CHAPTER XXXVII. Restrictions in Diet

RESTRICTIONS IN DIET

TRAVELLERS have often noticed with astonishment the immense quantities of food which uncivilised people are able to consume. Sir George Grey has described the orgies which follow the stranding of a whale in Australia, when the natives remain by the carcase for many days, fairly eating their way into it. The Rocky Mountain Indians, though they often subsist for a great length of time on a very little food, will at their feasts "gorge down an incredible quantity." A Mongol "will eat more than ten pounds of meat at one sitting, but some have been known to devour an average-sized sheep in the course of twenty-four hours." The Waganda in Central Africa "sometimes gorge themselves to such an extent that they are unable to move, and appear just as if intoxicated." It has been justly observed that what would among ourselves be condemned as disgusting gluttony is, under the conditions to which certain races of men are exposed, quite normal and in fact necessary. As Mr. Spencer observes, "where the habitat is such as at one time to supply very little food and at another time food in great abundance, survival depends on the ability to consume immense quantities when the opportunities occur." When this is the case gluttony can hardly be {291} stigmatised as a vice; and I find no direct evidence that it is so even among savages who are described as generally moderate in their diet. The lack of foresight, which is a characteristic of uncivilised peoples, must prevent them from attaching much moral value to temperance. On the other hand, gluttony is sometimes said to be regarded with admiration. Mr. Torday informs me that the Bambala in South-Western Congo, when praising a man for his strength, are in the habit of saying, "He eats a whole goat with its skin."

At higher stages of culture intemperance is often subject to censure--because it is detrimental to health or prosperity, or because it calls forth an instinctive feeling of disgust, or because indulgence in sensual pleasures is considered degrading, or, generally, because it is inconsistent with an ascetic ideal of life. It is said in the Proverbs that "the glutton shall come to poverty." According to the Laws of Manu, "excessive eating is prejudicial to health, to fame, and to bliss in heaven; it prevents the acquisition of spiritual merit, and is odious among men; one ought, for these reasons, to avoid it carefully." Aristotle maintains that the pleasure with which intemperance is concerned is justly held in disgrace, "since it belongs to us in that we are animals, not in that we are men." Cicero observes that, as mere corporeal pleasure is unworthy the excellency of man's nature, the nourishment of our bodies "should be with a view not to our pleasure, but to our health and our strength." The same opinion is at least nominally shared by many among ourselves; whereas others, though denying that the gratification of appetite is to be sought for its own sake, admit as legitimate ends for it not only the maintenance of health and strength but also "cheerfulness and the cultivation of the social affections." But most of us are undoubtedly less exacting, if not in theory at least in practice, and really find nothing blamable in pleasures of the {292} table which neither impair health, nor involve a perceptible loss of some greater gratification, nor interfere with duties towards neighbours.

Sometimes temperance has been inculcated on grounds which in other cases lead to the duty of fasting, that is, abstinence from all food and drink, or at least (in a looser sense of the word) from certain kinds of food, for a determined period. The custom of fasting is wide-spread, and deserves special attention in a study of moral ideas.

Fasting is practised or enjoined for a variety of purposes. It is frequently adopted as a means of having supernatural converse, or acquiring supernatural powers. He who fasts sees in dreams or visions things that no ordinary eye can see. The Hudson Bay Eskimo "discovered that a period of fasting and abstinence from contact with other people endowed a person with supernatural powers and enabled him to learn the secrets of Tung ak [the great spirit]. This is accomplished by repairing to some lonely spot, where, for a greater or less period, the hermit abstains from food or water until the imagination is so worked upon that he believes himself imbued with the power to heal the sick and control all the destinies of life. Tung ak is supposed to stand near and reveal those things while the person is undergoing the test." The Naudowessies totally abstain from every kind of either victuals or drink before a hunting expedition, because they think that "it enables them freely to dream, in which dreams they are informed where they shall find the greatest plenty of game." The Tsimshian of British Columbia, if a special object is to be attained, {293} believe they can compel the deity to grant it by a rigid fasting. The Amazulu have a saying that "the continually stuffed body cannot see secret things," and, in accordance with this belief, put no faith in a fat diviner. A Tungus shaman, who is summoned to treat a sick person, will for several days abstain from food and maintain silence till he becomes inspired. Among the Santals the person or persons who have to offer sacrifices at their feasts prepare themselves for this duty by fasting and prayer and by placing themselves for some time in a position of apparent mental absorption. The savage, as Sir E. B. Tylor remarks, has many a time, for days and weeks together, to try involuntarily the effects of fasting, accompanied with other privations and with prolonged solitary contemplation in the desert or the forest. Under these circumstances he soon comes to see and talk with phantoms, which are to him visible personal spirits, and, having thus learnt the secret of spiritual intercourse, he thenceforth reproduces the cause in order to renew the effects. The Hindus believe that a fasting person will ascend to the heaven of that god in whose name he observes the fast. The Hebrews associated fasting with divine revelations. St. Chrysostom says that fasting "makes the soul brighter, and gives it wings to mount up and soar on high."

