CHAPTER XXXVI. Self-Regarding Duties and Virtues--Industry--Rest

SELF-REGARDING DUTIES AND VIRTUES--INDUSTRY--REST

ACCORDING to current ideas men owe to themselves a variety of duties similar in kind to those which they owe to their fellow-creatures. They are not only forbidden to take their own lives, but are also in some measure considered to be under an obligation to support their existence, to take care of their bodies, to preserve a certain amount of personal freedom, not to waste their property, to exhibit self-respect, and, in general, to promote their own happiness. And closely related to these self-regarding duties there are self-regarding virtues, such as diligence, thrift, temperance. In all these cases, however, the moral judgment is greatly influenced by the question whether the act, forbearance, or omission, which increases the person's own welfare, conflicts or not with the interests of other people. If it does conflict, opinions vary as to the degree of selfishness which is recognised as allowable. But judgments containing moral praise or the inculcation of duty are most commonly passed upon conduct which involves some degree of self-sacrifice, not on such as involves self-indulgence.

Moreover, the duties which we owe to ourselves are generally much less emphasised than those which we owe to others. "Nature," says Butler, "has not given us so sensible a disapprobation of imprudence and folly, either in ourselves or others, as of falsehood, injustice, and {266} cruelty." Nor does a prudential virtue receive the same praise as one springing from a desire to promote the happiness of a fellow-man. Many moralists even maintain that, properly speaking, there are no self-regarding duties and virtues at all; that useful action which is useful to ourselves alone is not matter for moral notice; that in every case duties towards one's self may be reduced into duties towards others; that intemperance and extravagant luxury, for instance, are blamable only because they tend to the public detriment, and that prudence is a virtue only in so far as it is employed in promoting public interest. But this opinion is hardly in agreement with the ordinary moral consciousness.

It is undoubtedly true that no mode of conduct is exclusively self-regarding. No man is an entirely isolated being, hence anything which immediately affects a person's own welfare affects at the same time, in some degree, the welfare of other individuals. It is also true that the moral ideas concerning such conduct as is called self-regarding are more or less influenced by considerations as to its bearing upon others. But this is certainly not the only factor which determines the judgment passed on it. In the education of children various modes of self-regarding conduct are strenuously insisted upon by parents and teachers. What they censure or punish is regarded as wrong, what they praise or reward is regarded as good; for, as we have noticed above, men have a tendency to sympathise with the retributive emotions of persons for whom they feel regard. Moreover, as in the case of suicide, so also in other instances of self-inflicted harm, the injury committed may excite sympathetic resentment towards the agent, although the victim of it is his own self. Disinterested likes or dislikes often give rise to moral {267} approval or disapproval of conduct which is essentially self-regarding. It has also been argued that no man has a right to trifle with his own well-being even where other persons interests are not visibly affected by it, for the reason that he is not entitled wantonly to waste "what is not at his unconditional disposal." And in various other ways--as will be seen directly--religious, as well as magical, ideas have influenced moral opinions relating to self-regarding conduct. But at the same time it is not difficult to see why self-regarding duties and virtues only occupy a subordinate place in our moral consciousness. The influence they exercise upon other persons' welfare is generally too remote to attract much attention. In education there is no need to emphasise any other self-regarding duties and virtues but those which, for the sake of the individual's general welfare, require some sacrifice of his immediate comfort or happiness. The compassion which we are apt to feel for the victim of an injury is naturally lessened by the fact that it is self-inflicted. And, on the other hand, indignation against the offender is disarmed by pity, imprudence commonly carrying its own punishment along with it.

Being so little noticed by custom and public opinion, and still less by law, most self-regarding duties hardly admit of a detailed treatment. In a general way it may be said that progress in intellectual culture has, in some respects, been favourable to their evolution; Darwin even maintains that, with a few exceptions, self-regarding virtues are not esteemed by savages. The less developed the intellect, the less apt it is to recognise the remoter consequences of men's behaviour; hence more reflection than that exercised by the savage may be needed to see that modes of conduct which immediately concern a person's own welfare at the same time affect the well-being {268} of his neighbours or the whole community of which he is a member. So also, owing to his want of foresight, the savage would often fail to notice how important it may be to subject one's self to some temporary deprivation or discomfort in order to attain greater happiness in the future. We have noticed above that many savages hardly ever correct their children, and this means that one of the chief sources from which the notions of self-regarding duties spring is almost absent among them. But on the other hand it must also be remembered that disinterested antipathies, another cause of such notions, exercise more influence upon the unreflecting than upon the reflecting moral consciousness, and that many magical and religious ideas which at the lower stages of civilisation give rise to duties of a self-regarding character are no longer held by people more advanced in culture.

