CHAPTER XLV

142Mandeville,Fable of the Bees, p. 187.

143Bentham,Theory of Legislation, p. 428sq.

144Young,op. cit.p. 75sq.

145Salt,Animals’ Rights, p. v.

This rapidly increasing sympathy with animal suffering is no doubt to a considerable extent due to the decline of the anthropocentric doctrine and the influence of another theory, which regards man, not as an image of the deity separated from the lower animals by a special act of creation, but as a being generally akin to them, and only representing a higher stage in the scale of mental evolution. Through this doctrine the orthodox contempt for dumb creatures was succeeded by feelings of affinity and kindly interest. But apart from any theory as regards human origins, growing reflection has also taught men to be more considerate in their treatment of animals by producing a more vivid idea of their sufferings. Human thoughtlessnesshas been responsible for much needless pain to which they have been made subject. In spite of some improvement it is so still; whilst, at the same time, the movement advocating greater humanity to animals is itself not altogether free from inconsistencies and a certain lack of discrimination.

It has been observed that the Neapolitan would not act so cruelly as he does to almost all animals except the cat if he could bring himself to conceive their capacity for joy and pain.146So also we ourselves should often behave differently if we realised the tortures we thoughtlessly cause to creatures whose sufferings escape our notice from want of obvious outward expression. While the practice of whipping young pigs to death to make them tender, which occurred in England not much more than a century ago,147would nowadays be regarded with general horror, cruelties inflicted for gastronomic purposes upon creatures of a lower type are little thought of. Cray-fish, oysters, and fish in general, as Mandeville observed, excite hardly any compassion at all, because “they express themselves unintelligibly to us; they are mute, and their inward formation, as well as outward figure, vastly different from ours.”148On the other hand, even passionate sportsmen describe the hunting of monkeys as repulsive on account of their resemblance to man; Rajah Brooke thought it almost barbarous to kill an orang-utan, unless for the sake of scientific research.149Buddhism itself declares that “he who takes away the life of a large animal will have greater demerit than he who takes away the life of a small one…. The crime is not great when an ant is killed; its magnitude increases in this progression—a lizard, a guana, a hare, a deer, a bull, a horse, and an elephant.”150How little the feelings which underlie men’s opinions concerning conducttowards the lower animals are influenced by reflection is also apparent in the present crusade against vivisection, when compared with the public indifference to the sufferings inflicted on wild animals in sport. The vivisector who in cold blood torments his helpless victim in the interest of science and for the benefit of mankind is called a coward, and is a much more common object of hatred than the sportsman who causes agonies to the creature he pursues for sheer amusement. The pursued animal, it is argued, has “free chances of escape.”151This is an excellent argument—provided we share the North American Indian’s conviction that an animal can never be killed without its own permission.

146‘Cruelty to Animals in Naples,’ inSaturday Review, lix. 854.

147The World, 1756, nr. 190, p. 1142. Young,op. cit.p. 129.

148Mandeville,op. cit.p. 187.

149Brooke,Ten Years in Saráwak, i. 100.Cf.Rengger,Naturgeschichte in der Säugethiere von Paraguay, p. 26.

150Hardy,Manual of Budhism, pp. 478, 480.

151Cobbe,op. cit.p. 10.

At present there is among ourselves no topic of moral concern which presents a greater variety of opinion than the question how far the happiness of the lower animals may be justly sacrificed for the benefit of man. The extreme views on this subject might, no doubt, be somewhat modified, on the one hand by a more vivid representation of animal suffering, on the other hand by the recognition of certain facts, often overlooked, which make it unreasonable to regard conduct towards dumb creatures in exactly the same light as conduct towards men. It should especially be remembered that the former have none of those long-protracted anticipations of future misery or death which we have.152If they are destined to serve as meat they are not aware of it; whereas many domestic animals would never have come into existence, and been able to enjoy what appears a very happy life, but for the purpose of being used as food. But though greater intellectual discrimination may somewhat lessen the divergencies of moral opinion on the subject, nothing like unanimity can be expected, for the simple reason that moral judgments are ultimately based upon emotions, and sympathy with the animal world is a feeling which varies extremely in different individuals.

