Chapter 122

15Ibid.ii. 422sqq.

16Heinrich, quotedibid.ii. 423.

17Crooke,Popular Religion and Folk-lore of Northern India, ii. 303.

Domestic animals are frequently objects of superstitious reverence.18They are expected to reward masters who treat them well, whereas those who harm them are believed to expose themselves to their revenge. Among the Eskimo about Behring Strait dogs are never beaten for biting people, lest theinuaor shade of the dog should become angry and prevent the wound from healing.19Butchers are often regarded as unclean, and the original reason for this was in all probability the idea that they were haunted by the spirits of the animals they had slain. Among the Guanches of the Canary Islands it was unlawful for anybody but professional butchers to kill cattle, and a butcher was forbidden to enter other persons’ houses, to touch their property, and to keep company with any one not of his own trade.20In Morocco a butcher, like a manslayer, is thought to be haunted byjnûn(jinn), and it seems that in this case also the notion of hauntingjnûnhas replaced an earlier belief in troublesome ghosts.21So, too, the ancient Troglodytes of East Africa, who derived their whole sustenance from their flocks and herds, are said to have looked upon butchers as unclean.22In the rural districts of Japan it is believed that a butcher will have a cripple among his descendants.23

18See Robertson Smith,Religion of the Semites, p. 296sqq.

19Nelson, inAnn. Rep. Bur. Ethn.xviii. 435.

20Abreu de Galindo,History of the Discovery and Conquest of the Canary Islands, p. 71sq.Bory de St. Vincent,Essais sur les Isles Fortunées, p. 103sq.

21Cf.supra,i. 378.

22Robertson Smith,op. cit.p. 296sq.

23Griffis,Mikado’s Empire, p. 472.

How far ideas of this sort may account for the great disinclination of many peoples to kill their cattle, it is impossible to say; but they certainly do not constitute the only motive. We have noticed above that pastoral tribes are unwilling to reduce their herds and agricultural peoples to kill the ploughing ox, because this would implyloss of valuable property.24And apart from economic considerations, we may assume that feelings of genuine sympathy also induce them to treat their animals with kindness. The altruistic sentiment has not necessarily reference to members of the same species only; of this we find instances even among animals in confinement and domesticated animals, which frequently become attached to individuals of a different species with whom they live together.25And the savage feels himself much more closely related to the animal world than does his civilised fellow creature; indeed, as we have seen, he habitually obliterates the boundaries between man and beast and regards all animals as practically on a footing of equality with himself.26Among the pastoral races of Africa the men delight in attending their cattle, and spend much time in ornamenting and adorning them; the herdsman knows every beast in his herd, calls it by its name, and affectionately observes all its peculiarities.27Of the Bahima, a cow tribe in Uganda, the Rev. J. Roscoe tells us that the men form warm attachments for their cattle; some of them love the animals like children, pet and coax them, talk to them, and weep over their ailments, and should a favourite die their grief is so extreme that it sometimes leads to suicide.28The mythical founder of the kingdom of Uganda, Kintu, is said to have been so humane and averse from the sight of blood, that “even cattle killed for necessary food were slaughtered at some distance from his dwelling.”29But cattle are not the only dumb creatures that excite tender feelings in the bosom of a savage. The For tribe of Central Africa regard it as a characteristic of a good man to be kind to animals in general, and consider it wicked to be otherwise.30Concerning the Eastern Central Africans Mr.Macdonald writes that if they appear destitute of pity, say, for their fowls in their methods of carrying them, it is because they do not reflect that it gives them pain—“all would admit that it was a cruel thing to pain the fowl”; and they have fables in their language which show a desire to enter minutely into the feelings of dumb creatures, representing, for instance, fowls as reasoning on their hard fate in being killed for their master’s supper.31Among the Indians of the province of Quito, according to Juan and Ulloa, the women are so fond of their fowls that they will not sell them, much less kill them with their own hands; “so that if a stranger, who is obliged to pass the night in one of their cottages, offers ever so much money for a fowl, they refuse to part with it, and he finds himself under a necessity of killing the fowl himself. At this his landlady shrieks, dissolves in tears, and wrings her hands, as if it had been an only son; till seeing the mischief past remedy she wipes her eyes, and quietly takes what the traveller offers her.”32North American Indians, again, are very fond of their hunting dogs. Those on the west side of the Rocky Mountains “appear to have the same affection for them that they have for their children; and they will discourse with them, as if they were rational beings. They frequently call them their sons or daughters; and when describing an Indian, they will speak of him as father of a particular dog which belongs to him. When these dogs die, it is not unusual to see their masters or mistresses place them on a pile of wood, and burn them in the same manner as they do the dead bodies of their relations; and they appear to lament their deaths, by crying and howling, fully as much as if they were their kindred.”33So also the natives of Australia often display much affection for their dogs; Mr. Gason has seen women crying over a dog when bitten by a snake as if it had been one of their own children, and if a puppy has lost its mother thewomen suckle and nurse it.34Of the Maoris of New Zealand we read that their extreme love of offspring “was also carried out to excess towards the young of brutes—especially of their dogs, and, afterwards, of cats and pigs introduced. Hence it was by no means an unusual sight to see a woman carrying her child at her back, and a pet dog, or pig, in her bosom.”35The Chukchi of North-Eastern Siberia believe that if a person is cruel to brutes his soul will after his death migrate into some domestic animal—a dog, a horse, or a reindeer.36Even the miserable Veddahs of Ceylon are said to be indignant at the needless killing of a beast.37

