{"collection":"folklore-oral-tradition","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_65720/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_65720","id":"gutenberg_65720","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/65720","summary":null,"tags":["Animal welfare","Animals -- Anecdotes","Animals -- Folklore","Category: Archaeology & Anthropology","Category: History - Ancient","Category: Philosophy & Ethics","Religions"],"text":"Note: Project Gutenberg also has an HTML version of this\n file which includes the original illustrations.\n See 65720-h.htm or 65720-h.zip:\n (https://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/65720/pg65720-images.html)\n or\n (https://www.gutenberg.org/files/65720/65720-h.zip)\n\n\n Images of the original pages are available through\n Internet Archive. See\n https://archive.org/details/cu31924028931629\n\n\nTranscriber\u2019s note:\n\n Text that was in italics is enclosed by underscores (_italics_).\n\n\n\n\n\nTHE PLACE OF ANIMALS IN HUMAN THOUGHT\n\n\n------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\n\n[Illustration:\n\n THE EMPEROR AKBAR personally directing the tying up of a wild\n Elephant.\n Tempera painting by Abu\u2019l Fazl. (1597-98.)\n Photographed for this work from the original in the India Museum.]\n\n\n------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\n\n\n\nTHE PLACE OF ANIMALS IN HUMAN THOUGHT\n\nby\n\nTHE COUNTESS EVELYN MARTINENGO CESARESCO\n\n\n \u201cOn ne connait rien que par bribes.\u201d\u2014M. BERTHELOT\n\n\n\n\n\n\nNew York\nCharles Scribner\u2019S Sons\n153-157 Fifth Avenue\n1909\n\n\n------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\n\n\n\n \u201cC\u2019est l\u2019\u00e9ternel secret qui veut \u00eatre gard\u00e9.\u201d\n\n\n\n\n (_All rights reserved._)\n\n\n\n\n------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\n\n\n\n PREFACE\n\n\nAT the Congress held at Oxford in September, 1908, those who heard Count\nGoblet d\u2019Alviella\u2019s address on the \u201cMethod and Scope of the History of\nReligions\u201d must have felt the thrill which announces the stirring of new\nideas, when, in a memorable passage, the speaker asked \u201cwhether the\npsychology of animals has not equally some relation to the science of\nreligions?\u201d At any rate, these words came to me as a confirmation of the\nbelief that the study which has engaged my attention for several years,\nis rapidly advancing towards recognition as a branch of the inquiry into\nwhat man is himself. The following chapters on the different answers\ngiven to this question when extended from man to animals, were intended,\nfrom the first, to form a whole, not complete, indeed, but perhaps\nfairly comprehensive. I offer them now to the public with my warmest\nacknowledgments to the scholars whose published works and, in some\ncases, private hints have made my task possible. I also wish to thank\nthe Editor of the _Contemporary Review_ for his kindness in allowing me\nto reprint the part of this book which appeared first in that\nperiodical.\n\nSome chapters refer rather to practice than to psychology, and others to\nmyths and fancies rather than to conscious speculation, but all these\nsubjects are so closely connected that it would be difficult to divide\ntheir treatment by a hard-and-fast line.\n\nWith regard to the illustrations, I am glad to bear grateful testimony\nto the facilities afforded me by the Directors of the British Museum,\nthe Victoria and Albert Museum, the Hague Gallery, the National Museum\nat Copenhagen, the Egypt Exploration Fund, and by the Secretary of State\nfor India. H.E. Monsieur Camille Barr\u00e8re, French Ambassador at Rome, has\nallowed me to include a photograph of his remarkably fine specimen of a\nbronze cat; and I have obtained the sanction of Monsieur Marcel\nDieulafoy for the reproduction of one of Madame Dieulafoy\u2019s photographs\nwhich appeared in his magnificent work on \u201cL\u2019Art Antique de la Perse.\u201d\nMessrs. Macmillan & Co., Limited, and Messrs. Chapman and Hall, Limited,\nhave permitted photographs to be taken of two plates in books published\nby them. Finally, Dr. C. Waldstein and Mr. E. B. Havell have been most\nkind in helping me to give the correct description of some of the\nplates.\n\nSAL\u00d2, LAGO DI GARDA.\n\n _February 15, 1909._\n\n\n------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\n\n\n\n CONTENTS\n\n\n I\n\n PAGE\n SOUL-WANDERING AS IT CONCERNS ANIMALS 11\n\n\n II\n\n THE GREEK CONCEPTION OF ANIMALS 22\n\n\n III\n\n ANIMALS AT ROME 44\n\n\n IV\n\n PLUTARCH THE HUMANE 62\n\n\n V\n\n MAN AND HIS BROTHER 84\n\n\n VI\n\n THE FAITH OF IRAN 113\n\n\n VII\n\n ZOROASTRIAN ZOOLOGY 141\n\n\n VIII\n\n A RELIGION OF RUTH 166\n\n\n IX\n\n LINES FROM THE ADI GRANTH 201\n\n\n X\n\n THE HEBREW CONCEPTION OF ANIMALS 205\n\n\n XI\n\n \u201cA PEOPLE LIKE UNTO YOU\u201d 221\n\n\n XII\n\n THE FRIEND OF THE CREATURE 245\n\n\n XIII\n\n VERSIPELLES 265\n\n\n XIV\n\n THE HORSE AS HERO 281\n\n\n XV\n\n ANIMALS IN EASTERN FICTION 306\n\n\n XVI\n\n THE GROWTH OF MODERN IDEAS ABOUT ANIMALS 336\n\n INDEX 367\n\n\n------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\n\n\n\n ILLUSTRATIONS\n\n\n THE EMPEROR AKBAR PERSONALLY DIRECTING THE _Frontispiece_\n TYING UP OF A WILD ELEPHANT. Tempera painting\n in the \u201cAkbar Namah,\u201d by Abu\u2019l Fazl (1597-98).\n India Museum. _Photographed for this work._\n\n DEER WORSHIPPING THE WHEEL OF THE LAW. Tope of Sanchi, drawn 11\n by Lieut.-Col. Maisey\n _From Fergusson\u2019s \u201cTree and Serpent Worship.\u201d By\n permission of the India Office._\n\n THE BUDDHISTIC TIGER 21\n _From a painting on silk by Ko-T\u014d in the British Museum.\n Photographed for this work.\n In Japanese Buddhism the Tiger is the type of Wisdom._\n\n ORPHEUS 32\n _Fresco found at Pompeii._ (_Sommer._)\n\n STELE WITH CAT AND BIRD 40\n _Athens Museum._\n\n CAPITOLINE SHE-WOLF 44\n (_Bruckmann._) Bronze statue. Early Etruscan style.\n The twins are modern.\n\n LION BEING LED FROM THE ARENA BY A SLAVE 47\n _From the mosaic pavement of a Roman villa at Nennig._\n\n BACCHUS RIDING ON A PANTHER 74\n _Mosaic found at Pompeii._ (_Sommer._)\n\n BRONZE STATUE OF AN EGYPTIAN CAT 82\n _From the Collection of H.E. Monsieur Camille Barr\u00e8re,\n French Ambassador at Rome_\n\n REINDEER BROWSING. OLDER STONE AGE 86\n _Found in a cave at Thayngen in Switzerland._\n\n HORSE DRAWING DISC OF THE SUN. OLDER BRONZE AGE 86\n _National Museum at Copenhagen._\n\n HATHOR COW 102\n _Found in 1906 by Dr. \u00c9douard Naville at Deir-el-bahari.\n By permission of the Egypt Exploration Fund._\n\n WILD GOATS AND YOUNG 108\n _Assyrian Relief. British Museum._ (_Mansell._)\n\n ASSYRIAN GOD CARRYING ANTELOPE AND WHEAT-EAR 116\n _British Museum._ (_Mansell._)\n\n COUNTING CATTLE 128\n _Egyptian Fresco. British Museum._ (_Mansell._)\n\n KING FIGHTING GRIFFIN (\u201cBAD ANIMAL\u201d) 142\n _Relief in Palace of Darius at Persepolis. Photographed\n by Jane Dieulafoy. From \u201cL\u2019Art Antique de la Perse.\u201d By\n permission of M. Marcel Dieulafoy._\n\n THE REAL DOG OF IRAN 152\n _Bronze Statuette found at Susa. Louvre. From Perrot\u2019s\n \u201cHistory of Art in Ancient Persia.\u201d By permission of\n Messrs. Chapman & Hall, Ltd._\n\n BUDDHA PACIFYING AN INTOXICATED ELEPHANT WHICH HAD BEEN SENT 188\n TO DESTROY HIM. THE ELEPHANT STOOPS IN ADORATION\n Gr\u00e6co-Buddhist sculpture from a ruined monastery at\n Takt-i-Bahi. _India Museum. Photographed for this work._\n\n RECLINING BULL 192\n _Ancient Southern Indian sculpture. From a photograph in\n the India Museum._\n\n WILD BULLS AND TAMED BULLS 201\n _Reliefs on two gold cups found in a tomb at Vapheio near\n Amyclae. Fifteenth century B.C. (possibly earlier). From\n Schuckhardt\u2019s \u201cSchliemann\u2019s Excavations.\u201d By permission of\n Messrs. Macmillan & Co., Ltd._\n\n THE GARDEN OF EDEN 208\n _By Rubens. Hague Gallery._ (_Bruckmann._)\n\n GENESIS VIII. 212\n _Loggie di Raffaello. In the Vatican. Drawn by N.\n Consoni._\n\n DANIEL AND THE LIONS 216\n _From an early Christian Sarcophagus in S. Vitale,\n Ravenna._ (_Alinari._)\n\n \u201cAN INDIAN ORPHEUS\u201d 222\n _Inlaid marble work panel originally surmounting a doorway\n in the Great Hall of Audience in the Mogul Palace at Delhi\n (about 1650). Photographed for this work from a painting\n by a native artist in the India Museum. Imitated from a\n painting by Raphael._\n\n MOSLEM BEGGAR FEEDING DOGS AT CONSTANTINOPLE 226\n _From life._\n\n ST. JEROME EXTRACTING A THORN FROM THE PAW OF A LION 253\n _By Hubert van Eyck. Naples Museum._ (_Anderson._)\n\n ST. EUSTACE (OR ST. HUBERT) AND THE STAG 256\n _By Vittore Pisano. National Gallery._ (_Hanfst\u00e4ngl._)\n\n \u201cLE MENEUR DES LOUPS\u201d 276\n _Designed and drawn by Maurice Sand._\n\n THE ASSYRIAN HORSE 284\n _From a relief in the British Museum._ (_Mansell._)\n\n ARABIAN HORSE OF THE SAHARA 288\n _From life._\n\n THE BANYAN DEER 328\n _From \u201cSt\u00fbpa of Bharhut.\u201d By General Cunningham. By\n permission of the India Office._ (_Griggs._)\n\n EGYPTIAN OFFICIAL, WITH HIS WIFE, ENGAGED IN FOWLING IN THE 330\n PAPYRUS SWAMP. HIS HUNTING CAT HAS SEIZED THREE BIRDS.\n _Mural painting in British Museum._ (_Mansell._)\n\n ASSYRIAN LION AND LIONESS IN PARADISE PARK 336\n _British Museum._ (_Mansell._) The King\u2019s reservations\n for big game were called \u201cparadises.\u201d\n\n LAMBS 338\n _Relief on a fifth century tomb at Ravenna._ (_Alinari._)\n\n \u201cIL BUON PASTORE\u201d 346\n _Mosaic in the Mausoleum of Galla Placidia at Ravenna._\n\n\n------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\n\n\n\n[Illustration:\n\n LT COL. MAISEY DEL. W. BRIGGS, LITH.\n DEER WORSHIPPING THE WHEEL OF THE LAW.\n Tope of Sanchi.]\n\n\n\n\n------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\n\n\n\n The Place of Animals in Human Thought\n\n\n\n\n I\n\n SOUL-WANDERING AS IT CONCERNS ANIMALS\n\n\nIN one of these enigmatic sayings which launch the mind on boundless\nseas, Cardinal Newman remarked that we know less of animals than of\nangels. A large part of the human race explains the mystery by what is\ncalled transmigration, metempsychosis, _Samsara_, _Seelenwanderung_; the\nlast a word so compact and picturesque that it is a pity not to imitate\nit in English. The intelligibility of ideas depends much on whether\nwords touch the spring of the picture-making wheel of the brain;\n\u201cSoul-wandering\u201d does this.\n\nAncient as the theory is, we ought to remember what is commonly\nforgotten\u2014that somewhere in the distance we catch sight of a time when\nit was unknown, at least in the sense of a procession of the soul from\ndeath to life through animal forms. Traces of it are to be found in the\nSutras and it is thoroughly developed in the Upanishads, but if the\nSutras belong to the thirteenth century and the Upanishads to about the\nyear 700 before Christ, a long road still remains to the Vedas with\ntheir fabulous antiquity.\n\nIn the Vedas it is stated that the soul may wander, even during sleep,\nand that it will surely have a further existence after death, but there\nis nothing to show that in this further existence it will take the form\nof an animal. Man will be substantially man, able to feel the same\npleasures as his prototype on earth; but if he goes to a good place,\nexempt from the same pains. What, then, was the Vedic opinion of\nanimals? On the whole, it is safe to assume that the authors of the\nVedic chants believed that animals, like men, entered a soul-world in\nwhich they preserved their identity. The idea of funeral sacrifices, as\nexemplified in these earliest records, was that of sending some one\nbefore. The horse and the goat that were immolated at a Vedic funeral\nwere intended to go and announce the coming of the man\u2019s soul. Wherever\nvictims were sacrificed at funerals, they were originally meant to do\nsomething in the after-life; hence they must have had souls. The origin\nof the Suttee was the wish that the wife should accompany her husband,\nand among primitive peoples animals were sacrificed because the dead man\nmight have need of them. Not very long ago an old Irish woman, on being\nremonstrated with for having killed her dead husband\u2019s horse, replied\nwith the words, \u201cDo you think I would let my man go on foot in the next\nworld?\u201d On visiting that wonderfully emotion-awakening relic, the Viking\nship at Christiania, I was interested to see the bones of the Chief\u2019s\nhorses and dogs as well as his own. Did the Norsemen, passionately\ndevoted to the sea as they were, suppose, that not only the animals, but\nalso the vessel in which they buried their leader, would have a ghostly\nsecond existence? I have no doubt that they did. Apart from what hints\nmay be gleaned from the Vedas, there is an inherent probability against\nthe early Aryans, any more than the modern Hindu, believing that the\nsoul of man or beast comes suddenly to a full stop. To destroy spirit\nseems to the Asiatic mind as impossible as to destroy matter seems to\nthe biologist.\n\nLeaving the Vedas and coming down to the Sutras and Upanishads, we\ndiscover the transmigration of souls at first suggested and then clearly\ndefined. Whence came it? Was it the belief of those less civilised\nnations whom the Aryans conquered, and did they, in accepting it from\nthem, give it a moral complexion by investing it with the highly ethical\nsignificance of an upward or downward progress occasioned by the merits\nor demerits of the soul in a previous state of being?\n\nA large portion of mankind finds it as difficult to conceive a sudden\nbeginning as a sudden end of spirit. We forget difficulties which we\nare not in the habit of facing; those who have tried to face this one\nhave generally stumbled over it. Even Dante with his subtle\npsychophysiological reasoning hardly persuades. The ramifications of a\nlife before stretched far: \u201cWhosoever believes in the fabled prior\nexistence of souls, let him be anathema,\u201d thundered the Council of\nConstantinople, A.D. 543. Which shows that many Christians shared\nOrigen\u2019s views on this subject.\n\nFrom the moment that soul-wandering became, in India, a well-established\ndoctrine, some three thousand years ago, the conception of the status of\nanimals was perfectly clear. \u201cWise people,\u201d says the Bhagavad Gita, \u201csee\nthe same soul (Atman) in the Brahman, in worms and insects, in the\noutcasts, in the dog and the elephant, in beasts, cows, gadflies, and\ngnats.\u201d Here we have the doctrine succinctly expounded, and in spite of\nsubtleties introduced by later philosophers (such as that of the\noutstanding self) the exposition holds good to this day as a statement\nof the faith of India. It also described the doctrine of Pythagoras,\nwhich ancient traditions asserted that he brought from Egypt, where no\nsuch doctrine ever existed. Pythagoras is still commonly supposed to\nhave borrowed from Egypt; but it is strange that a single person should\ncontinue to hold an opinion against which so much evidence has been\nproduced; especially as it is surely very easy to explain the tradition\nby interpreting Egypt to have stood for \u201cthe East\u201d in common parlance,\nexactly as in Europe a tribe of low caste Indians came to be called\ngypsies or Egyptians. Pythagoras believed that he had been one of the\nTrojan heroes, whose shield he knew at a glance in the Temple of Juno\nwhere it was hung up. After him, Empedocles thought that he had passed\nthrough many forms, amongst others those of a bird and a fish.\nPythagoras and his fire-spent disciple belong to times which seem almost\nnear if judged by Indian computations: yet they are nebulous figures;\nthey seem to us, and perhaps they seemed to men who lived soon after\nthem, more like mysterious, half Divine bearers of a word than men of\nflesh and blood. But Plato, who is real to us and who has influenced so\nprofoundly modern thought, Plato took their theory and displayed it to\nthe Western world as the most logical explanation of the mystery of\nbeing.\n\nThe theory of transmigration did not commend itself to Roman thinkers,\nthough it was admirably stated by a Roman poet:\u2014\n\n \u201cOmnia mutantur: nihil interit. Errat, et illinc\n Huc venit, hinc illuc, et quoslibet occupat artus\n Spiritus, eque feris, humana in corpora transit,\n Inque feras noster, nec tempore deperit ullo.\n Utque novis facilis signatur cera figuris,\n Nec manet ut fuerat, nec formas servat easdem,\n Sed tamen ipsa eadem est: animam sic semper eandem\n Esse.\u201d\n\nThis description is as accurate as it is elegant; but it remains a\nquestion whether Ovid had anything deeper than a folk-lorist\u2019s interest\nin transmigration joined to a certain sympathy which it often inspires\nin those who are fond of animals. The enthusiastic folk-lorist finds\nhimself believing in all sorts of things at odd times. Lucian\u2019s admirers\nat Rome doubtless enjoyed his ridiculous story of a Pythagorean cock\nwhich had been a man, a woman, a prince, a subject, a fish, a horse and\na frog, and which summed up its varied experience in the judgment that\nman was the most wretched and deplorable of all creatures, all others\npatiently grazing within the enclosures of Nature while man alone breaks\nout and strays beyond those safe limits. This story was retold with\ngreat gusto by Erasmus. The Romans were a people with inclusive\nprejudices, and they were not likely to welcome a narrowing of the gulf\nbetween themselves and the beasts of the field. Cicero\u2019s dictum that,\nwhile man looks before and after, analysing the past and forecasting the\nfuture, animals have only the perception of the present, does not go to\nthe excess of those later theorists who, like Descartes, reduced animals\nto automata, but it goes farther than scientific writers on the subject\nwould now allow to be justified.\n\nIt is worth while asking, what was it that so powerfully attracted Plato\nin the theory of transmigration? I think that Plato, who made a science\nof the moral training of the mind, was attracted by soul-wandering as a\nscheme of soul-evolution. Instead of looking at it as a matter of fact\nwhich presupposed an ethical root (which is the Indian view), he looked\nupon it as an ethical root which presupposed a matter of fact. He was\ninfluenced a little, no doubt, by the desire to get rid of Hades, \u201can\nunpleasant place,\u201d as he says, \u201cand not true,\u201d for which he felt a\npeculiar antipathy, but he was influenced far more by seeing in\nsoul-wandering a rational theory of the ascent of the soul, a Darwinism\nof the spirit. \u201cWe are plants,\u201d he said, \u201cnot of earth but of heaven,\u201d\nbut it takes the plants of heaven a long time to grow.\n\nWe ought to admire the Indian mind, which first seized the idea of time\nin relation to development and soared out of the cage of history\n(veritable or imaginary) into liberal \u00e6ons to account for one perfect\nsoul, one plant that had accomplished its heavenly destiny. But though\nthe Indian seer argues with Plato that virtue has its own reward (not so\nmuch an outward reward of improved environment as an inward reward of\napproximation to perfection), he disagrees with the Greek philosopher\nwith regard to the practical result of all this as it affects any of us\npersonally. Plato found the theory of transmigration entirely consoling;\nthe Indian finds it entirely the reverse. Can the reason be that Plato\ntook the theory as a beautiful symbol while the Indian takes it as a\ndire reality?\n\nThe Hindu is as much convinced that the soul is re-born in different\nanimals as we are that children are born of women. He is convinced of\nit, but he is not consoled by it. Let us reflect a little: does not one\nlife give us time to get somewhat tired of it; how should we feel after\nfifteen hundred lives? The wandering Jew has never been thought an\nobject of envy, but the wandering soul has a wearier lot; it knows the\nsorrows of all creation.\n\n \u201cHow many births are past I cannot tell,\n How many yet may be no man may say,\n But this alone I know and know full well,\n That pain and grief embitter all the way.\u201d[1]\n\nFootnote 1:\n\n \u201cFolk-Songs of Southern India,\u201d by Charles E. Gover, a fascinating but\n little-known work.\n\nRather than this\u2014death. How far deeper the gloom revealed by these lines\nfrom the folk-songs of an obscure Dravidian tribe living in the Nilgiri\nHills, than any which cultured Western pessimism can show! Compared with\nthem, the despairing cry of Baudelaire seems almost a hymn of joy:\u2014\n\n \u201c\u2019Tis death that cheers and gives us strength to live,\n \u2019Tis life\u2019s chief aim, sole hope that can abide,\n Our wine, elixir, glad restorative\n Whence we gain heart to walk till eventide.\n\n Through snow, through frost, through tempests it can give\n Light that pervades th\u2019 horizon dark and wide;\n The inn which makes secure when we arrive\n Our food and sleep, all labour laid aside.\n\n It is an Angel whose magnetic hand\n Gives quiet sleep and dreams of extasy,\n And strews a bed for naked folk and poor.\n\n \u2019Tis the god\u2019s prize, the mystic granary,\n The poor man\u2019s purse and his old native land,\n And of the unknown skies the opening door.\u201d\n\nFolk-songs are more valuable aids than the higher literature of nations\nin an inquiry as to what they really believe. The religion of the\nDravidian mountaineers is purely Aryan (though their race is not); their\nsongs may be taken, therefore, as Aryan documents. They are particularly\ncharacteristic of the dual belief as to a future state which is, to this\nday, widely diffused. How firmly these people believe in transmigration\nthe quatrain quoted above bears witness; yet they also believe that\nsouls are liable to immediate judgment. This contradiction is explained\nby the theory that a long interval may elapse between death and\nre-incarnation and that during this interval the soul meets with a\nreward or punishment. To say the truth, the explanation sounds a rather\nlame one. Is it not more likely that the idea of immediate judgment,\nwherever it appears, is a relic of Vedic belief which has to be\nreconciled, as best it can, with the later idea of transmigration? The\nDravidian songs are remarkable for their strong inculcation of regard\nfor animals. In their impressive funeral dirge which is a public\nconfession of the dead man\u2019s sins, it is owned that he killed a snake, a\nlizard and a harmless frog. And that not mere lifetaking was the point\ncondemned, is clearly proved by the further admission that the\ndelinquent put the young ox to the plough before it was strong enough to\nwork. In a Dravidian vision of Heaven and Hell certain of the Blest are\nperceived milking their happy kine, and it is explained that these are\nthey who, when they saw the lost kine of neighbour or stranger in the\nhills, drove them home nor left them to perish from tiger or wolf.\nSurely in this, as in the Jewish command which it so closely resembles,\nwe may read mercy to beast as well as to man.\n\nIt is sometimes said that there is as much cruelty to animals in India\nas anywhere. Some of this cruelty (as it seems to us) is caused directly\nby reluctance to take life; of the other sort, caused by callousness, it\ncan be only said that the human brute grows under every sky. One great\nfact is admitted: children are not cruel in India: Victor Hugo could not\nhave written his terrible poem about the tormented toad in India. I\nthink it a mistake to attribute the Indian sentiment towards animals\nwholly to transmigration; nevertheless, it may be granted that such a\nbelief fosters such a sentiment. Indeed, if it were allowable to look\nupon the religion of the many as the morality of the one, it would seem\nnatural to suppose that the theory of transmigration was invented by\nsome creature-loving sage on purpose to give men a fellow-feeling for\ntheir humbler relations. Even so, many a bit of innocent folk-fable has\nserved as \u201cprotective colouration\u201d to beast or bird: the legend of the\nrobin who covered up the Babes in the Wood; the legend of the swallow\nwho did some little service to the crucified Saviour, and how many other\nsuch tender fancies. Who invented them, and why?\n\nIf Plato had wished simply to find a happy substitute for Hades, he\nmight have found it\u2014had he looked far enough\u2014in the Vedic kingdom of the\nsun, radiant and eternal, where sorrow is not, where the crooked are\nmade straight, ruled over by Yama the first man to die and the first to\nlive again, death\u2019s bright angel, lord of the holy departed\u2014how far from\nPluto and the \u201cTartarean grey.\u201d It would not have provided a solution to\nthe mystery of being, but it might have made many converts, for after a\nhappy heaven all antiquity thirsted.\n\n[Illustration:\n\n THE BUDDHISTIC TIGER.\n British Museum.\n (_From a painting on silk by Ko-T\u014d._)]\n\nIt is not sure if the scheme of existence mapped out in soul-wandering\nis really more consoling for beast than for man. It is a poor compliment\nto some dogs to say that they have been some men. Then again, it is\nrecognised as easier for a dog to be good than for a man to be good, but\nafter a dog has passed his little life in well-doing he dies with the\nprospect that his spirit, which by his merits becomes again a man, will\nbe sent down, by that man\u2019s transgressions, to the society of jackals.\nAccording to the doctrine of soul-wandering, animals are, in brief, the\nPurgatory of men. Just as prayers for the dead (which means, prayers for\nthe remission to them of a merited period of probation) represent an\nimportant branch of Catholic observances, so prayers for the remission\nof a part of the time which souls would otherwise spend in animal forms\nconstitute the most vital and essential feature in Brahmanical worship.\n\nOf course, this is also true of Buddhism, to which many people think\nthat the theory of soul-wandering belongs exclusively, unmindful that\nthe older faith has it as well. The following hymn, used in Thibet,\nshows how accurately the name of Purgatory applies to the animal\nincarnations of the soul:\u2014\n\n \u201cIf we [human beings] have amassed any merit\n In the three states,\n We rejoice in this good fortune when we consider\n The unfortunate lot of the poor [lower] animals,\n Piteously engulphed in the ocean of misery;\n On their behalf, we now turn the Wheel of Religion.\u201d\n\nThere are grounds for thinking that the purgatorial view of animals was\npart of the religious beliefs of the highly civilised native races of\nSouth America. The Christianised Indians are very gentle in their ways\ntowards animals, while among the savage tribes in Central Peru (which\nare probably degraded off-shoots from the people of the Incas) the\nbelief still survives that good men become monkeys or jaguars, and bad\nmen parrots or reptiles. For the rest, soul-wandering has an enduring\nfascination for the human mind.\n\nIn January, 1907, Leandro Improta, a young man well furnished with\nworldly goods, shot himself in a caf\u00e9 at Naples. His pocket was found to\ncontain a letter in which he said that the act was prompted by a desire\nto study metempsychosis; much had been written on the subject, but it\npleased him better to discover than to talk: \u201cso I determined to die and\nsee whether I shall be re-born in the form of some animal. It would be\ndelightful to return to this world as a lion or a rat.\u201d It might not\nprove delightful after all!\n\n\n------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\n\n\n\n II\n\n THE GREEK CONCEPTION OF ANIMALS\n\n\n\u201cTHE heralds brought a sacred hecatomb to the gods through the city and\nthe long-haired Grecians were assembled under the shady grove of\nfar-darting Apollo, but when they had tasted the upper flesh and had\ndrawn it out, having divided the shares, they made a delightful feast.\u201d\nIn this description the poet of the Odyssey not only calls up a\nwonderfully vivid picture of an ancient f\u00eate-day, but also shows the\nhabit of mind of the Homeric Greeks in regard to animal food. They were\nvoracious eaters\u2014although the frequent reference to feasts ought not to\nmake us suppose that meat was their constant diet; rather the reverse,\nfor then it would not have been so highly rated. But when they had the\nchance, they certainly did eat with unfastidious copiousness and\nunashamed enjoyment. It is not pleasant to read about, for it sets one\nthinking of things by no means far away or old; for instance, of the\ndisappearance of half-cooked beef at some Continental _tables d\u2019h\u00f4te_.\nWe find that Homer is painfully near us. But in Homeric times the ghost\nof a scruple had to be laid before the feast could be enjoyed. Animal\nfood was still closely connected with the idea of sacrifice. Sacrifice\nlends distinction to subject as well as object; it was some atonement to\nthe animal to dedicate him to the gods. He was covered with garlands and\nattended by long-robed priests; his doom was his triumph. The devoted\nheifer or firstling of the flock was glorified beyond all its kind. Some\nlate sceptic of the _Anthology_ asked what possible difference it could\nmake to the sheep whether it were devoured by a wolf or sacrificed to\nHerakles so that he might protect the sheepfold from wolves? But\nscepticism is a poor thing. From immolation to apotheosis there is but a\nstep; how many human victims willingly bowed their heads to the knife!\n\nThe sacrificial aspect of the slaughter of domestic animals took a\nstrong hold of the popular imagination. It is still suggested by the\nprocession of garlanded beasts which traverses the Italian village on\nthe approach of Easter: the only time of year when the Italian peasant\ntouches meat. In the tawdry travesty of the _B\u0153uf gras_, though the\norigin is the same, every shred of the old significance is lost, but\namong simple folk south of the Alps, unformed thoughts which know not\nwhence they come still contribute a sort of religious glamour to that\nlast pageant. Far back, indeed, stretches the procession of the victims,\nhuman and animal\u2014for wherever there was animal sacrifice, at some remote\nepoch, \u201cthe goat without horns\u201d was also offered up.\n\nThe Homeric Greeks had no butchers; they did the slaying of beasts\nthemselves or their priests did it for them. Agamemnon kills the boar\nsacrificed to Zeus with his own hands, which are first uplifted in\nprayer. The commonest meat was the flesh of swine, as may be seen by the\npig of \u00c6sop which replied, on being asked by the sheep why he cried out\nwhen caught, \u201cThey take you for your wool or milk, but me for my life.\u201d\nIn Homer, however, there is much talk of fatted sheep, kids and oxen,\nand there is even mention of killing a cow. The Athenians had qualms\nabout slaughtering the ox, the animal essential to agriculture\u2014though\nthey did it\u2014but the Homeric Greek was not troubled by such thoughts. He\nwas not over nice about anything; he was his own cook, and he did not\nlose his appetite while he roasted his bit of meat on the spit. A Greek\nrepast of that age would have shocked the abstemious Indian as much as\nthe Hindu reformer, Keshub Chunder Sen, confessed to have been shocked\nby the huge joints on English sideboards.\n\nPutting aside his meat-eating proclivities, for which we cannot throw\nstones at him, the Greek of the Iliad and of the Odyssey is the friend\nof his beast. He does not regard it as his long-lost brother, but he\nsees in it a devoted servant; sometimes more than human in love if less\nthan human in wit. His point of view, though detached, was appreciative.\nPractically it was the point of view of the twentieth century. Homer\nbelongs to the Western world, and in a great measure to the modern\nWestern world. He had no racial fellow-feeling with animals; yet he\ncould feel for the sparrow that flutters round its murdered young ones\nand for the vulture that rends the air with cries when the countryman\ntakes its fledglings from the nest. He could shed one immortal tear over\nthe faithful hound that recognises his master and dies. \u201cThere lay the\ndog Argus, full of vermin.\u201d If it had not been a living creature, what\nsight could have more repelled human eyes? But with dog as with man, the\nmiserable body is as naught beside\u2014what in the man we call the soul. \u201cHe\nfawned with his tail and laid down both his ears, but he could no more\ncome nearer his master.\u201d All the sense of disgust is gone and there is\nsomething moist, perhaps, in our eyes too, though it is not the ichor of\nimmortality.\n\nGiving names to animals is the first instinctive confession that they\nare not _things_. What sensible man ever called his table Carlo or his\ninkpot Trilby? Homer gives his horses the usual names of horses in his\nday; this is shown by the fact that he calls more than one horse by the\nsame name. Hector\u2019s steeds were Xanthus, \u00c6thon and noble Lampus; often\nwould Andromache mix wine for them even before she attended to the wants\nof her husband, or offer them the sweet barley with her own white hands.\n\u00c6the is the name of Agamemnon\u2019s graceful and fleet-footed mare. Xanthus\nand Balius, offspring of Podarges, are the horses which Achilles\nreceived from his father. He bids them bring their charioteer back in\nsafety to the body of the Greeks\u2014and then follows the impressive\nincident of the warning given to him of his impending fate. The horse\nXanthus bends low his head: his long mane, which is collected in a ring,\ndroops till it touches the ground. Hera gives him power of speech and he\ntells how, though the steeds of Achilles will do their part right well,\nnot all their swiftness, not all their faithful service can save their\nmaster from the doom that even now is drawing near. \u201cThe furies restrain\nthe voice\u201d: the laws which govern the natural order of things must not\nbe violated. \u201cO Xanthus,\u201d cries Achilles, \u201cO Xanthus, why dost thou\npredict my death?... Well do I know myself that it is my fate to perish\nhere, far away from my dear father and mother!\u201d It is the passionate cry\nof the Greek, the lover of life as none has loved it, the lover of the\nsweet air gladdened by the sun.\n\nMany a soldier may have spoken to his horse, half in jest, as Achilles\nspoke to Xanthus and Balius: \u201cbring me safely out of the fray.\u201d The\nsupernatural and terrible reply comes with the shock of the unforeseen,\nlike a clap of thunder on a calm day. This incident is a departure from\nthe usual Homeric conventionality, for it takes us into the domain of\nreal magic. The belief that animals know things that we know not, and\nsee things that we see not, is scattered over all the earth. Are there\nnot still good people who feel an \u201ceerie\u201d sensation when a cat stares\nfixedly into vacancy in the twilight? \u201cEerie\u201d sensations count for much\nin early beliefs, but what counts for more is the observation of actual\nfacts which are not and, perhaps, cannot be explained. The uneasiness of\nanimals before an earthquake, or the refusal of some animals to go to\nsea on ships which afterwards come to grief\u2014to refer to only two\ninstances of a class of phenomena the existence of which cannot be\ngainsaid\u2014would be sufficient to convince any savage or any primitive man\nthat animals have foreknowledge. If they know the future on one point,\nwhy should they not know it on others? The primitive man generally\nstarts from something which he deems _certain_; he deals in\n\u201ccertainties\u201d far more than in hypotheses, and when he has seized a\n\u201ccertainty\u201d in his own fashion he draws logical deductions from it.\nSavages and children have a ruthless logic of their own.\n\nThe prophetic power of animals has important bearings on the subject of\ndivination. In cases of animal portents the later theory may have been\nthat the animal was the passive instrument or medium of a superior\npower; but it is not likely that this was the earliest theory. The\ngoddess did not use Xanthus as a mouthpiece: she simply gave him the\nfaculty of speech so that he could say what he already knew. The second\nsight of animals was believed to be communicable to man through their\nflesh, and especially through their blood. Porphyry says plainly that\ndiviners fed on the hearts of crows, vultures, and moles (the heart\nbeing the fountain of the blood), because in this manner they partook of\nthe souls of these animals, and received the influence of the gods who\naccompanied these souls. The blood conveyed the qualities of the spirit.\nIn my opinion the Hebrew ordinance against partaking of the blood was\nconnected with this idea; the soul was not to be meddled with. I do not\nknow if attention has been paid to the remarkable juxtaposition of the\nblood prohibition with enchantment in Leviticus xix. 26. The Institutes\nof Manu clearly indicate that the blood was not to be swallowed because,\nby doing so, could be procured an illicit mixing up of personality: the\nmost awful of sins, more awful because so much more mysterious than our\nmedi\u00e6val \u201cpact,\u201d or selling the soul to the devil. A knowledge of magic\nis essential to the true comprehension of all sacred writings.\n\nThat animals formerly talked with human voices was the genuine belief of\nmost early races, but there are few traces of it in Greek literature. A\nhint of a real folk-belief is to be found, perhaps, in the remark of\nClytemnestra, who says of Cassandra, when she will not descend from the\ncar that has brought her, a prisoner, to Agamemnon\u2019s palace:\u2014\n\n \u201cI wot\u2014unless like swallows she doth use\n _Some strange barbarian tongue from over sea_,\n My words must bring persuasion to her soul.\u201d\n\nBut such hints are not frequent. The stories of \u201ctalking beasts\u201d which\nenjoyed an immense popularity in Greece were founded on as conscious\n\u201cmake-believe\u201d as the Beast tales of the Middle Ages. From the \u201cBattle\nof the Frogs and Mice\u201d to \u00c6sop\u2019s fables, and from these to the comedies\nof Aristophanes, the animals are meant to hold up human follies to\nridicule or human virtues to admiration. The object was to instruct\nwhile amusing when it was not to amuse without instructing. \u00c6sop hardly\nasks the most guileless to believe that his stories are of the \u201call\ntrue\u201d category\u2014which is why children rarely quite take them to their\nhearts. At the same time, he shows a close study of the idiosyncrasies\nof animals, so close that there is little to alter in his\ncharacterisation. Out of the mass of stories in the collection\nattributed to him, one or two only seem to carry us back to a more\ningenuous age. The following beautiful little tale of the \u201cLion\u2019s\nKingdom\u201d is vaguely reminiscent of the world-tradition of a \u201cPeace in\nNature.\u201d\n\n\u201cThe beasts of the field and forest had a lion as their king. He was\nneither wrathful, cruel, nor tyrannical, but just and gentle as a king\ncould be. He made during his reign a proclamation for a general assembly\nof all the birds and beasts, and drew up conditions for an universal\nleague in which the Wolf and the Lamb, the Panther and the Kid, the\nTiger and the Stag, the Dog and the Hare, should live together in\nperfect peace and amity. The Hare said, \u2018Oh, how I have longed to see\nthis day, in which the weak shall take their place with impunity by the\nside of the strong.\u2019\u201d\n\nThe temper of a people towards animals can be judged from its sports. It\nhas been well said, Who could imagine Pericles presiding over a \u201cRoman\nholiday\u201d? Wanton cruelty to animals seemed to the Greeks an outrage to\nthe gods. The Athenians inflicted a fine on a vivisector of the name of\nXenocrates (he called himself a \u201cphilosopher\u201d) who had skinned a goat\nalive. In Greece, from Homeric times downwards, the most favourite sport\nwas the chariot-race which, at first, possessed the importance of a\nreligious event, and always had a dignity above that of a mere pastime.\nThe horses received their full share of honour and glory; for many\ncenturies the graves of Cimon\u2019s mares, with which he had thrice\nconquered at the Olympian games, were pointed out to the stranger, near\nhis own tomb.\n\nIn the ancient Greek as in the modern world, while the majority held the\nviews about animals which I have briefly sketched, a small minority held\nviews of quite a different kind. It may be that no outward agency is\nrequired to cause the periodical appearance of men who are driven from\nthe common road by the nostalgia of a state in which the human creature\nhad not learnt to shed blood. The earliest tradition agrees with the\nlatest science in testifying that man did not always eat flesh. It seems\nas if sometimes, in every part of the earth, an irresistible impulse\ntakes hold of him to resume his primal harmlessness. It is natural,\nhowever, that students should have sought some more definite explanation\nfor the introduction of the Orphic sect into Greece, where it can be\ntraced to about the time generally given to Buddha\u2014the sixth century\nB.C. Some have conjectured that dark-skinned, white-robed missionaries\nfrom India penetrated into Europe as we know that they penetrated into\nChina, bringing with them the gospel of the unity of all sentient\nthings. Others agree with what seems to have been thought by Herodotus:\nthat wandering pilgrims brought home treasured secrets from the temple\nof Ammon or some other of those Egyptian shrines with which the Greeks\nconstantly kept up certain _rapports_. It may be, now, that these two\ntheories will be abandoned in favour of a third which would refer the\norigin of the Orphists to \u00c6gean times and suppose them to be the last\nfollowers of an earlier faith. When they do come into history, it is as\npoor and ignorant people\u2014like the Doukhobors of to-day\u2014whose obscurity\nmight well account for their having remained long unobserved. But this\nis no reason for concluding that their beginnings were obscure.\n\nWhat is best understood about them is that they abstained rigorously\nfrom flesh except during the rare performance of some rite of\npurification, in which they tasted the blood of a bull which was\nsupposed to procure mystic union with the divine. As happened with the\nperformers of other cruel or horrid rites, the transcendent significance\nthey ascribed to the act paralysed their power of recognising its\nrevolting nature. A diseased spiritualism which ignores matter\naltogether is the real key to such phenomena. It is too soon to say\nwhether any link can be established between the Orphic practices and the\nso-called \u201cbull-fights\u201d of which traces have been found in Crete.\nDespised and tabooed though they were in historical Greece, the Orphists\nare still held to have exercised some sure though undefined influence on\nthe development of the greatest spiritual fact of Hellenic civilisation,\nthe Eleusinian Mysteries.\n\n[Illustration:\n\n (_Photo:_ _Sommer_)\n ORPHEUS.\n (_Fresco at Pompeii._)]\n\nThe popular description of Orpheus as founder of the Orphists must be\ntaken for what it is worth. The sect may have either evolved or borrowed\nthe legend. Christianity itself appropriated the myth of Orpheus,\npictorially, at least, in those rude tracings in the Roman catacombs\nshowing the Good Shepherd in that character, which inspired Carlyle to\nwrite one of the most impassioned passages in English prose. The sweet\nlute-player who held entranced lion and lamb till the one forgot his\nwrath and the other his fear, was the natural symbol of the prototype of\na humane religion.\n\nOut of the nebulous patches of Greek enthusiasts who cherished tender\nfeelings towards animals, emerges the intellectual sun of the Samian\nsage. It is difficult not to connect Pythagoras in some way with the\nOrphists, nor would such a connexion make it the less probable that he\njourneyed to the sacred East in search of fuller knowledge. Little,\nindeed, do we know about this moulder of minds. He passed across the\nworld\u2019s stage dark \u201cwith excess of light\u201d\u2014an influence rather than a\npersonality. Yet he was as far as possible from being only a dreamer of\ndreams; he was the Newton, the Galileo, perhaps the Edison and Marconi\nof his epoch. And it was this double character of moral teacher and man\nof science which caused the extraordinary reverence with which he was\nregarded. Science and religion were not divorced then; the Prophet could\npresent no credentials so valid as an understanding of the laws which\ngovern the universe. Mathematics and astronomy were revelations of\ndivine truth. It was the scientific insight of Pythagoras, the wonderful\nrange and depth of which is borne out more and more by modern\ndiscoveries, that lent supreme importance to whatever theories he was\nknown to have held. The doctrine of transmigration had not been treated\nseriously while it was only preached by the Orphists, but after it was\nadopted by Pythagoras it commanded a wide attention, though it never won\na large acceptance. One expounder it had, who was too remarkable an\noriginal thinker to be called a mere disciple\u2014the greatly-gifted\nEmpedocles, who denounced the eaters of flesh as no better than\ncannibals, which was going further than Pythagoras himself had ever\ngone.\n\nEven in antiquity, there were some who suspected that at the bottom of\nthe Pythagorean propaganda was the wish to make men more humane. Without\ntaking that view, it may be granted that a strong love of animals\nprepares the mind to think of them as not so very different from men. A\nthing that tends in the same direction is the unfavourable comparison of\nsome men with some beasts: the sort of sentiment which made Madame de\nSta\u00ebl say that the more she knew of men the more she liked dogs. Did not\nDarwin declare that he would as soon be descended from that heroic\nlittle monkey who braved his dreaded enemy to save the life of his\nkeeper, or from that old baboon who, descending from the mountains,\ncarried away in triumph his young comrade from a crowd of astonished\ndogs, as from various still extant races of mankind? Darwinism is really\nthe theory of Pythagoras with the supernatural element left out. The\nhomogeneity of living things is one of the very old beliefs from which\nwe strayed and to which we are returning.\n\nAmong the Greeks, sensitive and meditative minds which did not place\nfaith in the Pythagorean system of life were attracted, nevertheless, by\nits speculative possibilities which they bent to their own purposes.\nThus Socrates borrowed from Pythagoras when he suggested that imperfect\nand earth-bound spirits might be re-incorporated in animals whose\nconventionally ascribed characteristics corresponded with their own\nmoral natures. Unjust, tyrannical, and violent men would become wolves,\nhawks, and kites, while good commonplace people\u2014virtuous\nPhilistines\u2014would take better forms, such as ants, bees, and wasps, all\nof which live harmoniously in communities. It is pleasant to find that\nSocrates did justice to that intelligent insect, the undeservedly\naspersed wasp. Men who are good in all respects save the highest, may\nre-assume human forms. Socrates does not explain why it is that humanity\nprogresses so slowly if it is always being recruited from such good\nmaterial? He passes on from these righteous men to the super-excellent\nman to whom alone he allots translation into a divine and wholly\nimmaterial sphere; he it is who departs from this world completely pure\nof earthly dross; who cannot be moved by ill-fortune, poverty, disgrace;\nwho has \u201covercome the world\u201d in the Pauline sense, who has died while\nliving, in the Indian sense. Though Socrates does not say so, it is this\nsuper-excellent man who really convinces him of the immortality of the\nsoul according to the meaning which we attach to these words.\n\nThat the more tender and poetic aspects of Pythagorean speculations had\ndeeply impressed Socrates can be seen by the fact that they recurred to\nhis mind in the most solemn hour of his life. From these he drew the\nlovely parable with which he gently reproved the friends who were come\nto take leave of him for their surprise at finding him no wise\ndepressed. He asks if he appears to them inferior in divination to the\nswans, who, when they perceive that they must die, though given to song\nbefore, then sing the most of all, delighted at the prospect of their\ndeparture to the deity whose ministers they are. Mankind has said\nfalsely of the swans that they sing through dread of death and from\ngrief. Those who say this do not reflect that no bird sings when it is\nhungry or cold or afflicted with any other pain, not even the\nnightingale or swallow or hoopoe, which are said to sing a dirge-like\nstrain, \u201cbut neither do they appear to me to sing for grief nor do the\nswans, but as pertaining to Apollo they are skilled in the divining art,\nand having a foreknowledge of the bliss in Hades, they express their joy\nin song on that day rather than at any previous time. But I believe\nmyself to be a fellow-servant of the swans and consecrated to the same\ndivinity, and that I am no less gifted by my master in the art of\ndivination, nor am I departing with less good grace than they.\u201d\n\nSocrates would not have been \u201cthe wisest of men\u201d if he had dogmatised\nabout the unknowable; to insist, he says, that things were just as he\ndescribed them, would not become an intelligent being; he only claimed\nan approximate approach to the truth. In appearance Plato went nearer to\ndogmatic acceptance of the theory of the transmigration of souls, but\nprobably it was in appearance only. Like his master, he thought it\nreasonable to suppose that the human soul ascended if it had done well,\nand descended if it had done ill, and of this ascent and descent he took\nas symbol its attirement in higher or lower corporeal forms till, freed\nfrom the corruptible, it joined the incorruptible.\n\nThe Greeks were the first people to have an insatiable thirst for exact\nknowledge; they showed themselves true precursors of the modern world by\ntheir researches into scientific zoology, which were carried on with\nzeal long before Aristotle took the subject in hand. We cannot judge of\nthese early researches because they are nearly all lost; but Aristotle\u2019s\n\u201cHistory of Animals,\u201d even after the revival of learning, was still\nconsulted as a text-book, and perhaps nothing that he wrote contributed\nmore to win for him the fame of\n\n \u201c... maestro di color che sanno.\u201d\n\nThe story goes that this work was written by desire of Alexander the\nGreat or, as some say, Philip of Macedon, and that the writer was given\na sum which sounds fabulous in order that he might obtain the best\navailable information. What interest most the modern reader are the\n\u201csayings by the way\u201d on the moral qualities or the intelligence of\nanimals. \u201cMan and the mule,\u201d says Aristotle, \u201care always tame\u201d\u2014a\nclassification not very complimentary to man. The ox is gentle, the wild\nboar is violent, crafty the serpent, noble and generous the lion. Except\nin the senses of touch and taste, man is far surpassed by the other\nanimals\u2014a remark that was endorsed by St. Thomas Aquinas, who inferred\nfrom the limitation of man\u2019s senses that he would have made bad use of\nthem if they had been more acute. Aristotle laid down the axiom that man\nalone can reason, though other animals can remember and learn, but he\nnever pursued this theory as far as it was pushed by Descartes, much\nless by Malebranche. He believed that the soul of infants differed in no\nrespect from that of animals. All animals present traces of their moral\ndisposition, though these distinctions are more marked in man. Animals\nunderstand signs and sounds, and can be taught. The females are less\nready to help the males in distress than the males are to help the\nfemales. Bears carry off their cubs with them if they are pursued. The\ndolphin is remarkable for the love of its young ones; two dolphins were\nseen supporting a small dead dolphin on their backs, that was about to\nsink, as if in pity for it, to keep it from being devoured by wild\ncreatures. In herds of horses, if a mare dies, other mares will bring up\nthe foal, and mares without foals have been known to entice foals to\nfollow them and to show much affection to them, though they die for want\nof their natural sustenance.\n\nAristotle says that music attracts some animals; for instance, deer can\nbe captured by singing and playing on the pipe. Animals sometimes show\nfore-thought, as the ichneumon, which does not attack the asp till it\nhas called others to help it\u2014which reminds one of the dog whose master\ntook him to Exeter, where he was badly treated by the yard-dog of the\ninn; on this, he escaped and went to London, whence he returned with a\npowerful dog-friend who gave the yard-dog a lesson which he must have\nlong remembered. Hedgehogs are said by Aristotle and other ancient\nauthors to change the entrance of their burrows according as the wind\nblows from north or south; a man in Byzantium got no small fame as a\nweather prophet by observing this habit. He thinks that small animals\nare generally cleverer than larger ones. A tame woodpecker placed an\nalmond in a crevice of wood so as to be able to break it, which it\nsucceeded in doing with three blows. Aristotle does not mention the\nsimilar ingenuity of the thrush which I have noticed myself; it brings\nsnails to a good flat stone on which it breaks the shell by knocking it\nup and down. He admired the skill of the swallow in making her nest.\nAlthough he knew of the migrations of birds, and declared that cranes go\nin winter to the sources of the Nile, \u201cwhere there is a race of\npigmies\u2014no fable, but a fact,\u201d he was not free from the erroneous idea\n(which is to be found in modern folk-lore) that some birds hybernate in\ncaves, out of which they emerge, almost featherless, in the spring. Of\nthe nightingale, he says that it sings ceaselessly for fifteen days and\nnights when the mountains are thick with leaves.\n\nThe spider\u2019s art and graceful movements receive due praise, as do the\ncleanly habits of bees, which are said to sting people who use unguents\nbecause they dislike bad smells. \u201cBright and shiny bees\u201d Aristotle\nasserts to be idle, \u201clike women.\u201d\n\nOf all animals his favourites are the lion and the elephant. The lion is\ngentle when he is not hungry and he is not jealous or suspicious. He is\nfond of playing with animals that are brought up with him, and he gets\nto have a real affection for them. If a blow aimed at a lion fails, he\nonly shakes and frightens his attacker, and then leaves him without\nhurting him. He never shows fear or turns his back on a foe. But old\nlions that are unable to hunt sometimes enter villages and attack\nmankind. This is the first observation of the \u201cman-eating\u201d lion or\ntiger, and the reason given for his perverse conduct is still believed\nto be the right one.\n\nAristotle assigned the palm of wisdom to the elephant, a creature\nabounding in intellect, tame, gentle, teachable, and one which can even\nlearn how to \u201cworship the king\u201d\u2014which is what many of us saw the\nelephants do at the Delhi Durbar.\n\n[Illustration:\n\n STELE WITH CAT AND BIRD.\n Athens Museum.]\n\nIn a later age, Apollonius of Tyana confirmed from personal observation\nall Aristotle\u2019s praise; he watched with admiration the crossing of the\nIndus by a herd of thirty elephants which were being pursued by\nhuntsmen; the light and small ones went first, then the mothers, who\nheld up their cubs with tusk and trunk, and lastly the old and large\nelephants. Pliny gave a similar account of the way in which elephants\ncross rivers, and it is, I believe, still noticed as a fact that the old\nones send the young ones before them. The officer whose duty it was to\nsuperintend the embarcation of Indian elephants for Abyssinia during the\ncampaign of Sir Robert Napier told me how a very fine old elephant, who\nperfectly understood the business in hand, drove all the others on\nboard, but after performing this useful service, when it came to be his\nturn, he refused resolutely to move an inch, and had to be left behind.