the golden bough-第101节

按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页，按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页，按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部！
————未阅读完？加入书签已便下次继续阅读！


in　token　of　their　mourning　and　grief。

Now　this　practice　of　taking　human　victims　from　a　family　of　royal　descent　at　Orchomenus　is　all　the　more　significant　because　Athamas　himself　is　said　to　have　reigned　in　the　land　of　Orchomenus　even　before　the　time　of　Minyas；　and　because　over　against　the　city　there　rises　Mount　Laphystius；　on　which；　as　at　Alus　in　Thessaly；　there　was　a　sanctuary　of　Laphystian　Zeus；　where；　according　to　tradition；　Athamas　purposed　to　sacrifice　his　two　children　Phrixus　and　Helle。　On　the　whole；　comparing　the　traditions　about　Athamas　with　the　custom　that　obtained　with　regard　to　his　descendants　in　historical　times；　we　may　fairly　infer　that　in　Thessaly　and　probably　in　Boeotia　there　reigned　of　old　a　dynasty　of　which　the　kings　were　liable　to　be　sacrificed　for　the　good　of　the　country　to　the　god　called　Laphystian　Zeus；　but　that　they　contrived　to　shift　the　fatal　responsibility　to　their　offspring；　of　whom　the　eldest　son　was　regularly　destined　to　the　altar。　As　time　went　on；　the　cruel　custom　was　so　far　mitigated　that　a　ram　was　accepted　as　a　vicarious　sacrifice　in　room　of　the　royal　victim；　provided　always　that　the　prince　abstained　from　setting　foot　in　the　town…hall　where　the　sacrifices　were　offered　to　Laphystian　Zeus　by　one　of　his　kinsmen。　But　if　he　were　rash　enough　to　enter　the　place　of　doom；　to　thrust　himself　wilfully；　as　it　were；　on　the　notice　of　the　god　who　had　good…naturedly　winked　at　the　substitution　of　a　ram；　the　ancient　obligation　which　had　been　suffered　to　lie　in　abeyance　recovered　all　its　force；　and　there　was　no　help　for　it　but　he　must　die。　The　tradition　which　associated　the　sacrifice　of　the　king　or　his　children　with　a　great　dearth　points　clearly　to　the　belief；　so　common　among　primitive　folk；　that　the　king　is　responsible　for　the　weather　and　the　crops；　and　that　he　may　justly　pay　with　his　life　for　the　inclemency　of　the　one　or　the　failure　of　the　other。　Athamas　and　his　line；　in　short；　appear　to　have　united　divine　or　magical　with　royal　functions；　and　this　view　is　strongly　supported　by　the　claims　to　divinity　which　Salmoneus；　the　brother　of　Athamas；　is　said　to　have　set　up。　We　have　seen　that　this　presumptuous　mortal　professed　to　be　no　other　than　Zeus　himself；　and　to　wield　the　thunder　and　lightning；　of　which　he　made　a　trumpery　imitation　by　the　help　of　tinkling　kettles　and　blazing　torches。　If　we　may　judge　from　analogy；　his　mock　thunder　and　lightning　were　no　mere　scenic　exhibition　designed　to　deceive　and　impress　the　beholders；　they　were　enchantments　practised　by　the　royal　magician　for　the　purpose　of　bringing　about　the　celestial　phenomena　which　they　feebly　mimicked。

Among　the　Semites　of　Western　Asia　the　king；　in　a　time　of　national　danger；　sometimes　gave　his　own　son　to　die　as　a　sacrifice　for　the　people。　Thus　Philo　of　Byblus；　in　his　work　on　the　Jews；　says：　It　was　an　ancient　custom　in　a　crisis　of　great　danger　that　the　ruler　of　a　city　or　nation　should　give　his　beloved　son　to　die　for　the　whole　people；　as　a　ransom　offered　to　the　avenging　demons；　and　the　children　thus　offered　were　slain　with　mystic　rites。　So　Cronus；　whom　the　Phoenicians　call　Israel；　being　king　of　the　land　and　having　an　only…begotten　son　called　Jeoud　（for　in　the　Phoenician　tongue　Jeoud　signifies　'only　begotten'）；　dressed　him　in　royal　robes　and　sacrificed　him　upon　an　altar　in　a　time　of　war；　when　the　country　was　in　great　danger　from　the　enemy。　When　the　king　of　Moab　was　besieged　by　the　Israelites　and　hard　beset；　he　took　his　eldest　son；　who　should　have　reigned　in　his　stead；　and　offered　him　for　a　burnt　offering　on　the　wall。