Ideas of this kind partly underlie the common practice of abstaining from food before or in connection with the performance of a magical or religious ceremony; but there {294} is yet another ground for this practice. The effect attributed to fasting is not merely psychical, but it also prevents pollution. Food may cause defilement, and, like other polluting matter, be detrimental to sanctity. Among the Maoris "no food is permitted to touch the head or hair of a chief, which is sacred; and if food is mentioned in connection with anything sacred (or 'tapu') it is considered as an insult, and revenged as such." So also a full stomach may be polluting. This is obviously the reason why in Morocco and elsewhere certain magical practices, in order to be efficacious, have to be performed before breakfast. The Masai use strong purges before they venture to eat holy meat. The Caribs purified their bodies by purging, bloodletting, and fasting; and the natives of the Antilles, at certain religious festivals, cleansed themselves by vomiting before they approached the sanctuary. The true object of fasting often appears from the fact that it is practised hand in hand with other ceremonies of a purificatory character. A Lappish noaide, or wizard, prepares himself for the offering of a sacrifice by abstinence from food and ablutions. Herodotus tells us that the ancient Egyptians fasted before making a sacrifice to Isis, and beat their bodies while the victims were burnt. When a Hindu resolves to visit a sacred place, he has his head shaved two days preceding the commencement of his journey, and fasts the next day; on the last day of his journey he fasts again, and on his {295} arrival at the sacred spot he has his whole body shaved, after which he bathes. In Christianity we likewise meet with fasting as a rite of purification. At least as early as the time of Tertullian it was usual for communicants to prepare themselves by fasting for receiving the Eucharist; and to this day Roman Catholicism regards it as unlawful to consecrate or partake of it after food or drink. The Lent fast itself was partly interpreted as a purifying preparation for the holy table. And in the early Church catechumens were accustomed to fast before baptism.

In the case of a sacrifice it is considered necessary not only that he who offers it, but that the victim also, should be free from pollution. In ancient Egypt a sacrificial animal had to be perfectly clean. According to Hindu notions the gods enjoy pure sacrifices only. In the Kalika-Purana, a work supposed to have been written under the direction of Siva, it is said that if a man is offered he must be free from corporal defect and unstained with great crimes, and that if an animal is offered it must have exceeded its third year and be without blemish or disease; and in no case must the victim be a woman or a she animal, because, as it seems, females are regarded as naturally unclean. According to the religious law of the Hebrews, no leaven or honey should be used in connection with vegetable offerings, on the ground that these articles have the effect of producing fermentation and tend to acidify and spoil anything with which they are mixed; and the animal which was intended for sacrifice should be absolutely free from blemish and at least eight days old, that is, untainted with the impurity of birth. Quite in harmony with these prescriptions is the notion that human or {296} animal victims have to abstain from food for some time before they are offered up. Among the Kandhs the man who was destined to be sacrificed was kept fasting from the preceding evening, but on the day of the sacrifice he was refreshed with a little milk and palm-sago; and before he was led forth from the village in solemn procession he was carefully washed and dressed in a new garment. In Morocco it is not only considered meritorious for the people to fast on the day previous to the celebration of the yearly sacrificial feast, l-[(][)a]îd l-kbîr, but in several parts of the country the sheep which is going to be sacrificed has to fast on that day or at least on the following morning, till some food is given it immediately before it is slaughtered. The Jewish custom which compels the firstborn to fast on the eve of Passover may also perhaps be a survival from a time when all the firstborn belonged to the Lord.