\nThe sympathy with animals for which Apollonius was remarkable made him\nfeel for these great beasts brought into subjection; he declares that at\nnight they mourn over their lost liberty with peculiar piteous sounds\nunlike those which they make usually; if a man approaches, however, they\ncease their wailing out of respect for him. He speaks of their\nattachment to their keeper, how they eat bread from his hand like a dog\nand caress him with their trunks. He saw an elephant at Taxila which was\nsaid to have fought against Alexander the Great three hundred and fifty\nyears before. Alexander named it Ajax, and it bore golden bracelets on\nits trunk with the words: \u201cAjax. To the Sun from Alexander son of Jove.\u201d\nThe people decked it with garlands and anointed it with precious salves.\nSeveral classical writers bore witness to the pleasure which elephants\ntook in music; they could be made to dance to the pipe. It was also said\nthat they could write. Their crowning merit\u2014that of helping away wounded\ncomrades, which is vouched for by no less an authority than Mr. F. C.\nSelous\u2014does not seem to have been observed in ancient times.\n\nIn Greek mythology the familiar animals of the gods occupy a place\nhalf-way between legend and natural history. Viewed by one school as\ntotems, as the earlier god of which the later is only an appendix, to\nmore conservative students they may appear to be, in the main, the\noutgrowth of the same fondness for coupling man and beast and fitting\nman with a beast-companion suited to his character, which gave St. Mark\nhis lion and St. John his eagle. The panther of Bacchus is the most\nattractive of the divine _menagerie_, because Bacchus, in this\nconnexion, is generally shown as a child and the friendships of beasts\nand children are always pleasing.\n\nThe affection of Bacchus for panthers has been attributed to the fact\nthat he wore a panther-skin, but there seems no motive for deciding that\nthe one tradition was earlier than the other; the rationale of a myth is\noften evolved long after the myth itself. Perhaps, after all, the\nstories of gods and animals often originated in the simple belief that\ngods, like men, had a weakness for pets!\n\nIn the Pompeian collections at Naples there are several designs of\nBacchus and his panther; one of them shows the panther and the ass of\nSilenus lying down together; in another, a very fine mosaic, the winged\ngenius of Bacchus careers along astride of his favourite beast; in a\nthird, a chubby little boy, with no signs of godhead about him, clambers\non to the back of a patient panther, which has the long-suffering look\nof animals that are accustomed to be teased by children. It may be\nnoticed that children and animals, both somewhat neglected in the older\nart, attained the highest popularity with the artists of the age of\nPompeii. Children were represented in all sorts of attitudes, and all\nknown animals, from the cat to the octopus and the elephant to the\ngrasshopper, were drawn not only with general correctness but with a\nkeen insight into their humours and temperaments.\n\nIt is said that a panther was once caught in Pamphylia which had a gold\nchain round its neck with the inscription in Armenian letters: \u201cArsaces\nthe king to the Nys\u00e6an god.\u201d Oriental nations called Bacchus after Nysa,\nhis supposed birthplace. It was concluded that the king of Armenia had\ngiven its freedom to this splendid specimen to do honour to the god. The\npanther became very tame and was fondled by every one, but when the\nspring came it ran away, chain and all, to seek a mate in the mountains\nand never more came back.\n\n\n------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\n\n\n\n III\n\n ANIMALS AT ROME\n\n\nROME, the eternal, begins with a Beast-story. However much deeper in the\npast the spade may dig than the reputed date of the humanitarian\nShe-wolf, her descendant will not be expelled from the grotto on the\nCapitol, nor will it cease to be the belief of children (the only\ntrustworthy authorities when legends are concerned) that the grandeur\nthat was Rome would have never existed but for the opportune\nintervention of a friendly beast!\n\nThe fame of the She-wolf shows how eagerly mankind seizes on some touch\nof nature, fact or fable, that seems to make all creatures kin. Rome was\nas proud of her She-wolf as she was of ruling the world. It was the\n\u201cluck\u201d of Rome; even now, something of the old sentiment exists, for I\nremember that during King Edward\u2019s visit old-fashioned Romans were angry\nbecause this emblem was not to be seen in the decorations.\n\n[Illustration:\n\n (_Photo: Bruckmann._)\n CAPITOLINE SHE-WOLF.]\n\nThe story did not make such large demands on credulity as sceptics\npretend. The wolf is not so much the natural enemy of man as the cat is\nof the mouse: yet cats have been known to bring up families of mice or\nrats which they treated with affection. In recent times a Russian bear\nwas stated to have carried away to the woods a little girl whom it fed\nwith nuts and fruits. The evidence seemed good, though the story did\nsound a little as if it were suggested by Victor Hugo\u2019s \u201c\u00c9pop\u00e9e du\nLion.\u201d But in India there are stories of the same sort\u2014stories actually\nof She-wolves\u2014which appear to be impossible to set aside. In a paper\nread before the Bombay Natural History Society, the well-known Parsi\nscholar, Jivanji Jamsedji Modi, described how he had seen one such\n\u201cwolf-boy\u201d at the Secundra Orphanage: the boy had remained with wolves\nup to six years old when he was discovered and captured, not without\nvigorous opposition from his vulpine protectors.\n\nThe historical record of Rome as regards animals is not a bright one.\nThe cruelty of the arena does not stain the first Roman annals; the\nearliest certified instance of wild-beast baiting belongs to 186 B.C.,\nand after the practice was introduced it did not reach at once the\nmonstrous proportions of later times. Still, one does not imagine that\nthe Roman of republican times was very tender-hearted towards animals.\nCato related, as if he took a pride in it, that when he was Consul he\nleft his war-horse in Spain to spare the public the cost of its\nconveyance to Rome. \u201cWhether such things as these,\u201d says Plutarch, who\ntells the story, \u201care instances of greatness or littleness of soul, let\nthe reader judge for himself!\u201d When the infatuation for the shows in the\narena was at its height, the Romans felt an enormous interest in\nanimals: indeed, there were moments when they thought of nothing else.\nIt was an interest which went along with indifference to their\nsufferings; it may be said to have been worse than no interest at all,\nbut it existed and to ignore it, as most writers have done, is to make\nthe explicable inexplicable. If the only attraction of these shows had\nbeen their cruelty we should have to conclude that the Romans were all\nafflicted with a rare though not unknown form of insanity. Much the same\nwas true of the gladiatorial shows. Up to a certain point, what led\npeople to them was what leads people to a football match or an\nassault-at-arms. Beyond that point\u2014well, beyond it there entered the\nelement that makes the tiger in man, but for the most part it was\ninconscient.\n\n[Illustration:\n\n LION BEING LED FROM THE ARENA BY A SLAVE.\n (_Nennig Mosaic._)]\n\nWhen we see Pola or Verona or N\u00eemes; when we tread the crowded streets\nto the Roman Colosseum or traverse the deserted high-road to Spanish\nItalica; most of all, when we watch coming nearer and nearer across the\nwilderness between Kairouan and El Djem the magnificent pile that stands\noutlined against the African sky\u2014we all say the same thing: \u201cWhat a\nwonderful race the Romans were!\u201d It is an exclamation that forces itself\nto the lips of the most ignorant as to those of the scholar or\nhistorical student. At such moments, it may be true, that the less we\nthink of the games of the arena the better; the remembrance of them\nforms a disturbing element in the majesty of the scene. But they cannot\nbe put out of mind entirely, and if we do think of them, it is desirable\nthat we should think of them correctly. It so happens that it is\npossible to reconstruct them into a lifelike picture. There exists one,\nthough, as far as I know, only one, faithful, vivid, and complete\ncontemporary representation of the Roman Games. This is the superb\nmosaic pavement which was discovered in the middle of the last century\nby a peasant striking on the hard surface with his spade, at the village\nof Nennig, not far from the Imperial city of Treves. The observer of\nthis mosaic perceives at once that the games were of the nature of a\n\u201cvariety\u201d entertainment. There was the music which picturesque-looking\nperformers played on a large horn and on a sort of organ. (The horn\nclosely resembles the pre-historic horns which are preserved in the\nNational Museum at Copenhagen, where they were blown with inspiring\neffect before the members of the Congress of Orientalists in 1908.)\nThere was the bloodless contest between a short and tall athlete, armed\ndifferently with stick and whip. In the central division, because the\nmost important, is shown the mortal earnest of the gladiatorial fight,\nstrictly controlled by the Games-master. In the sexagion above this is a\nhardly less deadly struggle between a man and a bear: the bear has got\nthe man under him but is being whipped off so that the \u201cturn\u201d may not\nend too quickly, and, perhaps, also to give the more expensive victim\nanother chance. To the right hand, a gladiator who has run his lance\nthrough the neck of a panther, holds up his hand to boast the victory\nand claim applause: the dying panther tries vainly to free itself from\nthe weapon. To the left is a fight between a leopard and an unfortunate\nwild ass, which has already received a terrible wound in its side and is\nnow having its head drawn down between the fore-paws of the leopard. I\nhear that in beast-fights organised by Indian princes, these unequal\ncombatants are still pitted against each other. Lastly, the Nennig\nMosaic depicts a fat lion that has also conquered a wild ass, of which\nthe head alone seems to remain: it has been inferred, though I think\nrashly, that the lion has eaten up all the rest; at any rate he now\nseems at peace with the world and is being led back to his cage by a\nslave.\n\nEverything is quiet, orderly, and a model of good management. The\ncustodian of the little museum told me that the (surprisingly few)\nvisitors to Nennig were in the habit of remarking of this representation\nof the Roman Games that it made them understand for the first time how\nthe cultivated Romans could endure such sights. Unhappily, conventional\npropriety joined to the sanction of authority will make the majority of\nmankind endure anything that causes no danger or inconvenience to\nthemselves.\n\nExcept with a few, at whom their generation looks askance, the sense of\ncruelty more than any other moral sense is governed by habit, by\nconvention. It is even subject to latitude and longitude; in Spain I was\nsurprised to find that almost all the English and American women whom I\nmet had been to, at least, one bull-fight. Insensibility spreads like a\npestilence; new or revived forms of cruelty should be stopped at once or\nno one can say how far they will reach or how difficult it will be to\nabolish them. One might have supposed that the sublime self-sacrifice of\nthe monk who threw himself between two combatants\u2014which brought the\ntardy end of gladiatorial exhibitions in Christian Rome\u2014would have saved\nthe world for ever from that particular barbarity; but in the fourteenth\ncentury we actually find gladiatorial shows come to life again and in\nfull favour at Naples! This little-known fact is attested in Petrarch\u2019s\nletters. Writing to Cardinal Colonna on December 1, 1343, the truly\ncivilised poet denounces with burning indignation an \u201cinfernal\nspectacle\u201d of which he had been the involuntary witness. His gay friends\n(there has been always a singular identity between fashion and\nbarbarism) seem to have entrapped him into going to a place called\nCarbonaria, where he found the queen, the boy-king, and a large audience\nassembled in a sort of amphitheatre. Petrarch imagined that there was to\nbe some splendid entertainment, but he had hardly got inside when a\ntall, handsome young man fell dead just below where he was standing,\nwhile the audience raised a shout of applause. He escaped from the place\nas fast as he could, horror-struck by the brutality of spectacle and\nspectators, and spurring his horse, he turned his back on the \u201caccursed\nspot\u201d with the determination to leave Naples as soon as possible. How\ncan we wonder, he asks, that there are murders in the streets at night\nwhen in broad daylight, in the presence of the king, wretched parents\nsee their sons stabbed and killed, and when it is considered\ndishonourable to be unwilling to present one\u2019s throat to the knife just\nas if it were a struggle for fatherland or for the joys of Heaven?\n\nVery curious was the action of the Vatican in this matter; Pope John\nXXII. excommunicated every one who took part in the games as actor or\nspectator, but since nobody obeyed the prohibition, it was rescinded by\nhis successor, Benedict XII., to prevent the scandal of a perpetual\ndisregard of a Papal ordinance. So they went on cutting each other\u2019s\nthroats with the tacit permission of the Church until King Charles of\nthe Peace succeeded in abolishing the \u201csport.\u201d\n\nThe action of the Church in respect to bull-fights has been much the\nsame; local opinion is generally recognised as too strong for\nopposition. The French bishops, however, did their best to prevent their\nintroduction into the South of France, but they failed completely.\n\nI have strayed rather far from the Roman shows, but the savagery of\nChristians in the fourteenth century (and after) should make us wonder\nless at Roman callousness. All our admiration is due to the few finer\nspirits who were repelled by the slaughter of man or beast to make a\nRoman\u2019s holiday. Cicero said that he could never see what there was\npleasurable in the spectacle of a noble beast struck to the heart by its\nmerciless hunter or pitted against one of our weaker species! For a\nsingle expression of censure such as this which has come down to us,\nthere must have been many of which we have no record. Of out-spoken\ncensure there was doubtless little because violent condemnation of the\narena would have savoured of treason to the State which patronised and\nsupported the games just as Queen Elizabeth\u2019s ministers supported\nbull-baiting.\n\nRome must have been one vast zoological garden, and viewing the strange\nanimals was the first duty of the tourist. Pausanias was deeply\nimpressed by the \u201cEthiopian bulls which they call rhinoceroses\u201d and also\nby Indian camels in colour like leopards. He saw an all-white deer, and\nvery much surprised he was to see it, but, to his subsequent regret, he\nforgot to ask where it came from. He was reminded of this white deer\nwhen he saw white blackbirds on Mount Cyllene in Arcadia. I remember a\nwhite blackbird which stayed in the garden of my old English home for\nmore than two years: a wretched \u201csportsman\u201d lay in wait for it when it\nwandered into a neighbouring field and shot it.\n\nThe feasibility of the transport of the hosts of animals destined to the\narena will always remain a mystery. At the inauguration of the\nColosseum, five thousand wild beasts and six thousand tame ones were\nbutchered, nor was this the highest figure on a single occasion.\nProbably a great portion of the animals was sent by the Governors of\ndistant provinces who wished to stand well with the home authorities.\nBut large numbers were also brought over by speculators who sold them to\nthe highest or the most influential bidder. One reason why Cassius\nmurdered Julius C\u00e6sar was that C\u00e6sar had secured some lions which\nCassius wished to present to the public. Every one who aimed at\npolitical power or even simply at being thought one of the \u201csmart set\u201d\n(the odious word suits the case) spent king\u2019s ransoms on the public\ngames. For vulgar ostentation the wealthy Roman world eclipsed the\nexploits of the modern millionaire. If any one deem this impossible, let\nhim read, in the _Satyricon_ of Petronius, the account of the f\u00eates to\nbe given by a leader of fashion of the name of Titus. Not merely\ngladiators, but a great number of freedmen would take part in them: it\nwould be no wretched mock combat but a real carnage! Titus was so rich\nthat he could afford such liberality. Contempt is poured upon the head\nof a certain Nobarnus who offered a spectacle of gladiators hired at a\nlow price and so old and decrepit that a breath threw them over. They\nall ended by wounding themselves to stop the contest. You might as well\nhave witnessed a mere cock-fight!\n\nI should think that not more than one animal in three survived the\nvoyage. This would vastly increase the total number. The survivors often\narrived in such a pitiable state that they could not be presented in the\narena, or that they had to be presented immediately to prevent them from\ndying too soon. Symmachus, last of the great nobles of Rome, who,\nblinded by tradition, thought to revive the glories of his beloved city\nby reviving its shame, graphically describes the anxieties of the\npreparations for one of these colossal shows on which he is said to have\nspent what would be about \u00a380,000 of our money. He began a year in\nadvance: horses, bears, lions, Scotch dogs, crocodiles, chariot-drivers,\nhunters, actors, and the best gladiators were recruited from all parts.\nBut when the time drew near, nothing were ready. Only a few of the\nanimals had come, and these were half dead of hunger and fatigue. The\nbears had not arrived and there was no news of the lions. At the\neleventh hour the crocodiles reached Rome, but they refused to eat and\nhad to be killed all at once in order that they might not die of hunger.\nIt was even worse with the gladiators, who were intended to provide, as\nin all these beast shows, the crowning entertainment. Twenty-nine of the\nSaxon captives whom Symmachus had chosen on account of the well-known\nvalour of their race, strangled one another in prison rather than fight\nto the death for the amusement of their conquerors. And Symmachus, with\nall his real elevation of mind, was moved to nothing but disgust by\ntheir sublime choice! Rome in her greatest days had gloried in these\nshows: how could a man be a patriot who set his face against customs\nwhich followed the Roman eagles round the world? How many times since\nthen has patriotism been held to require the extinction of moral sense!\n\nSometimes the humanity of beasts put to shame the inhumanity of man.\nThere was a lion, commemorated by Statius, which had \u201cunlearnt murder\nand homicide,\u201d and submitted of its own accord to a master \u201cwho ought to\nhave been under its feet.\u201d This lion went in and out of its cage and\ngently laid down unhurt the prey which it caught: it even allowed people\nto put their hands into its mouth. It was killed by a fugitive slave.\nThe Senate and people of Rome were in despair, and Imperial C\u00e6sar, who\nwitnessed impassible the death of thousands of animals sent hither to\nperish from Africa, from Scythia, from the banks of the Rhine, had tears\nin his eyes for a single lion! In later Roman times a tame lion was a\nfavourite pet: their masters led them about wherever they went, whether\nmuch to the gratification of the friends on whom they called is not\nstated.\n\nAnother instance of a gentle beast was that of a tiger into whose cage a\nlive doe had been placed for him to eat. But the tiger was not feeling\nwell and, with the wisdom of sick animals, he was observing a diet. So\ntwo or three days elapsed, during which the tiger made great friends\nwith the doe and when he recovered his health and began to feel very\nhungry, instead of devouring his fellow-lodger he beat with his paws\nagainst the bars of the cage in sign that he wanted food. These stories\nwere, no doubt, true, and there may have been truth also in the\nwell-known story of the lion which refused to attack a man who had once\nsuccoured him. Animals have good memories.\n\nOne pleasanter feature of the circus was the exhibition of performing\nbeasts. Though the exhibitors of such animals are now sometimes charged\nwith cruelty, it cannot be denied that the public who goes to look at\nthem is composed of just the people who are most fond of animals. All\nchildren delight in them because, to their minds, they seem a\nconfirmation of the strong instinctive though oftenest unexpressed\nbelief, which lurks in every child\u2019s soul, that between man and animals\nthere is much less difference than is the correct, \u201cgrown-up\u201d opinion;\nthis is a part of the secret lore of childhood which has its origins in\nthe childhood of the world. The amiable taste for these exhibitions\u2014in\nappearance, at least, so harmless\u2014strikes one as incongruous in the same\npersons who revelled in slaughter. Such a taste existed, however, and\nwhen St. James said that there was not a single beast, bird or reptile\nwhich had not been tamed, he may have been thinking of the itinerant\nshowmen\u2019s \u201clearned\u201d beasts which perambulated the Roman empire.\n\nHorses and oxen were among the animals commonly taught to do tricks. I\nfind no mention of monkeys as performing in the arena, though Apuleius\nsays that in the spring f\u00eates of Isis, the forerunners of the Roman\ncarnival, he saw a monkey with a straw hat and a Phrygian tunic\u2014we can\nhardly keep ourselves from asking: _what had it done with the\ngrind-organ?_ But in spite of this startlingly modern apparition,\nmonkeys do not seem to have been popular in Rome; I imagine even, that\nthere was some fixed prejudice against them. The cleverest of all the\nanimal performers were, of course, the dogs, and one showman had the\ningenious idea of making a dog act a part in a comedy. The effects of a\ndrug were tried on him, the plot turning on the suspicion that the drug\nwas poisonous, while, in fact, it was only a narcotic. The dog took the\npiece of bread dipped in the liquid, swallowed it, and began to reel and\nstagger till he finally fell flat on the ground. He gave himself a last\nstretch and then seemed to expire, making no sign of life when his\napparently dead body was dragged about the stage. At the right moment,\nhe began to move very slightly as if waking out of a deep sleep; then he\nraised his head, looked round, jumped up and ran joyously to the proper\nperson. The piece was played at the theatre of Marcellus in the reign of\nold Vespasian, and C\u00e6sar himself was delighted. I wonder that no manager\nof our days has turned the incident to account; I never yet saw an\naudience serious enough not to become young again at the sight of\nfour-footed comedians. Even the high art-loving public at the Prince\nRegent\u2019s theatre at Munich cannot resist a murmur of discreet merriment\nwhen the pack of beautiful stag-hounds led upon the stage in the hunting\nscene in \u201cTannh\u00e4user\u201d gravely wag their tails in time with the music!\n\nThe pet lions were only one example of the aberrations of pet-lovers in\nancient Rome. Maltese lap-dogs became a scourge: Lucian tells the\nlamentable tale of a needy philosopher whom a fashionable lady cajoles\ninto acting as personal attendant to her incomparable Mirrhina. The\nMaltese dog was an old fad; Theophrastus, in the portrait of an\ninsufferable _\u00e9l\u00e9gant_, mentions that, when his pet dog dies, he\ninscribes \u201cpure Maltese\u201d on its tombstone.\n\nMany were the birds that fell victims to the desire to keep them in\nrichly ornamented cages in which they died of hunger, says Epictetus,\nsooner than be slaves. The canary which takes more kindly to captivity\nwas unknown till it was brought to Italy in the sixteenth century.\nParrots there were, but Roman parrots were not long-lived: they shared\nthe common doom: \u201cTo each his sufferings, all are _pets_.\u201d The parrots\nof Corinna and of Melior which ought to have lived to a hundred or, at\nany rate, to have had the chance of dying of grief at the loss of their\npossessors (as a parrot did that I once knew), enjoyed fame and fortune\nfor as brief a span as Lesbia\u2019s sparrow. Melior\u2019s parrot not only had\nbrilliant green feathers but also many accomplishments which are\ndescribed by its master\u2019s friend, the poet Statius. On one occasion, it\nsat up half the night at a banquet, hopping from one guest to another\nand talking in a way that excited great admiration; it even shared the\ngood fare and on the morrow it died\u2014which was less than surprising. I\ncame across an old-fashioned criticism of this poem in which Statius is\nscolded for showing so much genuine feeling about ... a parrot! The\ncritic was right in one thing\u2014the genuine feeling is there; those who\nhave known what a companion a bird may be, will appreciate the little\ntouch: \u201cYou never felt alone, dear Melior, with its open cage beside\nyou!\u201d Now the cage is empty; it is \u201c_la cage sans oiseaux_\u201d which Victor\nHugo prayed to be spared from seeing. Some translator turned this into\n\u201ca nest without birds,\u201d because he thought that a cage without birds\nsounded unpoetical, but Victor Hugo took care of truth and left poetry\nto take of itself. And whatever may be the ethics of keeping cage birds,\ntrue it is that few things are more dismal than the sight of the little\nmute, tenantless dwelling which was yesterday alive with fluttering\nlove.\n\nWe owe to Roman poets a good deal of information about dogs, and\nespecially the knowledge that the British hound was esteemed superior to\nall others, even to the famous breed of Epirus. This is certified by\nGratius Faliscus, a contemporary of Ovid. He described these animals as\nremarkably ugly, but incomparable for pluck. British bull-dogs were used\nin the Colosseum, and in the third century Nemesianus praised the\nBritish greyhound. Most of the valuable dogs were brought from abroad;\nit is to be inferred that the race degenerated in the climate of Rome,\nas it does now. Concha, whose epitaph was written by Petronius, was born\nin Gaul. While Martial\u2019s too elaborate epitaph on \u201cThe Trusty Lydia\u201d is\noften quoted and translated, the more sympathetic poem of Petronius has\nbeen overlooked. He tells the perfections of Concha in a simple,\naffectionate manner; like Lydia, she was a mighty huntress and chased\nthe wild boar fearlessly through the dense forest. Never did chain\nhamper her liberty and never a blow fell on her shapely, snow-white\nform. She reposed softly, stretched on the breast of her master or\nmistress, and at night a well-made bed refreshed her tired limbs. If she\nlacked speech, she could make herself understood better than any of her\nkind\u2014yet no one had reason to fear her bark. A hapless mother, she died\nwhen her little ones saw the light, and now a narrow marble slab covers\nthe earth where she rests.\n\nCicero\u2019s tribute to canine worth is well known: \u201cDogs watch for us\nfaithfully; they love and worship their masters, they hate strangers,\ntheir powers of tracking by scent is extraordinary; great is their\nkeenness in the chase: what can all this mean but that they were made\nfor man\u2019s advantage?\u201d It was as natural to the Roman mind to regard man\nas the lord of creation as to regard the Roman as the lord of man. For\nthe rest, his normal conception of animals differed little from that of\nAristotle. Cicero says that the chief distinction between man and\nanimals, is that animals look only to the present, paying little\nattention to the past and future, while man looks before and after,\nweighs causes and effects, draws analogies and views the whole path of\nlife, preparing things needful for passing along it. Expressed in the\nkey of antique optimism instead of in the key of modern pessimism, the\njudgment is the same as that of Burns in his lines to the field-mouse:\n\n \u201cStill thou art blest, compared wi\u2019 me!\n The present only touches thee:\n But, och! I backward cast my e\u2019e\n On prospects drear!\n And forward, tho\u2019 I canna see,\n I guess and fear.\u201d\n\nAnd of Leopardi in the song of the Syrian shepherd to his flock:\u2014\n\n \u201cO flock that liest at rest, O blessed thou\n That knowest not thy fate, however hard,\n How utterly I envy thee!\u201d\n\nCicero\u2019s more virile mind would have spurned this craving to renounce\nthe distinguishing human privilege for the bliss of ignorance.\n\nWherever we fix the limits of animal intelligence, there is no question\nof man\u2019s obligation to treat sentient creatures with humanity. This was\nrecognised by Marcus Aurelius when he wrote the golden precept: \u201cAs to\nanimals which have no reason ... do thou, since thou hast reason, and\nthey have none, make use of them with a generous and liberal spirit.\u201d\nHere we have the broadest application of the narrowest assumption. From\nthe time, at least, that Rome was full of Greek teachers, there were\nalways some partisans of a different theory altogether. What Seneca\ncalls \u201cthe illustrious but unpopular school of Pythagoras\u201d had a little\nfollowing which made up by its sincere enthusiasm for the fewness of its\nmembers. Seneca\u2019s own master Sotio was of this school, and his teaching\nmade a deep impression on the most illustrious of his pupils, who sums\nup its chief points with his usual lucidity: Pythagoras gave men a\nhorror of crime and of parricide by telling them that they might\nunawares kill or devour their own fathers; all sentient beings are bound\ntogether in a universal kinship and an endless transmutation causes them\nto pass from one form to another; no soul perishes or ceases its\nactivity save in the moment when it changes its envelope. Sotio took for\ngranted that the youths who attended his classes came to him with minds\nunprepared to receive these doctrines, and he aimed more at making them\naccept the consequences of the theory than the theory itself. What if\nthey believed none of it? What if they did not believe that souls passed\nthrough different bodies and that the thing we call death is a\ntransmigration? That in the animal which crops the grass or which\npeoples the sea, a soul resides which once was human? That, like the\nheavenly bodies, every soul traverses its appointed circle? That nothing\nin this world perishes, but only changes scene and place? Let them\nremember, nevertheless, that great men have believed all this: \u201cSuspend\nyour judgment, and in the meantime, respect whatever has life.\u201d If the\ndoctrine be true, then to abstain from animal flesh is to spare oneself\nthe committal of crimes; if it be false, such abstinence is commendable\nfrugality; \u201call you lose is the food of lions and vultures.\u201d\n\nSotio himself was a thorough Pythagorean, but there was another\nphilosopher of the name of Sestius who was an ardent advocate of\nabstinence from animal food without believing in the transmigration of\nsouls. He founded a sort of brotherhood, the members of which took the\npledge to abide by this rule. He argued that since plenty of other\nwholesome food existed, what need was there for man to shed blood?\nCruelty must become habitual when people devour flesh to indulge the\npalate: \u201clet us reduce the elements of sensuality.\u201d Health would be also\nthe gainer by the adoption of a simpler and less various diet. Sotio\nused these arguments of one whom he might have called an unbeliever, to\nreinforce his own.\n\nSeneca does not say if many of his schoolfellows were as much impressed\nas he was by this teaching. For a year he abstained from flesh, and when\nhe got accustomed to it, he even found the new diet easy and agreeable.\nHis mind seemed to grow more active. That he was allowed to eat what he\nliked without encountering interference or ridicule shows the\nconsiderable freedom in which the youth of Rome was brought up: this\nmade them men. But at the beginning of the reign of Tiberius there went\nforth an edict against foreign cults, and abstinence from flesh was held\nto show a leaning towards religious novelties. For this reason the elder\nSeneca advised his son to give up vegetarianism. Seneca honestly\nconfesses that he went back to better fare without much urging; yet he\nalways remained frugal, and he seems never to have felt quite sure that\nhis youthful experiment did not agree best with the counsels of\nperfection.\n\n\n------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\n\n\n\n IV\n\n PLUTARCH THE HUMANE\n\n\nPLUTARCH was the Happy Philosopher\u2014and there were not many that were\nhappy. A life of travel, a life of teaching, an honoured old age as the\npriest of Apollo in his native village in B\u0153otia: what kinder fate than\nthis? He was happy in the very obscurity which seems to have surrounded\nhis life at Rome, for it saved him from spite and envy. He was happy, if\nwe may trust the traditional effigies, even in that thing which likewise\nis a good gift of the gods, a gracious outward presence exactly\ncorresponding with the soul within. A painter who wished to draw a type\nof illimitable compassionateness would choose the face attributed to\nPlutarch. Finally, this gentle sage is happy still after eighteen\nhundred years in doing more than any other writer of antiquity to build\nup character by diffusing the radiance of noble deeds. Nevertheless,\nwere he to come back to life he would have one disappointment, and that\nwould be to find how few people read his essays on kindness to animals:\nthey would stand a better chance of being read if they were printed\nalone, but to arrive at them you must dive in the formidable depths of\nthe _Moralia_: a very storehouse of interesting things, but hardly\nattractive to the general in a hurried age. Some of its treasures have\nbeen revealed by Dr. Oakesmith in his admirable monograph on \u201cThe\nReligion of Plutarch.\u201d The mine of nobly humane sentiment remains,\nhowever, almost unexplored.\n\nThe essays devoted to animals are three in number, with the titles:\n\u201cWhether terrestrial or aquatic animals are the more intelligent?\u201d \u201cThat\nanimals have the use of Reason\u201d; \u201cOn the habit of eating flesh.\u201d The two\nfirst are in the form of dialogues, and the third is a familiar\ndiscourse, a _conf\u00e9rence_, such as those which now form a popular\nfeature of the Roman season. Through these studies there runs a vein of\ntransparent sincerity: we feel that they were composed not to show the\nauthor\u2019s cleverness or to startle by paradoxes, but with the real wish\nto make the young men for whom they were intended a little more humane.\nPlutarch did not take up the claims of animals because good \u201ccopy\u201d could\nbe made out of them. As his wish is to persuade, he does not ask for the\nimpossible. It is the voice of the highly civilised Greek addressing the\nyoung barbarians of Rome: for to the Greek\u2019s inmost mind the Roman must\nhave always remained somewhat of a barbarian. There is great restraint:\nthough Plutarch must have loathed the games of the arena, he speaks of\nthem with guarded deprecation. He makes one of his characters say that\nthe chase (which he did not himself like) was useful in keeping people\nfrom worse things, \u201csuch as the combats of gladiators.\u201d He is genuinely\nanxious by all means to persuade some, and for this reason he refrains\nfrom scaring away his hearers or readers by extreme demands. Though he\nhas a strong personal repugnance to flesh-eating, he does not insist on\nevery one sharing it. Anyhow, he says, Be as humane as you can; cause as\nlittle suffering as is possible; no doubt it is not easy, all at once,\nto eradicate a habit which has taken hold of our sensual nature, but, at\nleast, let us deprive it of its worst features. Let us eat flesh if we\nmust, but for hunger, not for self-indulgence; let us kill animals but\nstill be compassionate\u2014not heaping up outrages and tortures \u201cas, alas,\nis done every day.\u201d He mentions how swans were blinded and then fattened\nwith unnatural foods, which is only a little worse than things that are\ndone now. What is certain is, that extreme and habitual luxury in food\nhas spelt decadence from the banquets of Babylon downwards.\n\nPlutarch goes on to ask whether it is impossible to amuse ourselves\nwithout all these excesses? Shall we expire on the spot, are the\nresources of men totally exhausted, if the table be not supplied with\n_p\u00e2t\u00e9s de foies gras_? Is life not worth living without slaughter to\nmake a feast, slaughter to find a pastime; cannot we exist without\nasking of certain animals that they show courage, and fight in spite of\nthemselves, or that they massacre other animals which have not the\nnatural energy to defend themselves? Must we for our sport tear the\nmother from the little ones which she suckles or hatches? Plutarch\nimplores us not to imitate the children of whom Bion speaks, who amused\nthemselves by throwing stones at the frogs, but the frogs were not at\nall amused\u2014they simply died. \u201cWhen we take our recreation, those who\nhelp in the fun ought to share in it and be amused as well.\u201d Thus does\nthe kind Greek philosopher exhort us\n\n \u201cNever to blend our pleasure or our pride\n With sorrow of the meanest thing that feels.\u201d\n\nDid Wordsworth know that his thought had been expressed so long before?\nIt matters little; the counsels of mercy never grow old.\n\nWith good sense and in that spirit of compromise which is really the\nbasis of morality, Plutarch argued that cruelty to animals does not lie\nin the use but in the abuse of them; it is not cruel to kill them if\nthey are incompatible with our own existence; it is not cruel to tame\nand train to our service those made by nature gentle and loving towards\nman which become the companions of our toil according to their natural\naptitude. \u201cHorse and ass are given to us,\u201d as Prometheus says, \u201cto be\nsubmissive servants and fellow-workers; dogs to be guardians and\nwatchers, goats and sheep to give us milk and wool.\u201d (Cow\u2019s milk seems\nto have been rarely drunk, as is still the case in the Mediterranean\nislands and in Greece.)\n\n\u201cThe Stoics,\u201d says Plutarch, \u201cmade sensibility towards animals a\npreparation to humanity and compassion because the gradually formed\nhabit of the lesser affections is capable of leading men very far.\u201d In\nthe \u201cLives\u201d he insists on the same point: \u201cKindness and beneficence\nshould be extended to creatures of every species, and these still flow\nfrom the breast of a well-natured man as streams that issue from the\nliving fountain. A good man will take care of his horses and dogs not\nonly when they are young, but when old and past service.... We certainly\nought not to treat living creatures like shoes or household goods,\nwhich, when worn out with use, we throw away, and were it only to learn\nbenevolence to human kind, we should be merciful to other creatures. For\nmy own part I would not sell even an old ox.\u201d\n\nHere I may say that Plutarch should have thanked Fate which made him a\nphilosopher and not a farmer. For how, alas, can the farmer escape from\nbecoming the accomplice of that which the Italian poet apostrophizes in\nthe words\u2014\n\n \u201cNatura, illaudabil maraviglia,\n Che per uccider partorisci e nutri!\u201d\n\nHow can well-cared-for old age be the lot of more than a very few of the\nanimals that serve us so faithfully? The exception must console us for\nthe rule. The beautiful story of one such exception is told by both\nPlutarch and Pliny the Elder. When Pericles was building the Parthenon a\ngreat number of mules were employed in drawing the stones up the hill of\nthe Acropolis. Some of them became too old for the work, and these were\nset at liberty to pasture at large. But one old mule gravely walked\nevery day to the stone-yard and accompanied, or rather led, the\nprocession of mule-carts to and fro. The Athenians were delighted with\nits devotion to duty, and decided that it should be supported at the\nexpense of the State for the rest of its days. According to Pliny, the\nmule of the Parthenon lived till it had attained its eightieth year, a\nrecord that seems startling even having regard to the proverbial\nlongevity of pensioners. Plutarch does not mention it, perhaps, because\nhe had some doubts about its accuracy. In other respects the story may\nbe accepted as literally true; and does it not do us good to think of\nit, as we look at the most glorious work of man\u2019s hands bathed in the\ngolden afterglow? Does it not do us good to think that at the zenith of\nher greatness Athens\n\n \u201c... Mother of arts\n And eloquence, native to famous wits\u201d\n\nstooped\u2014nay, rose\u2014to generous appreciation of the willing service of an\nold mule?\n\nIn dealing with animal psychology Plutarch makes a strong point of the\ninherent improbability that, while feeling and imagination are the\ncommon share of all animated beings, reason should be apportioned only\nto a single species. \u201cHow can you say such things? Is not every one\nconvinced that no being can feel without also possessing understanding,\nthat there is not a single animal which has not a sort of thought and\nreason just as he comes into the world with senses and instinct?\u201d\nNature, which is said to make all things from one cause and to one end,\nhas not given sensibility to animals simply in order that they should be\ncapable of sensations. Since some things are good for them, and others\nbad, they would not exist for a single instant if they did not know how\nto seek the good and shun the bad. The animal learns by his senses what\nthings are good and what are bad for him, but when, in consequence of\nthese indications, of his senses, it is a question of taking and seeking\nwhat is useful and of avoiding and flying from what is harmful, these\nsame animals would have no means of action if Nature had not made them\nup to a certain point capable of reason, of judgment, of memory, and of\nattention. Because, if you completely deprived them of the spirit of\nconjecture, memory, foresight, preparation, hope, fear, desire, grief,\nthey would cease to derive the slightest utility from the eyes or ears\nwhich they possess. Plutarch might have added that a mindless animal\nwould resemble not a child or a savage, but an idiot. He does point out\nthat they would be better off with no senses at all than with the power\nof feeling and no power of acting upon it. But, he adds, could sensation\nexist without intelligence? He quotes a line from I do not know what\npoet:\u2014\n\n \u201cThe spirit only hears and sees\u2014all else\n Is deaf and blind.\u201d\n\nIf we look with our eyes at a page of writing without seizing the\nmeaning of a word of it, because our thoughts are preoccupied, is it not\nthe same as if we had never seen it? But even were we to admit that the\nsenses suffice to their office, would that explain the phenomena of\nmemory and foresight? Would the animal fear things, not present, which\nharm him, or desire things, not present, which are to his advantage?\nWould he prepare his retreat or shelter or devise snares by which to\ncatch other animals? Only one theory can be applied to mind in man and\nmind in animals.\n\nIt will be seen from this summary that Plutarch traversed the whole\nfield of speculation on animal intelligence which has not really\nextended its boundaries since the time when he wrote, though it is\npossible that we are now on the verge, if not of new discoveries, at\nleast of the admission of a new point of view. The study of the dual\nelement in man, the endeavour to establish a line of demarcation between\nthe conscious and subliminal self, may lead to the inquiry, how far the\nconscious self corresponds with what was meant, when speaking of\nanimals, by \u201creason,\u201d and the subliminal self with what was meant by\n\u201cinstinct\u201d? But the use of a new terminology would not alter the\nconclusion: call it reason, consciousness, spirit; some of it the\n\u201cparagon of animals\u201d shares with his poor relations. The case is put in\na homely way but not without force by the heroine of a forgotten novel\nby Lamartine: the speaker is an old servant who is in despair at losing\nher goldfinch: \u201cAh! On dit que les b\u00eates n\u2019ont pas l\u2019\u00e2me,\u201d she says. \u201cJe\nne veux pas offenser le bon Dieu, mais si mon pauvre oiseau n\u2019avait pas\nd\u2019\u00e2me, avec quoi done n\u2019aurait-il tant aim\u00e9e? Avec les plumes ou avec\nles pattes, peut-\u00eatre?\u201d\n\nPlutarch reviews\u2014to reject\u2014the \u201cAutomata\u201d argument, which had already\nsome supporters. Certain naturalists, he says, try to prove that animals\nfeel neither pleasure nor anger nor yet fear; that the nightingale does\nnot meditate his song, that the bee has no memory, that the swallow\nmakes no preparations, that the lion never grows angry, nor is the stag\nsubject to fear. Everything, according to these theorists, is merely\ndelusive appearance. They might as well assert that animals cannot see\nor hear; that they only appear to see or hear; that they have no voice,\nonly the semblance of a voice; in short, that they are not alive but\nonly seem to live.\n\nThe moral aspects of any problem are those which to a moralist seem the\nmost important, and Plutarch did not seek to deny the force of the\nobjection: If virtue be the true aim of reason, how can Nature have\nbestowed reason on creatures which cannot direct it to its true object?\nBut he denied the postulate that animals have no ethical potentialities.\nIf the love of men for their children is granted to be the corner-stone\nof all human society, shall we say that there is no merit in the\naffection of animals for their offspring? He sums up the matter by\nremarking that the limitation of a faculty does not show that it does\nnot exist. To pretend that every being not endowed at birth with perfect\nreason is, by its nature, incapable of reason of any kind, would be to\nignore the fact that although reason is a natural gift the degree in\nwhich it is possessed by any individual depends on his training and on\nhis teachers. Perfect reason is possessed by none because none has\nperfect rectitude and moral excellence.\n\nAnimals exhibit examples of sociability, courage, resource, and again,\nof cowardice and viciousness. Why do we not say of one tree that it is\nless teachable than another, as we say that a sheep is less teachable\nthan a dog? It is, of course, because plants cannot think, and where the\nfaculty of thought is wholly wanting, there cannot be more or less\nquickness or slowness, more or less of good qualities or of bad.\n\nYet it must be allowed that man\u2019s intelligence is amazingly superior to\nthat of animals. But what does that prove? Do not some animals leave man\nfar behind in the keenness of their sight and the sharpness of their\nhearing? Shall we say, therefore, that man is blind or deaf? We have\nsome strength in our hands and in our bodies although we are not\nelephants or camels. In the same way, we should be careful not to infer\nthat animals lack all reasoning faculties from the fact that their\nintelligence is duller and more defective than man\u2019s. \u201cBoatfuls\u201d of true\nstories can be cited to show the docility and special aptitudes of the\ndifferent children of creation. And a very amusing occupation it is,\nsays Plutarch, for young people to collect such stories. In the course\nof his work, he sets them a good example, for he brings together a real\n\u201cboatful\u201d of anecdotes of clever beasts, but at this point he contents\nhimself with observing that madness in dogs and other animals would be\nalone sufficient to show that they had some mind: otherwise, how could\nthey go out of it?\n\nThe stoics who taught the strictest humanity to animals rejected,\nnevertheless, the supposition that animals had reason, for how, they\nasked, can such a theory be reconciled with the idea of eternal justice?\nWould it not make abstinence from their flesh imperative and entail\nconsequences which would make our life impracticable? If we were to give\nup using animals for our own purposes, we should be reduced ourselves\nalmost to the condition of brutes. \u201cWhat works would be left for us to\ndo by land or sea, what industries to cultivate, what embellishments of\nour way of living, if we regarded animals as reasonable beings and our\nfellow-creatures, and hence adopted the rule (which, clearly, would be\nonly proper) to do them no harm and to study their convenience.\u201d\n\nMany a sensitive modern soul has pondered over this crux without finding\na satisfactory solution. Plutarch says that Empedocles and Heraclites\nadmitted the injustice, and laid it to the door of Nature which permits\nor ordains a state of war and necessity, in which nothing is\naccomplished without the weaker going to the wall. For himself, he would\npropose to those \u201cwho, instead of disputing, gently follow and learn\u201d\nthe better way out of the difficulty\u2014which was introduced by the Sages\nof Antiquity, then long lost, and found again by Pythagoras. This better\nway is to use animals as our helpers but to refrain from taking life.\n\nPlutarch here evades a stumbling-block which he does not remove. The\ndialogue, as it has come down to us, breaks off suddenly after one final\nobjection: how can beings have reason which have no notion of God? Some\nscholars imagine that Plutarch hurried the dialogue to a close because\nthis query completely baffled him; others (and they are the majority)\nattribute the abrupt finish to the loss of the concluding part. Would\nPlutarch have contented himself with citing the analogy of young\nchildren who, although not without the elements of reason, know very\nlittle of theology, or would not he rather have contended with Celsus,\nthat animals _do_ possess religious knowledge? If he took the last\ncourse, it may well be that the disappearance of the end of the dialogue\nwas not accidental. At Ravenna there is a terrible mosaic, alive with\nwrath and energy, which shows a Christ we know not (for He looks like a\ngrand Inquisitor) thrusting into the flames heretical books. As I looked\nat it, I thought how many valuable classical works, vaguely suspected on\nthe score of faith or morals, must have shared the fate of \u201cunorthodox\u201d\npolemics in the merry bonfires which this mosaic holds up for imitation!\n\nThe argument \u201cthat it sounds unnatural to ascribe reason to creatures\nignorant of God,\u201d suggests familiarity with a passage in Epictetus\n(Plutarch\u2019s contemporary), where he says that man alone was made to have\nthe understanding which recognises God\u2014a recognition which he elsewhere\nexplains by the hypothesis that every man has in him a small portion of\nthe divine. Having this intuitive sense, man is bound, without ceasing,\nto praise his Creator, and, since others are blind and neglect to do it,\nEpictetus will do it on behalf of all: \u201cfor what else can I do, a lame\nold man, than sing hymns to God? If I was a nightingale, I should do the\npart of a nightingale; if I were a swan, I would do like a swan; but now\nI am a _rational creature_, and I ought to praise God: this is my work;\nI do it, nor will I desert this post so long as I am allowed to keep it,\nand I exhort you to join in this song.\u201d\n\nThe words are among the sweetest and most solemn that ever issued from\nhuman lips; yet those who care to pursue the subject farther may submit\nthat there was some one before Epictetus, who called upon the beasts,\nthe fishes and the fowls to join him in blessing the name of the Lord,\nand there was some one after him who commanded the birds of the air to\nsing the praises of their Maker and Preserver! It is strange that,\ndespite the hard-and-fast line which the moulders of the Catholic Faith\nwere at pains to trace between man and beast, if we would find the most\nemphatic assertion of their common privilege of praising God, we must\nleave the Pagan world and take up the Bible and the \u201cFioretti\u201d of St.\nFrancis!\n\n[Illustration:\n\n (_Photo: Sommer._)\n BACCHUS RIDING ON A PANTHER.\n Naples Museum.\n (_Mosaic found at Pompeii._)]\n\nOf the anecdotes with which Plutarch enlivens his pages, he says himself\nthat he puts on one side fable and mythology, and limits his choice to\nthe \u201call true\u201d category, and if he appears to be at times a little\ncredulous, one may well believe that he is always candid. Just as in his\n\u201cLives\u201d he tried to ennoble his readers by making noble deeds\ninteresting, so in his writings on animals, he tried to make people\nhumane by making his dumb clients interesting. He did not start with\nthinking the task an easy one, for he was convinced that man is more\ncruel than the most savage of wild beasts. But he aims at pouring, if\nnot a full draught of mercy, at least some drops, into the heart that\nnever felt a pang, the mind that never gave a thought. Many of his\nstories are taken straight from the common street life of the Rome of\nhis day, as that of the elephant which passed every day along a certain\nstreet where the schoolboys teased it by pricking its trunk with their\nwriting stylets (men may come and go, but the small boy is a fixed\nquantity!). At last, the elephant, losing patience, picked up one of his\ntormentors and hoisted him in the air; a cry of horror rose from the\nspectators, no one doubted that in another moment the child would be\ndashed to the ground. But the elephant set the offender down very gently\nand walked away, thinking, no doubt, that a good fright had been a\nsufficient punishment. The Syrian elephant, of whom Plutarch tells how\nhe made his master understand that in his absence he had been cheated of\nhalf his rations, was not cleverer than some of his kind on service in\nIndia, who would not begin to eat till all three cakes which formed\ntheir rations were set before each of them\u2014a fact that was told me by\nthe officer whose duty it was to preside at their dinner. Plutarch\nspeaks of counting oxen that knew when the number of turns was finished\nwhich constituted their daily task at a saw-mill: they refused to\nperform one more turn than the appointed figure. As an instance of the\ndiscrimination of animals, he tells how Alexander\u2019s horse, Bucephalus,\nwhen unsaddled, would allow the grooms to mount him, but when he had on\nall his rich caparisons, no one on earth could get on his back except\nhis royal master. There is no doubt that animals take notice of dress. I\nhave been told that when crinolines were worn, all the dogs barked at\nany woman not provided with one. Plutarch was among the earliest to\nobserve that animals discover sooner than man when ice will not bear,\nwhich he thinks that they find out by noticing if there is any sound of\nrunning water. He says truly that to draw such an inference presupposes\nnot only sharp ears, but a real power of weighing cause and effect.\nPlutarch mentions foxes as particularly clever in this respect, but dogs\npossess the same gift. The French Ambassador at Rome\u2014who, like all\npersons of superior intelligence, is very fond of animals\u2014told me the\nfollowing story. One winter day, when he was French Minister at Munich,\nhe went alone with his gun and his dog to the banks of the Isar. Having\nshot a snipe, he ordered the dog to go on to the ice to fetch it, but,\nto his surprise, the animal, which had never disobeyed him, refused.\nAnnoyed at its obstinacy, he went himself on to the ice, which\nimmediately gave way, and had he not been a good swimmer he might not be\nnow at the Palazzo Farnese.