These general statements referring to the nature and origin of self-regarding duties and virtues I shall now illustrate by a short survey of moral ideas concerning some representative modes of self-regarding conduct:--industry and rest; temperance, fasting, and abstinence from certain kinds of food and drink; cleanliness and uncleanliness; and ascetic practices generally.

* * * * *

Man is naturally inclined to idleness, not because he is averse from muscular activity as such, but because he dislikes the monotony of regular labour and the mental exertion it implies. In general he is induced to work only by some special motive which makes him think the trouble worth his while. Among savages, who have little care for the morrow, who have few comforts of life to provide for, and whose property is often of such a kind as to prevent any great accumulation of it, almost the sole inducement to industry is either necessity or compulsion. Men are lazy or industrious according as the necessaries of life are easy {269} or difficult to procure, and they prefer being idle if they can compel other persons to work for them as their servants or slaves.

Australian natives "can exert themselves vigorously when hunting or fishing or fighting or dancing, or at any time when there is a prospect of an immediate reward; but prolonged labour with the object of securing ultimate gain is distasteful to them." With reference to the Polynesians Mr. Hale observes that in those islands which are situated nearest the equator, where the heat with little or no aid from human labour calls into existence fruits serving to support human life, the inhabitants are an indolent and listless race; whilst "a severer clime and ruder soil are favourable to industry, foresight, and a hardy temperament. These opposite effects are manifested in the Samoans, Nukahivans, and Tahitians, on the one side, and the Sandwich Islanders and New Zealanders on the other." Mr. Yate likewise contrasts the industry of the Maoris with the proverbial idleness of the Tonga Islanders: the former "are obliged to work, if they would eat," whereas "in the luxurious climate of the Friendly Islands, there is scarcely any need of labour, to obtain the necessaries, and even many of the luxuries, of life." The Malays are described as fond of a life of slothful ease, because "persevering toil is unnecessary, or would bring them no additional enjoyments." The natives of Sumatra, says Marsden, "are careless and improvident of the future, because their wants are few; for though poor {270} they are not necessitous, nature supplying, with extraordinary facility, whatever she has made requisite for their existence." The Toda of the Neilgherry Hills will not "work one iota more than circumstances compel him to do"; and indolence seems to be a characteristic of most peoples of India, though there are exceptions to the rule. Burckhardt observes that it is not the southern sun, as Montesquieu imagined, but the luxuriance of the southern soil and the abundance of provisions that relax the exertions of the inhabitants and cause apathy:--"By the fertility of Egypt, Mesopotamia, and India, which yield their produce almost spontaneously, the people are lulled into indolence; while in neighbouring countries, of a temperature equally warm, as among the mountains of Yemen and Syria, where hard labour is necessary to ensure a good harvest, we find a race as superior in industry to the former as the inhabitants of Northern Europe are to those of Spain or Italy." Indolence is a common, though not universal, trait of the African character. Of the Negroes on the Gold Coast Bosman says that "nothing {271} but the utmost necessity can force them to labour." The Waganda are represented as excessively indolent, in consequence of the ease with which they can obtain all the necessaries of life. Of the Namaquas we are told that "they may be seen basking in the sun for days together, in listless inactivity, frequently almost perishing from thirst or hunger, when with very little exertion they may have it in their power to satisfy the cravings of nature. If urged to work, they have been heard to say: 'Why should we resemble the worms of the ground?'" Most of the American Indians are said to have a slothful disposition, because they can procure a livelihood with but little labour. But the case is different with the Greenlanders and other Eskimo, who have to struggle hard for their existence.

