of health is mischievous; for many people, in their zeal to make the most of a good thing, are wont to eat salt as a seasoner of all kinds of food. Thus an abnormal craving for the saline flavor is acquired and the condiment is used in excess, thereby unduly taxing the secretory organs, whereas in reality but a small quantity of salt is requisite. Persons addicted to the so-called “salt habit” have a perverted taste, and are naturally total failures as epicures; for how can any one assume to be a dainty feeder who disguises the true flavor of every dish, and whose palate refuses to be tickled by the choicest morsels, unless these smack strongly of salt?

But even in our times the use of salt as a relish issometimes deprecated as unnecessary, if not positively harmful. Thus it is argued that this substance arrests or retards the physiological processes of disintegration and renewal of the cells which compose the tissues of the living body, processes essential to the maintenance of life and health.

A recent advocate of this theory maintains that the fondness for salt shown by some domesticated animals is due to an acquired taste rather than to an instinctive craving; for dogs and cats easily grow to like such artificial products as ice-cream and beer. As to the occasional visits of wild animals to salt-licks, the fact that such visits are comparatively infrequent has been thought to prove that these animals periodically require the medicinal effects of saline waters, on the same principle which leads people of wealth and fashion to visit certain spas of Europe or America. The writer above mentioned suggests that, whereas each article of food has its own individual flavor, the addition of salt makes them all taste alike. And if an inveterate user of salt will forego this favorite condiment for a month, he will then for the first time be enabled properly to appreciate the true flavors of meats and vegetables.[331]

In the “Revelations of Egyptian Mysteries,” by Robert Howard, the use of salt as a relish is characterizedas an infringement of that law of nature which forbids animals to partake of mineral substances as food. History may, indeed, vouch for the antiquity of the custom, but can furnish no proof of its propriety. Indeed, the writer alleges in the above work that salt is a most pernicious substance, and the direct cause of many ills.

The idea conveyed by the phrase, “Enough is as good as a feast,” applies in full force to the use of salt as a condiment, for an excess of this substance in one’s food certainly spoils its flavor. According to one version of a Roumanian forest-myth, a prince, while following the chase, came upon a beautiful laurel-tree, whose branches were of a golden hue. This tree so pleased his fancy that he determined to have his dinner beneath its shade, and gave orders to that effect. Preparations were made accordingly; but during the temporary absence of the cook, a fair maiden emerged from the tree and strewed a quantity of salt upon the viands, after which she re-entered the tree, which closed over her. When the prince returned and began eating his dinner, he scolded the cook for using too much salt, and the cook quite naturally protested his innocence.

On the following day the same thing occurred, and the prince thereupon determined to keep watch, in order if possible to detect the culprit. On the third day, when the maiden came forth from the tree on mischiefbent, the prince caught her and carried her away, and she became his loyal wife.[332]

This section may be appropriately concluded with the following translation of a Roman legend illustrating the value of common salt as an article of food:[333]—

The Value of Salt. A Roman Folk-tale.There was once a king who had three daughters, and he was very anxious to know which of them loved him most; he tried them in various ways, and it always seemed as if the youngest daughter came out best by the test. Yet he was never satisfied, because he was prepossessed with the idea that the elder ones loved him most.One day he thought he would settle the matter once for all, by asking each separately how much she loved him. So he called the eldest by herself, and asked her how much she loved him.“As much as the bread we eat,” was her reply; and he said within himself, “She must, as I thought, love me the most of all; for bread is the first necessary of our existence, without which we cannot live. She means, therefore, that she loves me so much she could not live without me.”Then he called the second daughter by herself, and said to her, “How much do you love me?”And she answered, “As much as wine.”“That is a good answer too,” said the king to himself. “It is true she does not seem to love me quite so much as the eldest; but still, scarcely can one live without wine, so that there is not much difference.”Then he called the youngest by herself, and said to her, “And you, how much do you love me?”And she answered, “As much as salt.”Then the king said, “What a contemptible comparison! She only loves me as much as the cheapest and commonest thing that comes to the table. This is as much as to say, she doesn’t love me at all. I always thought it was so. I will never see her again.”Then he ordered that a wing of the palace should be shut up from the rest, where she should be served with everything belonging to her condition in life, but where she should live by herself apart, and never come near him.Here she lived, then, all alone. But though her father fancied she did not care for him, she pined so much at being kept away from him, that at last she was worn out, and could bear it no longer.The room that had been given her had no windows on the street, that she might not have the amusement of seeing what was going on in the town, but they looked upon an inner court-yard. Here she sometimes saw the cook come out and wash vegetables at the fountain.“Cook, cook!” she called one day, as she saw him pass thus under the window.The cook looked up with a good-natured face, which gave her encouragement.“Don’t you think, cook, I must be very lonely and miserable up here all alone?”“Yes, Signorina,” he replied; “I often think I should like to help you to get out; but I dare not think of it, the king would be so angry.”“No, I don’t want you to do anything to disobey the king,” answered the princess; “but would you really do me a favor, which would make me very grateful indeed?”“Oh, yes, Signorina, anything which I can do without disobeying the king,” replied the faithful servant.“Then this is it,” said the princess. “Will you just oblige me so far as to cook papa’s dinner to-day without any salt in anything? Not the least grain in anything at all. Let it be as good a dinner as you like, but no salt in anything. Will you do that?”“I see,” replied the cook, with a knowing nod. “Yes, depend on me, I will do it.”That day at dinner the king had no salt in the soup, no salt in the boiled meat, no salt in the roast, no salt in the fried.“What is the meaning of this?” said the king, as he pushed dish after dish away from him. “There is not a single thing I can eat to-day. I don’t know what they have done to everything, but there is not a single thing that has got the least taste. Let the cook be called.”So the cook came before him.“What have you done to the victuals to-day?” said the king sternly. “You have sent up a lot of dishes, and no one alive can tell one from another. They are all of them exactly alike, and there is not one of them can be eaten. Speak!”The cook answered:—“Hearing your Majesty say that salt was the commonest thing that comes to table, and altogether so worthless and contemptible, I considered in my mind whether it was a thing that at all deserved to be served up to the table of the king; and, judging that it was not worthy, I abolished it from the king’s kitchen, and dressed all the meats without it. Barring this, the dishes are the same that are sent every day to the table of the king.”Then the king understood the value of salt, and he comprehendedhow great was the love of his youngest child for him; so he sent and had her apartment opened, and called her to him, never to go away any more.

