The answer lies in certain ideas which refer to human as well as divine protectors of refugees. The god or saint is in exactly the same position as a man to whose house a person has fled for shelter. Among various peoples the domicile of the chief or king is an asylum for criminals;203 nobody dares to attack a man who is sheltered by so mighty a personage, and from what has been said above, in connection with the rules of hospitality, it is also evident why the chief or king feels himself compelled to protect him. By being in close contact with his host, the suppliant is able to transfer to him a dangerous curse. Sometimes a criminal can in a similar way be a danger to the king even from a distance, or by meeting him, and must in consequence be pardoned. In Madagascar an offender escaped punishment if he could obtain sight of the sovereign, whether before or after conviction; hence criminals at work on the highroad were ordered to withdraw when the sovereign was known to be coming by.204 Among the Bambaras “une fois la sentence prononcée, si le condamné parvient à cracher sur un prince, non-seulement sa personne est sacrée, mais elle est nourrie, logée, etc., par le grand seigneur qui a eu l’imprudence de se tenir à portée de cet étrange projectile.”205 In Usambara even a murderer is safe as soon as he has touched the person of the king.206 Among the Marutse and neighbouring tribes a person who is accused of any crime receives pardon if he lays a cupa—the fossilised base of a conical shell, which is the most highly valued of all their instruments—at the feet of his chief; and a miscreant likewise escapes punishment if he reaches and throws himself on the king’s drums.207 On the Slave Coast “criminals who are doomed to death are always gagged, because if a man should speak to the king he must be pardoned.”208 In Ashantee, if an offender should succeed in swearing on the king’s life, he must be pardoned, because such an oath is believed to involve danger to the king; hence knives are driven through the cheeks from opposite sides, over the tongue, to prevent him from speaking.209 So also among the Romans, according to an old Jewish writer, a person condemned to death was gagged to prevent him from cursing the king.210 Fear of the curses pronounced by a dissatisfied refugee likewise, in all probability, underlay certain other customs which prevailed in Rome. A servant or slave who came and fell down at the feet of Jupiter’s high-priest, taking hold of his knees, was for that day freed from the whip; and if a prisoner with irons and bolts at his feet succeeded in approaching the high-priest in his house, he was let loose and his fetters were thrown into the road, not through the door, but from the roof.211 Moreover, if a criminal who had been sentenced to death accidentally met a Vestal virgin on his way to the place of execution, his life was saved.212 So sensitive to imprecations were both Jupiter’s high-priest and the priestesses of Vesta, that the Praetor was never allowed to compel them to take an oath.213 Now, as a refugee may by his curse force a king or a priest or any other man with whom he establishes some kind of contact to protect him, so he may in a similar manner constrain a god or saint as soon as he has entered his sanctuary. According to the Moorish expression he is then in the ʿâr of the saint, and the saint is bound to protect him, just as a host is bound to protect his guest. It is not only men that have to fear the curses of dissatisfied refugees. Let us once more remember the words which Aeschylus puts into the mouth of Apollo, when he declares his intention to assist his suppliant, Orestes:—“Terrible both among men and gods is the wrath of a refugee, when one abandons him with intent.”214

CHAPTER XLIX

DUTIES TO GODS (concluded)

SUPERNATURAL beings are widely believed to have a feeling of their worth and dignity. They are sensitive to insults and disrespect, they demand submissiveness and homage.

”The gods of the Gold Coast,” says Major Ellis, “are jealous gods, jealous of their dignity, jealous of the adulation and offerings paid to them; and there is nothing they resent so much as any slight, whether intentional or accidental, which may be offered them…. There is nothing that offends them so deeply as to ignore them, or question their power, or laugh at them.”1 The wrath of Yahveh burst forth with vehemence whenever his honour or sanctity was in the least violated, however unintentionally.2 Many peoples consider it insulting and dangerous merely to point at one of the celestial bodies;3 and among the North American Indians it is a widespread belief that, if anybody points at the rainbow, the finger will wither or become misshapen.4

Nor is it to supernatural danger only that a person exposes himself by irreverence to a god, but in many cases he is also punished by his fellow men. On the Slave Coast insults to a god “are always resented and punished by the priests and worshippers of that god, it being their duty to guard his honour.”5 Among the ancient Peruvians6 and Hebrews,7 as also among Christian nations up to comparatively recent times, blasphemy was a capital offence. In England, in the reign of Henry VIII., a boy of fifteen was burned because he had spoken, much after the fashion of a parrot, some idle words affecting the sacrament of the altar, which he had chanced to hear but of which he could not have understood the meaning.8 According to Muhammedan law a person guilty of blasphemy is to be put to death without delay, even though he profess himself repentant, as adequate repentance for such a sin is deemed impossible.9 These and similar laws are rooted in the idea that the god is personally offended by the insult. It was the Lord himself who made the law that he who blasphemed His name should be stoned to death by all the congregation.10 “Blasphemy,” says Thomas Aquinas, “as being an offence directly against God, outweighs murder, which is an offence against our neighbour…. The blasphemer intends to wound the honour of God.”11 That blasphemy is, or should be, punished not as a sin against the deity but as an offence against the religious feelings of men, is an idea of quite modern origin.