We have seen that savages consider it a duty for a married man to support his family, and this in most cases implies that he is under an obligation to do a certain amount of work. We have also seen that the various occupations of life are divided between the sexes according to rules fixed by custom, and this means that absolute idleness is not generally tolerated in either men or women, though the drudgeries of life are often imposed upon the latter. Of some uncivilised peoples we are directly told that they enjoin work as a duty or regard industry as a virtue. The Greenlanders esteem addiction to labour as the chief of virtues and believe that the industrious man {272} will have a very happy existence after death. The Atkha Aleuts prohibited laziness. Mr. Batchelor relates an Ainu fable which encourages diligence and discourages idleness in young people. The Karens of Burma have a traditional precept which runs, "Be not idle, but labour diligently, that you may not become slaves." The Maoris say, "Let industry be rewarded, lest idleness gets the advantage." The Malagasy likewise inculcate industry in many of their proverbs. The Basutos have a saying that "perseverance always triumphs." Among the Bachapins, a Bechuana tribe conspicuous for its activity, "a man's merit is estimated principally by his industry, and the words mún[)o]n[)a] usináach[)a] (an industrious man) are an expression of high approbation and praise; while he who is seldom seen to hunt, to prepare skins for clothing, or to sew koboes, is accounted a worthless and disgraceful member of society." Among the Beni M'zab in the Sahara--an industrious people inhabiting a sterile country--boys are already at the age of six years compelled by law to begin to work, either in driving a camel or ass, or in drawing water for the gardens. We may expect to find industry especially insisted upon by uncivilised peoples who are habitually addicted to it, partly because it is a necessity among them, partly owing to the influence of habit.

But instead of being regarded as a duty, industrial activity is not infrequently looked down upon as disreputable for a free man. This is especially the case among warlike nations, nomadic tribes, and peoples who have many slaves. In Uganda, for instance, the prevalence of slavery "causes all manual labour to be looked upon as derogatory to the dignity of a free man." The {273} Masai and Matabele consider that the only occupation which becomes a man is warfare. The Arabs of the desert hold labour humiliating to anybody but a slave. Speaking of the Turkomans, Vámbéry observes that "in his domestic circle, the nomad presents us a picture of the most absolute indolence. In his eyes it is the greatest shame for a man to apply his hand to any domestic occupation." The Chippewas "have ever looked upon agricultural and mechanical labours as degrading," and "have regarded the use of the bow and arrow, the war-club and spear, as the noblest employments of man." Among the Iroquois "the warrior despised the toil of husbandry, and held all labour beneath him." Though an industrious race, the Maoris considered it more honourable, as well as more desirable, to acquire property by war and plunder than by labour. Among the Line Islanders it is undignified for a landholder to do work of any kind, except to make weapons, hence he employs persons of the lower class to work for him. In Nukahiva the people of distinction "suffer the nails on the fingers to grow very long, that it may be evident they are not accustomed to hard labour." This contempt for industrial activity is easy to explain. A man who earns his livelihood by labour is considered to be lacking in those qualities which are alone admired--courage and strength;--or work is associated with the idea of servile subjection. It is also universally held degrading for a man to engage in any occupation which belongs to the women. Thus among hunting and pastoral peoples it would be quite out of place for him to supply the household with vegetable food. On the other hand, when agriculture became an {274} indispensable means to maintenance of life it at the same time became respectable. But trade was scorned, probably, as Mr. Spencer suggests, because it was carried on chiefly by unsettled persons, who were detached, untrustworthy members of a community in which most men had fixed positions. The Kandhs "consider it beneath their dignity to barter or traffic, and . . . . regard as base and plebeian all who are not either warriors or tillers of the soil." The Javans "have a contempt for trade, and those of higher rank esteem it disgraceful to be engaged in it; but the common people are ever ready to engage in the labours of agriculture, and the chiefs to honour and encourage agricultural industry."

Progress in civilisation implies an increase of industry. Both the necessities and the comforts of life grow more numerous; hence more labour is required to provide for them, and at the same time there is more inducement to accumulate wealth. The advantages, both private and public, accruing from diligence are more clearly recognised, and the government, in particular, is anxious that the people should work so as to be able to pay their taxes. All this leads to condemnation of idleness and approbation of industry; and the influence of habit must operate in the same direction among a nation whose industrial propensities have been the cause of its civilisation. But in the archaic State war is still regarded as a nobler occupation than labour; and whilst agriculture is held in honour, trade and handicraft are frequently despised.