In some cases the custom of fasting before the performance of a sacrifice may be due to the idea that it is dangerous or improper for the worshipper to partake of food before the god has had his share. In India a regular performance of two half-monthly sacrifices is enjoined on the Brahmanical householder for a period of thirty years from the time when he has set up a fire of his own--according to some authorities even for the rest of his life. The ceremony usually occupies two consecutive days, the first of which is chiefly taken up with preparatory rites and the vow of abstinence (vrata) by the sacrificer and his wife, whilst the second day is reserved for the main performance of the sacrifice. The vrata includes the abstention from certain kinds of food, especially meat, which will be offered to the gods on the following day, as also from other carnal pleasures. The Satapatha-Brâhmana gives the following explanation of it:--"The gods see through the mind of man; they know that, when {297} he enters on this vow, he means to sacrifice to them the next morning. Therefore all the gods betake themselves to his house, and abide by him or the fires (upa-vas) in his house; whence this day is called upa-vasatha. Now, as it would even be unbecoming for him to take food before men who are staying with him as his guests have eaten; how much more would it be so, if he were to take food before the gods who are staying with him have eaten: let him therefore take no food at all." It is hardly probable, however, that this is the original meaning of the abstinence in question. It occurs about the time of new moon and full moon; according to some native authorities the abstinence and sacrifice take place on the last two days of each half of the lunar month, whilst the generality of ritualistic writers consider the first day of the half-month that is, the first and sixteenth days of the month to be the proper time for the sacrifice. We shall presently see how frequently fasting is observed on these occasions, presumably for fear of eating food which is supposed to have been polluted by the moon; hence it seems to me by no means improbable that the vrata has a similar origin, instead of being merely a rite preparatory to the sacrifice which follows it. But at the same time the idea that spirits or gods should have the first share of a meal is certainly very ancient, and may lead to actual fasting in case the offering for some reason or other is to be delayed. A Polynesian legend tells us that a man by name Maui once caught an immense fish. Then he left his brothers, saying to them:--"After I am gone, be courageous and patient; do not eat food until I return, and do not let our fish be cut up, but rather leave it until I have carried an offering to the gods from this great haul of fish, and until I have found a priest, that fitting prayers and sacrifices may be offered to the god, and the necessary rites be completed in order. We shall thus all be purified. I will then {298} return, and we can cut up this fish in safety, and it shall be fairly portioned out to this one, and to that one, and to that other." But as soon as Maui had gone, his brothers began at once to eat food, and to cut up the fish. Had Maui previously reached the sacred place, the heart of the deity would have been appeased with the offering of a portion of the fish which had been caught by his disciples, and all the male and female deities would have partaken of their portions of the sacrifice. But now the gods turned with wrath upon them, on account of the fish which they had thus cut up without having made a fitting sacrifice.

Among many peoples custom prescribes fasting after a death. Lucian says that at the funeral feast the parents of the deceased are prevailed upon by their relatives to take food, being almost prostrated by a three days' fast. We are told that among the Hindus children fast three days after the death of a parent, and a wife the same period after the death of her husband; but according to a more recent statement, to be quoted presently, they do not altogether abstain from food. In one of the sacred books of India it is said that mourners shall fast during three days, and that, if they are unable to do so, they shall subsist on food bought in the market or given unasked. Among the Nay[=a]dis of Malabar "from the time of death until the funeral is over, all the relations must fast." Among the Irulas of the Neilgherries "the relatives of the deceased fast during the first day, that is, if . . . . the death occur after the morning meal, they refrain from the evening one, and eat nothing till the next morning. If it occur during the night, or before the morning meal, they refrain from all food till the evening. Similar fasting is observed on every return of the same day of the week, till the obsequies take place." Among {299} the Bogos of Eastern Africa a son must fast three days after the death of his father. On the Gold Coast it is the custom for the near relatives of the deceased to perform a long and painful fast, and sometimes they can only with difficulty be induced to have recourse to food again. So also in Dahomey they must fast during the "corpse time," or mourning. Among the Brazilian Paressí the relatives of a dead person remain for six days at his grave, carefully refraining from taking food. Among the aborigines of the Antilles children used to fast after the death of a parent, a husband after the death of his wife, and a wife after the death of her husband. In some Indian tribes of North America it is the custom for the relatives of the deceased to fast till the funeral is over. Among the Snanaimuq, a tribe of the Coast Salish, after the death of a husband or wife the surviving partner must not eat anything for three or four days. In one of the interior divisions of the Salish of British Columbia, the Stlatlumh, the next four days after a funeral feast are spent by the members of the household of the deceased person in fasting, lamenting and ceremonial ablutions. Among the Upper Thompson Indians in British Columbia, again, those who handled the dead body and who dug the grave had to fast until the corpse was buried.

In several instances fasting after a death is observed only in the daytime.

David and his people fasted for Saul and Jonathan until even on the day when the news of their death arrived. Among the Arabs of Morocco it is the custom that if a death takes place in the morning everyone in the village refrains from food until {300} the deceased is buried in the afternoon or evening; but if a person dies so late that he cannot be buried till the next morning the people eat at night. In the Pelew Islands, as long as the dead is unburied, fasting is observed in the daytime but not in the evening. In Fiji after a burial the kana-bogi, or fasting till evening, is practised for ten or twenty days. In Samoa it was common for those who attended the deceased to eat nothing during the day, but to have a meal at night. In the Tuhoe tribe of the Maoris, "when a chief of distinction died his widow and children would remain for some time within the whare potae [that is, mourning house], eating food during the night time only, never during the day." The Sacs and Foxes in Nebraska formerly required that children should fast for three months after the death of a parent, except that they every day about sunset were allowed to partake of a meal made entirely of hominy. Among the Kansas a man who loses his wife must fast from sunrise to sunset for a year and a half, and a woman who loses her husband must observe a similar fast for a year. In some tribes of British Columbia and among the Thlinkets, until the dead body is buried the relatives of the deceased may eat a little at night but have to fast during the day. Among the Upper Thompson Indians a different custom prevailed: "nobody was allowed to eat, drink, or smoke in the open air after sunset (others say after dusk) before the burial, else the ghost would harm them."