152Cf.Bentham,Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation, p. 311, n.

MORALITYtakes notice not only of men’s conduct towards the living but of their conduct towards the dead.

There is a general tendency in the human mind to assume that what has existed still exists and will exist. When a person dies it is difficult for those around him to conceive that he is really dead, and when the cold motionless body bears sad testimony to the change which has taken place, there is a natural inclination to believe that the soul has only changed its abode. In the savage the tendency to assume the continued existence of the soul after death is strongly supported by dreams and visions of his deceased friends. What else could these mean but visits of their souls?

There are, it is true, some savages who are reported to believe in the annihilation of the soul at the moment of death, or to have no notion whatever of a future state.1But the accuracy of these statements is hardly beyond suspicion. We sometimes hear that the very people who are said to deny any belief in an after-life are afraid of ghosts.2A native of Madagascar will almost in the samebreath declare that when he dies he ceases altogether to exist and yet confess the fact that he is in the habit of praying to his dead ancestors.3Of the Masai in Eastern Africa some writers state that they believe in annihilation,4others that they attribute a future existence to their chiefs, medicine men, or influential people.5The ideas on this subject are often exceedingly vague, and inconsistencies are only to be expected.

1Powers,Tribes of California, p. 348sq.(Miwok). Brinton,Myths of the New World, p. 233sq.(some Oregon Indians). Lumholtz,Among Cannibals, p. 101 (natives of the Herbert River, Northern Queensland). Martin,Reisen in den Molukken, p. 155 (Alfura). Worcester,Philippine Islands, p. 412 (Mangyans). Colquhoun,Amongst the Shans, p. 76 (Lethtas). Dalton,Ethnology of Bengal, p. 257 (Oráons). Petherick,Travels in Central Africa, i. 321 (Nouaer tribes). Du Chaillu,Explorations in Equatorial Africa, p. 385.

2New,Life in Eastern Africa, p. 105.

3Ellis,History of Madagascar, 393.

4Thomson,Through Masai Land, p. 259. Hinde,The Last of the Masai, p. 99.

5Johnston,Uganda, ii. 832. Hollis,Masai, pp. 304, 305, 307. Eliot,ibid.p. xx.

The disembodied soul is commonly supposed to have the shape of a small unsubstantial human image, and to be in its nature a sort of vapour, film, or shadow.6It is believed to have the same bodily wants and to possess the same mental capacities as its owner possessed during his lifetime. It is not regarded as invulnerable or immortal—it may be hurt and killed. It feels hunger and thirst, heat and cold. It can see and hear and think, it has human passions and a human will, and it has the power to influence the living for evil or for good. These notions as regards the disembodied soul determine the relations between the living and the dead.

6Tylor,Primitive Culture, i. 429.

The dead are supposed to have rights very similar to those they had whilst alive. The soul must not be killed or injured. The South Australian Dieyerie, for instance, show great reverence for certain trees, which are believed to be their fathers transformed; they will not cut them down and protest against the settlers doing so.7So also some of the Philippine Islanders maintain that the souls of their forefathers are in trees, which they therefore spare.8The North American Powhatans refrained from doing harm to some small wood-birds, which were supposed to receive the souls of their chiefs.9In Lifu,when a father was about to die, surrounded by members of his family, he might say what animal he would be, for instance a butterfly or some kind of bird, and that creature would be sacred to his family, who would neither injure nor kill it.10The Rejangs of Sumatra imagine that tigers in general contain the spirits of departed men, and “no consideration will prevail on a countryman to catch or to wound one, but in self-defence, or immediately after the act of destroying a friend or relation.”11Among other peoples monkeys, crocodiles, or snakes, being thought men in metempsychosis, are held sacred and must not be hurt.12Some Congo Negroes, again, abstain for a whole year after a death from sweeping the house, lest the dust should injure the delicate substance of the ghost.13In China, for seven days after a man’s death his widow and children avoid the use of knives and needles, and even of chopsticks, eating their food with their fingers, so as not to wound the ghost.14And to this day it remains a German peasants’ belief that it is wrong to slam a door, lest one should pinch a soul in it.15

7Gason, ‘Dieyerie Tribe,’ in Woods’Native Tribes of South Australia, p. 280.