The Value of Salt. A Roman Folk-tale.

There was once a king who had three daughters, and he was very anxious to know which of them loved him most; he tried them in various ways, and it always seemed as if the youngest daughter came out best by the test. Yet he was never satisfied, because he was prepossessed with the idea that the elder ones loved him most.

One day he thought he would settle the matter once for all, by asking each separately how much she loved him. So he called the eldest by herself, and asked her how much she loved him.

“As much as the bread we eat,” was her reply; and he said within himself, “She must, as I thought, love me the most of all; for bread is the first necessary of our existence, without which we cannot live. She means, therefore, that she loves me so much she could not live without me.”

Then he called the second daughter by herself, and said to her, “How much do you love me?”

And she answered, “As much as wine.”

“That is a good answer too,” said the king to himself. “It is true she does not seem to love me quite so much as the eldest; but still, scarcely can one live without wine, so that there is not much difference.”

Then he called the youngest by herself, and said to her, “And you, how much do you love me?”

And she answered, “As much as salt.”

Then the king said, “What a contemptible comparison! She only loves me as much as the cheapest and commonest thing that comes to the table. This is as much as to say, she doesn’t love me at all. I always thought it was so. I will never see her again.”

Then he ordered that a wing of the palace should be shut up from the rest, where she should be served with everything belonging to her condition in life, but where she should live by herself apart, and never come near him.

Here she lived, then, all alone. But though her father fancied she did not care for him, she pined so much at being kept away from him, that at last she was worn out, and could bear it no longer.

The room that had been given her had no windows on the street, that she might not have the amusement of seeing what was going on in the town, but they looked upon an inner court-yard. Here she sometimes saw the cook come out and wash vegetables at the fountain.

“Cook, cook!” she called one day, as she saw him pass thus under the window.

The cook looked up with a good-natured face, which gave her encouragement.

“Don’t you think, cook, I must be very lonely and miserable up here all alone?”

“Yes, Signorina,” he replied; “I often think I should like to help you to get out; but I dare not think of it, the king would be so angry.”

“No, I don’t want you to do anything to disobey the king,” answered the princess; “but would you really do me a favor, which would make me very grateful indeed?”

“Oh, yes, Signorina, anything which I can do without disobeying the king,” replied the faithful servant.

“Then this is it,” said the princess. “Will you just oblige me so far as to cook papa’s dinner to-day without any salt in anything? Not the least grain in anything at all. Let it be as good a dinner as you like, but no salt in anything. Will you do that?”

“I see,” replied the cook, with a knowing nod. “Yes, depend on me, I will do it.”

That day at dinner the king had no salt in the soup, no salt in the boiled meat, no salt in the roast, no salt in the fried.

“What is the meaning of this?” said the king, as he pushed dish after dish away from him. “There is not a single thing I can eat to-day. I don’t know what they have done to everything, but there is not a single thing that has got the least taste. Let the cook be called.”

So the cook came before him.

“What have you done to the victuals to-day?” said the king sternly. “You have sent up a lot of dishes, and no one alive can tell one from another. They are all of them exactly alike, and there is not one of them can be eaten. Speak!”

The cook answered:—

“Hearing your Majesty say that salt was the commonest thing that comes to table, and altogether so worthless and contemptible, I considered in my mind whether it was a thing that at all deserved to be served up to the table of the king; and, judging that it was not worthy, I abolished it from the king’s kitchen, and dressed all the meats without it. Barring this, the dishes are the same that are sent every day to the table of the king.”

Then the king understood the value of salt, and he comprehendedhow great was the love of his youngest child for him; so he sent and had her apartment opened, and called her to him, never to go away any more.

The rhetorician Arnobius, in his work “Disputationes contra Gentes,” wrote that the pagans were wont to sanctify or hallow their tables by setting salt-cellars thereon. For owing to the fact that salt was employed at every sacrifice as an offering to the gods, and owing moreover to its reputed divine attributes, receptacles containing salt were also held sacred.

Indeed, the salt-cellar partook of the nature of a holy vessel, associated with the temple in general, and more particularly with the altar.[334]

Pythagoras said that salt was the emblem of justice; for as it preserves all things and prevents corruption, so justice preserves whatever it animates, and without it all is corrupted. He therefore directed that a salt-cellar should be placed upon the table at every meal, in order to remind men of this emblematic virtue of salt.[335]

The Romans considered salt to be a sacred article of food, and it was a matter of religious principle with them to see that no other dish was placed upon the table before the salt was in position.[336]A shell servedas a receptacle for salt on the table of the Roman peasant, but at the repast of the wealthy citizen the silver salt-cellar, which was usually an heirloom, was placed in the middle of the table; and the same custom prevailed in England in mediæval times.

