CHAPTER XXIII. Charity and Generosity

CHARITY AND GENEROSITY

IN previous chapters we have examined the regard for the life and physical well-being of others as displayed in moral ideas concerning homicide and the infliction of bodily harm. We shall now consider the same subject from another point of view, namely, the valuation of such conduct as positively promotes the existence and material comfort of a fellow-creature.

There is one duty so universal and obvious that it is seldom mentioned: the mother's duty to rear her children, provided that they are suffered to live. Another duty--equally primitive, I believe, in the human race--is incumbent on the married man: the protection and support of his family. We hear of this duty from all quarters of the savage world.

Among the North American Indians it was considered disgraceful for a man to have more wives than he was able to maintain. Mr. Powers says that among the Patwin, a Californian tribe which he believes to rank among the lowest in the world, "the sentiment that the men are bound to support the women--that is to furnish the supplies--is stronger even than among us." Among the Iroquois it was the office of the husband "to make a mat, to repair the cabin of his wife, or to construct a new one." The product of his hunting expeditions, {527} during the first year of marriage, belonged of right to his wife, and afterwards he shared it equally with her, whether she remained in the village, or accompanied him to the chase. Among the Botocudos, whose girls are married very young, remaining in the house of the father till the age of puberty, the husband is even then obliged to maintain his wife, though living apart from her. Among the Lengua Indians of the Paraguayan Chaco the child of a woman whose husband deserts her is generally killed at birth, the mother feeling that it is the man's part of married life to provide meat for his offspring. Azara states that, among the Charruas, "du moment où un homme se marie, il forme une famille à part, et travaille pour la nourrir." Of the Fuegians it is said that, "as soon as a youth is able to maintain a wife, by his exertions in fishing or bird-catching, he obtains the consent of her relations." The wretched Rock Veddahs in Ceylon "acknowledge the marital obligation and the duty of supporting their own families." Among the Maldivians, "although a man is allowed four wives at one time, it is only on condition of his being able to support them." The Nairs, we are told, consider it a husband's duty to provide his wife with food, clothing, and ornaments; and almost the same is said by Dr. Schwaner with reference to the tribes of the Barito district, in the south east part of Borneo. Among the cannibals of New Britain the chiefs have to see that the families of the warriors are properly maintained. Concerning the Tonga Islanders Mariner states that "a married woman is one who cohabits with a man, and lives under his roof and protection." Among the Maoris "the mission of woman was to increase and multiply, that of man to defend his home." With reference to the Kurnai in South Australia, Mr. Howitt states that "the man has to provide for his family with the assistance of his wife. His share is to hunt for their support, and to fight for their protection." In Lado, in Africa, the bridegroom has to assure his father-in-law three times that he will {528} protect his wife, calling the people present to witness. Among the Touareg a man who deserts his wife is blamed, as he has taken upon himself the obligation of maintaining her.

Among many of the lower races a man is not even permitted to marry until he has given some proof of his ability to support and protect his family. Indeed, so closely is the idea that a man is bound to maintain his family connected with that of marriage and fatherhood, that sometimes even repudiated wives with their children are, at least to a certain extent, supported by their former husbands. And upon the death of a husband, the obligation of maintaining his wife and her children devolves on his heirs, the wide-spread custom of a man marrying the widow of his deceased brother being not only a privilege, but, among several peoples, even a duty.

Turning to peoples who have reached a higher stage of culture:--Abû Shugâ[(] says that, among Muhammedans, parents are obliged to support their families, "if the children are both poor and under age, or both poor and lastingly infirm, or both poor and insane." But that this duty chiefly devolves on the father is evident from the fact that the mother is even entitled to claim wages for nursing them. Buddhistic law goes so far as to prescribe that the parents shall provide their son with a beautiful wife, and give him a share of the wealth belonging to the family. It has been observed that in the Confucian books there is no mention of any real duties incumbent upon the father towards his children; nor does the Decalogue contain anything on the subject; nor any law of ancient Greece or Rome. But, as has been justly {529} argued, if legal prescriptions are wanting, that is because they are thought to be superfluous, nature itself having sufficiently prepared men for the performance of their duties towards their offspring. So, also, it is regarded as a matter of course that the husband shall support his wife, however great power he may possess over her. Among the Romans manus implied not only the wife's subordination to the husband, but also the husband's obligation to protect the wife.

The parents' duty of taking care of their offspring is, in the first place, based on the sentiment of parental affection. That the maternal sentiment is universal in mankind is a fact too generally admitted to need demonstration; not so the father's love of his children. Savage men are commonly supposed to be very indifferent towards their offspring; but a detailed study of facts leads us to a different conclusion. It appears that, among the lower races, the paternal sentiment is hardly less universal than the maternal, although it is probably never so strong and in many cases distinctly feeble. But more often it displays itself with considerable intensity even among the rudest savages. In the often-quoted case of the Patagonian chief who, in a moment of passion, dashed his little son with the utmost violence against the rocks because he let a basket of eggs which the father handed to him fall down, we have only an instance of savage impetuosity. The same father "would, at any other time, have been the most daring, the most enduring, and the most self-devoted" in the support and defence of his child. Similarly the Central Australian natives, in fits of sudden passion, when hardly knowing what they do, sometimes treat a child with great severity; but as a rule, to which there are very few exceptions, they are kind and considerate to their children, the men as well as the women carrying them when they get tired on the march, {530} and always seeing that they get a good share of any food. All authorities agree that the Australian Black is affectionate to his children. "From observation of various tribes in far distant parts of Australia," says Mr. Howitt, "I can assert confidently that love for their children is a marked feature in the aboriginal character. I cannot recollect having ever seen a parent beat or cruelly use a child; and a short road to the goodwill of the parents is, as amongst us, by noticing and admiring their children. No greater grief could be exhibited, by the fondest parents in the most civilised community at the death of some little child, than that which I have seen exhibited in an Australian native camp, not only by the immediate parents, but by the whole related group." Other representatives of the lowest savagery, as the Veddahs and Fuegians, are likewise described as tender parents. Though few peoples have acquired a worse reputation for cruelty than the Fijians, even the greatest censurer of their character admits that the exhibition of parental love among them "is sometimes such as to be worthy of admiration"; whilst, according to another authority, "it is truly touching to see how parents are attached to their children." The Bangala of the Upper Congo, "swayed one moment by a thirst for blood and indulging in the most horrible orgies, . . . may yet the next be found approaching their homes looking forward with {531} the liveliest interest to the caresses of their wives and children." Carver asserts that he never saw among any other people greater proofs of parental or filial tenderness than among the North American Naudowessies. Among the Point Barrow Eskimo "the affection of parents for their children is extreme"; and the same seems to be the case among the Eskimo in general. Concerning the Aleuts Veniaminof wrote long ago:--"The children are often well fed and satisfied, while the parents almost perish with hunger. The daintiest morsel, the best dress, is always kept for them." Mr. Hooper, again, found parental love nowhere more strongly exemplified than among the Chukchi; "the natives absolutely doat upon their children." Innumerable facts might indeed be quoted to prove that parental affection is not a late product of civilisation, but a normal feature of the savage mind as it is known to us.

{532} When dealing with the origin of the altruistic sentiment we shall find reason to believe that paternal affection not only prevails among existing men, savage and civilised, but that it belonged to the human race from the very beginning, and that the same was the case with the germ of marital affection, inducing the male to remain with the female till after the birth or the offspring, and to defend and support her during the periods of pregnancy and motherhood. It is true that among several savage peoples conjugal love is said to be unknown; but what is meant by this is, I think, typically expressed in Major Ellis's statement referring to some Gold Coast natives, that among them "love, as understood by the people of Europe, has no existence." The love of a savage is certainly very different from the love of a civilised man; nevertheless we may discover in it traces of the same ingredients. Even rude savages, such as the Bushmans, Fuegians, Andaman Islanders, and Australian aborigines, seem often to be lovingly attached to their wives.