In the kingdom of the Peruvian Incas there was a law that no one should be idle. "Children of five years old were employed at very light work, suitable to their age. Even the blind and lame, if they had no other infirmity, were provided with certain kinds of work. The rest of the people, while they were healthy, were occupied each at his own labour, and it was a most infamous and degrading {275} thing among these people to be chastised in public for idleness." If any of them was slothful, or slept in the day, he was whipped or had to carry the stone. The reason for these measures was that the whole duty of defraying the expenses of the government belonged to the people, and that, without money and with little property, they paid their taxes in labour; hence to be idle was, in a manner, to rob the exchequer.

One of the characteristics of Zoroastrianism is its appreciation of labour. The faithful man must be vigilant, alert, and active; sleep itself is merely a concession to the demons, and should therefore be kept within the limits of necessity. The lazy man is the most unworthy of men, because he eats his food through impropriety and injustice. And of all kinds of labour the most necessary is husbandry. Man has been placed upon earth to preserve Ahura Mazda's good creation, and this can only be done by careful tilling of the soil, eradication of thorns and weeds, and reclamation of the tracks over which Angra Mainyu has spread the curse of barrenness. Zoroaster asked, "What is the food that fills the Religion of Mazda?" and Ahura Mazda answered, "It is sowing corn again and again, O Spitama Zarathustra! He who sows corn sows righteousness." According to Xenophon, the king of the Persians considered the art of agriculture and that of war to be the most honourable and necessary occupations, and paid the greatest attention to both. He appointed officers to overlook the tillers of the ground, as well as to collect tribute from them; for "those who {276} cultivate the ground inefficiently will neither maintain the garrisons, nor be able to pay their tribute."

In his description of ancient Egypt Herodotus tells us that one of its kings made a law to the effect that every Egyptian should annually declare to the governor of his district by what means he maintained himself, and that, if he failed to do this, or did not show that he lived by honest means, he should be punished with death. Whether this statement be correct or not, it seems certain that the Egyptians were anxious to encourage industry. An ostracon which has often been quoted contains the maxim, "Do not spare thy body whilst thou art young, for food cometh by the arms and provisions by the legs."

A law against idleness resembling that which is reported to have existed in Egypt was established at Athens, according to some writers by Draco or Pisistratus, according to others by Solon, who is said to have borrowed it from the Egyptians. Plutarch states that, as the city was filled with persons who assembled from all parts on account of the great security which prevailed in Attica and the country withal was poor and barren, Solon turned the attention of the citizens to manufactures. For this purpose he ordered that trades should be accounted honourable, that the council of the Areopagus should examine into every man's means of subsisting and chastise the idle, and that no son should be obliged to maintain his father if the father had not taught him a trade. Thucydides puts the following words in the mouth of Pericles:--"To avow poverty with us is no disgrace; the true disgrace is in doing nothing to avoid it. An Athenian citizen does not neglect the State because he takes care of his own household;{277} and even those of us who are engaged in business have a very fair idea of politics." In Xenophon's 'Memorabilia' Socrates recommends industry as a means of supporting life, of maintaining the health and strength of the body, of promoting temperance and honesty. According to Plato idleness is the mother of wantonness, whereas by labour the aliment of passion is diverted into other parts of the body. Agriculture was highly praised. It is the best of all the occupations and arts by which men procure the means of living. Where it flourishes all other pursuits are in full vigour, but when the ground is allowed to lie barren other occupations are almost stopped. It is an exercise for the body, and strengthens it for discharging the duties that become a man of honourable birth. It requires people to accustom themselves to endure the colds of winter and the heats of summer. It renders them fit for running, throwing, leaping. It gives them the greatest gratification for their labour, it is the most attractive of all employments. It receives strangers with the richest hospitality. It offers the most pleasing first-fruits to the gods, and the richest banquets on festival days. It teaches men justice, for it is those who treat the earth best that she recompenses with the most numerous benefits. It instructs people to assist one another, for it cannot be conducted without the aid of other men. It does not give such constant occupation to a person's mind as to prevent him from attending to the interests of his friends or his native land. The possession of an estate stimulates men to defend their country in arms. In short, agriculture renders citizens most useful, most virtuous, and best affected towards the commonwealth.

