Chapter 4

1Cf.Ribot,Psychology of the Emotions, p. 220sqq.

2There are some good remarks on this in Mr. Hiram Stanley’sStudies in the Evolutionary Psychology of Feeling, p. 138sq.

3Romanes,Animal Intelligence, p. 246sqq.

That the fury of an injured animal turns against the real or assumed cause of its injury is a matter of notoriety, and everybody knows that the same is the case with theanger of a child. No doubt, as Professor Sully observes, “hitting out right and left, throwing things down on the floor and breaking them, howling, wild agitated movements of the arms and whole body, these are the outward vents which the gust of childish fury is apt to take.”4But, on the other hand, we know well enough that Darwin’s little boy, who became a great adept at throwing books and sticks at any one who offended him,5was in this respect no exceptional child. Towards the age of one year, according to M. Perez, children “will beat people, animals, and inanimate objects if they are angry with them; they will throw their toys, their food, their plate, anything, in short, that is at hand, at the people who have displeased them.”6That a similar discrimination characterises the resentment of a savage is a fact upon which it is necessary to dwell at some length for the reason that it has been disputed, and because there are some seeming anomalies which require an explanation.

4Sully,Studies in Childhood, p. 232sq.

5Darwin, ‘Biographical Sketch of an Infant,’ inMind, ii. 288.

6Perez,First Three Years of Childhood, p. 66sq.

In a comprehensive work,7Dr. Steinmetz has made the feeling of revenge the object of a detailed investigation, which cannot be left unnoticed. The ultimate conclusions at which he has arrived are these: Revenge is essentially rooted in the feeling of power and superiority. It arises consequently upon the experience of injury, and its aim is to enhance the “self-feeling” which has been lowered or degraded by the injury suffered. It answers this purpose best if it is directed against the aggressor himself, but it is not essential to it that it should take any determinate direction, for,per se, and originally, it is “undirected.”8

7Ethnologische Studien zur ersten Entwicklung der Strafe.

8Strictly speaking, this theory is not new. Dr. Paul Rée, in his bookDie Entstehung des Gewissens, has pronounced revenge to be a reaction against the feeling of inferiority which the aggressor impresses upon his victim. The injured man, he says (ibid.p. 40) is naturally reluctant to feel himself inferior to another man, and consequently strives, by avenging the aggression, to show himself equal or even superior to the aggressor. A similar view was previously expressed by Schopenhauer (Parerga und Paralipomena, ii. 475sq.). But Dr. Steinmetz has elaborated his theory with an independence and fulness which make any question of priority quite insignificant.

We are told, in fact, that the first stage through which revenge passed within the human race was characterised by a total, or almost total, want of discrimination. The aim of the offended man was merely to raise his injured “self-feeling” by inflicting pain upon somebody else, and his savage desire was satisfied whether the man on whom he wreaked his wrath was guilty or innocent.9No doubt, there were from the outset instances in which the offender himself was purposely made the victim, especially if he was a fellow-tribesman; but it was not really due to the feeling of revenge if the suffering was inflicted upon him, in preference to others. Even primitive man must have found out that vengeance directed against the actual culprit, besides being a strong deterrent to others, was a capital means of making a dangerous person harmless. However, Dr. Steinmetz adds, these advantages should not be overestimated, as even indiscriminate revenge has a deterring influence on the malefactor.10In early times, then, vengeance, according to Dr. Steinmetz, was in the main “undirected.”

9Steinmetz,op. cit.i. 355, 356, 359, 561.

10Ibid.i. 362.