In a work entitled “Antiquitates Culinariæ,” compiled by the Rev. Richard Warner, London, 1791, are to be found, reprinted from an old paper-roll, elaborate directions for the preparation of the banquet-table on the occasion of a great feast at the enthroning of George Neville as Chancellor of England and Archbishop of York in the sixth year of Edward the Fourth,A. D. 1466.

After the laying of the “chiefe napkin,” the officials of the king’s household charged with such duties were directed to bring salt, bread, and trenchers, and to “set the salt right under the middest of the cloth of estate.”

Minute directions follow regarding the proper disposition of the trenchers, knives, spoons, and bread, and their exact relations to the salt, which was treated with special deference throughout the ceremony.

The Hon. Horace Walpole published an account of the formalities observed at the “setting” of Queen Elizabeth’s dinner-table, as described by a German traveler who was present on such an occasion. After the table-cloth had been spread two gentlemen appeared,one bearing a rod and the other having a salt-cellar, a plate, and bread. After kneeling three times with the utmost reverence, they placed these three articles upon the table and withdrew. Later in the ceremony came an unmarried lady dressed in white silk, and a matron carrying a tasting-knife. The former, having thrice prostrated herself, approached the table in the most graceful manner, and rubbed with bread and salt the plates provided for the guests. After this the yeomen of the guard, clad in scarlet, and each with a golden rose upon his back, entered bare-headed, bringing a course of four-and-twenty dishes. In the households of the English nobility a similar custom prevailed. A rhythmical code of instructions to servants of the fifteenth century required that the salt should always be the first article placed on the festive board after the cloth was laid:[337]—

Tu dois mettre premièrement en tous lieux et en tout hostelLa nappe, et après le sel;Cousteaulx, pain, vin et puis viande,Puis apporter ce qu’on demande.

Tu dois mettre premièrement en tous lieux et en tout hostel

La nappe, et après le sel;

Cousteaulx, pain, vin et puis viande,

Puis apporter ce qu’on demande.

In the “Haven of Health” (Thomas Coghan, London, 1636) are these verses, quoted from an earlier author:—

Sal primo poni debet, primoque reponi,Omnis mensa male ponitur absque sale.

Sal primo poni debet, primoque reponi,

Omnis mensa male ponitur absque sale.

A curious little treatise, with the title “How to serve a Lord,” specifies how the principal salt-cellar shall be placed:—

Thenne here-uppon the boteler or panter shall bring forthe his pryncipall salte … he shall sette the saler in the myddys of the tabull accordyng to the place where the principall soverain shall sette … thenne the seconde salte att the lower ende … then salte selers shall be sette uppon the syde tablys.

The custom of placing salt upon the table before all else is thought to have originated in the ancient conception of this substance as the symbol of friendship; and indeed no banquet, however elaborate, was complete without it. The salt was, moreover, the last article to be removed from the hospitable board.

It was as though our forefathers thereby intended that the guests, seeing salt on the table, might realize that they were “invited in love and were loved before they came;” and the fact that it was allowed to remain after the other dishes had been removed might serve to remind them that while feasts, like many other good things, come to an end, love and friendship may be perpetual.[338]

Macrobius wrote, in the fifth centuryA. D., that the ancients did not consider themselves as either welcome or safe at a banquet unless the salt and the shrines oftheir gods were placed upon the table; the former indicating a cordial greeting, and the latter being a guarantee of protection.

The ancient “Boke of Keruynge” says: “Than set your salt on the ryght syde where your soverayne shall sytte, and on ye lefte syde the salte set your trenchours.”

Mediæval salt-cellars were often elaborate pieces of silver. In Paul Lacroix’s “Manners, Customs, and Dress during the Middle Ages” are illustrations of an enameled silver salt-cellar with six facings, representing the labors of Hercules, which was made at Limoges for the French king, Francis I., in the early part of the sixteenth century. At Corpus Christi College, Cambridge, England, is preserved an elegantly wrought silver and golden salt-cellar which belonged to Matthew Parker, who was appointed Archbishop of Canterbury in 1558.[339]

In the “Art Journal” (vol. xxxix. 1887) is a description of the state salt-cellar of Mostyn Hall, Flintshire, North Wales, which had been recently discovered in an ancient chest. This magnificent piece of plate, which bears the London date-mark 1586-87, is eighteen and one half inches in height and of cylindrical form, surmounted by a vase, and richly ornamented with groups of fruit, foliage, animals, and birds.

In mediæval England the chief salt-cellar was sometimesin the form of a silver ship, thus suggesting both the briny deep and the craft which sails thereon.

King Henry III. ordered twenty silver salts in the year 1243.[340]

In the room containing the crown jewels, in the Tower of London, are to be seen eleven magnificent golden salt-cellars, the oldest dating from the reign of Elizabeth. Of these the so-called state salt-cellar, which is a model of the White Tower, was presented by the city of Exeter to King Charles II., and was used at coronation banquets.

Descriptions and illustrations of old English salt-cellars of different epochs are to be found in a volume entitled “Old English Plate,” by Wilfred Joseph Cripps, M. A., F. S. A., London, 1886; and in “Old Plate,” by J. H. Buck, New York, 1888. In the former work mention is made of a magnificent salt-cellar, “in the form of an olifaunt,” the property of John, Earl of Warrenes, in 1347; and another, “in the shape of a dog,” belonging to Edmund Mortimer, Earl of March, in 1380.

