Chapter 56

38Morgan,League of the Iroquois, p. 172.

39Inglis,In the New Hebrides, p. 31.

40Bergmann,op. cit.ii. 281sq.

41Macpherson, ‘Religious Opinions and Observances of the Khonds,’ inJour. Roy. Asiatic Soc.vii. 196.

42Rig-Veda, x. 117. 6.

43Laws of Manu, iii. 72.Cf.Institutes of Vishnu, lxvii. 45.

44Vishńu Puráńa, p. 305.

45Institutes of Vishnu, lxvii. 28, 32.

46Âpastamba, ii. 3. 7. 16.

47Mahabharata, Vana Parva, ii. 61, pt. v. p. 5.

48Hesiod,Opera et dies, 331sq.(333sq.).

49Plato,Leges, v. 729sq.

50Servius,In Virgilii Æneidos, iii. 55: “Fas omne; et cognationis, et iuris hospitii.” von Jhering,Geist des römischen Rechts, i. 227. Leist,Alt-arisches Jus Civile, i. 103, 358sq.

51Servius,In Virgilii Æneidos, i. 736. Livy,Historiæ Romanæ, xxxix. 51. Tacitus,Annales, xv. 52. Plautus,Pœnuli, v. 1. 25.

52Gellius,Noctes Atticæ, v. 13. 5: “In officiis apud maiores ita observatum est, primum tutelae, deinde hospiti, deinde clienti, tum cognato, postea affini.”

53Cæsar,De bello Gallico, vi. 23.

54Tacitus,Germania, 21.

55Psalms, cxlvi. 9.

56Deutsch,Literary Remains, p. 57.

57Kiddushin, fol. 39 B, quoted by Hershon,Treasures of the Talmud, p. 145.

58Sabbath, fol. 127 A, quoted by Katz,Der wahre Talmudjude, p. 103.

59Koran, iv. 40sqq.

60Lane,Arabian Society in the Middle Ages, p. 142.

61Wellhausen,Reste arabischen Heidentums, p. 223sq.

62Doughty,Arabia Deserta, i. 228, 504.

63Laurent,Études sur l’histoire de l’Humanité, vii. 346.

That a stranger, who under other circumstances is treated as an inferior being or a foe, liable to be robbed and killed with impunity, should enjoy such extraordinary privileges as a guest, is certainly one of the most curious contrasts which present themselves to a student of the moral ideas of mankind. It may be asked, why shouldhe be received at all? Of course, he stands in need of protection and support, but why should those who do not know him care for that?

One answer is that his helpless condition may excite pity; facts seem to prove that even among savages the altruistic feelings, however narrow, can be stirred by the sight of a suffering and harmless stranger. Another answer is that the host himself may expect to reap benefit from his act. And there can be little doubt that the rules of hospitality are in the main based on egoistic considerations.

It has been justly observed that in uncivilised countries, where there is no public accommodation for travellers, “hospitality is so necessary, and so much required by the mutual convenience of all parties, as to detract greatly from its merit as a moral quality.”64When the stranger belongs to a community with which a reciprocity of intercourse prevails, it is prudent to give him a hearty reception; he who is the host to-day may be the guest tomorrow. “If the Red Indians are hospitable,” says Domenech, “they also look for their hospitality being returned with the same marks of respect and consideration.”65Moreover, the stranger is a bearer of news and tidings, and as such may be a welcome guest where communication between different places is slow and rare.66During my wanderings in the remote forests of Northern Finland I was constantly welcomed with the phrase, “What news?” But the stranger may be supposed to bring with him something which is valued even more highly, namely, good luck or blessings.

64Winterbottom,op. cit.i. 214.

65Domenech,Seven Years’ Residence in the Great Deserts of North America, ii. 319.Cf.Dunbar, ‘Pawnee Indians.’ inMagazine of American History, viii. 745; Brett,Indian Tribes of Guiana, p. 347; Bernau,Missionary Labours in British Guiana, p. 51; von den Steinen,Unter den Naturvölkern Zentral-Brasiliens, p. 333sq.(Bakaïri); Georgi,op. cit.iii. 154 (Kamchadales); Smeaton,op. cit.p. 146 (Karens); Ellis,Polynesian Researches, i. 95 (Society Islanders); Pritchard,Polynesian Reminiscences, p. 132, and Brenchley,op. cit.p. 76 (Samoans); Williams and Calvert,op. cit.p. 110, and Anderson,Notes of Travel in Fiji and New Caledonia, p. 135 (Fijians); Chavanne,Die Sahara, p. 393 (Arabs of the Sahara).