{533} The prevalence of paternal and marital affection accounts for the origin of the family (consisting of parents and children), and for the functions of the man as father and husband. The growing intensity of these sentiments has naturally increased the stability of the family tie; and other factors, of a selfish nature, have contributed towards the same result. From various points of view it is desirable for a man to have children. They are to him objects of pride; when grown-up, they add to his safety and power; they support him when he gets old; they make offerings to his spirit when he is dead. And no less useful is the possession of a wife. When the generative power is no longer restricted to a certain season of the year, she becomes a lasting cause of sensual delight; she is a mother of children; she manages the household; she acts as a carrier, she works in the field.

Every social institution has a tendency to become a matter of moral concern because of the persistence of habit. But the simplest paternal and marital duties have a deeper foundation than the mere force of the habitual. If a man leaves his wife and children without protection and support, the other members of the community will sympathise with them, and feel resentment towards the neglectful husband and father. He will be looked upon as the cause of their sufferings, because he omitted to do what other men in his position would have done. His conduct will be repulsive to everyone who himself possesses those sentiments of which he proves destitute. He will be held guilty of a breach of contract, since by marrying he took upon himself the burden of maintaining his wife and their common offspring. To thoughtful minds his responsibility towards his children is further increased by the fact that he is the author of their being, and for that reason the source of their misery. Finally, the community as a whole will suffer by his negligence.

The parents' duty of taking care of their offspring lasts until the latter are able to shift for themselves. On the other hand, when the parents, in their turn, get in need of {534} support, their care is to be reciprocated by the children. The practice of killing or abandoning decrepit parents is an exception even in the savage world, and, as we have seen, restricted to extreme cases in which it may be regarded as an act of kindness or of hard necessity. There are always savage peoples among whom aged parents, though suffered to live, are said to be grossly neglected by their children. But, so far as I know, these peoples are not numerous, and can hardly be regarded as representatives of a custom common to any larger ethnic group.

Thus, according to Hearne, "old age is the greatest calamity that can befall a Northern Indian; for when he is past labour, he is neglected, and treated with great disrespect, even by his own children. They not only serve him last at meals, but generally give him the coarsest and worst of the victuals; and such of the skins as they do not chuse to wear, are made up in the clumsiest manner into clothing for their aged parents." Yet among the same people Richardson witnessed "several unquestionable instances of tenderness and affection shown by children to their parents, and of compliance with their whims, much to their own personal inconvenience." In his work on the tribes of California Mr. Powers observes:--"filial piety cannot be said to be a distinguishing quality of the Wailakki, or, in fact, of any Indians. No matter how high may be their station, the aged and decrepit are counted a burden. The old man, hero of a hundred battles, sometime 'lord of the lion heart and eagle eye,' when his fading eyesight no more can guide the winged arrow as of yore, is ignominiously compelled to accompany his sons into the forest, and bear home on his poor old shoulders the game they have killed." But concerning the Indians of Upper California Beechey writes, "When any of their relations are indisposed, the greatest attention is paid to their wants, and it was remarked by Padre Arroyo that filial affection is stronger in these tribes than in any civilised nation on the globe with which he was acquainted." Among the Indians on the east side of the Rocky Mountains, "the aged are commonly treated with much respect, which they consider themselves as entitled to claim"; and they "are not suffered to want any thing which they need, and which {535} it is in the power of their relations to procure for them." The religious teachers of the Iroquois inculcated the duty of protecting aged parents, as divinely enjoined:--"It is the will of the Great Spirit that you reverence the aged, even though they be as helpless as infants." The Aleuts described by Veniaminof considered disregard of one's parents to be the greatest and most dishonourable of crimes; "we should sincerely love them," they said, "do all we could toward their support, remain with them, and care for them until their death." The children of the Central Eskimo are very dutiful, obeying the wishes of their parents and taking care of them in their old age; and statements to the same effect are made with reference to other Eskimo tribes. Cranz, who did not generally panegyrise the moral qualities of the Greenlanders, wrote that the bonds of filial and parental love seem stronger in them than amongst other nations, and that "ingratitude in up-grown children towards their old decrepit parents, is scarcely exemplified among them." Among the Botocudos Prince Wied-Neuwied saw a young man carrying about his blind father, not leaving him alone for a single moment. Among the Fuegians "grown-up children are expected to support their parents when they become aged; the son generally makes his father, if he is past work, a canoe every season, and if the aged man is a widower he lives entirely under the charge of his eldest son." The Australian natives are much praised for the regard with which they treat their parents and elders. With reference to the Western tribes, Bishop Salvado observes:--"Les fils adultes payent de retour l'affection de leurs parents. S'ils sont vieux, ils réservent pour eux les meilleurs pièces de gibier, ou de tout autre mets, et se chargent de venger leurs offenses." Among the Kukis of India, "when past work, the father and mother are supported by their children." Among the Bódo and Dhimáls "it is {536} deemed shameful to leave old parents entirely alone; and the last of the sons, who by his departure does so, is liable to fine as well as disinheritance." Among the Betsileo of Madagascar "the old are never left destitute or to their own devices. . . . It is by no means uncommon to see the son carrying the aged parent on his back, when necessity or inclination demands locomotion." Among the Mandingoes "the aged who are unable to support themselves are always maintained and treated with respect by their children." That uncivilised races commonly regard it a stringent duty for children to maintain their aged parents and to administer to their wants, is also obvious from statements testifying their filial regard in general terms. On the other hand, the fact that some peoples are said to be deficient in this sentiment, does not imply that they fail to recognise the simple duty of supporting old and helpless parents.

At a higher stage of civilisation reverence for parents reaches its pitch, and the duty of maintaining them in their old age is taken for a matter of course. Among the present Hindus "it would certainly be regarded as a most disgraceful thing were a man who could do anything for the support of an aged father or mother to allow the burden of their maintenance to fall on strangers"; and it is common for unmarried soldiers to stint themselves almost to starvation point, that they may send home money to their parents. The priesthood of modern Buddhism teach that children shall "respect their parents, and perform all kinds of offices for them, even though they should have servants whom they could command to do all that they require." At ancient Athens, before a man could become a magistrate, evidence was to be produced that he had treated his parents properly; and a person who refused his parents food and dwelling lost his right of speaking in the national assembly. According to {537} the Icelandic Grágás, a man should maintain in the first place his mother, in the second his father, in the third his own children. The Talmud enjoins the duty of maintaining parents; and so does Muhammedan law, "if the parents are both poor and lastingly infirm, or both poor and insane."

Christianity, as will be shown, in one essential point changed the notions of antiquity regarding children's duties towards their parents: it made these duties subordinate to men's duties towards God. "Verily I say unto you, There is no man that hath left house, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my sake, and the gospel's, but he shall receive an hundredfold now in this time, houses, and brethren, and sisters, and mothers, and children, and lands, with persecutions; and in the world to come eternal life." There are numerous legends and lives of saints in which the desertion of the nearest relations is recorded as one of the leading features of their sanctity, and as one of their chief titles to honour. Some Catholic writers were of opinion that a man might lawfully abandon his parents, even though they could not be supported without him, and enter religion, committing the care of them to God. But Thomas Aquinas says that this would be tempting God, adding however that he who has already professed religion "ought not, on any plea of supporting his parents, to quit the cloister in which he is buried with Christ, and entangle himself again in worldly business." Yet our duties towards our parents come next to our duties towards God. We ought to aid them when in want, and to supplicate God in their behalf that they may lead prosperous and happy lives.