Chapter　27。　Succession　to　the　Soul。

TO　THE　VIEW　that　in　early　times；　and　among　barbarous　races；　kings　have　frequently　been　put　to　death　at　the　end　of　a　short　reign；　it　may　be　objected　that　such　a　custom　would　tend　to　the　extinction　of　the　royal　family。　The　objection　may　be　met　by　observing；　first；　that　the　kingship　is　often　not　confined　to　one　family；　but　may　be　shared　in　turn　by　several；　second；　that　the　office　is　frequently　not　hereditary；　but　is　open　to　men　of　any　family；　even　to　foreigners；　who　may　fulfil　the　requisite　conditions；　such　as　marrying　a　princess　or　vanquishing　the　king　in　battle；　and；　third；　that　even　if　the　custom　did　tend　to　the　extinction　of　a　dynasty；　that　is　not　a　consideration　which　would　prevent　its　observance　among　people　less　provident　of　the　future　and　less　heedful　of　human　life　than　ourselves。　Many　races；　like　many　individuals；　have　indulged　in　practices　which　must　in　the　end　destroy　them。　The　Polynesians　seem　regularly　to　have　killed　two…thirds　of　their　children。　In　some　parts　of　East　Africa　the　proportion　of　infants　massacred　at　birth　is　said　to　be　the　same。　Only　children　born　in　certain　presentations　are　allowed　to　live。　The　Jagas；　a　conquering　tribe　in　Angola；　are　reported　to　have　put　to　death　all　their　children；　without　exception；　in　order　that　the　women　might　not　be　cumbered　with　babies　on　the　march。　They　recruited　their　numbers　by　adopting　boys　and　girls　of　thirteen　or　fourteen　years　of　age；　whose　parents　they　had　killed　and　eaten。　Among　the　Mbaya　Indians　of　South　America　the　women　used　to　murder　all　their　children　except　the　last；　or　the　one　they　believed　to　be　the　last。　If　one　of　them　had　another　child　afterwards；　she　killed　it。　We　need　not　wonder　that　this　practice　entirely　destroyed　a　branch　of　the　Mbaya　nation；　who　had　been　for　many　years　the　most　formidable　enemies　of　the　Spaniards。　Among　the　Lengua　Indians　of　the　Gran　Chaco；　the　missionaries　discovered　what　they　describe　as　a　carefully　planned　system　of　racial　suicide；　by　the　practice　of　infanticide　by　abortion；　and　other　methods。　Nor　is　infanticide　the　only　mode　in　which　a　savage　tribe　commits　suicide。　A　lavish　use　of　the　poison　ordeal　may　be　equally　effective。　Some　time　ago　a　small　tribe　named　Uwet　came　down　from　the　hill　country；　and　settled　on　the　left　branch　of　the　Calabar　River　in　West　Africa。　When　the　missionaries　first　visited　the　place；　they　found　the　population　considerable；　distributed　into　three　villages。　Since　then　the　constant　use　of　the　poison　ordeal　has　almost　extinguished　the　tribe。　On　one　occasion　the　whole　population　took　poison　to　prove　their　innocence。　About　half　perished　on　the　spot；　and　the　remnant；　we　are　told；　still　continuing　their　superstitious　practice；　must　soon　become　extinct。　With　such　examples　before　us　we　need　not　hesitate　to　believe　that　many　tribes　have　felt　no　scruple　or　delicacy　in　observing　a　custom　which　tends　to　wipe　out　a　single　family。　To　attribute　such　scruples　to　them　is　to　commit　the　common；　the　perpetually　repeated　mistake　of　judging　the　savage　by　the　standard　of　European　civilisation。　If　any　of　my　readers　set　out　with　the　notion　that　all　races　of　men　think　and　act　much　in　the　same　way　as　educated　Englishmen；　the　evidence　of　superstitious　belief　and　custom　collected　in　this　work　should　suffice　to　disabuse　him　of　so　erroneous　a　prepossession。

The　explanation　here　given　of　the　custom　of　killing　divine　persons　assumes；　or　at　least　is　readily　combined　with；　the　idea　that　the　soul　of　the　slain　divinity　is　transmitted　to　his　successor。　Of　this　transmission　I　have　no　direct　proof　except　in　the　case　of　the　Shilluk；　among　whom　the　practice　of　killing　the　divine　king　prevails　in　a　typical　form；　and　with　whom　it　is　a　fundamental　article　of　faith　that　the　soul　of　the　divine　founder　of　the　dynasty　is　immanent　in　every　one　of　his　slain　successors。　But　if　this　is　the　only　actual　example　of　such　a　belief　which　I　can　adduce；　analogy　seems　to　render　it　probable　that　a　similar　succession　to　the　soul　of　the　slain　god　has　been　supposed　to　take　place　in　other　instances；　though　direct　evidence　of　it　is　wanting。　For　it　has　been　already　shown　that　the　soul　of　the　incarnate　deity　is　often　supposed　to　transmigrate　at　death　into　another　incarnation；　and　if　this　takes　place　when　the　death　is　a　natural　one；　there　seems　no　reason　why　it　should　not　take　place　when　the　death　has　been　brought　about　by　violence。　Certainly　the　idea　that　the　soul　of　a　dying　person　may　be　transmitted　to　his　successor　is　perfectly　familiar　to　primitive　peoples。　In　Nias　the　eldest　son　usually　succeeds　his　father　in　the　chieftainship。　But　if　from　any　bodily　or　mental　defect　the　eldest　son　is　disqualified　for　ruling；　the　father　determines　in　his　lifetime　which　of　his　sons　shall　succeed　him。　In　order；　however；　to　establish　his　right　of　succession；　it　is　necessary　that　the　son　upon　whom　his　father's　choice　falls　shall　catch　in　his　mouth　or　in　a　bag　the　last　breath；　and　with　it　the　soul；　of　the　dying　chief。　For　whoever　catches　his　last　breath　is　chief　equally　with　the　appointed　successor。　Hence　the　other　brothers；　and　sometimes　also　strangers；　crowd　round　the　dying　man　to　catch　his　soul　as　it　passes。　The　houses　in　Nias　are　raised　above　the　ground　on　posts；　and　it　has　happened　that　when　the　dying　man　lay　with　his　face　on　the　floor；　one　of　the　candidates　has　bored　a　hole　in　the　floor　and　sucked　in　the　chief's　last　breath　through　a　bamboo　tube。　When　the　chief　has　no　son；　his　soul　is　caught　in　a　bag；　which　is　fastened　to　an　image　made　to　represent　the　deceased；　the　soul　is　then　believed　to　pass　into　the　image。

Sometimes　it　would　appear　that　the　spiritual　link　between　a　king　and　the　souls　of　his　predecessors　is　formed　by　the　possession　of　some　part　of　their　persons。　In　southern　Ce