{278} The argumentative manner in which these views were expressed by the philosophers indicates, however, that industrial occupations were deficient in public appreciation. Herodotus says that not only among most barbarians but also throughout Greece those who are given wholly to war are honoured above others. This was especially the case at Sparta, where a freeman was forbidden to engage in any industrial occupation. Contrasting Lycurgus' legislation with that of Solon, Plutarch observes that in a state where the earth was sufficient to support twice the number of inhabitants and where there were a multitude of Helots to be worn out by servitude, it was right to set the citizens free from laborious and mechanic arts and to employ them in arms as the only art fit for them to learn and exercise. At Thebes there was a law that no man could hold office who had not retired from business for ten years, because it was looked upon as a mean employment. Even at Athens, in spite of its democratic institutions and its laws against idleness, trade and handicrafts were despised, both by the general public and by the philosophers. Xenophon's Socrates said that the industrial arts are objectionable and justly held in little repute in communities, because they weaken the bodies of those who work at them by compelling them to sit and to live indoors and in some cases to pass whole days by the fire; for when the body becomes effeminate the mind loses its strength. Moreover, mechanical occupations leave those who practise them no leisure to attend to the interests of their friends or the commonwealth, hence men of that class seem unsuited alike to be of advantage to their connections and to be defenders of their country. Plato maintains that manual arts are a reproach because they "imply a natural weakness of the higher principle"; by {279} their meanness they maim and disfigure the souls as well as the bodies of those who are employed in them. When Hesiod said that "work is no disgrace," he could certainly not have meant that there was no disgrace for example in the manufacture of shoes or in selling pickles. And in his 'Laws' Plato lays down the regulation that no citizen or servant of a citizen should be occupied in handicraft arts; "for he who is to secure and preserve the public order of the State has an art which requires much study and many kinds of knowledge, and does not admit of being made a secondary occupation." Aristotle, again, observes that in a community which has an aristocratic form of government the mechanic and the labourer will not be citizens, because honours are there given according to virtue and merit, and "no man can practise virtue who is living the life of a mechanic or labourer." Corinth was the place in Greece where the mechanic's occupation was least despised--no doubt because its situation naturally led to extensive trade and thence to that splendour of living by which the useful and ornamental arts are most encouraged.

The Roman views on the subject were very similar to those of the Greeks. With regard to what arts and means of acquiring wealth are to be regarded as worthy and what disreputable, says Cicero, we have been taught as follows. In the first place, those sources of emolument which incur public hatred, such as those of tax-gatherers and usurers, are condemned. We are likewise to account as mean the gains of hired workmen, whose source of profit is not their art but their labour; for their very wages are the consideration of their servitude. We are further to despise all who retail from merchants goods for prompt sale; for they never can succeed unless they lie most abominably, {280} and nothing is more disgraceful than insincerity. All mechanical labourers are by their profession mean; for a workshop can contain nothing befitting a gentleman. Least of all are those trades to be approved that serve the purposes of sensuality, such as the occupations of butchers, cooks, and fishermen. But those professions that involve a higher degree of intelligence or a greater amount of utility, such as medicine, architecture, and the teaching of the liberal arts, are honourable in those to whose rank in life they are suited. As to merchandising, if on a small scale it is mean, but if it is extensive and rich, if it brings numerous commodities from all parts of the world, and gives bread to a multitude of people without fraud, it is not so despicable. However, if a merchant, satisfied with his profits, steps from the harbour into an estate, such a man seems most justly deserving of praise. For of all gainful professions nothing is better, nothing is more pleasing and more delightful, nothing is more befitting a well-bred man than agriculture.