The duty of supporting aged parents has its root in {538} the sentiments of affection, gratitude, and regard, and, to some extent, in superstitious fear. However feeble they be, the parents have in their hands a powerful weapon--the curse; or, when they are dead, their ghosts may avenge their wrongs on their neglectful children. All these circumstances will be discussed in the chapter dealing with the subjection of children.

We have further to consider the duty of assisting brothers and sisters and more distant relatives. Among the Aleuts, says Veniaminof, a brother "must always aid his brother in war as well as in the chase, and each protect the other; but if anybody, disregarding this natural law, should go to live apart, caring only for himself, such a one should be discarded by his relatives in case of attack by enemies or animals, or in time of storms; and such dishonourable conduct would lead to general contempt." Among the Point Barrow Eskimo "the older children take very good care of the smaller ones"; and of the Sia Indians (Pueblos) we are told that "a marked trait is their loving kindness and care for younger brothers and sisters." Dr. Schweinfurth writes:--"Notwithstanding . . . that certain instances may be alleged which seem to demonstrate that the character of the Dinka is unfeeling, these cases never refer to such as are bound by the ties of kindred. Parents do not desert their children, nor are brothers faithless to brothers, but are ever prompt to render whatever aid is possible." I presume that these examples of fraternal relations may, on the whole, be regarded as expressive of universal facts. According to Confucius, the love which brother should bear to brother is second only to that which is due from children to parents.

The duty of assisting more distant relatives is much more variable. It may be said that, as a general rule, among {539} savages and barbarians--with the exception, perhaps, of those who live in small family-groups--as also among the peoples of archaic culture, this duty is more prominent and extends further than amongst ourselves. The blood-tie has much greater strength, related families keep more closely together for mutual protection and aid. The Angmagsaliks of Eastern Greenland, says Lieutenant Holm, consider that the tie of blood imposes mutual assistance as a duty under all circumstances. The Omahas maintain that "generosity cannot be exercised toward kindred, who have a natural right to our assistance." Among the natives of Madagascar "the claims of relationship are distinctly recognised by custom and law. If one branch of a family becomes poor, the members of the same family support him; if he be sold into slavery for debt, they often unite in furnishing the price of his redemption. . . . The laws facilitate and encourage, and sometimes even enforce, such acts of kindness." In his description of the Australian Bangerang, Mr. Curr observes, "Though their ways were different from ours, it always seemed to me that the bonds of friendship between blood relations were stronger, as a rule, with savages than amongst ourselves." Among the Philippine Islanders "families are very united, and claims for help and protection are admitted, however distant the relationship may be." Of the Burmans it is said, "No people can be more careful in preserving and acknowledging the bonds of family relationship to the remotest degrees, and not merely as a matter of form, but as involving the duty of mutual assistance." Among the ancient Hindus, Persians, Greeks, and Romans, persons belonging to the four generations of near relatives--the Sapindas, Syngeneis, Anchisteis, or Propinqui--were expected to assist {540} each other whenever it was needed. The Scandinavians considered him to be a bad man who did not help his kindred against strangers, even though there was enmity between the relatives.

But the duty of helping the needy and protecting those in danger goes beyond the limits of the family and the kin. Uncivilised peoples are, as a rule, described as kind towards members of their own community or tribe. Between themselves charity is enjoined as a duty, and generosity is praised as a virtue. Indeed, their customs regarding mutual aid are often much more stringent than our own. And this applies even to the lowest savages.

"La disposition à la générosité," says M. Hyades, "est un trait charactéristique des Fuégiens. Ils aiment à partager ce qu'ils ont avec tous ceux qui les entourent." Captain Weddell likewise speaks of "the philanthropic principle which these people exhibit towards one another." Burchell tells us that the Bushmans, between themselves, "exercise the virtues of hospitality and generosity, often in an extraordinary degree." The Veddahs of Ceylon are friendly towards each other, and ready to help a person in distress. The Andamanese display much mutual affection in their social relations, and frequently make presents of the best that they possess. "Every care and consideration," says Mr. Man, "are paid by all classes to the very young, the weak, the aged, and the helpless, and these, being made special objects of interest and attention, invariably fare better in regard to the comforts and necessaries of daily life than any of the otherwise more fortunate members of the community." The Australian natives are almost universally praised for their friendly behaviour towards persons {541} belonging to their own people. Presents given to one of a group are speedily divided as far as possible among the rest, and when a black man has employment at a station he generally gives away most of his earnings to his comrades in the camp. "Between the males of a tribe," says Mr. Curr, "there always exists a strong feeling of brotherhood, so that, come weal come woe, a man can always calculate on the aid, in danger, of every member of his tribe." Regarding the Central Australian natives, Messrs. Spencer and Gillen observe that their treatment of one another "is marked on the whole by considerable kindness, that is, of course, in the case of members of friendly groups, with every now and then the perpetration of acts of cruelty." Collins says that the aborigines about Botany Bay and Port Jackson "applauded acts of kindness and generosity, for of both these they were capable."

Passing to savages and barbarians who have reached a somewhat higher level of culture:--We are told by Mr. Catlin, with reference to the North American Indians, that, "to their friends, there are no people on earth that are more kind." According to Adair, "they are very kind and liberal to every one of their own tribe, even to the last morsel of food they enjoy"; Nature's school "teaches them the plain easy rule, 'do to others, as you would be done by.'" Harmon praises the generosity of the Indians:--"They are more ready, in proportion to their means, to assist a neighbour who may be in want, than the inhabitants, generally, of civilised countries. An Indian rarely kills an animal, without sending a part of it to a neighbour if he has one near him." The Naudowessies "supply the deficiency of their friends with any superfluity of their own," and "in dangers they readily give assistance to those of their band {542} who stand in need of it, without any expectation of return." Among the Iroquois "kindness to the orphan, hospitality to all, and a common brotherhood, were among the doctrines held up for acceptance by their religious instructors"; an Iroquois "would surrender his dinner to feed the hungry, vacate his bed to refresh the weary, and give up his apparel to clothe the naked." Among the Omahas grades of merit or bravery were of two sorts: to the first class belonged such as had given to the poor on many occasions, and had invited guests to many feasts. To the second class belonged those who, besides having done these things many times, had killed several of the foe, and had brought home many horses. When a person sees a poor man or woman, they said, he should make presents to the unfortunate being; thus he can gain the goodwill of Wakanda as well as that of his own people. The Ahts of Vancouver Island succour any one in need of help, without looking for any ulterior benefit. The Aleuts were instructed to be kind to others and to refrain from selfishness; it was the custom for the successful hunter or fisher, particularly in times of scarcity, to share his prize with all, not only taking no larger share, but often less than the others. Among the Eskimo about Behring Strait, whenever a successful trader accumulates property and food, and is known to work solely for his own welfare, he becomes an object of enmity and hatred among his fellow-villagers, which ends in one of two ways--the villagers may compel him to make a feast and distribute his goods, or they may kill him and divide his property among themselves. According to the Greenland creed, all those who had striven and suffered for the benefit of their fellow-men should find a happy existence after death in the abodes of the supreme being, Tornarsuk. "The Greenlander," says Dr. Nansen, "is the most compassionate of creatures with regard to his neighbour. His first social law is to help others." Captain Hall holds an equally favourable opinion of those Eskimo with whom he came in contact. "As between themselves," he says, "there can be no people exceeding them in this virtue kindness of heart. Take, for instance, times of great scarcity of food. If one family happens to have any provisions on {543} hand, these are shared with all their neighbours. If one man is successful in capturing a seal, though his family may need it all to save them from the pangs of hunger, yet the whole of his people about, including the poor, the widow, the fatherless, are at once invited to a seal-feast." They believe that all Innuits who have been good, "that is, who have been kind to the poor and hungry," will after death go to Koodleparmiung, or heaven, whereas those who have been bad, "that is, unkind to one another," will go to Adleparmeun, or hell. Many of the South American peoples are praised for their kind disposition of mind; the Guiana Indians seemed to a Christian missionary to be "generous to a fault." The Caribs had all their interests in common, lived in great harmony, and loved each other heartily.