24Supra,ii. 331.

25Seesupra,i. 112.

26Supra,i. 258.

27Ratzel,History of Mankind, ii. 415.

28Roscoe, ‘Bahima,’ inJour. Anthr. Inst.xxxvii. 94sq.

29Felkin, ‘Notes on the Waganda Tribe,’ inProceed. Roy. Soc. Edinburgh, xiii. 764.

30Felkin, ‘Notes on the For Tribe,’ inProceed. Roy. Soc. Edinburgh, xiii. 232sq.

31Macdonald,Africana, i. 10sq.

32Juan and Ulloa,Voyage to South America, i. 426sq.

33Harmon,Journal of Voyages in the Interior of North America, p. 335sq.

34Gason, ‘Dieyerie Tribe,’ in Woods,Native Tribes of South Australia, p. 259. Fraser,Aborigines of New South Wales, p. 5. Williams, ‘Yircla Meening Tribe,’ in Curr,The Australian Race, i. 402.

35Colenso,Maori Races of New Zealand, p. 43.

36Ratzel,op. cit.ii. 231.

37Sarasin,Ergebnisse naturwissenschaftlicher Forschungen auf Ceylon, iii. 539.

On the other hand we also hear of savages who are greatly lacking in sympathy for the brute creation. Darwin says that humanity to the lower animals is apparently unfelt by savages, except towards their pets.38Mr. Atkinson charges the New Caledonians with great cruelty to animals.39The Tasmanians appeared much to enjoy the tortures of a wounded bird or beast.40It is not to be expected that people whose kindly feelings towards men hardly extend beyond the borders of their own communities should be compassionate to wild animals. They may also appear wantonly cruel because they do not realise the pain which they inflict. And, like children, they may enjoy the agony of a suffering beast or bird because it excites their curiosity.

38Darwin,Descent of Man, p. 123.

39Atkinson, ‘Natives of New Caledonia,’ inFolk-lore, xiv. 248.

40Davies, quoted by Ling Roth,Tasmanians, p. 66.

It is obvious from what has been said above that already at the savage stage men’s conduct towards the lower animals must in some cases be a matter of moral concern. For hand in hand with the altruistic sentiment we always find the feeling of sympathetic resentment whenever there is an occasion for its outburst. Moreover,acts which are, or are believed to be, injurious to the agent, by exposing him to an animal’s revenge or otherwise, are prohibited because they are imprudent; and, as we have often noticed, such prohibitions are apt to assume a moral character. Finally, if a certain mode of conduct is considered to be productive of public harm, as is the case with any act or omission which reduces, or is supposed to reduce, the supply of food or animal clothing, it is naturally looked upon as a wrong against the community.