\n\nThe two creatures that have been most praised for their wisdom are the\nelephant and the ant, but of the ant\u2019s admirers from Solomon to Lord\nAvebury, not one was ever so enthusiastic as Plutarch. Horace, indeed,\nhad discoursed of her foresight: \u201cShe carries in her mouth whatever she\nis able, and piles up her heap, by no means ignorant or careless of the\nfuture; then, when Aquarius saddens the inverted year, never does she\ncreep abroad, wisely making use of the stores which were provided\nbeforehand.\u201d But such a tribute sounds cold beside Plutarch\u2019s praise of\nher as the tiny mirror in which the greatest marvels of Nature are\nreflected, a drop of the purest water, containing every Virtue, and,\nabove all, what Homer calls \u201cthe sweetness of loving qualities.\u201d Ants,\nhe declares, show the utmost solicitude for their comrades, alive and\ndead. They exhibit their ingenuity by biting off the ends of grains to\nprevent them from sprouting and so spoiling the provender. He speaks,\nthough not from his own observation, of the beautiful interior\narrangements of ant-hills which had been examined by naturalists who\ndivided the mount into sections, \u201cA thing I cannot approve of!\u201d\nTender-hearted philosopher, who had a scruple about upsetting an\nant-hill! Of other insects, he most admires the skill of spiders and\nbees. It is said that the bees of Crete, when rounding a certain\npromontory, carried tiny stones as ballast to avoid being blown away by\nthe wind. I have seen more than once a tiny stone hanging from the\nspider-threads which crossed and re-crossed an avenue\u2014it seemed to me\nthat these were designed to steady the suspension bridge.\n\nPlutarch insists that animals teach themselves even things outside the\norder of their natural habits, a fact which will be confirmed by all who\nhave observed them closely. Just as no two animals have the same\ndisposition, so does each one, though in greatly varying degree, display\nsome little arts or accomplishments peculiar to itself. Plutarch\nmentions a trained elephant that was seen practising its steps when it\nthought that no one was looking. But he allots the palm of self-culture\nto an incomparable magpie that belonged to a barber whose shop faced the\ntemple called the Agora of the Greeks. The bird could imitate to\nperfection any sort of sound, cry or tune; it was renowned in the whole\nquarter. Now it happened one morning that the funeral of a wealthy\ncitizen went past, accompanied by a very fine band of trumpeters which\nperformed an elaborate piece of music. After that day, to every one\u2019s\nsurprise, the magpie grew mute! Had it become deaf or dumb or both!\nEndless were the surmises, and what was not the general amazement when,\nat last, it broke its long silence by bursting forth with a flood of\nbrilliant notes the exact reproduction of the difficult trills and\ncadences executed by the funeral band! Evidently it had been practising\nit in its head all that while, and only produced it when it had got it\nquite perfect. Several Romans and several Greeks witnessed the facts and\ncould vouch for the truth of the narrative.\n\nThe swallow\u2019s nest and the nightingale\u2019s song make Plutarch pause and\nwonder; he believes, with Aristotle, that the old nightingales teach the\nyoung ones, remarking that nightingales reared in captivity never sing\nso well as those that have profited by the parental lessons. He gives a\nword to the dove of Deucalion which returned a first time to the ark\nbecause the deluge continued, but disappeared when it was set free\nagain, the waters having subsided. Plutarch confesses, however, that\nthis is \u201cmythical,\u201d and though he admits that birds deserved the name by\nwhich Euripides calls them of \u201cMessengers of the gods,\u201d he is inclined\nto attribute their warnings to the direct intervention of an over-ruling\ndeity of whom they are the inconscient agents.\n\nIt is a pleasure to find that Plutarch had a high appreciation of the\nhedgehog\u2014the charming \u201curchin\u201d which represents to many an English child\nan epitome of wild nature, friendly yet untamed, familiar yet\nmysterious. He does not say that it milks cows\u2014a calumny which is an\narticle of faith with the British ploughman\u2014but he relates that when the\ngrapes are ripe, the mother urchin goes under the vines and shakes the\nplants till some of the grapes fall off; then, rolling herself over\nthem, she attaches a number of grapes to her spines and so marches back\nto the hole where she keeps her nurslings. \u201cOne day,\u201d says Plutarch,\n\u201cwhen we were all together, we had the chance of seeing this with our\nown eyes\u2014it looked as if a bunch of grapes was shuffling along the\nground, so thickly covered was the animal with its booty.\u201d\n\nDogs that threw themselves on their masters\u2019 pyre, dogs that caused the\narrest of assassins or thieves, dogs that remained with and protected\nthe bodies of their dead masters, clever dogs, devoted dogs, magnanimous\ndogs\u2014these will be all found in Plutarch\u2019s gallery. How high-minded, he\nsays, it is in the dog when, as Homer advises, you lay down your stick,\neven an angry dog ceases to attack you. He praises the affectionate\nregard which many have shown in giving decent burial to the dogs they\ncherished, and recalls how Xantippus of old, whose dog swam by his\ngalley to Salamis when the Athenians were forced to abandon their city,\nburied the faithful creature on a promontory which \u201cto this day\u201d is\nknown as the Dog\u2019s Grave. Very desolate was the case of the other\nanimals that ran up and down distraught when their masters embarked,\nlike the poor cats and dogs which helped the English soldiers in the\nblock-houses to while away the weary hours, and which, by superior\norders, were left to their fate, though their comrades in khaki were\nanxious enough to carry them away. As a proof of the affection of the\nGreeks for their dogs Plutarch might have spoken of the not uncommon\nrepresentation of them on the _Stel\u00e6_ in the family group which brings\ntogether all the dearest ties between life and death.\n\nOne animal is missing from Plutarch\u2019s portrait gallery\u2014the cat, to which\nhe only concedes the ungracious allusion \u201cthat man had not the excuse of\nhunger for eating flesh, like the weasel or cat.\u201d Can we make good the\nomission from other sources?\n\nThere is a general notion that cats \u201cwere almost unknown to Greek and\nRoman antiquity\u201d\u2014these are the words of so well-informed a writer as M.\nS. Reinach. Yet instances exist of paintings of cats on Greek vases of\nthe fifth century, and I was interested to see in the Museum at Athens a\nwell-carved cat on a stele. Aristotle, who, like Plutarch, mentions cats\nin connexion with weasels (both, he says, catch birds), reckons the time\nthey live at six years, less than half the life of an average modern\ncat; this may indicate that though known, they were not then\nacclimatised in Europe. \u00c6sop has four fables of cats: 1. A cat dressed\nas a physician offers his services to an aviary of birds; they are\ndeclined. 2. A cat seeks an excuse for eating a cock; he fails to find\nthe excuse, but eats the cock all the same. 3. A cat pretends to be dead\nso that mice may come near her. 4. A cat falls in love with a handsome\nyoung man and induces Venus to change her into a lovely maiden. But on a\nmouse coming into the room, she scampers after it. Venus, being\ndispleased, changes her back into a cat. This belongs to a large circle\nof folk-tales, and probably all these fables came from the East.\n\nHerodotus tells as a \u201cvery marvellous thing\u201d that cats are apt to rush\nback into a burning house, and that the Egyptians try to save them, even\nat the risk of their lives, but rarely succeed: hence great lamentation.\nAlso, that if a cat die in a house all the dwellers in it shave their\neyebrows; \u201cthe cats, when they are dead, they carry for burial to the\ncity of Bubastis.\u201d The Egyptian name for light (and for cat) is _Mau_,\nand the inference is irresistible, that the Egyptians supposed the cat\nto be constantly apostrophizing the sacred light of which she was the\nsymbol. Nothing shows the strength of tradition better than the\nexistence of an endowment at Cairo for the feeding and housing of\nhomeless cats.\n\nIf the cat in Europe had been a rarity so great as most people think, it\nwould have been more highly prized. It seems nearer the truth to say\nthat it was not admired. Its incomplete domestication which attracts us,\ndid not attract the ancient world. Tame only so far as it suits their\nown purposes, cats patronize man, looking down upon him from a higher\nplane, which, if only the house-top, they make a golden bar.\n\n \u201cChat myst\u00e9rieux,\n Chat s\u00e9raphique, chat \u00e9trange ...\n Peut-\u00eatre est-il f\u00e9e, est-il dieu?\u201d\n\nGreeks and Romans preferred a plain animal to this half-elf, half-god.\n\nThe Greek comic writer, Anaxandrides, said to the Egyptians: \u201cYou weep\nif you see a cat ailing, but I like to kill and skin it.\u201d The fear lest\ncats should be profanely treated in Europe led the Egyptians to do all\nthey could to prevent their exportation; they even sent missions to the\nMediterranean to ransom the cats borne into slavery and carry them back\nto Egypt. But these missions could not have reached the cats that had\nbeen taken inland, and as the animal increases rapidly, it may have been\nfairly common from early times. There is no doubt, however, that the\nnumber went up with a bound when Egypt became Christian, and every monk\nwho came to Europe brought shoals of cats, the date corresponding with\nthat of the first invasion of the rat in the trail of the Huns.\n\n[Illustration:\n\n BRONZE STATUE OF AN EGYPTIAN CAT.\n (_Collection of H.E. Monsieur Camille Barr\u00e8re, French Ambassador at\n Rome._)]\n\nAntiquity regarded the cat, before all things, as a little beast of\nprey. Nearly every reference to it gives it this character. In the stele\nat Athens the cat is supposed to be looking at a bird-cage to which the\nman is pointing; the man holds a bird in his left hand, presumably the\npet of the child who stands by him. It seems as if the cat meditated if\nit had not performed some fell deed. Seneca observed that young chickens\nfeel an instinctive fear of the cat but not of the dog. The fine mosaic\nat Pompeii shows a tabby kitten in the act of catching a quail.\n\nOnly one ancient poet, by a slight magician-like touch, calls up a\ndifferent vision: Theorcitus makes the voluble Praxin\u0153 say to her maid:\n\u201cEun\u0153, pick up your work, and take care, lazy girl, how you leave it\nlying about again; the cats find it just the bed they like.\u201d There\u2014at\nlast\u2014is the cat we know! But after all, it is an Egyptian cat: a cat\nsure of her privileges, a cat who relies on her goddess prototype, and\nhas but a modicum of respect for the chattering little Syracusan woman\nin whose house she condescends to reside. Such were not cats of ancient\nGreece and Rome, who, from being un-appreciated, fell back to the morals\nof the simple ravager.\n\n\n------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\n\n\n\n V\n\n MAN AND HIS BROTHER\n\n\nTRADITIONAL beliefs are like the _coco de mer_ which was found floating,\nhere and there, on the sea, or washed up on the shore, and which gave\nbirth to the strangest conjectures; it was supposed to tell of\nundiscovered continents or to have dropped from heaven itself. Then, one\nday, some one saw this peculiar cocoanut quietly growing on a tall\npalm-tree in an obscure islet of the Indian Ocean. All we gather of\nprimitive traditions is the fruit. Yet the fruit did not grow in the\nair, it grew on branches and the branches grew on a trunk and the trunk\nhad a root. To get to the root of even the slightest of our own\nprejudices\u2014let alone those of the savage\u2014we should have to travel back\nfar into times when history was not.\n\nLucretius placed at the beginning of the ages of mankind a berry-eating\nrace, innocent of blood. The second age belonged to the hunter who\nkilled animals, at first, and possibly for a long time, for their skins,\nbefore he used their flesh as food. In the third age animals were\ndomesticated; first the sheep, because that was gentle and easily tamed\n(which one may see by the moufflons at Monte Carlo), then, by degrees,\nthe others.\n\nThis classification was worthy of the most far-seeing mind of antiquity.\nHad not human originally meant humane we should not have been here to\ntell the tale. The greater traditions of a bloodless age are enshrined\nin sacred books; minor traditions of it abound in the folk-lore of the\nworld. Man was home-sick of innocence; his conscience, which has gone on\ngetting more blunted, not more sensitive, revolted at the \u201cdaily\nmurder.\u201d So mankind called upon heaven to provide an excuse for\nslaughter.\n\nThe Kirghis of Mongolia say that in the beginning only four men and four\nanimals were made: the camel, the ox, the sheep, and the horse, and all\nwere told to live on grass. The animals grazed, but the men pulled up\nthe grass by the roots and stored it. The animals complained to God that\nthe men were pulling up all the grass, and that soon there would be none\nleft. God said: \u201cIf I forbid men to eat grass, will you allow them to\neat you?\u201d Fearing starvation, the animals consented.\n\nFrom the first chapter of Genesis to the last of the \u201cOrigin of Species\u201d\nthere is one long testimony to our vegetarian ancestor, but beyond the\nfact that he existed, what do we know about him? We may well believe\nthat he lived in a good climate and on a plenteous earth. Adam and Eve\nor their representatives could not have subsisted in Greenland. I think\nthat the killing of wild animals, and especially the eating of them,\nbegan when man found himself confronted by extremes of cold and length\nof winter nights. The skins of animals gave him the only possibility of\nkeeping warm or even of living at all, if he was to brave the outer air,\nwhile their flesh may have been often the only food he could find. He\nwas obliged to eat them to keep alive, as Arctic explorers have been\nobliged to eat their sledge-dogs. Not preference, but hard necessity,\nmade him carnivorous.\n\nThese speculations are confirmed by the doings of the earliest man of\nwhom we have any sure knowledge; _not_ the proto-man who must have\ndeveloped, as I have said, under very different climatic conditions.\nPerhaps he sat under the palm-trees growing on the banks of the Thames,\nbut though the palm-trees have left us their fruit, man, if he was\nthere, left nothing to speak of his harmless sojourn. By tens of\nthousands of years the earliest man with whom we can claim acquaintance\nis the reindeer hunter of Quartenary times. He hunted and fed upon the\nreindeer, but he had not tamed them. He wore reindeer skins, but he\ncould not profit by reindeer milk; no children were brought up by hand,\npossibly to the advantage of the children. It is likely, by the by, that\nthe period of human lactation was very long. The horse also was killed\nfor food at a time infinitely removed from the date of his first service\nto man.\n\n[Illustration:\n\n REINDEER BROWSING.\n Older Stone Age.]\n\n[Illustration:\n\n HORSE DRAWING DISC OF THE SUN.\n Older Bronze Age.]\n\nThe reindeer hunter was a most intelligent observer of animals. He was\nan artist and a very good one. The best of his scratchings on reindeer\nhorn and bone of horses and reindeer in different attitudes are\nadmirable for freedom, life, and that intuition of character which makes\nthe true animal painter. For a time which makes one dizzy to look down\nupon, no such draughtsman appeared as the pre-historic cave dweller. The\nmen of the age of Polished Stone and of the early ages of metals\nproduced nothing similar in the way of design. They understood beauty of\nform and ornament or, rather, perhaps, they still shared in that\nNature\u2019s own unerring touch; it took millenniums of civilisation for man\nto make one ugly pot or pan. But these men had not the gift or even the\nidea of sitting down to copy a grazing or running animal.\n\nWe need not go far, however, to find a man who, living under nearly the\nsame conditions as the reindeer hunter of Southern France, has developed\nthe same artistic aptitude. I shall always recall with pleasure my visit\nto a Laplander\u2019s hut; it was in the broad daylight of Arctic midnight\u2014no\none slept in the hut, except an extraordinarily small baby in a\ncanoe-shaped cradle. The floor was spread with handsome furs, and its\naspect was neither untidy nor comfortless. I reflected that this was how\nthe cave dweller arranged his safe retreat. Much more strongly was he\nbrought to my mind by the domestic objects of every sort made of\nreindeer horn and adorned with drawings. As I write I have one of them\nbefore me, a large horn knife, the sheath of which ends with the\nbranching points. It is beautifully decorated with _graffiti_, showing\nthe good and graceful creature without whom the Laplander cannot live.\nThe school of art is distinctly Troglodite.\n\nA theory has been started that the man of the Quartenary age drew his\nhorses and his reindeer solely as a magical decoy from the idea that the\npictures \u201ccalled\u201d the game as whistling (_i.e._, imitating the sound of\nthe wind) \u201ccalls\u201d the wind. I do not know that the Lapps, though\npractised in magic, have any such purpose in view. It is said that it\nwould be absurd to attribute a motive of mere artistic pleasure to the\nTroglodite. Why? Some races have as natural a tendency to artistic\neffort as the bower-bird has to decorate its nest. Conditions of climate\nmay have given the hunter periods of enforced idleness, and art, in its\nearliest form, was, perhaps, always an escape from _ennui_, a mode of\npassing the time. That the early hunter dealt in magic is likely enough;\nhe is supposed, though not on altogether conclusive grounds, to have\nbeen a fetich-worshipper, and fetich-worship is akin to some kinds of\nmagic. But it does not follow that _all_ his art had this connexion. How\nanimals appeared to his eyes we know; what he thought about them he has\nnot told us. The Eskimo, the modern pre-historic man who is believed to\nbe a better-preserved type than even the Lapp, may be asked to speak for\nhim.\n\nThe Eskimo can say that he had a friendly feeling towards all living\nthings, notwithstanding that he fed on flesh, and that wild beasts\nsometimes fed on him. Not that he had ever talked of wild beasts, for he\nhad no tame ones. He had not a vocabulary of rude terms about animals.\nHe was inclined to credit every species with many potential merits. The\nEskimo is afraid\u2014very much afraid\u2014of bears. Yet he is the first to admit\nthat the bear is capable of acting like the finest of fine gentlemen. A\nwoman was in a fright at seeing a bear and so gave him a partridge; that\nbear never forgot the trifling service, but brought her newly killed\nseals ever after. Another bear saved the life of three men who wished to\nreward him. He politely declined their offer, but if, in winter time,\nthey should see a bald-headed bear, will they induce their companions to\nspare him? After so saying, he plunged into the sea. Next winter a bear\nwas sighted and they were going to hunt him, when these men, remembering\nwhat had happened, begged the hunters to wait till they had had a look\nat him. Sure enough it was \u201ctheir own bear\u201d! They told the others to\nprepare a feast for him, and when he had refreshed himself, he lay down\nto sleep and _the children played around him_. Presently he awoke and\nate a little more, after which he went down to the sea, leapt in, and\nwas never seen again.\n\nEven such lovely imaginings, we may believe, without an excessive\nstretch of fancy, gilded the mental horizon of the Troglodite. He had\nlong left behind the stage of primal innocence, but no supernatural\nchasm gaped between him and his little brothers.\n\nThe reindeer hunters were submerged by what is more inexorable than\nman\u2014Nature. The reindeer vanished, and with him the hunter, doomed by\nthe changed conditions of climate. He vanished as the Lapp is vanishing;\nthe poignantly tragic scene which was chronicled by two lines in the\nnewspapers during the early summer of 1906\u2014the suicide of a whole clan\nof Lapps whose reindeer were dead and who had nothing to do but to\nfollow them\u2014may have happened in what we call fair Provence. Thousands\nof men paid with their lives for its becoming a rose garden.\n\nThe successors of the reindeer hunters, Turanian like them, but far more\nprogressive, were the lake dwellers, the dolmen-builders, with their\nweaving and spinning, their sowing and reaping, their pottery and their\nbaskets, their polished flints and their domestic animals. Man\u2019s\ngreatest achievement, the domestication of animals, had been reached in\nthe unrecorded ages that divide the rough and the polished stone. Man,\n\u201cexcellent in art,\u201d had mastered the beast whose lair is in the wilds;\n\u201che tames the horse of shaggy mane, he puts the yoke upon its neck; he\ntames the tireless mountain bull.\u201d The great mind of Sophocles saw and\nsaw truly that these were the mighty works of man; the works which made\nman, man. We know that when the Neolithic meat-eater of what is now\nDenmark threw away the bones after he had done his meal, these bones\nwere gnawed by house-dogs. A simple thing, but it tells a wondrous tale.\nDid these dogs come with their masters from Asia, or had they been tamed\nin their Northern home? The answer depends on whether the dog is\ndescended from jackal or wolf. In either case it is unlikely that the\nmost tremendous task of domestication was the first.\n\nNot everywhere has man domesticated animals, though we may be sure that\nhe took them everywhere with him after he had domesticated them. If man\nwalked on dry land across the Atlantic as some enthusiastic students of\nsub-oceanic geography now believe that he did, he led no sheep, no\nhorses, no dogs. In America, when it was discovered, there was only one\ndomestic animal, and in Australia there was none. Of native animals, the\nAmerican buffalo could have been easily tamed. It may be said that in\nAustralia there was no suitable animal, but the dog\u2019s ancestor could not\nhave seemed a suitable animal for a household protector; a jackal is not\na promising pupil, still less a wolf, unless there was some more gentle\nkind of wolf than any which now survives. Might not a good deal have\nbeen made out of the kangaroo? Possibly the whole task of domestication\nwas the work of one patient, intelligent and widely-spread race, kindred\nof the Japanese, who in making forest trees into dwarfs show the sort of\nqualities that would be needed to make a wild animal not only unafraid\n(that is nothing), but also a willing servant.\n\nThe Neolithic man\u2019s eschatology of animals and of himself was identical.\nHe contemplated for both a future life which reproduced this one. \u201cThe\nbelief in the deathlessness of souls,\u201d said Canon Isaac Taylor, \u201cwas the\ngreat contribution of the Turanian race to the religious thought of the\nworld.\u201d This appears to claim almost too much. Would any race have had\nthe courage to start upon its way had it conceived death as real?\n\n \u201cIt is a modest creed and yet\n Pleasant if one considers it,\n To own that death itself must be\n Like all the rest, a mockery.\u201d\n\nIt is a creed which springs from the very instinct of life. Two pelicans\nreturning to their nest found their two young ones dead from sunstroke.\nThe careful observer who was watching them has recorded that they _did\nnot seem to recognise_ the inert, fluffy heap as what _was_ their\nfledglings; they hunted for them for a long while, moving the twigs of\nthe nest, and at last threw one of the dead birds out of it. So the\nprimitive man in presence of the dead knows that this is not _he_ and he\nbegins to ask: where is he?\n\nBut if every race in turn has asked that question, it was asked with\nmore insistence by some peoples than by others, and above all, it was\nanswered by some with more assurance. The Neolithic Turanians had\nnothing misty in their vision of another world. It was full of movement\nand variety: the chase, the battle, the feast, sleep and awakening,\nnight and day\u2014these were there as well as here. Animals were essential\nto the picture, and it never struck the Neolithic man that there was any\nmore difficulty about their living again than about his living again. If\nhe philosophised at all, it was probably after the fashion of the Eskimo\nwho holds the soul to be the \u201cowner\u201d of the body: the body, the flesh,\ndies and may be devoured, but he who kills the body does not kill its\n\u201cowner.\u201d\n\nVast numbers of bones have been found near the dolmens in Southern\nFrance. The steed of the dead man galloped with him into the Beyond. The\nfaithful dog trotted by the little child, comrade and guardian. In the\nexquisite Hebrew idyll Tobias has his dog as well as the angel to\naccompany him on his adventurous earthly journey. The little Neolithic\nboy had only the dog and his journey was longer; but to some grieving\nfathers would it not be a rare comfort to imagine their lost darlings\nguarded by loving four-footed friends along the Path of Souls?\n\nThe Celtic conquerors of the dolmen-builders took most of their\nreligious ideas. When successful aid in mundane matters was what was\nchiefly sought in religion, a little thing might determine conversion\n_en masse_. If the divinities of one set of people seemed on some\noccasion powerless, it was natural to try the divinities of somebody\nelse. When success crowned the experiment, the new worship was formally\nadopted. This is exactly what happened in the historic case of Clovis\nand \u201cClothilde\u2019s God,\u201d and it doubtless happened frequently before the\ndawn of history. Druidism is believed to have arisen in this way in a\ngrafting of the new on the old. The Celts had the same views about the\nnext world as the dolmen-builders. They are thought to have taken them\nfrom the conquered with the rest of their religious system, but to me it\nseems unlikely that they had not already similar views when they arrived\nfrom Asia. In the early Vedas goats and horses were sacrificed to go\nbefore and announce the coming of the dead; Vedic animals kept their\nforms, the renewed body was perfect and incorruptible, but it was the\nreal body. A celebrated racehorse was deified after death. Such beliefs\nhave a strong affinity to the theory that animals (or slaves) killed at\nthe man\u2019s funeral will be useful to him in the after-life. However\nderived, our European ancestors embraced that theory to the full.\n\nOnly a few years ago a second Viking ship was found at Oseberg, in\nNorway, in which were the remains of ten horses, four dogs, a young ox,\nand the head of an old ox. Three more horses were found outside. The\ndogs had on their own collars with long chains. There were also sledges\nwith elaborately carved animals\u2019 heads. It was a queen\u2019s grave; her\ndistaff and spinning-wheel told of simple womanly tasks amidst so much\nsepulchral splendour. In those late times the law by which religious\nforms grow more sumptuous as the faith behind them grows less, may have\ncome into operation. Lavish but meaningless tributes may have taken the\nplace of a provision full of meaning for real wants.\n\nSo the sacrifices to the gods may have been once intended to stock the\npastures of heaven. It cannot be doubted that the victim was never\n_killed_ in the mind of the original sacrificer, it was merely\ntransferred to another sphere. The worser barbarity comes in when the\ntrue significance of the act is lost and when it is repeated from habit.\n\nAfter animals were domesticated they were not killed at all for a long\ntime\u2014still less were they eaten. Of this there can be no shadow of\ndoubt. The first domestic animals were far too valuable possessions for\nany one to think of killing them. As soon would a showman kill a\nperforming bull which had cost him a great deal of trouble to train.\nBesides this, and more than this, the natural man, who is much better\nthan he is painted, has a natural horror of slaying the creature that\neats out of his hand and gives him milk and wool and willing service.\n\nThere are pastoral tribes now in South Africa which live on the milk,\ncheese and butter of their sheep, but only kill them as the last\nnecessity. In East Africa the cow is never killed, and if one falls ill,\nit is put into a sort of infirmary and carefully tended. We all know the\ndivinity which hedges round the Hindu cow. The same compunction once\nsaved the labouring ox. When I was at Athens for the Arch\u00e6ological\nCongress of 1905, Dr. R. C. Bosanquet, at that time head of the British\nschool, told me that he had observed among the peasants in Crete the\nmost intense reluctance to kill the ox of labour. In several places in\nAncient Greece all sorts of devices were resorted to in order that the\nsacrificial knife might seem to kill the young bull accidentally, and\nthe knife\u2014the guilty thing\u2014was afterwards thrown into the sea. This last\ncustom is important; it marks the moment when the slaughter of domestic\nanimals, _even_ for sacrificial purposes, still caused a scruple. The\ncase stands thus: at first they were not killed at all; then, for a long\ntime, they were killed only for sacrifice. Then they were killed for\nfood, but far and wide relics of the original scruple may be detected as\nin the common invocation of divine permission which every Moslem butcher\nutters before killing an animal.\n\nAnimal and human sacrifices are one phenomenon of early manners, not\ntwo. The people who sacrificed domestic animals to accompany their dead\ngenerally, if not always, also sacrificed slaves for the same purpose,\nand the sacrifice of fair maidens at the funerals of heroes was to give\nthem these as companions in another world.\n\nI am not aware that Gift Sacrifice ever led to cannibalism nor, in its\nprimitive forms, did it lead to eating the flesh of the animal victim\nwhich was buried or burnt with the body of the person whom it was\nintended to honour. This is what was done by the dolmen-builders. The\nearlier reindeer hunters had no domestic animals to sacrifice, and it is\nunlikely that they sacrificed men. At all events, they were not\ncannibals.\n\nOn the other hand, cannibalism is closely connected with Pact Sacrifice,\nwhich there is a tendency now to regard as antecedent to Gift Sacrifice,\nespecially among those scholars who think that the whole human race has\npassed through a stage of Totemism. Psychologically the Totemist\u2019s\nsacrifice of a reserved animal to which all the sanctity of human life\nis ascribed, resembles the sacrifice by some African tribes of a human\nvictim\u2014as in both cases not only is a pact of brotherhood sealed, but\nalso those who partake of the flesh are supposed to acquire the\nphysical, moral, or supersensual qualities attributed to the victim.\nIndeed, it would be possible to argue that the Totem was a substitute\nfor a human victim, and a whole new theory of Totemism might be evolved\nfrom that postulate, but it is wiser to observe such affinities without\ntrying to derive one thing from another which commonly proves a snare\nand a delusion. It is sufficient to note that among fundamental human\nideas is the belief that man grows like what he feeds upon.\n\nThe sacrifice of the Totem, though found scattered wherever Totemism\nprevails, is not an invariable or even a usual accompaniment of it. When\nit does occur, the Totem is not supposed to die, any more than the\nvictim was supposed to die in the primitive Gift Sacrifice. It changes\nhouses or goes to live with \u201cour lost others,\u201d or returns to eternal\nlife in the \u201clake of the dead.\u201d The death of the soul is the last thing\nthat is thought of. The majority of Totemists do not kill their Totems\nunder any circumstances, and when the Totem is a wild beast they believe\nthat it shows a like respect for the members of its phratry. If one dies\nthey deplore its loss; in some parts of East Africa where the Totem is a\nhyena not even the chief is mourned for with equal ceremony.\n\nTotemism is the adoption of an animal (or plant) as the visible badge of\nan invisible bond. The word Totem is an American Indian word for\n\u201cbadge,\u201d and the word Taboo a Polynesian term meaning an interdiction.\nThe Totemist generally says that he is descended from his Totem: hence\nthe men and the beasts of each Totem clan are brothers. But the beast is\nsomething more than a brother, he is the perpetual reincarnation of the\nrace-spirit. Numerical problems never trouble the natural human mind;\nall the cats of Bubastis were equally sacred, and all the crows of\nAustralia are equally sacred to the clans who have a crow for Totem. To\nthe mass of country folks every cow is _the_ cow, every mouse is _the_\nmouse; the English villager is practically as much convinced of this as\nthe American Indian or the Australian native is convinced that every\nTotem is _the_ Totem.\n\nMen and women of the same Totem are _taboo_: they cannot intermarry. But\nI need not speak of Totemism here as a social institution. My business\nwith it is limited to its place in the history of ideas about animals.\n\nIn Totemism we find represented not one idea, but an aggregation of most\nof the fundamental ideas of mankind. This is why the attempt to trace it\nto one particular root has failed to dispose of the question of its\norigin in a final and satisfactory manner. For a time there seemed to be\na general disposition to accept what is called the \u201cNickname theory\u201d by\nwhich Totemism was attributed to the custom of giving animal nicknames.\nWe have a peasant called Nedrott (in the Brescian dialect \u201cduck\u201d); I\nmyself never heard his real name\u2014his wife is \u201cla Nedrott\u201d and his\nchildren are \u201ci Nedrotti.\u201d It is alleged that his father or grandfather\nhad flat feet. But I never heard of a confusion between the Nedrotti and\ntheir nicknamesakes. It may be said that this would be sure to happen\nwere they less civilised. How can we be sure that it would be sure to\nhappen? An eminent scholar who objects to the nickname theory on the\nground that it assigns too much importance to \u201cverbal misunderstanding,\u201d\nproposes as an alternative the \u201cimpregnation theory.\u201d A woman, on\nbecoming aware of approaching motherhood, mentally connects the future\noffspring with an animal or plant which happens to catch her eye at that\nmoment. This is conceivable, given the peculiar notions of some savages\non generation, but if all Totemism sprang from such a cause, is it not\nstrange that in Australia there are only two Totems, the eagle-hawk and\ncrow?\n\nAs a mere outward fact, the Totem is what its name implies, a badge or\nsign; just as the wolf was the badge of Rome, or as the lion is taken to\nrepresent the British Empire. The convenience of adopting a common badge\nor sign may have appeared to men almost as soon as they settled into\nseparate clans or communities. Besides public Totems there exist private\nand secret Totems, and this suggests that the earliest communities may\nhave consisted of a sort of freemasonry, a league of mutual help of the\nnature of a secret society. Around the outward and so to speak heraldic\nfact of Totemism are gathered the impressions and beliefs which make it\na rule of life, a morality and a religion.\n\nThe time may come when the desire to give a reason for an emotion will\nbe recognised as one of the greatest factors in myth-making. The\nTotemist thinks that he spares his Totem because it is his Totem. But\nman is glad to find an excuse for sparing something. Altruism is as old\nas the day when the first bird took a succulent berry to its mate or\nyoung ones instead of eating it. Where men see no difference between\nthemselves and animals, what more natural than that they should wish to\nspare them? When it was found difficult or impossible to spare all, it\nwas a katharsis of the wider sentiment to spare one, and Totemism gave a\nvery good excuse. It appealed to a universal instinct. This is not the\nsame as to say that it had its origin in keeping pets; it would be\nnearer the truth to describe the love of pets as a later birth of the\nsame instinctive tendency which the Totemist follows when he cherishes\nand preserves his Totem.\n\nThe primitive man is a child in the vast zoological garden of Nature; a\nchild with a heart full of love, curiosity and respect, anxious to make\nfriends with the lion which looks so very kind and the white bear who\nmust want some one to comfort him. The whole folk-lore of the world\nbears witness to this temper, even leaving Totemism out of the question.\n\nThe Bechuanas make excuses to the lion before killing him, the Malays to\nthe tiger, the Red Indians to the bear\u2014he says that his children are\nhungry and need food\u2014would the bear kindly not object to be killed? Some\nwriters see Totemism in all this, and so it may be, but there is\nsomething in it deeper than even Totemism\u2014there is human nature.\n\nTake the robin\u2014has any one said it was a Totem? Yet Mrs. Somerville\ndeclared she would as soon eat a child as a robin, a thoroughly Totemist\nsentiment. A whole body of protective superstition has crystallised\naround certain creatures which, because of their confiding nature, their\ncharming ways, their welcome appearance at particular seasons, inspired\nman with an unusually strong impulse to spare them. I was interested to\nfind the stork as sacred to the Arabs in Tunis and Algeria as he is to\nhis German friends in the North. A Frenchman remarked that \u201csacred birds\nare never good to eat,\u201d but he might have remembered the goose and hen\nof the ancient Bretons which C\u00e6sar tells us were kept \u201cfor pleasure\u201d but\nnever killed; not to speak of the pigeons of Moscow and of Mecca.\n\nIt should be observed how quickly the spared or cherished bird or beast\nbecomes \u201clucky.\u201d In Germany and Scandinavia it is lucky to have a\nstork\u2019s nest on the roof. The regimental goat is the \u201cluck of his\ncompany.\u201d\n\nM. S. Reinach\u2019s opinion that in Totemism is to be found the secret of\nthe domestication of animals offers an attractive solution to that great\nproblem, but it has not been, nor do I think that it will ever be,\ngenerally accepted. It, is however, plain, that where population is\nsparse, and dogs and guns undreamt of, wild animals would be far less\nwild than in countries with all the advantages of civilisation; the\ntameness of birds on lonely islands when the explorer first makes his\ndescent is a case in point. No doubt, therefore, with the encouragement\nthey received, the animal Totems acquired a considerable degree of\ntameness, but from that to domestication there is a long step. Our\nhousehold \u201cTotem,\u201d the robin, is relatively tame; he will even eat\ncrumbs on the breakfast-table, but he flies away in springtime and we\nsee him no more.\n\nBesides being a social institution and a friendly bond between man and\nbeast, Totemism is an attempt to explain the universe. Its spiritual\nvitality depends on the widely rooted belief in archetypes; the things\nseen are the mirror of the things unseen, the material is unreal, the\nimmaterial the only reality. We are ourselves but cages of immortal\nbirds. The real \u201cI\u201d is somewhere else; it may be in a fish, as in the\nIndian folk-tale, or it may be in a god. I do not know, by the by, if it\nhas been remarked that a man can be a Totem: the incarnation of the\nindwelling race-spirit. The Emperor of Japan corresponds exactly to this\ndescription. The deified C\u00e6sar was a Totem. A god can be a Totem: among\nthe Hidery (islanders of the North Pacific whose interesting legends\nwere published by the Chicago Folk-lore Association) the raven, which is\ntheir Totem, is the manifestation of the god Ne-kilst-lass who created\nthe world. Here Totemism approaches till it touches Egyptian\nzoomorphism. Was this form an earlier or a later development than that\nin which the Totem is merely an ancestor? Our inability to reply shows\nour real want of certainty as to whether Totemism is a body of belief in\na state of becoming or _in a state of dissolution_.\n\n[Illustration:\n\n _Photo:_ _Egypt Exploration Fund._\n HATHOR COW.\n Cairo Museum.\n (_Found in 1906 by Dr. E. Naville at Deir-el-bahari._)]\n\nWe do know that Egyptian zoomorphism is not old, at least in the\nexaggerated shape it assumed in the worship of the bull Apis. It is a\ncult which owed its success to the animistic tendency of the human mind,\nbut its particular cause is to be looked for in crystallised figurative\nlanguage. The stupendous marble tombs of the sacred bulls that seem to\noverpower us in the semi-obscurity of the Serapeum remind one of how\neasy it is to draw false conclusions relative to the past if we possess\nonly half-lights upon it: had Egyptian hieroglyphics never yielded up\ntheir secret we might have judged the faith of Egypt to have been the\nmost material, instead of one of the most spiritual of religions.\n\nIn Egyptian (as in Assyrian) cosmogony the visible universe is the\ndirect creation of God. \u201cThe god who is immanent in all things is the\ncreator of every animal: under his name of Ram, of the sheep, Bull, of\nthe cows: he loves the scorpion in his hole, he is the god of the\ncrocodile who plunges in the water: he is the god of those who rest in\ntheir graves. Amon is an image, Atmee is an image, Ra is an image: HE\nalone maketh himself in millions of ways.\u201d Amon Ra is described in\nanother grand hymn as the maker of the grass for the cattle, of fruitful\ntrees for men yet unborn; causing the fish to live in the river, the\nbirds to fill the air, giving breath to those in the egg, giving food to\nthe bird that perches, to the creeping thing and to the flying thing\nalike, providing food for the rats in their holes, feeding the flying\nthings in every tree. \u201cHail to thee, say all creatures. Hail to thee for\nall these things: the One, Alone with many hands, awake while all men\nsleep, to seek out the good of all creatures, \u201cAmon Sustainer of all!\u201d\nThis is, indeed, a majestic psalm of universal life.\n\nContrary to what was long the impression, the Wheel of Being was not an\nEgyptian doctrine, but the dead, or rather some of them, were believed\nto have the power of transforming themselves into animals for limited\nperiods. It was a valued privilege of the virtuous dead: the form of a\nheron, a hawk or a swallow was a convenient travelling dress.\nFour-footed beasts were reserved to gods.\n\nThere was no prejudice against sport if carried on with due regard to\nvested sacred rights. The first hunting-dog whose name we know was\nBehkaa, who was buried with his master, his name being inscribed over\nhis picture on the tomb. The injury of animals sacred to the gods was,\nof course, a grave sin. Among the protests of innocence of a departing\nsoul we read: \u201cI have not clipped the skins of the sacred beasts; I have\nnot hunted wild animals in their pasturages; I have not netted the\nsacred birds; I have not turned away the cattle of the gods; I have not\nstood between a god and his manifestation.\u201d\n\nThe Egyptian mind, which was essentially religious, saw the \u201cgod who is\nimmanent in all things\u201d yet standing outside these things to sustain\nthem with a guiding providence; the highly trained Chinese mind, with\nits philosophic trend, saw the divine indivisible intelligence without\nvolition illuminating all that lived: \u201cThe mind of man and the mind of\ntrees, birds and beasts, is just the one mind of heaven and earth, only\nbrighter or duller by reflection: as light looks brighter when it falls\non a mirror than when it falls on a dark surface, so divine reason is\nless bright in cow or sheep than in man.\u201d This fine definition was given\nby Choo-Foo-Tsze, the great exponent of Confucianism, who, when he was\nfour years old, surprised his father by asking, on being told that the\nsky was heaven, \u201cWhat is above it?\u201d Choo-Foo-Tsze in the thirteenth\ncentury anticipated some modern conclusions of geology by remarking that\nsince sea shells were found on lofty mountains as if generated in the\nmiddle of stones, it was plain \u201cthat what was below became lifted up,\nwhat was soft became hard\u201d; it was a deep subject, he said, and ought to\nbe investigated. Long before the Nolan, Confucius had conceived the idea\nof the great Monad: \u201cone God who contains and comprehends the whole\nworld.\u201d It was an idea entirely incomprehensible to all but a few\neducated men in any age. Confucianism, Buddhism and Taoism left the\nChinese masses what they found them\u2014a people whose folk-lore was their\nreligion. Were they asked to believe in the Wheel of Being? They made\nthat folk-lore too. Dr. Giles tells the folk-tale of a certain gentleman\nwho, having taken a very high degree, enjoyed the privilege (which is\nadmitted to be uncommon) of recollecting what happened between his last\ndeath and birth. After he died, he was cited before a Judge of Purgatory\nand his attention was attracted by a quantity of skins of sheep, dogs,\noxen, horses, which were hanging in a row. These were waiting for the\nsouls which might be condemned to wear them; when one was wanted, it was\ntaken down and the man\u2019s own skin was stripped off and the other put on.\nThis gentleman was condemned to be a sheep; the attendant demons helped\nhim on with his sheep-skin when the Recording Officer suddenly mentioned\nthat he had once saved a man\u2019s life. The Judge, after looking at his\nbooks, ruled that such an act balanced all his misdoings: then the\ndemons set to work to pull off the sheep-skin bit by bit, which gave the\npoor gentleman dreadful pain, but at last it was all got off except one\nlittle piece which was still sticking to him when he was born again as a\nman.\n\nThis story is amusing as showing what a mystical doctrine may come to\nwhen it gets into the hands of the thoroughgoing realist. For the\nChinese peasant the supernatural has no mystery. To him it is a mere\nmatter of ordinary knowledge that beasts, birds, fishes and insects not\nonly have ghosts but also ghosts of ghosts\u2014for the first ghost is liable\nto die. If any of these creatures do not destroy life in three\nexistences, they may be born as men\u2014a belief no doubt due to the\nBuddhists, who in China seem to have concentrated all their energies on\nhumanitarian propaganda and let metaphysics alone. Taoism has been\ncalled an \u201corganised animism.\u201d Organised or unorganised, animism is\nstill the popular faith of China. It is too convenient to lightly\nabandon, for it explains everything. For instance, whatever is odd,\nunexpected, very lucky, very unlucky, can be made as plain as day by\nmentioning the word \u201cfox.\u201d Any one may be a fox without your knowing it:\nthe fox is a jinnee, an elf who can work good or harm to man; who can\nsee the future, get possession of things at a distance, and generally\noutmatch the best spiritualist medium. In Chinese folk-lore the fox has,\nas it were, made a monopoly of the world-wide notion that animals have a\nmore intimate knowledge of the supernatural than men. Soothsayers are\nthought to be foxes because they know what is going to happen.\n\nMan\u2019s speculations about himself and the universe arrange themselves\nunder three heads: those which have not yet become a system, those which\nare a system, those which are the remains of a system. It is impossible\nthat any set of ideas began by being a system unless it were revealed by\nan angel from heaven. But no sooner do ideas become systematic than they\npass into the stage of dogma which is accepted not discussed. Everything\nis made to fit in with them. Thus to find the free play of the human\nmind one must seek it where there are the fewest formul\u00e6, written or\nunwritten, for tradition is as binding as any creed or code. There are\nsavage races which, if they ever had Totemism, have preserved few if any\ntraces of it. To take them one by one and inquire into their views on\nanimals would be well worth doing, but it is beyond my modest scope. I\nwill say this, however\u2014show me a savage who has not some humane and\nfriendly ideas about animals! The impulse to confess brotherhood with\nman\u2019s poor relations is everywhere the same: the excuses or reasons\ngiven for it vary a little. The animal to be kindly treated is the\nsanctuary of a god, the incarnation of a tribe, or simply the shelter of\na poor wandering ghost.\n\nThe Amazulu, one of the finest of savage races, believe that _some_\nsnakes are Amatongo\u2014some, not all. In fact, these snakes which are dead\nmen are rather rare. One kind is black and another green. An Itongo does\nnot come into the house by the door, nor does it eat frogs or mice. It\ndoes not run away like other snakes. Some say, \u201cLet it be killed.\u201d\nOthers interfere, \u201cWhat, kill a man?\u201d If a man die who had a scar and\nyou see a snake with a scar, ten to one it is that man. Then, at night,\nthe village chief _dreams_ and the dead man speaks to him. \u201cDo you now\nwish to kill me? Do you already forget me? I thought I would come and\nask you for food, and do you kill me?\u201d Then he tells him his name.\n\nWithout any teaching, without any system, the savage thinks that the\nappearances which stand before him in sleep are real. If they are not\nreal, what are they? The savage may not be a reasonable being, but he is\na being who reasons.\n\nIn the morning the village chief tells his dream and orders a\nsin-offering to the Itongo (ghost) lest he be angry and kill them. A\nbullock or a goat is sacrificed and they eat the flesh. Afterwards they\nlook everywhere for the snake, but it has vanished.\n\nA snake that forces its way rapidly into a house is known to be a liar\nand he is a liar still. Do they turn him out of doors with a lecture on\nthe beauty of veracity? Far from that. \u201cThey sacrifice something to such\nan Itongo.\u201d A few men turn into poisonous snakes, but this is by no\nmeans common. If offended, the Amatongo cause misfortune, but even if\npleased they do not seem to confer many benefits; perhaps they cannot,\nfor surely it is easier to do evil than good. Once, however, a snake\nwhich was really the spirit of a chief, placed its mouth on a sore which\na child had; the mother was in a great fright, but happily she did not\ninterfere and the snake healed the sore and went silently away.\n\n[Illustration:\n\n _Photo:_ _Mansell._\n WILD GOATS AND YOUNG.\n British Museum.\n (_Assyrian Relief._)]\n\nOther animals are sometimes human beings as well as snakes. The lizard\nis often the Itongo of an old woman. A boy killed some lizards in a\ncattle-pen with stones. Then he went and told his grandmother, who said\nhe had done very wrong\u2014those lizards were chiefs of the village and\nshould have been worshipped. I think the grandmother was a humane old\nperson; I even suspect that she said the lizards were chiefs and not old\nwomen to make the admonition more awful. The man who told this story to\nCanon Callaway (from whose valuable work on the Amazulu I take these\nnotes) added that, looking back to the incident, he doubted if the\nlizards were Amatongo after all, because no harm came of their murder.\nHe thought that they must have been merely wild animals which had become\ntame owing to people mistakenly thinking that they were Amatongo.\n\nWhat can one say to boys who ill-treat lizards? I own that I have\nthreatened them with ghostly treatment of the same sort. I even tried\nthe supernatural argument with a little Arab boy, otherwise a nice\nintelligent child, who was throwing stones at a lizard which was moving\nat the bottom of the deep Roman well at El Djem: I did not know then\nthat the persecution of lizards in Moslem lands is supposed (I hope\nerroneously) to have been ordered by Mohammed \u201cbecause the lizard mimics\nthe attitude of the Faithful at prayer.\u201d\n\nThe lizard, one of the most winsome of God\u2019s creatures, has suffered\ngenerally from the prejudice which made reptile a word of reproach. It\nis the more worthy of remark, therefore, that in a place where one would\nhardly expect it, protective superstition has done its work of rescue:\nSicilian children catch lizards, but let them go unhurt to intercede for\nthem before the Lord, as the lizard is held to be \u201cin the presence of\nthe Lord in heaven.\u201d One wonders if this is some distant echo of the\ntext about the angels of the children (their archetypes) who always see\nGod.\n\nNot always were reptiles scorned, but, possibly, they were always\nfeared. Man\u2019s first idea is to worship what he fears; his second idea,\nwhich may not come for many thousand years, is to throw a stone at it.\nThe stone, besides representing physical fear, at a given moment also\nrepresents religious reprobation of what had been an object of worship\nin a forsaken faith. Primitive man took the interest of a wondering\nchild in the great Saurian tribe. How did he know that they _flew_, that\nthere were \u201cdragons\u201d on the earth? How did he know that the snake once\nhad legs?\u2014for if the snake of Eden was ordered to go on its belly, the\ninference seems to be that he was thought once to have moved in another\nway. The snake has lost his legs and the lizard his wings, and how the\nancient popular imagination of the world made such accurate guesses\nabout them must be left a riddle, unless we admit that it was guided by\nthe fossil remains of extinct monsters.\n\nThe serpent of the Biblical story was, says Dr. H. P. Smith, \u201csimply a\njinnee\u2014a fairy if you will\u2014possessed of more knowledge than the other\nanimals, but otherwise like them.\u201d Here, again, we meet in the most\nvenerable form, the belief that animals know more than men. Can we\nresist the conclusion that to people constantly inclined towards magic\nlike the old-world Jews, it must have appeared that Eve was dabbling in\nmagic\u2014by every rule of ancient religion, the sin of sins?\n\nThe cult of the serpent in its many branches is the greatest of animal\ncults, and it is the one in which we see most clearly the process by\nwhich man from being an impressionist became a symbolist, and from being\na symbolist became a votary. We have only to read the Indian statistics\nof the number of persons annually killed by snake-bite to be persuaded\nthat fear must have been the original feeling with which man regarded\nthe snake. Fear is a religious feeling in primitive man, but other\nreligious feelings were added to it\u2014admiration, for the snake, as all\nwho have had the good luck to observe it in its wild state must agree,\nis a beautiful, graceful, and insinuating creature; a sense of mystery,\na sense of fascination which comes from those keen eyes fixed fearlessly\nupon yours, the simple secret, perhaps, of the much discussed power of\nsnakes to fascinate their prey. What wonder if man under the influence\nof these combined impressions, symbolised in the serpent a divine force\nwhich could be made propitious by worship!\n\nIn the forming of cults there has always been this unconscious passage\nfrom impressions to symbols, from symbols to \u201cmanifestations.\u201d But there\nhas been also the conscious use of symbols by the priests and sages of\nancient religions, in imparting as much of divine knowledge to the\nuninitiated as they thought that the uninitiated could bear. The origin\nof serpent worship has a probable relationship with this conscious use\nof symbols as well as with their unconscious growth.\n\nBesides the prejudice against reptiles, modern popular superstition has\nplaced several animals under a ban, and especially the harmless bat and\nthe useful barn owl. Traditional reasons exist, no doubt, in every case;\nbut stronger than these are the associations of such creatures with the\ndark in which the sane man of a certain temperament becomes a partial\nlunatic; a prey to unreal terrors which the flap of a bat\u2019s wing or the\nscreech of an owl is enough to work up to the point of frenzy. It is a\nmost unfortunate thing for an animal if it be the innocent cause of a\n_frisson_, a feeling of uncanny dread. The little Italian owl,\nnotwithstanding that it too comes out at dusk, has escaped prejudice.