In many cases it is considered offensive to a supernatural being merely to mention his name. Sometimes the name is tabooed on certain occasions only or in ordinary conversation, sometimes it is not to be pronounced at all.

In Morocco the jnûn (jinn) must not be referred to by name in the afternoon and evening after the ʿâṣar. If speaking of them at all, the people then make use of some circumlocution; the Berbers of Southern Morocco call them wīd-iáḍnin, “those others,” or wīd-urḍ-hĕr’nin, “those unseen,” or wīd-tntl-tísnt, “those who shun salt.” The Greenlanders dare not pronounce the name of a glacier as they row past it, for fear lest it should be offended and throw off an iceberg.12 Some North American Indians believe that if, when travelling, they mention the names of rocks or islands or rivers, they will have much rain or be wrecked or be devoured by some monster in the river.13 The Omahas, again, “are very careful not to use names which they regard as sacred on ordinary occasions; and no one dares to sing sacred songs except the chiefs and old men at the proper times.”14 Some other Indians considered it a profanation to mention the name of their highest divinity.15 Among certain Australian natives the elders of the tribe impart to the youth, on his initiation, the name of the god Tharamūlŭn; but there is such a disinclination to pronounce his name that, in speaking of him, they generally use elliptical expressions, such as “He,” “the man,” or “the name I told you of,” and the women only know him by the name of Papang (father).16 The Marutse and allied tribes along the Zambesi shrink from mentioning the real name of their chief god Nyambe and therefore substitute for it the word molemo, which has a very comprehensive meaning, denoting, besides God, all kinds of good and evil spirits, medicines, poisons, and amulets.17 According to Cicero, there was a god, a son of Nilus, whose name the Egyptians considered it a crime to pronounce;18 and Herodotus is unwilling to mention the name of Osiris on two occasions when he is speaking of him.19 The divine name of Indra was secret, the real name of Agni was unknown.20 The gods of Brahmanism have mystic names, which nobody dares to speak.21 The real name of Confucius is so sacred that it is a statutable offence in China to pronounce it; and the name of the supreme god of the Chinese is equally tabooed. “Tien,” they say, “means properly only the material heaven, but it also means Shang-Te (supreme ruler, God); for, as it is not lawful to use his name lightly, we name him by his residence, which is in tien.”22 The “great name” of Allah is a secret name, known only to prophets, and possibly to some great saints.23 Yahveh said, “Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain; for the Lord will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain”;24 and orthodox Jews avoid mentioning the word Yahveh altogether.25 Among Christian nations, as Professor Nyrop observes, there is a common disinclination to use the word “God” or its equivalents in everyday speech. The English say good instead of God (“good gracious,” “my goodness,” “thank goodness”); the Germans, Potz instead of Gotts (“Potz Welt,” “Potz Wetter,” “Potz Blitz”); the French, bleu instead of Dieu (“corbleu,” “morbleu,” “sambleu”); the Spaniards, brios or diez instead of Dios (“voto á brios,” “juro á brios,” “par diez”).26

These taboos have sprung from fear. There is, first, something uncanny in mentioning the name of a supernatural being, even apart from any definite ideas connected with the act. But to do so is also supposed to summon him or to attract his attention, and this may be considered dangerous, especially if he is looked upon as malevolent or irritable, as is generally the case with the Moorish jnûn. The uncanny feeling or the notion of danger readily leads to the belief that the supernatural being feels offended if his name is pronounced; we have noticed a similar association of thought in connection with the names of the dead. But a god may also have good reason for wishing that his name should not be used lightly or taken in vain. According to primitive ideas a person’s name is a part of his personality, hence the holiness of a god may be polluted by his name being mentioned in profane conversation. Moreover, it may be of great importance for him to prevent his name from being divulged, as magic may be wrought on a person through his name just as easily as through any part of his body. In early civilisation there is a common tendency to keep the real name of a human individual secret so that sorcerers may not make an evil use of it;27 and it is similarly believed that gods must conceal their true names lest other gods or men should be able to conjure with them.28 The great Egyptian god Râ declared that the name which his father and mother had given him remained hidden in his body since his birth, so that no magician might have magic power over him.29 The list of divine names possessed by the Roman pontiffs in their indigitamenta was a magical instrument which laid at their mercy all the forces of the spirit world;30 and we are told that the Romans kept the name of their tutelary god secret in order to prevent their enemies from drawing him away by pronouncing it.31 There is a Muhammedan tradition that whosoever calls upon Allah by his “great name” will obtain all his desires, being able merely by mentioning it to raise the dead to life, to kill the living, in fact to perform any miracle he pleases.32