Similar facts have, among peoples of a higher culture, led to moral rules inculcating regard for animals—rules which have often assumed a definite shape in their laws or religious books.

According to Brahmanism tenderness towards all creatures is a duty incumbent upon the four castes. It is said that “he who injures innoxious beings from a wish to give himself pleasure, never finds happiness, neither living nor dead.”41If a blow is struck against animals in order to give them pain, the judge shall inflict a fine in proportion to the amount of pain caused, just as if the blow had been struck against a man.42The killing of various creatures, including fish and snakes, reduces the offender to a mixed caste;43and, according to ‘Vishnu Purana,’ fishermen go after death to the same hell as awaits prisoners, incendiaries, and treacherous friends.44To kill a cow is a great crime;45whereas he who unhesitatingly abandons life for the sake of a cow is freed even from the guilt of the murder of a Brâhmana, and so is he who saves the life of a cow.46Among many of the Hindus the slaughter of a cow excites more horror than the killing of a man, and is punished with great severity, even with death.47

41Laws of Manu, v. 45.

42Ibid.viii. 286.

43Ibid.xi. 69.

44Vishńu Puráńa, p. 208sq.

45Institutes of Vishnu, l. 16sqq.Gautama, xxii. 18.Âpastamba, i. 26. 1.Laws of Manu, xi. 109sqq.

46Laws of Manu, xi. 80.

47Barth,Religions of India, p. 264. Kipling,Beast and Man in India, p. 118sq.Crooke,Things Indian, p. 91.

In Buddhism, Jainism, and Taouism the respect for animal life is extreme. A disciple of Buddha may notknowingly deprive any creature of life, not even a worm or an ant. He may not drink water in which animal life of any kind whatever is contained, and must not even pour it out on grass or clay.48And the doctrine which forbids the killing of animate beings is not only professed, but in a large measure followed, by the great majority of people in Buddhistic countries. In Siam the tameness of many living creatures which in Europe fly from the presence of man is very striking. Instances have been known in which natives have quitted the service of Europeans on account of their unwillingness to destroy reptiles and vermin, and it is a not uncommon practice for rich Siamese to buy live fish to have the merit of restoring them to the sea.49In Burma, though fish is one of the staple foods of the people, the fisherman is despised; not so much, perhaps, as if he killed other living things, but he is still an outcast from decent society, and “will have to suffer great and terrible punishment before he can be cleansed from the sins that he daily commits.”50The Buddhists of Ceylon are more forbearing: they excuse the fisherman by saying that he does not kill the fish, but only removes it from the water.51In Tibet all dumb creatures are treated with humanity, and the taking of animal life is rather strictly prohibited, except in the case of yaks and sheep needed for food. Owing to the coldness of the climate, flesh forms an essential staple of diet; but the butchers are regarded as professional sinners and are therefore the most despised of all classes in Tibet. Wild animals and even small birds and fish are seldom or never killed, on account of the religious penalties attached to this crime.52

48Oldenberg,Buddha, pp. 290n. *,351.

49Bowring,Siam, i. 107.

50Fielding Hall,The Soul of a People, p. 230.

51Schmidt,Ceylon, p. 316sq.

52Waddell,Buddhism of Tibet, p. 567sq.

The Jain is stricter still in his regard for animal life. He sweeps the ground before him as he goes, lest animate things be destroyed; he walks veiled, lest he inhale a living organism; he considers that the evening and night arenot times for eating, since one might then swallow a live thing by mistake; and he rejects not only meat but even honey, together with various fruits that are supposed to contain worms, not because of his distaste for worms but because of his regard for life.53Some towns in Western India in which Jains are found have their beast hospitals, where animals are kept and fed. At Surat there was quite recently an establishment of this sort with a house where a host of noxious and offensive vermin, dense as the sands on the sea-shore, were bred and nurtured; and at Anjár, in Kutch, about five thousand rats were kept in a certain temple and daily fed with flour, which was procured by a tax on the inhabitants of the town.54

53Hopkins,Religions of India, p. 288. Barth,op. cit.p. 145. Kipling,op. cit.p. 10sq.