At the next stage it becomes, he says, somewhat less indiscriminate. A proper victim is sought for even in cases of what we should call natural death, which the savage generally attributes to the ill-will of some foe skilled in sorcery;11though indeed Dr. Steinmetz doubts whether in such cases the unfortunate sufferer is really supposed to have committed the deed imputed to him.12At all events, a need is felt of choosing somebody for a victim, and “undirected” vengeance gradually gives way to “directed” vengeance. A rude specimen of this is the blood-feud, in which the individual culprit is left out of consideration, but war is carried on against the group of which he is a member, either his family or his tribe. Andfrom this system of joint responsibility we finally come, by slow degrees, says Dr. Steinmetz, to the modern conception, according to which punishment should be inflicted upon the criminal and nobody else.13Dr. Steinmetz believes that thevis agensin this long process of evolution lies in the intellectual development of the human race: man found out more and more distinctly that the best means of restraining wrongs was to punish a certain person, namely, the wrong-doer.14On this utilitarian calculation our author lays much stress in the latter part of his investigation; whereas in another place he observes that a revenge which is directed against the offender is particularly apt to remove the feeling of inferiority, by effectually humiliating the hitherto triumphant foe.15

11Ibid.i. 356sq.

12Ibid.i. 359sq.

13Steinmetz,op. cit.i. 361.

14Ibid.i. 358, 359, 361sq.

15Ibid.i. 111.

In this historical account the main points of interest are the initial stage of “undirected” vengeance, and the way in which such vengeance gradually became discriminate. If, in primitive times, a man did not care in the least on whom he retaliated an injury, then of course the direction of his vengeance could not be essential to the revenge itself, but would be merely a later appendix to it. The question is, what evidence can Dr. Steinmetz adduce to support his theory? Of primitive man we have no direct experience; no savage people now existing is a faithful representative of him, either physically or mentally. Yet however greatly the human race has changed, primitive man is not altogether dead. Traits of his character still linger in his descendants; and of primitive revenge, we are told, there are sufficient survivals left.16

16Ibid.i. 364.

Under the heading “Perfectly Undirected Revenge,” Dr. Steinmetz sets out several alleged cases of such so-called survivals171. An Indian of the Omaha tribe, who was kicked out of a trading establishment which he had been forbidden to enter, declared in a rage that he would revenge himself for an injury so gross, and, “seeking some object to destroy, he encountered asow and pigs, and appeased his rage by putting them all to death.” 2. The people of that same tribe believe that if a man who has been struck by lightning is not buried in the proper way, and in the place where he has been killed, his spirit will not rest in peace, but will walk about till another person is slain by lightning and laid beside him. 3. At the burial of a Loucheux Indian, the relatives sometimes will cut and lacerate their bodies, or, as sometimes happens, will, “in a fit of revenge against fate,” stab some poor, friendless person who may be sojourning among them. 4. The Navahoes, when jealous of their wives, are apt to wreak their spleen and ill-will upon the first person whom they chance to meet. 5. The Great Eskimo, as it is reported, once after a severe epidemic swore to kill all white people who might venture into their country. 6. The Australian father, whose little child happens to hurt itself, attacks his innocent neighbours, believing that he thus distributes the pain among them and consequently lessens the suffering of the child. 7. The Brazilian Tupis ate the vermin which molested them, for the sake of revenge; and if one of them struck his foot against a stone, he raged over it and bit it, whilst, if he were wounded with an arrow, he plucked it out and gnawed the shaft. 8. The Dacotahs avenge theft by stealing the property of the thief or of somebody else. 9. Among the Tshatrali (Pamir), if a man is robbed of his meat by a neighbour’s dog, he will, in a fit of rage, not only kill the offending dog, but will, in addition, kick his own. 10. In New Guinea the bearers of evil tidings sometimes get knocked on the head during the first outburst of indignation evoked by their news. 11. Some natives of Motu, who had rescued two shipwrecked crews and safely brought them to their home in Port Moresby, were attacked there by the very friends of those they had saved, the reason for this being that the Port Moresby people were angry at the loss of the canoes, and could not bear that the Motuans were happy while they themselves were in trouble. 12. Another story from New Guinea tells us of a man who killed some innocent persons, because he had been disappointed in his plans and deprived of valuable property. 13. Among the Maoris it sometimes happened that the friends of a murdered man killed the first man who came in their way, whether enemy or friend. 14. Among the same people, chiefs who had suffered some loss often used to rob their subjects of property in order to make good the damage. 15. If the son of a Maori is hurt, his maternal relatives, to whose tribe he is considered to belong, come to pillage his father’s house or village. 16. Ifa tree falls on a Kuki his fellows chop it up, and if one of that tribe kills himself by falling from a tree the tree from which he fell is promptly cut down. 17. In some parts of Daghestan, when the cause of a death is unknown, the relatives of the deceased declare some person chosen at random to have murdered him, and retaliate his death upon that person.