66Wright,Domestic Manners and Sentiments in England during the Middle Ages, p. 329.

During the first days of my stay at Demnat, in the Great Atlas, the natives in spite of their hostility towards Europeans, said they were quite pleased with my coming to see them, because I had brought with me rain and an increase of the import of victuals, which just before my arrival had been very scarce. So, too, whilst residing among the Andjra mountaineers in the North of Morocco, I was said to be a person with “propitious ankles,” because, since I settled down among them, the village where I stayed was frequently visited by Shereefs—presumed descendants of the Prophet Muhammed—who are always highly valued guests on account of thebaraka, or holiness, with which they are supposed in a smaller or greater degree to be endowed. The stranger may be a source of good fortune either involuntarily, as a bearer of luck, or through his good wishes; and there is every reason to hope that he will, if treated hospitably, return the kindness of his host with a blessing. According to the old traveller d’Arvieux, strangers, who come to an Arab village are received by the Sheikh with some such words as these:—“You are welcome; praised be God that you are in good health; your arrival draws down the blessing of heaven upon us; the house and all that is in it is yours, you are masters of it.”67It is said in one of the sacred books of India that through a Brâhmana guest the people obtain rain, and food through rain, hence they know that “the hospitable reception of a guest is a ceremony averting evil.”68When we read in the Laws of Manu that “the hospitable reception of guests procures wealth, fame, long life, and heavenly bliss,”69it is also reasonable to suppose that this supernatural reward is a result of blessings invoked on the host. In the ‘Suppliants’ of Aeschylus the Chorus sings:—“Let us utter for the Argives blessings in requital of their blessings. And may Zeus of Strangers watch to their fulfilment the rewards that issue from a stranger’s tongue, thatthey reach their perfect goal.”70We can now understand the eagerness with which guests are sought for. When a guest enters the hut of a Kalmuck, “the host, the hostess, and everybody in the hut, rejoice at the arrival of the stranger as at an unexpected fortune.”71Among the Arabs of Sinai, “if a stranger be seen from afar coming towards the camp, he is the guest for that night of the first person who descries him, and who, whether a grown man or a child, exclaims, ‘There comes my guest.’ Such a person has a right to entertain the guest that night. Serious quarrels happen on these occasions; and the Arabs often have recourse to their great oath—‘By the divorce (from my wife) I swear that I shall entertain the guest’; upon which all opposition ceases.”72It is also very usual in the East to eat before the gate of the house where travellers pass, and every stranger of respectable appearance is invariably requested to sit down and partake of the repast.73Among the Maoris, “no sooner does a stranger appear in sight, than he is welcomed with the usual cry of ‘Come hither! come hither!’ from numerous voices, and is immediately invited to eat of such provisions as the place affords.”74

67d’Arvieux,Travels in Arabia the Desart, p. 131sq.

68Vasishtha, xi. 13.

69Laws of Manu, iii. 106.

70Aeschylus,Supplices, 632sqq.

71Bergmann,op. cit.ii. 282.

72Burckhardt,Bedouin and Wahábysp. 198.

73Idem,Arabic Proverbs, p. 218. Chassebœuf de Volney,Travels through Syria and Egypt, i. 413.

74Yate,op. cit.p. 100.Cf.Turner,Nineteen Years in Polynesia, p. 325 (Samoans); Sproat,op. cit.p. 57 (Ahts).