Very frequently mourners have to abstain from certain victuals only, especially flesh or fish, or some other staple or favourite food.

In Greenland everybody who had lived in the same house with the dead, or who had touched his corpse, was for some time forbidden to partake of certain kinds of food. Among the Upper Thompson Indians "parents bereft of a child did not eat fresh meat for several months." Among the Stlatlumh of {301} British Columbia a widow might eat no fresh food for a whole year, whilst the other members of the deceased person's family abstained from such food for a period of from four days to as many months. A widower was likewise forbidden to eat fresh meats for a certain period, the length of which varied with the age of the person--the younger the man, the longer his abstention. In some of the Goajiro clans of Colombia a person is prohibited from eating flesh during the mourning time, which lasts nine days. Among the Abipones, when a chief died, the whole tribe abstained for a month from eating fish, their principal dainty. While in mourning, the Northern Queensland aborigines carefully avoid certain victuals, believing that the forbidden food, if eaten, would burn up their bowels. In Easter Island the nearest relatives of the dead are for a year or even longer obliged to abstain from eating potatoes, their chief article of food, or some other victuals of which they are particularly fond. Certain Papuans and various tribes in the Malay Archipelago prohibit persons in mourning from eating rice or sago. In the Andaman Islands mourners refuse to partake of their favourite viands. After the death of a relative the Tipperahs abstain from flesh for a week. The same is the case with the Arakh, a tribe in Oudh, during the fifteen days in the month of Kuâr which are sacred to the worship of the dead. Among the Nay[=a]dis of Malabar the relatives of the deceased are not allowed to eat meat for ten days after his death. According to Toda custom the near relatives must not eat rice, milk, honey, or gram until the funeral is over. Among the Hindus described by Mr. Chunder Bose a widow is restricted to one scanty meal a day, and this is of the coarsest description and always devoid of fish, the most esteemed article of food in a Hindu lady's bill of fare. The son, again, from {302} the hour of his father's death to the conclusion of the funeral ceremony, is allowed to take only a meal consisting of atab rice, a sort of inferior pulse, milk, ghee, sugar, and a few fruits, and at night a little milk, sugar, and fruits--a régime which lasts ten days in the case of a Brahmin and thirty-one days in the case of a Sûdra. In some of the sacred books of India it is said that, during the period of impurity, all the mourners shall abstain from eating meat. In China "meat, must, and spirits were forbidden even in the last month of the deepest mourning, when other sorts of food had long been allowed already."

The custom of fasting after a death has been ascribed to different causes by different writers. Mr. Spencer believes that it has resulted from the habit of making excessive provision for the dead. But although among some peoples the funeral offerings no doubt are so extensive as to reduce the survivors to poverty and starvation, I have met with no statement to the effect that they are anxious to give to the deceased all the eatables which they possess, or that the mourning fast is a matter of actual necessity. It is always restricted to some fixed period, often to a few days only, and it prevails among many peoples who have never been known to be profuse in their sacrifices to the dead. With reference to the Chinese, Dr. de Groot maintains that the mourners originally fasted with a view to being able to sacrifice so much the more at the tomb; and he bases this conclusion on the fact that the articles of food which were forbidden till the end of the deepest mourning were the very same as those which in ancient China played the principal part at every burial sacrifice. But this prohibition may also perhaps be due to a belief that the offering of certain victuals to the dead pollutes all food belonging to the same species.

Professor Wilken, again, suggests that the mourners abstain from food till they have given the dead his due, in {303} order to show that they do not wish to keep him waiting longer than is necessary and thus make him kindly disposed towards them. This explanation presupposes that the fast is immediately followed by offerings or a feast for the dead. In some instances this is expressly said to be the case; the ancient Chinese, for instance, observed a special fast as an introductory rite to the sacrifices which they offered to the manes at regular periods after the demise and even after the close of the mourning. But generally there is no indication of the mourning fast being an essential preliminary to a sacrifice to the dead, and in an instance mentioned above the funeral feast regularly precedes it.