54Burnes, ‘Notice of a remarkable Hospital for Animals at Surat,’ inJour. Roy. Asiatic Soc.i. 96sq.

According to ‘Thâi-Shang,’ one of the books of Taouism, a good man will feel kindly towards all creatures, and refrain from hurting even the insect tribes, grass, and trees; and he is a bad man who “shoots birds and hunts beasts, unearths the burrowing insects and frightens roosting birds, blocks up the dens of animals and overturns nests, hurts the pregnant womb and breaks eggs.”55In the book called ‘Merits and Errors Scrutinised,’ which enjoys great popularity in China, it is said to be meritorious to save animals from death—even insects if the number amounts to a hundred,—to relieve a brute that is greatly wearied with work, to purchase and set at liberty animals intended to be slaughtered. On the other hand, to confine birds in a cage, to kill ten insects, to be unsparing of the strength of tired animals, to disturb insects in their holes, to destroy the nests of birds, without great reason to kill and dress animals for food, are all errors of various degrees. And “to be the foremost to encourage the slaughter of animals, or to hinder persons from setting them at liberty,” is regarded as an error of the same magnitude as the crime of devising a person’s death or of drowning or murdering a child.56Kindnessto animals is conspicuous in the writings of Confucius and Mencius;57the Master angled but did not use a net, he shot but not at birds perching.58Throughout Japan, according to Sir Edward Reed, “the life of animals has always been held more or less sacred…, neither Shintoism nor Buddhism requiring or justifying the taking of the life of any creature for sacrifice.”59

55Thâi-Shang, 3sq.

56Indo-Chinese Gleaner, iii. 164, 205sq.

57Mencius, i. 1. 7.

58Lun Yü, vii. 26.

59Reed,Japan, i. 61.

The regard for the lower animals which is shown by these Eastern religions and their adherents is to some extent due to superstitious ideas, similar to those which we found prevalent among many savages. Dr. de Groot observes that in China the virtues of benevolence and humanity are extended to animals because these, also, have souls which may work vengeance or bring reward.60The conduct of Orientals towards the brute creation has further been explained by their belief in the transmigration of souls. But it seems that the connection between their theory of metempsychosis and their rules relating to the treatment of animals is not exclusively, nor even chiefly, one of cause and effect, but rather one of a common origin. This theory itself may in some measure be regarded as a result of that intimacy which prevails in the East between animals and men. Buddhism recognises no fundamental distinction between them, only an accidental or phenomenal difference;61and the step is not long from this attitude to the doctrine of metempsychosis. Captain Forbes maintains that the humanity with which the Burmans treat dumb animals comes “more from the innate good nature and easiness of their dispositions than from any effect over them of this peculiar doctrine”;62and they laugh at the suggestion made by Europeans that Buddhists abstain from taking life because they believe in the transmigration of souls, having never heard of it before. Their motive, says Mr. Fielding Hall, is compassion andnoblesse oblige.63But by its punishmentsand rewards, religion has greatly increased the natural regard for animal life and welfare, and introduced a new motive for conduct which originally sprang in the main from kindly feeling.

60de Groot,Religious System of China, (vol. iv. book) ii. 450.

61Rhys Davids,Hibbert Lectures on Buddhism, p. 214.

62Forbes,British Burma, p. 321.

63Fielding Hall,op. cit.p. 237sq.