If efficacy is ascribed to the blessings even of an ordinary man, the blessings of a stranger are naturally supposed to be still more powerful. For the unknown stranger, like everything unknown and everything strange, arouses a feeling of mysterious awe in superstitious minds. The Ainos say, “Do not treat strangers slightingly, for you never know whom you are entertaining.”75According to the Hitopadesa, “a guest consists of all the deities.”76It is significant that in the writings of ancient India, Greece, and Rome, guests are mentioned next after gods as due objects of regard.77Thus Aeschylus speaks of a man’s“impious conduct to a god, or a stranger, or to his parents dear.”78According to Homeric notions, “the gods, in the likeness of strangers from far countries, put on all manner of shapes, and wander through the cities, beholding the violence and the righteousness of men.”79The author of the Epistle to the Hebrews writes, “Be not forgetful to entertain strangers: for thereby some have entertained angels unawares.”80

75Batchelor,Ainu and their Folk-Lore, p. 259.

76Hitopadesa, Mitralâbhâ, 65.

77Anugitâ, 3, 31 (Sacred Books of the East, viii. 243, 361). Gellius,Noctes Atticæ, v. 13. 5.

78Aeschylus,Eumenides, 270sq.

79Odyssey, xvii. 485sqq.

80Hebrews, xiii. 2.

The visiting stranger, however, is regarded not only as a potential benefactor, but as a potential source of evil. He may bring with him disease or ill-luck. He is commonly believed to be versed in magic;81and the evil wishes and curses of a stranger are greatly feared, owing partly to his quasi-supernatural character, partly to the close contact in which he comes with the host and his belongings.

81Frazer,Golden Bough, i. 298sqq.

In the Mentawey Islands, in the Malay Archipelago, “if a stranger enters a house where there are children, the father or some other member of the family who happens to be present, takes the ornament with which the children decorate their hair, and hands it to the stranger, who holds it in his hands for a while, and then gives it back”; this is supposed to protect the child from the evil effect which the eye of a stranger might have on it.82With reference to the Californian Pomo, Mr. Powers states, “Let a perfect stranger enter a wigwam and offer the lodge-father a string of beads for any object that takes his fancy—merely pointing to it, but uttering no word—and the owner holds himself bound in savage honour to make the exchange, whether it is a fair one or not.” When we compare this idea of “savage honour” with certain cases mentioned in the last chapter, we cannot doubt that it is based on superstitious fear; indeed, the next day the former owner of the article “may thrust the stranger through with his spear, or crush his forehead with a pebble from his sling, and the bystanders will lookupon it as only the rectification of a bad bargain.”83Among the African Herero “no curse is regarded as heavier than that which one who has been inhospitably treated would hurl at those who have driven him from the hearth.”84According to Greek ideas, guests and suppliants had their Erinyes85—personifications of their curses; and it would be difficult to attribute any other meaning to “the genius (δαίμων) and the god of the stranger, who follow in the train of Zeus,” spoken of by Plato, and to the Romandii hospitales, in their capacity of avengers of injuries done to guests. Aeschylus represents Apollo as saying, “I shall assist him (Orestes), and rescue my own suppliant; for terrible both among men and gods is the wrath of a refugee, when one abandons him with intent.”86It is no doubt the same idea that the Chorus in the ‘Suppliants’ expresses, in a modified form, when singing:—“Grievous is the wrath of Zeus Petitionary…. I must needs hold in awe the wrath of Zeus Petitionary, for that is the supremest on earth.”87Âpastamba’s Aphorisms contain a sûtra the object of which is to show the absolute necessity of feeding a guest, owing to the fact that, “if offended, he might burn the house with the flames of his anger”;88for “a guest comes to the house resembling a burning fire,”89“a guest rules over the world of Indra.”90According to the Institutes of Vishnu, “one who has arrived as a guest and is obliged to turn home disappointed in his expectations, takes away from the man to whose house he has come his religious merit, and throws his own guilt upon him”;91and thesame idea is found in many other ancient books of India.92That a dissatisfied guest, or a Brâhmana,93thus takes with him the spiritual merit of his churlish host, allows of a quite literal interpretation. In Morocco, a Shereef is generally unwilling to let a stranger kiss his hand, for fear lest the stranger should extract from him hisbaraka, or holiness; and the Shereefs of Wazzari are reputed to rob other Shereefs, who visit them, of their holiness, should the latter leave behind any remainder of their meals, even though it be only a bone.

82Rosenberg,Der Malayische Archipel, p. 198.