From an early period until the close of the seventeenth century, the rank of guests at a banquet in wealthy households, as in the halls of country squires, in England, was indicated by the situation of their places at table with reference to the massive silvercentre-pieces which contained the salt,[341]sometimes called the “salt-vat” or “salt-foot.”

At the head of the table, which was calledthe board’s end, and “above the salt,” sat the host and his more distinguished guests; and during the reigns of Henry VII. and VIII. it was enjoined upon the ushers to see that no person occupied a higher place than he was entitled to. Probably no penalty was imposed upon guests who unwittingly selected a more honorable seat than their rank warranted, other than removal to a lower position. But in the less civilized era of the eleventh century, the laws of King Canute provided that any person sitting at a banquet above his position should be “pelted out of his place by bones, at the discretion of the company, without the privilege of taking offense.”[342]

In a book called “Strange Foot-Post, with a Packet full of Strange Petitions,” by Nixon (London, 1613), the author says in reference to a poor scholar:—

Now, as for his fare, it is lightly at the cheapest table, but he must sit under the salt, that is an axiome in such places; then having drawne his knife leisurably, unfolded his napkin mannerly after twice or thrice wiping his beard, if he have it, he may reach the bread on his knife’s point.

The “Babees Book” (1475) says: “The salt alsotouch not in his salere with nokyns mete, but lay it honestly on the Trenchoure, for that is curtesy;” and the “Young Children’s Book” (1500) contains this passage: “It was not graceful to take the salt except with the clene knyfe; far less to dip your meat into the salt-cellar.”

Joseph Hall, in his “Satires” (1597), speaking of the conditions imposed by a gentle squire upon his son’s tutor, says that the latter was required to sleep in a trundle-bed at the foot of his young master’s couch, and that his seat at table was invariably “below the salt.”

Again, in a volume of “Essayes,” by Sir William Cornwallis (1632), occurs the following:—

There is another sort worse than these, that never utter anything of their owne, but get jests by heart, and rob bookes and men of prettie tales, and yet hope for this to have a roomeabove the salt.

Quite apropos to our subject are the words of an old English ballad:—

Thou art a carle of mean degree,Ye salt doth stand twain me and thee.

Thou art a carle of mean degree,

Ye salt doth stand twain me and thee.

The following passage from Smyth’s “Lives of the Berkeleys” refers to Lord Henry Berkeley, who dwelt in Caludon Castle, near Coventry, in Warwickshire, in the latter part of the sixteenth century, and may serve to illustrate the importance of the central salt-cellar as a boundary:—

At Christmas and other festivals when his neighbors were feasted in his hall, he would, in the midst of their dinner, rise from his own, and going to each of their tables, cheerfully bid them welcome; and when guests of honor and high rank filled his own table, he seated himself at the lower end; and when such guests filled but half his board and those of meaner degree the other half, he would take his own seat between them in the midst of his long tablenear the salt, which gracious considerate acts did much to gain the love that his people had for him.

And in commenting on this passage a recent writer remarks that his haughty wife, Lady Katherine, high-born and beautiful and clever though she was, could hardly be imagined as sitting “below the salt,” out of consideration for the feelings of an inferior.[343]

In the houses of well-to-do farmers among the Scottish peasantry in the latter part of the eighteenth century, a linen cloth was sometimes spread over the upper portion of the dinner-table, where sat the farmer and the members of his family. Quite commonly, however, a chalk-line divided this end of the board from the lower portion where the hired laborers were seated; and in the more pretentious households the salt-dish served as a boundary.[344]

In “Nares’ Glossary,” vol. ii. p. 763, under the heading “Above or Below the Salt,” the writer comments on the invidious distinctions formerly made betweenguests seated at the same table, and quotes as follows from Ben Jonson’s “Cynthia’s Revels” in reference to a conceited fop:—

His fashion is not to take knowledge of him that is beneath him in clothes; he never drinks below the Salt.

The Innholders Company still adheres to the custom of indicating rank and social position at table by means of a handsome salt-cellar of the time of James I., to which is assigned the responsible function of dividing the Court from the Livery at the Livery dinners; the latter occupying the seats corresponding to those of the retainers in the old-time baron’s hall.[345]

Among the Puritans in New England “the salt-cellar was the focus of the old-time board.” Our ancestors brought with them from beyond the sea, not only the ideas regarding table etiquette prevalent in the old country, but also such tangible vanities as silver plate. Miss Alice Morse Earle, in her book on the “Customs and Fashions of Old New England,” says that the “standing salt” was often the handsomest article of table furniture, and mentions among the belongings of Comfort Starr, of Boston, in 1659, a “greate silver-gilt double salt-cellar.” Early in the eighteenth century these ponderous silver vessels were superseded by the little “trencher salts,” of various patterns, which are still in use.

He is a friend at sneezing time; the most that can be got from him is a “God bless you!”—Italian proverb.

The ancient Egyptians regarded the head as a citadel or fortress in which the reasoning faculty abode.[346]Hence they especially revered any function seemingly appertaining to so noble a portion of the body, and dignified even the insignificant act of sneezing by attributing to it auguries for good or evil, according to the position of the moon with reference to the signs of the zodiac.[347]The Greeks and Romans also, by whom the most trivial occurrences of every-day life were thought to be omens of good fortune or the reverse, considered the phenomena of sneezing as not the least important in this regard. Homer tells us in the Odyssey that the Princess Penelope, troubled bythe importunities of her suitors, prayed to the gods for the speedy return of her husband Ulysses. Scarcely was her prayer ended when her son Telemachus sneezed, and this event was regarded by Penelope as an intimation that her petition would be granted.