Among the Tonga Islanders the sentiment of humanity, or a fellow-feeling for one another, is universally approved. They "are not only not selfish, but admire liberality, and are practically liberal." When any one is about to eat, he always shares what he has with those about him without any hesitation, and not to do so would be considered exceedingly vile and selfish. So, also, "if one chief sees something in the possession of another, which he has a strong desire to have, he has only to ask him for it, and in all probability it is readily and liberally given." Not even the Fijians, who took great pains to instil into the minds of their youth a contempt for compassionate impulses and an admiration for relentless cruelty, were destitute of humanity and friendly feelings. In Aneiteum, of the New Hebrides, the people believed that the sin which would be visited with the severest punishment in the land of the dead was stinginess or niggardliness in giving away food, and that the virtue which received the highest reward was a generous hospitality and a giving liberally at feasts. In Tana, another island belonging to the same group, "one man has only to ask anything from his neighbours, and he gets it." Of the New Caledonians Mr. Atkinson states that, among themselves, they are "of a generosity that seems to arise mainly from aversion to refuse any request." The Dyaks are described as hospitable, {544} kindly, and humane, "to a degree which well might shame ourselves"; whilst the practice of head-hunting is carried on by every tribe at the expense of its neighbour, the members of each community have strong feelings of sympathy for each other. Among the Sea Dyaks, says Grassland, "if any are sick or unable to work, the rest help; and there seems to me a much stronger bond of union amongst them than I have ever seen among the labouring classes in England."

The Santals are gentle and very obliging, and sociable to a fault among their own people. The Hos "are charitable to those deserving aid." The Todas believe that, after death, the souls of good people will have enjoyment in heaven, whilst the souls of bad people will suffer punishment; "a good man is, in the Toda estimation, one who is given to deeds of charity, and a bad man one who is uncharitable (this in order of precedence), quarrelsome, thieving, &c." Mr. Batchelor states that "a more kind, gentle, and sympathetic people than the Ainos of Japan would be very difficult to find"; anything given to them they always divide with their friends. The Samoyedes are ready to share their last morsel with their companions; and it is said that nobody can surpass the poor Ostyak in benevolence and other virtues of the heart. "The finest trait in the character of a Bedouin (next to good faith)," Burckhardt observes, "is his kindness, benevolence, and charity. . . . Among themselves, the Bedouins constitute a nation of brothers; often quarrelling, it must be owned, with each other, but ever ready, when at peace, to give mutual assistance." Generosity is a virtue which always commands particular respect in the desert. The Arabs of the Soudan have a saying that "you must always put other people's things on your head, and your own under your arm. Then, if there be danger of the things falling off your head, you must raise your arm, and let fall your own things to save those of others."

{545} The Barea are a benevolent people, kind even to strangers. The Manganja, in the neighbourhood of Lake Nyassa, "are generous in the distribution of food," and even when starving they share the last morsel with their friends. Sir H. Johnston says that he has never met with "a more kindly, sensible, considerate set of beings" than the Wa-taveita. The Eastern Central Africans, the Rev. D. Macdonald observes, "are not mere animals composed of greed and selfishness. They often shew great bravery and devotedness. I can point to one man who saved my life on three separate occasions at the risk of his own." Among the Bechuanas a regard for the poor, for widows, and for orphans, is everywhere considered to be a sacred duty. Among all the virtues the Basutos appreciate none more than kindness. They have a saying that "one link only sounds because of another"--which implies that we cannot do without the help of our fellow-creatures,--and another saying that "one does not skin one's game without showing it to one's friends"--that is, when we have been successful in our undertakings, it becomes us to be generous. If any food is brought to them while they are in each other's society, however small may be the quantity, every one must have a taste. The Kafirs are a kindly race; Lichtenstein says that "whenever anyone kills an ox he must invite all his neighbours to partake of it, and they remain his guests till the whole is eaten." Of the Hottentots Kolben states:--"They are certainly the most friendly, the most liberal, and the most benevolent people to one another that ever appear'd upon earth . . . . They are charmed with opportunities of obliging each other, and one of their greatest pleasures lies in interchanging gifts and good offices." "A Hottentot," says Barrow, "would share his last morsel with his companions." Drury wrote of the people of Madagascar:--"They certainly treat one another with more humanity than we do. Here is no one miserable, if it is in the power of his neighbours to help him. Here is love, tenderness, and generosity which might {546} shame us; and . . . . this is . . . . all over the island." Ellis likewise observes that, in Madagascar, assisting in distress, and lending and borrowing property and money, are carried on much more commonly and freely than amongst neighbours or relatives in England, and that a kindness of heart in these things is always esteemed excellent.

Among many savages the old people, in particular, have a claim to support and assistance, not only from their own children or relatives, but from the younger members of the community generally.

Among the Australian natives the old men get the best and largest share of everything, and are allowed to monopolise the youngest and best-looking women, whilst a young man must consider himself fortunate if he can get an old woman for wife. Among the Tonga Islanders "every aged man and woman enjoys the attentions and services of the younger branches of society." In the Kingsmill Islands "generosity, hospitality, and attention to the aged and infirm are virtues highly esteemed and generally practised among all the natives." Among the Kafirs, when persons advanced in years become sick and helpless, "everyone is eager to afford them assistance." In the opinion of the Aleuts, "feeble old men must be respected and attended when they need aid, and the young and strong should give them a share of their booty and help them through all their troubles, endeavouring to obtain in exchange their good advice only."

The sick, also, are often very carefully attended to.

Among the coast tribes of British Columbia Mr. Duncan "always found one or two nurses to an invalid, if the case was {547} at all bad; the sympathy of the nurses, too, seemed very great." Beechey says of the wild Indians of Upper California:--"The very great care taken of all those who are affected with any disease ought not to be allowed to escape a remark. When any of their relations are indisposed, the greatest attention is paid to their wants." Keating noticed the kind and humane treatment which the Potawatomis extended even to the idiots. The Koriaks "carefully attend those who are sick." The same is said of the Ainos of Japan, and the Tagbanuas of the Philippine Islands. In Sarawak no relative is abandoned because an injury or illness may have incapacitated him for work. When a Dyak is ill at home, the women nurse the patient in turn. In Samoa "the treatment of the sick was invariably humane." In Tana, Humphrey's Island, Erromanga, and Tasmania, they were likewise kindly attended to; and the same is the case at least among many of the Australian tribes. Concerning the aborigines of Herbert River, in Northern Queensland, Lumholtz writes:--"The natives are very kind and sympathetic towards those who are ill, and they carry them from camp to camp. This is the only noble trait I discovered in the Australian natives." In various parts of Australia the blind, and especially the aged blind, are carefully tended; travellers on the northern coast of the continent have noticed that these are generally the fattest of the company, being supplied with the best of everything. "No trait in the character of the Malagasy," says Ellis, "is more creditable to their humanity, and more gratifying to our benevolent feelings, than the kind, patient, and affectionate manner in which they attend upon the sick." A similar praise is bestowed upon the {548} Mandingoes and Kafirs. Among the Zulus, says Mr. J. Tyler, "work, however important, is at once suspended that they may help their afflicted friends."