83Powers,op. cit.p. 153. The same privilege as “the perfect stranger” possesses among the Pomo, was granted by the tribes of the Niger Delta to the Ibo girl who was destined to be offered as a sacrifice. She “was allowed to claim any piece of cloth or any ornament she set her eyes upon, and the native to whom it belonged was obliged to present it to her” (Comte de Cardi, ‘Ju-ju Laws and Customs,’ inJour. Anthr. Inst.xxix. 54).

84Ratzel,History of Mankind, 480.

85Plato,Epistolæ, viii. 357. Apollonius Rhodius,Argonautica, iv. 1042sq.

86Aeschylus,Eumenides, 232sqq.

87Idem,Supplices, 349, 489.

88Sacred Books of the Eastii. 114, n. 3.

89Âpastamba, ii. 3. 6. 3.

90Laws of Manu, iv. 182.

91Institutes of Vishnu, lxvii. 33.

92Vasishtha, viii. 6.Laws of Manu, ii. 100.Hitopadesa, Mitralâbhâ, 64.

93Vasishtha, viii. 6.Laws of Manu, iii. 100.

The efficacy of a wish or a curse depends not only upon the potency which it possesses from the beginning, owing to certain qualities in the person from whom it originates, but also on the vehicle by which it is conducted—just as the strength of an electric shock depends both on the original intensity of the current and on the condition of the conductor. As particularly efficient conductors are regarded blood, bodily contact, food, and drink. In Morocco, the duties of a host are closely connected with the institution ofl-ʿâr, one of the most sacred customs of that country. If a person desires to compel another to help him, or to forgive him, or, generally, to grant some request, he makesʿâron him. He kills a sheep or a goat or only a chicken at the threshold of his house, or at the entrance of his tent; or he grasps with his hands either the person whom he invokes, or that person’s child, or the horse which he is riding; or he touches him with his turban or a fold of his dress. In short, he establishes some kind of contact with the other person, to serve as a conductor of his wishes and of his conditional curses. It is universally believed that, if the person so appealed to does not grant the request, his own welfare is at stake, and that the danger is particularly great if an animal has been killed at his door, and he steps over the blood or only catches a glimpse of it. As appears from the expression, “This isʿâron you if you do not do this or that,” the blood, orthe direct bodily contact, is supposed to transfer to the other person a conditional curse:—If you do not help me, then you will die, or your children will die, or some other evil will happen to you. So also the owner of a house or a tent to which a person has fled for refuge must, in his own interest, assist the fugitive, who is in hisʿâr; for, by being in his dwelling, the refugee is in close contact with him and his belongings. Again, the restraint which a common meal lays on those who partake of it is conspicuous in the usual practice of sealing a compact of friendship by eating together at the tomb of some saint. The true meaning of this is made perfectly clear by the phrase that “the food will repay” him who breaks the compact. The sacredness of the place adds to the efficacy of the imprecation, but its vehicle, the real punisher, is the eaten food, because it embodies a conditional curse.