It seems that Sir J. G. Frazer comes much nearer the truth when he observes that people originally fasted after a death "just in those circumstances in which they considered that they might possibly in eating devour a ghost." Yet I think it would generally be more correct to say that they were afraid of swallowing, not the ghost, but food polluted with the contagion of death. The dead body is regarded as a seat of infection, which defiles anything in its immediate neighbourhood, and this infection is of course considered particularly dangerous if it is allowed to enter into the bowels. In certain cases the length of the mourning fast is obviously determined by the belief in the polluting presence of the ghost. The six days' fast of the Paressí coincides with the period after which the dead is supposed to have arrived in heaven no longer to return; and they say that anybody who should fail to observe this fast would "eat the mouth of the dead" and die himself. Frequently the fasting lasts till the corpse is buried; and burial is a common safeguard against the return of the ghost. The custom {304} of restricting the fast to the daytime probably springs from the idea that a ghost cannot see in the dark, and is consequently unable to come and pollute the food at night. That the object of the fast is to prevent pollution is also suggested by its resemblance to some other practices, which are evidently intended to serve this purpose. The Maoris were not allowed to eat on or near any spot where a dead body had been buried, or to take a meal in a canoe while passing opposite to such a place. In Samoa, while a dead body is in the house, no food is eaten under the same roof; hence the family have their meals outside, or in another house. The Todas, who fast on the day when a death has taken place, have on the following day their meals served in another hut. In one of the sacred books of India it is said that a Brâhmana "shall not eat in the house of a relation within six degrees where a person has died, before the ten days of impurity have elapsed"; in a house "where a lying-in woman has not yet come out of the lying-in chamber"; nor in a house where a corpse lies; and in connection with this last injunction we are told that, when a person who is not a relation has died, it is customary to place at the distance of "one hundred bows" a lamp and water-vessel, and to eat beyond that distance. In one of the Zoroastrian books Ormuzd is represented as saying, "In a house when a person shall die, until three nights are completed . . . nothing whatever of meat is to be eaten by his relations"; and the obvious reason for this rule was the belief that the soul of the dead was hovering about the body for the first three nights after death. Closely related to this custom is that of the modern Parsis, which forbids for three days all cooking under a roof where a death has occurred, but allows the inmates to obtain food from their neighbours {305} and friends. Among the Agariya, a Dravidian tribe in the hilly parts of Mirzápur, no fire is lit and no cooking is done in the house of a dead person on the day when he is cremated, the food being cooked in the house of the brother-in-law of the deceased. In Mykonos, one of the Cyclades, it is considered wrong to cook in the house of mourning; hence friends and relatives come laden with food, and lay the "bitter table." Among the Albanians there is no cooking in the house for three days after a death, and the family are fed by friends. So also the Maronites of Syria "dress no victuals for some time in the house of the deceased, but their relations and friends supply them." When a Jew dies all the water in the same and adjoining houses is instantly thrown away; nobody may eat in the same room with the corpse, unless there is only one room in the house, in which case the inhabitants may take food in it if they interpose a screen, so that in eating they do not see the corpse; they must abstain from flesh and wine so long as the dead body is in the house; and on the evening of mourning the members of the family may not eat their own food, but are supplied with food by their friends. Among the Arabs of Morocco, if a person has died in the morning, no fire is made in the whole village until he is buried, and in some parts of the country the inmates of a house or tent where a death has occurred, abstain from making fire for two or three days. In Algeria "dès que quelqu'un est mort, on ne doit pas allumer de feu dans la maison pendant trois jours, et il est défendu de toucher à de la viande rôtie, grillée ou bouillie, à moins qu'elle ne vienne de quelqu'un de dehors." In China, for seven days after a death "no food is cooked in the house, and friends {306} and neighbours are trusted to supply the common necessaries of life." There is no sufficient reason to assume that this practice of abstaining from cooking food after a death is a survival of a previous mourning fast, but the two customs seem partly to have a similar origin. The cooking may contaminate the food if done in a polluted house, or by a polluted individual. The relatives of the dead, or persons who have handled the corpse, are regarded as defiled; hence they have to abstain from cooking food, as they have to abstain from any kind of work, and from sexual intercourse. Hence, also, they are often prohibited from touching food; and this may in some cases have led to fasting, whilst in other instances they have to be fed by their neighbours.

However, an unclean individual may be supposed to pollute a piece of food not only by touching it with his hand, but in some cases by eating it; and, in accordance with the principle of pars pro toto, the pollution may then spread to all victuals belonging to the same species. Ideas of this kind are sometimes conspicuous in connection with the restrictions in diet after a death. Thus the Siciatl of British Columbia believe that a dead body, or anything connected with the dead, is inimical to the salmon, and therefore the relatives of a deceased person must abstain from eating salmon in the early stages of the run, as also from entering a creek where salmon are found. Among the Stlatlumh, a neighbouring people, not even elderly widowers, for whom the period of abstention is comparatively {307} short, are allowed to eat fresh salmon till the first of the run is over and the fish have arrived in such numbers that there is no danger of their being driven away. It is not unlikely that if the motives for the restrictions in diet after a death were sufficiently known in each case, a similar fear lest the unclean mourner should pollute the whole species by polluting some individual member of it would be found to be a common cause of those rules which prohibit the eating of staple or favourite food. But it would seem that such rules also may spring from the idea that this kind of food is particularly sought for by the dead and therefore defiled.