17Ibid.i. 318sqq.

I have been obliged to enumerate all these cases for the reason that a theory cannot be satisfactorily refuted unless on its own ground. I may confess at once that I scarcely ever saw an hypothesis vindicated by the aid of more futile evidence. The cases 7 and 16 illustrate just the reverse of “undirected” revenge, and, when we take into consideration the animistic beliefs of savages, present little to astonish us. In case 17 the guilt is certainly imputed to somebody at random, but only when the culprit is unknown. Cases 1, 4, 10 and 12 and perhaps also 11, imply that revenge is taken upon an innocent party in a fit of passion; in cases 1 and 12 the offender himself cannot be got at, in case 10 the man who is knocked on the head appears for the moment as the immediate cause of the grief or indignation evoked, while case 11 exhibits envy combined with extreme ingratitude. In case 9 the anger is chiefly directed against the “guilty” dog, and against the “innocent” one evidently by an association of ideas. Cases 8 and 14 illustrate indemnification for loss of property, and in case 8 the thief himself is specifically mentioned first. In case 15 the revenging attack is made upon the property of those people among whom the child lives, and who may be considered responsible for the loss its maternal clan sustains by the injury. Case 6 merely shows the attempt of a superstitious father to lessen the suffering of his child. As regards case 5, Petitot, who has recorded it, says expressly that the white people were supposed to have caused the epidemic by displeasing the god Tornrark.18Case 2 points to a superstitious belief which is interesting enough in itself, but which, so far as I can see, is without any bearing whatever on the point we are discussing. Case 3 looks like a death-offering. The stabbing of an innocent person is mentioned in connection with, or rather as an alternative to, the self-laceration of the mourners, which last has probably a sacrificial character. Moreover, there is in this case no question of a culprit. In case 13, finally, the idea of sacrifice is very conspicuous. Dr. Steinmetz has borrowed his statement from Waitz, whose account is incomplete. Dieffenbach, the original authority, says that the custom in question was called by the Maoritaua tapu,i.e., sacred fight,ortaua toto,i.e., fight for blood. He describes it as follows:—“If blood has been shed, a party sally forth and kill the first person they fall in with, whether an enemy or belonging to their own tribe; even a brother is sacrificed. If they do not fall in with anybody, thetohunga(that is, the priest) pulls up some grass, throws it into a river, and repeats some incantation. After this ceremony, the killing of a bird, or any living thing that comes in their way, is regarded as sufficient, provided that blood is actually shed. All who participate in such an excursion aretapu, and are not allowed either to smoke or to eat anything but indigenous food.”19It seems probable that this ceremony was undertaken in order to appease the enraged spirit of the dead,20and at the same time it may have been intended to refresh the spirit with blood.21The question, however, is, Why was not his death avenged upon the actual culprit? To this Dr. Steinmetz would answer that the deceased was thought to be indiscriminate in his craving for vengeance.22But so far as the resentment of the dead is concerned, the “sacred fight” of the Maoris only seems to illustrate the impulsive character of anger. From Dieffenbach’s description of it, it is obvious that the friends of the slain man considered it to be a matter of paramount importance that blood should be shed immediately. If no human being came in their way, an animal was killed, but then an incantation was uttered beforehand. I presume that the reason for this was the terror which the supposed wrath of the dead man’s spirit struck into the living, combined perhaps with the idea that it was in immediate need of fresh blood. The Maoris considered all spirits of the dead to be maliciously inclined towards them,23and the ghost of a person who had died a violent death was certainly looked upon as especially dangerous. The craving for instantaneous shedding of blood is even more conspicuous in another case which may be appropriately mentioned in this connection. The Aetas of the Philippine Islands, we are told, “do not alwayswait for the death of the afflicted before they bury him. Immediately after the body has been deposited in the grave, it becomes necessary, according to their usages, that his death should be avenged. The hunters of the tribe go out with their lances and arrows to kill the first living creature they meet with, whether a man, a stag, a wild hog, or a buffalo.”24Dr. Steinmetz himself quotes some other instances from the same group of islands, in which, when a man dies, his nearest kinsmen go out to requite his death by the death of the first man who comes in their way.25It is worth noticing that the Philippine Islanders have the very worst opinion of their ghosts, and believe that these are particularly bloodthirsty soon after death.26