Now the idea underlying these customs is certainly not restricted to Morocco. As will be shown in subsequent chapters, blood is very commonly used as a conductor of conditional curses; for instance, one object of the practice of sacrifice is to transfer an imprecation to the god by means of the blood of the victim. Bodily contact is another common means of communicating curses; and this accounts for many remarkable cases of compulsory hospitality and protection which have been noticed in different quarters of the world. In Fiji “the same native who within a few yards of his house would murder a coming or departing guest for sake of a knife or a hatchet, will defend him at the risk of his own life as soon as he has passed his threshold.”94In the Pelew Islands “an enemy may not be killed in a house, especially not in the presence of the host.”95If an Ossetian receives into his house a stranger whom he afterwards discovers to be a man to whom he owes blood-revenge, this makes no difference in his hospitality; but when the guest takes his leave, thehost accompanies him to the boundary of the village, and on parting from him exclaims, “Henceforth beware!”96Among the Kandhs, if a man can make his way by any means into the house of his enemy he cannot be touched, even though his life has been forfeited to his involuntary host by the law of blood-revenge.97In none of these cases is an explanation given of the extraordinary privilege granted to the stranger; but it seems highly probable that it has the same origin as the exactly similar custom prevalent among the Moors. In other words, as soon as the stranger has come in touch with a person by entering his house, he is thought to be able to transmit to that person and his family and his property any evil wishes he pleases. So, also, in the East any stranger may place himself under the protection of an Arab by merely touching his tent or his tent-ropes,98and after this is done “it would be reckoned a disgraceful meanness, an indelible shame, to satisfy even a just vengeance at the expense of hospitality.”99“Amongst the Shammar,” says Layard, “if a man can seize the end of a string or thread, the other end of which is held by his enemy, he immediately becomes his Dakheel [orprotégé]. If he touch the canvas of a tent, or can even throw his mace towards it, he is the Dakheel of its owner. If he can spit upon a man or touch any article belonging to him with his teeth, he is Dakhal, unless of course, in case of theft, it be the person who caught him…. The Shammar never plunder a caravan within sight of their encampment, for as long as a stranger can see their tents they consider him their Dakheel.”100But one of the Bedouin tribes described by Lady Anne and Mr. Blunt, whilst ready to rob the stranger who comes to their tents,“count their hospitality as beginning only from the moment of his eating with them.”101All Bedouins regard the eating of “salt” together as a bond of mutual friendship, and there are tribes who quite in accordance with the Moorish principle, “the food will repay you”—require to renew this bond every twenty-four hours, or after two nights and the day between them, since otherwise, as they say, “the salt is not in their stomachs,”102and can therefore no longer punish the person who breaks the contract. The “salt” which gives a claim to protection consists in eating even the smallest portion of food belonging to the protector.103The Sultan Saladin did not allow the Crusader Renaud de Chatillon, when brought before him as a prisoner, to quench his thirst in his tent, for, had he drunk water there, the enemy would have been justified in regarding his life as safe.104We find a similar custom among the Omaha Indians: “should an enemy appear in the lodge and receive a mouthful of food or water, or put the pipe in his mouth, he cannot be injured by any member of the tribe, as he is bound for the time being by the ties of hospitality, and they are compelled to protect him and send him home in safety.”105In these and similar cases, where there is no common meal, the guest may nevertheless transmit to his host a curse by the exceedingly close contact established between him and the food or drink or tobacco of the host, according to the principle ofpars pro toto. This is an idea very familiar to the primitive mind. It lies, for instance, at the bottom of the common belief that a person may bewitch his enemy by getting hold of some of his spittle or some leavings of his food—a belief which has led to the custom of guests carrying away with them all they are unable to eat of the food which is placed before them,out of dread lest the residue of their meal should be eaten by somebody else.106The magic wire may conduct imprecations in either direction. In Morocco, if a person gives to another some food or drink, it is considered dangerous, not only for the recipient to receive it without saying, “In the name of God,” but also for the giver to give it without uttering the same formula, by way of precaution.107

94Wilkes,U.S. Exploring Expedition, iii. 77.

95Kubary, ‘Die Palau-Inseln in der Südsee,’ inJournal des Museum Godeffroy, iv. 25.

96von Haxthausen,Transcaucasia, p. 412.

97Macpherson,Memorials of Service in India, p. 66.

98Robertson Smith,Kinship and Marriage in Early Arabia, p. 48. Blunt,Bedouin Tribes of the Euphrates, ii. 211.

99Chassebœuf de Volney,op. cit.i. 412.

100Layard,op. cit.p. 317sq.Burckhardt says (Bedouins and Wahábys, p. 72) that one of the most common oaths in the domestic life of the Bedouins is “to take hold with one hand of thewasat, or middle tent-pole, and to swear ‘by the life of this tent and its owners.’”

101Blunt,op. cit.ii. 211.

102Burton,Pilgrimage to Al-Madinah and Meccah, ii. 112. Doughty,op. cit.i. 228.

103Burckhardt,Bedouins and Wahábys, p. 187. Quatremère, ‘Mémoire sur les asiles chez les Arabes,’ inMémoires de l’Institut de France, Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres, xv. pt. ii. 346sqq.

104Quatremère,loc. cit.p. 346.

105Dorsey, ‘Omaha Sociology,’ inAnn. Rep. Bur. Ethn.iii. 271.

106Shortland,Traditions and Superstitions of the New Zealanders, pp. 86, 97.Cf.Ellis,Tour through Hawaii, p. 347; Harmon,op. cit.p. 361 (Indians on the east side of the Rocky Mountains).

