按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页，按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页，按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部！
————未阅读完？加入书签已便下次继续阅读！
in token of their mourning and grief。
Now this practice of taking human victims from a family of royal descent at Orchomenus is all the more significant because Athamas himself is said to have reigned in the land of Orchomenus even before the time of Minyas； and because over against the city there rises Mount Laphystius； on which； as at Alus in Thessaly； there was a sanctuary of Laphystian Zeus； where； according to tradition； Athamas purposed to sacrifice his two children Phrixus and Helle。 On the whole； comparing the traditions about Athamas with the custom that obtained with regard to his descendants in historical times； we may fairly infer that in Thessaly and probably in Boeotia there reigned of old a dynasty of which the kings were liable to be sacrificed for the good of the country to the god called Laphystian Zeus； but that they contrived to shift the fatal responsibility to their offspring； of whom the eldest son was regularly destined to the altar。 As time went on； the cruel custom was so far mitigated that a ram was accepted as a vicarious sacrifice in room of the royal victim； provided always that the prince abstained from setting foot in the town…hall where the sacrifices were offered to Laphystian Zeus by one of his kinsmen。 But if he were rash enough to enter the place of doom； to thrust himself wilfully； as it were； on the notice of the god who had good…naturedly winked at the substitution of a ram； the ancient obligation which had been suffered to lie in abeyance recovered all its force； and there was no help for it but he must die。 The tradition which associated the sacrifice of the king or his children with a great dearth points clearly to the belief； so common among primitive folk； that the king is responsible for the weather and the crops； and that he may justly pay with his life for the inclemency of the one or the failure of the other。 Athamas and his line； in short； appear to have united divine or magical with royal functions； and this view is strongly supported by the claims to divinity which Salmoneus； the brother of Athamas； is said to have set up。 We have seen that this presumptuous mortal professed to be no other than Zeus himself； and to wield the thunder and lightning； of which he made a trumpery imitation by the help of tinkling kettles and blazing torches。 If we may judge from analogy； his mock thunder and lightning were no mere scenic exhibition designed to deceive and impress the beholders； they were enchantments practised by the royal magician for the purpose of bringing about the celestial phenomena which they feebly mimicked。
Among the Semites of Western Asia the king； in a time of national danger； sometimes gave his own son to die as a sacrifice for the people。 Thus Philo of Byblus； in his work on the Jews； says： It was an ancient custom in a crisis of great danger that the ruler of a city or nation should give his beloved son to die for the whole people； as a ransom offered to the avenging demons； and the children thus offered were slain with mystic rites。 So Cronus； whom the Phoenicians call Israel； being king of the land and having an only…begotten son called Jeoud （for in the Phoenician tongue Jeoud signifies 'only begotten'）； dressed him in royal robes and sacrificed him upon an altar in a time of war； when the country was in great danger from the enemy。 When the king of Moab was besieged by the Israelites and hard beset； he took his eldest son； who should have reigned in his stead； and offered him for a burnt offering on the wall。
Chapter 27。 Succession to the Soul。
TO THE VIEW that in early times； and among barbarous races； kings have frequently been put to death at the end of a short reign； it may be objected that such a custom would tend to the extinction of the royal family。 The objection may be met by observing； first； that the kingship is often not confined to one family； but may be shared in turn by several； second； that the office is frequently not hereditary； but is open to men of any family； even to foreigners； who may fulfil the requisite conditions； such as marrying a princess or vanquishing the king in battle； and； third； that even if the custom did tend to the extinction of a dynasty； that is not a consideration which would prevent its observance among people less provident of the future and less heedful of human life than ourselves。 Many races； like many individuals； have indulged in practices which must in the end destroy them。 The Polynesians seem regularly to have killed two…thirds of their children。 In some parts of East Africa the proportion of infants massacred at birth is said to be the same。 Only children born in certain presentations are allowed to live。 The Jagas； a conquering tribe in Angola； are reported to have put to death all their children； without exception； in order that the women might not be cumbered with babies on the march。 They recruited their numbers by adopting boys and girls of thirteen or fourteen years of age； whose parents they had killed and eaten。 Among the Mbaya Indians of South America the women used to murder all their children except the last； or the one they believed to be the last。 If one of them had another child afterwards； she killed it。 We need not wonder that this practice entirely destroyed a branch of the Mbaya nation； who had been for many years the most formidable enemies of the Spaniards。 Among the Lengua Indians of the Gran Chaco； the missionaries discovered what they describe as a carefully planned system of racial suicide； by the practice of infanticide by abortion； and other methods。 Nor is infanticide the only mode in which a savage tribe commits suicide。 A lavish use of the poison ordeal may be equally effective。 Some time ago a small tribe named Uwet came down from the hill country； and settled on the left branch of the Calabar River in West Africa。 When the missionaries first visited the place； they found the population considerable； distributed into three villages。 Since then the constant use of the poison ordeal has almost extinguished the tribe。 On one occasion the whole population took poison to prove their innocence。 About half perished on the spot； and the remnant； we are told； still continuing their superstitious practice； must soon become extinct。 With such examples before us we need not hesitate to believe that many tribes have felt no scruple or delicacy in observing a custom which tends to wipe out a single family。 To attribute such scruples to them is to commit the common； the perpetually repeated mistake of judging the savage by the standard of European civilisation。 If any of my readers set out with the notion that all races of men think and act much in the same way as educated Englishmen； the evidence of superstitious belief and custom collected in this work should suffice to disabuse him of so erroneous a prepossession。
The explanation here given of the custom of killing divine persons assumes； or at least is readily combined with； the idea that the soul of the slain divinity is transmitted to his successor。 Of this transmission I have no direct proof except in the case of the Shilluk； among whom the practice of killing the divine king prevails in a typical form； and with whom it is a fundamental article of faith that the soul of the divine founder of the dynasty is immanent in every one of his slain successors。 But if this is the only actual example of such a belief which I can adduce； analogy seems to render it probable that a similar succession to the soul of the slain god has been supposed to take place in other instances； though direct evidence of it is wanting。 For it has been already shown that the soul of the incarnate deity is often supposed to transmigrate at death into another incarnation； and if this takes place when the death is a natural one； there seems no reason why it should not take place when the death has been brought about by violence。 Certainly the idea that the soul of a dying person may be transmitted to his successor is perfectly familiar to primitive peoples。 In Nias the eldest son usually succeeds his father in the chieftainship。 But if from any bodily or mental defect the eldest son is disqualified for ruling； the father determines in his lifetime which of his sons shall succeed him。 In order； however； to establish his right of succession； it is necessary that the son upon whom his father's choice falls shall catch in his mouth or in a bag the last breath； and with it the soul； of the dying chief。 For whoever catches his last breath is chief equally with the appointed successor。 Hence the other brothers； and sometimes also strangers； crowd round the dying man to catch his soul as it passes。 The houses in Nias are raised above the ground on posts； and it has happened that when the dying man lay with his face on the floor； one of the candidates has bored a hole in the floor and sucked in the chief's last breath through a bamboo tube。 When the chief has no son； his soul is caught in a bag； which is fastened to an image made to represent the deceased； the soul is then believed to pass into the image。
Sometimes it would appear that the spiritual link between a king and the souls of his predecessors is formed by the possession of some part of their persons。 In southern Ce