8Blumentritt, ‘Der Ahnencultus der Malaien des Philippinen-Archipels,’ inMittheil. d. kais. u. kön. Geograph. Gesellsch. in Wien, xxv. 164sqq.

9Brinton,Myths of the New World, p. 102.

10Codrington, quoted by Tylor, ‘Remarks on Totemism,’ inJour. Anthr. Inst.xxviii. 147.

11Marsden,History of Sumatra, p. 292. The same belief prevails among the natives of the Malay Peninsula (Newbold,British Settlements in the Straits of Malacca, ii. 192).

12Meiners,Geschichte der Religionen, i. 212. Tylor,Primitive Culture, ii. 8.

13Bastian,Der Mensch in der Geschichte, ii. 323.

14Gray,China, i. 288.

15Wuttke,Der deutsche Volksaberglaube der Gegenwart, § 609, p. 396sq.

But the survivors must not only avoid doing anything which might hurt the soul, they must also positively contribute to its comfort and subsistence. They often provide it with a dwelling, either burying the deceased in his own house, or erecting a tent or hut on his grave. Some Australian natives kindle a fire at a few yards’ distance from the tomb, and repeat this until the soul is supposed to have gone somewhere else;16others, again, are in the habit of wrapping the body up in a rug, professedly for the purpose of keeping it warm.17In the Saxon district of Voigtland people have been known toput into the coffin an umbrella and a pair of galoshes.18An extremely prevalent custom is to place provisions in or upon the grave, and very commonly feasts are given for the dead.19Weapons, implements, and other movables are deposited in the tomb; domestic animals are buried or slaughtered at the funeral;20and, as we have seen before, even human beings are sacrificed to the dead to serve them as companions or attendants, or to vivify their spirits with their blood, or to gratify their craving for revenge.21

16Roth,North-West-Central Queensland Aborigines, p. 165.

17Fraser,Aborigines of New South Wales, p. 79sq.

18Kohler,Volksbrauch im Voigtlande, p. 441.

19See Tylor.op. cit.ch. xi.sq.; Spencer,Principles of Sociology, i. 155sqq., 257sqq.; Frazer,Adonis Attis Osiris, p. 242sqq.

20See Spencer,op. cit.i. 184sqq.

21Supra,i. 472sqq.

The offerings made to the dead may be gifts presented to them by the survivors, but the regular funeral sacrifice consists of the deceased person’s own individual property. Among savages the whole, or a large part, of it is often consigned to the grave or destroyed.22The right of ownership does not cease with death where the belief prevails that the dead stand in need of earthly chattels. The recognition of this right is also apparent in the severe condemnation of robbery or violation committed at a tomb. Among various North American tribes such an act was regarded as an offence of the first magnitude and provoked cruel revenge.23Of the Chippewa Indians it is said that however bad a person may be or however much inclined to steal, the things left at a grave, valuable or not, are never touched, being sacred to the spirit of thedead.24Among the Maoris “the least violation of any portion of the precincts of the dead is accounted the greatest crime that a human being can commit, and is visited with the direst revenge of a surviving tribe.”25The laws of Athens26and Rome27and the ancient Teutonic law-books28punished with great severity the plunder of a corpse or a tomb. In Rome the punishment was death if the offence was committed by force, otherwise condemnation to the mines.