Whilst the information which I have been able to gather on the social customs of uncivilised races seems to indicate that, in the majority of cases, mutual kindness and goodwill prevail within their communities, there are not wanting statements of a different character. But these statements are, after all, exceptional, and some of them are either ambiguous or obviously inexact. Only too often travellers represent to us the savage, not as he is in his daily life amidst his own people, but as he behaves towards his enemy, or towards a stranger who enters his country uninvited. As an experienced observer remarks, "the savage, passionate and furious with the feeling of revenge, slaughtering and devouring his enemy and drinking his blood, is no longer the same being as when cultivating his fields in peace; and it would be as unjust to estimate his general character by his actions in these moments of unrestrained passion, as to judge of Europeans by the excesses of an excited soldiery or an infuriated mob." Moreover, many accounts of savages date from a period when they have already been affected by contact with a "higher culture," as we call it, a culture which almost universally has proved to exercise a deteriorating influence on the character of the lower races. Among the North American Indians, for instance, "there was more good-will, hospitality, and charity, practised towards one another" before white people came and resided among them; whereas contact with civilisation has made them "false, suspicious, avaricious and hard-hearted." As has been truly said, "search modern history, and in the North {549} and South and East and West the story is ever the same--we come, we civilise, and we corrupt or exterminate."

Among the semi-civilised and civilised nations charity has universally been regarded as a duty, and has often been strenuously enjoined by their religions. When Spain and Peru first came into contact, the Americans surpassed the Spaniards in brotherly love and systematic care for the needy. They had a poor-law according to which the blind, lame, aged, and infirm, who could not till their own lands so as to clothe and feed themselves, should receive sustenance from the public stores. The ancient Mexicans, according to Clavigero, seemed to give without reluctance what had cost them the utmost labour to acquire. "The great virtue of the Coreans is their innate respect for and daily practice of the laws of human brotherhood. Mutual assistance and generous hospitality among themselves are distinctive national traits." According to Chinese law, "all poor destitute widowers and widows, the fatherless and childless, the helpless and the infirm, shall receive sufficient maintenance and protection from the magistrates of their native city or district, whenever they have neither relations nor connections upon whom they can depend for support." "Benevolence," said Confucius, "is more to man than either water or fire." To assist the needy, to feed the hungry, to clothe the naked, to succour the sick, to save men in danger--these and similar acts of kindness are, according to Chinese beliefs, merits which will be rewarded by the unseen powers that watch human conduct, whereas the uncharitable and parsimonious are threatened with divine punishments. In a book of Buddhistic-Confucian flavour, {550} as familiar to the youth of Japan as the Sermon on the Mount is to us, it is said, "Above all things, men must practise charity; it is by almsgiving that wisdom is fed." According to the Dhammapada, "the uncharitable do not go to the world of the gods; fools only do not praise liberality; a wise man rejoices in liberality, and through it becomes blessed in the other world." Indeed, in the didactic poetry of Buddhism the virtue of beneficence occupies the most prominent place; without any regard to what is the measure of the real benefit thereby extended to the recipient of the gift, the legends set before us as a duty the most unbounded generosity, pushed even to the extreme of self-destruction. And in its conception of charity and liberality, as in all other points of worldly morality, Buddhism does not differ from the standard recognised in India since ancient times. Already in the Vedic hymns praise is bestowed on those who from their abundance willingly dispense to the needy, on those who do not turn away from the hungry, on those who are kind to the poor. In the Hitopadesa it is said that the good man shows pity even to the worthless, as the moon does not withdraw its light even from a member of the lowest caste. The sacred law-books of India are full of prescriptions enjoining almsgiving as a duty on all twice-born men. "A householder must give as much food as he is able to spare to those who do not cook for themselves, and to all beings one must distribute food without detriment to one's own interest." The student "should always without sloth give alms out of whatever he has for food." The Brâhmana who has completed his studentship should without tiring "perform works of {551} charity with faith." Almsgiving confers merit on the giver, it frees him from guilt, it destroys sin; "for whatever purpose a man bestows any gift, for that purpose he receives in his next birth with due honour its reward." On the other hand, he who cooks for himself alone eats nothing but sin. Speaking of the modern Hindus, Mr. Wilkins observes:--"The charity of the Hindus is great. . . . There is no poor-law in India, no guardians of the poor, no workhouses, excepting for the Europeans in the Presidency towns. The poor of a family, the halt, the lame, the blind, the weak, the insane, are provided for by their family, if it is at all able to do it; in cases where there are few or no relatives, then the burden is taken up by others. It is a 'work of merit.'"

Of the ancient Persians Thucydides said that they preferred giving to receiving. To be charitable towards the poor of their own faith was among them a religious duty of the first order. Zoroaster thus addressed Vîshtâspa:--"Let no thought of Angra Mainyu ever infect thee, so that thou shouldst indulge in evil lusts, make derision and idolatry, and shut to the poor the door of thy house." The holy Sraosha is the protector of the poor. In the Shâyast it is said that the clothing of the soul in the next world is formed out of almsgiving.

It seems that among the ancient Egyptians charity was considered no less meritorious. "The god," M. Maspero observes, "does not confine his favour to the prosperous and the powerful of this world; he bestows it also upon {552} the poor. His will is that they be fed and clothed, and exempted from tasks beyond their strength; that they be not oppressed, and that unnecessary tears be spared them." In the memorial inscriptions, where the dead plead their good deeds, charity is often referred to. "I harmed not a child," says one Egyptian, "I injured not a widow; there was neither beggar nor needy in my time; none were hungered, widows were cared for as though their husbands were still alive." In the inscription in honour of a lady who had been charitable to persons of her own sex, whether girls, wives, or widows, it is said, "The god rewarded me for this, rejoicing me with the happiness which he has granted me for walking after his way."

Charity was urgently insisted upon by the religious law of the Hebrews. "Thou shalt open thine hand wide unto thy brother, to thy poor, and to thy needy, in thy land"; "for this thing the Lord thy God shall bless thee in all thy works, and in all that thou puttest thine hand unto." Even "if thine enemy be hungry, give him bread to eat; and if he be thirsty, give him water to drink: . . . the Lord shall reward thee." Especially in the Old Testament Apocrypha and in Rabbinical literature almsgiving assumed an excessive prominence--so much so that the word which in the older writings means "righteousness" in general, came to be used for almsgiving in particular. "Shut up alms in thy storehouses: and it shall deliver thee from all affliction." "As water will quench a flaming fire, so alms maketh an atonement for sins." "For alms doth deliver from death, and shall purge away all sin. Those that exercise alms and {553} righteousness shall be filled with life." The charitable man is rewarded with the birth of male issue. Almsgiving is equal in value to all other commandments. He who averts his eyes from charity commits a sin equal to idolatry. To such an extreme was almsgiving carried on by the Jews, that some Rabbis at length decreed that no man should give above a fifth part of his goods in charity.