\nThis was the owl of Pallas Athene and of an earlier cult. As in the case\nof the serpent, its wiles to fascinate its prey were the groundwork of\nits reputation for wisdom. Of this there cannot be, I think, any doubt,\nthough the droll bobs and curtesies which excite an irresistible and\nfatal curiosity in small birds, have suggested in the mind of the modern\nman a thing so exceedingly far from wisdom as _civetteria_, which word\nis derived from _civetta_\u2014\u201cthe owl of Minerva\u201d as Italian class-books\nsay. The descent from the goddess of wisdom to the coquette is the\ncruellest decadence of all!\n\n\n------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\n\n\n\n VI\n\n THE FAITH OF IRAN\n\n\nTHE Zoroastrian theory of animals cannot be severed from the religious\nscheme with which it is bound up. It is not a side-issue, but an\nintegral part of the whole. It would be useless to attempt to treat it\nwithout recalling the main features in the development of the faith out\nof which it grew.\n\nIn the first place, who were the people, occupying what we call Persia,\nto whom the Sage, who was not one of them, brought his interpretation of\nthe knowledge of good and evil? The early Iranians must have broken off\nfrom the united body of the Aryans at a time when they spoke a common\nlanguage, which though not Sanscrit, was very like it. The affinities\nbetween Sanscrit and the dialect called with irremediable inaccuracy\n\u201cZend\u201d are of the strongest. From this we conclude that, on their\nestablishment in their new home, the Iranians differed little from the\nrace of whose customs the Rig-Veda gives\u2014not a full picture\u2014but a\nfaithful outline. Pastoral folk, devoted to their flocks and herds, but\nnot unlearned in the cultivation of the earth and the sowing of grain,\nthey had reached what may be called the highest stage of primitive\ncivilisation. Though milk, butter and cooked corn formed their principal\nfood, on feast days they also ate meat, chiefly the flesh of oxen and\nbuffaloes, which they were careful to cook thoroughly. The progressive\nAryans, who called half-raw meat by a term exactly corresponding to the\ntoo familiar \u201crosbif saignant,\u201d denounced the more savage peoples who\nconsumed it as \u201cwild men\u201d or \u201cdemons.\u201d They kept horses, asses and\nmules; horses were sacrificed occasionally; for instance, kings\nsacrificed a horse to obtain male issue. The wild boar was hunted, if\nnot in the earliest, at least in very early times. The dog was prized\nfor its fidelity as guardian of the house and flocks, but there is no\ntrace of its having been protected by extraordinary regulations such as\nthose which later came into force in Iran. On the other hand, the name\nof dog had never yet been used in reproach. It seems to have been among\nSemitic races that the contempt for man\u2019s best friend arose, but it is\nmorally certain that it arose nowhere till dogs became scavengers of\ncities. It was the homeless pariah cur that gave the dog the bad name\nfrom which have sprung so many ugly words registered in modern\nvocabularies. Even now, when Jew or Moslem uses \u201cdog\u201d in a bad sense, he\nmeans \u201ccur\u201d; he knows quite well the other kind of dog\u2014he knows Tobit\u2019s\ndog, which, bounding on before the young man and the angel, told the\nglad tidings of his master\u2019s return; Tobit\u2019s dog which was one of the\nanimals admitted by Mohammed into highest heaven. But \u201cpariah dog\u201d\nbecame synonymous of pariah, and notwithstanding the present tendency to\nattribute the opprobrium of the pig to original sanctity (and consequent\nreservation), I am inclined to think that the pig likewise came to be\nscorned because he was a scavenger. In some Indian cities herds of wild\npigs still enter the gates just before they are closed at dusk, to pass\nout of them as soon as they are opened in the morning: during the night\nthey do their work excellently, and by day they take a well-earned sleep\nin the jungle. They deserve gratitude, for they keep the cities free\nfrom disease, but, like other public servants, they scarcely get it.\n\nIn Vedic times every home had its watch-dog, whose warning bark was as\nunwelcome to lovers as it was to robbers. The Rig-Veda preserves the\nprayer of a young girl who asks that her father, her mother, her\ngrandfather, _and the watch-dog_ may sleep soundly while she meets her\nexpected lover: a charming glimpse of the chaste freedom of early Aryan\nmanners. The newly-wedded wife enters her husband\u2019s house as mistress,\nnot as slave; the elders say to the young couple: \u201cYou are master and\nmistress of this house; though there be father-in-law and mother-in-law,\nthey are placed under you.\u201d If that was not quite what happened, yet the\nprinciple was granted, and there is much in that. The bride rode to her\nnew home in a car drawn by four milk-white oxen; when she alighted at\nthe threshold, these golden words were spoken to her: \u201cMake thyself\nloved for the sake of the children that will come to thee; guard this\nhouse, be as one with thy husband; may you grow old here together. Cast\nno evil looks, hate not thy spouse, be gentle in thought and deed _even_\n_to the animals of this home_.\u201d Bride and bridegroom are exhorted to be\nof one heart, of one mind, \u201cto love each other as a cow loves her calf,\u201d\na simple and true metaphor full of the country-side, full of the youth\nof the world.\n\nIf these were the customs and this was the life which the Iranians may\nbe supposed to have taken with them, what was the religion? The early\nAryans had a Nature-cult more spiritualised under the form of Varuna and\nmore materialised under the form of Indra. Some students of the Avesta\nhave thought that here could be found the elements of the Dualism which\nformed the essential doctrine of Mazdaism. But it is almost certain that\nno real Dualism existed in oldest Iran. The Avesta once contrasts the\nworshippers of God with the worshippers of Daevas, of those who breed\nthe cow and have the care of it with those who ill-treat it and\nslaughter it at their sacrifices. But Indra-worship has no connexion\nwith devil-worship, nor does this or similar texts prove that\ndevil-worship, properly so called, ever flourished in Iran. Other\nreligious reformers than Zoroaster have named the devotees of former\nreligions \u201cdevil-worshippers.\u201d For the rest, there is reason to think\nthat in the Avesta the term was applied to Turanian raiders, not to true\nIranians.\n\n[Illustration:\n\n _Photo:_ _Mansell._\n ASSYRIAN GOD CARRYING ANTELOPE AND WHEAT-EAR.\n British Museum.]\n\nIn an Assyrian inscription, Ahura Mazda is said to have created joy for\n_all_ creatures: a belief which Mazdean Dualism impugns. So far as can\nbe guessed, the earliest Iranian faith was the worship of good\nspirits\u2014of a Good Spirit. Less pure extra-beliefs may, or rather must,\nhave existed contemporaneously, but they remained in the second rank.\nThe cult of good spirits was the home-cult of shepherd and herdsman\noffered to the genii of their flocks and herds. While these genii\nanswered the purpose of the lares or little saints everywhere dear to\nhumble hearts, it is probable that in character they already resembled\nthe Fravashis or archetypes that were to play so great a part in Mazdean\ndoctrine. The cult of the Good Spirit, the national and kingly cult, was\nthe worship of one God whose most worthy symbol, before Zoroaster as\nafter, was the sun and whose sacrament with men was fire. The early\nIranian had no temple, no altar: he went up into a high place and\noffered his prayer and sacrifice without priest or pomp. If we wish to\ntrace his faith back to an Indian source, instead of bringing on the\nscene Varuna and Indra, it will be better to inquire whether there were\nelements of the same faith underlying the unwieldy fabric of Vedic\nreligion. The answer is, that there were. The grandest text in the\nRig-Veda, the one text recognised from farthest antiquity as of\nincalculable value, is the old Persian religion contained in a formula:\n\u201cThat Sun\u2019s supremacy\u2014God\u2014let us adore Which may well direct.\u201d\n\n \u201cEnable with perpetual light,\n The dulness of our blinded sight.\u201d\n\nSo great a virtue was attributed to the Gayatri that the mind which\nthought it was supposed to unite with the object of thought: the eyes of\nthe soul looked on Truth, of which all else is but the shadow. This is\nthe spirit in which it is still repeated every day by every Hindu. The\nsacrosanct words were \u201cVishnu, Brahma, and Shiva,\u201d or, yet more often,\nthey are described as \u201cthe mother of the Vedas,\u201d which, if it means\nanything, means that they are older than the Vedas. The point most to be\nnoticed about the Gayatri is that its importance cannot be set aside by\nsaying that this text is to be explained by Henotheism: the habit of\nreferring to each god immediately addressed as supreme. Nor was the text\nselected arbitrarily by Western monotheists: for thousands of years\nbefore any European knew it, the natives of India had singled it out as\nthe most solemn affirmation of man\u2019s belief in the Unseen.\n\nIt is open to argument, though not to proof, that the Gayatri\ncrystallises a creed which the Iranians took with them in their\nmigration. Peoples then moved in clans, not in a motley crowd gathered\non an emigrant steamer. The clan or clans to which the Iranians belonged\nmay have clung to a primordial faith, not yet overlaid by myths which\nmaterialised symbols and mysteries which made truth a secret.\n\nSuch speculations are guess-work, but that the primitive religion of\nPersia was essentially monotheistic is an opinion which is likely to\nsurvive all attacks upon it. On less sure grounds stands the\nidentification of that primitive religion with Zoroastrianism. The great\nauthorities of a former generation, and amongst them my distinguished\nold friend, Professor Jules Oppert, believed that Cyrus was a Mazdean.\nBut there is a good deal to support the view that Zoroastrianism did not\nbecome the State religion till the time of the S\u00e1s\u00e1nians, who, as a new\ndynasty, grasped the political importance of having under them a strong\nand organised priesthood. Before that time the Magians seem to have been\nrather a sort of Salvation Army or Society of Jesus than the directors\nof a national Church.\n\nAs late as the reign of Darius the Persians frequently buried their\ndead, a practice utterly repugnant to the Mazdean. Again, from Greek\nsources we know that the Persian kings sacrificed hecatombs of animals;\nthousands of oxen, asses, stags, &c., were immolated every day. Darius\nordered one hundred bullocks, two hundred rams, four hundred lambs to be\ngiven to the Jews on the dedication of the new Temple (as well as twelve\nhe-goats as sin-offerings for the twelve tribes) so that they might\noffer \u201csacrifices of sweet savours unto the God of heaven and pray for\nthe life of the king and his sons.\u201d Evidently Darius considered profuse\nanimal sacrifices as a natural part of any great religious ceremony. Can\nit be supposed that such slaughter would have pleased a strict\nZoroastrian? The Mazdeans retained the sacrifice of flesh as food: a\nsmall piece of the cooked meat eaten at table was included in the daily\noffering with bread, grain, fruits and the Homa juice, which was first\ndrunk by the officiating priest, then by the worshippers, and finally\nthrown on the sacred fire. The small meat-offering was not animal\nsacrifice or anything at all like it. The Parsis substitute milk even\nfor this small piece of meat, perhaps because the meat was usually beef,\nwhich would have caused offence to their Hindu fellow-citizens. I asked\na Parsi High Priest who lunched with me at Basle during the second\nCongress for the History of Religions, what viands were eschewed by his\ncommunity? He replied that they avoided both beef and the flesh of\nswine, but only out of respect for their neighbours\u2019 rules: to them oil\nalone was forbidden\u2014probably because of its virtue as a light-giver. In\nthe Zoroastrian sacrifice it was never lost sight of that the outward\nact was but one of piety and obedience; the true sacrifice was of the\nheart: \u201cI offer good thoughts, good words, good deeds.\u201d It is hardly\nneedful to say that the Mithraic taurobolium was in sheer contradiction\nto Mazdean law. Heretical sects were the bane of Zoroastrianism, and\nwith one of these sprang up the strange practices which the Romans\nbrought into Europe. Possibly its origin should be sought in some\ninfiltration from the West, for it is more suggestive of Orphic rites\nthan of any form of Eastern ceremonies. A Christian writer of the name\nof Socrates, who lived in the fifth century, said that at Alexandria, in\na cavern consecrated to Mithra, human skulls and bones were found, the\ninference being that human sacrifice was the real rite, symbolised by\nthe slaying of the bull. The source of this information is suspect, but\neven if not guilty of such excesses, the Mithra-worshippers of Western\nPersia must have been rank corrupters of the faith. In the Avesta,\nMithra is the luminous \u00e6ther; sometimes he appears as an intercessor;\nsometimes he dispenses the mercy or wields the vengeance of God. But in\nreality he is an attribute, about the nature of which members of the\nfaith had less excuse for making mistakes than we have. It is difficult\nfor the Indian or Japanese not to make analogous mistakes concerning\nsome forms of worship in Southern Europe.\n\nIn Old Iran the Sacred Fire was kept perpetually alight. Sweet perfumes\nwere spread around the place of prayer, for which a little eminence was\nchosen, but there were no images and no temples. Arch\u00e6ologists have\nfailed to find traces of a building set apart for religious worship\namong the splendid ruins of Persepolis: the \u201cforty towers\u201d only tell of\nthe pleasure-palace of an Eastern king. Was it that the profound\nspirituality of this people shrank not only from carving a graven image\nof the deity, but also from giving him a house made with hands? What\ncould the maker of the firmament want with human fanes? Some such\nthought may have caused the Iranians to suppress for so long a time the\ninstinct which impels man to build temples. In any case, it seems as if\nCyrus and after him Darius threw themselves into the scheme for\nrebuilding the Hebrew temple with all the more enthusiasm from the fact\nthat immemorial custom held them back from temple-building at home. The\ncuneiform inscriptions bear witness that these kings were monotheists:\nthey believed in one sole creator of heaven and earth, by whose will\nkings reign and govern, and if they invoked the aid of heavenly\nhierarchs they never confused the creatures, however powerful, with the\ncreator. That Creator they called by the name of Ahura Mazda, but they\nrecognised that he was one, whatever the name might be by which he was\ncalled. \u201cThus saith Cyrus, king of Persia: the Lord God of Heaven hath\ngiven me all the kingdoms of the earth, and He hath charged me to build\nHim a house at Jerusalem, which is Judah.\u201d In the uncanonical Book of\nEsdras, it is said more significantly that King Cyrus \u201ccommanded to have\nthe house of the Lord in Jerusalem built where they should worship with\neternal fire.\u201d The recently deciphered Babylonian inscriptions have been\nbrought forward to show that the Jews were mistaken in thinking that\nCyrus was a monotheist, because he honoured Merodach in Babylon just as\nhe had honoured Jehovah at Jerusalem. He was, it is said, a \u201cpolytheist\nat heart.\u201d If he was, his honouring Merodach does not prove it. To my\nmind it proves exactly the reverse. Cyrus understood the monotheism\nwhich was at the bottom of the Babylonian religious system and which\nthese very tablets have revealed to modern scholarship. He understood\nthat \u201chowever numerous and diversified the nations of the earth may be,\nthe God who reigns over them all can never be more than one.\u201d[2]\n\nFootnote 2:\n\n Words written by a Japanese reformer named Okubo about fifty years\n ago.\n\nHe was governed by expediency in his respect for the faiths of his\nsubject peoples, but he was governed also by something higher than\nexpediency. That Darius Hystaspis, who is allowed to have been a\nmonotheist, continued his policy, shows that it was not thought to\ninvolve disloyalty to Ahura Mazda since of such disloyalty Darius would\nhave been incapable.\n\nIf we grant that the Iranians were, in the main, monotheistic at a date\nwhen not more than a part of the population professed Zoroastrianism,\nthe question follows, of what was the difference between the reformed\nand the unreformed religion? To answer this satisfactorily, we must\nremember that the paramount object of Zoroaster was less change than\nconservation. Like Moses whom an attractive if not well-founded theory\nmakes his contemporary, he saw around a world full of idolatry, and he\nfeared lest the purer faith of Iran should be swamped by the\nencroachments of polytheism and atheism (for, strangely enough, the\nAvesta abounds in references to sheer negation). The aim of every\ndoctrine or practice which he introduced was to revivify, to render more\ncomprehensible, more consistent, the old monotheistic faith.\n\nWith regard to practice, the most remarkable innovation was that which\nconcerned the disposal of the dead. It cannot be explained as a relic of\nbarbarism: it was introduced with deliberation and with the knowledge\nthat it would shock human sensibility then, just as much as it does now.\nThe avowed reason for giving the dead to vultures or animals is that\nburial defiles the earth. It was recognised that this argument was open\nto the objection that birds or beasts were likely to drop portions of\ndead bodies on the earth. The objection was met with scholastic\nresourcefulness not to say casuistry: it was declared that \u201caccidents\u201d\ndo not count. Though so strongly insisted on in the Avesta, the practice\nonly became general at a late period: even after Mazdeism had made\nheadway, bodies were often enveloped in wax to avoid defilement of the\nearth while evading the prescribed rite. Cremation, the natural\nalternative to burial, would have polluted the sacred fire. It was\nobserved, no doubt, that the consumption of the dead by living animals\nwas the means employed by Nature for disposing of the dead. Why do we so\nrarely see a dead bird or hare or rabbit or squirrel? The fact is not\nmysterious when we come to look into it. It may have been thought that\nwhat Nature does must be well done. The Parsis themselves seem to\nsuppose that this and other prescriptions of their religious law were\ninspired by sanitary considerations, and they attribute to them their\ncomparative immunity from plague during the recent epidemics at Bombay.\nDefilement of water by throwing any impurity into rivers is as severely\nforbidden as the defilement of the earth. Possibly another reason\nagainst burial was the desire to prevent anything like the material cult\nof the dead and the association of the fortunes of the immortal soul\nwith those of the mortal body, such as prevailed among the Egyptians,\nwhose practices doubtless were known to the Magi by whom, rather than by\nany one man, the Mazdean law was framed. Finally, the last rites\nprovided a recurrent object-lesson conducive to the mental habit of\nseparating the pure from the impure. They reminded the Mazdean that life\nis pure because given by Ormuzd; death impure because inflicted by\nAhriman. The rule of every religion is designed largely, if not chiefly,\nas a moral discipline.[3]\n\nFootnote 3:\n\n Among the Buddhists of Thibet the dead are given to dogs and birds of\n prey as a last act of charity\u2014to feed the hungry.\n\nThe true originality of Zoroastrianism as a religious system lies in the\ndualistic conception of creation which is the nexus that connects all\nits parts. This was seen at once, when the Avesta became known in\nEurope, but the idea was so entirely misunderstood and even travestied,\nthat Zoroaster was represented as a believer in two gods whose power was\nequal, if, indeed, the power of the evil one were not the greater.\nRecently among the manuscripts of Leopardi were found these opening\nlines of an unfinished \u201cHymn to Ahriman\u201d:\u2014\n\n \u201cRe delle cose, autor del mondo, arcana\n Malvagit\u00e0, sommo potere e somma\n Intelligenza, eterno\n Dator de\u2019 mali e regitor del moto....\u201d\n\nThey are fine lines, but if Anro-Mainyus might fitly be called \u201carcana\nmalvagit\u00e0\u201d and \u201cdator de\u2019 mali,\u201d nothing could be farther removed from\nthe Zoroastrian idea than the rest of the description. Ahriman possessed\nneither supreme power nor supreme intelligence, nor was he author of the\nworld, but only of a small portion of it. To this day, however, it has\npleased pessimists to claim Zoroaster, the most optimist of prophets, as\none of their fraternity.\n\nThe real Ahriman gains in tremendous force from the vagueness of his\npersonality. Sometimes he _acts_ as a person: as in the Temptation of\nZoroaster when he offers him the kingdoms of the world if he will but\nserve him. But no artist would have dared to give him human form. And\nsurely no one in Iran would have alluded to him by mild or good-humoured\neuphemisms. He shares this, however, with the medi\u00e6val devil, that he\nworks at an eternally pre-destined disadvantage. He is fore-doomed to\nfailure. Good is stronger than Evil, and Good is lasting, Evil is\npassing. In the end, Evil must cease to be.\n\nThough not immortal, Ahriman was primordial. Unlike the fallen star of\nthe morning, what he is, that he was. He did not choose Evil: he _is_\nEvil as Ormuzd _is_ Good. He can create, but only things like himself.\nThe notion that both Ormuzd and Ahriman proceeded from a prior entity,\nBoundless Time, is a late legend. Ormuzd and Ahriman existed always, the\none in eternal light, the other in beginningless darkness. An immense\nvacuum divided the light from the darkness and Ahriman knew not Ormuzd,\nEvil knew not Good, till Good was externalised in the beneficent\ncreation.\n\n \u201cYoung life lowed through the meadows, the woods and the echoing\n mountains,\n Wandered bleating in valleys and warbled on blossoming branches.\u201d\n\nThe sight of created things gave Ahriman the will to create\ncorresponding things, evil instead of good. He made sin, disease, death,\nthe flood, the earthquake, famine, slaughter, noxious animals. So the\npieces were set down on the chess-board of being, and, as in all\nreligions, man\u2019s soul was the stake.\n\nThe difference from other religions lay in the determined effort to\ngrapple with the problem of the origin of evil. The tribe of divine\nstudents among whom Mazdeism sprang up saw in that unsolved problem the\ngreat cause of unbelief, and they set themselves to solve it by the\ntheory which J. S. Mill said was the only one which could reconcile\nphilosophy with religion\u2014the theory of primal forces at war. The Indian\ndid not attempt to fathom it; the Egyptian and Assyrian set it aside; we\nknow the offered Hebrew solution: \u201cI form the light and create darkness;\nI make peace and create evil, I, the Lord, do all these things.\u201d But\nthis is a statement, not a solution, because though it may be believed,\nit cannot be thought. The attraction of the dualistic conception is\nshown by nothing more clearly than by the extraordinary vitality of\nManich\u00e6ism in the face of every kind of persecution both in the East and\nWest, although Manich\u00e6ism, with its ascription of the creation of\nmankind to the Evil Principle, its depreciation of woman, its\nout-and-out asceticism which included abstinence from animal food (a\nrule borrowed by Mani from the Buddhists in his journey in India)\ncontrasts unfavourably with the faith that did not make a single demand\non human nature except to be good, even as its Creator was good.\n\nThe origin of the Magians was Semitic, or, as some think, pr\u00e6-Semitic\nand pr\u00e6-Aryan. Travellers brought tales of them to the ancient world\nwhich listened with a fascinated interest, while it failed to see the\nimportance of the mighty religious phenomenon of Israel. The \u201cWise men\nof the East\u201d had a charm for antiquity, as they were to have for the\nInfant Church which never tired of depicting them in its earliest art.\nMention of the \u201cPersarum Magos\u201d is frequent from Herodotus to Cicero,\nwho speaks of them under that name. According to Herodotus the Magi sang\nthe Theogony, and Pausanias describes them as reading from a book which\nwas certainly the Avesta, though it must not be overlooked that never\nbut once does it contain the smallest reference to them. This tribe of\ndivine students enjoyed a high reputation at the Babylonian Court, which\nseems less unexpected by the light of recent research than it did when\nthe Babylonians and Assyrians were thought to be destitute of any trace\nof an esoteric religion tending to monotheism. That the Magians were\nmonotheists cannot be disputed. Probably they were skilled in astronomy\nand in medicine, the two sciences which almost covered what was meant\nthen by learning in the East. Probably also they were astrologers like\nother searchers of the heavens, but they were not magic-workers, a\ncalling that had a bad name. The Magi in the Gospel story are supposed\nto have been guided by astronomical calculations; whatever these may\nhave been, they could not have been ignorant of the prophecy in their\nown Scriptures of a Virgin who should give birth to the Saviour and\nJudge of men. The ante-natal soul of this Virgin had been venerated for\ncenturies in Iran. An infiltration of Messianic prophecies might induce\nthem to conclude that the Child would be \u201cKing of the Jews.\u201d It was not\nlikely that they would take so long a journey to do homage to any\nnew-born earthly king, but it was quite possible that they might go in\nsearch of the promised Saviour.\n\n[Illustration:\n\n _Photo:_ _Mansell._\n COUNTING CATTLE.\n British Museum.\n (_Egyptian Fresco._)]\n\nIn Media we know that the people lived at one time in tribes, without\nkings. In one form or another, the tribal organisation existed and\nexists everywhere in the East. What is caste but a petrified tribal\nsystem? The first discovery which a European makes on landing on the\nskirts of the East, is that everything is done by tribes. The Algerian\nconjurors who swallow fire, drive nails into their heads and do other\ngruesome feats are a semi-religious tribe which has thrived from time\nimmemorial on the exercise of the same profession. The dwarfs of the\nlate Bey of Tunis, whom I saw at Bardo, belonged to a tribe which does\nnothing but furnish dwarfs. Apply to a high or worthy end this corporate\npursuit of a given object and it must produce remarkable results.\n\nThe unanimous belief of the Greeks that Zoroaster was founder of the\nMagians is held no longer, but he is still thought to have been one of\nthem. Moslem tradition made him the servant of a Hebrew prophet, and\neven serious Western students were inclined to trace Mazdeism to the\nJewish prisoners who were brought into Media by the Assyrians. It is\nunnecessary to say that at present the Jews are regarded as the debtors.\n\nThere is no figure of a religious teacher so elusive as that of\nZoroaster, and they are all elusive. But in the case of Zoroaster it is\nnot only the man that eludes us\u2014it is also his environment. Brahmanical\nIndia of to-day reflects as in a glass the society into which Sakya Muni\ncast his seed; in fact, we understand the seed-sowing better than the\nharvest; Buddhism at its apogee seems of the nature of an interlude in\nthe history of the changeless East. China still throws light on its\npassionless sage, passionless in a sense so far deeper than the Indian\nrecluses, who, though they knew it not, did but substitute for the\npassion of the flesh the more inebriating passion of the spirit. From\nthe splendid treasury of pr\u00e6-Islamic poetry, we know that the Arab race\nhad acquired its specialised type before the Muezzin first called the\nfaithful to prayer. The moral petrifaction of the many and the religious\nand patriotic ferment of the few which formed the _milieu_ of nascent\nChristianity, can be realised without any stretch of the imagination.\nBuddha, Confucius, and He that was greater than they, came into highly\ncivilised societies in organised states; Mohammed came into an\nunorganised state which lacked political and religious cohesion, but the\nunity of race was already developed: the Emirs of the Soudan whose star\nset at Omdurman were the living pictures of the Arabs who first rallied\nto the Prophet\u2019s banner. Of the society of Old Iran to which Zoroaster\nspoke, it is difficult to form a distinct idea and to judge how far it\nhad moved away from early Aryan simplicity. We gather that it was still\na society in which sheep-raising and dairy-farming played a preponderant\npart. Those modern expressions may serve us better than to say\n\u201cshepherds\u201d and \u201cherdsmen,\u201d since fixity of dwelling with the possession\nof what then was considered wealth seems to have been a very common\ncase. Nomadic life lasted on, but it was held in disrepute. There\nappears to have been nothing like a national or warlike spirit such as\nthat possessed by the Jews, though occasional Turanian incursions had to\nbe repelled. There were few towns and many scattered villages and\nhomesteads. We are conscious that these impressions derived from the\nAvesta may be partially erroneous. Teachers of religion only take note\nof political or other circumstances so far as it suits their purpose.\n\nZoroaster (the Greek reading of Zarathustra, which in modern Persian\nbecomes Zardusht), was born, as far as can be guessed, in Bactria, which\nbecame the stronghold of Avestic religion and the last refuge of the\nnational monarchy on the Arab invasion. There was a time when his\nexistence was denied, but no one doubts it now. Eight hundred years\nbefore Christ is the date which most modern scholars assign to him,\nthough some place him much farther back, while others think they discern\nreasons for his having appeared after Buddha. The legend of his life\n(not to be found in the Avesta) begins in the invariable way: he was\ndescended from kings; as a young man he retired to a grotto in the\ndesert, where he lived an austere life of reflection for seven years.\nZoroaster never taught asceticism, but tradition attributes to him the\nseason of solitude and self-collection without which perhaps, in fact as\nwell as in fable, the supreme power over other men\u2019s minds was never\nwielded by man.\n\nVarious marvellous particulars are related: he was suckled by two ewes;\nwild animals obeyed his voice; when thrown under the feet of oxen and\nhorses, they avoided hurting him. In his seven years\u2019 retirement he\nmeditated on idol-worship, on false gods and false prophets. The people\nof Iran, substantially monotheist but prone to sliding into degrading\nsuperstition, offered a field for his mission. He took to him a few\ndisciples and began to preach to as many as would hear, but he met with\ngreat difficulties. At last, he found favour with a king by curing his\nfavourite horse, and he might have ended his days in peace but the\nspirit urged him to continue his apostolate. Not to princes but to\npeasants did he chiefly address himself; he did not call them away from\ntheir work but exhorted them to pursue it diligently. \u201cHe who cultivates\nthe earth will never lack, but he who does not, will stand idly at the\ndoors of others to beg food.\u201d Labour is not an evil, man who earns his\nbread by the sweat of his brow is not under a curse: he is the\nfellow-worker with God! This was the grandest thing that Zoroaster\ntaught. It is singular to note the affinity between his teaching and the\nVirgilian conception of the husbandman as half a priest. In the Middle\nAges the same thought arose where one would not look for it: among those\nreligious orders which had the luminous inspiration that in work not in\nindolence lay the means of salvation: \u201c_Laborare est orare._\u201d\n\nThe care of the God-created animals brought with it a special blessing:\nit was actually a way to heaven. If a friend gave us a cherished animal,\nshould not we treat it well for that friend\u2019s sake as well as for its\nown value? Would not it remind us of the giver? Would not we be anxious\nthat he should find it in good health if by chance he came on a visit?\nThis is how Zoroaster wished man to feel about the cow, the sheep, the\ndog. Auguste Comte considered domestic animals as a part of humanity.\nZoroaster considered them as a trust from God.\n\nMoslem traditions finish the story of the Mazdean prophet by telling\nthat he was beaten to death by \u201cdevil-worshippers,\u201d probably Turanian\nraiders. Zoroastrian authorities are silent about his end, which is\nthought to bear out the legend that it was unfortunate.\n\nThe Parsis hold that the whole Avesta was the work of Zoroaster. Much of\nthe original material has disappeared, and although Western writers are\ndisposed to throw all the blame on the Moslem invaders, the steady\nPersian tradition which accuses \u201cAlexander the R\u00fbman\u201d of having caused\nthe destruction of an important part of it, cannot be well answered by\nsaying that such barbarism was not likely to be committed by the\nMacedonian conqueror. When Persepolis was reduced to ruins some of the\nsacred books \u201cwritten with gold ink on prepared cow-skins\u201d may have been\ndestroyed by accident, but as it was certain that the Zoroastrian\npriests would do all they could to foment resistance to the hated\nidolater, we cannot be too sure that the deed was not done on purpose.\nThe way of disposing of the dead set the Greeks against the\nZoroastrians, and they even thought or affected to think that the dying\nas well as the dead were given to dogs. The Arabs, no doubt, burnt what\nthey could lay their hands on of what was left, and it tells much for\nthe devotion of the faithful few, the persecuted remnant in Persia, and\nthe band of exiles who found a happier fate in India, that nevertheless\nthe Avesta has been preserved in a representative though incomplete\nform, to take its place in among the sacred literatures of the world.\nWhen the Parsis return, as they hope to do, to a free Persia, they may\ncarry the Avesta proudly before them as the Sikhs carried the Granth to\nthe prophet-martyr\u2019s tomb at Delhi: they have done more than keep the\nfaith, they have _lived it_.\n\nThe present Avesta consists of five books. The G\u00e2th\u00e2s or hymns alone\nreally claim to have been composed by Zoroaster himself, and this claim\nis admitted by European scholars who disagree with the Parsis in denying\nthat the other four books are by the same author. They are: the \u201cYasna,\u201d\na ceremonial liturgy, the \u201cVispered,\u201d a work resembling the \u201cYasna,\u201d but\napparently less ancient; the \u201cVend\u00eed\u00e2d,\u201d which contains the Mazdean\nreligious law, and the \u201cKhordah Avesta,\u201d a household prayer-book for the\nlaity. The original text was written in an Aryan dialect related to\nSanscrit; after a time, this tongue was understood by no one but the\npriests and not much by them; it was decided, therefore, to make a\ntranslation, which was called the \u201cZend,\u201d or \u201cinterpretation,\u201d or, as we\nshould say, \u201cthe authorised version.\u201d At first Europeans thought that\n\u201cZend\u201d meant the original tongue in which the work was written.\nCuriously enough, the language into which the Scriptures were rendered\nwas not Iranian or Old Persian, but Pahlavi, a _lingua franca_ full of\nSemitic words, which had been coined for convenience in communicating\nwith the Assyrians and Syrians when they were under one king. Pahlavi\nwas also used for official inscriptions, for coinage, for commerce; it\nwas a sort of Esperanto. The text and the translation enjoyed equal\nauthority, but the former was called \u201cthe Avesta of Heaven\u201d and the\nlatter \u201cthe Avesta of Earth.\u201d\n\nThe first fragment of the \u201cAvesta\u201d that reached Europe was a copy of the\n\u201cYasna\u201d brought to Canterbury by an unknown Englishman in 1633. Other\nscraps followed, but no real attempt to translate it was made till the\nadventurous Anquetil Duperron published in 1771 the version which he had\nmade with the assistance of Parsi priests and which was rejected in\nunwise haste by Sir William Jones as a _supercherie litt\u00e9raire_, chiefly\non the score that its contents were for the most part pure nonsense, and\nhence could not be the work of Zoroaster. Germany at once was more just\nthan England to the man who, though he had not succeeded in making a\ngood translation, deserved the highest honour as a pioneer.\n\nEven now that better translations are available, the Avesta is apt to\ndishearten the reader on his first acquaintance with it. Many passages\nhave remained obscure, and the desire to be literal in this as in some\nother Oriental works has hindered the translators from writing their own\nlanguages well. It needs a Sir Richard Jebb to produce a translation\nwhich is a classic and is yet microscopically accurate. I once asked\nProfessor F. C. Burkitt why the Septuagint did not make more impression\non the Hellenic and Roman students of Alexandria by mere force of the\nliterary power of the Bible? He replied that he thought it was to be\nexplained by the poor degree of literary skill possessed by the Greek\ntranslators or by most of them. Another reminiscence comes to my mind\nhere: I recollect that eminent scholar and deeply religious-minded man,\nAlbert R\u00e9ville, saying to me: \u201cThe Bible is so much more amusing than\nthe Koran!\u201d I am afraid one must confess that the Koran is so much \u201cmore\namusing\u201d than the Avesta. It is a good rule, however, to approach all\nreligious books with patience and with reverence, for they contain, even\nif concealed under a bushel, the finest thoughts of man.\n\nWhen we have grown accustomed to the outward frame of the Avesta, the\ninner sense becomes clearer. It is like a piece of music by\nTschaikowsky: at first the modulations seem bizarre, the themes\nincoherent; then, by degrees, a consecutive plan unwinds itself and we\nknow that what appeared meaningless sound was divine harmony.\n\nThe essential teaching of the Avesta is summed up in the text: \u201cAdore\nGod with a pure mind and a pure body, and honour Him in His works.\u201d\nForce, power, energy, waters and stagnant pools, springs, running\nbrooks, plants that shoot aloft, plants that cover the ground, the\nearth, the heavens, stars, sun, moon, the everlasting lights, the\nflocks, the kine, the water-tribes, those that are of the sky, the\nflying, the wild ones\u2014\u201cWe honour all these, Thy holy and pure creatures,\nO Ahura Mazda, divine artificer!\u201d\n\n \u201cThe Voice said: Call My works thy friends.\u201d\n\nIf the lyric note of great religious expression is rarely reached (only,\nperhaps, in a few pieces, such as the noble hymn to the sun-symbol), the\nsustained exposition of life is so reasonable and yet so lofty that to\ncontemplate it after gazing at the extravagances of pillar-saints and\nIndian Yogi, signals, as it were, a return to sanity and health after\nthe _nuit blanche_ of fever.\n\nThe \u201cKhordah Avesta\u201d contains this counsel or good wish: \u201cBe cheerful;\nlive thy life the whole time which thou wilt live.\u201d Man is not asked to\ndo the impossible or even the difficult: he is asked to _enjoy_. To the\nextreme spirituality which shrank from making even a mental image of God\nis joined a \u201cthis worldliness\u201d which saw in rational enjoyment a\nreligious duty. Instead of choosing poverty, man was ordered to make\ngood use of wealth; instead of mortifying the flesh, he was to avoid\ncalumny, evil-speaking, quarrels, to give clothes to the poor, to pray\nnot only for himself but for others. If he does wrong, let him repent\nhonestly in his heart and do some practical good work as a pledge of his\nrepentance. The soul which grieves for its wrongdoing and sins no more\ncomes back into the light of \u201cGod the giver, Forgiver, rich in Love, who\nalways is, always was, always will be!\u201d When it was asked, \u201cWhat is in\nthe first place most acceptable to this earth?\u201d the answer came: \u201cWhen a\nholy man walks on it, O Zarathustra!\u201d Good men work _with_ God, who,\nsure of ultimate triumph, is yet Himself struggling now against the\nPower of Darkness. There is no religion without a good life: \u201cAll have\nnot the Faith who do not hear it; all hear it not who are unclean; all\nare unclean who are sinners.\u201d God did not send calamities to His\nservants, but He compassionates them in their trials: \u201cThe voice of him\nweeping, however low, mounts up to the star-lights, comes round the\nwhole world.\u201d It is no sin to desire riches: \u201cThy kingdom come, O Ahura,\nwhen the virtuous poor shall inherit the earth.\u201d In spite of the\nsufferings of good people, even on this fair earth there is more of\npleasantness for the good than for the wicked, and in the next world\nthere is bliss eternal. I do not think that Robert Browning studied the\nAvesta, but to the thoroughly Zoroastrian line quoted above I am tempted\nto add this other which is not less so:\u2014\n\n \u201cNever dreamed, though right were worsted, wrong would triumph.\u201d\n\nFor the individual, as for the universe, Right must triumph. If the\nprophet of optimism has a harder task than the oracle of despair, it is,\nperhaps, a more profitable task.\n\nThe Parsi repeats daily, as his ancestors did before him, the so-called\nHonover or \u201cAhuna-Vairya,\u201d or _logos_ which brings God down to man as\nthe Gayatri lifts man up to God: \u201cOne Master and Lord, all holy and\nsupreme; one teacher of His Law, appointed by God\u2019s almighty will as\nshepherd to the weak.\u201d The Mazdean \u201claw\u201d was a thought-out system to\nprevent idolatry and atheism, and to make men lead good lives. There is\nno racial exclusiveness in it: the Mazdeans had no shibboleth or\npeculiar sign; Zoroaster, himself a foreigner, did not appeal to a\nchosen people or to a miraculously evolved caste: he only knew of good\nmen and bad. A really good man, truthful and charitable in all his ways,\nhad three heavens open to him even though he \u201coffered no prayers and\nchanted no G\u00e2th\u00e2s\u201d; only the fourth heaven, a little nearer the presence\nof God, was reserved for those who had devoted their lives to religion.\nTemperance was enjoined, as without temperance there could not be\nhealth. The family was sacred and marriage meritorious: children, the\ngift of Ahura Mazda, were recruits for the great Salvation Army of the\nfuture. Immorality was severely censured, but the victims of it were\nbefriended. Stringent and most humane religious laws protected the\n_fille-m\u00e8re_ from being driven \u201cby her shame\u201d to destroy herself or her\noffspring. Girls were married at sixteen: the address to young brides\nmay be compared with that in the Rig-Veda: \u201cI speak these words to you,\nmaidens who wed. I say them unto you\u2014imprint them on your hearts. Learn\nto know the world of the Holy Spirit according to the Law. Even so, let\none of you take the other as the Law ordains, for it will be to you a\nsource of perfect joy.\u201d\n\nAt the time when Zoroastrianism was the State religion, the S\u00e1s\u00e1nian\nperiod, we find that the kings frequently had harems. It is certain,\nhowever, that if in this as in other things the priests were complacent,\nthey were untrue to orthodox Zoroastrian doctrine and custom, which only\npermitted the taking of a second wife in some rare cases, as when there\nwas no issue by the first.\n\nEven then, it does not seem to have been encouraged. The blot on Avestic\nmorality is the strange recommendation of consanguineous marriages,\nwhich the Parsis interpret as far as possible in a figurative sense, but\nit must have been intended to be followed, though it is plain that such\nunions were never popular. The declared object was the hypothetical\nmaximum purity of race: exactly the same object as that contemplated in\nthe union of Siegemund and Siegelind in the Nibelungenlied\u2014a curious\nparallel. To my mind, the desire to keep agricultural property together\nmay have had something to do with it. The present moral ideas of the\nParsis do not differ from those of Europeans, and when they requested to\nbe placed under the English instead of the Hindu marriage law, their\nwish was granted.\n\nIn Avesta times the priests both married and toiled like the rest of the\npeople. When their prosperity under the S\u00e1s\u00e1nians tended to make them a\nclass apart, they seem to have become less faithful to the ideals of\ntheir master, less stern in opposing evil in high places. It is a common\nexperience of history. Originally they were true citizen-priests, mixing\nwith the people as being of them. There was no life better or holier\nthan the common life of duty and work. Isolation of any kind was\ncontrary to the central Zoroastrian view of man as a social being. Among\nthe wicked souls in hell, each one thinks itself utterly alone: it has\nno sight or knowledge of the host around it. Nothing could illustrate\nmore powerfully than this the saying of a great French writer: \u201c_Seul a\nun synonyme: mort!_\u201d Solitude is the death of the soul.\n\n\n------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\n\n\n\n VII\n\n ZOROASTRIAN ZOOLOGY\n\n\nNO investigator of early Iran can afford to neglect the _Shahnameh_ of\nFirdusi, which was as good history as he could make it; that is to say,\nit was founded on extremely old legendary lore collected by him with a\nreal wish to revive the memory of the past. Firdusi sang the glories of\nthe \u201cfire-worshippers\u201d with such enthusiasm that one cannot be surprised\nif, when he died, the Sheikh of T\u00fas doubted whether he ought receive\northodox Moslem burial: a doubt removed by an opportune dream in which\nthe Sheikh saw the poet in Paradise. In Firdusi\u2019s epic we are told that\nthe earliest Persian king (who seems to have been not very far off the\nfirst man) lived in peace with all creation. Wild animals came round and\nknew him for their lord. He had a son who was killed by demons and a\ngrandson named H\u00fasheng, who, as soon as he was old enough, made war on\nthe demons (Turanians?) to avenge his father\u2019s murder. Every species of\nwild and tame beast obeyed H\u00fasheng:\u2014\n\n \u201cThe savage beasts, and those of gentler kind,\n Alike reposed before him and appeared\n To do him homage.\u201d\n\nIn his war on the demon\u2019s brood, H\u00fasheng was helped by wolf, tiger,\nlion, and even by the fowls of the air. All this while mankind had lived\non fruit and the leaves of trees. H\u00fasheng taught his people to bake\nbread. He was succeeded by his son Taliumen, in whose reign panthers,\nhawks, and falcons were tamed. The next king introduced weaving and the\nuse of armour. His successor was remembered for having kept a herd of\n1,000 cows whose milk he gave to the poor. Then came Zor\u00e1k, who owned\n10,000 horses. Zor\u00e1k was seduced by Ibl\u00eds, the evil spirit, who, in\norder to accomplish it, became his chief cook. Ibl\u00eds was the real\nfounder of the culinary art; till then, people lived still almost\nentirely on bread and fruit, but the king\u2019s new _chef_ prepared the most\nsavoury dishes, for which he used the flesh of all kinds of birds and\nbeasts. Finally, he sent to table a partridge and a pheasant, after\nwhich Zor\u00e1k promised the devil to grant him any request he might make.\n\n[Illustration:\n\n _Photo:_ _J. Dieulafoy._\n KING FIGHTING GRIFFIN WITH SCORPION\u2019S TAIL.\n Palace of Darius.\n (_By permission of M. Marcel Dieulafoy._)]\n\nHere there are fugitive reminiscences of parallel legends in the\n_Bundehesh_, a Parsi religious book belonging to post-Avestic times. The\nfirst human couple served God faithfully till, for some unexplained\nreason, they were induced to ascribe creation and supreme power to the\ndaevas. This was the \u201cunforgivable sin,\u201d the ascription of the\nmiraculous power of God to the devil. Ahriman rejoiced at their treason,\nthough it is not said that he was the cause of it: man could choose\nbetween good and evil. After their defection, the man and the woman\nclothed themselves in leaves and took to hunting. Ahriman put it into\ntheir heads to kill a goat and then to light a fire by rubbing two\nsticks: they blew on the fire to fan the flame and roasted a piece of\nthe goat. One bit they threw in the air as a sacrifice to the Nature\nspirits, saying, \u201cThis for the Yazatas!\u201d A kite flew past and carried\noff the sacrifice. Afterwards, the man and woman dressed in skins and\ntold innumerable lies. Going from bad to worse, they engendered a large\nfamily whence sprang the twenty-five races of mankind.\n\nHow this story got into the _Bundehesh_ I do not know, but I am sure\nthat Zoroaster would have disowned it. He knew of no collective \u201cfall of\nman,\u201d whether in connexion with partridges, pheasants, or goat-flesh.\n\nThe Avesta, in its sober cosmogony, is content to speak of the\nproto-man, Gayo Marathan (mortal life), and the proto-good-animal, Geus\nUrva, from whom all human beings and all animals of the good creation\nare derived. Nevertheless, Ahura Mazda is described frequently as\n_creating_ each animal; the proto-creature was only the _modus operandi_\nof the divine power. As in biology, divided sex was a secondary\ndevelopment. From the bull, Geus Urva, proceeded first his own species,\nand then sheep, camels, horses, asses, birds, water-animals.\n\nThe distinguishing qualification given him of _good and laborious_ is\nthe most striking proof of the originality of Magian ideas: instead of\nthe strong bulls of Basan roaring in their might, the bull we have here\nis one with the ploughing ox:\u2014\n\n \u201cT\u2019amo, o pio bove; e mite un sentimento\n Di vigore e di pace al cor m\u2019infondi....\u201d\n\n\u2014the patient, the long-suffering, the gentle, though strong-limbed\nhelper of man in his daily toil, good in his vigour, good in his\nmildness, but good most of all in his labour, for Zoroaster called\nlabour a holy thing. The animal which did most to cultivate God\u2019s earth\nand make the desert flower like a rose, was the paragon of creatures. It\nmust not be thought that to the Geus Urva or his kind was ever rendered\nthe homage due to their Creator. If there was one thing more abhorrent,\nto the Zoroastrian mind than idolatry it was zoolatry: when Cambyses\nkilled a new Apis with many of his followers in Egypt, he had no reason\nto fear Mazdean criticism.\n\nThe soul of the bull receives _dulia_ not _latria_. \u201cWe honour the soul\nof the bull ... and also our own souls and our cattle\u2019s souls who help\nto preserve our life; the souls by which they exist and which exist for\nthem.\u201d So runs one of the G\u00e2th\u00e2s, one of the hymns of Zoroaster himself.\n\u201cWe honour the souls of the swift, wild animals; we honour the souls of\njust men and women in whatever place they are born, whose pure natures\nhave overcome evil. We honour saintly men and saintly women, living\nimmortal, always living, always increasing in glory\u2014all man and woman\nsouls faithful to the Spirit of God.\u201d\n\nIn this song of praise we have brought before us vividly a fundamental\ndoctrine of the Avesta which pervades every page of it: the belief in\nthe Fravashi, the soul-partner, the double or angel, which exists before\nbirth as during life and after death. This belief has a great interest\nfor us as it would seem that it was only by chance that it did not pass\ninto the body of Christian dogma. The Jews of the new school had held it\nfor quite two hundred years before Christ. Besides other allusions, are\nthe three distinct references to the soul-partner in the New Testament.\nChrist Himself speaks of the angels of the children who are always in\nthe presence of God and who complain to Him if the children are\nill-treated. Secondly, when Peter issued from prison, those who saw him\nsaid, \u201cIt is his angel.\u201d Thirdly, it is stated that the Sadducees\nbelieved that there was no resurrection, \u201cneither angel nor Spirit,\u201d but\nthat the Pharisees, of whom Paul was one, \u201cconfessed both.\u201d These three\nreferences become intelligible for the first time after reading the\nG\u00e2th\u00e2s. True it is that he who knows only one religion, knows none.\n\nAhriman inflicted every sort of suffering on the primal creature\u2014this\nwas the beginning of cruelty to animals. At last, he caused its death.\nThe soul of the Bull dwells in the presence of God, and to it, as\nintercessor, all suffering creatures lift their plaints. Why were they\nmade to suffer wrath, ill-usage, hunger? Will no one lead them to sweet\npastures? The creature-soul carries the cry of the creatures to God.\nAhura Mazda promises the advent of Zoroaster, redresser of all wrongs.\nBut the Bull-soul weeps and complains: how can the voice of one weak man\navail to help? It invokes stronger and more effectual aid.\n\nThe hymn is really a litany of suffering animals, the grandeur of the\nthought flashing across obscurities which make it almost impossible to\ntranslate. Very mysterious is the expression of incredulity in the\nefficacy of the help of Zoroaster, an expression which stands quite\nalone, and in which some have seen a proof that this hymn was not\nwritten by the Prophet. But would any one else have dared to question\nhis power or to call him \u201cone weak man\u201d? Can it be that Zoroaster was\ndistressed to find his efforts to prevent cruelty so unavailing, and\nthat he here covertly invokes the \u201cstrong arm of the law\u201d to do what he\nhad failed in doing?\n\nIn the pages of the Avesta everything is tried to enforce humanity:\nhopes of reward, threats of punishment, appeals to religious obedience,\ncommon gratitude, self-interest. It cannot but appear singular that\namong an Eastern pastoral and agricultural people such reiterated\nadmonitions should have been needful. The cow and the horse, \u201canimals\nmanifestly pure which bring with them words of blessing,\u201d inflict\nterrible anathemas on their tormentors:\u2014\n\n The cow curses him who keeps her: \u201cMayest thou remain without\n posterity, ever continuing of evil report, thou who dost not\n distribute me food, and yet causest me to labour for thy wife,\n thy children and thy own sustenance.\u201d\n\n The horse curses his owner: \u201cMayest thou not be he who harnesses\n swift horses, not one of those who sit on swift horses, not one\n who makes swift horses hasten away. Thou dost not wish strength\n to me in the numerous assembly, in the circle of many men.\u201d\n\nThe cow which is led astray by robbers calls to Mithra \u201cever with\nunlifted hands, thinking of the stall,\u201d and Mithra, here figuring as the\nvengeance of God, destroys the house, the clan, the confederacy, the\nregion, the rule of him who injured her. She is the type of prosperity:\n\u201cO thou who didst create the cow, give us immortal life, safety, power,\nplenty.\u201d She is dear to her Creator: \u201cThou hast given the earth as a\nsweet pasture for the cow.\u201d She is praised because she furnishes the\nofferings, flesh, milk, and butter.\n\nThis reminds us of the differences of point of view between the Persian\nand the Indian humanitarian. The Indian, in theory at least, simply\nforbade taking animal life. He had the great advantage of the argument\nof the straight line. The Zoroastrian was handicapped by his moderation.