22Boas, ‘Central Eskimo,’ inAnn. Rep. Bur. Ethn.vi. 580. Murdoch, ‘Ethn. Results of the Point Barrow Expedition,’ibid.ix. 424sq.(Point Barrow Eskimo). Powell,ibid.iii. p. lvii. (North American Indians). Yarrow, ‘Mortuary Customs of the North American Indians,’ibid.i. 98 (Pimas), 100 (Comanches). McGee, ‘Siouan Indians,’ibid.xv. 178. Roth,op. cit.p. 164 (certain Queensland tribes). Colenso,Maori Races of New Zealand, p. 57. Kolff,Voyages of the Dourga, p. 166sq.(Arru Islanders). Kloss,In the Andamans and Nicobars, p. 304 (Kar Nicobarese). Batchelor,Ainu and their Folk-Lore, p. 560sq.Georgi,Russia, iv. 152 (Burats). Caillié,Travels through Central Africa, i. 164 (Bagos). Burrows,Land of the Pigmies, p. 107 (Monbuttu). Decle,Three Years in Savage Africa, p. 79 (Barotse). Strabo, xi. 4. 8 (Albanians of the Eastern Caucasus). See also Spencer,Principles of Sociology, i. 185sq.; Post,Entwicklungsgeschichte des Familienrechts, p. 295sq.;Idem,Grundriss der ethnologischen Jurisprudenz, ii. 173sq.;infra,p. 514sq.

23Sagard,Voyage du Pays des Hurons, p. 288. Gibbs, ‘Tribes of Western Washington and North-western Oregon,’ inContributions to North American Ethnology, i. 204.

24Reid, ‘Religious Belief of the Ojibois,’ inJour. Anthr. Inst.iii. 112.

25Polack,Manners and Customs of the New Zealanders, i. 111sq.

26Cicero,De legibus, ii. 26. See also Schmidt,Die Ethik der alten Griechen, ii. 105sq.

27Digesta, xlvii. 12, ‘De sepulchro violato.’

28Wilda,Das Strafrecht der Germanen, p. 975sqq.

Like living men the dead are sensitive to insults and fond of praise; hence respect must be shown for their honour and self-regarding pride.De mortuis nil nisi bonum;οὐ γὰρ ἐσθλὰ κατθανοῦσι κερτομεῖν ἐπ’ ἀνδράσιν.29In Greece custom required that at the funeral meal the virtues of the deceased should be enumerated and extolled,30and calumny against a dead person was punished by law.31The same was the case in ancient Egypt.32In Greenland, after the interment, the nearest male relative of the dead commemorated in a loud plaintive voice all the excellent qualities of the departed.33Among the Iroquois the near relatives and friends approached the body in turn and addressed it in a laudatory speech.34

29Archilochus,Reliquiæ, 40.

30Schmidt,Die Ethik der alten Griechen, ii. 122sq.

31Rohde,Psyche, p. 224.

32Diodorus Siculus, i. 92. 5. Erman,Life in Ancient Egypt, p. 322.

33Cranz,History of Greenland, i. 218.

34Morgan,League of the Iroquois, p. 175, n. 2.

The dead also demand obedience and are anxious that the rules they laid down while alive should be followed by the survivors. Hence the sacredness which is attached to a will;35hence also, in a large measure, the rigidity of ancestral custom. The greatest dread of the natives of South-Eastern Africa “is to offend their ancestors and the only way to avoid this is to do everything according totraditional usage.”36Among the Basutos “the anger of the deified generations could not be more directly provoked than by a departure from the precepts and examples they have left behind them.”37The Ew̔e-speaking peoples of the Slave Coast have a proverb which runs:—“Follow the customs of your father. What he did not do, avoid doing, or you will harm yourself.”38Among the Aleuts the old men always impress upon the native youth the great importance of strictly observing the customs of their forefathers in conducting the chase and other matters, as any neglect in this respect would be sure to bring upon them disaster and punishment.39The Kamchadales, says Steller, consider it a sin to do anything which is contrary to the precepts of their ancestors.40The Papuans of the Motu district, in New Guinea, believe that when men and women are bad—adulterers, thieves, quarrellers, and the like—the spirits of the dead are angry with them.41One of the most powerful sentiments in the mind of a Chinese is his reverence for ancestral custom; and in a large sense Japan also is still a country governed by the voices that are hushed.42The life of the ancient Roman was beset with a society of departed kinsmen whose displeasure he provoked if he varied from the practice handed down from his fathers. The expressionmos majorum, “the custom of the elders,” was used by him as a charm against innovation.43

35Ellis,Polynesian Researches, iii. 116 (Tahitians). Shortland,Traditions and Superstitions of the New Zealanders, p. 257. Sarbah,Fanti Customary Laws, p. 82. Schmidt,Die Ethik der alten Griechen, ii. 124sq.