Almsgiving, prayer, and fasting were the three cardinal disciplines which the synagogue transmitted to both the Christian Church and the Muhammedan mosque. According to Islam, the duty next in importance to prayer is that of giving alms. Muhammed repeatedly announces that the path which leads to God is the helping of the orphans and the relieving of the poor. "Ye cannot attain to righteousness until ye expend in alms of what ye love." "Those who expend their wealth by night and day, secretly and openly, they shall have their hire with their lord." It is said that "prayer carries us half-way to God, fasting brings us to the door of His palace, and alms procure us admission." Certain alms, called Zakât, are prescribed by law; it is an indispensable duty for every Muhammedan of full age to bestow in charity about one-fortieth of all such property as has been a year in his possession, provided that he has sufficient for his subsistence and has an income equivalent to about £5 per annum. Other charitable gifts are voluntary, and confer merit upon the giver.

By Christianity charity of the religious type which we {554} find in the East was introduced into Europe. We have certainly no reason to blame the ancient Greeks and Romans for neglecting their poor. Among them slavery in a great measure replaced pauperism; and what slavery did for the very poor, the Roman system of clientage did for those of a somewhat higher rank. Moreover, the relief of the indigent was an important function of the State. The Areopagus provided public works for the poor. At Rome gratuitous distribution of corn was the rule for many centuries; agrarian laws furnished free homesteads to the landless, on conquered or public territory; since the days of Nerva a systematic support of poor children was enjoined in all the cities of Italy. A few examples of private charity, also, have descended to us already from early times, such as Epaminondas collecting dowers for poor girls, and Cimon feeding and clothing the poor; and from the days of the Pagan Empire there are recorded several cases of individual beneficence. Charitable bequests are alluded to in the burial inscriptions; when some great catastrophe happened, relief was willingly given to the sufferers; private infirmaries were established for slaves. The duty of charity was forcibly enjoined by some of the moralists. The wise man, says Seneca, "will dry the tears of others, but will not mingle his own with them; he will stretch out his hand to the shipwrecked mariner, will offer hospitality to the exile, and alms to the needy." But his alms are not thrown away by chance; his purse will open easily, but never leak. He will choose out the worthiest with the utmost care, and never give without sufficient reason; for unwise gifts must be reckoned among foolish extravagances. So also Cicero, {555} whilst styling beneficence and liberality "virtues that are the most agreeable to the nature of man," is anxious to warn his readers against imprudence in practising them, "lest our kindness should hurt both those whom it is meant to assist, and others."

In a very different light was charity viewed by the Christians. Unlimited open-handedness became a cardinal virtue. An ideal Christian was he who did what Jesus commanded the young man to do: who went and sold what he had and gave it to the poor. Promiscuous almsgiving was enjoined as a duty:--"Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away." The discharge of this duty was even more profitable to the giver than to the receiver. There is perhaps no precept in the Gospel to which a promise of recompense is so frequently annexed as to that concerning charity. Eternal life is promised to those who feed the hungry, give drink to the thirsty, take in the stranger, clothe the naked, visit the sick. Charity was regarded as an atonement. "God," says St. Augustine, "is to be propitiated through alms for sins past"; and countless times is the thought expressed, that almsgiving is a safe investment of money at good interest with God in heaven. Cyprian, who is the father of the Romish doctrine of good works, establishes an arithmetical relation between the number of alms-offerings and the blotting out of sins. "The food of the needy," says Leo the Great, "is the purchase-money of the kingdom of heaven." "As long as the market lasts," says St. Chrysostom, "let us buy alms, or rather let us purchase salvation through alms." The rich man is only a debtor; all that he possesses beyond {556} what is necessary, belongs to the poor, and ought to be given away. The poor, no longer looked down upon, became instruments of salvation. To them was given the first place in the Church and in the Christian community. St. Chrysostom says of them, "As fountains flow near the place of prayer that the hands that are about to be raised to heaven may be washed, so were the poor placed by our fathers near to the door of the Church, that our hands might be consecrated by benevolence before they are raised to God." Gregory the Great announces, and the Middle Ages re-echo, "The poor are not to be lightly esteemed and despised, but to be honoured as patrons." Thus it happened that even in the darkest periods, when all other Christian virtues were nearly extinct, charity survived unimpaired. Later on Protestantism, by denying the atoning effect of good deeds, deprived charity of a great deal of its religious attraction. And in modern times the enlightened opinion on the subject, recognising the demoralising influence of indiscriminate almsgiving, rather agrees with the principles laid down by Cicero and Seneca, than with the literal interpretation of the injunctions of Christ.

In the course of progressing civilisation the obligation of assisting the needy has been extended to wider and wider circles of men. The charity and generosity which savages require as a duty or praise as a virtue have, broadly speaking, reference only to members of the same community or tribe. Kindness towards foreigners is looked upon in a very different light. "The virtues of the Negroes," Monrad observes, "are entirely restricted to their own tribe. The doing good to a stranger they would generally find ridiculous." To the Greenlander a foreigner, especially if he be of another race, is "an indifferent object, whose welfare he has no interest in furthering." {557} The Bedouin, says Doughty, "has two faces, this of gentle kindness at home, the other of wild misanthropy and his teeth set against the world besides." At higher stages of civilisation the duty of charity embraces a wider group of people, in proportion to the largeness of the social unit or to the scope of the religion by which it is enjoined. But it is still more or less restrained by national or religious boundaries. M. Amélineau observes that the charity referred to on ancient Egyptian papyri is "la charité limitée à ceux de la même nation." According to Zoroastrianism, charity should be restricted to the followers of the true religion; to succour an unbeliever would be like a strengthening of the dominion of Evil. The Zakât, or legal alms of the Muhammedans, must not be given to a non-Muslim, because it is regarded as a fundamental part of worship; similarly the [S.]adaqah, or offering on the feast-day known as [(]Idu'l-Fi[t.]r, is confined to true believers. Nor has Christian charity always been free from religious narrowness. Fleury says that the early Christians, in the care they took of the poor, always preferred Christians before infidels, because "their principal regard was to their spiritual concerns, and to their temporal welfare only in order to their spiritual." The principle of the Church was, "Omnem hominem fidelem judica tuum esse fratrem." In the seventeenth century the Scotch clergy taught that food or shelter must on no occasion be given to a starving man unless his opinions were orthodox. On the other hand, Christianity of a higher type preaches charity towards all men; and so does advanced Judaism and Buddhism. It is said in the Talmud, with reference to the treatment of the poor, that no distinction should be made between such as are Jews and such as are not. In modern times charity now and then {558} steps over the barriers of nationality even when the sufferers belong to distant nations. Whilst our indigent compatriots are generally recognised to have a greater claim on our pity than needy strangers, a great calamity in one country readily calls forth a charitable response in other nations. Mr. Pike believes that the contribution of one hundred thousand pounds sterling which England, in the year 1755, when Lisbon was laid in ruins by an earthquake, sent for the relief of the sufferers, inaugurated this new era of international charitableness. "Compassion." he observes, "was at last shown by Englishmen, not simply for Englishmen and Protestants, but for foreigners professing a different religion; pity, for once, triumphed over intolerance and national prejudice." And in war, in the case of enemies rendered harmless by wounds or disease, the growth of human feeling has passed beyond the simple requirement that they shall not be killed or ill-used, and has cast upon belligerents the duty of tending them so far as is consistent with the primary duty to their own wounded. However, it must not be imagined that this humane principle, which has only lately been recognised in Europe, is a unique outcome of Christian civilisation at its height. It is said in the Mahabharata that, when a quarrel arises among good men, a wounded enemy is to be cured in the conqueror's own country, or to be conveyed to his home. Strangely enough, even from the savage world we hear of something like an anticipation of the Geneva Convention. Among certain tribes in New South Wales, as soon as the fight is concluded, "both parties seem perfectly reconciled, and jointly assist in tending the wounded men."