\nIt is easier far to teach extraordinary than ordinary well-doing; every\nmoralist who has set out to improve mankind has found that. Zoroaster\nhad not the smallest doubt about his contention that man has imperative\nduties in regard to what used to be called \u201cthe brute creation.\u201d Man\ncould not live as man at all without it: we who have harnessed steam and\ntrapped the electric spark might entertain such a possibility, but to\nZoroaster the idea would have seemed absurd. As we owe so much to\nanimals, the least we can do is to treat them well. Yet, though he\nincluded wanton and useless slaughter in \u201cill-treatment,\u201d he allows the\nkilling of animals for food. Herodotus remarked that, unlike the\nEgyptians, the Magian priests did not think it pollution to kill animals\nwith their own hands\u2014except dogs and oxen.\n\nIt is to be supposed that the framers of Zoroastrian law believed that\nanimal food was necessary for man\u2019s health and strength, perfect health\nbeing the state most acceptable to the Creator. Believing this, they\ncould not forbid the temperate use of it. Gargantuan feasts were not\ndreamt of; if they had been, they would have received the condemnation\ngiven to all excesses. We are apt to fall into the way of thinking of\nsacred books which is that of their own adepts; we think of them as\nwritten by unpremeditated impulse. But commonly this was not the case.\nThe Avesta, especially, bears signs of conclusions reached by patient\nreasoning. While, however, the Magians permitted the slaughter of\nanimals, they bowed to the original scruple which has no race-limits, by\nordering that such slaughter should be accompanied by an expiatory rite\nwithout the performance of which it was unlawful. This was the offering\nof the head of the animal to Homa: regarded, in this instance, as the\narchetype of the \u201cwine of life\u201d\u2014the sacred or sacramental juice of the\nplant which has been identified with the Indian Soma. The Homa juice was\nmuch the most sacred thing that could be eaten or drunk; if it is true\nthat it contained alcohol, the little jet of flame that would start\nupwards as it was thrown on the sacrificial fire might seem actually to\nbear with it the spirit of the offering. Whatever was the exact idea\nimplied by the dedication of slaughtered animals to Homa, the fact that\nthey were killed for food did not, of course, in any way affect their\nextra-mortal destiny. The \u201csouls of our cattle\u201d\u2014their archetypes\u2014could\nnot suffer death.\n\nAs a careful observer, which he is now allowed to have been, Herodotus\nremarked that not only might the priests take animal life, but that they\nthought it highly meritorious to take the life of certain animals such\nas ants, serpents, and some kinds of birds. It required no profound\nknowledge of the East to notice something unusual in this. Even the\nJews, with their classification of clean and unclean beasts, cast no\nmoral slur on the forbidden category, and if the serpent of Eden was\ncursed, later snakes regained their character and inspired no loathing;\nthe snake-charmer with his crawling pupils was a well known and popular\nentertainer. Farther East, every holy man respected the life of an ant\nas much as of an elephant. Zoroaster alone banned the reptile and the\nmajor part of the insect world. No penance was more salutary than to\nkill ten thousand scorpions, snakes, mosquitoes, ants that walk in\nsingle file, harvesting ants, wasps, or a kind of fly which was the very\ndeath of cattle. The innocent lizard suffered by reason of his\nrelationship with the crocodile; the harmless frog and tortoise excited\na wrath which they had done nothing to merit. Among mammals, the mouse\nis singled out for destruction: although the wolf is a legionary of\nAhriman, he is more often classed with the \u201cwicked two-legged\none\u201d\u2014perverse man\u2014than with the evil creation properly so called. In one\nplace Ahriman is said to have created \u201cdevouring beasts,\u201d but on closer\nexamination these devouring beasts proved to be only the harvesting ants\nwhich were reckoned deadly foes of the agriculturist. Any one who has\nseen how much newly-sown grass seed these favourites of Solomon will\nremove in a shining hour will understand the prejudice, though he will\nnot, I hope, share it. Roughly speaking, the diligent, old-fashioned\ngardener who puzzles his pious mind as to why \u201cthose things\u201d were ever\ncreated, is a born Zoroastrian. To tell him with Paul that \u201cevery\ncreature of God is good\u201d does not comfort him much. Zoroaster\u2019s answer\nis as philosophically complete as it is scientifically weak. Certain\ncreatures are noxious to man; a good Creator would not have made\ncreatures noxious to men, ergo, such creatures were not made by a good\nCreator. Besides the scientific objection to any hard-and-fast line of\ndivision between animals, there is another: the pity of it. I wonder\nthat some velvet-coated field-mouse, approaching softly on tip-toe as\nZoroaster lay in his grotto, did not inquire with its appealing eyes:\n\u201cDo you really think that I look as if I were made by the Evil One?\u201d In\nspite of the numerous advantages of a theory which, in a literal sense,\nmakes a virtue of necessity (a sad necessity to some of us), the\ntheological ban of creatures for no other reason than that they are\ninconvenient to man detracts from the ideal beauty of Zoroastrian faith.\n\nDarwin, in a letter to Asa Gray, the American botanist, said that the\nsufferings of caterpillars and mice made him doubt the existence of \u201ca\nbeneficent and omnipotent Creator.\u201d How often does doubt seem more\nreligious than belief!\n\nThe eschatology of the creatures deemed of darkness is not clear, but I\nbelieve there is no mention of their Fravashis: it is permissible to\nsuppose, therefore, that, all along, they are rather appearances than\nrealities: things that cannot feel, though Ahriman feels defeat in their\ndestruction. For the rest, though Zoroaster treated wasps or mice much\nas Torquemada treated heretics, he made it no merit to torment them: he\nsimply desired their extermination as every fruit-grower or farmer\ndesires it to this day.\n\nStudents of Zoroastrianism have been mystified by the seeming detachment\nof the dog from the other \u201cgood\u201d animals and the separate jurisdiction\ndesigned for it. In my opinion this arose only from the fact that the\ndog was not a food-providing animal. Hence it could be made penal (by\nreligious, not by civil, law, it must be remembered) to kill a dog, and\nit was natural that his body should be disposed of in the same way as a\nman\u2019s. What else could be done with it? It was natural also that since\nhis death was inflicted by Ahriman (since it came of itself),\npurification ceremonials should be performed to remove the pollution.\nThe religious scope of such ceremonials was like that of reconsecrating\na church in which suicide or murder has been committed. That the dog was\nhighly appreciated, that he was valued as an essential helper in the\nexisting conditions of life, is amply proved, but that he was\n\u201creverenced\u201d more than some other animals\u2014_e.g._, the cow\u2014is open to\ndoubt. The dog was recognised as more human which made him more liable\nto err. It was the celebrated chapter on the dog which convinced Sir W.\nJones that Anquetil Duperron\u2019s translation was a forgery. It should have\nstruck him that this was not how a European would have made Zoroaster\nspeak about the favoured animal. In the comparisons of canine qualities\nwith those of certain human beings, there is more of satire than of\npanegyric. The whole Fargard XIII. has been interpreted as purely\nmystical: the dog symbolising the \u201cwill,\u201d a meaning which, according to\nthis argument, fits the term \u201cDog\u201d in all passages of the scriptures of\nIran. This is a hard saying. More reasonable is the supposition that\nFargard XIII. formed part of a treatise on animals and got into the\nVend\u00eed\u00e2d by chance. However that may be, the \u201ceight characters\u201d of the\ndog show observation though not reverence: he loves darkness like a\nthief, and at times has been known to be one; he fawns like a slave, he\nis a self-seeker like a courtezan, he eats raw meat like a beast of\nprey. The words relative to his \u201cchasing about the well-born cow\u201d have\nbeen interpreted to mean that he chased her back home when she had\nstrayed, but I seem to have seen dogs chasing about well-born cows from\nno such benevolent motive. Some of the comparisons are neither\nflattering nor critical but descriptive: the dog loves sheep like a\nchild, he runs here and there in front, like a child; he dodges in and\nout like a child.\n\n[Illustration:\n\n THE REAL DOG OF IRAN.\n Louvre.\n (_By permission of Messrs. Chapman & Hall, Ltd._)]\n\nThe _jeu d\u2019esprit_ of the \u201ceight characters\u201d is followed by what appears\nto be a serious statement of how to treat the dog which misconducts\nhimself. There is no capital punishment, nothing like the stoning of the\nox which gores a man or woman, in the Bible. If a dog attacks man or\ncattle he is to lose an ear; if he does it a third time his foot is to\nbe cut off, or, as Bleeck humanely suggests, he is to be rendered so far\nlame that it is easy to escape from him. The \u201cdumb dog\u201d of vicious\ndisposition is to be tied up. If a dog is no longer sane in his mind and\nhas become dangerous on that account, you are to try and cure him as you\nwould a man, but if this fails, you must chain him up and muzzle him,\nusing a sort of wooden pillory which prevents him from biting. This\npassage is curious, because, while it seems to allude plainly to\nhydrophobia, it contains no hint of the worser consequences to man than\na simple bite.\n\nWe find that there were four if not more breeds of dogs, each of which\nwas carefully trained for its work. The house-dog, the personal dog\n(which may have been a blood-hound), sheep and herd-dogs are all\nmentioned, but there is no mention of sporting-dogs or of sport in the\nAvesta. The dogs must have been powerful, as they were required to be a\nmatch for the wolf, \u201cthe growing, the flattering, the deadly wolf,\u201d\nwhich was the dread of every homestead in Iran. There were also \u201cwolves\nwith claws\u201d (tigers), but they were comparatively few. The kinship of\nwolf and dog was recognised, and there was an impression that the most\nmurderous wolf was the half-breed of a wolf and a bitch. Perhaps the\nwolf of dog-descent came more boldly to the dwelling of man, having no\ninstinctive fear of him. It is said, too, that the deadliest kind of dog\nwas the dog that had a wolf-mother. Possibly such cross-breeding was\ntried experimentally in the hope of obtaining dogs which could best\nresist the wolf.\n\nIf the dog is never represented as a creature of faultless perfection,\nit yet remains an established truth that \u201cdwellings would not stand fast\non the earth created by Ahura Mazda were there not dogs which pertain to\nthe cattle and to the village.\u201d It is the Lord of Creation who says:\n\u201cThe dog I have made, O Zarathustra, with his own clothing and his own\nshoes; with keen scent and sharp teeth, faithful to men, as a protector\nto the folds. For I have made the dog, I who am Ahura Mazda!\u201d To attack\nthe dog was like an attack on the police. Slitting the ear of the house\nor sheep-dog out of malice, or cutting off his foot, or belabouring him\nso that thieves got at the sheep, were not unfrequent crimes and they\nare dealt with no more severely than they deserve. Who killed a\nhouse-dog outright, or a sheep-dog or personal dog or well-trained dog,\nwas warned that in the next world his soul would go howling worse than a\nwolf in the depths of the forest; shunned by all other souls, growled at\nby the dogs that guard the bridge Chinvat. Eight hundred blows with a\nhorse-goad are adjudged to the wretch who so injures a dog that it die.\nTo strike or chase a bitch with young brings a dreadful curse. Much is\nsaid about the proper care of the mother and the puppies. To give a dog\ntoo hot food or too hard bones is as bad as turning apostate. His right\nfood is milk and fat and lean meat. \u201cOf all known creatures that which\nages soonest is the dog left foodless among people who eat\u2014who seeks\nhere and there his food and finds it not.\u201d\n\nAs a rule unnamed wild animals may be supposed to have been protected.\nThe fox was considered a powerful daeva-scarer, which shows that not\nonly in China did the fox seem an \u201cuncanny\u201d beast. In Iran his\nsupernatural services made him highly esteemed. There seem to have been\nno cats though so many mice. The later Iran was destined to be a great\nadmirer of cats, witness the praise of them by Persian poets, but it is\nnot easy to fix the date when they were introduced. Monkeys were known\nand were attributed by a post-Avestic superstition to the union of human\nwomen and daevas. Vultures were sacred because they devoured good\nMazdeans. On the whole, not much attention was paid to wild nature, with\none striking exception: the extraordinary respect for the water-dog,\nbeaver or otter. Suddenly the solid utilitarian basis of Zoroastrian\nzoology gives way and we behold a fabric of dreams. We might understand\nit better could we know the early animistic beliefs of Iran, though the\ntrend of the Avesta apparently ran _counter_ to old popular credences\nfar more than with them. It should be remembered that water was only a\nlittle less sacred than fire in the Zoroastrian system; the defilement\nof rivers was strictly forbidden. The Udra, or beaver, became the \u201cluck\u201d\nof the rivers: to destroy it would provoke a drought. If it was found\nroaming on the land, the Mazdean was bound to carry it to the nearest\nstream. In later legend, the Udra, even more than the fox, was a\ndaeva-foe. But by far its most important characteristic is its mythical\nconnexion with the dog. To the question: \u201cWhat becomes of the aged dog\nwhen his strength fails him and he dies?\u201d follows the answer: \u201cHe goes\nto the dwelling in the water, where he is met by two water-dogs.\u201d These\nare his conductors to the dogs\u2019 paradise. A fair sward beneath the\nwaters, cool and fresh in the summer heat, is at least a pleasant idea,\nbut when the two water-dogs are described as consisting of one thousand\nmale and one thousand female dogs, the myth seems to lose its balance\nwhich no proper myth ought to do. Myths have the habit of proceeding\nrationally enough in their own orbit. Later commentators reject this\nfantastic interpretation and suppose the verse to mean that the dog-soul\nis received, not by two, but by two thousand water-dogs, which in\nOriental hyperbole would mean merely \u201ca great many.\u201d\n\nBe this as it may, Udra-murder was a frightful sin, and frightful were\nthe penalties attached to it. Besides undergoing the usual blows with a\nhorse-goad (to be self inflicted?) the murderer must kill ten thousand\neach of some half-dozen insects and reptiles: this, at least, is how it\nlooks, but as a matter of fact the long lists of penalties in the\nVend\u00eed\u00e2d must be taken not as cumulative, but as alternative. This is\nevident, though it is never stated, and it explains many things. A large\nnumber of the alternative punishments for beaver-killing take the form\nof offerings to the priests. Arms, whips, grindstones, handmills,\nhouse-matting, wine and food, a team of oxen, cattle both small and\nlarge, _a suitable wife_\u2014the young sister of the sinner\u2014these are among\nthe specified offerings. The culprit may also build a bridge, or breed\nfourteen dogs as an act of expiation; in short, he may do any kind of\nmeritorious deed, but something he must do, or it will be the worse for\nhim in the world to come.\n\nThe Vend\u00eed\u00e2d was not a code of criminal law enforced by the civil power,\nbut an adjugation of penances for the atonement of sin. This was not\nunderstood at first, which caused the selection of punishments to appear\nmore extravagant than it really is. For the most part the penances were\nactive good works or things which were reckoned as such. Charity and\nalms-giving were always contemplated among the means of grace, and if\nthey were not dwelt upon more continually, it was because there existed\nnothing comparable to modern destitution. Moreover, it was understood\nbetter than in other parts of the East that not every beggar was a\nsaint: too often he was a lazy fellow who had shirked the common\nobligation of labour. The repetition of certain prayers was another\npractice recommended to the repentant sinner. But no good work or pious\nexercise was of any avail unless accompanied by sincere sorrow for\nhaving done wrong. The Law opened the door of grace, but to obtain it\nthe heart must have become changed. God forgives those who truly desire\nHis forgiveness. It is impossible to doubt that the spurious Mazdeism\nwhich got into Europe, distorted though it was, yet took with it the two\ngreat Mazdean doctrines of repentance and the remission of sin. Great\nideas conquer, and it was by these two doctrines that Mithraism so\nnearly conquered the Western world\u2014not by its unlovely rites.\n\nOn one or two points the human eschatology of Zoroastrianism is\nassociated with dogs. A dog is brought into the presence of the dying\nman. This has been explained by reference to the dogs of Yama, the Vedic\nlord of death, and the European superstition about the howling of a dog\nbeing a death-portent is explained in the same way, but in both\ninstances the immediate cause seems nearer at hand. An Indian officer\nonce remarked to me that any one who had heard the true \u201cdeath-howl\u201d of\na dog would never need any recondite reason for the uncomfortable\nfeeling which it arouses. As regards the Zoroastrian dog, the immediate\ncause of the belief that he drives away evil spirits lies in the fact\nthat he drives away thieves and prowlers in the night. Death being a\npollution as the work of Ahriman, evil spirits beset the dying, but they\nflee at the sight of the dog, created by Ahura Mazda to protect man. The\ndead wander for three days near the tenantless body: then they go to the\nbridge Chinvat, where the division takes place between the good and the\nwicked. The bridge is guarded by dogs, who drive away all things evil\nfrom the path of the righteous, but do nothing to prevent bad spirits\nfrom tripping up sinners so that they fall into the pit.\n\nThe good go into light, sinners into darkness, where Ahriman, \u201cwhose\nreligion is evil,\u201d mocks them, saying: \u201cWhy did you eat the bread of\nAhura Mazda and do my work? and thought not of your own Creator but\npractised my will?\u201d Nothing is told of the punishment of Ahriman\u2014the\ndoom of Evil is to be Evil\u2014but in the end he will be utterly\nextinguished. Through time, _but not_ through eternity the wicked remain\nin his power. In the Khordah Avesta it is said that God, after purifying\nall the obedient, will purify the wicked out of hell. In the words of a\nliving Parsi writer: \u201cThe reign of terror, at the end of the stipulated\ntime, vanishes into oblivion, and its chief factor, Ahriman, goes to\nmeet his doom of total extinction, whilst Ahura Mazda, the Omnipotent\nVictor, remains the Great All in All.\u201d\n\nThe Zoroastrian was as free as Socrates himself from the materialism\nwhich looks upon the body after death as if it were still the being that\ntenanted it. Some kind of renewed body the dead will have: meanwhile,\nthis is not they! The hope of immortality was so firm that it was\nthought an actual sin to give way to excessive mourning: the wailing and\nkeening of the Jews seem to be here condemned, though they are not\nmentioned, there being no direct allusion to the religions of other\npeoples in the Avesta. There is a river of human tears which hinders\nsouls on their way to beatitude: the dead would fain that the living\ncheck their tears which swell the river and make it hard to cross over\nin safety. The same idea is to be found in one of the most beautiful of\nScandinavian folk-songs.\n\nThe small work known as the Book of Ard\u00e2 V\u00eer\u00e2f is a document of\npriceless worth to the student of Mazdean eschatology, and it is also of\nthe greatest interest in its relation to ideas about animals. If printed\nin a convenient form, every humane person would carry it in his pocket.\nLike the vision of the Seer of Patmos this work is purely religious; it\nattempts no criticism of life and man such as that embodied in the\n\u201cDivina Commedia,\u201d but in spite of this difference in aim, there is an\nastonishing resemblance between its general plan and that of the poem of\nDante. Without going into this subject, I may say that I cannot feel\nconvinced that with the geographical, astronomical, and other knowledge\nof the East which is believed to have reached Dante by means of\nconversations with merchants, pilgrims and perhaps craftsmen (for that\nItalian artists worked in India at an early date the Madonna-like groups\nin many a remote Hindu temple bear almost certain testimony), there did\nnot come to him also some report of the travels of the Persian visitant\nto the next world.\n\nThe author of the Persian vision was a pious Mazdean whose whole desire\nwas to revive religious feeling amid growing indifference. He is\nsupposed to have lived not earlier than 500, and not later than 700 A.D.\nThe former is the likelier date. Had the assault of Islam begun, the\nbook must have borne traces of the struggle with invaders who threatened\nto annihilate the faith. The author states that the work was intended as\nan antidote in the first place to atheism and in the second to \u201cthe\nreligions of many kinds\u201d that were springing up. This probably contains\na reference to Christian sects, but it is not the way that allusion\nwould have been made to propagandists with a sword in their hands.\nChristian sects managed to recover from the first persecution in 344\nA.D., after which they were more often than not tolerated, though the\nZoroastrian priesthood feared a Church that possessed an organisation so\nmuch like their own. They were accused, moreover, as at Rome, of being\nanti-national: everywhere the sentiment against the Christians took a\nform closely resembling the anti-Semiticism of our days. Such\naccusations can hardly fail to create, to some extent, the thing they\npredicate, and it is no great wonder if in the end the Persian\nChristians received the Moslem invaders with favour. Though the essence\nof Mazdeism is peace to men of good-will, it is to be feared that the\nZoroastrian priests (like others) were less tolerant than their creed,\nand that the harassing of the Christians generally originated with them.\nThey are known to have counselled this policy to Homizd IV., who gave\nthem the memorable answer that his royal throne could not stand on its\nfront legs alone, but needed the support of the Christians and other\nsectaries as well as of the faithful. It was one of the wisest sayings\nthat ever fell from the lips of a king and more Mazdean than all the\nbigotry of Zoroastrian clericalism.\n\nThe author of Ard\u00e2 V\u00eer\u00e2f tried the perfectly legitimate means of\npersuasion in rallying his countrymen to their own religion. He tells\nthe story of how, in an age of doubt, it was agreed that the best thing\nwould be to send some one into the next world to see if Mazdeism were,\nindeed, the true religion. Lots fell on a very virtuous man named Ard\u00e2\nV\u00eer\u00e2f, who was commissioned to make the journey in a trance-state\nproduced by the administration of a narcotic. Even now, in India,\nchildren and others are given narcotics, sometimes of a dangerous sort,\nin order to obtain knowledge which is supposed to come to them whilst\ninsensible. To a Mazdean the ordeal would be particularly terrible,\nbecause sleep, like death, was created by Ahriman. The calm fortitude\nwith which Ard\u00e2 V\u00eer\u00e2f submits, while his family break into loud weeping,\nalmost reminds one of the bearing of Socrates on the eve of a similar\ndeparture but one with no return. \u201cIt is the custom that I should pray\nto the departed souls and make a will,\u201d he says; \u201cwhen I have done that,\ngive me the narcotic.\u201d His body was treated as though dead, being kept\nat the proper distance from fire and other sacred things, but priests\nstayed near it night and day, praying and reading the Scriptures, that\nthe powers of ill might not prevail.\n\nAt the end of seven days the wandering spirit of Ard\u00e2 V\u00eer\u00e2f re-entered\nhis inanimate form, and after he had taken food and water and wine he\ncalled for a ready writer, to whom he dictated the tale of what he had\nseen. Guided by Srosh the Pious and Ataro the Angel (Virgil and\nBeatrice) the traveller visited heaven and hell. At the outset he saw\nthe meeting of a righteous soul and its Fravashi. This soul crosses the\nChinvat bridge in safety, and on the other side passes into an\natmosphere laden with an ineffably sweet perfume which emanates from the\ndirection of the presence of God. Here it meets a damsel more wondrously\nfair than aught it has beheld in the land of the living. Enraptured at\nthe sight, it asks her name and receives the answer: \u201cI am thine own\ngood actions.\u201d Every good deed embellishes the human soul\u2019s archetype,\nevery evil deed mars and stains it with the hideousness of sin. This\npoetic and beautiful conception was not due to the author of Ard\u00e2 V\u00eer\u00e2f:\nit is taken from the venerable pages of the Avesta itself.\n\nIn the abode of Punishment the most impressive penalties are those\nundergone by the souls which have tortured helpless infants or dumb\nanimals. The mother who feeds another\u2019s child from greed and starves her\nown, is seen digging into an iron hill with her breasts while the cry of\nher child for food comes ever from the other side of the hill, \u201cbut the\ninfant comes not to the mother nor the mother to the infant.\u201d Here the\nsupreme anguish is mental: it is caused by the awakening of that\nmaternal instinct which the woman stifled on earth. Has the _Inferno_\nany thought so luminously subtle as this? The woman-soul will never\nreach her child \u201ctill the renewal of the world.\u201d Till the renewal of the\nworld! Across the hell-fog penetrates the final hope!\n\nThe unfaithful wife who destroys the fruit of her illicit love suffers a\nhorrible punishment. It is strange that if we wish to find an analogy to\nthese severe judgments on offences against infancy, we must go to a\nsmall tribe of Dravidian mountaineers in the Nilgiri hills, among whose\nfolk-songs is one which describes a vision of heaven and hell. In this a\nwoman is shown who is condemned to see her own child continually die,\nbecause she refused help to a stranger\u2019s child, saying: \u201cIt is not\nmine!\u201d\n\nThose who treated their beasts cruelly, who overworked them, overloaded\nthem, gave them insufficient food, continued to work them when they\nsuffered from sores caused by leanness instead of trying to cure the\nsores, are seen by Ard\u00e2 V\u00eer\u00e2f hung up head downwards while a ceaseless\nrain of stones falls on their backs. Those who wantonly killed animals\nhave a knife driven ceaselessly into their hearts. Those who muzzled the\nox which ploughed the furrows are dashed under the feet of cattle. The\nsame punishment falls to those who forget to give water to the oxen in\nthe heat of the day or who worked them when hungry and thirsty. Demons\nlike dogs constantly tear the man who kept back food from\nshepherds\u2019-dogs and house-dogs or who beat or killed them: he offers\nbread to the dogs, but they eat it not and only tear the more.\n\nArd\u00e2 V\u00eer\u00e2f tells a story which belongs to the cycle of \u201cSultan Murad,\u201d\nimmortalised by Victor Hugo. A certain lazy man named Dav\u00e2n\u00f4s, who never\ndid any other thing of good during all the years when he governed many\nprovinces, once cast a bundle of grass with his right foot to within the\nreach of a ploughing-ox. Hence his right foot is exempted from torment\nwhile the rest of his body is gnawed by noxious creatures.\n\nIt is easy to imagine that the realistic picture of heaven and hell by a\npoet of no little power produced the deepest effect on the minds of\npeople, who for the most part took it to be literally true. No Oriental\nwork ever became more popular or was more widely read and translated.\nPeople still living can remember the time when it was the habit of the\nParsis at Bombay to have public readings of Ard\u00e2 V\u00eer\u00e2f, on which\noccasions the audience, especially the feminine part of it, broke into\nviolent sobbing from the excitement caused by the description of the\npunishment of the wicked. The Parsis have abandoned now the theory that\nthe book is other than a work of imagination, but it may be hoped that\nthey will not cease to regard it as a cherished legacy from their\nfathers and a precious bequest to their children.\n\n\n------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\n\n\n\n VIII\n\n A RELIGION OF RUTH\n\n\nAN Englishman who went to see a Hindu saint was deterred from entering\nthe cave where the holy man lived by the spectacle of numerous rats. The\nhermit, observing his hesitation, inquired what was the matter? \u201cDon\u2019t\nyou see them?\u201d answered his visitor. \u201cYes,\u201d was the brief reply. \u201cWhy\ndon\u2019t you kill them?\u201d asked the Englishman. \u201cWhy should I kill them?\u201d\nsaid the native of the land. Finding the whole onus of the discussion\nthrown on his shoulders, the English traveller felt that it would be\ndifficult with his limited knowledge of the language to express a\nEuropean\u2019s ideas about rats. He thought to sum up the case in one\nsentence: \u201cWe people kill them.\u201d To which the saint answered: \u201cWe people\ndon\u2019t kill them.\u201d\n\nIn another country, but still among a race which has inherited the habit\nof looking at questions between man and animals not exclusively from the\nman\u2019s point of view, a learned professor proposed to an old gardener at\nYezd that they should dig up an ant-hill to ascertain if the local\nprejudice were true which insisted that inside each ant-hill there\nlodged two scorpions. The old Persian declined to be a party to any such\nproceeding. \u201cAs long as the scorpions stay inside,\u201d he said with\ndecision, \u201cwe have no right to molest them and to do so would bring\nill-luck.\u201d\n\nThese anecdotes show, amusingly and convincingly, the wall of\ndemarcation between Eastern and Western thought by which the son of the\nWest is apt to find his passage barred. They serve my purpose in quoting\nthem the better because they are not connected with the religious sect\nwhose precepts I am going to sketch. They illustrate what I believe to\nbe true, namely, that this sect and Buddhism itself would not have made\ntheir way in so wonderful a manner, seemingly almost without effort, had\nthey not found the ground prepared by a racial tendency to fly to the\ndoctrine of _Ahimsa_, or \u201cnon-killing,\u201d which forms part of their\nsystems.\n\nNo religion prevails unless it appeals to some chord, if not of the\nhuman heart everywhere, at least of the particular human hearts to which\nit is directed. In the West a religion based on Vegetarianism would not\nhave a chance. Not that there exists no trace of the life-preserving\ninstinct among Western peoples\u2014far from that. All nice children have it\nand all saints of the type of him of Assisi. Other people have it who\nare neither children, nor saints, nor yet lunatics (\u201cthough by your\nsmiling you seem to say so\u201d). I know an old hero of the Siege of Delhi\nwho to this day would stoop to lift a worm from his path. But the\nsentiment, which in the West is rather a secret thing, forming a sort of\nfreemasonry among those who feel it, asserts its sway in the East in the\nbroad light of day. No one there would mind giving the fullest publicity\nto his opinion that the scorpion has as good a right to live undisturbed\nin his domestic ant-hill as you have in your suburban villa.\n\nLong before the Jainas made _Ahimsa_ a gateway to perfection,\ninnumerable Asiatics practised and even preached the very same rule. It\nwas the bond of union between all the religious teachers and ascetics\nwho constituted a well-defined feature in Indian life from remote if not\nfrom the earliest antiquity. The founders of Jainism and of Buddhism,\ntoo, were Gurus like the rest, only they possessed an intensified\nmagnetic influence and, at least in Buddha\u2019s case, an unique genius.\nEvery Eastern religion has been taught by a Guru, not excepting the most\ndivine of them all.[4]\n\nFootnote 4:\n\n \u201cIt is stated of the Divine Founder of the Christian religion that\n without a parable spoke He not to the people. Christ, in fact, acted\n and taught as an _Oriental Guru_, a character which none of the\n European writers of Christ\u2019s life has invested Him with\u201d (Rev. J.\n Long: v. \u201cOriental Proverbs\u201d in the Report of the Proceedings of the\n Second Congress of Orientalists).\n\nIn the occurrence of a new religious evolution much depends on the\nindividual, but much also on the fulness of time. When Buddhism and\nJainism arose, the psychological moment was come for a change or\nmodification in the current faith. To some degree, both were a revolt\nagainst Sacerdotalism. Men were told that they could work out their\nsalvation without priestly aid or intervention. The new teachers, though\neach springing from the class of the feudal nobility, won to their side\nthe surging wave of the only kind of democratic yearning which, till\nnow, Asia has known\u2014the yearning for religious equality. Professor\nHermann Jacobi (the foremost authority on Jainism, to whom all who study\nthe subject owe an unbounded debt) suggests that there was a certain\nfriction between the highly meritorious of the noble and the priestly\ncastes because the priests were inclined to look down on the layman\nsaint. To this category belonged Sakya Muni, who was the younger son of\na prince, or, as we should say, a feudal lord, and who renounced rank\nand riches to become a recluse. The same family history is told of\nMahavira, whom the Jainas claim to be their founder. For a long time\nEuropeans believed the two religions to have but one source, and Jainism\nwas dismissed as a Buddhist sect. The Jainas, however, always strongly\nheld that they had a founder of their own, namely, Mahavira, and they\neven declared that Buddha was not his master but his disciple. After\nmuch research, Professor Jacobi decided the case in their favour by\nassigning to them a separate origin. Both Sakya Muni and Mahavira are\ngenerally believed to have flourished in the sixth century B.C.\n\nThe confusion of the Jainas with the Buddhists and even with the\nBrahmans has made it difficult to reckon their present numbers: in the\ncensus of 1901 they are estimated at 1,334,138, chiefly living in the\nBombay Presidency, but this does not tell us their real number. Jainas\nare to be found almost everywhere in Upper India, in the West and South\nand along the Ganges. They inhabit the towns more than the country. In\ntreating ancient Indian religions the living document is always round\nthe corner, ready to be called into the witness-box, and the Jainas of\nto-day can give a good account of themselves. Every one has a good word\nfor them; a friend of mine, than whom few know India better, describes\nthem thus: \u201cA tall, fair, handsome, good and humble lot they are and\nterribly bullied they are by their more bellicose fellow-countrymen, who\nall look on Jainas as made for them to pilfer, but the Jainas never turn\non their persecutors.\u201d In spite of their meekness, they are good men of\nbusiness, which is proved by their remarkable success in commerce.\nPerhaps it is not such bad policy to be peaceful, and helpful, and\nhonest as a cynical century supposes.\n\nThe Jainas say of Mahavira that he was one of a long line of holy\nascetics twenty-four of whom are venerated in their temples under the\nname of Tirthakaras or Jinas, \u201cConquerors\u201d in the sense of having\nconquered the flesh. Needless to point out that the founders of great\nreligious systems invariably accept this principle of evolution: they\ncomplete what others began, and in due time a new manifestation will\narrive either in the form of a more perfect revelation of themselves or\nin that of a fore-destined successor. The Buddhists now await Matreya,\nor \u201cthe Buddha of kindness.\u201d The Jainas have not added to their\ntwenty-four glorified beings, but there is nothing to prevent them from\ndoing so. To these specimens of perfected humanity they have raised some\nof the most glorious temples ever lifted by the hand of man towards\nheaven. Tier on tier mount the exquisitely beautiful towers of the Jaina\ncathedrals in the most lonely part of the Muklagerri hills. They seem\nlike the Parsifal music turned into stone: an allegory of the ascent of\nthe soul from corruption to incorruption, from change to permanency. The\ndesire to worship something finds a vent in the reverence paid to the\nTirthakaras, but the Jaina religion admits neither relics nor the\niteration of prayers. The building of splendid shrines and of refuges\nfor man and beast are the particular means of grace open to the Jaina\nwho cannot comply in all respects with the exacting demands of his\nscriptures, which, were they literally fulfilled, would leave no one on\nthe world but ascetics. The wealthy Jaina is only too glad to avail\nhimself of the chance of acquiring some merit, however far it must fall\nshort of the highest. Besides this, in moments of religious fervour\ntemple-building becomes a frenzy: whole races are swept along by the\nblind impulse to incarnate their spiritual cravings in spires or pagodas\nor minarets pointing to the sky\u2014the eternal symbol. The greatest of\nJaina temples mark the epoch of some such wave of spiritual emotion.\n\nThe Jaina scriptures, which were first collected from aural report and\nwritten down by a learned man in the sixth century A.D., are really a\nRule of Discipline for monks, and not a guide for the mass of mankind.\nIf we could imagine the only Christian Scripture being the immortal book\nof Thomas \u00e0 Kempis, we should form the idea of a very similar state of\nthings. It is surprising not how little but how much of this rigid rule\nis followed by every Jaina to this day, be he monk or layman. The\nvegetarian principle involved in _Ahimsa_ is observed rigorously by\nall\u2014clearly with no bad effect on health after a trial of about\ntwenty-four centuries, for the Jainas\u2019 physique is excellent, and they\nare less subject to disease than the other communities. They strain and\nboil water before drinking, and whatever may be said of the motive, the\npractice must be highly commended. They are also often to be seen\nwearing a mouth-cloth to prevent them from swallowing flies, and they\ncarry little brooms with which they sweep insects out of their path. The\nhospitals for sick animals begin to be better managed than formerly,\nwhen they incurred much censure as mere conglomerations of hopeless\nsuffering to relieve which practical means were not taken. A folly\nadopted by the more fanatical Jainas at the time of their origin was\nthat of going \u201csky-clad,\u201d which makes it probable that they were the\ngymnosophists known to the Greeks. They saw well later to limit this\npractice to certain times and occasions or to abandon it for the far\nmore pleasant one of wearing white garments. Buddha warned his followers\nagainst the \u201csky-clad\u201d aberration. He disagreed with the Jainas on a\nmore vital point in the view he took of penance and self-inflicted\ntorture. It shows the high intellectuality of the man that towards the\nend of his life he pronounced penance, though he had gone through much\nof it himself, to be vanity of vanities. The Jainas took the opposite\nview: \u201cSubdue the body just as fire consumes old wood.\u201d They hold that\nmerit is bound up with a certain definite and tangible thing: the\nBuddhist, more philosophically, makes it consist in intention. This is\nthe chief doctrinal difference between Jaina and Buddhist, and though\neach is bound to charity and the Jaina is particularly enjoined by his\nscriptures not to turn other people\u2019s religion into ridicule, it has to\nbe confessed that in their frequent disputes they spare no pains and\nneglect no arts of Socratic reasoning to reduce each other\u2019s theories to\nan absurdity. Irony is a weapon always used in Indian religious\ndiscussion.\n\nMahavira himself \u201cfulfilled the law\u201d by allowing gnats, flies, and other\nthings to bite him and crawl over him for four months without ever once\nlosing his equanimity. It is told that he met all sorts of pleasant or\nunpleasant events with an even mind whether they arose from divine\npowers, men, or animals. The Jainas did not deny that there were divine\npowers: there might be any number of them, and the influence they\nwielded for good or for ill (I think especially for ill) was not\ninconsiderable. Only they were not morally admirable like a man\nvictorious through suffering. The greater willingness of the Jainas to\nadmit gods into the wheel of being, and even to allow some homage to be\npaid to them, was one reason why they clashed less with the Brahmans.\nAfter the subsidence of Buddhism the Jainas managed to go on existing,\nsomewhat despised and annoyed, but tolerated.\n\nWhile both Buddhists and Jainas place the prohibition to take life at\nthe head of their law, its application is infinitely more thoroughgoing\namong the Jainas, who also attach to it ideas which have no place in\nBuddhist metaphysics. From the Jaina position, it seems to imply a\ntendency to primitive animism, though it is hard to say whether this\ncomes from a real process of retrogression or simply from the Indo-Aryan\ndesire for a synthesis\u2014the more easily attained the more you assume. It\nis startling to hear that in the last census over eight millions were\nreturned as animists\u2014it proves that the old credences die hard. The\nJainas took into their soul-world fire, water, wind, shooting plants and\ngerminating seeds. The disciplinary results must have been inconvenient,\nbut a religion was never less popular because it put its devotees to\ninconvenience. Those who still clung to animistic beliefs were already\nprepared to see a soul in the flickering fire, the rushing water, the\ngrowing blade. We all have odds and ends of animism; did not Coventry\nPatmore say: \u201cThere is something human in a tree?\u201d With more detail the\nJaina observes that trees and plants are born and grow old; they\ndistinguish the seasons, they turn towards the sun, the seeds grow up:\nhow, then, shall we deny all knowledge to them? \u201cThe asoka buds and\nblossoms when touched by a fair girl\u2019s feet.\u201d Can we help recalling the\nfamiliar lines in the \u201cSensitive Plant?\u201d\u2014\n\n \u201cI doubt not the flowers of that garden sweet\n Rejoiced in the sound of her gentle feet;\n I doubt not they felt the spirit that came\n From her glowing fingers thro\u2019 all their frame.\u201d\n\nNow, Science, which is on the way to becoming very kind to man\u2019s early\nbeliefs, comes forward in the person of Mr. Francis Darwin to tell us\nthat plants _have_ \u201cmind\u201d and \u201cintelligence,\u201d especially the hop and the\nbryony. All fairy-tales will come true if we wait long enough.\n\nOnce, and once only, in Jaina writings I have noticed it given as a\ndistinct reason for sparing plants and trees, that they may contain the\ntransmigrated soul of a man. Even in the case of animals the doctrine of\ntransmigration is rarely adduced as the reason for not killing them,\nthough it is fully accepted by Jainas in common with all the Indian\nsects sprung from Brahmanism by which it was started. Coming to the\nIndian views of animals from those which antiquity represented as the\npreaching of Pythagoras, we expect to see this argument put forward at\nevery turn, but it is not. In Jaina writings the incentive is humanity:\nto do to others as we would be done by. It is true that as an aid to\nthis incentive, the cruel are threatened with the most awful\npunishments. In Indian sacred writings one is wearied by the nice\nbalance constantly drawn between every deed and its consequences to the\ndoer for a subsequent millennium. In medi\u00e6val monkish legends we find\nexactly the same device for keeping the adept in the paths of virtue,\nbut wherever we find it, we sigh for the spontaneous emotion of pity of\nthe Good Samaritan who never reflected \u201cIf I do not get off my ass and\ngo to help that Jew, how very bad it will be for my Karman!\u201d\n\nWe ought not to forget in this connexion that rewards and punishments\nhave not the same meaning to the Indian as to us: they are not\nextraneous prizes or penalties, but the working out of a mathematical\nproblem which we both set and solve for ourselves. It is utterly\nimpossible to escape from the consequences of our evil acts: they are\ndebts which must be paid, though we may set about performing good acts\nwhich will make our future happiness exceed our future misery in time\nand extent. The highest good comes of itself, automatically, to him who\nmerits it, as is illustrated with great beauty in the Jaina story of the\nWhite Lotus. This flower, the symbol of perfection, bloomed in the\ncentre of a pool and was descried by many who made violent efforts to\nreach it, but they were all set fast in the mud. Then came a holy\nascetic who stood motionless on the bank. \u201cO white Lotus, fly up!\u201d he\nsaid, and the White Lotus flew to his breast. Even among Indian sects\nwhich all abound in this kind of composition the Jainas are remarkable\nfor their wealth of moral tales and apothegms. As is well known, they\npossess a parable called \u201cThe Three Merchants,\u201d closely resembling the\nparable of the Talents as told by Matthew and Luke, and still more\nexactly agreeing with the version given in the so-called \u201cGospel\naccording to the Hebrews.\u201d\n\nThe theory of Karman suggests several modern scientific speculations\nsuch as the idea that the brain retains an ineffaceable print of every\nimpression received by it, and again, the extreme view of heredity which\nmakes the individual the moral and physical slave of former generations.\nIt is a theory which has the advantage of disposing of many riddles.\nDifferent sects have slightly varying opinions about the nature of the\nKarman: the Jainas see in this receptacle of good and evil deeds a\nmaterial, though supersensual, reality with a physical basis. Each\nindividual consists of five parts: the visible body, the vital energy\nthought to consist of fire, or, as we might say, of electricity, the\nKarman and two subliminal selves which appear to be only latent in most\npersons, but by which, when called into activity, the individual can\ntransform himself, travel to distances and do other unusual things. That\neach man is provided with a wraith or double is an old and widely-spread\nbelief; but in Western lore the double does not seem to be commanded by\nits pair: it rather moves like an unconscious, wandering photograph of\nhim.\n\nThe Jainas have the same word for the soul and for life: _g\u00eeva_, and\nthis name they bestow on the whole range of things which they consider\nas living: the elements, seeds, plants, animals, men, gods. One would\nthink that the sense of personal identity would become vague in the\ncontemplation of voyages over so vast a sea of being, but, on the\ncontrary, this identity is the one thing about which the individual\nseems perfectly sure. We have frequently such utterances as: \u201cMy own\nself is the doer and the undoer of misery and happiness; my own self is\nfriend and foe.\u201d A sort of void seems spread round the individual which\neven family affection, very strong though it has always been in India,\nis powerless to bridge. A lovely testimony to this affection, and at the\nsame time an avowal of its unavailingness, is to be found in the one\nsingle exception to the Jaina law that the wholly virtuous man must\ndesire nothing, not even Nirvana must he desire, much less earthly love\nor friendship. But he may desire to take upon him the painful illness of\none of his dear kindred. It is added sadly, however, that never has such\na desire been fulfilled, for one man cannot take upon him the pains of\nanother, neither can he feel what another feels.\n\n\u201cMan is born alone, he dies alone, he falls alone, he rises alone. His\npassions, consciousness, intellect, perceptions and impressions belong\nto him exclusively. Another cannot save him or help him. He grows old,\nhis hair turns white, even this dear body he must relinquish\u2014none can\nstay the hour.\u201d\n\nAgain it is written:\u2014\n\n\u201cMan! thou art thy own friend, why wishest thou for a friend beyond\nthyself?\u201d\n\nThe isolation of the soul with its paramount importance to its owner\n(that is to say, to itself) makes it obligatory to pursue its interests\neven at the expense of the most sacred affections. The Pagan, the Jew,\nthe Moslem could not have been brought to yield assent to this doctrine,\nbut it meets us continually in Catholic hagiology; for instance, St.\nFran\u00e7ois de Sales told Madame de Chantal that she ought, if needful, to\nwalk into the cloister over the dead body of her son. So in a Jaina\nstory, father, mother, wife, child, sister, brother try in vain to wrest\na holy young man from his resolve to leave them. In vain the old people\nsay: \u201cWe will do all the work if you will only come home; come, child!\nWe will pay your debts; you need not stay longer than you like\u2014only come\nhome!\u201d The quite admirable young man (who sets one furiously wishing for\na stout birch rod) proceeds on his way unmoved. But it is remarked, \u201cAt\nsuch appeals the weak break down like old, worn-out oxen going up hill.\u201d\nWe prefer the weak.\n\nWho was the first anchorite? Perhaps in very early states of society a\nfew individuals got lost in the mountain or forest, where they lived on\nfruits and nuts, and then, after a long time, some of them were\nre-discovered, and, because they seemed so strange and mysterious after\ntheir long seclusion, they were credited with supernatural gifts.\nAnimals do not go away alone except in the rare case of being seized\nwith mania, or in the universal case of feeling the approach of death.\nThe origin of hermits cannot, therefore, be explained by analogy with\nanimals.\n\nOne can conceive that a hermit\u2019s life may have great attractions, but\nscarcely that of a Jaina hermit, who is expected to employ his leisure\nin the most painful mortification of the flesh. Though other-worldly\nadvantages form the great object which spurs men to choose such a lot we\nmust not forget that this sort of life is held to confer powers which\nare, by no means, other-worldly. By it the Brahman becomes superior to\ncaste, being incapable of pollution: if he wished he could drink after\nthe most miserable Western had touched the cup.\n\nThe theory of asceticism is very much alike everywhere, and the\nextraordinary faculties claimed by the Jainas for their holy men are the\nportion, more or less, of the Indian holy man in general. These\nfaculties may be briefly described as an abnormal development of the\nsubliminal self, but that is not an adequate account of the vastness of\ntheir range. One feels often inclined to ask\u2014without granting revelation\nor, indeed, the existence of an omniscient being who could give it\u2014_how_\ndoes the Buddhist or Jaina acquire perfect certainty that he knows all\nabout his own and man\u2019s destiny? The question of authority is of primary\nimportance in all religions: in what way does Buddhist or Jaina solve\nit? It is evident that scepticism based on this very ground does\nsometimes harass the soul of the Jaina novice: \u201cThe weak,\u201d we are told,\n\u201cwhen bitten by a snarling dog or annoyed by flies and gnats, will begin\nto say: \u2018_I have not seen the next world, all may end with death._\u2019\u201d It\nstartles one to hear from the mouth of the devil\u2019s advocate in an\nancient Eastern homily a cry so modern, so Western:\u2014\n\n \u201cDeath means heaven, he longs to receive it,\n But what shall I do if I don\u2019t believe it?\u201d[5]\n\nFootnote 5:\n\n \u201cVerses written in India,\u201d p. 13.\n\nSir Alfred Lyall\u2019s questioner found none to answer him, but the Jaina\nhas an answer which, if accepted, must prove entirely satisfactory. The\nsuperlatively virtuous individual possesses an effortless certainty\nabout the secrets of life. In a state superinduced by means which,\nthough arduous, are at the disposal of all, the soul can view itself,\nread its history, past, present and to come, know the souls of others,\nremember what happened in former births, understand the heavenly bodies\nand the universe. Here is nothing miraculous: a veil is lifted, and\nhidden things become plain. It is as if a man who had cataract in both\neyes underwent a successful operation\u2014after which he sees.\n\nThe supersensual perception of Jaina, or Joghi, or Guru is much akin to\nthe \u201cinfused knowledge\u201d ascribed to the saints of the Thebaid. He\nknows\u2014because he knows. By the devout, information derived from these\npersons is accepted as readily as we should accept information about\nradium from a qualified scientific man. The most confident of all that\nthe information is true is he who gives it: fraud must be dismissed\nfinally as the key to any such phenomena.\n\nThe Indian mind has grasped a great idea in referring what we call\nspirit to fixed laws no less than what we call matter. But in spirit it\nsees a force infinitely exceeding the force of matter. \u201cThe holy monk,\u201d\nsay the Jaina scriptures, \u201cmight reduce millions to ashes by the fire of\nhis wrath.\u201d Besides such tremendous powers as these he has all the minor\naccomplishments of the spiritualist or hypnotist: thought-reading,\nlevitation, clairvoyance, &c., and he can always tame wild beasts. He is\nunder strict obligations to use his powers with discretion. It is not\nright to make profit out of them: that man is anathema who lives by\ndivination from dreams, diagrams, sticks, bodily changes, the cries of\nanimals. The Jainas denounce magic not less strongly than the other\nreligious teachers of the East. This is interesting because the reasons\nare lacking which are commonly held to explain the world-wide prejudice\nagainst magic: the Jainas do not attribute it to the agency of evil\nspirits, nor can their dislike of it be attributed to the professional\njealousy of priests in regard to rival thaumaturgists. For the Jaina the\npower of magic-working lies in every one, and those who have developed\ntheir other spiritual powers have also this one at their command, but to\navail themselves of it is an enormous sin. There is a weird story\nshowing what infamies a magic-working \u201cascetic\u201d may perpetrate. A monk\ncarried off, by magical arts, all the women he met, till the king of\nthat country trapped him in a hollow tree and had him put to death. The\nwomen were set free and returned to their husbands, except one, who\nrefused to go back because she had fallen desperately in love with her\nseducer. A very wise man suggested that the monk\u2019s bones should be\npounded and mixed with milk, and then given to the woman to drink: this\nwas done and she was cured of her passion.\n\nOver the whole East, the report that some one was working miracles, even\nthe most beneficent, raised both suspicion and jealousy. This was why\nsecrecy was recommended about all such acts.