Moreover, unclean individuals are not only a danger to others, but are themselves in danger. As Sir J. G. Frazer has shown, they are supposed to be in a delicate condition, which imposes upon them various precautions; and one of these may be restrictions in their diet. Among the Thlinkets and some peoples in British Columbia the relatives of the deceased not only fast till the body is buried, but have their faces blackened, cover their heads with ragged mats, and must speak but little, confining themselves to answering questions, as it is believed that they would else become chatterboxes. According to early ideas, mourners are in a state very similar to that of girls at puberty, who also, among various peoples, are obliged to fast or abstain from certain kinds of food on account of their uncleanness. Among the Stlatlumh, for instance, {308} when a girl reaches puberty, she fasts for the first four days and abstains from fresh meats of any kind throughout the whole period of her seclusion. "There was a two-fold object in this abstention. First, the girl, it was thought, would be harmed by the fresh meat in her peculiar condition; and second, the game animals would take offence if she partook of their meat in these circumstances," and would not permit her father to kill them.

It should finally be noticed that, though the custom of fasting after a death in the main has a superstitious origin, there may at the same time be a physiological motive for it. Even the rudest savage feels afflicted at the death of a friend, and grief is accompanied by a loss of appetite. This natural disinclination to partake of food may, combined with superstitious fear, have given rise to prohibitory rules, nay, may even in the first instance have suggested the idea that there is danger in taking food. The mourning observances so commonly coincide with the natural expressions of sorrow, that we are almost bound to assume the existence of some connection between them, even though in their developed forms the superstitious motive be the most prominent.

An important survival of the mourning fast is the Lent fast. It originally lasted for forty hours only, that is, the time when Christ lay in the grave. Irenaeus speaks of the fast of forty hours before Easter, and Tertullian, when a Montanist disputing against the Catholics, says that the only legitimate days for Christian fasting were those in which the Bridegroom was taken away. Subsequently, however, the forty hours were extended to forty {309} days, in imitation of the forty days' fasts of Moses, Elijah, and Christ.

Not only on a death, but on certain other occasions, food is supposed to pollute or injure him who partakes of it, and is therefore to be avoided. In Pfalz the people maintain that no food should be taken at an eclipse of the sun; and all over Germany there is a popular belief that anybody who eats during a thunderstorm will be struck by the lightning. When the Todas know that there is going to be an eclipse of the sun or the moon, they abstain from food. Among the Hindus, while an eclipse is going on, "drinking water, eating food, and all household business, as well as the worship of the gods, are all prohibited"; high-caste Hindus do not even eat food which has remained in the house during an eclipse, but give it away, and all earthen vessels in use in their houses at the time must be broken. Among the rules laid down for Snâtakas, that is, Brâhmanas who have completed their studentship, there is one which forbids them to eat, travel, and sleep during the twilight; and in one of the Zoroastrian Pahlavi texts it is said that "in the dark it is not allowable to eat food, for the demons and fiends seize upon one-third of the wisdom and glory of him who eats food in the dark." Many Hindus who revere the sun do not break their fast in the morning till they catch a clear view of it, and do not eat at all on days when it is obscured by clouds--a custom to which there is a parallel among some North American sun-worshippers, the Snanaimuq Indians belonging to the Coast Salish, who must not partake of any food until the sun is well up in the sky. Brahmins {310} fast at the equinoxes, solstices, conjunctions of planets, and on the days of the new and full moon. The Buddhist Sabbath, or Uposatha, which, as we have noticed above, occurs 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, is not only a day of rest, but has also from ancient times been a fast-day. He who keeps the Sabbath rigorously abstains from all food between sunrise and sunset, and, as no cooking must be done during the Uposatha, he prepares his evening meal in the early morning before the rise of the sun.