The contempt in which manual labour was held by the ancient pagans could hardly be shared by early Christianity. Christ had been born in a carpenter's family, his apostles belonged to the working class, and so did originally most of his followers. Origen accepts with pride the reproach of Celsus, when he accuses Christians of worshipping the son of a poor workwoman, who had earned her bread by spinning, and contrasts with the wisdom of Plato that of Paul, the tent-maker, of Peter, the fisherman, of John, who had abandoned his father's nets. St. Paul presses on the Thessalonians the duty of personal industry; "if any one would not work, neither should he eat." But at the same time the spirit of Christianity was not consistent with much anxiety about earthly matters. The aim of a true disciple of Christ was not to prosper in the world but {281} to seek the kingdom of God, not to lay up for himself treasures upon earth but to lay up for himself treasures in heaven. Poverty became an ideal, in conformity with both the example and teachings of Christ. It was associated with godliness, whilst wealth was associated with godlessness. "The love of money," says St. Paul, "is the root of all evil"; and the same idea was over and again expressed by Christian moralists. In the original sinless state of mankind property was unknown, and so was labour. It was to punish man for his disobedience that God caused him to eat daily bread in the sweat of his face. Since then work is a necessity; but the contemplative life is better than the active life. Bonaventura points out that Jesus preferred the meditating Mary to the busy Martha, and that he himself seems to have done no work till his thirtieth year. Work is of no value by itself; its highest object is to further contemplation, to macerate the body, to curb concupiscence. For this purpose, indeed, it was strongly insisted upon by several founders of religious orders. According to St. Benedict, "idleness is an enemy to the soul; and hence at certain seasons the brethren ought to occupy themselves in the labour of their hands, and at others in holy reading." St. Bernard writes:--"The handmaid of Christ ought always to pray, to read, to work, lest haply the spirit of uncleanness should lead astray the slothful mind. The delight of the flesh is overcome by labour. . . . The body tired by work is less delighted with vice." But the active life must not be pursued to such an extent as to hinder what it is intended to promote; {282} for it is impossible for any man to be at once occupied with exterior actions and at the same time apply himself to divine contemplation. And whilst he who has nothing else to live upon is bound to work, it is a sin to try to acquire riches beyond the limit which necessity has fixed.

This doctrine was more or less realised in the monastic life, but was hardly held applicable to laymen. The mediæval baron and knight resembled the Teutonic warrior described by Tacitus, who regarded it as "a dull and stupid thing to accumulate painfully by the sweat of the brow what might be won by a little blood." In England, after the Conquest, the aristocracy in general lived a life of idleness but indulged eagerly in hunting, and its members continually sallied forth in parties to plunder. For a long time the lower classes, constituting the mass of society, existed only for the benefit of the upper class. It was considered honourable to live in sloth supported by the exertions of others, it was held degrading to depend on the gains of industry. The degradation really attached to the gains of labour rather than labour itself; for labour ceased to be degrading if not prosecuted for gain. "Louis XVI. may make locks, the ladies of his court may make butter and cheese, provided it is only for amusement. Lord Rosse may build a telescope as an amateur in the interest of science, and still be noble. But if the locks, the butter, or the telescope are sold, the makers are degraded to the level of the tradesman." However, as Mr. Spencer observes, trade, while at first relatively unessential (since essential things were mostly made at home) and consequently lacking the sanction of necessity and of ancestral custom, ceased to be despised when it grew in importance. Among ourselves the respect in which a certain occupation is held is {283} largely determined by the degree of mental power implied in it; hence manual labour, and especially unskilled labour, is still in some degree looked down upon. But we do not regard as dishonourable any kind of work which is not opposed to the ordinary rules of morality. We distinguish more clearly than the ancients did between social and moral inferiority. Our moral judgments are less influenced by class antipathies. We recognise that a high standard of duty is compatible even with the humblest station in life. And when we duly reflect upon the matter, we admit that the moral value of industry depends, not on the occupation in which it is displayed, but on the purpose of the labourer.

* * * * *

But though industry is applauded or insisted on, rest is also in certain circumstances regarded as a duty. By doing too much work a person may injure himself and indirectly other persons as well. In early society there is little inducement to overwork, but the case is very different in modern civilisation. This accounts for the persistence and general popularity of an institution which originally sprang from quite different sources, namely, the Sunday rest.