Aristotle said that there was a god of sneezing, and that when in Greece any business enterprise was to be undertaken, two or four sneezes were thought to be favorable. If more than four, the auspices were indifferent, while one or three rendered it hazardous to proceed.[348]About this, however, there appears to have been no unvarying rule. Sneezing at a banquet was considered by the Romans to be especially ominous; and when it unfortunately occurred, some of the viands were brought back to the table and again tasted, as this was thought to counteract any evil effects. The Greeks considered that the brain controlled the function of sneezing. They were therefore as careful to avoid eating this portion of any animal as the Pythagoreans were to avoid beans as an article of diet.[349]

It is related that just before the battle of Salamis,B. C.480, and while Themistocles, the Athenian commander, was offering a sacrifice to the gods on the deck of his galley, a sneeze was heard on the right hand, which was hailed as a fortunate omen by Euphrantidesthe Soothsayer. Again, it happened once that while Xenophon was addressing his soldiers, referring to the righteousness of their cause and the consequent divine favor which might be expected, some one chanced to sneeze. Pausing in his address, the great general remarked that Jupiter had been pleased to send them a happy omen, and it seemed therefore but right to make an offering to the gods. Then, after all the company had joined in a hymn of thanksgiving, the sacrifice was made, and Xenophon continued with his exhortation.

Among the ancients sneezing to the right was considered fortunate and to the left unlucky. In some erotic verses with the title “Acme and Septimius,” by the Roman poet, Catullus (B. C.87-47), are these lines, twice repeated:—

Love stood listening with delight,And sneezed his auspice on the right.

Love stood listening with delight,

And sneezed his auspice on the right.

The omens of sneezing were thought to be of especial significance in lovers’ affairs, and indeed the classic poets were wont to say of beautiful women that Love had sneezed at their birth. The Italian poet, Propertius, while asserting his enduring affection for Cynthia, the daughter of the poet Hostius, thus apostrophizes the chief theme of his eulogies: “In thy new-born days, my life, did golden Love sneeze loud and clear a favoring omen.”

The Egyptians, Greeks, and Romans regarded the actof sneezing as a kind of divinity or oracle, which warned them on various occasions as to the course they should pursue, and also foretold future good or evil.[350]

Plutarch said that the familiar spirit or demon of Socrates was simply the sneezing either of the philosopher himself or of those about him. If any person in his company sneezed on his right hand, Socrates felt encouraged to proceed with the project or enterprise which he may have had in mind. But if the sneeze were on his left hand, he abandoned the undertaking. If he himself sneezed when he was doubtful whether or not to do anything, he regarded it as evidence in the affirmative; but if he happened to sneeze after any work was already entered upon, he immediately desisted therefrom.[351]The demon, we are told, always notified him by a slight sneeze whenever his wife Xantippe was about to have a scolding fit, so that he was thus enabled opportunely to absent himself. And in so doing Socrates appears to have given proof, were any needed, of his superior wisdom; for Xantippe had been known to upset the supper-table in her anger, and that, too, when a guest was present.

On a column in the garden of the House of the Faun, at Pompeii, there is a Latin inscription which may be freely translated as follows:—

Victoria, good luck to thee and wherever thou wilt, sneeze pleasantly.[352]

Clement of Alexandria, in a treatise on politeness, characterizes sneezing as effeminate and as a sign of intemperance.

Probably the only Biblical reference to the subject of sneezing is in 2 Kings iv. 35, where the son of the Shunamite sneezed seven times and then revived at the prayer of Elisha.

Hor-Apollo, in his treatise on Egyptian hieroglyphics, says that the inhabitants of ancient Egypt believed that the capacity for sneezing was in inverse ratio to the size of the spleen; and they portrayed the dog as the personification of sneezing and smelling, because they believed that that animal had a very small spleen. On the other hand, they held that animals with large spleens were unable to sneeze, smell, or laugh, that is, to be open, blithe, or frank-hearted.[353]

The function of the spleen in the animal economy is not fully understood to-day. If the above theory were correct, we should expect that the removal of a dog’s spleen would incite excessive sternutation and render more acute the sense of smell, whereas the only marked result of the operation is a voracious appetite. Thetheory is certainly unique, as well as illogical and absurd.

St. Augustine wrote that, in his time, so prevalent was faith in the omens of sneezing that a man would return to bed if he happened to sneeze while putting on his shoes in the morning.

The learned English prelate, Alcuin (735-804), expressed the opinion that sneezings were devoid of value as auguries except to those who placed reliance in them. But he further remarked that “it was permitted to the evil spirit, for the deceiving of persons who observe these things, to cause that in some degree prognostics should often foretell the truth.”[354]

In an ancient Anglo-Saxon sermon, a copy of which is in the library of Cambridge University, England, reference is made to certain superstitions existing among the Saxons before their conversion to Christianity. The writer says: “Every one who trusts in divinations, either by fowls or by sneezings, or by horses or dogs, he is no Christian, but a notorious apostate.”

From certain ancient Welsh poems, it appears that sneezing was considered unlucky in Wales in the twelfth century;[355]but in Europe generally, in mediævaltimes, the sneeze of a cat on the eve of a wedding was reckoned auspicious.[356]In the writings of the French poet, Pierre de Ronsard (1524-85), the opinion is expressed that not to sneeze while regarding the sun is a sign of ill-luck; and from Doctor Hartlieb’s “Book of all Forbidden Arts, Unbelief, and Sorcery,” 1455, we learn that in Germany there was a popular belief that three sneezes indicated the presence of four thieves around the house.