36Macdonald,Light in Africa, p. 192.

37Casalis,Basutos, p. 254.

38Ellis,Ew̔e-speaking Peoples of the Slave Coast, p. 263.

39Elliott,Alaska and the Seal Islands, p. 170. Veniaminof, quoted by Petroff,Report on the Population, &c. of Alaska, p. 156.

40Steller,Beschreibung von Kamtschatka, p. 274.

41Chalmers,Pioneering in New Guinea, p. 169.

42Griffis,Religions of Japan, p. 308. Hozumi,Ancestor-Worship and Japanese Law, p. 1, &c.

43Granger, ‘Moral Life of the Early Romans,’ inInternal. Jour. of Ethics, vii. 287.Idem,Worship of the Romans, pp. 65, 66, 138.

Besides such duties to the dead as are similar in nature to those which men owe to their living fellow men or superiors, there are obligations of a different character arising from the fact of death itself. The funeral, the rites connected with it, and the mourning customs are largely regarded as duties to the dead.

The grave is represented as a place where the deceased finds his desired rest, and if denied proper burial he is believed not only to walk but to suffer. The Iroquois considered that unless the rites of burial were performed, the spirits of the dead had to wander for a time upon the earth in a state of great unhappiness; hence their extreme solicitude to recover the bodies of their slain in battle.44The Abipones regard it as the greatest misfortune for the dead to be left to rot in the open air, and they therefore inter even the smallest bone of a departed friend.45In Ashantee the spirits of those who for some reason or other have been deprived of the customary funeral rites are doomed, in the imagination of the people, to haunt the gloom of the forest, stealing occasionally to their former abodes in rare but lingering visits, troubling and bewitching their neglectful relatives.46The Negroes of Accra believe that happiness in a future life depends not only upon courage, power, and wealth in this world, but also upon a proper burial.47In some Australian tribes the souls of those whose bodies have been left to lie unburied are supposed to have to prowl on the face of the earth and about the place of death, with no gratification but to harm the living;48or there is said to be no future existence for them, as their bodies will be devoured by crows and native dogs.49Among the Bataks of Sumatra nothing is considered to be a greater disgrace to a person than to be denied a grave; for by not being held worthy of burial he is declared to be spiritually dead.50The Samoans believed that the souls of unburied friends, for instance such as had been drowned or had fallen in war, haunted them everywhere, crying out in a pitiful tone, “Oh, how cold! Oh, how cold!”51According to Karen ideas thespirits of those who die a natural death and are decently buried go to a beautiful country and renew their earthly life, whereas the ghosts of persons who by accident are left uninterred will wander about the earth, occasionally showing themselves to mankind.52Confucius connected the disposal of the dead immediately with the great virtue of submission and devotion to superiors.53No act is in China recognised more worthy a virtuous man than that of interring stray bones and covering up exposed coffins,54and to bury a person who is without friends is considered to be as great a merit as to save life.55It is also held highly important to provide the proper place for a grave; the Taouists maintain that “if a coffin be interred in an improper spot, the spirit of the dead is made unhappy, and avenges itself by causing sickness and other calamities to the relatives who have not taken sufficient care for its repose.”56The ancient Chaldeans believed that the spirits of the unburied dead, having neither place of repose nor means of subsistence, wandered through the town and country, occupied with no other thought than that of attacking and robbing the living.57In classical antiquity it was the most sacred of duties to give the body its funeral rites,58and the Greeks referred the right of sepulture to the gods as its authors.59

44Morgan,League of the Iroquois, p. 175.

45Dobrizhoffer,Account of the Abipones, ii. 284.

46Bowdich,Mission to Ashantee, p. 262sq.

47Monrad,Skildring af Guinea-Kysten, p. 4.

48Oldfield, ‘Aborigines of Australia,’ inTrans. Ethn. Soc.N.S. iii. 228, 236sq.

Back to Index Next