Where the members of a group have affection for each other, mutual aid will be regarded as a duty both because it will be practised habitually, and because a failure to afford it will call forth sympathetic resentment on behalf of the sufferer, But we need, here again, to look below the surface. Men may be induced to do good to their fellow-creatures not only by kindly feelings towards them, but by egoistic motives; and such motives, through having a share in making beneficence a tribal habit, at the same time influence the moral estimation in which it is held. The Basutos say that “the knife that is lent does not return alone to its master”—a kindness is never thrown away.264 Of the Asiniboin, a Siouan tribe, Mr. Dorsey states that “nothing is given except with a view to a gift in return.”265 When the Andaman Islanders make presents of the best that they possess, they tacitly understand that an equivalent should be rendered for every gift.266 Among the Makololo “the rich show kindness to the poor, in expectation of services.”267 In his description of the Greenlanders, Dr. Nansen observes that all the small communities depend for their existence on the law of mutual assistance, on the principle of common suffering and common enjoyment. “A hard life has taught the Eskimo that even if he is a skilful hunter and can, as a rule, manage to hold his own well enough, there may come times when, without the help of his fellows, he would have to succumb. It is better, therefore, for him to help in his turn.”268 That similar considerations largely lie at the bottom of the custom of mutual aid and charity both in uncivilised and more advanced communities, we may assume from the experience of human nature which we have acquired at home. And such motives must be particularly active in a society the members of which are so dependent on each other’s services and return-services, as is generally the case with a horde of savages.

Moreover, by niggardliness a person may expose himself to supernatural dangers, whereas liberality may entail supernatural reward. In Morocco nobody would like to eat in the presence of other people without sharing his meal with them; otherwise they might poison his food by looking at it with an evil eye. So also, if anybody shows a great liking for a thing belonging to you, wanting, for instance, to buy your gun or your horse, it is best to let him have it, since otherwise an accident is likely to happen to the object of his desire.269 But baneful energy, what the Moors call l-bas, is transferable not only by the eye, but by the voice. The poor and the needy have thus in their hands a powerful weapon and means of retaliation, the curse. The ancient Greeks believed that the beggar had his Erinys,270 his avenging demon, which was obviously only a personification of his curse.271 It is said in the Proverbs, “He that giveth unto the poor shall not lack: but he that hideth his eyes shall have many a curse.”272 The same idea is expressed in Ecclesiasticus:—“Turn not away thine eye from the needy, and give him none occasion to curse thee: for if he curse thee in the bitterness of his soul, his prayer shall be heard of him that made him…. A prayer out of a poor man’s mouth reacheth to the ears of God, and his judgment cometh speedily.”273 According to the Zoroastrian Yasts, the poor man who follows the good law, when wronged and deprived of his rights, invokes Mithra for help, with hands uplifted.274 Mr. Chapman states that, “though the Damaras are, generally speaking, great gluttons, they would not think of eating in the presence of any of their tribe without sharing their meal with all comers, for fear of being visited by a curse from their ‘Omu-kuru’ [or deity], and becoming impoverished.”275 There is all reason to suppose that in this case the curse of the deity was originally the curse, or evil wish, of an angry man.

A poor man is able not only to punish the uncharitable by means of his curses, but to reward the generous giver by means of his blessings. During my residence among the Andjra tribe in the mountains of Northern Morocco, our village was visited by a band of ambulant scribes who went from house to house, receiving presents and invoking blessings in return. When a goat was given them they asked God to increase the flocks of the giver, when money was given they asked God to increase his money, and so forth. Some of the villagers told me that it was a profitable bargain, since they would be tenfold repaid for their gifts through the blessings of the scribes. A town Moor who starts for a journey to the country generally likes to give a coin to one of the beggars who are sitting near the gate, so as to receive his blessings. It is said in Ecclesiasticus:—“Stretch thine hand unto the poor, that thy blessing may be perfected. A gift hath grace in the sight of every man living.”276 Whilst he that withholdeth corn shall be cursed by the people, “blessing shall be upon the head of him that selleth it.”277 Among the early Christians those who brought gifts for the poor were specially remembered in the prayers of the Church.278 Of the Nayādis of Malabar Mr. Iyer says that the purport and object of their prayers are, among other things, “that all the superior castes, who give them alms, may enjoy long life and prosperity.”279 In various cases the nature of the rewards promised for charitable acts suggests that they are due to the blessings of the recipient. According to Vasishtha, “through liberality man obtains all his desires, even longevity.”280 In the Yasts it is said that the children of a charitable man will thrive.281 According to Talmudic ideas, men acquire wealth for their children by distributing alms among the poor.282 Considering how widely spread is the belief in the efficacy of curses and blessings, there can be little doubt that charity and generosity are connected with this belief in many cases where no such connection has been noticed by the European visitor.