\n\nHow far the belief in the extraordinary gifts of the ascetic rests on\nhallucination, and how far men in an artificially created abnormal\ncondition can do things of which hypnotic manifestations are but the\nouter edge, it is not my purpose to inquire. The Jaina monks are said\nsometimes to fast for four days, and no doubt the stimulus of starvation\n(especially when the brain has not been weakened by long disease),\nproduces an ecstatic state which men have everywhere supposed to\nindicate religious perfection. This may be observed even in birds, which\nfrom some difficulty in swallowing, die of starvation: I had a canary\nthat sang for days before it died a sweet incessant song, the like of\nwhich I never heard: it seemed not earthly.\n\nThe best side in Eastern religions is not their thaumaturgy but the\nsteady ethical tendency which pushes itself up out of the jungle of\nextravagance and self-delusion. Though we may not have much sympathy\nwith the profession of a \u201chouseless\u201d saint, it is impossible to deny the\nmoral elevation of such a picture of him as is drawn in the Jaina\nconversion story of \u201cThe True Sacrifice.\u201d A holy man, born in the\nhighest Brahmanical caste, but who had found wisdom in Jaina vows, went\non a long journey and walked and walked till he came to Benares, where\nhe found a very learned Brahman who was deeply versed in astronomy and\nin the Vedas. When the \u201cHouseless\u201d arrived, the priest was about to\noffer up sacrifice, and perhaps because he did not wish to be disturbed\nat such a moment, he told him rudely to go away\u2014he would have no beggars\nthere. The holy man was not angry; he had not come to extort food or\nwater, but from the pure desire to save souls. He quietly told the\npriest that he was ignorant of the essence of the Vedas, of the true\nmeaning of sacrifice, of the government of the heavenly bodies. There\nmust have been a peculiar effluence of sanctity flowing from the\n\u201cHouseless\u201d as the priest took his rebukes with meekness, and merely\nasked for enlightenment. Then the seer delivered his message. It is not\nthe tonsure that makes the priest or repetition of the sacred syllable\n_om_ that makes the saint. It is not by dwelling in woods or by wearing\nclothes of bark or grass that salvation may be reached. Equanimity,\nchastity, knowledge, and penance are the ways to holiness. His actions\nalone colour a man\u2019s soul: as his works are, so is he. Persuaded of the\ntruth, the priest addressed the \u201cHouseless\u201d as the truest of\nsacrificers, the most learned of all who know the Vedas, the inspired\nexponent of Brahmanhood, and begged him to accept his alms. But the\nmendicant refused: he only conjured the priest out of pity for his own\nsoul to join the order of the \u201cHouseless.\u201d After having been rightly\nschooled in Jaina precepts, the Brahman followed his advice, and in due\ntime he became a very great saint like his instructor.\n\nAs the Jaina scriptures are in effect a manual of discipline for monks,\nit is natural that they should be severe on womankind. Not that a\nwoman\u2019s soul is worth less than a man\u2019s or, rather, since spirit is\nsexless, the distinction does not exist. A woman may be as good a saint\nas a man; a nun may be as meritorious as a monk. The identity of\nmysticism independent of creed was never more apparent than in the\nbeautiful saying of a Jaina nun: \u201cAs a bird dislikes the cage, so do I\ndislike the world,\u201d which might have been uttered by any of the\nself-consumed spirits of the Latin Church from St. Teresa downwards. I\nhave never come across an allusion to being born again as a woman as a\npunishment. But though the fullest potentiality of merit is allowed to\nwoman in the abstract, the Eternal Feminine is looked upon in the\nconcrete as man\u2019s worst snare. \u201cWomen are the greatest temptation in the\nworld.\u201d The Jaina books are Counsels of Perfection and not a Decalogue\nframed for common humanity: they give one the idea of being intended for\npreternaturally good people, and never more so than in the manner in\nwhich they treat the dreadful snares and temptations for which women are\nanswerable: instead of a Venusberg, we are shown\u2014the domestic hearth!\nThe story in question might be called \u201cThe Woes of the Model Husband!\u201d A\ngirl who vowed that she would do anything rather than be parted from the\ndear object of her affections, has no sooner settled the matter once for\nall by marriage than she begins to scold and trample on the poor man\u2019s\nhead. Her spouse is sent on a thousand errands, not one moment can he\ncall his own. Countless are the lady\u2019s wants and her commands keep pace\nwith them: \u201cDo look for the bodkin; go and get some fruit; bring wood to\ncook the vegetables; why don\u2019t you come and rub my back instead of\nstanding there doing nothing? Are my clothes all right? Where is the\nscent-bottle? I want the hair-dresser. Where is my basket to put my\nthings in? And my trinkets? There, I want my shoes and my umbrella.\nBring me my comb and the ribbon to tie up my hair. Get the looking-glass\nand a tooth-brush. I must have a needle and thread. You really ought to\nlook after the stores, the rainy season will be here in no time.\u201d These\nand many more are the young wife\u2019s behests, the appalling list of which\nmight well intimidate those about to marry, but there is worse to come.\nWhen \u201cthe joy of their lives, the crown of their wedded bliss\u201d arrives\nin the shape of a baby, it is the unfortunate husband who is set to mind\nit: he has to get up in the night to sing lullabies to it \u201cjust as if he\nwere a nurserymaid,\u201d and ashamed though he is of such a humiliation, he\nis actually put to wash the baby-linen! \u201cAll this has been done by many\nmen who for the sake of pleasure have stooped so low; they become the\nequals of slaves, animals, beasts of burden, _mere nobodies_.\u201d Would not\nmost readers take this for a quotation from one of Ibsen\u2019s plays rather\nthan from a sacred volume which was composed a considerable time before\nthe beginning of our era?\n\nThe Indian pessimist is withheld from suicide by the dread of a worse\nexistence beyond the pyre. He is the coward of conscience to a much\ngreater extent than the weary Occidental, because his sense of the\nunseen is so much stronger. In the Jaina system, however, suicide is\npermitted under certain circumstances. After twelve years of rigorous\npenance a man is allowed the supreme favour of \u201ca religious death\u201d\u2014in\nother words, he may commit suicide by starvation. This is called Itvara.\nThe civilised Indian does not seem to have the power of dying when he\npleases without the assistance of starvation which is possessed by some\nof the higher savage races.\n\nThe soul may be re-born in any earthly form from the lowest to the\nhighest, but there are other possibilities before it when it leaves its\nmortal coil. Those who are very bad, too bad to disgrace the earth\nagain\u2014above all, the cruel\u2014are consigned to an _Inferno_ more awful than\nDante\u2019s, though not without points of striking resemblance to it. The\nvery good who abounded in charity and in truth, but who yet lived in the\nworld the life of the world, become gods, glorified beings enjoying a\ngreat measure of happiness and power, but not eternal. Far beyond the\njoys of this heaven, which are still thinkable, is the unthinkable bliss\nof the Perfect, of the Conquerors, of the Changeless. The human mind\ncould not adjust the idea of evolution more scientifically to the soul\u2019s\ndestiny.\n\nIt is unnecessary to say that the number who become even gods is very\nsmall. A great deal is achieved if a man is simply born again as a man,\nfor though Jaina and Buddhist thinks that man\u2019s lot is wretched (or, at\nleast that it ought to be when we consider its inherent evils), yet it\nmust be distinctly remembered that he thinks the life of beasts far more\nwretched. Leopardi\u2019s \u201cSong of the Nomadic Shepherd in Asia,\u201d in which he\nmakes the world-weary shepherd envy the fate of his sheep, is steeped in\nWestern not in Eastern pessimism: only in the last lines, which really\ncontradict the rest, we find the true Eastern note:\u2014\n\n \u201cPerchance in every form\n That Nature may on everything bestow\n The day of birth brings everlasting woe.\u201d\n\nThe Indian seems never to be struck by what to us seems (perhaps in\nerror, but I hope not) the inconscient joy of creatures, nor yet that of\nchildren. He is constantly sure that all creation groaneth and\ntravaileth. Nothing is young in Asia, all is very old. Every one is\ntired. In our minds thoughtless joy is connected with innocency, and in\nthese Indian creeds there is no innocency as there is no effortless\nAll-Good. Perfection is the result of labour. No other religious teacher\nspoke of little children as Christ did\u2014Christ, whose incomprehensible\nfollowers were one day to consign the larger part of them, as a favour,\n\u201cto the easiest room in hell.\u201d Ardently as children are desired and\nlovingly as they are treated in the East, something essential to the\ncharm of childhood eludes the Oriental perception of it.\n\nIn the sacred books of those Indian communities which concern themselves\nmost about animals, they are very rarely shown in an attractive light.\nThe horse, almost alone, is spoken of with genuine admiration; for\ninstance, there is this simile: \u201cAs the trained Kamb\u00f4ga steed whom no\nnoise frightens, exceeds all other horses in speed, so a very learned\nmonk is superior to all others.\u201d An elephant is extolled for having\nknelt down before a holy recluse though only newly tamed, and we hear\nthat Mahavira\u2019s words were understood by all animals. Folk-lore tells\nmuch that scriptures do not tell, and if we had a collection of Jaina\nfolk-lore we should find, no doubt, records of charming friendships\nbetween beasts and saints, but in the Jaina sacred books pity, not love,\nis the feeling shown towards animals.\n\n[Illustration:\n\n BUDDHA PACIFYING AN INTOXICATED ELEPHANT.\n India Museum.]\n\nAs a rule, Indian philosophical writers shirk the question of how far\nthe soul which was and may be again a man\u2019s retains its consciousness\nduring its residence in lower forms. Probably the answer, were it given,\nwould be: \u201cNot very far,\u201d but the higher animals are credited with a\nfuller share of reflection than in the West. Hence it is preferable to\nassume the shape of one of the higher than of one of the lower\norganisms, but still it is far better to be re-born as the lowest of men\nthan as the highest of animals.\n\nIf it is something to be re-born as a man at all, it is a great deal to\nbe re-born as a fortunate man, healthy, wealthy, and surrounded by\ntroops of friends: at least, to the simple-minded such a prospect must\nappear to hold out a very splendid hope. It is remarkable what good care\nthe framers of the intensely ascetic Jaina faith took of people who\ncould not pretend to walk in the path of the elect. The mere\n\u201chouseholder\u201d (so called to distinguish him from the more admirable\n\u201cHouseless\u201d) has the promise of an ample recompense if he is only\ntruthful, and humane, and liberal in alms-giving and temple-building. He\nmay win very great promotion on earth or even a place in the Jaina\nheaven, the abode of light, where happy beings live long and enjoy great\npower and energy, and never grow old. Such a state agrees with the\nlogical evolution of a virtuous but still this-worldly man. Could he\naspire sincerely to a more spiritual state, and can the soul outsoar its\nown aspirations? The Jaina heaven is not eternal, but does every one\nwish for eternity? Most people wish for ten or fifteen years of\ntolerable freedom from care on this side of the grave. If they knew for\ncertain that they were going to enjoy one thousand years of heaven, they\nwould not think much of what would happen at the end of that time.\n\nThere remain the pure and separated spirits who in this present life\nhave climbed beyond the plane of mortality. They are in the world, not\nof it, and they, indeed, \u201chave a glimpse of incomprehensibles and\nthoughts of things which thoughts but tenderly touch.\u201d For these, the\nJaina, like the Buddhist, keeps Nirvana.\n\nThe extreme reticence of Buddha and even of Buddhist commentators on the\ninner significance of this word\u2014meaning literally \u201cliberation\u201d\u2014is not\nobserved by the Jainas, though it must not be inferred that there was\nany doctrinal difference of it in the view taken by the two sects. The\nJainas show a great anxiety to tell what Nirvana is; if they fail it is\nbecause it baffles all description. They repudiate the idea that it\nsignified annihilation, but admit that the subject oversteps the bounds\nof the thinkable. \u201cThe liberated soul perceives and knows, but there is\nno analogy by which to describe it\u2014without body, re-birth, sex,\ndimensions.\u201d We think of the wonderful lines in the _Helena_ of\nEuripides:\u2014\n\n \u201c... the mind\n Of the dead lives not, but immortal sense\n When to immortal ether gone, possesses;\u201d\n\nlines which, like not a few others in Euripides, seem to reflect a light\nnot cast from Grecian skies.\n\nLike every stage in the history of the life-soul (_giva_) Nirvana is\ngoverned by an immutable law of evolution. When all the dross is\neliminated only pure spirit is left: a distilled essence not only\nindestructible, for spirit is always indestructible, but also\nchangeless. All the rest dies, which means that it changes, that it is\nre-born: this part can die no more, and hence can be born no more. It\nhas gained the liberty of which the soul goes seeking in the Dantesque\nsense. It has gained safety, rest, peace.\n\nHow familiar the words sound! Here am I in Asia, and I could dream\nmyself back under the roof of the village church where generations of\nsimple folk had sought a rest-cure for their minds: where I, too, first\nlistened to those words _safety_, _rest_, _peace_, with the strange\nhome-sickness they awaken in young children or in the very old who have\npreserved their childhood\u2019s faith. There are words that, by collecting\nround them inarticulate longings and indefinite associations, finally\nleave the order of language and enter that of music; they evoke an\nemotion, not an idea. The emotions which sway the human heart are few,\nand they are very much alike. The self-same word-music transports the\nEnglish child to the happy land, far, far away, and the Indian mystic to\nNirvana.\n\nAlmost everything which the Jainas say of Nirvana might have been said\nby any follower of any spiritual religion who attempted to suggest a\nplace of final beatitude. \u201cThere is a safe place in view of all, but\nhard to approach, where there is no old age, nor death, nor pain, nor\ndisease. This place which is in view of all is called Nirvana or freedom\nfrom pain, or it is called perfection; it is the safe, happy, quiet\nplace. It is the eternal haven which is in view of all, but is difficult\nto approach.\u201d\n\nNirvana is the getting-well of the soul. \u201cHe will put away all the\nmisery which always afflicts mankind; as it were, _recovered from a long\nillness_, he becomes infinitely happy and obtains the final aim.\u201d\n\nWe are told that the Buddhas that were and the Buddhas that will be,\nhave peace for their foundation, even as all things have the earth for\ntheir foundation. (The term Buddha, or \u201cEnlightened,\u201d is used by Jainas\nas well as by Buddhists for super-excellent beings.)\n\nNirvana may or rather must be possessed before the death of the visible\nbody: it must be obtained by the living if it is to be enjoyed by the\ndead. Detachment from the world, self-denial, selflessness, help the\nsoul on its way, but the two moral qualities which are absolutely\nessential are kindness and veracity. Ruth and truth are written over the\nportals of eternity. \u201cHe should cease to injure living things whether\nthey move or not, on high, below or on earth, for this has been called\nNirvana, which consists in peace.\u201d \u201cA sage setting out for Nirvana\nshould not speak untruth: this rule comprises Nirvana and the whole of\ncarefulness.\u201d\n\nIf a novice does anything wrong, he should never deny it: if he has not\ndone it he should say, \u201cI have not done it.\u201d A lie must never be\ntold\u2014\u201cnot even in jest or in anger.\u201d Were there nothing else of good in\nJaina discipline this devotion to truth would place it high on mankind\u2019s\nmountain.\n\n[Illustration:\n\n _Photo in_ _India Museum._\n COLOSSAL RECLINING BULL\n (_Southern India._)]\n\nThe law of _Ahimsa_, \u201cnon-killing,\u201d which stands at the head of the\nprecepts of both Buddhist and Jaina, is not only far more rigidly\nobserved by the Jaina, but also invested by him with a greater positive\nas well as relative value. One might say that with the Buddhists it is\nmore a philosophic deduction, with the Jainas more a moral necessity.\nThe position of Buddhists in this matter of _Ahimsa_ is one of\ncompromise. There never was a Buddhist who did not think cruelty to\nanimals an abominable sin, there is no compromise on that point, but, in\nrespect to animal food, the usual Buddhist layman is not really more\nstrict than any very humane person in the West; he abjures sport, he\nwill not kill animals himself, but he does not refuse to eat meat if it\nis set before him. The Buddhists declare that the Lord Buddha was prayed\nto forbid animal food absolutely, but he would not. It is argued that in\nthe flesh itself, when the life is gone from it, there is nothing\nparticularly sacred: therefore it is permissible to sustain life on it.\nYour servants may buy meat ready for sale in the market: it would be\nthere just the same if you did not send to buy it, but you ought not to\ntell them to give an order for some sort of meat which is not on sale;\nstill less should you incite people to snare or shoot wild animals for\nyour table. The Buddhists of to-day say with the opponents to\nvegetarianism in Europe, that total abstention from the flesh of animals\nwould lead to the disappearance of the chief part of them; though it\nmight be answered that sheep would still be wanted for their wool, goats\nand cows for their milk, oxen for ploughing. But a harder question is,\nWhat would happen to these animals when they grew old? The Jainas seek\nto settle this crux by building hospitals for them, but the result has\nbeen indifferently encouraging.\n\nIn Siam even monks are allowed animal food within certain limits, but as\na rule what I have said of the Buddhist view of _Ahimsa_ does not apply\nto the religious, who leans to the strictest Jaina principle of having\nnothing to do with shedding blood on any pretence. The Buddhist monks in\nChina teach the virtue of \u201cfang sheng\u201d (\u201clife-saving\u201d) by object-lessons\nin the shape of tanks built near the convents to which people bring\ntortoises, fishes and snakes to save them from death, and the monks also\nkeep homes for starving or lost animals. Favoured European visitors are\ninvited to witness the custom of feeding the wild birds before the\nmorning meal is served: the brothers sit silently at the refectory-table\nwith their bowls of rice and vegetables in front of them, but none\nbegins to eat till one brother rises, after a sort of grace has been\nsaid, and goes to the door with a little rice in his hands which he\nplaces on a low stone pillar. All the birds are waiting on the roofs and\nfly down delighted to partake of their breakfast.\n\nFra Odoric, the Venetian Franciscan who dictated an account of his\ntravels in 1330, describes a convent scene which was shown to him as a\nmost interesting thing, so that when he went home he might say that he\nhad seen \u201cthis strange sight or novelty.\u201d To win the consent of the\nmonks his native friend, who acted as cicerone, informed them that this\nRaban Francus, this religious \u201cFrenchman\u201d (Europeans were all\n\u201cFrenchmen\u201d) was going to the city of Cambaleth to pray for the life of\nthe great Can. Thus recommended he was admitted, and the \u201creligious man\u201d\nwith whom they had spoken \u201ctook two great basketsful of broken relics\nwhich remained on the table and led me into a little walled park, the\ndoor whereof he unlocked with his key, and there appeared unto us a\npleasant fair green plot, into the which we entered. In the said green\nstands a little mount in form of a steeple, replenished with fragrant\nherbs and fine shady trees. And while we stood there, he took a cymbal\nor bell and rang therewith, as they use to ring to dinner or bevoir in\ncloisters, at the sound thereof many creatures of divers kinds came down\nfrom the mount, some like apes, some like cats, some like monkeys, and\nsome having faces like men. And while I stood beholding of them, they\ngathered themselves together about him, to the number of 4,200 of these\ncreatures, putting themselves in good order, before whom he set a\nplatter and gave them the said fragments to eat. And when they had eaten\nhe rang upon his cymbal a second time and they all returned to their\nformer places. Then, wondering greatly at the matter, I demanded what\nkind of creatures those might be. They are (quoth he) the souls of noble\nmen which we do here feed for the love of God who governeth the world,\nand as a man was honourable or noble in this life, so his soul after\ndeath entereth the body of some excellent beast or other, but the souls\nof simple and rustical people do possess the bodies of more vile and\nbrutish creatures.\u201d\n\nOdoric\u2019s informant was in error if he really said that distinctions of\nrank influenced the soul\u2019s destiny, as this is no Buddhist doctrine. The\ncharming description of the \u201cstrange sight or novelty\u201d was imitated by\nMandeville, who adds, with a sympathetic tolerance which is very\ncharacteristic of him, that the monks were \u201cgood religious men after\ntheir faith and law.\u201d\n\nThat the stricter was also the more primitive Buddhist rule seems\nprobable, and it may be that Buddha\u2019s alleged defence of meat-eating was\nan invention meant to cover later latitudinarianism. Nevertheless,\n_Ahimsa_ was, from the first, a more integral part of the Jaina religion\nthan of the Buddhist. The true keynote of either faith can be detected\nin their respective conversion stories. In all outbursts of religious\nrevivalism (of which nature both Buddhism and Jainism largely partook)\nthe moment of conversion is the hinge on which everything turns.\n\nIn the Buddhist story, a young prince, born on the steps of the throne,\nnursed in luxury and happily wedded, sees consecutively a broken-down\nold man, a man with a deadly disease, and a decomposing corpse. These\ndreadful and common realities were brought home to his mind with\nintolerable force. We seem to hear the despairing cry of R. L.\nStevenson: \u201cWho would find heart to begin to live if he dallied with the\nconsideration of death\u201d? We live because we drug ourselves with the\nwaters of a new Lethe which make us forget future as well as past. Sakya\nMuni could not forget what he had seen or the lesson which it taught:\nthe rest of his life was devoted to freeing himself and others from\nbeing endlessly subject to a like doom.\n\nNow let us recall the Jaina conversion story. The son of a powerful king\nwas on his way to marry a beautiful princess. At a certain place he saw\na great many animals in cages and enclosures looking frightened and\nmiserable. He asked his charioteer why all those animals which desired\nto be free and happy were penned up in cages and enclosures? The\ncharioteer replied that they were not to be pitied, they were \u201clucky\nanimals\u201d which were to furnish a feast for a great multitude at His\nHighness\u2019s wedding. (This is the very thing that an English poor man\nwould have said.) Full of compassion, the future \u201csaviour of the world\u201d\nreflected: \u201cIf for my sake all these living creatures are killed, how\nshall I obtain happiness in another world?\u201d Then and there he renounces\nthe pomps and vanities of human existence, and he means it, too. The\npoor little bride, forsaken in this life, and not much comforted by\npromised compensation in the next, \u201cnot knowing what she could do,\u201d cuts\noff her pretty hair and goes to a nunnery. In time she becomes a model\nof perfection, and many of her kindred and servants are persuaded by her\nto join the order.\n\nIn this story the revulsion is caused by pity, not by loathing. The\ninstant he sees these poor animals, the kind-hearted prince feels sorry\nfor them; then comes that unlucky word \u201clucky\u201d which to the man of\nignorance seems to be so particularly appropriate; it jars on Mahavira\u2019s\nnerves as it would on the nerves of any sensitive or refined person.\nNothing moves men to tears or laughter so surely as the antithetical\nshock of the incongruous. A rush of emotion overpowers Mahavira: he will\nnot be happy at the cost of so much misery; he would become odious in\nhis own sight. So he renounces all for the eternity of one moment of\nself-approving joy.\n\nThe Jainas carefully exclude every excuse for taking animal life: none\nis valid. Animals must not be killed for offering up in sacrifice, not\nfor their skin, flesh, tail feathers, brush, horns, tusks, sinews,\nbones. They must not be killed with a purpose or without a purpose. If\nwe have been wounded by them, or fear to be wounded by them, or if they\neat our flesh or drink our blood, still we should not only bear it, but\nalso feel no anger. \u201cThis is the quintessence of wisdom, not to kill\nanything whatever: know this to be the legitimate conclusion from the\nprinciple of reciprocity.\u201d\n\nNo one denies that the principle of reciprocity is the basis of all\nmorality, and by extending it from men to sentient things, the Jainas\nhave safeguarded their doctrine of _Ahimsa_ with a stronger wall of\ndefence than any built on the fantastic fear of devouring one\u2019s\nancestors. Nor can it be said of the Jainas that to a superstitious\nrepugnance to taking life they join indifference to causing suffering:\ninflicting suffering is hardly distinguished from inflicting death. \u201cAll\nbreathing, existing, living, sentient creatures should not be slain nor\ntreated with violence, nor abused, nor tormented, nor driven away. This\nis the pure unchangeable law.\u201d \u201cIndifferent to worldly objects, a man\nshould wander about treating all the creatures in the world as he\nhimself would be treated.\u201d\n\nPerhaps the most remarkable of Jaina stories is a real masterpiece of\nwit and wisdom in which this theory of reciprocity is enforced. For the\nwhole of it I must refer the reader to Professor Jacobi\u2019s translation; I\ncan only give the leading points. Once upon a time three hundred and\nsixty-three philosophers, representing a similar number of philosophical\nschools, and differing in character, opinions, taste, undertakings and\nplans, stood round in a large circle, each one in his place. They\ndiscussed their various views, and at last one man took a vessel full of\nred-hot coals which he held at a distance from him with a pair of tongs.\n\u201cNow, you philosophers,\u201d said he, \u201cjust take this for a moment and hold\nit in your hands. No trickery, if you please; you are _not_ to hold it\nwith the tongs or to put the fire out. Fair and honest!\u201d\n\nWith extreme unanimity the three hundred and sixty-two drew back their\nhands as fast as they could. Then the speaker continued: \u201cHow is this,\nphilosophers; what _are_ you doing with your hands?\u201d \u201cThey will be\nburnt,\u201d said the others. \u201cAnd what does it matter if they are burnt?\u201d\n\u201cBut it would hurt us dreadfully.\u201d \u201cSo you do not want to suffer pain?\u201d\nWell, this is the case with all animals. This maxim applies to every\ncreature, this principle, this religious reflection, holds good of all\nliving things. Therefore those religious teachers who say that all sorts\nof living things may be beaten or ill-treated, or tormented, or deprived\nof life will, in time, suffer in the same way themselves, and have to\nundergo the whole round of the scale of earthly existence. They will be\nwhirled round, put in irons, see their mothers, fathers, children die,\nhave bad luck, poverty, the society of people they detest, separation\nfrom those they love, \u201cthey will again wander distraught in the\nbeginningless and endless wilderness.\u201d\n\nLike a true orator the Jaina member of this early Congress of Religions,\nwho has drifted from irony to fierce denunciation, does not leave his\nhearers with these visions of terror, but with the consoling promise to\nthe merciful of everlasting beatitude.\n\n[Illustration:\n\n WILD BULLS AND TAMED BULLS.\n Reliefs on two gold cups found at Vapheio.\n (_From Schuckhardt\u2019s \u201cSchliemann\u2019s Excavations.\u201d By permission of\n Messrs. Macmillan & Co., Ltd._)]\n\n\n------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\n\n\n\n IX\n\n LINES FROM THE ADI GRANTH\n\n\nTHE Adi Granth, or sacred Book of the Sikhs of the Punjab, was composed\nby the founder of their religion and their nationality, Baba Nanak (_b._\n1469), who abolished caste and idolatry, and established a pure\nmonotheism. A striking incident at the Coronation Durbar was the arrival\nof the Sikh mission in charge of the Adi Granth, which was brought on a\npilgrimage from its shrine in the exquisitely beautiful golden temple at\nAmritsar to the tomb of the disciple of Nanak, who, before suffering\nmartyrdom at Delhi during the Mogul Empire, prophesied the advent of a\nfair race destined to sweep the Mogul power to the winds. I take these\nfew sentences to show the essential continuity of Indian thought about\nanimals. In the faith of Nanak none remains of the particular tenets of\nBuddhism or Jainism or Hinduism, but the animal is still _inside_, not\n_outside_, the pale of what may be called Pan-humanity: the whole family\nof earth-born creatures.\n\n\n I.\n\n Say not that this or that distasteful is,\n In all the dear Lord dwells,\u2014they all are His\n\n Grieve not the humblest heart; all hearts that are,\n Are priceless jewels, all are rubies rare.\n\n Ah! If thou long\u2019st for thy Beloved, restrain\n One angry word that gives thy brother pain.\n\n\n II.\n\n All creatures, Lord, are Thine, and Thou art theirs,\n One bond Creator with created shares;\n\n To whom, O Maker! must they turn and weep\n If not to Thee their Lord, who dost all keep?\n\n All living creatures, Lord, were made by Thee,\n Where Thou hast fixed their station, there they be.\n\n For them Thou dost prepare their daily bread,\n Out of Thy loving-kindness they are fed;\n\n On each the bounties of Thy mercy fall,\n And Thy compassion reaches to them all.\n\n\n III.\n\n One understanding to all flesh He gives,\n Without that understanding nothing lives;\n\n As is their understanding,\u2014they are so;\n The reckoning is the same. They come and go.\n\n The faithful watch-dog that does all he can,\n Is better far than the unprayerful man.\n\n Birds in their purse of silver have no store,\n But them the Almighty Father watches o\u2019er.\n\n They say who kill, they do but what they may,\n Lawful they deem the bleating lamb to slay;\n\n When God takes down the eternal Book of Fate,\n Oh, tell me what, what then will be their state?\n\n He who towards every living thing is kind,\n Ah! he, indeed, shall true religion find!\n\n\n IV.\n\n Great is the warrior who has killed within\n Self,\u2014Self which still is root and branch of sin.\n\n \u201cI, I,\u201d still cries the World, and gads about,\n Reft of the Word which Self has driven out.\n\n\n V.\n\n Thou, Lord, the cage,\u2014the parrot, see! \u2019Tis I!\n Yama the cat: he looks and passes by.\n\n By Yama bound my mind can never be,\n I call on Him who Yama made and me.\n\n The Lord eternal is: what should I fear?\n However low I fall, He still will hear.\n\n He tends his creatures as a mother mild\n Tends with untiring love her little child.\n\n\n VI.\n\n I do not die: the world within me dies:\n Now, now, the Vivifier vivifies;\n\n Sweet is the world,\u2014ah! very sweet it is,\n But through its sweets we lose the eternal bliss!\n\n Perpetual joy, the inviolate mansion, where\n There is no grief, woe, error, sin, nor care;\n\n Coming and going and death, enter not in;\n The changeless only there an entrance win.\n\n Whosoe\u2019er dieth, born again must be,\n Die thou whilst living, and thou wilt be free!\n\n\n VII.\n\n He, the Supreme, no limit has nor end,\n And what HE is how can _we_ comprehend?\n\n Once did a wise man say: \u201cHe only knows\n God\u2019s nature to whom God His mercy shows.\u201d\n\n\n------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\n\n\n\n X\n\n THE HEBREW CONCEPTION OF ANIMALS\n\n\n I\n\n ... \u201cAbout them frisking played\n All beasts of the earth, since wild, and of all chase\n In wood or wilderness, forest or den;\n Sporting the lion ramped, and in his paw\n Dandled the kid; bears, tigers, ounces, pards,\n Gambolled before them; the unwieldy elephant,\n To make them mirth, used all his might, and wreathed\n His lithe proboscis.\u201d\n _Paradise Lost_, Book IV.\n\nTHE idea of a condition of existence in which all creatures are happy\nand at peace implies a protest against the most patent fact of life as\nwe see it. Western civilisation inherited from the Roman Empire the\nhardness of heart towards animals of which the popularity of\nbeast-fights in the Arena was the characteristic sign. It was, however,\na Roman poet who first pointed out in philosophical language that the\nsufferings of animals stand written in the great indictment against\nNature no less than the sufferings of men. Not only man is born to\nsorrow, said Lucretius; look at the cow whose calf bleeds before some\nlovely temple, while she wanders disconsolate over all the fields,\nlowing piteously, uncomforted by the image of other calves, because her\nown is not.\n\nEighteen hundred years later Schopenhauer said that by taking a very\nhigh standard it was possible to justify the sufferings of man but not\nthose of animals. Darwin arrived at the same conclusion. \u201cIt has been\nimagined,\u201d he remarks, \u201cthat the sufferings of man tend to his moral\nimprovement, but the number of men in the world is nothing compared with\nthe number of other sentient beings which suffer greatly without moral\nimprovement.\u201d To him, the man of the religious mind whom men lightly\ncharged with irreligion, it was \u201c_an intolerable thought_\u201d that after\nlong ages of toil all these sentient beings were doomed to complete\nannihilation.\n\nYes, and to the young conscience of mankind this was also an intolerable\nthought. And since it was intolerable the human conscience in the\nstrength of its youth shook it off, cast it aside, awoke from it as we\nawake from a nightmare. Religion has been regarded too exclusively as a\nsubmission to Nature. At times it is a revolt against Nature, a\nrepudiation of what our senses report to us, an assertion that things\nseen are illusions, and that things unseen are real. Religion is born of\nDoubt. The incredibility of the Known forced man to seek refuge in the\nUnknown. From that far region he brought back solutions good or bad,\nsublime or trivial, to the manifold problems which beset man\u2019s soul.\n\nA poet, doomed to early death, who looked into Nature on a summer\u2019s day\nand could discern nothing but \u201can eternal fierce destruction,\u201d wrote, in\nhis despair\u2014\n\n \u201cThings cannot to the will\n Be settled, but they tease us out of thought.\n ... It is a flaw\n In happiness to see beyond our bourn;\n It forces us in summer skies to mourn,\n It spoils the singing of the nightingale.\u201d\n\nBut when the world was young things _could_ be settled to the will. We\nare, of course, constantly regulating our impressions of phenomena by a\nstandard of higher probability. If we see a ship upside down, we say,\n\u201cThis is not a ship, it is a mirage.\u201d When the primitive man found\nhimself face to face with seeming natural laws which offended his sense\nof inherent probability, he rejected the hypothesis that they were\nactual or permanent, and supposed them to be either untrustworthy\nappearances or deviations from a larger plan.\n\nEvery basic religion gave a large share of thought to animals. The\nmerit, from a humane point of view, of the explanation of the mystery\noffered by the religious systems of India has been praised even to\nexcess. In contrast to this, it was often repeated that the Hebrew\nreligion ignored the claims of animals altogether. I wish to show that\neven if this charge were not open to other disproof, no people can be\ncalled indifferent to those claims which believes in a Nature Peace.\n\nTraces of such a belief spread from the Mediterranean to the Pacific,\nfrom the Equator to the Pole. But the Peace is not always complete;\nthere are reservations. In the glowing prediction of a Peace in Nature\nin the Atharva-Veda, vultures and jackals are excluded. Mazdeans would\nexclude the \u201cbad\u201d animals. The Hebrew Scriptures, on the other hand,\ndeclare that all species are good in the sight of their Maker. Every\nbeast enjoyed perfect content according to the original scheme of the\nCreator. But man fell, and all creation was involved in the consequences\nof his fall.\n\nI remember seeing at the Hague an impressive painting by a little-known\nItalian artist[6] which represents Adam about to take the apple from Eve\nwhile at their feet a tiger tenderly licks the wool of a lamb. Adam\u2019s\nface shows that he is yielding\u2014yielding for no better reason than that\nhe cannot say \u201cNo\u201d\u2014to the beautiful woman at his side; and there,\nunconscious and happy, lie the innocent victims of his act: love to be\nturned to wrath, peace to war. The Nature Peace has been painted a\nhundred times, but never with such tragic significance.\n\nFootnote 6:\n\n Cignani. A singular sixteenth-century \u201cNature War\u201d may be observed in\n a _graffito_ on the pavement of the Chapel of St. Catherine in the\n church of St. Domenico, at Siena. A nude youth, resembling Orpheus,\n sits on a rock in a leafy grove, in the midst of various animals; with\n a disturbed air he looks into a mirror at the back of which is an eye,\n a leopard shows his teeth at him, while a vulture screams at a monkey,\n and another bird snatches a surprised rabbit or squirrel; the other\n creatures, unicorn, wolf, eagle, display signs of uneasiness.\n Endeavours to read this fable have not proved satisfactory.\n\n[Illustration:\n\n _Photo:_ _Bruckmann._\n THE GARDEN OF EDEN.\n (_By Rubens._)\n Hague Gallery.]\n\nThe Miltonic Adam sees in the mute signs of Nature the forerunners of\nfurther change:\u2014\n\n \u201cThe bird of Jove, stooped from his airy tour,\n Two birds of gayest plume before him drove;\n Down from a hill the beast that reigns in woods,\n First hunter then, pursued a gentle brace,\n Goodliest of all the forest, hart and hind.\u201d\n\nIn an uncanonical version of Genesis which was translated from an\nArmenian manuscript preserved at Venice, by my dear and sadly missed\nfriend, Padre Giacomo Issaverdens, a still more dramatic description is\ngiven of the manner in which the Peace ended. When Adam and Eve were\ndriven from the Garden of Eden they met a lion, which attacked Adam.\n\u201cWhy,\u201d asked Adam, \u201cdo you attack me when God ordered you and all the\nanimals to obey me?\u201d \u201cYou disobeyed God,\u201d replied the lion, \u201cand we are\nno longer bound to obey you.\u201d Saying which, the noble beast walked away\nwithout harming Adam. But war was declared.\n\nWar was declared, and yet the scheme of the Creator could not be for\never defeated. Man who had erred might hope\u2014and how much more must there\nbe hope for those creatures that had done no harm.\n\nWhen the Prophets spoke of a Peace in Nature in connexion with that\nreadjustment of the eternal scales which was meant by the coming of the\nMessiah, it cannot be doubted that they spoke of what was already a\nwidely accepted tradition. But without their help we should have known\nnothing of it and we are grateful to them. Of all the radiant dreams\nwith which man has comforted his heart, aching with realities, is there\none to be compared with this? It is of the earth earthly, and that is\nthe beauty of it. \u201cThe wolf shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard\nlie down with the kid; and the calf and the young lion together; and a\nlittle child shall lead them; the cow and the bear shall feed; and their\nyoung ones lie down together; and the lion shall eat straw like the ox.\u201d\n\n \u201cFor behold I create new heavens and a new earth. They shall not\n hurt nor destroy in all My holy mountain, saith the Lord.\u201d\n\nIs not this the best of promised lands, the kindest of Elysiums, which\nleaves none out in the cold of cruelty and hatred? The importunate\nquestioner may inquire, How can this primal and ultimate happiness\ncompensate for the intervening ages of pain? About this, it may be\nobserved that in religious matters people ought not to want to know too\nmuch. This is true of the faithful and even of the unfaithful.\nScientific researches in the great storehouse which contains the\nreligions of the world are more aided by a certain reserve, a certain\nreverence, than by the insatiable curiosity of the scalpel. Religions\nsow abroad _id\u00e9es m\u00e8res_; they tell some things, others they leave\nuntold. They take us up into an Alpine height whence we see the broad\nconfiguration of the country and lose sight of the woods and the\ntortuous ravines among which we so often missed the track. Now, from the\nAlpine height of faith, the idea of an original and final Nature Peace\nmakes the intervening discord seem of no account\u2014a false note between\ntwo harmonies.\n\nThe Nature Peace as the emblem of perfect moral beauty became nearly the\nfirst Christian idea carried out in art. I remarked a rude but striking\ninstance of it on one of the funereal monuments which have been found\nlately at Carthage, belonging to a date when Christian and pagan\ncommemorated their dead in the same manner, the former generally only\nadding some slight symbolical indication of his faith. In this stele\nChrist, carrying the lamb across His shoulders, is attended by a panther\nand a lion. All such primitive attempts to represent a Nature Peace are\nchiefly interesting (and from this point of view their interest is\ngreat) from the fact that in child-like, stammering efforts they reveal\nthe intrinsic idiosyncrasy of Christian thought after the Church had\nparted from the realities of proximity with its Founder, and had not\nreached the realities of a body corporate striving for supremacy. Christ\nthe Divine Effluence was the faith which made men willing to face the\nlions.\n\nDoubtless many of those martyrs clung to the sublime conception of a\nfinal Peace, the complement of the first. That this was accepted as no\nallegory by the later spiritualised Jews, and especially by the\nPharisees, seems to be a well-established fact. It is difficult to\ninterpret in any other way the solemn statement of St. Paul, that the\n\u201cwhole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together _until now_,\u201d\nwaiting for redemption; or the beatific vision of Josephus: \u201cThe whole\nCreation also will lift up a perpetual hymn ... and shall praise Him\nthat made them together with the angels and spirits and men, now freed\nfrom all bondage.\u201d _Homines et jumenta salvabis Domine._\n\n\n II.\n\nWhat was the view taken of animals by the Jewish people, apart from the\nfundamental ideas implied by a primordial Peace in Nature?\n\nIt was the habit of Hebrew writers to leave a good deal to the\nimagination; in general, they only cared to throw as much light on\nhidden subjects as was needful to regulate conduct. They gave precepts\nrather than speculations. There remain obscure points in their\nconception of animals, but we know how they did _not_ conceive them:\nthey did not look upon them as \u201cthings\u201d; they did not feel towards them\nas towards automata.\n\nAfter the Deluge, there was established \u201cthe everlasting covenant\nbetween God and every living creature of all flesh that is upon the\nearth.\u201d Evidently, you cannot make a covenant with \u201cthings.\u201d\n\n[Illustration:\n\n _N. Consoni._\n GENESIS VIII.\n (_Loggie di Raffaello._)]\n\nThat the Jews supposed the intelligence of animals to be not extremely\ndifferent from the intelligence of man is to be deduced from the story\nof Balaam, for it is said that God opened the mouth\u2014not the mind\u2014of the\nass. The same story illustrates the ancient belief that animals see\napparitions which are concealed from the eyes of man. The great interest\nto us, however, of the Scriptural narrative is its significance as a\nlesson in humanity. When the Lord opened the mouth of the ass, what did\nthe ass say? She asks her master why he had smitten her three times?\nBalaam answers, with a frankness which, at least, does him credit,\nbecause he was enraged with the ass for turning aside and not minding\nhim, and he adds (still enraged, and, strange to say, nowise surprised\nat the animal\u2019s power of speech) that he only wishes he had a sword in\nhis hand, as he would then kill her outright. How like this is to the\nvoice of modern brutality! The ass, continuing the conversation, rejoins\nin words which it would be a shame to disfigure by putting them into the\nidiom of the twentieth century: \u201cAm I not thine ass upon which thou hast\nridden ever since I was thine unto this day? Was I ever wont to do so\nunto thee?\u201d Balaam, who has the merit, as I have noticed, of being\ncandid, replies, \u201cNo, you never were.\u201d Then, for the first time, the\nProphet sees the angel standing in the path with a drawn sword in his\nhand\u2014an awe-inspiring vision! And what are the angel\u2019s first words to\nthe terrified prophet who lies prostrate on his face? They are a reproof\nfor his inhumanity. \u201cWherefore hast thou smitten thine ass these three\ntimes?\u201d Then the angel tells how the poor beast he has used thus has\nsaved her master from certain death, for had she not turned from him, he\nwould have slain Balaam and saved her alive. \u201cAnd Balaam said unto the\nangel of the Lord, I have sinned.\u201d\n\nBalaam was not a Jew; but the nationality of the personages in the Bible\nand the origin or authorship of its several parts are not questions\nwhich affect the present inquiry. The point of importance is, that the\nJews believed these Scriptures to contain Divine truth.\n\nWith regard to animals having the gift of language, it appears from a\nremark made by Josephus that the Jews thought that all animals spoke\nbefore the Fall. In Christian folk-lore there is a superstition that\nanimals can speak during the Christmas night: an obvious reference to\ntheir return to an unfallen state.\n\nSolomon declares that the righteous man \u201cregardeth the life of his\nbeast\u201d; a saying which is often misquoted, \u201cmerciful\u201d being substituted\nfor \u201crighteous,\u201d by which the proverb loses half its force. The Hebrew\nScriptures contain two definite injunctions of humanity to animals. One\nis the command not to plough with the ox and the ass yoked together\u2014in\nPalestine I have seen even the ass and the camel yoked together; their\nunequal steps cause inconvenience to both yoke-fellows and especially to\nthe weakest. The other is the prohibition to muzzle the ox which treads\nout the corn: a simple humanitarian rule which it is truly surprising\nhow any one, even after an early education in casuistry, could have\ninterpreted as a metaphor. There are three other commands of great\ninterest because they show how important it was thought to preserve even\nthe mind of man from growing callous. One is the order not to kill a cow\nor she-goat or ewe and her young both on the same day. The second is the\nanalogous order not to seethe the kid in its mother\u2019s milk. The third\nrefers to bird-nesting: if by chance you find a bird\u2019s nest on a tree or\non the ground and the mother bird is sitting on the eggs or on the\nfledglings, you are on no account to capture her when you take the eggs\nor the young birds (one would like bird-nesting to have been forbidden\naltogether, but I fear that the human boy in Syria had too much of the\nold Adam in him for any such law to have proved effectual!). Let the\nmother go, says the sacred writer, and if you must take something, take\nonly the young ones. This command concludes in a very solemn way, for it\nends with the promise (for what may seem a little act of unimportant\nsentiment) of the blessing promised to man for honouring his own father\nand mother\u2014that it will be well with him and that his days will be long\nin the land.\n\nIn the law relative to the observance of the Seventh Day, not only is no\npoint insisted on more strongly than the repose of the animals of\nlabour, but in one of the oldest versions of the fourth commandment the\nrepose of animals is spoken of as if it were the chief object of the\nSabbath: \u201cSix days shalt thou do thy work, and on the seventh day thou\nshalt rest: _that_ thine ox and thine ass may rest\u201d (Exodus xxiii. 12).\nMoreover, it is expressly stated of the Sabbath of the Lord, the seventh\nyear when no work was to be done, that all which the land produces of\nitself is to be left to the enjoyment of the beasts that are in the\nland. The dominant idea was to give animals a chance\u2014to leave something\nfor them\u2014to afford them some shelter, as in the creation of\nbird-sanctuaries in the temples.\n\nIn promises of love and protection to man, to the Chosen People, animals\nare almost always included. \u201cThe heavens shall tremble: the sun and moon\nshall be dark, and the stars shall withdraw their shining\u201d (Joel ii.\n10). \u201cBe not afraid, ye beasts of the field: for the pastures of the\nwilderness do spring, for the tree beareth her fruit, the fig-tree and\nthe vine do yield their strength. Be glad, ye children of Zion, and\nrejoice in the Lord your God\u201d (Joel ii. 22, 23).\n\nThe wisdom of animals is continually praised. \u201cGo to the ant, thou\nsluggard; consider her ways and be wise: which having no guide,\noverseer, or ruler, provideth her meat in the summer, and gathereth her\nfood in the harvest.\u201d So said the wisest of the Jews. I am tempted to\nquote here a passage from the writings of Giordano Bruno: \u201cWith what\nunderstanding the ant gnaws her grain of wheat lest it should sprout in\nher underground habitation. The fool says this is instinct, but we say\nit is a species of understanding.\u201d If Solomon did not make the same\nreflection, it was only because that wonderful word \u201cinstinct\u201d had not\nyet been invented.\n\n[Illustration:\n\n _Photo:_ _Alinari._\n DANIEL AND THE LIONS.\n (_Early Christian Sarcophagus at Ravenna._)]\n\nWe have seen that the Jews supposed animals to be given to men for use\nnot for abuse, and the whole of Scripture tends to the conclusion that\nthe Creator\u2014who had called good all the creatures of His hand\u2014regarded\nnone as unworthy of His providence. This view is plainly endorsed by the\nsaying of Christ that not a sparrow falls to the ground without the will\nof the Father (or \u201cnot one of them is forgotten in the sight of God\u201d),\nand by the saying of Mohammed, who likewise believed himself the\ncontinuer of Jewish tradition: \u201cThere is no beast that walks upon the\nearth but its provision is from God.\u201d\n\nBut there is something more. Every one knows that the Jews were allowed\nto kill and eat animals. The Jewish religion makes studiously few\ndemands on human nature. \u201cThe ways of the Lord were pleasant ways.\u201d\nSince men craved for meat or, in Biblical language, since they lusted\nafter flesh, they were at liberty to eat those animals which, in an\nEastern climate, could be eaten without danger to health. But on one\ncondition: the body they might devour\u2014what was the body? It was earth.\nThe soul they might not touch. The mysterious thing called life must be\nrendered up to the Giver of it\u2014to God. The man who did not do this, when\nhe killed a lamb, was a murderer. \u201cThe blood shall be imputed to him; he\nhath shed blood, and that man shall be cut off from among his people.\u201d\n\nThe inclination must be resisted to dispose of this mysterious ordinance\nas a mere sanitary measure. It was a sanitary measure, but it was much\nbesides. The Jews believed that every animal had a soul, a spirit, which\nwas beyond human jurisdiction, with which they had no right to tamper.\nWhen we ask, however, what this soul, this spirit, was, we find\nourselves groping in the dark. Was it material, as the soul was thought\nto be by the Egyptians and by the earliest doctors of the Christian\nChurch? Was it an immaterial, impersonal, Divine essence? Was its\nidentity permanent, or temporary? We can give no decisive answer; but we\nmay assume with considerable certainty that life, spirit, whatever it\nwas, appeared at least to the majority of the Jews to possess one\nnature, whether in men or in animals. When a Jew denied the immortality\nof the soul, he denied it both for man and for beast. \u201cI said in my\nheart,\u201d wrote the author of Ecclesiastes, \u201cconcerning the estate of the\nsons of men that God might manifest them, and that they might see that\nthey themselves are beasts. For that which befalleth the sons of men\nbefalleth beasts; even one thing befalleth them; as the one dieth so the\nother dieth; yea, they have all one breath; so that a man hath no\npre-eminence above a beast.\u201d\n\nThe mist which surrounds the Hebrew idea of the soul may proceed from\nthe fact that they did not know themselves what they meant by it, or\nfrom the fact that they once knew what they meant by it so well as to\nrender elucidation superfluous. If the teraphim represented the Lares or\nfamily dead, then the archaic Jewish idea of the soul was simple and\ndefinite. It is possible that in all later times two diametrically\nopposed opinions existed contemporaneously, as was the case with the\nPharisees and Sadducees. The Jewish people did not feel the pressing\nneed to dogmatise about the soul that other peoples have felt; they had\none living soul which was immortal, and its name was Israel!\n\nStill, through all ages, from the earliest times till now, the Jews have\ncontinued to hold sacred \u201cthe blood which is the life.\u201d\n\nIn Hindu religious books, where similar ordinances are enforced, there\nare hints of a suspicion which, as I have said elsewhere, could not have\nbeen absent from the minds of Hebrew legislators\u2014the haunting suspicion\nof a possible mixing-up of personality. Here we tread on the skirts of\nmagic: a subject which belongs to starless nights.\n\nWe come back into the light of day when we glance at the relations\nwhich, according to Jewish tradition, existed between animals and their\nCreator. We see a beautiful interchange of gratitude on the one side and\nwatchful care on the other. As the ass of Balaam recognised the angel,\nso do all animals\u2014except man\u2014at all times recognise their God. \u201cBut ask\nnow the beasts and they shall teach thee; and the fowls of the air, and\nthey shall tell thee.... Who knoweth not of all these that the hand of\nthe Lord hath wrought this? In whose hand is the soul of every living\nthing, and the breath of all mankind.\u201d\n\nI will only add to these words of Job a few verses taken here and there\nfrom the Psalms, which form a true anthem of our fellow-creatures of the\nearth and air:\u2014\n\n \u201cBeasts and all cattle, creeping things and flying fowl, let them\n praise the name of the Lord.\n He giveth to the beast his food and to the young ravens which cry.\n He sendeth the springs into the valleys which run among the hills;\n They give drink to every beast of the field, the wild asses quench\n their thirst.\n By them shall the fowls of heaven have their habitation which sing\n among the branches:\n The trees of the Lord are full of sap, the cedars of Lebanon which He\n hath planted,\n Where the birds make their nests; as for the stork, the fir-trees are\n her house.