In Zoroastrianism we meet with a different attitude towards the lower animal world. A fundamental distinction is made between the animals of Ormuzd and those of Ahriman. To kill one of the former is a heinous sin, to kill one of the latter is a pious deed.64Sacred above all other animals is the dog. The ill-feeding and maltreatment of dogs are prosecuted as criminal, and extreme penalties are inflicted on those who venture to kill them.65Nay, if there be in the house of a worshipper of Mazda a mad dog who has no scent, the worshippers of Mazda “shall attend him to heal him, in the same manner as they would do for one of the faithful.”66In the eyes of the Parsis, animals are enlisted under the standards of either Ormuzd or Ahriman according as they are useful or hurtful to man; but M. Darmesteter is of opinion that they originally belonged to the one or the other not on account of any such qualities, but according as they chanced to have lent their forms to either the god or the fiend in the storm tales. “It was not animal psychology,” he says, “that disguised gods and fiends as dogs, otters, hedge-hogs, and cocks, or as snakes, tortoises, frogs, and ants, but the accidents of physical qualities and the caprice of popular fancy, as both the god and the fiend might be compared with, and transformed into, any object, the idea of which was suggested by the uproar of the storm, the blazing of the lightning, the streaming of the water, or the hue and shape of the clouds.”67This hypothesis, however, seems to attach undue importance to mythical fancies, and it presupposes an almost unbounded and capricious allegorism, for which there is apparently little foundationin facts. The suggestion that the animals are referred to either the one or the other category according as they are useful or obnoxious to man, is at all events borne out by a few salient features, although in many details the matter remains obscure.

64Darmesteter,Ormazd et Ahriman, p. 283.

65Vendîdâd, xiii.sq.Geiger,Civilization of the Eastern Iranians, ii. 36.

66Vendîdâd, xiii. 35.

67Darmesteter, inSacred Books of the East, iv. (1st edit.) p. lxxii.sq.See alsoIdem,Ormazd et Ahriman, p. 283sqq.

It appears that among the Zoroastrians, also, the respect for the life of animals is partly due to superstitious ideas about their souls and fear of their revenge. According to the ‘Yasts,’ “the souls of the wild beasts and of the tame” are objects of worship;68and in one of the Pahlavi texts it is said that people should abstain from unlawfully slaughtering any species of animals, since otherwise, in punishment for such an act, each hair of the animal killed becomes like a sharp dagger, and he who is unlawfully a slaughterer is slain.69But here again we may assume the co-operating influence of the feeling of sympathy. Various passages in the Zoroastrian ‘Gathas’ which enjoin kindness to domestic animals70suggest as their motives not only considerations of utility but genuine tenderness. In a later age Firdausi sang, “Ah! spare yon emmet rich in hoarded grain: He lives with pleasure, and he dies with pain.”71And of the modern Persian Dr. Polak says that, “naturally not cruel, he treats animals with more consideration than men.”72His present religion, too, enjoins kindness to animals as a duty.

68Yasts, xiii. 154.

69Shâyast Lâ-Shâyast, x. 8.

70Darmesteter, inLe Zend-Avesta, i. p. cvi.

71Firdausi, quoted by Jones, ‘Tenth Anniversary Discourse,’ inAsiatick Researches, iv. 12.

72Polak,Persien, i. 12.

According to Muhammedanism, beasts, birds, fish, insects, are all, like man, the slaves of God, the tools of His will. There is no intrinsic distinction between them and the human species, except what accidental diversity God may have been pleased to make.73Muhammed said to his followers:—“There is not a beast upon the earth nor a bird that flies with both its wings, but is a nation like to you; … to their Lord shall they be gathered.”74Muhammedan law prescribes that domestic animals shallbe treated with consideration and not be overworked;75and in various Muhammedan countries this law has also been habitually put into practice. The Moslems of India are kind to animals.76In his earlier intercourse with the people of Egypt, Mr. Lane noticed much humanity to beasts.77Montaigne said that the Turks gave alms to brutes and had hospitals for them;78and Mr. Bosworth Smith is of opinion that beasts of burden and domestic animals are nowhere in Christendom with the one exception, perhaps, of Norway treated with such unvarying kindness and consideration as they are in Turkey. “In the East,” he adds, “so far as it has not been hardened by the West, there is a real sympathy between man and the domestic animals; they understand one another.”79

73Cf.Palgrave,Journey through Central and Eastern Arabia, i. 368.

74Koran, vi. 38.

75Sachau,Muhammedanisches Recht, pp. 18, 103.

76Pool,Studies in Mohammedanism, pp. 176, 177, 247.Cf.Heber,Journey through the Upper Provinces of India, ii. 131.

Back to Index Next