The curses and blessings of the poor partly account for the fact that charity has come to be regarded as a religious duty. Originally, it is true, they had not the character of an appeal to a god, but were believed to possess a purely magical power, independent of any superhuman will. This belief is rooted in the close association between the wish, more particularly the spoken wish, and the idea of its fulfilment. The wish is looked upon in the light of energy which may be transferred—by material contact, or by the eye, or by means of speech—to the person concerned, and then becomes a fact. This process, however, is not taken quite as a matter of course; there is always some mystery about it. Hence the words of a holy man, a magician or priest, are considered more efficacious than those of ordinary mortals. The Australian natives believe that the curse of a potent magician will kill at the distance of a hundred miles. Among the Maoris “the anathema of a priest is regarded as a thunderbolt that an enemy cannot escape.”283 Among the Gallas no man will under any circumstances slay either a priest or a wizard, from a dread of his dying curse.284 Some of the Rabbis maintained that a curse uttered by a scholar is unfailing in its effect, even if undeserved.285 In Muhammedan countries the curses of saints or shereefs are particularly feared. According to the Laws of Manu, a Brâhmana “may punish his foes by his own power alone,” speech being his weapon.286 But though a curse may derive particular potency from the person who utters it, it is by no means ineffective even in the mouth of an ordinary man.287 In the Old Testament children are forbidden to curse their parents,288 subjects their rulers,289 men their god;290 and according to Talmudic conceptions, a curse should not be regarded lightly however ignorant be the person who utters it.291 All that is required is that the words should possess that supernatural quality which alone can bring about the result desired, and this quality may be inherent in the curse quite independently of the person who utters it. It is inherent in certain mystic formulas or spells and in the invocations of some spirit or god. The will of the invoked being is not considered at all; his name is simply brought in to give the curse that mystic efficacy which the plain word lacks. Thus both in the Old Testament292 and in the Talmud293 there are traces of the ancient idea that the name of the Lord might be used with advantage in any curse however undeserved. But with the deepening of the religious sentiment this idea had to be given up. A righteous and mighty god cannot agree to be a mere tool in the hand of a wicked curser. Hence the curse comes to be looked upon in the light of a prayer, which is not fulfilled if undeserved; as it is said in the Proverbs, “the curse causeless shall not come.”294 And the same is the case with the blessing. Whilst in ancient days Jacob could take away his brother’s blessing by deceit,295 the efficacy of a blessing was later on limited by moral considerations.296 The Psalmist declares that only the offspring of the righteous can be blessed;297 and according to the Apostolic Constitutions, “although a widow who eateth and is filled from the wicked, pray for them, she shall not be heard.”298 On the other hand, curses and blessings, when well deserved, continued to draw down calamity or prosperity upon their objects, by inducing God to put them into effect; this idea prevails both in post-exilic Judaism and in Muhammedanism,299 and underlies the Christian oath and benediction. The final, but not the original view was that, as an uncharitable man deserves to be punished and a charitable man merits reward, the curses and blessings of the poor will naturally be heard by a righteous God. “The Lord will plead their cause.”300

The chief cause, however, of the extraordinary stress which the higher religions put on the duty of charity seems to lie in the connection between almsgiving and sacrifice. When food is offered as a tribute to a god, the god is supposed to enjoy its spiritual part only, whilst the substance of it is left behind and is eaten by the poor. And when the offering is continued in ceremonial survival in spite of the growing conviction that, after all, the deity does not need and cannot profit by it,301 the poor become the natural heirs of the god, and the almsgiver inherits the merit of the sacrificer. The chief virtue of the act, then, lies in the self-abnegation of the donor, and its efficacy is measured by the “sacrifice” which it costs him.

Many instances may be quoted of sacrificial food being left for the poor or being distributed among them. At Scillus, where Xenophon had built an altar and a temple to Artemis and a sacrifice was afterwards made every year, the goddess supplied the poor people living there in tents with “barley-meal, bread, wine, sweetmeats, and a share of the victims offered from the sacred pastures, and of those caught in hunting.”302 According to Yasna, sacrifices to Mazda were given to his poor.303 In ancient Arabia the poor were allowed to partake of the meal-offering which was laid before the god Uqaiçir.304 In Zinder, in the Soudan, there are some trees, regarded as divine, to which annual offerings of bullocks, sheep, and so forth, are made, “though the poor of the country get the benefit of them.”305 In Morocco even animals which are killed as ʿâr—a sacrifice embodying a conditional curse—on departed saints or living people, with a view to compelling them to grant a request, are commonly eaten by the poor, though nobody else would dare to partake of them.