\n The great hills are a refuge for the wild goats and the rocks for the\n conies.\n Thou makest darkness, and it is night, wherein all the beasts of the\n forest do creep forth;\n The young lions roar after their prey, and seek their meat from God;\n The sun ariseth, they gather themselves together and lay them down in\n their dens.\n ... Yea, the sparrow hath found an house, and the swallow a nest for\n herself where she may lay her young.\n Even thine altars, O Lord of Hosts, my King and my God!\u201d\n\n\n------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\n\n\n\n XI\n\n \u201cA PEOPLE LIKE UNTO YOU\u201d\n\n\nA FRIEND who was spending the winter at Tunis asked me if it were true\nthat there was any teaching of kindness to animals in the religion of\nIslam? She had seen with pain the little humanity practised by the lower\nclass of Arabs, and she had difficulty in believing that such conduct\nwas contrary to the law of the Prophet. I replied, that if men are\nsometimes better than their creeds, at other times they are very much\nworse. At the head of every chapter of the Koran, it is written: \u201cIn the\nname of the most merciful God.\u201d If God be merciful, shall man be\nunmerciful? Alas, that the answer should have been so often \u201cyes\u201d!\n\nInhumanity to animals is against the whole spirit of the Koran, and also\nagainst that of Moslem tradition. In the \u201cWords of Mohammed,\u201d of which\none thousand four hundred and sixty-five collections exist, and which\nare looked upon as \u201cthe Moslem\u2019s dictionary of morals and manners,\u201d the\nApostle is described as saying: \u201cFear God in these dumb animals, and\nride them when they are fit to be rode, and get off them when they are\ntired.\u201d Mohammed was asked by his disciples: \u201cVerily, are there rewards\nfor our doing good to quadrupeds and giving them water to drink? \u201cHe\nsaid: \u201cThere are rewards for benefiting every animal having a moist\nliver\u201d (every sentient creature). He said again: \u201cThere is no Moslem who\nplanteth a tree or soweth a field, and man, birds or beasts eat from\nthem, but it is a charity for him.\u201d Like all other religious teachers,\nhe was made by legend the central figure of a Nature Peace. He had\nmiraculous authority over beasts as well as over man, and beasts, more\ndirectly than man, knew him to be from God. Once he was standing in the\nmidst of a crowd when a camel came and prostrated itself before him. His\ncompanions exclaimed, \u201cO Apostle of God! Beasts and trees worship thee,\nthen it is meet for us to worship thee.\u201d Mohammed replied, \u201cWorship God,\nand you may honour your brother\u2014that is, me.\u201d\n\nThose who know nothing else about Mohammed know the story of how he cut\naway his sleeve rather than awaken his cat, which was sleeping upon it.\nHe is reported to have told how a woman was once punished for a cat: she\ntied it till it died of hunger\u2014she gave that cat nothing to eat, nor did\nshe allow it to go free, so that it might have eaten \u201cthe reptiles of\nthe ground.\u201d (Cats do eat lizards and snakes too, even when they have\nplenty of food\u2014very bad for them it is.) Mohammed\u2019s fondness of cats has\nbeen suggested as the reason why two or three of them usually go with\nthe Caravan which takes the Sacred Carpet from Cairo to Mecca, but\nperhaps the origin of that custom is far more remote.\n\n[Illustration:\n\n \u201cAN INDIAN ORPHEUS.\u201d\n Royal Palace at Delhi.\n (_Imitated from a painting by Raphael._)]\n\nIn the words of Mohammed there is this beautiful version of the \u201cSultan\nMurad\u201d cycle: an adulteress was passing by a well when she saw a dog\nwhich was holding out its tongue from the thirst which was killing him.\nThe woman drew off her shoe and tied it to the end of her garment; then\nshe drew up water and gave the dog to drink. The dog fawned on her and\nlicked her hands. Now the Sultan was passing that way, and he saw the\nwoman and the dog and inquired into the matter. When he had heard all,\nhe told the guards to undo her chain and give her back her veil and lead\nher to her own home.\n\nOn one occasion the Prophet met a man who had a nest of young doves, and\nthe mother fluttered after and even down about the head of him that held\nit. The Prophet told him to put the nest back where he found it, for\nthis wondrous love comes from God.\n\nThe verse which gives the keynote to Moslem ideas about animals occurs\nin the sixth chapter of the Koran, and runs thus: \u201cThere is no beast on\nearth nor bird which flieth with its wings but the same is a people like\nunto you, we have not omitted anything in the Book of our decrees; then\nunto their Lord shall they return.\u201d In other texts where the word\n\u201ccreatures\u201d is used there is a strong presumption that animals, as well\nas men, genii and angels, are included; as, for instance, \u201cunto Him do\nall creatures which are in heaven and earth make petition,\u201d and again,\n\u201call God\u2019s creatures are His family, and he is the most beloved of God\nwho trieth to do the most good to God\u2019s creatures\u201d\u2014which is almost word\nfor word\u2014\n\n \u201cHe prayeth best, who loveth best\n All things both great and small;\n For the dear God who loveth us,\n He made and loveth all.\u201d\n\nThe common grace after eating is \u201cPraise be to the Lord of all\ncreatures!\u201d Moslem hunters and butchers have the custom, called the\nHallal, of pronouncing a formula of excuse (Bi\u2019sm-illah!) before slaying\nany animal. The author of \u201cMalay Magic\u201d mentions, that if a Malay takes\na tiger in a pitfall, the Pawang, or medicine-man, has to explain to the\nquarry that it was not he that laid the snare but the Prophet Mohammed.\n\nBy orthodox Moslem law hunting was allowed, provided it was for some\ndefinite end or necessity. It was legitimate to hunt for food, or for\nclothing, as when the skin was the object. Dangerous wild beasts, the\nincompatible neighbours of all but saints, might be hunted to protect\nthe more precious lives of men. Beyond this, from an orthodox point of\nview, hunting was regarded as indefensible. Such was the rule, and there\nis no greater mistake than to undervalue the moral standard because\nevery one does not attain to it. Perhaps few Moslems keep this rule\nrigidly, but it is true now as it was when Lane wrote on the subject,\nthat a good Moslem who hunts for amusement does not seek to prolong the\nchase: he tries to take the game as quickly as he can, and if it is not\ndead when taken, it is instantly killed by having its throat cut. Such\namusements as shooting pigeons, or the unspeakable abomination of firing\nat wild birds from ships, which makes certain tourist steamers a curse\nin the Arctic regions, would inspire even the not too orthodox Moslem\nwith profound disgust.\n\nThere were some Moslems who went far beyond the law\u2014for whom taking\nlife, when the fact of doing so came rudely before them, was a thing\nrevolting in itself. Such sensibility was manifest in the Persian poets,\nand it has been attributed to their inherited Zoroastrian tendencies;\nbut to think this is to misunderstand the groundwork of Mazdean humane\nteaching, which was not based on sensitiveness about taking life. Such\nsensitiveness is rarely found, except among Aryan races, and\nZoroastrianism, though it spread among an Aryan people, was not an Aryan\nreligion. It is more likely to be true that the Persian peculiar\ntenderness for animals was an atavistic revival of the old Aryan\ntemperament. Renan said that Sufism was a racial Aryan reaction against\n_l\u2019effroyable simplicit\u00e9 de l\u2019esprit s\u00e9mitique_. Sensitiveness about\nanimals was a necessary ingredient, so to speak, of Sufism. Sadi, the\nSufic poet _par excellence_, poured blessings on the departed spirit of\nFirdusi for the couplet which Sir William Jones translated so well and\nloved so much:\u2014\n\n \u201cAh, spare yon emmet, rich in hoarded grain;\n He lives with pleasure, and he dies with pain.\u201d\n\nThat birds and many, if not all, animals have a language by which they\ncan interchange their thoughts is a belief shared by Moslems, both\nlearned and ignorant. The Koran says that the language of birds was\nunderstood by Solomon, and folk-lore gives many other persons credit for\nthe same accomplishment. A person believed to have such powers could\nturn the belief, if not the powers, to uses both good and bad. An\nArabian tale relates how a pleasure-loving Persian king summoned a\nMaubadz, a head Magian, to tell him what two owls were chattering about.\nThe Maubadz told with considerable detail the plan which the female owl\nwas unfolding to the male owl, of how each of their future numerous\noffspring might be set up in life as sole possessor of a forsaken\nvillage, if only the present \u201cfortunate king\u201d lived long enough. The\nmonarch understood the rebuke, and resolved to mend his ways, and to\nencourage tillage and agriculture, instead of devoting himself to idle\npastimes.\n\n[Illustration:\n\n MOSLEM BEGGAR FEEDING DOGS AT CONSTANTINOPLE.]\n\nBird-trills mean sentences or words, chiefly religious. The pigeon cries\ncontinually, \u201cAll\u00e1h! All\u00e1h!\u201d The common dove executes this long\nsentence: \u201cAssert the unity of your Lord who created you, so will He\nforgive you your sin.\u201d There was a parrot who could repeat the whole\nKoran by heart and could never be put out so as to make mistakes. I knew\nof an old priest who repeated the _Divina Commedia_ from the first line\nto the last, and the knowledge of the whole of the _Iliad_ was common in\nancient Athens, where people were laughed at who gave themselves the\nairs of scholars on the ground of such feats of memory. But in the\nbird-world the Moslem parrot surely stands alone, though we hear of a\npious raven who could say correctly the thirty-second chapter and who\nalways made the proper prostration when it came to the words: \u201cMy body\nprostrateth itself before Thee, and my heart confideth in Thee.\u201d\n\nThe chapter of the Koran entitled \u201cthe Ant\u201d is full of charming zoology.\nGod bestowed knowledge on David and Solomon, and Solomon, who was\n\u201cDavid\u2019s heir,\u201d said to the people: \u201cO men, we have been taught the\nspeech of birds, and have had all things bestowed on us: this is\nmanifest excellence.\u201d The armies of Solomon consisted of men and genii\nand birds: they were arrayed in proper order on an immense carpet of\ngreen silk: the men were placed to the right, the genii to the left, and\nthe birds flew overhead, making a canopy of shade from the burning rays\nof the sun. Solomon sat in the middle on his throne, and when it was\ndesired to move, the wind transported the carpet with all on it from one\nplace to another. This account, however, is not in the Koran, and need\nnot be believed. But that the armies were of the three species of beings\nwe have the highest authority for asserting. They arrived, one day, in\nthe Valley of Ants. A sentinel ant beheld the approaching host and\ncalled to her companions to hasten into their habitations for fear that\nSolomon and his armies should crush them underfoot without perceiving\nit. This made Solomon smile, but while he laughed at her words, he yet\nremembered to thank the Lord for the favour wherewith He had favoured\nhim: the privilege of knowing the language of beasts. After blessing\nGod, and praying that in the end He would take him into paradise among\nHis righteous servants, the king looked around at his feathered army and\nlo! he missed the lapwing. Some say that the reason why he noticed her\nabsence was because in that place water was lacking for the ablution,\nand, as every one knows, the lapwing is the water-finder. Be that as it\nmay (it is not stated in the Koran), he cried in displeasure: \u201cWhat is\nthe reason I do not see the lapwing? Is she absent? Verily I will\nchastise her with a severe punishment, or I will put her to death unless\nshe bring me a just excuse.\u201d Not long did he have to wait before the\nlapwing appeared, nor was the just excuse wanting. She had seen a\ncountry which the king had not seen, and she brought hence a remarkable\npiece of news. In the land of Saba (Sheba) a woman reigned who received\nall the honour due to a great prince. She had a magnificent throne of\ngold and silver; she and her people worshipped the Sun besides God.\nSatan, added the lapwing, becoming controversial, had turned them away\nfrom the truth lest they should worship the true God, from whom nothing\nis hid. And then this little bird of a story like a fairy-tale ends her\ndiscourse with one of those sharp, sudden, antithetical organ-blasts\nwhich again and again lift the mind of the reader of the Koran into the\nhighest regions of poetry and religion: \u201cGod! there is no God but He;\nthe Lord of the Magnificent Throne!\u201d What wonderful art there is in the\nrepetition of the words which had been applied just before to earthly\nsplendour! The effect is the same as that of the words in Arabic which\nwe see carved at every turn in the splendid halls of the Alhambra: \u201cGod\nonly is conqueror.\u201d What is the splendour or the power of earthly kings?\n\nThe story resumes its course. Solomon tells the lapwing that they will\nsee, by and by, if she has told the truth or is a liar. He writes a\nletter (which tradition says was perfumed with musk and sealed with the\nking\u2019s signet), and he commands the bird to take it to the land of Saba.\nSome say that the lapwing delivered the letter by throwing it into the\nqueen\u2019s bosom as she sat surrounded by her army; others that she brought\nit to her through an open window when she was sitting in her chamber: at\nany rate, it reached its destination, and the lapwing\u2019s character was\ncompletely rehabilitated. With regard to Queen Balkis, the Bible, the\nKoran, and the Emperor Menelek may be consulted.\n\nOne of the beasts most esteemed by Moslems, one of those who, with\nBalaam\u2019s ass, Jonah\u2019s whale, Abraham\u2019s ram, Solomon\u2019s ant, and several\nother favourite animals, are known to have been admitted into the\nhighest heaven, is the dog in the Moslem version of the \u201cSeven Sleepers\nof Ephesus,\u201d the legend of the seven young men who hid in a cave and\nslept safely through a long period of persecution. The dog has a Divine\ncommand to say to the young men, \u201cI love those who are dear to God, and\nI will guard you.\u201d He lay stretched across the mouth of the cave during\nthe whole time that the persecution lasted. Moslems say of a very\navaricious man, \u201cHe would not give a bone to the dog of the Seven\nSleepers.\u201d The dog\u2019s name was Katm\u00eer (though some said it was Al Rak\u00eem),\nand people wrote it as a talisman on important letters sent to a\ndistance or oversea, to make sure of their arriving safely: it was like\nregistration without the fee. He appears to have slept, as did his\nmasters, while he guarded the entrance to the cave: the protection which\nhe afforded must be attributed to his supernatural gifts as a\ndevil-scarer rather than to the watch he kept. Dogs were believed to see\n\u201cthings invisible to us\u201d\u2014_i.e._, demons. If a dog barks in the night the\nFaithful ask God\u2019s aid against Satan. The cock is also a devil-scarer\nand sees angels as well as demons: when he crows it is a sign that he\nhas just seen one.\n\nSometimes genii take the form of certain animals such as cats, dogs, and\nserpents (animals which are not eaten). If a man would kill one of the\nanimals in which genii often appear, he must first warn the genii to\nvacate its form. This means that there is a greater prejudice against\ntaking the life of such animals than in the case of animals slaughtered\nfor food, when it is sufficient (though necessary) to say \u201cIf it pleases\nGod.\u201d While non-mystical Moslems did not respect life as such,\nnevertheless they realised the great scientific truth that _life_ is the\nsupreme mystery. \u201cThe idols ye invoke besides God,\u201d says the Koran, \u201ccan\nnever create a single fly although they were all assembled for that\npurpose, and if the fly snatch anything from them\u201d (such as offerings of\nhoney) \u201cthey cannot recover the same from it.\u201d Moslems are fond of the\nlegend from the Gospel of the Infancy of how the Child Jesus, when He\nand other children were playing at making clay sparrows, breathed on the\nbirds made by Him and they flew away or hopped on His hands. The parents\nof the other children forbade them to play any more with the Holy Child,\nwhom they thought to be a sorcerer. That the Jews really imagined the\nunusual things done by Christ to be magic-working, and that this belief\nentered more into their wish to compass His death than is commonly\nsupposed, a knowledge of Eastern ideas on magic inclines one to think.\nMoslems readily admit the truth of the miracle of the sparrows as of the\nother miracles of Jesus; they add, however, that life came into the clay\nfigures \u201cby permission of God.\u201d\n\nTowards the end of the world, animals will speak with human language.\nBefore this happens will have come to pass the reign of the \u201cRooh\nAllah,\u201d the Spirit of God, as all Moslems call Christ. It is told that\nHe will descend near the White Tower east of Damascus and will remain on\nearth for forty (or for twenty-four) years, during which period malice\nand hatred will be laid aside and peace and plenty will rejoice the\nhearts of men. While Jesus reigns, lions and camels and bears and sheep\nwill live in amity and a child will play with serpents unhurt.\n\nA kind of perpetual local Nature Peace prevails at Mecca; no animals are\nallowed to be slaughtered within a certain distance of the sacred\nprecinct. It should be noted also that pilgrims are severely prohibited\nfrom hunting; the wording of the verse in the Koran which establishes\nthis rule seems to imply the possibility that wild animals themselves\nare doing the pilgrimage; hence they must be held sacred.\n\nThe law forbidding Moslems to eat the flesh of swine was copied from the\nJewish ordinance, without doubt from the conviction that it was\nunwholesome. Those who were driven by extreme hunger to eat of it were\nnot branded as unclean. There is a curious Indian folk-tale which gives\nan account of why swine-flesh was forbidden. At the beginning Allah\nrestrained man from eating any animals but those which died a natural\ndeath. As they did not die as quickly as they wished, men began to\nhasten their deaths by striking them and throwing stones at them. The\nanimals complained to Allah, who sent Gabriel to order all the men and\nall the animals to assemble so that He might decide the case. But the\nobstinate pig did not come. So Allah said: \u201cThe pigs, the lowest of\nanimals, are disobedient; let no one eat them or touch them.\u201d There is\nno record whatever of the pigs having signed a protest.\n\nIt is by no means clear when the prejudice against dogs took hold of the\nMoslem mind. At first their presence was even tolerated inside the\nMosque, and the report that the Prophet ordered all the dogs at Medina\nto be killed, especially those of a dark colour, is certainly a fable.\nThe Caliph Abu Djafar al Mausur asked a learned man this very question:\nwhy dogs were treated with scorn? The learned man was so worthy of that\ndescription that he had the courage to say he did not know. \u201cTradition\nsaid so.\u201d The Caliph suggested that it might be because dogs bark at\nguests and at beggars. There is a modern saying that angels never go\ninto a house where there is a dog or an image. Still, the ordinary\nkindness of the Turks to the pariah dogs at Constantinople, where the\nbeggar shares his last crust with them, shows that the feeling belongs\nmore to philology than to nature. The pariah dog is the type of the\ndespised outcast, but when a European throws poisoned bread to him the\nact is not admired by the Moslem more than it deserves to be.\n\nSeveral _savants_ have thought that the dog is scorned by Moslems\nbecause he was revered by Mazdeans; that he suffered indignity at the\nhands of the new believers as a protest against the excess of honour he\nhad received from the old. This theory, though ingenious, does not seem\nto be borne out by facts. The comparisons of the qualities of the good\ndervish and the dog, which is a sort of vade mecum of dervishes\neverywhere, was almost certainly suggested by the \u201cEight\nCharacteristics\u201d of the dog in the Avesta. It is singular that the dog\ngets far better treatment in the Moslem comparisons than in the Mazdean.\n\u201cThe dog is always hungry: so is it with the faithful; he sleeps but\nlittle by night: so is it with those plunged in divine Love; if he die,\nhe leaves no heritage: so is it with ascetics; he forsakes not his\nmaster even if driven away: so is it with adepts; he is content with few\ntemporal goods: so is it with the pursuers of temperance; if he is\nexpelled from one place he seeks another: so is it with the humble; if\nhe is chastised and dismissed and then called back he obeys: so is it\nwith the modest; if he sees food he remains standing afar: so is it with\nthose who are consecrated to poverty; if he go on a journey he carries\nno refreshment for the way: so is it with those who have renounced the\nworld.\u201d Some of these \u201cCharacteristics\u201d are flung back in irony at the\ndervishes by those who bitterly deride them, as the friars in the ages\nof Faith were derided in Europe\u2014without its making the least difference\nto their popularity\u2014but the homily itself is quite serious and meant for\nedification. Hasan Basri, who died in 728 A.D., was the author or\nadapter. Its wide diffusion is due to the accuracy with which it depicts\nthe wandering mystic, whether he be called a dervish or a Fakeer, or, in\nthe Western translation of Fakeer, a \u201cPoverello\u201d of St. Francis.\n\nA certain rich man apologised to a Dervish because his servants, without\nhis knowledge, had often driven him away: the holy man showed, he said,\ngreat patience and humility in coming back after such ill-treatment. The\ndervish replied that it was no merit but only one of the \u201ctraits of the\ndog,\u201d which returns however often it is driven off. The worst enemies to\nthe dervish have ever been the Ulemas, for whom he is a kind of\ndangerous lunatic strongly tinged with heresy. Among his unconventional\nideas was sure to penetrate, more or less, the neoplatonist or Sufic\nview of animals. Wherever transcendental meditations on the union of the\ncreated with the Creator begin to prevail, men\u2019s minds take the\ndirection of admitting a more intimate relation of all living things\nwith God. We might be sure that the dervishes would follow this\npsychological law even if we could not prove it. To prove it, however,\nwe need go no further than the great prayer, one of the noblest of human\nprayers, which is used by many of the Dervish orders. There we read:\n\u201cThy science is everlasting and knows even the numbers of the breaths of\nThy creatures: Thou seest and hearest the movements of all Thy\ncreatures; thou hearest even the footsteps of the ant when in the dark\nnight she walks on black stones; even the birds of the air praise Thee\nin their nests; the wild beasts of the desert adore Thee; the most\nsecret as well as the most exposed thoughts of Thy servants Thou\nknowest....\u201d\n\nIn the same way, it was natural that the Dervishes should be supposed to\nhave the power attributed to all holy (or harmless) men over the kings\nof the desert and forest. It could not be otherwise. Bishop Heber heard\nof two Indian Yogis who lived in different parts of a jungle infested by\ntigers in perfect safety; indeed, it was reported that one of these\nascetics had a nightly visit from a tiger, who licked his hands and was\nfondled by him. This is a Hindu jungle story, but it would be just as\ncredible if it were told of a Dervish. Of the credibility of the first\npart of it, and probably of the last also, there is not a single\nwandering ascetic of any sort who would entertain a doubt. Some years\nago a Moslem recluse deliberately put his arm into the cage of Moti, the\ntiger in the Lahore Zoological Gardens. The tiger lacerated the arm, and\nthe poor man died in the hospital after some days\u2019 suffering, during\nwhich he showed perfect serenity. He had made a mistake; the tiger,\nbrought up as a cub by British officers and deprived of his liberty, was\nnot endowed with the power of discrimination possessed by a king of the\nwild. This, I hope, the Fakeer reflected, but it is more likely that he\ndeemed that cruel clutch a sign of his own unworthiness and accepted\ndeath meekly, hoping not for reward but for pardon.\n\nOne would like to know more of a book which Mr. Charles M. Doughty found\na certain reputed saint \u201cporing and half weeping over,\u201d the argument of\nwhich was \u201cGod\u2019s creatures the beasts,\u201d while its purpose was to show\nthat every beast yields life-worship unto God. Even if this Damascus\nsaint was not very saintly (as the author of \u201cArabia Deserta\u201d hints),\nyet it is interesting to note that this subject should have appeared to\na would-be new Messiah the most important he could choose for his\nGospel.\n\nA Persian poet, Azz\u2019 Eddin Elmocadessi, advises man to learn from the\nbirds,\n\n \u201cVirtues that may gild thy name;\n And their faults if thou wouldst scan,\n Know thy failings are the same.\u201d\n\nThe recognition in animals of most human qualities in a distinct though\nit may be a limited form underlies all Eastern animal-lore and gives it\na force and a reality even when it deals with extravagant fancies. There\nis a broad difference between the power of feeling _for_ animals and the\npower of feeling _with_ them. The same difference moulds the sentiments\nof man to man: nine men in ten can feel for their fellow-humans, but\nscarcely one man in ten can feel with them. They even know it, and they\nsay ungrammatically, \u201cI feel the greatest sympathy _for_ so and so.\u201d An\ninstance of true _mitempfindung_, of insight into the very soul of a\ncreature, exists in an Arabian poem by Lebid, who was one of the most\ninteresting figures of the period in which the destinies of the Arab\nrace were cast. He was the glory of the Arabs, not only on account of\nhis faultless verse, but also because of his noble character. It is told\nof him that whenever an east wind blew, he provided a feast for the\npoor. Himself a pre-Islamic theist, he hailed the Prophet as the\ninspired enunciator of the creed he had held imperfectly and in private.\nAll his poems were composed in the \u201cIgnorance\u201d; on being asked for a\npoem after his conversion at ninety years of age, he copied out a\nchapter of the Koran, and said, \u201cGod has given me this in exchange for\npoesy.\u201d I do not think this meant that he despised the poet\u2019s art, but\nthat now, when he could no longer exercise it, he had what was still\nmore precious.\n\nThe passage in question is one of several which show Lebid\u2019s\nsurprisingly close acquaintance with the ways and thoughts of wild\nanimals. It is one of those elaborate similes which were the pride of\nArabian poets, who often preferred to take comparisons already in use\nthan to invent new ones. Wherever literature became a living\nentertainment, something of this kind happened: witness the borrowings\nfrom the Classics by the poets of the Renaissance; people liked to\nrecognise familiar ideas in a new dress. Lebid\u2019s similes have been\nturned and re-turned by other poets, but none approached the art and\ntruth he infused into them. I am indebted to Sir Charles Lyall for the\nfollowing version, which is not included in his volume of splendid\ntranslations of early Arabian poetry. The subject of the passage is the\ngrief of a wild cow that has lost her calf:\u2014\n\n \u201cFlat-nosed is she\u2014she has lost her calf and ceases not to roam\n About the marge of the sand meadows and cry\n For her youngling, just weaned, white, whose limbs have been torn\n By the ash-grey hunting wolves who lack not for food.\n They came upon it while she knew not, and dealt her a deadly woe:\n \u2014Verily, Death, when it shoots, misses not the mark!\n The night came upon her, as the dripping rain of the steady shower\n Poured on and its continuous flow soaked the leafage through and\n through.\n She took refuge in the hollow trunk of a tree with lofty branches\n standing apart\n On the skirts of the sandhills where the fine sand sloped her way.\n The steady rain poured down, and the flood reached the ridge of her\n back,\n In a night when thick darkness hid away all the stars;\n And she shone in the face of the mirk with a white, glimmering light\n Like a pearl born in a sea-shell, that has dropped from its string.\n Until, when the darkness was folded away and morning dawned,\n She stood, her legs slipping in the muddy earth.\n She wandered distracted about all the pools of So\u2019\u00e2id\n For seven nights twinned with seven whole long days,\n Until she lost all hope, and her udders shrunk\u2014\n The udders that had not failed in all the days of the suckling and\n weaning,\n Then she heard the sound of men and it filled her heart with fear,\n Of men from a hidden place; and men, she knew, were her bane.\n She rushed blindly along, now thinking the chase before,\n And now behind her: each was a place of dread.\n Until, when the archers lost hope, they let loose on her\n Trained hounds with hanging ears, each with a stiff leather collar\n on its neck;\n They beset her and she turned to meet them with her horns\n Like to spears of Semhar in their sharpness and their length.\n To thrust them away: for she knew well, if she drove them not off,\n That the fated day of her death among the fates of beasts had come;\n And among them, Kes\u00e2b was thrust through and slain and rolled in blood\n lay there,\n And Sukh\u00e2m was left in the place where he made his onset.\u201d\n\nThere the description breaks off. In spite of the haunting cry of the\ncow of Lucretius, in spite of the immortal tears of Shakespeare\u2019s \u201cpoor\nsequester\u2019d stag\u201d\u2014no vision of a desperate animal in all literature\nseems to me so charged with every element of pathos and dramatic\nintensity as this cow of Lebid. How fine is the altogether unforeseen\nclose, which leaves us wondering, breathless: Will she escape? Will no\nrevengeful arrow reach her? Will the archers do as Om Piet did to the\nwildebeest?\u2014\n\n \u201cA wildebeest cow and calf were pursued by Om Piet with three\n hunting-dogs. The Boer hunter tells the tale: \u2018The old cow laid\n the first dog low; the calf is now tired. The second dog comes\n up to seize it; the cow strikes him down. Now the third dog\n tries to bite the little one, who can run no more, but the cow\n treats him so that there\u2019s nothing to be done but to shoot him.\n Then Om Piet stands face to face with the wildebeest, who snorts\n but does not fly. Now though I come to shoot a wildebeest yet\n can I not kill a beast that has so bravely fought and will not\n run away; so Om Piet takes off his hat, and says, \u201cGood-day to\n you, old wildebeest. You are a good and strong old wildebeest.\u201d\n And we dine off springbuck that night at the farm.\u2019\u201d[7]\n\nFootnote 7:\n\n \u201cA Breath from the Veldt,\u201d by Guille Millais, 2nd edition, 1899.\n\nI ought to explain that, like the \u201ccow\u201d of Om Piet, Lebid\u2019s \u201ccow\u201d is an\nantelope\u2014the _Antilope defassa_\u2014of which a good specimen may be seen in\nthe Natural History Museum at South Kensington. The old Boer\u2019s hunting\nyarn brings an unexpected confirmation of the Arabian poet\u2019s testimony\nto its courage and maternal love.\n\nSince the chase began, down to the blind brutality of the battue (which\nwiped it out) chivalry has been a trait of the genuine sportsman. In the\ngolden legend of hunter\u2019s generosity should be inscribed for ever the\ntale\u2014the true tale as I believe it to be\u2014of the Moslem prince\nSebectighin, who rose from slave-birth to the greatest of Persian\nthrones\u2014and more honour to him, notwithstanding the slur which Firdusi,\nstung by Mahmoud\u2019s want of appreciation, cast, in a foolish moment, on\nhis father\u2019s origin. Sebectighin was a horseman in the service of the\nSultan and as a preparation for greater things he found a vent for his\npent-up energies in the chase. One day he remarked a deer with her\nlittle fawn peacefully grazing in a glade of the forest. He galloped to\nthe spot, and in less than a second he had seized the fawn, which, after\nbinding its legs, he placed across his saddle-bows. Thus he started to\ngo home, but looking back, he saw the mother following, with every mark\nof grief. Sebectighin\u2019s heart was touched; he loosened the fawn and\nrestored it to its dam. And in the night he had a vision in his dreams\nof One who said to him, \u201cThe kindness and compassion which thou hast\nthis day shown to a distressed animal has been approved of in the\npresence of God; therefore in the records of Providence the kingdom of\nGhusni is marked as a reward against thy name. Let not greatness destroy\nthy virtue, but continue thy benevolence to man.\u201d\n\nAmong the Afghan ballads collected by James Darmesteter, of which it has\nbeen aptly said that they give an admirable idea of Homer in a state of\nbecoming, there is one composed in a gentler mood than the songs of war\nand carnage which has a gazelle for heroine and the Prophet as _Deus ex\nmachina_. As there is no translation of it into English I have attempted\nthe following version:\u2014\n\n \u201cThe Son of Abu Jail he set a snare for a gazelle,\n Without a thought along she sped, and in the snare she fell.\n\n \u2018O woe is me!\u2019 she weeping cried, \u2018that I to look forgot!\n Fain would I live for my dear babes, but hope, alas! is not.\u2019\n\n Then to the Merciful she made this short and fervent prayer:\n \u2018I left two little fawns at home; Lord, keep them in Thy care!\u2019\n\n The son of Abu Jail he came, in haste and glee he ran,\n \u2018Ah, now I\u2019ve got you in my net, and who to save you can?\u2019\n\n He grasped her by her tender throat, his fearsome sword did draw,\n When lo! the Lord held back his hand! The Prophet\u2019s self he saw!\n\n \u2018The world was saved for love of thee, save for thy pity\u2019s sake!\u2019\n So breathed the trembling doe, and then the holy Prophet spake:\n\n \u2018Abu, my friend, this doe let go, and hark to my appeal;\n She has two tender fawns at home who pangs of hunger feel,\n\n \u2018Let her go back one hour to them, no longer will she stay,\n And when she comes, O heartless man, then mayest thou have thy way!\n\n But if, by chance, she should not come, then by my faith will I\n Be unto thee a bonded slave until the day I die.\u2019\n\n Then Abu the gazelle let go; to her dear young she went,\n \u2018Quick, children, take my breast,\u2019 she said, \u2018my life is almost spent;\n\n \u2018The Master of the Universe for me a pledge I gave,\n But I must swift return and then no man my life can save.\u2019\n\n Then said the little ones to her, \u2018Mother, we dare not eat;\n Go swiftly back, redeem the pledge, fast as can fly thy feet.\u2019\n\n One hour had scarce run fully out when, panting, she was there;\n Now, Abu, son of Abu, thou mayest take her life or spare!\n\n Said Abu, \u2018In the Prophet\u2019s name, depart, I set you free ...\n But thou, our Helper, at God\u2019s throne, do thou remember me!\u2019\n\n So have I told, as long ago my father used to tell,\n How Pagan Abu Moslem turned and saved his soul from hell.\u201d\n\nThis brief sketch will suffice to show that if the Moslem is not humane\nto animals it is his own fault, as I think it is his own fault if he is\nnot humane to man. Teaching humanity to animals must always imply the\nteaching of humanity to men. This was perfectly understood well by all\nthese Oriental tellers of beast-stories: they would all have endorsed\nthe saying of one of my Lombard peasant-women (dear, good soul!), \u201cChi\nnon \u00e8 buono per le bestie, non \u00e8 buono per i Cristiani\u201d; _Cristiano_\nmeaning, in Italian popular speech, a human being. Under the most varied\nforms, in fiction which while the world lasts, can never lose its\nfreshness, the law of kindness is brought home. Perhaps the most\nbeautiful of all humane legends is one preserved in a poem by Abu\nMohammed ben Yusuf, Sheikh Nizan-eddin, known to Europeans as Nizami.\nThis Persian poet, who died sixty-three years before Dante was born, may\nhave taken the legend from some collection of Christ-lore, some\nuncanonical book impossible now to trace; it is unlikely that he\ninvented it. As Jesus walks with His disciples through the market-place\nat evening, He comes upon a crowd which is giving vent to every\nexpression of abhorrence at the sight of a poor dead dog lying in the\ngutter. When they have all had their say, and have pointed in disgust to\nhis blear eyes, foul ears, bare ribs, torn hide, \u201cwhich will not even\nyield a decent shoe-string,\u201d Jesus says, \u201cHow beautifully white his\nteeth are!\u201d No story of the Saviour outside the Gospels is so worthy to\nhave been in them.\n\n\n------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\n\n\n\n XII\n\n THE FRIEND OF THE CREATURE\n\n\nIN Hindu mythology Gun\u00e1dhya attracts a whole forestful of beasts by\nreciting his poems to them. The power of Apollo and of Orpheus in taming\nbeasts depended on a far less surprising _modus operandi_; like the\ngreater part of myths, this one was not spun from the thin air of\nimagination. Music has a real influence on animals; in spite of theories\nto the contrary, it is probable that the sweet flute-playing of the\nsnake-charmer\u2014his \u201csweet charming\u201d in Biblical phrase\u2014is no mere piece\nof theatrical business, but a veritable aid in obtaining the desired\nresults. I myself could once attract fieldmice by playing on the violin,\nand only lately, on the road near our house at Sal\u00f2, I noticed that a\ngoat manifested signs of wishing to stop before a grind-organ; its\nmaster pulled the string by which it was led, but it tugged at it so\npersistently that, at last, he stopped, and the goat, turning round its\nhead, listened with evident attention. Independently of the pleasure\nmusic may give to animals, it excites their curiosity, a faculty which\nis extremely alive in them, as may be seen by the way in which small\nbirds are attracted by the pretty antics of the little Italian owl; they\ncannot resist going near to have a better view, and so they rush to\ntheir doom upon the limed sticks.\n\nLegends have an inner and an outer meaning; the allegory of Apollo, Lord\nof Harmony, would have been incomplete had it lacked the beautiful\nincident of a Nature Peace\u2014partial indeed, but still a fairer triumph to\nthe god than his Olympian honours. For nine years he watched the sheep\nof Admetus, as Euripides described:\u2014\n\n \u201cPythean Apollo, master of the lyre,\n Who deigned to be a herdsman and among\n Thy flocks on hills his hymns celestial sung;\n And his delightful melodies to hear\n Would spotted lynx and lions fierce draw near;\n They came from Othry\u2019s immemorial shade,\n By charm of music tame and harmless made;\n And the swift, dappled fawns would there resort,\n From the tall pine-woods and about him sport.\u201d\n\nWhen Apollo gave Orpheus his lyre, he gave him his gift \u201cto soothe the\nsavage breast.\u201d In the splendid Pompeian fresco showing a Nature Peace,\nthe bay-crowned, central figure is said to be Orpheus, though its\ngod-like proportions suggest the divinity himself. At any rate, nothing\ncan be finer as the conception of an inspired musician: the whole body\n_sings_, not only the mouth. A lion and a tiger sit on either side;\nbelow, a stag and a wild boar listen attentively, and a little hare\ncapers near the stream. In the upper section there are other wild beasts\nsporting round an elephant, while oxen play with a tiger; an\nanticipation of the ox and tiger in Rubens\u2019 \u201cGarden of Eden.\u201d\n\nThe power of Orpheus to subdue wild beasts was the reason why the early\nChristians took him as a type of Christ. Of all the prophecies which\nwere believed to refer to the Messiah none so captivated the popular\nmind as those which could be interpreted as referring to His recognition\nby animals. The four Gospels which became the canon of the Church threw\nno light on the subject, but the gap was filled up by the uncanonical\nbooks; one might think that they were written principally for the\npurpose of dwelling on this theme, so frequently do they return to it.\nIn the first place, they bring upon the scene those dear objects of our\nchildhood\u2019s affection, the ass and the ox of the stable of Bethlehem.\nSurely many of us cherish the impression that ass and ox rest on most\northodox testimony: an idea which is certainly general in Catholic\ncountries, though, the other day, I heard of a French priest who was\nheartless enough to declare that they were purely imaginary. \u201cAlas,\u201d as\nVoltaire said, \u201cpeople run after truth!\u201d As a matter of fact, it appears\nevident that the ass and the ox were introduced to fulfil the prophecy\nof Isaiah: \u201cThe ox knoweth his owner and the ass his master\u2019s manger,\nbut Israel knoweth Me not.\u201d But there arose what was thought a\ndifficulty: the apocryphal Gospels, in harmony with the earliest\ntraditions, place the birth of Christ, not in a stable, but in the\ngrotto which is still shown to travellers. To reconcile this with the\nlegend of the ass and ox and also with the narrative of St. Luke, it was\nsupposed that the Holy Family moved from the grotto to a stable a few\ndays after the Child was born. This is a curious case of finding a\ndifficulty where there was none, for it is very likely that the caves\nnear the great Khan of Bethlehem were used as stables. In every\nprimitive country shepherds shelter themselves and their flocks in holes\nin rocks; I remember the \u201cuncanny\u201d effect of a light flickering in the\ndepths of a Ph\u0153nician tomb near Cagliari; it was almost disappointing to\nhear that it was only a shepherd\u2019s fire.\n\nThomas, \u201cthe Israelite philosopher,\u201d as he called himself, author of the\nPseudo-Thomas which is said to date from the second century, appears to\nhave been a Jewish convert belonging to one of the innumerable\n\u201cheretical\u201d sects of the earliest times. It may be guessed, therefore,\nthat the Pseudo-Thomas was first written in Syriac, though the text we\npossess is in Greek. It is considered the model on which all the other\nGospels of the Infancy were founded, but the Arabic variant contains so\nmuch divergent matter as to make it probable that the writer drew on\nsome other early source which has not been preserved. Mohammed was\nacquainted with this Arabian Gospel, and Mohammedans did not cease to\nvenerate the sycamore-tree at Matarea under which the Arabian evangelist\nstates that the Virgin and Child rested, till it died about a year ago.\nThe Pseudo-Thomas contains some vindictive stories, which were modified\nor omitted in the other versions: probably they are all to be traced to\nElisha and his she-bears: a theory which I offer to those who cannot\nimagine how they arose. A curious feature in these writings is the\nscarcity of anything actually original; the most original story to be\nfound in them is that of the clay sparrows, which captivated the East\nand penetrated into the folk-lore even of remote Iceland.\nNotwithstanding the fulminations of Councils, the apocryphal Gospels\nwere never suppressed; they enjoyed an enormous popularity during the\nMiddle Ages, and many details derived solely from these condemned books\ncrept into the _Legenda Aurea_ and other strictly orthodox works.\n\nThe \u201cLittle Child\u201d of Isaiah\u2019s prophecy was the cause of troops of wild\nbeasts being convoked to attend the Infant Christ. Lions acted as guides\nfor the flight into Egypt, and it is mentioned that not only did they\nrespect the Holy Family, but also the asses and oxen which carried their\nbaggage. Besides, the lions, leopards, and other creatures \u201cwagged their\ntails with great reverence\u201d (though all these animals are not of the dog\nspecies, but of the cat, in which wagging the tail signifies the reverse\nof content).\n\nThis is the subject of an old English ballad:\u2014\n\n \u201cAnd when they came to Egypt\u2019s land,\n Amongst those fierce wild beasts,\n Mary, she being weary,\n Must needs sit down to rest.\n \u2018Come, sit thee down,\u2019 said Jesus,\n \u2018Come, sit thee down by Me,\n And thou shall see how these wild beasts\n Do come and worship Me.\u2019\u201d\n\nFirst to come was the \u201clovely lion,\u201d king of all wild beasts, and for\nour instruction the moral is added: \u201cWe\u2019ll choose our virtuous princes\nof birth and high degree.\u201d Sad rhymes they are, nor, it will be said, is\nthe sense much better; yet, hundreds of years ago in English villages,\nwhere, perhaps, only one man knew how to read, this doggerel served the\nend of the highest poetry: it transported the mind into an ideal region;\nit threw into the English landscape deserts, lions, a Heavenly Child; it\nstirred the heart with the romance of the unknown; it whispered to the\nsoul\u2014\n\n \u201cThe Now is an atom of sand,\n And the Near is a perishing clod;\n But Afar is a Fa\u00ebry Land,\n And Beyond is the bosom of God.\u201d\n\nThe pseudo-gospel of Matthew relates an incident which refers to a later\nperiod in the Holy Childhood. According to this narrative, when Jesus\nwas eight years old He went into the den of a lioness which frightened\ntravellers on the road by the Jordan. The little cubs played round His\nfeet, while the older lions bowed their heads and fawned on Him. The\nJews, who saw it from a distance, said that Jesus or His parents must\nhave committed mortal sin for Him to go into the lion\u2019s den. But coming\nforth, He told them that these lions were better behaved than they; and\nthen He led the wild beasts across the Jordan and commanded them to go\ntheir way, hurting no one, neither should any one hurt them till they\nhad returned to their own country. So they bade Him farewell with gentle\nroars and gestures of respect.\n\nThese stories are innocent, and they are even pretty, for all stories of\ngreat, strong animals and little children are pretty. But they fail to\nreveal the slightest apprehension of the deeper significance of a peace\nbetween all creatures. Turn from them to the wonderful lines of William\nBlake:\u2014\n\n \u201cAnd there the lion\u2019s ruddy eyes\n Shall flow with tears of gold,\n And pitying the tender cries\n And walking round the fold\n Saying: Wrath by His meekness,\n And by His health sickness,\n Are driven away\n From our mortal day.\n\n And now beside thee, bleating lamb,\n I can lie down and sleep,\n Or think on Him who bore thy name,\n Graze after thee, and weep;\n For, washed in life\u2019s river,\n My bright mane for ever\n Shall shine like the gold\n As I guard o\u2019er the fold.\u201d\n\nNo one but Blake would have written this, and few things that he wrote\nare so characteristic of his genius. The eye of the painter seizes what\nthe mind of the mystic conceives, and the poet surcharges with emotion\nwords which, like the Vedic hymns, infuse thought rather than express\nit.\n\nA single passage in the New Testament connects Christ with wild animals;\nin St. Mark\u2019s Gospel we are told that after His baptism in the Jordan\nJesus was driven by the Spirit into the wilderness, where \u201cHe was with\nthe wild beasts, and the angels ministered unto Him.\u201d In the East the\nidea of the anchorite who leaves the haunts of men for the haunts of\nbeasts was already fabulously old. In the Western world of the Roman\nEmpire it was a new idea, and perhaps on that account, while it excited\nthe horror of those who were faithful to the former order of things, it\nawoke an extraordinary enthusiasm among the more ardent votaries of the\nnew faith. It led to the discovery of the inebriation of solitude, the\npowerful stimulus of a life with wild nature. Many tired brain-workers\nhave recourse to mountain ascents as a restorative, but these can rarely\nbe performed alone, and high mountains with their immense horizons tend\nto overwhelm rather than to collect the mind. But to wander alone in a\nforest, day after day, without particular aim, drinking in the pungent\nodours of growing things, fording the ice-cold streams, meeting no one\nbut a bird or a hare\u2014this will leave a memory as of another existence in\nsome enchanted sphere. We have tasted an ecstasy that cities cannot\ngive. We have tasted it, and we have come back into the crowded places,\nand it may be well for us that we have come back, for not to all is it\ngiven to walk in safety alone with their souls.\n\n[Illustration:\n\n _Photo:_ _Anderson._\n ST. JEROME EXTRACTING A THORN FROM THE PAW OF A LION.\n (_By Hubert van Eyck._)\n Naples Museum.]\n\nOf one of the earliest Christian anchorites in Egypt it is related that\nfor fifty years he spoke to no one; he roamed in a state of nature,\nflying from the monks who attempted to approach him. At last he\nconsented to answer some questions put by a recluse whose extreme piety\ncaused him to be better received than the others. To the question of why\nhe avoided mankind, he replied that those who dwelt with men could not\nbe visited by angels. After saying this, he vanished again into the\ndesert. I have observed that the idea of renouncing the world was not a\nWestern idea, yet, at the point where it touches madness, it had already\npenetrated into the West\u2014we know where to find its tragic record:\u2014\n\n \u201cEgo vitam agam sub altis Phrygiae columinibus,\n Ubi cerva silvicultrix, ubi aper nemorivagus?\u201d\n\nThe _point of madness_ would have been reached more often but for the\ncharity of the stag and the wild boar and the lion and the buffalo, who\nfelt a sort of compassion for the harmless, weak human creatures that\ncame among them, and who were ready to give that response which is the\nsustaining ichor of life.\n\nThe same causes produce the same effects\u2014man may offer surprises but\nnever men. Wherever there are solitaries there are friendships between\nthe recluse and the wild beast. All sorts of stories of lions and other\nanimals that were on friendly terms with the monks of the desert have\ncome down to us in the legends of the Saints. The well-known legend of\nhow St. Jerome relieved a lion of a thorn which was giving him great\npain, and how the lion became tame, was really told of another saint,\nbut Jerome, if he did not figure in a lion story, is the authority for\none: in his life of Paul the Hermit he relates that when that holy man\ndied, two lions came out of the desert to dig his grave; they uttered a\nloud wail over his body and knelt down to crave a blessing from his\nsurviving companion\u2014none other than the great St. Anthony. He also says\nthat Paul had subsisted for many years on food brought to him by birds,\nand when he had a visitor the birds brought double rations.\n\nAs soon as the hermit appears in Europe his four-footed friends appear\nwith him. For instance, there was the holy Karileff who tamed a buffalo.\nKarileff was a man of noble lineage who took up his abode with two\ncompanions in a clearing in the woods on the Marne, where he was soon\nsurrounded by all sorts of wild things. Amongst these was a buffalo, one\nof the most intractable of beasts in its wild state, but this buffalo\nbecame perfectly tame, and it was a charming sight to see the aged saint\nstroking it softly between its horns. Now it happened that the king, who\nwas Childebert, son of Clovis, came to know that there was a buffalo in\nthe neighbourhood, and forthwith he ordered a grand hunt. The buffalo,\nseeing itself lost, fled to the hut of its holy protector, and when the\nhuntsmen approached they found the monk standing in front of the animal.\nThe king was furious, and swore that Karileff and his brethren should\nleave the place for ever; then he turned to go, but his horse would not\nmove one step. This filled him with what was more likely panic fear than\ncompunction; he lost no time in asking the saint for his blessing, and\nhe presented him with the whole domain, in which an abbey was built and\nultimately a town, the present Saint-Calais. On another occasion the\nsame Childebert was hunting a hare, which took refuge under the habit of\nSt. Marculphe; the king\u2019s huntsman rudely expostulated, and the monk\nsurrendered the hare, but, lo and behold! the dogs would not continue\nthe pursuit and the huntsman fell off his horse!\n\nA vein of more subtle sensibility runs through the story of St. Columba,\nwho, not long before his death, ordered a stork to be picked up and\ntended when it dropped exhausted on the Western shore of Iona. After\nthree days, he said, the stork would depart, \u201cfor she comes from the\nland where I was born and thither would she return.\u201d In fact, on the\nthird day, the stork, rested and refreshed, spread out its wings and\nsailed away straight towards the saint\u2019s beloved Ireland. When Columba\nwas really dying the old white horse of the convent came and laid its\nhead on his shoulder with an air of such profound melancholy that it\nseemed nigh to weeping. A brother wished to drive it away, but the saint\nsaid No; God had revealed to the horse what was hidden from man, and it\nwas come to bid him goodbye.\n\nEvidently there is only a slight element of the marvellous in these\nlegends and none at all in others, such as the story of Walaric, who fed\nlittle birds and told the monks not to approach or frighten his \u201clittle\nfriends\u201d while they picked up the crumbs. To the same order belong\nseveral well-authenticated stories of the Venerable Joseph of Anchieta,\napostle of Brazil. He protected the parrots that alighted on a ship by\nwhich he was travelling from the merciless sailors who would have caught\nand killed them. Whilst descending a river he would have saved a monkey\nwhich some fishermen shot at with their arrows, but he was not in time;\nthe other monkeys gathered round their slain comrade with signs of\nmourning: \u201cCome near,\u201d said the holy man, \u201cand weep in peace for that\none of you who is no more.\u201d Presently, fearing not to be able longer to\nrestrain the cruelty of the men, he bade them depart with God\u2019s\nblessing.\n\nHere is no marvel; only sympathy which is sometimes the greatest of\nmarvels. It needed the mind of a Shakespeare to probe just this secret\nrecess of feeling for animals:\u2014\n\n \u201c\u2014\u2014 What dost thou strike at, Marcus, with thy knife?\n \u2014\u2014 At that I have killed, my Lord, a fly.\n \u2014\u2014 Out on thee, murderer, thou killest my heart;\n Mine eyes are cloyed with view of tyranny;\n A deed of death done on the innocent,\n Becomes not Titus\u2019 brother; get thee gone,\n I see thou art not for my company.\n \u2014\u2014 Alas! my Lord, I have but killed a fly.\n \u2014\u2014 But how if that fly had a father and mother?\n How would he hang his slender gilded wings\n And buz lamented doings in the air?\n Poor harmless fly!\n That with his pretty buzzing melody\n Came here to make us merry, and thou hast killed him.\u201d\n\nIf St. Bernard saw a hare pursued by dogs or birds threatened by a hawk\nhe could not resist making the sign of the cross, and his benediction\nalways brought safety. It is to this saint that we owe the exquisite\nsaying, \u201cIf mercy were a sin I think I could not keep myself from\ncommitting it.\u201d\n\n[Illustration:\n\n _Photo:_ _Hanfsl\u00e4ngl._\n ST. EUSTACE AND THE STAG.\n (_By Vittore Pisano._)\n National Gallery.]