One of the greatest insults which can be offered a god is to deny his existence. Plutarch was astonished at people’s saying that atheism is impiety, while at the same time they attribute to gods all kinds of less creditable qualities. “I for my part,” he adds, “would much rather have men to say of me that there never was a Plutarch, at all, nor is now, than to say that Plutarch is a man inconstant, fickle, easily moved to anger, revengeful for trifling provocations, vexed at small things.”33 But Plutarch seems to have forgotten that a person is always most sensitive on his weak points, and that the weakest point in a god is his existence. Religious intolerance is in a large measure the result of that feeling of uncertainty which can hardly be eradicated even by the strongest will to believe. It is a means of self-persuasion in a case where such persuasion is sorely needed. Moreover, a god who is not believed to exist can be no object of worship, and to be worshipped is commonly held to be the chief ambition of a god. But atheism is a sin of civilisation. Uncultured people are ready to believe that all supernatural beings they hear of also exist.

Some gods are extremely ungenerous towards all those who do not recognise them, and only them, as their gods. To believe in Ahura Mazda was the first duty which Zoroastrianism required of a man; it was Angra Mainyu, the evil spirit, that had countercreated the sin of unbelief.34 Doubt destroyed even the effects of good actions;35 indeed, only the true believer was to be regarded as a man.36 The faithful were summoned to a war to the death against the opposing spirits, the Daevas, and their followers.37 And to judge from ancient writers, the Persians, when they came into contact with nations of another religion, also carried into practice the intolerant spirit of their own.38 Yahveh said:—“Thou shalt have no other gods before me…. Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God.”39 In the pre-prophetic period the existence of other gods was recognised,40 but they were not to be worshipped by Yahveh’s people. Nor was any mercy to be shown to their followers, for Yahveh was “a man of war.”41 The God of Christianity inherited his jealousy. In the name of Christ wars were waged, not, it is true, for the purpose of exterminating unbelievers, but with a view to converting them to a faith which alone could save their souls from eternal perdition. So far as the aim of the persecution is concerned we can thus notice a distinct progress in humanity. But whilst the punishment which Yahveh inflicted upon the devotees of other gods was merely temporal and restricted to a comparatively small number of people—he took notice of such foreign nations only which came within his sphere of interests,—Christianity was a proselytising religion on a large scale, anxious to save but equally ready to condemn to everlasting torments all those who refused to accept it, nay even the milliards of men who had never heard of it. In this point Christianity was even more intolerant than the Koran itself, which does not absolutely confine salvation to the believers in Allah and his Prophet, but leaves some hope of it to Jews, Christians, and Sabæans, though all other infidels are hopelessly lost.42

That Muhammedanism has in course of time become the most fanatical of existing religions is due to political rather than religious causes. For a thousand years the Christian and Muhammedan world were engaged in a deadly contest, in which the former came off victorious. Most nations confessing Islam have either lost their independence or are on the verge of losing it. The memory of past defeats and cruelties, the present state of subjection or national weakness, the fear of the future—are all factors which must be taken into account when we judge of Moslem fanaticism. In its younger days Islam was undoubtedly, not only in theory but in practice, less intolerant than its great rival, Christian subjects of Muhammedan rulers being on the whole treated with consideration.43 Earlier travellers in Arabia also speak favourably of the tolerance of its inhabitants. Niebuhr was able to write:—“I never saw that the Arabs have any hatred for those of a different religion. They, however, regard them with much the same contempt with which Christians look upon the Jews in Europe…. The Mahometans in India appear to be even more tolerant than those of Arabia…. The Mussulmans in general do not persecute men of other religions, when they have nothing to fear from them, unless in the case of an intercourse of gallantry with a Mahometan woman.”44 In China the Muhammedans live amicably with the infidel, regarding their Buddhist neighbours “with a kindly feeling which it would be hard to find in a mixed community of Catholics and Evangelicals.”45 Muhammedanism looks upon the founder of Christianity with profound reverence, as one of the apostles of God, as the only man without sin. Christian writers, on the other hand, till the middle of the eighteenth century universally treated Muhammed as a false prophet and rank impostor. Luther called him “a devil, and a first-born child of Satan,” whilst Melanchthon was inclined to see in him both Gog and Magog.46