18Petitot,Les Grands Esqimaux, p. 207sq.

19Dieffenbach,Travels in New Zealand, ii. 127.

20Cf.ibid.ii. 129.

21The latter object is suggested by some funeral ceremonies which will be noticed in a following chapter. Among the Dyaks, “a father who lost his child would go out and kill the first man he met, as a funeral ceremony,” believing that he thus provided the deceased with a slave to accompany him to the habitation of souls (Tylor,Primitive Culture, i. 459). Among the Garos, it was formerly the practice, “whenever the death of a great man amongst them occurred, to send out a party of assassins to murder and bring back the head of the first Bengali they met. The victims so immolated would, it was supposed, be acceptable to their gods” (Dalton,Descriptive Ethnology of Bengal, p. 68).

22Cf.Steinmetz,op. cit.i. 343.

23Taylor,Te Ika a Maui, p. 221.

24Earl,Papuans, p. 132.

25Steinmetz,op. cit.i. 335sq.

26Blumentritt, ‘Der Ahnencultus der Malaien des Philippinen-Archipels’ inMittheilungen der Geogr. Gesellsch. in Wien, xxv. 166sqq.De Mas,Informe sobre el estado de las Islas filipinas en 1842,Orijen, &c.p. 15.

Dr. Steinmetz also refers to some statements according to which, among certain Australian tribes, the relatives of a person who dies avenge his death by killing an innocent man.27But in these cases the avenged death, though “natural” according to our terminology, is, in the belief of the savages, caused by sorcery, and the revenge is not so indiscriminate as Dr. Steinmetz seems to assume. Among the Wellington tribe, as appears from a statement which he quotes himself, it is the sorcerer’s life that must be taken for satisfaction.28In New South Wales, after the dead man has been interrogated as to the cause of his death, his kinsmen are resolute in taking vengeance, if they “imagine that they have got sure indications of the perpetrator of the wrong.”29Among the Central Australian natives, “not infrequently the dying man will whisper in the ear of aRailtchawa, or medicine man, the name of the man whose magic is killing him,” and if this be not done, “there is no difficulty, by some other method, of fixing sooner or later on the guilty party”; but only after the culprit has been revealed by the medicine man is it decided by a council of the old men whether an avenging party is to be arranged or not.30Among the aborigines of West Australia, the survivors are “pretty busy in seeking out” the sorcerer who is supposed to have caused the death of their friend.31

27Steinmetz,op. cit.i. 337sq.

28Hale,U.S. Exploring Expedition Vol. VI.—Ethnography and Philology, p. 115; quoted by Steinmetz,op. cit.i. 337.

29Fraser,Aborigines of New South Wales, p. 86.

30Spencer and Gillen,Native Tribes of Central Australia, p. 476sq.

31Calvert,Aborigines of Western Australia, p. 20sq.