In other cases we find that almsgiving is itself regarded as a form of sacrifice, or takes the place of it. In the sacred books of India the two things are repeatedly mentioned side by side. “The householder offers sacrifices, the householder practises austerities, the householder distributes gifts.”306 Of a Brâhmana who has completed his studentship it is said, “Let him always practise, according to his ability, with a cheerful heart, the duty of liberality, both by sacrifices and by charitable works, if he finds a worthy recipient for his gifts.”307 “In the Krita age the chief virtue is declared to be the performance of austerities, in the Tretâ divine knowledge, in the Dvâpara the performance of sacrifices, in the Kali liberality alone.”308 In the Egyptian ‘Book of the Dead’ the soul, on approaching to the gods who are in the Tuat, pleads:—“I have done that which man prescribeth and that which pleaseth the gods. I have propitiated the god with that which he loveth. I have given bread to the hungry, water to the thirsty, clothes to the naked, a boat to the shipwrecked. I have made oblations to the gods and funeral offerings to the departed.”309 In the Zoroastrian prayer Ahuna-Vairya, to which great efficacy is ascribed, it is said, “He who relieves the poor makes Ahura king.”310 In the Koran almsgiving is often mentioned in connection with prayer;311 and the Zakât, or alms prescribed by law, is regarded by the Muhammedans as a fundamental part of their religion, hence infidels, who cannot perform acceptable worship, have nothing to do with these alms.312 Among the Muhammedans of India it is common for men and women to vow “that when what they desire shall come to pass, they will, in the name of God, the Prophet, his companions, or some wullee, present offerings and oblations.” One of these offerings, called “an offering unto God,” consists in preparing particular victuals, and in “distributing them among friends and the poor, and giving any sort of grain, a sacrificed sheep, clothes, or ready-money in alms to the indigent.”313 When the destruction of the Temple with its altar filled the Jews with alarm as they thought of their unatoned sins, Johanan ben Zakkai comforted them by saying, “You have another means of atonement, as powerful as the altar, and that is the work of charity, for it is said: ‘I desired mercy, and not sacrifice.’”314 Many other passages show how closely the Jews associated almsgiving with sacrifice. “He that giveth alms sacrificeth praise.”315 “As sin-offering makes atonement for Israel, so alms for the Gentiles.”316 “Almsdeeds are more meritorious than all sacrifices.”317 An orphan is called an “altar to God.”318 And as a sacrificer should be a person of a godly character, so it is better to perish by famine than to receive an oblation from the ungodly.319 Alms were systematically collected in the synagogues, and officers were appointed to make the collection.320 So, also, among the early Christians the collection of alms for the relief of the poor was an act of the Church life itself. Almsgiving took place in public worship, nay formed itself a part of worship. Gifts of natural produce, the so-called oblations, were connected with the celebration of the Lord’s Supper. They were offered to God as the first-fruits of the creatures (primitiæ creaturarum), and a prayer was said:—“O Lord, accept also the offerings of those who to-day bring an offering, as Thou didst accept the offerings of righteous Abel, the offering of our father Abraham, the incense of Zachariah, the alms of Cornelius, and the two mites of the widow.” These oblations were not only used for the Lord’s Supper, but they formed the chief means for the relief of the poor. They were regarded as sacrifice in the most special sense; and, as no unclean gift might be laid upon the Lord’s altar, profit made from sinful occupations was not accepted as an oblation, neither were the oblations of impenitent sinners.321 The author of the Epistle to the Hebrews speaks of almsgiving as a sacrifice of thanksgiving which continues after the Jewish altar has been done away with.322 Like sacrifice, almsgiving is connected with prayer, as a means of making the prayer efficacious and furnishing it with wings; the angel said to Cornelius, “Thy prayers and thine alms are come up for a memorial before God.”323 When the Christians were reproached for having no sacrifices, Justin wrote, “We have been taught that the only honour that is worthy of Him is not to consume by fire what He has brought into being for our sustenance, but to use it for ourselves and those who need.”324 So, also, Irenæus observes that sacrifices are not abolished in the New Testament, though their form is indeed altered, because they are no longer offered by slaves, but by freemen, of which just the oblations are the proof.325 And God has enjoined on Christians this sacrifice of oblations, not because He needs them, but “in order that themselves might be neither unfruitful nor ungrateful.”326 St. Augustine says, “The sacrifice of the Christians is the alms bestowed upon the poor.”327

The objection will perhaps be raised that I have here tried to trace back the most beautiful of all religious virtues to a magical and ritualistic origin without taking into due account the benevolent feelings attributed to the Deity. But in the present connection I have not had to show why charity, like other human duties, has been sanctioned by religious beliefs, but why, in the ethics of the higher religions, it has attained the same supreme importance as is otherwise attached only to devotional exercises. And this is certainly a problem by itself, for which the belief in a benevolent god affords no adequate explanation. That the religious duty of charity is not merely an outcome of the altruistic sentiment is well illustrated by the fact that Zoroastrianism, whilst exalting almsgiving to the rank of a cardinal virtue, at the same time excludes the sick man from the community of the faithful until he has been cured and cleansed according to prescribed rites.328