Among the Jews there are many who abstain from food on the day of an eclipse of the moon, which they regard as an evil omen. We have also reason to believe that the Jews were once in the habit of observing the new moons and Sabbaths not only as days of rest, but as fast-days; and the Hebrew Sabbath, as we have seen, in all probability owes its origin to superstitious fear of the changes in the moon. Or how shall we explain the curious rule which forbids fasting on a new moon and on the seventh day, if not as a protest against a fast once in vogue among the Jews on these occasions, but afterwards regarded as an illegitimate rite? This theory is not new, for Hooker in his 'Ecclesiastical Polity' observes that "it may be a question, whether in some sort they did not always fast on the Sabbath." He refers to a statement of Josephus, according to which the sixth hour "was wont on the Sabbath always to call them home unto meat," and to certain pagan writers who upbraided them with fasting on that day. In Nehemiah there is an indication that it was a custom to fast on the first day of the seventh month, {311} which is "holy unto the Lord"; and on the tenth day of the same month there was the great fast of atonement, combined with abstinence from every kind of work. I venture to think that all these fasts may be ultimately traced to a belief that the changes in the moon not only are unfavourable for work, but also make it dangerous to partake of food. The fact of the seventh day being a day of rest established the number seven as a sabbatical number. In the seventh month there are several days, besides Saturdays, which are to be observed as days of rest, and in the seventh year there shall be "a sabbath of rest unto the land." In these Sabbatarian regulations the day of atonement plays a particularly prominent part. The severest punishment is prescribed for him who does not rest and fast on that day "from even unto even"; and it is on the same day that, after the lapse of seven times seven years, the trumpet of the jubilee shall be caused to sound throughout the land. Most of the rules concerning the day of atonement are undoubtedly post-exilic. But the fact that no other regular days of fasting but those mentioned by Zechariah are referred to by the prophets or in earlier books, hardly justifies the conclusion drawn by many scholars that no such fast existed. It is extremely probable that the fast of the tenth day of the seventh month as a fast of atonement is of a comparatively modern date; but it is perhaps not too bold to suggest that the idea of atonement is a later interpretation of a previously existing fast, which was originally observed for fear of the dangerous quality attributed to the number seven. Why this fast was enjoined on the tenth day of the seventh month remains obscure; but it seems that the order of the month was considered more important than that of the day. Nehemiah speaks of a fast which {312} was kept on the twenty-fourth day of the seventh month.

In other Semitic religions we meet with various fasts which are in some way or other connected with astronomical changes. According to En-Nedîm, the Harranians, or "Sabians," observed a thirty days' fast in honour of the moon, commencing on the eighth day after the new moon of Adsâr (March); a nine days' fast in honour of "the Lord of Good Luck" (probably Jupiter), commencing on the ninth day before the new moon of the first Kânûn (December); and a seven days' fast in honour of the sun, commencing on the eighth or ninth day after the new moon of Shobâth (February). The thirty days' fast seems to have implied abstinence from every kind of food and drink between sunrise and sunset, whereas the seven days' fast is expressly said to have consisted in abstinence from fat and wine. In Manichæism--which is essentially based upon the ancient nature religion of Babylonia, though modified by Christian and Persian elements and elevated into a gnosis--we meet with a great number of fasts. There is a continuous fast for two days when the sun is in Sagittarius (which it enters about the 22nd November) and the moon has its full light; another fast when the sun has entered Capricornus (which it does about the 21st December) and the moon first becomes visible; and a thirty days' fast between sunrise and sunset commencing on the day "when the new moon begins to shine, the sun is in Aquarius (where it is from about the 20th January), and eight days of the month have passed," which seems to imply that the fast cannot begin until eight days after the sun has entered Aquarius and that consequently, if the new moon {313} appears during that period, the commencement of the fast has to be postponed till the following new moon. The Manichaeans also fasted for two days at every new moon; and our chief authority on the subject, En-Nedîm, states that they had seven fast-days in each month. They fasted on Sundays, and some of them, the electi or "perfect ones," on Mondays also. We are told by Leo the Great that they observed these weekly fasts in honour of the sun and the moon; but according to the Armenian Bishop Ebedjesu their abstinence on Sunday was occasioned by their belief that the destruction of the world was going to take place on that day. There can be little doubt that the Harranian and Manichæan fasts were originally due, not to reverence, but to fear of evil influences; reverence can never be the primitive motive for a customary rite of fasting. The thirty days' fast which the Harranians observed in the month of Adsâr finds perhaps its explanation in the fact that, according to Babylonian beliefs, the month Adar was presided over by the seven evil spirits, who knew neither compassion nor mercy, who heard no prayer or supplication, and to whose baneful influence the popular faith attributed the eclipse of the moon. But it may also be worth noticing that the Harranian fast took place about the vernal equinox--a time at which, as we have seen, the Brahmins of India are wont to fast, though only for a day or two.

It is highly probable that the thirty days' fast of the Harranians and Manichæans is the prototype of the Muhammedan fast of Rama[d.]ân. During the whole ninth month of the Muhammedan year the complete abstinence from food, drink and cohabitation from sunrise till sunset is enjoined upon every Moslem, with the exception of young children and idiots, as also sick persons and travellers, who are allowed to postpone the {314} fast to another time. This fast is said to be a fourth part of Faith, the other cardinal duties of religious practice being prayer, almsgiving, and pilgrimage. But, as a matter of fact, modern Muhammedans regard the fast of Rama[d.]ân as of more importance than any other religious observance; many of them neglect their prayers, but anybody who should openly disregard the rule of fasting would be subject to a very severe punishment. Even the privilege granted to travellers and sick persons is not readily taken advantage of. During their marches in the middle of summer nothing but the apprehension of death can induce the Aeneze to interrupt the fast; and when Burton, in the disguise of a Muhammedan doctor, was in Cairo making preparations for his pilgrimage to Mecca, he found among all those who suffered severely from such total abstinence only one patient who would eat even to save his life. There is no evidence that the fast of Rama[d.]ân was an ancient, pre-Muhammedan custom. On the other hand, its similarity with the Harranian and Manichæan fasts is so striking that we are almost compelled to regard them all as fundamentally the same institution; and if this assumption is correct, Muhammed must have borrowed his fast from the Harranians or Manichæans or both. {315} Indeed, Dr. Jacob has shown that in the year 623, when this fast seems to have been instituted, Rama[d.]ân exactly coincided with the Harranian fast-month. In its Muhammedan form the fast extending over a whole month is looked upon as a means of expiation. It is said that by the observance of it a person will be pardoned all his past venial sins, and that only those who keep it will be allowed to enter through the gate of heaven called Rayyân. But this is only another instance of the common fact that customs often for an incalculable period survive the motives from which they sprang.