To sum up: all the facts which Dr. Steinmetz has adduced as evidence for his hypothesis of an original stage of “undirected” revenge only show that, under certain circumstances, either in a fit of passion, or when the actual offender is unknown or out of reach, revenge may be taken on an innocent being, wholly unconnected with the inflicter of the injury which it is sought to revenge. There is such an intimate connection between the experience of injury and the hostile reaction by which the injured individual gives vent to his passion, that the reaction does not fail to appear even when it misses its aim. Anger, as Seneca said, “does not rage merely against its object, but against every obstacle which it encounters on its way.”32Many infants, when angry and powerless to hurt others, “strike their heads against doors, posts, walls of houses, and sometimes on the floor.”33Well known are the “amucks” of the Malays, in which “the desperado assails indiscriminately friend and foe,” and, with dishevelled hair and frantic look, murders or wounds all whom he meets without distinction.34But all this is not revenge; it is sudden anger or blind rage. Nor is it revenge in the true sense of the word if a person who has been humiliated by his superior retaliates on those under him. It is only the outburst of a wounded “self-feeling,” which, when not directed against its proper object, can afford no adequate consolation to a revengeful man.

32Seneca,De ira, iii. 1.

33Stanley Hall, ‘A Study of Anger,’ inAmerican Jour. of Psychology, x. 554.

34Crawfurd,History of the Indian Archipelago, i. 67.Cf.Ellis, ‘The Amok of the Malays,’ inJour. of Mental Science, xxxix. 325sqq.In the Andaman Islands, it is not uncommon for a man “to vent his ill-temper, or show his resentment at any act, by destroying his own property as well as that of his neighbours” (Man, ‘Aboriginal Inhabitants of the Andaman Islands,’ inJour. Anthr. Inst.xii. 111). Among the Kar Nicobarese, when a quarrel takes place, in serious cases, a man will probably burn his own house down (Kloss,In the Andamans and Nicobars, p. 310). But in these instances it is not certain whether the offended party destroys his own property in blind rage, or with some definite object in view.

In the institution of the blood-feud some sort of collective responsibility is usually involved.35If theoffender is of another family than his victim, some of his relatives may have to expiate his deed.36If he belongs to another clan, the whole clan may be held responsible for it.37And if he is a member of another tribe, the vengeance may be wreaked upon his fellow-tribesmen indiscriminately.38

35Cf.Post,Anfänge des Staats- und Rechtsleben, p. 180; Rée,op. cit.p. 49sq.; Steinmetz,op. cit.i. ch. vi.

36Besides the authorities quotedinfra, see Leuschner, in Steinmetz,Rechtsverhältnisse von eingeborenen Völkern in Afrika und Ozeanien, (Bakwiri);ibid.p. 49 (Banaka and Bapuku); Rautanen,ibid.p. 341 (Ondonga); Walter,ibid.p. 390 (natives of Nossi-Bé and Mayotte, near Madagascar); von Langsdorf,Voyages and Travels, i. 132 (Nukahivans); Forbes,A Naturalist’s Wanderings in the Eastern Archipelago, p. 473 (Timorese); Foreman,Philippine Islands, p. 213 (Igorrotes of Luzon); Kovalewsky, inJour. Anthr. Inst.xxv. 113 (people of Daghestan);Idem,Coutume contemporaine et loi ancienne, p. 248sq.(Ossetes); Merzbacher,Aus den Hochregionen des Kaukasus, ii. 51 (Khevsurs).

37Bridges, inA Voice for South America, xiii. 207 (Fuegians). Dorsey, ‘Omaha Sociology,’ inAnn. Rep. Bur. Ethn.iii. 369. Ridley, inJour. Anthr. Inst.ii. 268 (Kamilaroi in Australia). Godwin-Austen,ibid.ii. 394 (Garo Hill tribes).