{559} The gradual expansion of the duty of charity is due to the fact that this duty, in the first place, is based on the altruistic sentiment, and consequently follows the same general law of development. Many cases referred to above imply that savages are by no means strangers to affection, and that in their communities there is not only mutual assistance, but general kindness of heart. Numerous instances to the same effect might easily be added. When a Fuegian is very ill the near relatives show much grief; and Darwin tells us that the Fuegian boy who was taken on board the Beagle and brought to Europe, used to go to the sea-sick and say, in a plaintive voice, "Poor, poor fellow!" The Veddahs are praised not only for their charitable behaviour towards each other, but for their natural tenderness of heart. The aborigines of Victoria are said to "have the greatest love for their friends and relatives," and to testify the liveliest joy when a companion after a long absence returns to the camp. Forster mentions an instance of affection among the natives of Tana, which, as he says, "strongly proves that the passions and innate quality of human nature are much the same in every climate." Melville declares that, after passing a few weeks in the Typee valley of the Marquesas, he formed a higher estimate of human nature than he ever before entertained. It can hardly be doubted that in every human society there is, normally, some degree of social affection between its members; and it seems that the evolution of this sentiment in mankind has been much more in the direction of greater extensiveness than of greater intensity.

Where the members of a group have affection for each other, mutual aid will be regarded as a duty both because it will be practised habitually, and because a {560} failure to afford it will call forth sympathetic resentment on behalf of the sufferer, But we need, here again, to look below the surface. Men may be induced to do good to their fellow-creatures not only by kindly feelings towards them, but by egoistic motives; and such motives, through having a share in making beneficence a tribal habit, at the same time influence the moral estimation in which it is held. The Basutos say that "the knife that is lent does not return alone to its master"--a kindness is never thrown away. Of the Asiniboin, a Siouan tribe, Mr. Dorsey states that "nothing is given except with a view to a gift in return." When the Andaman Islanders make presents of the best that they possess, they tacitly understand that an equivalent should be rendered for every gift. Among the Makololo "the rich show kindness to the poor, in expectation of services." In his description of the Greenlanders, Dr. Nansen observes that all the small communities depend for their existence on the law of mutual assistance, on the principle of common suffering and common enjoyment. "A hard life has taught the Eskimo that even if he is a skilful hunter and can, as a rule, manage to hold his own well enough, there may come times when, without the help of his fellows, he would have to succumb. It is better, therefore, for him to help in his turn." That similar considerations largely lie at the bottom of the custom of mutual aid and charity both in uncivilised and more advanced communities, we may assume from the experience of human nature which we have acquired at home. And such motives must be particularly active in a society the members of which are so dependent on each other's services and return-services, as is generally the case with a horde of savages.

Moreover, by niggardliness a person may expose himself {561} to supernatural dangers, whereas liberality may entail supernatural reward. In Morocco nobody would like to eat in the presence of other people without sharing his meal with them; otherwise they might poison his food by looking at it with an evil eye. So also, if anybody shows a great liking for a thing belonging to you, wanting, for instance, to buy your gun or your horse, it is best to let him have it, since otherwise an accident is likely to happen to the object of his desire. But baneful energy, what the Moors call l-bas, is transferable not only by the eye, but by the voice. The poor and the needy have thus in their hands a powerful weapon and means of retaliation, the curse. The ancient Greeks believed that the beggar had his Erinys, his avenging demon, which was obviously only a personification of his curse. It is said in the Proverbs, "He that giveth unto the poor shall not lack: but he that hideth his eyes shall have many a curse." The same idea is expressed in Ecclesiasticus:--"Turn not away thine eye from the needy, and give him none occasion to curse thee: for if he curse thee in the bitterness of his soul, his prayer shall be heard of him that made him. . . . A prayer out of a poor man's mouth reacheth to the ears of God, and his judgment cometh speedily." According to the Zoroastrian Yasts, the poor man who follows the good law, when wronged and deprived of his rights, invokes Mithra for help, with hands uplifted. Mr. Chapman states that, "though the Damaras are, generally speaking, great gluttons, they would not think of eating in the presence of any of their tribe without sharing their meal with all comers, for fear of being visited by a curse from their 'Omu-kuru' [or deity], and becoming impoverished." There is all reason {562} to suppose that in this case the curse of the deity was originally the curse, or evil wish, of an angry man.

A poor man is able not only to punish the uncharitable by means of his curses, but to reward the generous giver by means of his blessings. During my residence among the Andjra tribe in the mountains of Northern Morocco, our village was visited by a band of ambulant scribes who went from house to house, receiving presents and invoking blessings in return. When a goat was given them they asked God to increase the flocks of the giver, when money was given they asked God to increase his money, and so forth. Some of the villagers told me that it was a profitable bargain, since they would be tenfold repaid for their gifts through the blessings of the scribes. A town Moor who starts for a journey to the country generally likes to give a coin to one of the beggars who are sitting near the gate, so as to receive his blessings. It is said in Ecclesiasticus:--"Stretch thine hand unto the poor, that thy blessing may be perfected. A gift hath grace in the sight of every man living." Whilst he that withholdeth corn shall be cursed by the people, "blessing shall be upon the head of him that selleth it." Among the early Christians those who brought gifts for the poor were specially remembered in the prayers of the Church. Of the Nay[=a]dis of Malabar Mr. Iyer says that the purport and object of their prayers are, among other things, "that all the superior castes, who give them alms, may enjoy long life and prosperity." In various cases the nature of the rewards promised for charitable acts suggests that they are due to the blessings of the recipient. According to Vasishtha, "through liberality man obtains all his desires, even longevity." In the Yasts it is said that the children of a charitable man will thrive. According to Talmudic ideas, men acquire wealth for their children by {563} distributing alms among the poor. Considering how widely spread is the belief in the efficacy of curses and blessings, there can be little doubt that charity and generosity are connected with this belief in many cases where no such connection has been noticed by the European visitor.

The curses and blessings of the poor partly account for the fact that charity has come to be regarded as a religious duty. Originally, it is true, they had not the character of an appeal to a god, but were believed to possess a purely magical power, independent of any superhuman will. This belief is rooted in the close association between the wish, more particularly the spoken wish, and the idea of its fulfilment. The wish is looked upon in the light of energy which may be transferred--by material contact, or by the eye, or by means of speech--to the person concerned, and then becomes a fact. This process, however, is not taken quite as a matter of course; there is always some mystery about it. Hence the words of a holy man, a magician or priest, are considered more efficacious than those of ordinary mortals. The Australian natives believe that the curse of a potent magician will kill at the distance of a hundred miles. Among the Maoris "the anathema of a priest is regarded as a thunderbolt that an enemy cannot escape." Among the Gallas no man will under any circumstances slay either a priest or a wizard, from a dread of his dying curse. Some of the Rabbis maintained that a curse uttered by a scholar is unfailing in its effect, even if undeserved. In Muhammedan countries the curses of saints or shereefs are particularly feared. According to the Laws of Manu, a Brâhmana "may punish his foes by his own power alone," speech being his weapon. But though a curse may derive particular potency from the person who utters it, {564} it is by no means ineffective even in the mouth of an ordinary man. In the Old Testament children are forbidden to curse their parents, subjects their rulers, men their god; and according to Talmudic conceptions, a curse should not be regarded lightly however ignorant be the person who utters it. All that is required is that the words should possess that supernatural quality which alone can bring about the result desired, and this quality may be inherent in the curse quite independently of the person who utters it. It is inherent in certain mystic formulas or spells and in the invocations of some spirit or god. The will of the invoked being is not considered at all; his name is simply brought in to give the curse that mystic efficacy which the plain word lacks. Thus both in the Old Testament and in the Talmud there are traces of the ancient idea that the name of the Lord might be used with advantage in any curse however undeserved. But with the deepening of the religious sentiment this idea had to be given up. A righteous and mighty god cannot agree to be a mere tool in the hand of a wicked curser. Hence the curse comes to be looked upon in the light of a prayer, which is not fulfilled if undeserved; as it is said in the Proverbs, "the curse causeless shall not come." And the same is the case with the blessing. Whilst in ancient days Jacob could take away his brother's blessing by deceit, the efficacy of a blessing was later on limited by moral considerations. The Psalmist declares that only the offspring of the righteous can be blessed; and according to the Apostolic Constitutions, "although a widow who eateth and is filled from the wicked, pray for them, she shall not be heard." {565} On the other hand, curses and blessings, when well deserved, continued to draw down calamity or prosperity upon their objects, by inducing God to put them into effect; this idea prevails both in post-exilic Judaism and in Muhammedanism, and underlies the Christian oath and benediction. The final, but not the original view was that, as an uncharitable man deserves to be punished and a charitable man merits reward, the curses and blessings of the poor will naturally be heard by a righteous God. "The Lord will plead their cause."