Jerome Cardan, the noted Italian philosopher and physician (1501-76), in speaking of genii or familiar spirits, remarked that, in his opinion, sneezing was a supernatural phenomenon, and, like the sound of ringing in the ears, was premonitory of some event of importance.[357]

Some idea of the credulous notions on the subject of sneezing which were prevalent in England during Queen Elizabeth’s reign may be obtained from the following extracts from the “Burghley Papers,” Lansdowne MSS. (No. 121) in the British Museum.[358]

1. If that any man talk with another about any matter and snese twise or iiij tymes, let him by and by arise, yf he sett, or yf he be stand, let him move hymself and go straightway without any stays about his business, for he shall prosper.2. Yf he snese more than iiij tymes, let him staye, for it is doubtful how he shall spede.3. Yf a man snese one or iij tymes, let him proceed no further in any matter, but let all alone, for it shall com to nought.4. Yf two men do snese bothe at one instant, yt is a good syne, and let them go about their purpose, yf that it be either by water or land, and they shall prosper.5. To snese twise is a good syne, but to snese once or iij times is an yll syne. If one come suddenly into an house and snese one tyme, yt is a good token.6. One snese in the night season made by any of the household betokenyth good luck to the house, but yf he make two sneses, yt signifieth domage.7. Trewe yt is that he who snesith takit pte (part) of the signification in this condition, that he pte some pte with other.8. Yf that any man snese twyse iij nightes together, it is a tokyn that one of the house shall dye, or else some greatt goodness or badness shall happon in the house.9. Yf a man go to dwell in an house and snese one tyme, lett him dwell there, but yf he snese twyse, lett him not tarry, neither let him dwell therein.10. Yf a man lye awake in his bedd and snese one tyme, it is a syne of some great sickness or hyndraunce.11. Yf a man sleape in his bedde and snese one tyme, it betokenyth greatt trouble, the death of some person or extreme hyndraunce in the loss of substaunce.12. Yf a man lye in his bedde and make a snese one tyme, it is a good syne both of health and lucre, but if he sleape it is moche better.13. Yf a man snese twyse three nights together, it is a good syne, whatsoever he go aboutt.14. Yf a man travell by the ways and come into an Inne and snese twyse, let him departe out of the house and go to another or else he shall not prosper.15. Yf a man go forthe to seke worke and laye hands of it and then snese one tyme, let hym departe, leaving his worke behind hym, and seke worke elsewhere, and so shall do well; but yf he snese twyse let hym take his worke and go no further.16. If any man, after he haue made a bargayne with another for any thing and then snese one tyme, it signifieth that his bargayne will not continue.17. Yf a man rise betymes on a Monday mornyng out of his bedd and snese one tyme, yt is a token that he shall prosper and gayne all that week, or haue some other joye and comoditie.18. But yf he snese twyse, yt is cleane contrary.19. Yf a man lose a horse or anything els, and is stopping (sic) out of his dore to seke it, do snese one tyme, yt is a token he shall haue it agayne, but yf he snese twyse he shall never haue it agayne.20. Yf a man ryse betyme on a Sonday and snese ii tymes, yt is a good tokyn, but if he snese one tyme, it is an yll tokyn.21. Yf a man at the very beginning of dinner or supper be minded to eat, and snese twyse, yt is a good tokyn, but yf he snese one time, yt is an yll syne.22. Yf a man lye sicke in bed and mystrusts himselfe, and snese one tyme, yt is a tokyn of deathe, but if he snese twyse he shall escape.23. A woman being very sicke, yf she snese one tyme, yt is a syne of health, but if she snese twyse, she shall dye.

2. Yf he snese more than iiij tymes, let him staye, for it is doubtful how he shall spede.

3. Yf a man snese one or iij tymes, let him proceed no further in any matter, but let all alone, for it shall com to nought.

4. Yf two men do snese bothe at one instant, yt is a good syne, and let them go about their purpose, yf that it be either by water or land, and they shall prosper.

5. To snese twise is a good syne, but to snese once or iij times is an yll syne. If one come suddenly into an house and snese one tyme, yt is a good token.

6. One snese in the night season made by any of the household betokenyth good luck to the house, but yf he make two sneses, yt signifieth domage.

7. Trewe yt is that he who snesith takit pte (part) of the signification in this condition, that he pte some pte with other.

8. Yf that any man snese twyse iij nightes together, it is a tokyn that one of the house shall dye, or else some greatt goodness or badness shall happon in the house.

9. Yf a man go to dwell in an house and snese one tyme, lett him dwell there, but yf he snese twyse, lett him not tarry, neither let him dwell therein.

10. Yf a man lye awake in his bedd and snese one tyme, it is a syne of some great sickness or hyndraunce.

11. Yf a man sleape in his bedde and snese one tyme, it betokenyth greatt trouble, the death of some person or extreme hyndraunce in the loss of substaunce.

12. Yf a man lye in his bedde and make a snese one tyme, it is a good syne both of health and lucre, but if he sleape it is moche better.

13. Yf a man snese twyse three nights together, it is a good syne, whatsoever he go aboutt.

14. Yf a man travell by the ways and come into an Inne and snese twyse, let him departe out of the house and go to another or else he shall not prosper.