Among various peoples it is the custom to abstain from work, or from some special kind of work, on certain occasions or days which are regarded as defiling or inauspicious. Work is often suspended after a death, partly perhaps because inactivity is a natural accompaniment of sorrow, or because a mourner is supposed to be in a delicate state requiring rest, but chiefly, I presume, from fear lest the work done should be contaminated by the pollution of death. Among the Arabs of Morocco no work must be performed in the village till the dead is buried. In Greenland everyone who had lived in the same house with the deceased was obliged to be idle for a certain period, according to the directions of the priests or wizards. Among the Eskimo of Behring Strait none of the relatives of the dead must do any work during the time in which the shade is {284} believed to remain with the body, that is, for four or five days. Among the Seminole Indians of Florida the relatives remained at home and refrained from work during the day of the burial and for three days thereafter, when the dead was supposed to stay in his grave. The Kar Nicobarese abstain from work as a sign of mourning. In Samoa all labour was suspended in the settlement on the death of a chief. So also the Basutos do no work on the day when an influential person dies. They, moreover, refrain from going to their fields, or hasten to leave them, at the approach of clouds which give promise of rain, "in order quietly to await the desired benediction, fearing to disturb Nature in her operations. This idea is carried to such an extent, that most of the natives believe that, if they obstinately persist in their labour at such a moment, the clouds are irritated and retire, or send hail instead of rain. Days of sacrifice, or great purification, are also holidays. Hence it is that the law relative to the repose of the seventh day, so far from finding any objection in the minds of the natives, appears to them very natural, and perhaps even more fundamental, than it seems to certain Christians."

Changes in the moon are frequently considered unfavourable for work. Among the Bechuanas, "when the new moon appears, all must cease from work, and keep what is called in England a holiday." The people of Thermia, in the Cyclades, maintain that all work, so far as possible, should be suspended on the days immediately preceding the full moon. In the Vishnu Purana it is said that one who attends to secular affairs on the days of the full or new moon goes to the Rudhirándha hell, whose wells are blood. In Northern India it is considered bad to undertake any business of importance at the new moon {285} or at an eclipse. According to the 'Laws of Manu,' a Brâhmana is not allowed to study "on the new-moon day, nor on the fourteenth and the eighth days of each half-month, nor on the full-moon day." It is said that "the new-moon day destroys the teacher, the fourteenth day the pupil, the eighth and the full-moon days destroy all remembrance of the Veda; let him therefore avoid reading on those days." The Buddhists have their Sabbath, or Uposatha, which occurs four times in the month, namely, on the day of full moon, on the day when there is no moon, and on the two days which are eighth from the full and new moon. On these days selling and buying, work and business, hunting and fishing, are forbidden, and all schools and law-courts are closed. In Ashantee and neighbouring districts, where the people reckon time by moons, there is a weekly "fetish-day" or sabbath, which seems to be of native origin. "In all the countries along the coast, the regular fetish-day is Tuesday, the day which is observed by the king of Ashantee. Other days in the week are held sacred in the bush. On this weekly sabbath, or fetish-day, the people generally dress themselves in white garments, and mark their faces, and sometimes their arms, with white clay. They also rest from labour. The fishermen would expect, that were they to go out on that day, the fetish would be angry, and spoil their fishing." The natives of Coomassie, on the Gold Coast, have a law according to which no agricultural work may be done on a Thursday. In Hawaii, where each month contained thirty nights and the different days and nights derived their names from the varying aspects of the moon according to her age, there were during every month four periods lasting from two to four nights in which the nights were consecrated or made taboo. So also there were tabooed seasons on certain other {286} occasions, as when a high chief was ill, or preparations were made for war, or on the approach of important religious ceremonies. These taboos were either "common" or "strict." In the case of the former men were only required to abstain from their common pursuits and to attend prayers morning and evening, whereas when the season of strict taboo was in force a general gloom and silence pervaded the whole district or island. "Not a fire or light was to be seen, or canoe launched; none bathed; the mouths of dogs were tied up, and fowls put under calabashes, or their heads enveloped in cloth; for no noise of man or animal must be heard. No persons, excepting those who officiated at the temple, were allowed to leave the shelter of their roofs. Were but one of these rules broken, the taboo would fail and the gods be displeased."