The chief cause, however, of the extraordinary stress which the higher religions put on the duty of charity seems to lie in the connection between almsgiving and sacrifice. When food is offered as a tribute to a god, the god is supposed to enjoy its spiritual part only, whilst the substance of it is left behind and is eaten by the poor. And when the offering is continued in ceremonial survival in spite of the growing conviction that, after all, the deity does not need and cannot profit by it, the poor become the natural heirs of the god, and the almsgiver inherits the merit of the sacrificer. The chief virtue of the act, then, lies in the self-abnegation of the donor, and its efficacy is measured by the "sacrifice" which it costs him.

Many instances may be quoted of sacrificial food being left for the poor or being distributed among them. At Scillus, where Xenophon had built an altar and a temple to Artemis and a sacrifice was afterwards made every year, the goddess supplied the poor people living there in tents with "barley-meal, bread, wine, sweetmeats, and a share of the victims offered from the sacred pastures, and of those caught in hunting." According to Yasna, sacrifices to Mazda were given to his poor. In ancient Arabia the poor were allowed to partake of the meal-offering {566} which was laid before the god Uqaiçir. In Zinder, in the Soudan, there are some trees, regarded as divine, to which annual offerings of bullocks, sheep, and so forth, are made, "though the poor of the country get the benefit of them." In Morocco even animals which are killed as [(]âr--a sacrifice embodying a conditional curse--on departed saints or living people, with a view to compelling them to grant a request, are commonly eaten by the poor, though nobody else would dare to partake of them.

In other cases we find that almsgiving is itself regarded as a form of sacrifice, or takes the place of it. In the sacred books of India the two things are repeatedly mentioned side by side. "The householder offers sacrifices, the householder practises austerities, the householder distributes gifts." Of a Brâhmana who has completed his studentship it is said, "Let him always practise, according to his ability, with a cheerful heart, the duty of liberality, both by sacrifices and by charitable works, if he finds a worthy recipient for his gifts." "In the Krita age the chief virtue is declared to be the performance of austerities, in the Tretâ divine knowledge, in the Dvâpara the performance of sacrifices, in the Kali liberality alone." In the Egyptian 'Book of the Dead' the soul, on approaching to the gods who are in the Tuat, pleads:--"I have done that which man prescribeth and that which pleaseth the gods. I have propitiated the god with that which he loveth. I have given bread to the hungry, water to the thirsty, clothes to the naked, a boat to the shipwrecked. I have made oblations to the gods and funeral offerings to the departed." In the Zoroastrian prayer Ahuna-Vairya, to which great efficacy is ascribed, it is said, "He who relieves the poor makes Ahura king." {567} In the Koran almsgiving is often mentioned in connection with prayer; and the Zakât, or alms prescribed by law, is regarded by the Muhammedans as a fundamental part of their religion, hence infidels, who cannot perform acceptable worship, have nothing to do with these alms. Among the Muhammedans of India it is common for men and women to vow "that when what they desire shall come to pass, they will, in the name of God, the Prophet, his companions, or some wullee, present offerings and oblations." One of these offerings, called "an offering unto God," consists in preparing particular victuals, and in "distributing them among friends and the poor, and giving any sort of grain, a sacrificed sheep, clothes, or ready-money in alms to the indigent." When the destruction of the Temple with its altar filled the Jews with alarm as they thought of their unatoned sins, Johanan ben Zakkai comforted them by saying, "You have another means of atonement, as powerful as the altar, and that is the work of charity, for it is said: 'I desired mercy, and not sacrifice.'" Many other passages show how closely the Jews associated almsgiving with sacrifice. "He that giveth alms sacrificeth praise." "As sin-offering makes atonement for Israel, so alms for the Gentiles." "Almsdeeds are more meritorious than all sacrifices." An orphan is called an "altar to God." And as a sacrificer should be a person of a godly character, so it is better to perish by famine than to receive an oblation from the ungodly. Alms were systematically collected in the synagogues, and officers were appointed to make the collection. So, also, among the early Christians the collection of alms for the relief of the poor was an act of the Church life itself. Almsgiving took place in public worship, nay formed itself a part of worship. {568} Gifts of natural produce, the so-called oblations, were connected with the celebration of the Lord's Supper. They were offered to God as the first-fruits of the creatures (primitiæ creaturarum), and a prayer was said:--"O Lord, accept also the offerings of those who to-day bring an offering, as Thou didst accept the offerings of righteous Abel, the offering of our father Abraham, the incense of Zachariah, the alms of Cornelius, and the two mites of the widow." These oblations were not only used for the Lord's Supper, but they formed the chief means for the relief of the poor. They were regarded as sacrifice in the most special sense; and, as no unclean gift might be laid upon the Lord's altar, profit made from sinful occupations was not accepted as an oblation, neither were the oblations of impenitent sinners. The author of the Epistle to the Hebrews speaks of almsgiving as a sacrifice of thanksgiving which continues after the Jewish altar has been done away with. Like sacrifice, almsgiving is connected with prayer, as a means of making the prayer efficacious and furnishing it with wings; the angel said to Cornelius, "Thy prayers and thine alms are come up for a memorial before God." When the Christians were reproached for having no sacrifices, Justin wrote, "We have been taught that the only honour that is worthy of Him is not to consume by fire what He has brought into being for our sustenance, but to use it for ourselves and those who need." So, also, Irenæus observes that sacrifices are not abolished in the New Testament, though their form is indeed altered, because they are no longer offered by slaves, but by freemen, of which just the oblations are the proof. And God has enjoined on Christians this sacrifice of oblations, not because He needs them, but "in order that themselves {569} might be neither unfruitful nor ungrateful." St. Augustine says, "The sacrifice of the Christians is the alms bestowed upon the poor."

The objection will perhaps be raised that I have here tried to trace back the most beautiful of all religious virtues to a magical and ritualistic origin without taking into due account the benevolent feelings attributed to the Deity. But in the present connection I have not had to show why charity, like other human duties, has been sanctioned by religious beliefs, but why, in the ethics of the higher religions, it has attained the same supreme importance as is otherwise attached only to devotional exercises. And this is certainly a problem by itself, for which the belief in a benevolent god affords no adequate explanation. That the religious duty of charity is not merely an outcome of the altruistic sentiment is well illustrated by the fact that Zoroastrianism, whilst exalting almsgiving to the rank of a cardinal virtue, at the same time excludes the sick man from the community of the faithful until he has been cured and cleansed according to prescribed rites.