15. Yf a man go forthe to seke worke and laye hands of it and then snese one tyme, let hym departe, leaving his worke behind hym, and seke worke elsewhere, and so shall do well; but yf he snese twyse let hym take his worke and go no further.

16. If any man, after he haue made a bargayne with another for any thing and then snese one tyme, it signifieth that his bargayne will not continue.

17. Yf a man rise betymes on a Monday mornyng out of his bedd and snese one tyme, yt is a token that he shall prosper and gayne all that week, or haue some other joye and comoditie.

18. But yf he snese twyse, yt is cleane contrary.

19. Yf a man lose a horse or anything els, and is stopping (sic) out of his dore to seke it, do snese one tyme, yt is a token he shall haue it agayne, but yf he snese twyse he shall never haue it agayne.

20. Yf a man ryse betyme on a Sonday and snese ii tymes, yt is a good tokyn, but if he snese one tyme, it is an yll tokyn.

21. Yf a man at the very beginning of dinner or supper be minded to eat, and snese twyse, yt is a good tokyn, but yf he snese one time, yt is an yll syne.

22. Yf a man lye sicke in bed and mystrusts himselfe, and snese one tyme, yt is a tokyn of deathe, but if he snese twyse he shall escape.

23. A woman being very sicke, yf she snese one tyme, yt is a syne of health, but if she snese twyse, she shall dye.

Sneezing at the commencement of an undertaking, whether it be an important enterprise or the most commonplace act, has usually been accounted unlucky. Thus, according to a modern Teutonic belief, if a man sneeze on getting up in the morning, he should lie down again for another three hours, else his wife will be his master for a week.[359]So likewise the pious Hindu, who may perchance sneeze while beginning his morning ablutions in the river Ganges, immediately recommences his prayers and toilet; and among the Alfoorans or aborigines of the island of Celebes in the Indian archipelago, if one happens to sneeze when about leaving a gathering of friends, he at once resumes his seat for a while before making another start.[360]

When a native of the Banks Islands, in Polynesia, sneezes, he imagines that some one is calling his name, either with good or evil intent, the motive being shown by the character of the sneeze. Thus a gentle sneeze implies kindly feeling on the part of the person speaking of him, while a violent paroxysm indicates a malediction.

In the latter case he resorts to a peculiar form of divination in order to ascertain who it is that curseshim. This consists in raising the arms above the head and revolving the closed fists one around the other. The revolution of the fists is the question, “Is it such an one?” Then the arms are thrown out, and the answer, presumably affirmative, is given by the cracking of the elbow-joints.[361]

In Scotland even educated people have been known to maintain that idiots are incapable of sneezing,[362]and hence, if this be true, the inference is clear that the act of sternutation isprima facieevidence of the possession of a certain degree of intelligence.

British nurses used to think that infants were under a fairy spell until they sneezed. “God sain the bairn,” exclaimed an old Scotch nurse when her little charge sneezed at length, “it’s no a warlock.”

The Irish people also entertain similar beliefs. Thus in Lady Wilde’s “Ancient Cures, Charms, and Usages of Ireland” (p. 41) is to be found the following description of a magical ceremony for the cure of a fairy-stricken child. A good fire is made, wherein is thrown a quantity of certain herbs prescribed by the fairy women; and after a thick smoke has risen, the child is carried thrice around the fire while an incantation is repeated and holy water is sprinkled about liberally. Meantime all doors must be closed, lest some inquisitivefairy enter and spy upon the proceedings; and the magical rites must be continueduntil the child sneezes three times, for this looses the spell, and the little one is permanently redeemed from the power of witches.

Among uncivilized peoples the sneeze of a young child has a certain mystic significance, and is intimately associated with its prospective welfare or ill-luck. When, therefore, a Maori infant sneezes, its mother immediately recites a long charm of words. If the sneeze occurs during a meal, it is thought to be prognostic of a visit, or of some interesting piece of news; whereas in Tonga it is deemed an evil token.

So, too, among the New Zealanders, if a child sneeze on the occasion of receiving its name, the officiating priest at once holds to its ear the wooden image of an idol and sings some mystic words.

In a note appended to his “Mountain Bard,” the Ettrick Shepherd says, regarding the superstitions of Selkirkshire: “When they sneeze in first stepping out of bed in the morning, they are thence certified that strangers will be there in the course of the day, in numbers corresponding to the times they sneeze.”[363]

It was a Flemish belief that a sneeze during a conversation proved that what one said was the truth,[364]adoctrine which must have commended itself to snuff-takers.

In Shetlandic and Welsh folk-lore the sneeze of a cat indicates cold north winds in summer and snow in winter;[365]and the Bohemians have an alleged infallible test for recognizing the Devil, for they believe that he must perforce sneeze violently at sight of a cross.[366]

According to a Chinese superstition a sneeze on New Year’s Eve is ominous for the coming year; and, to offset this, the sneezer must visit three families of different surnames, and beg from each a small tortoise-shaped cake, which must be eaten before midnight.[367]

In Turkistan, when a person to whom a remark is addressed sneezes, it is an asseveration that the opinion or statement is correct, just as if the person accosted were to exclaim, “That is true!” In the same country three sneezes are unlucky. When, also, any one hiccoughs, it is etiquette to say, “You stole something from me,” and this phrase at such times is supposed to produce good luck.[368]

The Japanese attach significance to the number of times a man sneezes. Thus, one sneeze indicates that some one is praising him, while two betoken censure or disparagement; a triple sneeze is commonplace, andmeans simply that a person has taken cold.[369]In Mexico, also, it was formerly believed either that somebody was speaking evil of one who sneezed, or that he was being talked about by one or more persons.[370]

Sussex people are prejudiced against cats which develop sneezing proclivities, for they believe that, when a pet feline sneezes thrice, it augurs ill for the health of the household, and is premonitory of influenza and bronchial affections.[371]

In an interesting article in “Macmillan’s Magazine,” entitled “From the Note-book of a Country Doctor,”[372]a physician practicing in a remote part of Cornwall tells of a peculiar cure for deafness which recently came to his notice.