In various religions we meet with fasting as a form of penance, as a means of appeasing an angry or indignant God, as an expiation for sin. The voluntary suffering involved in it is regarded as an expression of sorrow and repentance pleasing to God, as a substitute for the punishment which He otherwise would inflict upon the sinner; and at the same time it may be thought to excite His compassion, an idea noticeable in many Jewish fasts. Among the Jews individuals fasted in cases of private distress or danger: Ahab, for instance, when Elijah predicted his downfall, Ezra and his companions before their journey to Palestine, the pious Israelite when his friends were sick. Moreover, fasts were instituted for the whole community when it believed itself to be under divine displeasure, when danger threatened, when a great calamity befell the land, when pestilence raged or drought set in, or there was a reverse in war. Four {316} regular fast-days were established in commemoration of various sad events that had befallen Israel during the captivity; and in the course of time many other fasts were added, in memory of certain national troubles, though they were not regarded as obligatory. The law itself enjoined fasting for the great day of atonement only.

It may be asked why this particular kind of self-mortification became such a frequent and popular form of penance as it did both in Judaism and in several other religions. One reason is, no doubt, that fasting is a natural expression of contrition, owing to the depressing effect which sorrow has upon the appetite. Another reason is that the idea of penitence, as we have just observed, may be a later interpretation put upon a fast which originally sprang from fear of contamination. Nay, even when fasting is resorted to as a cure in the case of distress or danger, as also when it is practised in commemoration of a calamity, there may be a vague belief that the food is polluted and should therefore be avoided. But in several cases fasting is distinctly a survival of an expiatory sacrifice. The sacrifice of food offered to the deity was changed into the "sacrifice" involved in the abstinence from food on the part of the worshipper. We find that among the Jews the decay of sacrifice was accompanied by a greater frequency of fasts. It was only in the period immediately before the exile that fasting began to acquire special importance; and the popular estimation of it went on increasing during and after the exile, partly at least from a feeling of the need of religious exercises to take the place of the suspended temple services. Like sacrifice, fasting was a regular appendage to prayer, as a means of giving special efficacy to the supplication; fasting and praying became in fact a constant combination of words. And equally close is the {317} connection between fasting and almsgiving--a circumstance which deserves special notice where almsgiving is regarded as a form of sacrifice or has taken the place of it. In the penitential regulations of Brahmanism we repeatedly meet with the combination "sacrifice, fasting, giving gifts"; or also fasting and giving gifts, without mention being made of sacrifice. Among the Jews each fast-day was virtually an occasion for almsgiving, in accordance with the rabbinic saying that "the reward of the fast-day is in the amount of charity distributed"; but fasting was sometimes declared to be even more meritorious than charity, because the former affects the body and the latter the purse only. And from Judaism this combination of fasting and almsgiving passed over into Christianity and Muhammedanism. According to Islam, it is a religious duty to give alms after a fast; if a person through the infirmity of old age is not able to keep the fast, he must feed a poor person; and the violation of an inconsiderate oath may be expiated either by once feeding or clothing ten poor men, or liberating a Muhammedan slave or captive, or fasting three days. In the Christian Church fasting was not only looked upon as a necessary accompaniment of prayer, but whatever a person saved by means of it was to be given to the poor. St. Augustine says that man's righteousness in this life consists in fasting, alms, and prayer, that alms and fasting are the two wings which enable his prayer to fly upward to God. But fasting without almsgiving "is not {318} so much as counted for fasting"; that which is gained by the fast at dinner ought not to be turned into a feast at supper, but should be expended on the bellies of the poor. And if a person was too weak to fast without injuring his health he was admonished to give the more plentiful alms. Tertullian expressly calls fastings "sacrifices which are acceptable to God." They assumed the character of reverence offerings, they were said to be works of reverence towards God. But fasting, as well as temperance, has also from early times been advocated by Christian writers on the ground that it is "the beginning of chastity," whereas "through love of eating love of impurity finds passage."