38von Martins,Beiträge zur Ethnographie Amerika’s, i. 127sqq.(Brazilian Indians). Crawfurd,op. cit.iii. 124 (natives of Celebes). Kohler, inZeitschr. f. vgl. Rechtswiss.vii. 383 (Goajiros of Columbia).Ibid.vii. 376 (Papuans of New Guinea). Curr,The Australian Race, i. 70. Scaramucci and Giglioli, ‘Notizie sui Danakil,’ inArchivio per l’antropologia e la etnologia, xiv. 39. Leuschner, in Steinmetz,Rechtsverhältnisse, p. 23 (Bakwiri).Ibid.p. 49 (Banaka and Bapuku).

“Among the Fuegians,” says Mr. Bridges, “etiquette and custom require that all the relatives of a murdered person should … visit their displeasure upon every connection of the manslayers, each personally.” The avengers of blood would by no means be satisfied with a party of natives if they should actually deliver up into their hands a manslayer, or kill him themselves, “but would yet exact from all the murderer’s friends tribute or infliction of injuries with sticks or stones.”39Among the Indians of British Columbia and Vancouver Island, “grudges are handed down from father to son for generations, and friendly relations are never free from the risk of being interrupted.”40Among the Greenlanders, the revenge for a murder generally “costs the executioner himself, his children, cousins, or other relatives their lives; or if these are inaccessible, some other acquaintance in the neighbourhood.”41Among the Maoris, blood-revenge might be taken on any relative of the homicide, “no matter how distant.”42In Tana,revenge “is often sought in the death of the brother, or some other near relative of the culprit.”43Among the Kabyles, “la vengeance peut porter sur chacun des membres de la famille du meurtrier, quel qu’il soit.”44The Bedouins, according to Burckhardt, “claim the blood not only from the actual homicide, but from all his relations; and it is these claims that constitute the right ofthár, or the blood-revenge.”45Among the people of Ibrim, in Nubia, on the other hand, the same traveller observes, “it is not considered as sufficient to retaliate upon any person within the fifth degree of consanguinity, as among the Bedouins of Arabia; only the brother, son, or first cousin can supply the place of the murderer.”46Traces of collective responsibility in connection with blood-revenge are found among the Hebrews.47It has prevailed, or still prevails, among the Japanese48and Coreans,49the Persians50and Hindus,51the ancient Greeks52and Teutons.53It was a rule among the Welsh54and the Scotch in former days,55and is so still in Corsica,56Albania,57and among some of the Southern Slavs.58In Montenegro, if a homicide who cannot be caught himself has no relatives, revenge is sometimes taken on some inhabitant of the village or district to which he belongs, or even on a person who only is of the same religion and nationality as the murderer.59In Albania, under similar circumstances, the victim may be a person who has had nothing else to do with the offender than that he has perhaps once been speaking to him.60

39Bridges, inSouth American Missionary Magazine, xiii. 151sqq.

40Macfie,Vancouver Island and British Columbia, p. 470.

41Cranz,History of Greenland, i. 178.

42Shortland,Traditions and Superstitions of the New Zealanders, p. 213sq.Cf.ibid.p. 218sq.

43Turner,Samoa, p. 317.

44Hanoteau and Letourneux,La Kabylie, iii. 61.

45Burckhardt,Notes on the Bedouins and Wahábys, p. 85. See, also, Layard,Discoveries in the Ruins of Nineveh and Babylon, p. 306; Lane,Manners and Customs of the Modern Egyptians, i. 133.

46Burckhardt,Travels in Nubia, p. 128.

472 Samuel, xiv. 7.Cf.ibid.xxi.

48Dautremer, ‘The Vendetta or Legal Revenge in Japan,’ inTrans. Asiatic Soc. Japan, xiii. 84.

49Griffis,Corea, p. 227.

50Spiegel,Erânische Alterthumskunde, iii. 687. Polak,Persien, ii. 96.

51Dubois,Description of the Character, Manners, and Customs of the People of India, p. 195.

52Leist,Alt-arisches Jus Gentium, p. 424.

53Gotlands-Lagen, 13.

Back to Index Next