One of his patients, an elderly woman whose name was Grace Rickard, complained that she could no longer hear the grunting of her pigs, a sound which, from childhood, had roused her from sleep in the early morning. The doctor was obliged to tell her that the difficulty was due to advancing years.

A short time after, on calling at her house, he found her sitting before the fire with a piece of board in her lap, and deeply absorbed in thought. Just as the door opened, she exclaimed: “Lord, deliver me from mysins,” and this petition was followed by a peculiar noise which sounded like an abortive sneeze. “Don’t be frited, zur,” she said, “’tes aunly a sneeze.” “It’s the oddest sneeze I ever heard,” said the doctor; “why can’t you sneeze in the ordinary way?” “So I do, when I can,” she explained; “but now ’tes got up to nine times running, and wherever to get nine sneezes from is moor ’n I knaw.”

It appeared that Grace was making trial of an infallible cure for deafness, the necessary apparatus for which consisted of a piece of board and some stout pins. One of the latter is stuck into the board every morning, the patient’s forefingers being crossed over the pin, while the pious ejaculation above mentioned is repeated simultaneously with a vigorous sneeze. On the next morning two pins must be stuck in the board, the petition and sneeze being once repeated; on the following morning three pins, three prayers, and three sneezes, and so on up to nine times.

The natural instinct of the untutored savage is to regard the act of sneezing as the manifestation of an attack by a demon. Certain African tribes, for instance, are said to believe that whoever sneezes is possessed of an evil spirit, to whose malicious agency is due the violence of the paroxysm and its utter disregard of times and seasons.

Dr. Edward B. Tylor, in his “Primitive Culture” (vol. i. p. 97), asserts that the Zulus have faith in the agency of kindly spirits as well, and says that, when one of these people sneezes, he is wont to exclaim: “I am now blessed; the ancestral spirit is with me. Let me hasten and praise it, for it is that which causes me to sneeze.” Thereupon he praises the spirits of the dead, and asks for various blessings. But among most uncivilized peoples sneezing is placed in the category of paroxysmal diseases, and reckoned to be of demoniac origin.

Inasmuch as sneezing is often one symptom of an incipient cold, which is a physical ailment, and as among savage tribes every physical ailment is regarded as a case of demoniacal possession, the use of charms and exorcisms to counteract the efforts of the evil spirits seems a natural expedient.[373]

When an American Indian falls sick, he believes his illness to be the work of some spiteful demon. Therefore, when he gets well, he changes his name, so that the demon may not be able to recognize him again.[374]

The chief aim of the medicine-man, in treating a patient, is the expulsion of the evil spirit; and this is the prime object of the various superstitious ceremoniesand incantations which are a prominent feature in medical practice among savages.[375]The medicine-man strives to drive away the demon by frightful sounds and gesticulations, and by hideous grimaces and contortions. Sometimes he makes a small image typifying the spirit of sickness, and this image is then maliciously broken in pieces.[376]

The natives of West Africa believe that the mere mention of unpleasant names suffices to frighten away the demons who cause sickness; and these spirits may moreover be deceived by simply changing the name of a sick child. In the province of Tonquin, a French possession in southeastern Asia, hateful names given to ailing children are likewise thought to terrify the evil spirits; but when the little patients are convalescent, pleasanter names are substituted.[377]

The Indians of Nootka Sound, Vancouver Island, attribute physical ailments either to the absence or irregular conduct of the soul, or to the agency of spirits, and medical practice is governed accordingly; therefore the Okanogons of the State of Washington subject patients affected with serious illnesses to the magical treatment of the medicine-man.[378]

The islanders of the South Pacific have their owndoctrine about the philosophy of sneezing. They believe that, when the spirit goes traveling about, its return naturally occasions some commotion, as is evident from the violent act of sneezing. They therefore deem it proper to welcome back the wandering spirit, the form of greeting varying in the different islands. The phrase employed by the natives of Raratonga, for example, means “Ha! you have come back!”[379]

The “Sadda,” one of the sacred books of the Parsees, counsels the faithful to have recourse to prayer when they sneeze, because at that critical moment the demon is especially active.

The Parsees regard sneezing as a manifestation that the evil spirits, who are constantly seeking to enter the body, have been forcibly expelled by the interior fire which, in their belief, animates every human being. When, therefore, a Parsee hears any one sneeze, he exclaims, “Blessed be Ormuzd!” thus praising his chief deity. The Parsees are forbidden to talk while eating, because at such times demons are on the alert, watching for opportunities to gain admission to the body through the mouth while a person is engaged in conversation.[380]

Pious Brahmins are careful to touch the right earwhen they happen to sneeze either during the performance of a religious ceremony or at certain other times specified in the “Shastra,” or holy books of the Hindus. Evil spirits were believed to enter the body through the ears, as well as by the nose or mouth, and the object of touching the ear was to prevent their gaining admission there.

In reference to this subject, Gerald Massey says, in the “Natural Genesis” (vol. i. pp. 83-85):—

Back to Index Next