107Isaac also blessed his son by eating ofhisfood (Genesis, xxvii. 4, 19, 24). The subject of hospitality has been incidentally dealt with by Mr. Crawley in his interesting book,The Mystic Rose(p. 239sqq.;cf., also, p. 124sqq.). I must leave the reader to decide how far the theory I am here advocating, which mainly rests upon my researches in Morocco, coincides with his. All through his book Mr. Crawley lays much emphasis on the principle of transference; but, if I understand him rightly, he also regards commensality as involving a supposed “exchange of personality” between the host and the guest, in consequence of which “injury done to B by A is equivalent to injury done by A to himself” (p. 237). To this opinion I cannot subscribe (cf.infra, on theOrigin and Development of the Altruistic Sentiment). So far as I can see, the mutual obligations arising from eating together are fundamentally based on the idea that the common meal serves as a conductor of conditional imprecations.

The stranger thus being looked upon as a more or less dangerous individual, it is natural that those who are exposed to the danger should do what they can to avert it. With this end in view certain ceremonies are often performed immediately on his arrival. Many such reception ceremonies have been described by Dr. Frazer,108but I shall add a few others which seem to serve the object of either transferring to the stranger conditional curses or purifying him from dangerous influences. I am told by a native that among some of the nomadic Arabs of Morocco, as soon as a stranger appears in the village, some water, or, if he be a person of distinction, some milk, is presented to him. Should he refuse to partake of it, he is not allowed to go freely about, but has to stay in the village mosque. On asking for an explanation of this custom, I was told that it is a precaution against the stranger; should he steal or otherwise misbehave himself, the drink would cause his knees to swell so that he could not escape. In other words, he has drunk a conditional curse.109TheArabs of a tribe in Nejd “welcome” a guest by pouring on his head a cup of melted butter,110the South African Herero greet him with a vessel of milk.111Sir S. W. Baker describes a reception custom practised by the Arabs on the Abyssinian frontier, which is exactly similar to one form ofl-ʿârof the Moors:—“The usual welcome upon the arrival of a traveller, who is well received in an Arab camp, is the sacrifice of a fat sheep, that should be slaughtered at the door of his hut or tent, so that the blood flows to the threshold.”112Reception sacrifices also occur among the Shulis,113in Liberia,114and in Afghanistan.115Among the Indians of North America, again, it is a common rule that a dish of food should be placed before the new-comer immediately on his arrival, that he should taste of it even though he has just arisen from a feast, and that no word should be spoken to him or no question put to him until he has partaken of the food.116Among the Omahas “the master of the house is evidently ill at ease, until the food is prepared for eating; he will request his squaws to expedite it, and will even stir the fire himself.”117Among many peoples it is considered necessary that the host should give food to his guest before he eats himself. This is a rule on which much stress is laid in the literature of ancient India.118A Brâhmana never takes food “without having offered it duly to gods and guests.”119“He who eats before his guest consumes the rood, the prosperity, the issue, the cattle, the merit which his family acquired by sacrifices and charitable works.”120It is probable that this punishment has something to dowith the evil eye of the neglected guest, for the idea of eating the evil wishes of others was evidently quite familiar to the ancient Hindus. It is said in Âpastamba’s Aphorisms:—“A guest who is at enmity with his host shall not eat his food, nor shall he eat the food of a host who hates him or accuses him of a crime, or of one who is suspected of a crime. For it is declared in the Veda that he who eats the food of such a person eats his guilt.”121In Tonga Islands, “at meals strangers or foreigners are always shewn a preference, and females are helped before men of the same rank”—according to our informant, “because they are the weaker sex and require attention.”122As to the correctness of this explanation, however, I have some doubts; the Moors, also, at their feasts, allow the women to eat first, and one reason they give for this custom is that otherwise the hungry women might injure the men with their evil eyes. In Hawaii the host and his family do not at all partake of the entertainment with which a passing visitor is generally provided on arriving among them;123and that their abstinence is due to superstitious fear is all the more probable as, among the same people, it is the custom for the guest invariably to carry away with him all that remains of the entertainment.124

Back to Index Next