The peoples of Semitic stock or with Semitic culture also have their tabooed days. In Morocco work, or certain kinds of work, are avoided on holy days or in holy periods, as being unsuccessful or, in some cases, even dangerous to him who performs it; there is a saying that "work at a feast are like the stab of a dagger." Nobody likes to start on a journey on a Friday before the midday prayer has been said, and it is considered bad to commence any work on that day. I was also told that clothes will not remain clean if they are washed on a Saturday. Among the modern Egyptians Saturday is held to be the most unfortunate of days, and particularly unfavourable for shaving, cutting the nails, and starting on a journey. At Kheybar, in Arabia, again, Sunday is considered an unlucky day for beginning any kind of work. There can be little doubt that the Jewish Sabbath originated in the belief that it was inauspicious or dangerous to work on the seventh day, and that the reason for this belief was the mystic connection which in {287} the opinion of the ancient Hebrews, as of so many other peoples, existed between human activity and the changes in the moon. It has been sufficiently demonstrated that the Sabbath originally depended upon the new moon, and this carries with it the assumption that the Hebrews must at one time have observed a Sabbath at intervals of seven days corresponding with the moon's phases. In the Old Testament the new moon and Sabbath are repeatedly mentioned side by side; thus the oppressors of the poor are represented as saying, "When will the new moon be gone, that we may sell corn? and the Sabbath, that we may set forth wheat?" Among modern Jews, at the feast of the New Moon, which is held every month on the first or on the first and second days of the month, the women are obliged to suspend all servile work, though the men are not required to interrupt their secular employments. That the superstitious fear of doing work on the seventh day developed into a religious prohibition, is only another instance of a tendency which we have noticed often before--the tendency of magic forces to be transformed into divine volitions. Like the ancient Hebrews, the Assyrians and Babylonians looked upon the seventh day as an "evil day"; and though they do not seem generally to have abstained from work on that day, there were various royal taboos connected with it. The {288} King was not to show himself in his chariot, not to hold court, not to bring sacrifices, not to change his clothes, not to eat a good dinner, and not even to curse his enemies.

The Jewish Sabbath was abolished by Christ. "The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath"; "My father worketh [on it] hitherto, and I work." Jewish converts no doubt continued to observe the Sabbath, but this met with disapproval. In one of the Epistles of Ignatius we find the exhortation not to "sabbatise," which was expanded by the subsequent paraphraser of these compositions into a warning against keeping the Sabbath, after the manner of the Jews, "as if delighting in idleness." And in the fourth century a Council of the Church enacted "that the Christians ought not to judaise, and rest on the Sabbath, but ought to work on that day." On the other hand, it was from early times a recognised custom among the Christians to celebrate the first day of the week in memory of Christ's resurrection, by holding a form of religious service; but there was no sabbatic regard for it, and it was chiefly looked upon as a day of rejoicing. Tertullian is the first writer who speaks of abstinence from secular care and labour on Sunday as a duty incumbent upon Christians, lest they should "give place to the devil." But it is extremely doubtful whether the earliest Sunday law really had a Christian origin. In 321 the Emperor Constantine issued an edict to the effect that all judges and all city people and tradesmen should rest on "the venerable Day of the Sun," whereas those living in the country should have full liberty to attend to the culture of their fields, "since it frequently happens {289} that no other day is so fit for the sowing of grain or the planting of vines." In this rescript nothing is said of any relation to Christianity, nor do we know that it in any way was due to Christian influence. It seems that Constantine, in his capacity of Pontifex Maximus, only added the day of the sun--whose worship was the characteristic of the new paganism--to those inauspicious days, religiosi dies, which the Romans of old regarded as unsuitable for worldly business and especially for judicial proceedings. But though the obligatory Sunday rest in no case was a continuance of the Jewish Sabbath, it gradually was confounded with it, owing to the recognition of the decalogue, with its injunction of a weekly day of rest, as the code of divine morality. From the sixth century upwards vexatious restrictions were made by civil rulers, councils, and ecclesiastical writers; until in Puritanism the Christian Sunday became a perfect image of the pharisaic Sabbath, or even excelled it in the rigour with which abstinence from every kind of worldly activity was insisted upon. The theory that the keeping holy of one day out of seven is the essence of the Fourth Commandment reconciled people to the fact that the Jewish Sabbath was the seventh day and Sunday the first. In England, in the seventeenth century, persons were punished for carrying coal on Sunday, for hanging out clothes to dry, for travelling on horseback, for rural strolls and walking about. And Scotch clergymen taught their congregations that on that day it was sinful to save a vessel in distress, and that it was proof of religion to leave ship and crew to perish.