\n\nApart from the rest, stands one saint who brought the wild to the\nneighbourhood of a bustling, trafficking little Italian town of the\nthirteenth century and peopled it with creatures which, whether of fancy\nor of fact, will live for ever. How St. Francis tamed the \u201cwolf of\nAgobio\u201d is the most famous if not altogether the most credible of the\nanimal stories related of him. That wolf was a quadruped without morals;\nnot only had he eaten kids but also men. All attempts to kill him\nfailed, and the townsfolk were afraid of venturing outside the walls\neven in broad daylight. One day St. Francis, against the advice of all,\nwent out to have a serious talk with the wolf. He soon found him and,\n\u201cBrother Wolf,\u201d he said, \u201cyou have eaten not only animals but men made\nin the image of God, and certainly you deserve the gallows;\nnevertheless, I wish to make peace between you and these people, brother\nWolf, so that you may offend them no more, and neither they nor their\ndogs shall attack you.\u201d The wolf seemed to agree, but the saint wished\nto have a distinct proof of his solemn engagement to fulfil his part in\nthe peace, whereupon the wolf stood up on his hind legs and laid his paw\non the saint\u2019s hand. Francis then promised that the wolf should be\nproperly fed for the rest of his days, \u201cfor well I know,\u201d he said\nkindly, \u201cthat all your evil deeds were caused by hunger\u201d\u2014upon which text\nseveral sermons might be preached, for truly many a sinner may be\nreformed by a good dinner and by nothing else. The contract was kept on\nboth sides, and the wolf lived happily for some years\u2014\u201cnotricato\ncortesemente dalla gente\u201d\u2014at the end of which he died of old age,\nsincerely mourned by all the inhabitants.\n\nIf any one decline to believe in the wolf of Gubbio, why, he must be\nleft to his invincible ignorance. But there are other tales in the\n_Fioretti_ and in the _Legenda Aurea_ which are nowise hard to believe.\nWhat more likely than that Francis, on meeting a youth who had\nwood-doves to sell, looked at the birds \u201ccon l\u2019occhio pietoso,\u201d and\nbegged the youth not to give them into the cruel hands that would kill\nthem? The young man, \u201cinspired by God,\u201d gave the doves to the saint, who\nheld them against his breast, saying, \u201cOh, my sisters, innocent doves,\nwhy did you let yourselves be caught? Now will I save you from death and\nmake nests for you, so that you may increase and multiply according to\nthe commandment of our Creator.\u201d Schopenhauer mentions, with emphatic\napproval, the Indian merchant at the fair of Astrachan who, when he has\na turn of good luck, goes to the market-place and buys birds, which he\nsets at liberty. The holy Francis not only set his doves free, but\nthought about their future, a refinement of benevolence which might\n\u201calmost have persuaded\u201d the humane though crusty old philosopher to put\non the Franciscan habit.\n\n(At this point I chance to see from my window a kitten in the act of\nannoying a rather large snake. It is a coiled-up snake; probably an\nItongo. It requires a good five minutes to induce the kitten to abandon\nits quarry and to convey the snake to a safe place under the myrtles.\nThis being done, I resume my pen.)\n\nI have remarked that in some respects the Saint of Assisi stands apart\nfrom the other saints who took notice of animals. It was a common thing,\nfor instance, for saints to preach to creatures, but there is an\nindividual note in the sermon of Francis to the birds which is not found\nelsewhere. The reason why St. Anthony preached to the fishes at Rimini\nwas that the \u201cheretics\u201d would not listen to him, and St. Martin\naddressed the water-fowl who were diving after fish in the Loire\nbecause, having compared them to the devil, seeking whom he may devour,\nhe thought it necessary to order them to depart from those waters\u2014which\nthey immediately did, no doubt frightened to death by the apparition of\na gesticulating saint and the wild-looking multitude. The motive of\nFrancis was neither pique at not being listened to nor the temptation to\nshow miraculous skill as a bird-scarer; he was moved solely by an\neffusion of tender sentiment. Birds in great quantities had alighted in\na neighbouring field: a beautiful sight which every dweller in the\ncountry must have sometimes seen and asked himself, was it a parliament,\na garden party, a halt in a journey? \u201cWait a little for me here upon the\nroad,\u201d said the saint to his companions; \u201cI am going to preach to my\nsisters the birds.\u201d And so, \u201c_having greeted them as creatures endowed\nwith reason_,\u201d he went on to say: \u201cBirds, my sisters, you ought to give\ngreat praise to your Creator, who dressed you with feathers, who gave\nyou wings to fly with, who granted you all the domains of the air, whose\nsolicitude watches over you.\u201d The birds stretched out their necks,\nfluttered their wings, opened their beaks, and looked at the preacher\nwith attention. When he had done, he passed in the midst of them and\ntouched them with his habit, and not one of them stirred till he gave\nthem leave to fly away.\n\nThe saint lifted worms out of the path lest they should be crushed, and\nduring the winter frosts, for fear that the bees should die in the hive,\nhe brought honey to them and the best wines that he could find. Near his\ncell at Portionuculo there was a fig-tree, and on the fig-tree lived a\ncicada. One day the Servant of God stretched out his hand and said,\n\u201cCome to me, my sister Cicada\u201d; and at once the insect flew upon his\nhand. And he said to it, \u201cSing, my sister Cicada, and praise thy Lord.\u201d\nAnd having received his permission she sang her song. The biographies\nthat were written without the inquisition into facts which we demand,\ngave a living idea of the man, not a photograph of his skeleton. What\nmattered if romance were mixed with truth when the total was true? We\nknow St. Francis of Assisi as if he had been our next-door neighbour. It\nwould have needed unbounded genius to invent such a character, and there\nwas nothing to be gained by inventing it. The legends which represent\nhim as one who consistently treated animals as creatures endowed with\nreason are in discord with orthodox teaching; they skirt dangerously\nnear to heresy. Giordano Bruno was accused of having said that men and\nanimals had the same origin; to hold such an opinion qualified you for\nthe stake. But the Church that canonised Buddha under the name of St.\nJosephat has had accesses of toleration which must have made angels\nrejoice.\n\nSome think that Francis was at one time a troubadour, and troubadours\nhad many links with those Manich\u00e6an heretics whom Catholics charged with\nbelieving in the transmigration of souls. This may interest the curious,\nbut the doctrine of metempsychosis has little to do with the vocation of\nthe Asiatic recluse as a beast-tamer, and St. Francis of Assisi was true\nbrother to that recluse. He was the Fakeer or Dervish of the West. When\nthe inherent mysticism in man\u2019s nature brought the Dervishes into\nexistence soon after Mohammed\u2019s death, in spite of the Prophet\u2019s\nwell-known dislike for religious orders, they justified themselves by\nquoting the text from the Koran, \u201cPoverty is my pride.\u201d It would serve\nthe Franciscan equally well. The begging friar was an anachronism in the\nreligion of Islam as he is an anachronism in modern society, but what\ndid that matter to him? He thought and he thinks that he will outlive\nboth.\n\nThe Abd\u00e2l or pre-eminently holy Dervish who lived in the desert with\nfriendly beasts over whom he exercised an extraordinary power, became\nthe centre of a legend, almost of a cult, like his Christian\ncounterpart. There were several Abd\u00e2ls of high repute during the reigns\nof the early Ottoman Sultans. Perhaps there was more confidence in their\nsanctity than in their sanity, for while the Catholic historian finds it\ninconvenient to admit the hypothesis of madness as accounting for even\nthe strangest conduct of the saints of the desert or their medi\u00e6val\ndescendants, a devout Oriental sees no irreverence in recognising the\npossible affinity between sainthood and mental alienation. In India the\nholy recluse who tames wild beasts is as much alive to-day as in any\nformer time. Whatever is very old is still a part of the everyday life\nof the Indian people. Accordingly the native newspapers frequently\nreport that some prince was attacked by a savage beast while out\nhunting, when, at the nick of time, a venerable saint appeared at whose\nfirst word the beast politely relaxed his hold. Those who know India\nbest by no means think that all such stories are invented. Why should\nthey be? Cardinal Massaia (who wore, by the by, the habit of Francis)\nstated that the lions he met in the desert had very good manners. A few\nyears ago an old lady met a large, well-grown lioness in the streets of\nChatres; mistaking it for a large dog, she patted it on the head and it\nfollowed her for some time until it was observed by others, when the\nwhole town was seized with panic and barred doors and windows. Even with\nthe provocation of such mistrust the lioness behaved well, and allowed\nitself to be reconducted to the menagerie from which it had escaped.\n\nThose who try to divest themselves of human nature rarely succeed, and\nthe reason nearest to the surface why, over all the world, the lonely\nrecluse made friends with animals was doubtless his loneliness. On their\nside, animals have only to be persuaded that men are harmless for them\nto meet their advances half-way. If this is not always true of wild\nbeasts, it is because (as St. Francis apprehended) unfortunately they\nare sometimes hungry; but man is not the favourite prey of any wild\nbeast who is in his right mind. Prisoners who tamed mice or sparrows\nfollowed the same impulse as saints who tamed lions or buffaloes. How\nmany a prisoner who returned to the fellowship of men must have\nregretted his mouse or his sparrow! Animals can be such good company.\nStill, it follows that if their society was sought as a substitute, they\nwere, in a certain sense, vicarious objects of affection. We forget that\neven in inter-human affections much is vicarious. The sister of charity\ngives mankind the love which she would have given to her children. The\nascetic who will never hear the pattering feet of his boy upon the\nstairs loves the gazelle, the bird fallen from its nest, the lion cub\nwhose mother has been slain by the hunter. And love, far more than\ncharity (in the modern sense), blesses him that gives as well as him\nthat takes.\n\nBut human phenomena are complex, and this explanation of the sympathy\nbetween saint and beast does not cover the whole ground. Who can doubt\nthat these men, whose faculties were concentrated on drawing nearer to\nthe Eternal, vaguely surmised that wild living creatures had unperceived\nchannels of communication with spirit, hidden _rapports_ with the\nFountain of Life which man has lost or has never possessed? Who can\ndoubt that in the vast cathedral of Nature they were awed by \u201cthe\nmystery which is in the face of brutes\u201d?\n\nBeside the need to love and the need to wonder, some of them knew the\nneed to pity. Here the ground widens, for the heart that feels the pang\nof the meanest thing that lives does not beat only in the hermit\u2019s cell\nor under the sackcloth of a saint.\n\n\n------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\n\n\n\n XIII\n\n VERSIPELLES\n\n\nTHE snake and the tiger are grim realities of Indian life. They mean a\ngreat deal\u2014they mean India with its horror and its splendour; above all,\nwith its primary attention given to things which for most Europeans are\n_nil_ or are kept for Sunday. And Sunday, the day most calm, most\nbright, has only a little portion of them, only the light not the\ndarkness of the Unknown.\n\nTo the despair of the English official, the Hindu, like his forefathers\nin remotest antiquity, respects the life of tiger and snake. In doing so\nhe is not governed simply by the feeling that makes him look on serenely\nwhilst all sorts of winged and fleet-footed creatures eat up his growing\ncrops\u2014another tolerance which exasperates the Western beholder: in that\ninstance it is, in the main, the rule of live and let live which\ndictates his forbearance, the persuasion that it is wrong to monopolise\nthe increase of the earth to the uttermost farthing\u2019s-worth. His\nsentiment towards tiger and snake is of a more profound nature.\n\nThe Hindu will not kill a cobra if he can help it, and if one is killed\nhe tries to expiate the offence by honouring it with proper funeral\nrites. The tiger, like the snake, gives birth to those ancient twins,\nfear and admiration. The perception of the beautiful is one of the\noldest as it is one of the most mysterious of psychological phenomena in\nman and beast. Why should the sheen of the peacock\u2019s tail attract the\npeahen? Why should the bower-bird and the lyre-bird construct a lovely\npleasance where they may dance? Man perceived the beautiful in fire and\nwind, in the swift air, the circle of stars, the violent water, the\nlights of heaven: \u201cbeing delighted with the beauty of these things, he\ntook them to be gods\u201d\u2014as was said by the writer of the Wisdom of Solomon\nabout two hundred years before Christ. He also perceived the beautiful\nin the lithe movements of the snake and in the tiger\u2019s symmetry.\n\nAs to the sense of fear, how is it that this fear is unaccompanied by\nrepulsion? To this question the more general answer would seem to be\nthat Nature, if regarded as divine, cannot repel. But the snake and\ntiger are in some special way divine, so that they become still further\nremoved from the range of human criticism. They are manifestations of\ndivinity\u2014a safer description of even the lowest forms of zoolatry than\nthe commoner one which asserts that they are \u201cgods.\u201d Deity, if\nomnipresent, \u201cmust be able to occupy the same space as another body at\nthe same time,\u201d which was said in a different connexion, but it is the\ntrue base of all beliefs involving the union of spirit and matter from\nthe lowest to the highest.\n\nThe animal which is a divine agent, ought to behave like one. If it\ncauses destruction, such destruction should have the fortuitous\nappearance of havoc wrought by natural causes. The snake or tiger should\nnot wound with malice prepense, but only in a fine, casual way. This is\njust what, as a rule, they are observed to do. I have seen many snakes,\nbut I never saw one run after a man, though I have seen men run after\nsnakes. Now and then the Italian peasant is bitten by vipers because he\nwalks in the long grass with naked feet. He treads on the snake or\npushes against it, and it bites him. So it is with the Indian peasant.\nIt is much the same in the case of the normal tiger; unless he is\ndisturbed or wounded, he most rarely attacks. But there are abnormal\ntigers, abnormal beasts of every sort\u2014there is the criminal class of\nbeast. What of him? It might be supposed that primitive man would take\nsuch a beast to be an angry or vindictive spirit. By no means. He\ndetects in him a fellow-human. The Indian forestalled Lombroso; the\nman-eating tiger is a degenerate, really not responsible for his\nactions, and still less is the god behind him responsible for them.\n\nLittle need be said of the natural history of the man-eating tiger; yet\na few words may not be out of place. To his abnormality every one who\nhas studied wild beasts bears witness. All agree that the loss of life\nfrom tigers is almost exclusively traceable to individuals of tiger-kind\nwhich prey chiefly or only on man. The seven or eight hundred persons\nkilled annually by tigers in British India are victims of comparatively\nfew animals. Not many years ago a single man-eating tigress was\ncertified to have killed forty-eight persons. While the ordinary tiger\nhas to be sought out with difficulty for the sport of those who wish to\nhunt him, the man-eater night after night waylays the rural postman or\ncomes boldly into the villages in search of his unnatural food. During\ngreat scarcity caused by the destruction or disappearance of small game\nin the forests, the carnivora are forced out of their habits as the\nwolves in the Vosges are induced to come down to the plains in periods\nof intense cold. Such special causes do not affect the question of the\nman-eater, which eats man\u2019s flesh from choice, not from necessity. Why\nhe does so Europeans have tried to explain in various ways. One is, that\nthe unfamiliar taste of human flesh creates an irresistible craving. In\nSouth America they say that a jaguar after tasting man\u2019s flesh once\nbecomes an incorrigible man-eater for ever after. Others think\nman-eating is a form of madness, a disease, and they point to the fact\nthat the man-eater is always in bad condition; his skin is useless. But\nit is not sure if this be cause or effect, since man\u2019s flesh is said to\nbe unwholesome. A third and plausible theory would attribute man-eating\nto the easy capture of the prey: a tiger that has caught one man will\nhunt no other fleeter game. Especially in old age, a creature that has\nneither horns nor tusks nor yet swift feet must appear an attractive\nprey. This coincides with an observation made by Apollonius of Tyana: he\nsays that lions caught and ate monkeys for medicine when they were sick,\nbut that when they were old and unable to hunt the stag and the wild\nboar, they caught them for food. Aristotle said that lions were more\ndisposed to enter towns and attack man when they grew old, as old age\nmade their teeth defective, which was a hindrance to them in hunting.\n\nAnother possible clue may be deduced from a belief which exists in\nAbyssinia about the man-eating lion. In that country the people dislike\nto have Europeans hunt the lion, not only because they revere him as the\nking of beasts (though this is one reason, and it shows how natural to\nman is the friendly feeling towards beasts, and how it flourishes along\nwith any sort of religion, provided the religion has been left Oriental\nand not Westernised), but also because they are convinced that a lion\nwhose mate has been killed becomes ferocious and thirsts for human\nblood. This belief is founded on accurate observation of the capacity of\nwild beasts for affection. The love of the lion for his mate is no\npopular error. That noble hunter, Major Leveson, told a pathetic story\nof how he witnessed in South Africa a fight between two lions, while the\nlioness, palm and prize, stood looking on. A bullet laid her low, but\nthe combatants were so hotly engaged that neither of them perceived what\nhad happened. Then another bullet killed one of them: the survivor,\nafter the first moment of surprise as to why his foe surrendered, turned\nround and for the first time saw the hunters who were quite near. He\nseemed about to spring on them, when he caught sight of the dead\nlioness: \u201cWith a peculiar whine of recognition, utterly regardless of\nour presence, he strode towards her, licked her face and neck with his\ngreat rough tongue and patted her gently with his huge paw, as if to\nawaken her. Finding that she did not respond to his caresses, he sat\nupon his haunches like a dog and howled most piteously....\u201d Finally the\nmourning lion fled at the cries of the Kaffirs and the yelping of the\ndogs close at hand. He had understood the great, intolerable fact of\ndeath. Would any one blame him if he became an avenger of blood?\n\nSupposing that this line of defence could be transferred to the tiger,\ninstead of being branded as lazy, decrepit, mad, or bad, he might hope\nto appear before the public with a largely rehabilitated character.\n\nThe natives of the jungle resort to none of these hypotheses to account\nfor the man-eater: a different bank of ideas can be drawn on by them to\nhelp them out of puzzling problems. The free force of imagination is far\npreferable, if admitted, as a solver of difficulties, to all our patient\nand plodding researches. The jungle natives tell many stories of the\nman-eater, of which the following is a typical example. It was told to a\nBritish officer, from whom I had it.\n\nOnce upon a time there was a man who had the power of changing himself\ninto a tiger whenever he liked. But for him to change back into the\nshape of a man it was necessary that some human being should pronounce a\ncertain formula. He had a friend who knew the formula, and to him he\nwent when he wished to resume human shape. But the friend died.\n\nThe man was obliged, therefore, to find some one else to pronounce the\nformula. At last he decided to confide the secret to his wife; so, one\nday, he said to her that he should be absent for a short time and that\nwhen he came back it would be in the form of a tiger; he charged her to\npronounce the proper formula when she should see him appear in\ntiger-shape, and he assured her that he would then, forthwith, become a\nman again.\n\nIn a few days, after he had amused himself by catching a few antelopes,\nhe trotted up to his wife, hoping all would be well. But the woman, in\nspite of all that he had told her, was so dreadfully frightened when she\nsaw a large tiger running towards her, that she began to scream. The\ntiger jumped about and tried to make her understand by dumb-show what\nshe was to do, but the more he jumped the more she screamed, and at last\nhe thought in his mind, \u201cThis is the most stupid woman I ever knew,\u201d and\nhe was so angry that he killed her. Directly afterwards he recollected\nthat no other human being knew the right formula\u2014hence he must remain\nfor ever a tiger. This so affected his spirits that he acquired a hatred\nfor the whole human race, and killed men whenever he saw them.\n\nThis diverting folk-tale shows a root-belief in the stage of becoming a\nbranch-belief. In the present case the root is the ease with which men\nare thought to be able to transform themselves (or be transformed by\nothers) into animals. The branch is the presumption that a very wicked\nanimal must be human. The corresponding inference that a very virtuous\nanimal must be human, throws its reflection upon innumerable\nfairy-tales. I think it was the more primitive of the two. Even the\ntiger is not everywhere supposed to be the worse for human influence. In\nthe Sangor and Nerbrudda territories people say that if a tiger has\nkilled one man he will never kill another, because the dead man\u2019s spirit\nrides on his head and guides him to more lawful prey. Entirely primitive\npeople do not take an evil view of human nature\u2014which is proved by their\nconfidence in strangers: the first white man who arrives among them is\nwell received. Misanthropy is soon learnt, but it is not the earliest\nsentiment. The bad view of the man-tiger prevails in the Niger delta,\nwhere the negroes think that \u201csome souls which turn into wild beasts\ngive people a great deal of trouble.\u201d Other African tribes hold that\ntailless tigers are men\u2014tigers which have lost their tails in fighting\nor by disease or accident. I do not know if these are credited with good\nor bad qualities.\n\nBy the rigid Totemist all this is ascribed to Totemism. Men called other\ntribesmen by the names of their totems; then the totem was forgotten and\nthey mistook the tiger-totem-man for a man-tiger _et sic de ceteris_. My\nSyrian guide on Mount Carmel told me that the ravens which fed Elijah\nwere a tribe of Bedouins called \u201cthe Ravens,\u201d which still existed. If\nthis essay in the Higher Criticism was original it said much for his\nintelligence. But because such confusions may happen, and no doubt do\nhappen, are they to be taken as the final explanation of the whole vast\nrange of man and animal mutations? What have they to do with such a\nbelief as that vouched for by St. Augustine\u2014to wit, that certain witch\ninnkeepers gave their guests drugs in cheese which turned them into\nanimals? These witches had a sharp eye to business, for they utilised\nthe oxen, asses, and horses thus procured, for draught or burden, or let\nthem out to their customers, nor were they quite without a conscience,\nas when they had done using them they turned them back into men. Magic,\nthe old rival of religion, lies at the bottom of all this order of\nideas. Magic may be defined as the natural supernatural, since by it man\n_unaided_ commands the occult forces of nature. The theory of demoniacal\nassistance is of later growth.\n\nA story rather different from the rest is told by Pausanias, who records\nthat, at the sacrifice of Zeus on Mount Lyc\u00e6us, a man was always turned\ninto a wolf, but if for nine years in wolf-shape he abstained from\neating human flesh, he would regain his human form. This suggests a\nBuddhist source. The infiltration of Buddhist folk-lore into Europe is a\nsubject on which we should like to know more. Buddhism was the only\nmissionary religion before Christianity, and there is every probability\nthat it sent missionaries West as well as East.\n\nThe early Irish took so favourable a view of wolves that they were\naccustomed to pray for their salvation, and chose them as godfathers for\ntheir children. In Druidical times the wolf and other animals were\ndivine manifestations, and the Celts were so attached to their\nbeast-gods that they did not maledict what they had worshipped, but\nfound it a refuge somewhere. In the earliest Gallic sculpture the\ndispossessed animals are introduced as companions of the new Saints.\n\nIt will be noticed that in the Indian folk-tale, though the\nidentification of the man with the man-eater is clear, a very lenient\nview is taken of him: he was not always so; even his excursions in\ntiger-skin were, at first, purely innocent; he was a good husband and a\nrespectable citizen till his wife\u2019s nerves made him lose his temper.\n\nIn early Christian times, the man-wolf might be not only innocent but a\nvictim. He might be a particularly good man turned by a sorcerer into a\nwolf, and in such cases he preserves his good tendencies. In the seventh\ncentury such a man-wolf defended the head of St. Edward the Martyr from\nother wild beasts.\n\nOn the other hand, there are stories of Christian saints who turned\nevil-disposed persons into beasts by means of the magical powers which,\nat first, _all_ baptized persons were thought to possess potentially if\nnot actively. St. Thomas Aquinas believed in the possibility of doing\nthis. In a Russian folk-tale the apostles Peter and Paul turned a bad\nhusband and wife into bears.\n\nIn Europe by degrees the harmless were-wolf entirely disappeared but the\nevil one survived. The superstition of lycanthropy concentrated round\none point (as superstitions often do): the self-transformation of a\nperverse man or sorcerer into an animal for nefarious purposes. The\nobject of the transformation might be the opportunity for giving free\nrange to sanguinary appetites; but there was another object lurking in\nthe background, and this was the acquirement of second sight, which some\nanimals (if not all) are supposed to be endowed with. Just as Varro and\nVirgil believed in lycanthropy, so the most highly educated Europeans in\nthe time of Louis XIV. and after, believed in were-wolves. The choice of\nthe animal was immaterial, but it fell naturally on the most prominent\nand feared wild animal which was locally extant. A fancy or exotic\nanimal would not do, which illustrates the link there is between popular\nbeliefs and _facts_; distorted facts, it may be, but real and not\nimaginary things. If a bear of bad morals appears in Norway, people\ndeclare that it can be \u201cno Christian bear\u201d\u2014it must be a Lapp or a Finn,\nboth these peoples, who are much addicted to magic, being supposed to\nhave the power of changing into bears when they choose. Instead of\nseeking the wild beast in man, people sought the man in the wild beast.\n\nAs in Asia so in Europe, it was noticed and pondered that the normal\nwild beast is dangerous, perhaps, but not from a human point of view\nperverse. The normal wolf like the normal tiger does not attack or\ndestroy for the love of destruction. Wolves attack in packs, but the\ninstinct of the single individual is to keep out of man\u2019s way. He does\nnot kill even animals indiscriminately. In the last times when there\nwere wolves in the Italian valleys of the Alps, the news spread that a\nwolf had killed a number of sheep. What had really happened was this,\nwhich an old hunter told at Edolo to a relative of mine. The wolf jumped\ndown into a sheepfold sunk in the ground. He killed a sheep and ate some\nof it and then found, to his dismay, that he could not get up the wall\nof the sheepfold. Nothing daunted, however, he killed a sufficient\nnumber of sheep to form a mound, up which he climbed and so effected his\nescape. No one thought such a clever wolf as this a _lupo manaro_. But\nsome wolves, like some dogs, are subject to fits of mental alienation,\nin which they slay without rhyme or reason. Sheep are found killed all\nover the countryside, and men or children may be among the victims. The\nquestion arises of who did it\u2014a wolf, a man, or both in one? The\nmaterial fact is there, and it is a fact calculated to excite terror,\nsurprise, curiosity. That the fact may remain always a mystery recent\nexperience shows. When the were-wolf mania was rampant in France,\nhonestly conducted judicial inquiry succeeded in a few cases, in tracing\nthe outrages to a real wolf or to a real man. At last, in 1603, a French\ncourt of law pronounced the belief in were-wolves to be an insane\ndelusion, and from that date it slowly declined. Heretics were suspected\nof being were-wolves. As late as fifty years ago, a reminiscence of the\n_loup garou_ existed in most parts of France, in the shape of the\n_meneux des loups_, who were supposed to charm or tame whole packs of\nwolves which they led across the waste lands on nights when the moon\nshone fitfully through rifts in hurrying clouds. The village recluse,\nthe poacher, the man who simply \u201cknew more than he should,\u201d fell under\nthe suspicion of being a \u201cwolf-leader,\u201d and, of course, the usual\n\u201ceye-witness\u201d was forthcoming to declare that he had _seen_ the\nsuspected individual out upon his midnight rambles with his wolves\ntrotting after him. In some provinces all the fiddlers or bag-pipers\nwere thought to be \u201cwolf-leaders.\u201d\n\n[Illustration:\n\n _Maurice Sand._\n \u201cLE MENEUR DES LOUPS.\u201d]\n\nIf the wolf turnskin died out sooner in England than in France, it was\nbecause there were no wolves to fasten it upon. Throughout the horrible\nwitch-mania British sorcerers were supposed to turn into cats, weasels,\nor innocent hares! Italian witches still turn into cats. I remember how\ngraphically C. G. Leland described to me a visit he had paid to a Tuscan\nwitch; her cottage contained three stools, on one of which sat the\nwitch, on the second her familiar jet-black cat, and on the third my old\nfriend, who, I feel sure, had come to believe a good deal in the \u201cold\nreligion,\u201d and who, in his last years, might have sat for a perfect\nportrait of a magician! The connexion of the witch and the cat is a form\nof turnskin-belief in which the feature of the acquirement of second\nsight is prominent. No witch without a cat! The essential _fact_ in the\nsuperstition is the fondness of poor, old friendless women for\ncats\u2014their last friends. A contributing fact lay in the mysterious\ndisappearances and reappearances of cats and in their half-wild nature.\nThe cat in Indian folk-lore is the tiger\u2019s aunt.\n\nThe mode of effecting transformation into animals is various, but always\nconnected with fixed magical procedure. A root or food, or still oftener\nan ointment, is resorted to: ointments played a great part in\nsuperstition; it was by ointments that the unlucky persons accused of\nbeing wizards were held to have spread the plague of Milan. But the\nsurest method of transformation was a girdle made of the skin of the\nanimal whose form it was desired to take. This is regarded as a\nmakeshift for not being able to put on the whole skin. An old French\nrecord tells of a man who buried a black cat in a box where four roads\nmet, with enough bread soaked in holy water and holy oil to keep it\nalive for three days. The man intended to dig the cat up and, after\nkilling it, to make a girdle of its skin by which means he expected to\nobtain the gift of second sight; but the burial-place of the cat was\ndiscovered by some dogs that were scratching the earth, before the three\ndays had elapsed. The man, put to the torture, confessed all. In this\ncase, it will be noticed that the spiritual powers of the cat were to be\nobtained without assuming its outward form. The turnskin who wishes to\ngo back into his human shape, has also to follow fixed rules: a formula\nmust be pronounced by some one else, as in the jungle tiger story, or\nthe man-beast must eat some stated food as in Lucian\u2019s skit (if Lucian\nwrote it) of the man who, by using the wrong salve, turned himself into\na donkey instead of into a bird as he had wished, and who could only\nresume his own form by eating roses, which he did not accomplish until\nhe had undergone all sorts of adventures.\n\nThe belief that beasts were inhabited by depraved men has a certain\naffinity with the belief that depraved men were inhabited by demons.\nDante maintains that some persons have actually gone to their account\nwhile their bodies are still above-ground, the lodgings of evil spirits.\n\nThe history of the turnskin leads up to several conclusions, of which\nthe most important is, that superstitions often grow uglier as they grow\nolder. They descend, they rarely ascend. This experience should make us\npause before we pronounce hideous beliefs to be, in a true sense,\nprimitive. The idea of transformation is one of the oldest of human\nideas, much older than transmigration, but at the outset, far from\nlending itself to such repulsive applications as man-tigers and\ndemon-men, it gave birth to some of the fairest passages in the poetry\nof mankind which he calls his religion. It is impossible to imagine a\nmore beautiful myth than the Vedic belief in the swan-maidens, the\nApsarases who, by putting on skirts of swan feathers, could become\nswans. Their swan-skirts stretch from the hot East to the cold North,\nfor they are the same that are worn by the Valkyries. All these early\nlegends of swans bring into particularly clear light the moral identity\nof the impressions received from things seen by man at the bottom and at\nthe top of the ladder of intellectual progress. Natural objects, lovely\nor terrible, raise archetypal images of things lovely or terrible which\nin our minds remain shapeless but to which the primitive man gives a\nlocal habitation and a name. Swans, sailing on still waters or circling\nabove our heads, inspire us with indefinite longings which took form in\nthe myth of the Apsarases and appear again in the Vedic story of the\nsage who, by deep knowledge and holiness, became a golden swan and flew\naway to the sun. To this day, if the Hindu sees a flight of swans\nwending its mysterious way across the sky, he repeats the saying almost\nmechanically (as a Catholic crosses himself if he pass a shrine): \u201cThe\nsoul flies away, and none can go with it.\u201d\n\n\n------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\n\n\n\n XIV\n\n THE HORSE AS HERO\n\n\nFIFTY years ago the knell of the horse was rung, with due solemnity, by\nthe American statesman, Charles Sumner. The age of chivalry, he said,\nwas gone\u2014an age of humanity had come; \u201cthe horse, whose importance more\nthan human, gave the name to that period of gallantry and war, now\nyields his foremost place to man.\u201d As a matter of fact, the horse is\nyielding his foremost place to the motor-car, to the machine; and this\nis the topsy-turvy way in which most of the millennial hopes of the\nmid-nineteenth century are being fulfilled by the twentieth; the big\ndream of a diviner day ends in a reality out of which all that is ideal\nis fading. But the reason why I quote the passage is the service which\nit renders as a reminder of the often forgotten meaning of the word\n\u201cchivalry.\u201d The horse was connected with the ideals no less than with\nthe realities of the phase in human history that was called after him;\nthe mental consequences of the partnership between man and that noble\nbeast were not less far reaching than the physical. There are a hundred\ntypes of human character, some of them of the highest, in the making of\nwhich the horse counts for nothing; but this type, this figure of the\nvery perfect gentle knight, cannot be imagined in a horseless world. We\nhear of what man taught animals, but less of what animals taught man. In\nthe unity of emotion between horse and rider something is exchanged.\nEven the epithets which it is natural to apply to the knightly hero, one\nand all fit his steed: defiant and gentle, daring and devoted, trusty\nand tireless, a scorner of obstacles, of a gay, brave spirit\u2014the list\ncould be lengthened at will. And the qualities and even the defects they\nhad in common were not so much the result of accident as the true fruit\nof their mutual interdependence.\n\nIn the aftermath of chivalry which produced the song-writers and the\nsplendid adventurers of the Elizabethan age, horsemanship came again to\nthe fore as a passion rather than as a mere necessary pursuit. We know\nthat, not satisfied with what England could provide, the fashionable\nyoung men frequented the schools of skilled Italians, generally of noble\nbirth, such as Corte da Pavia, who was Queen Elizabeth\u2019s riding-master.\nThe prevailing taste is reflected in Shakespeare, who, though he was for\nall time, was yet, essentially of his own; his innumerable allusions to\nhorses show, in the first place, that he knew all about them, as he did\nabout most things, and in the second, that he knew that these allusions\nwould please his audience, which no born dramatist ever treated as a\nnegligible quantity, and the least of all Shakespeare. Even the\nperforming or \u201cthinking\u201d horse does not escape his notice; \u201cthe dancing\nhorse will tell you,\u201d in \u201cLove\u2019s Labour Lost,\u201d refers to the \u201cHans\u201d or\n\u201cTrixie\u201d of the period who also attracted the attention of Ben Jonson,\nDowne, Sir Kenelm Digby, Sir Walter Raleigh, Hall, and John Taylor, the\nwater-poet. This animal\u2019s name was \u201cMorocco\u201d but he was often called\n\u201cBankes\u2019 horse,\u201d from his master who taught him to tell the number of\npence in silver coins and the number of points in throws of dice, and on\none occasion made him walk to the top of St. Paul\u2019s. Alas, for the fate\nof \u201cMorocco\u201d and his master, \u201cBeing beyond the sea burnt for one witch,\u201d\nas chronicled by Ben Jonson! Like Esmeralda and her goat, they were\naccused of magic, and the charge, first started at Orleans, was followed\nby condemnation and death in Rome. Greater tragedies of superstition\nhardly come with such a shock as this stupid slaughter of a poor showman\nand his clever beast.\n\nIn Elizabethan society interest in horses was directed chiefly to the\nturnings and windings, the \u201cshapes and tricks\u201d of the riding-school, and\nthis lighter way of looking on them as affording man his most splendid\ndiversion is, in the main, Shakespeare\u2019s way\u2014though he does not forget\nthat, at times, a horse may be worth a kingdom. Not to him, however, or\nto any modern poet, do we go for the unique, incomparable description of\nthe truly heroic horse, the uncowed charger of the East, created to awe\nrather than to be awed by man, whom no image of servility would fit.\nHere is this specimen of the world\u2019s greatest poetry, in case any one be\nso unfortunate as not to know it by heart:\u2014\n\n\u201cHe paweth in the valley and rejoiceth in his strength; he goeth on to\nmeet the armed men. He mocketh at fear, and is not affrighted; neither\nturneth he back from the sword. The quiver rattleth against him, the\nglittering spear and the shield. He swalloweth the ground with\nfierceness and rage: neither believeth he that it is the sound of the\ntrumpet. He saith among the trumpets, Ha! ha! He smelleth the battle\nafar off, the thunder of the captains and the shouting.\u201d\n\nHow the portrait leaps out of the page into life as Velasquez\u2019s horse in\nthe Prado leaps out of his frame! We feel the pulse of a passion which\nthrobs through every vein from head to hoof. This Triumph of the\nWar-horse is one of the points of affinity in the Book of Job with Arab\nrather than with Hebrew civilisation. The text itself is nearer Arabic\nthan any other Biblical book, and the life of the protagonist is very\nlike the life of an ancient Arabian chieftain. The Jews proper cared\nlittle for horses; when they fell into their hands they knew no better\nthan to destroy them. They were a pastoral people, at no time fond of\nsport, which was hardly recognised as lawful by their religious\nordinances. They do not seem to have ridden on horseback. Zechariah,\nindeed, speaks of the war-horse, but only to represent him as the\nbeautiful image of peace, no more mixing in the fray, but bearing on his\nbell (which was meant to affright the foe) the inscription: \u201cHoliness\nunto the Lord.\u201d\n\n[Illustration:\n\n _Photo:_ _Mansell._\n THE ASSYRIAN HORSE.\n British Museum.]\n\nOn the other hand, the Arab, and, most of all, the Nomadic Arab, has a\ndual existence with his horse. He could not live without it; it is a\npart of himself\u2014of all that makes him himself and not another. The same\nis true of the Todas and their buffaloes, the Lapps and their reindeer.\nIn summer when the reindeer are in the hills, to save them from what is\nthere called the heat, a Lapp seems only half a Lapp; but his thoughts\nare still of reindeer and his fingers are busy with scratching its\nlikeness on his spoons, his milk-bowls, his implements of all sorts, all\nof which are made of reindeer-horn. His songs are still of reindeer:\n\u201cWhile the reindeer lasts, the Lapp will last; when the reindeer fails,\nthe Lapp will fail,\u201d as ran the infinitely pathetic ditty I heard sung\nby a Lapp woman who was shown to me as the best singer of the tribe.\n\nWith all these people the flesh of the beloved animal is esteemed the\ngreatest delicacy; a fact in which there seems to lie suggestions of\ncannibalism in its real psychological aspect\u2014the eating of the hero in\norder to acquire his attributes. Sometimes, however, the reason may be\nsimply that they were for long periods in the impossibility of obtaining\nother meat; since the natural man prefers food to which he has grown\nfamiliar.\n\nIn what is probably the oldest version of Boccaccio\u2019s Falcon story, the\nEmperor of Constantinople sends to ask a very generous pr\u00e6-Islamic Arab\nChief, by name Hatem Tai (celebrated as the type of chivalry over all\nthe Moslem world), to give him a horse which Hatem is known to value\nbeyond all his possessions. The object of the demand was to put his\nreputation for generosity to the test. The officer, who is the bearer of\nthe Emperor\u2019s request, is regaled sumptuously on the evening of his\narrival; and, according to the laws of Oriental courtesy, he puts off\nspeaking of the business in hand till next day. When he delivers his\nmessage Hatem replies that he would have complied gladly, but that the\nofficer had eaten the horse last night for supper! The horse was the\nmost costly and coveted food which the chief could offer his guest, and\nthe story becomes thus more intelligible than when the victim is an\nuneatable bird like a hawk.\n\nIn Oriental poetry the camel \u201cwho asks but a thorn from the bed of roses\nof the world\u201d takes a well-merited share of attention, but the animal\nwhich is before all others the Eastern poets\u2019 beast is, of course, the\nhorse: he might himself be called the poet as well as the prince among\nbeasts, for if any living thing incarnates the poetry \u201cof form, of\nmotion, of glad devotion,\u201d it is surely the high-bred Arab steed.\nInnumerable tributes credit him with three parts human qualities:\u2014\n\n \u201cThe courser looks his love as plainly as if he could speak,\n He waves his mane, his paws, he curls his nostrils and his lips;\n He makes half-vocal sounds, uprears or droops his neck and hips,\n His deep and pensive eyes light up with lambent flame, then seem\n As if they swam in the desires of some mysterious dream.\u201d[8]\n\nFootnote 8:\n\n Translated by W. R. Alger.\n\nOf the true Arab horse it is said that his foot is so light that he\ncould dance on a woman\u2019s breast without leaving a bruise. Some of the\nArabian ballads of horses are among the very few Oriental poems which\nhave acquired universal fame, as that which tells of how the peerless\nLahla picked up his captured and bound master and carried him with his\nteeth back to the tribe, on reaching which he sinks dead, amidst the\ntears and lamentations of all. Horses, the Koran expressly says, were\ncreated for man\u2019s use, but also \u201cto be an ornament unto him\u201d: all the\nromance, the valour, the deep-seated aristocratic instinct of the Arab,\nproudest of mankind, is bound up with his horse. The splendid Arab chief\nwho stands aside motionless to let go by an automobile carrying a party\nof tourists across the Sahara reflects, as he draws his burnoose closer\nover his mouth, \u201c_This_ is the \u2018_ornament_\u2019 of Western man!\u201d And,\nlooking at his horse, which stands motionless as he (for the Arab steed\nfears nothing when his master is near), he adds to himself: \u201cThese\npass\u2014we remain.\u201d False it may be as a prophecy, but he believes it\n_because convinced of his superiority_.\n\nStill by the camp-fires in the desert they tell the old story of a great\nchief who, in pr\u00e6-Gallic times, was taken prisoner by the Emir\u2019s\nhorsemen. He escaped, but hardly had he reached his tent when in the\ndesert air, in which sounds are heard afar off, a clattering of hoofs\ncould be distinguished\u2014the Sultan\u2019s men were coming! The chief sprang on\nhis mare and fled. When the men came up they knew that only one horse\ncould overtake the mare, her beautiful sister, not less swift than she.\nA soldier leapt from his own horse intending to mount her, but the\nchiefs son, yet a child, instantly shot her dead with a pistol. And so\nthe chief was saved.\n\nThe Ulemas of Algeria say that when God wished to create the mare He\nspoke to the wind: \u201cI will cause thee to bring forth a creature that\nshall bear all My worshippers, that shall be loved by My slaves, and\nthat will cause the despair of all who will not follow My laws.\u201d And\nwhen He had created her He said: \u201cI have made thee without an equal: the\ngoods of this world shall be placed between thy eyes; everywhere I will\nmake thee happy and preferred above all the beasts of the field, for\ntenderness shall everywhere be in the heart of thy master; good alike\nfor the chase and retreat, thou shalt fly though wingless, and I will\nonly place on thy back the men who know me, who will offer ME prayers\nand thanksgivings; men who shall be My worshippers from one generation\nto another.\u201d\n\nFor the Arab the horse was not only the means of performing great\nenterprises but the very object of life, the thing in itself most\nprecious, the care, the preoccupation, and the prize. The Arab\u2019s horse\nis his kingdom.\n\n[Illustration:\n\n ARABIAN HORSE OF THE SAHARA.]\n\nI suppose that there is no doubt that the knightly type was a flower\ntransported from the East, though, like many other Eastern flowers, it\ngrew to its best in European gardens. The Crusaders learnt more than\nthey taught. Coming down later, the national hero of Spain, for all his\npure Gothic blood, is an Eastern not a Western hero. He will be\nunderstood far better when he is tried by this standard. If we weigh him\nin Eastern rather than in Western scales, a more lenient and above all a\njuster judgment will be the result, and we shall see how the fine\nqualities with which legend credits him were not disproved by some acts\nwhich the modern Western conscience condemns. On the whole it may be\ntaken for granted, in spite of all that has been said to the contrary,\nthat tradition which easily errs about facts, is rarely wrong about\ncharacter.\n\nRuy Diaz de Bivar was a hero after the Arab\u2019s own heart:\u2014\n\n \u201cNoble y leal, soldado y Caballero,\n Se\u00f1or te apellido la gente Mora,\u201d\n\nas the lines run on his coffin in the town-hall at Burgos. Nothing being\nsacred to a critic, it has been contested that he was first called \u201cMyo\nCid,\u201d or \u201cMy Lord,\u201d by the Moors, but tradition and etymology agree too\nwell for this to be reasonably doubted. It is certain that both Moors\nand Christians called him by his other title of Campeador in Spanish and\nAl-kambeyator in the form the Arabic writers gave it. It was derived\nfrom his gallantry in single combats and did not mean, as some have\nthought, \u201cChampion of the Christians.\u201d\n\nIt is entirely in keeping with the Cid\u2019s Arab affinities that his horse\nshould have attained a fame almost as great as his own. From Bucephalus\nto Copenhagen never was there a European horse equal in renown to\nBavieca. His glory, is it not writ in nearly every one of the hundred\nballads of the Cid? The choosing of Bavieca is one of the most striking\nevents in the Cid\u2019s youth. The boy asked his godfather, a fat,\ngood-natured old priest, to give him a colt. The priest took him to a\nfield where the mares and their colts were being exercised and told him\nto take the best. They were driven past him and he let all the\nhandsomest go by; then a mare came up with an ugly and miserable-looking\ncolt\u2014\u201cThis,\u201d he cried, \u201cis the one for me!\u201d His godfather was angry and\ncalled him a simpleton, but the lad only answered that the horse would\nturn out well and that \u201cSimpleton\u201d (\u201cBavieca\u201d) should be his name.\n\nHorses which begin as ugly ducklings and end as swans are an extensive\nbreed. Count de Gubernatis, in his valuable work on \u201cZoological\nMythology,\u201d mentions Hatos, the magical horse of the Hungarians, as\nbelonging to this class. If as old as the oldest legend, they are, in a\nsense, as new as the \u201coutsider\u201d which carries off one of the greatest\nprizes of the Turf. The choosing of Bavieca was in the mind of Cervantes\nwhen he described in his inimitable way the choosing of Rozinante\n(\u201cex-jade\u201d), who never became anything but a _rozin_ in the most present\ntense, except in the imagination of his master, but who will live for\never in his company, to bear witness to the indivisible oneness of the\nknight and his horse.\n\nCompletely Oriental in sentiment is the splendid ballad which relates\nhow the Cid offered Bavieca to his king because it was not meet that a\nsubject should have a horse so far more precious than any possessed by\nhis lord. There is in this not only the act of homage but also the\nabsorbing pride which made the Arab who was overtaking a horse-stealer,\nshout to him the secret sign at which his stolen mare would go her best,\npreferring to lose her than to vanquish her.\n\n \u201cO king, the thing is shameful that any man beside\n The liege lord of Castile himself should Bavieca ride.\n For neither Spain nor Araby could another charger bring\n So good as he, and certes, the best befits the king.\u201d\n\nThe gorgeous simplicity of the original is missed by Lockhart in the\nsucceeding verses, in which the Cid, before giving up the horse, mounts\nhim to show his worth, his ermine mantle hanging from his shoulders. He\nwill do, he says, in the presence of the king what he has not done for\nlong except in battle with the Moor: he will touch Bavieca with his\nspurs. Then comes the maddest, wildest, yet most accomplished display of\nnoble horsemanship that ever witched the world. One rein breaks and the\nbeholders tremble for his life, but with ease and grace he guides the\nfoaming and panting horse before the king and prepares to yield him up.\nThen Alfonso cries, God forbid that he should take him: he shall be\naccounted, indeed, as his, but shameful would it be\n\n \u201cThat peerless Bavieca should ever be bestrid\n By any mortal but Bivar\u2014\u2018Mount, mount again, my Cid!\u2019\u201d\n\nThere is a spot in Spain where we still seem to breathe the very air of\nchivalrous romance: the royal armoury at Madrid, in which the mail-clad\nknights with their plumes, their housings, their lances, their trophies,\nsit their fine horses as gallantly as if they were riding straight into\nthe lists. There, and there alone, we can invoke the proper _mise en\nsc\u00e8ne_ for the gestes and jousts described in the Spanish ballads.\n\nHistorically, it seems certain that the Cid died at Valencia in July,\n1099, an access of grief that his captains\u2014who, owing to his ill-health,\nwere obliged to replace him\u2014had failed to hold the Moors in check. King\nAlfonso came to the assistance of his noble widow, Jimena, but finally\nValencia had to be abandoned; all the Christians left the town and the\nCid\u2019s body was borne to his distant Northern home. Such is the\nhistorical outline, sufficiently pathetic in itself but adorned with\nadditions, not all of them, perhaps, invented in the sublime legend of\nthe Last Ride. It is said that the Cid, knowing that his last hour was\nnear, refrained from any food except certain draughts of rose-water in\nwhich were dissolved the myrrh and balsam sent to him by the great\nSultan of Persia. He gave particular instructions as to how his body was\nto be anointed with the myrrh and balsam which remained in the golden\ncaskets, and how it was to be set upright on Bavieca, fully saddled and\narmed, to be still a terror to the Moors, who were to be kept in\ncomplete ignorance of his death. All this was done and a great victory\nwas won over the Moors, who thought they saw their dreaded enemy once\nmore commanding in person. Then the victors started on the long journey\nto San Pedro de Carde\u00f1a, near Burgos, the Cid riding his horse by day,\nsupported by an artful contrivance, and by night placed on a dummy horse\nwrought by Gil Diaz, his devoted servitor. Jimena, with all the Cid\u2019s\nmen, followed in his train. On the way the procession is joined by the\nCid\u2019s two daughters and by a great mass of people who mourned in their\nhearts for Spain\u2019s greatest hero, but they wore rich and gay apparel,\nfor the Cid had forbidden the wearing of mourning. So Carde\u00f1a was\nreached, and tenderly and lovingly Ruy Diaz lifted the Cid\u2019s body for\nthe last time from Bavieca\u2019s back\u2014never more to bear a man. The glorious\nwar-horse lived for two years, led to water each day by Gil Diaz. On his\ndeath, at more than forty years of age and leaving not unworthy\ndescendants behind him, he was buried, according to the Cid\u2019s express\ndesire, in a deep and ample grave, \u201cso that no dog might disturb his\nbones,\u201d near the gate of the Convent, and two elms were planted to mark\nthe spot. When Gil Diaz died, full of years and richly provided for by\nthe Cid\u2019s daughters, he was laid to rest beside the horse he had loved\nand tended so faithfully.\n\nIn this narrative, condensed from the Chronicles, the curious particular\nwill have been noticed of the gift by the \u201cGreat Sultan of Persia\u201d to\nthe Christian warrior of those precious spices and aromatic gums which\nseem to have been the secret treasure of old Persia, forming a priceless\noffering reserved for the very greatest personages. The strangeness of\nbringing in the Sultan of Persia almost suggests that there was truth in\nthe assertion that he had sent presents to the Cid. Over the sea and\nover the fruitful fields the radiance of noble deeds travels, as Pinder\nsaid of old. A little after the march of the Thousand, the Arabs of the\ndesert were heard discussing round their camp-fires the exploits of\nGaribaldi. If the fame of the Cid reached Persia, as it is very likely\nthat it did, he would have found fervent admirers among a people which\nwas still electrified by the epic poem of Firdusi, who died within a\nyear or two of the Cid\u2019s birth. In that epic is told the story of the\nPersian Campeador\u2014the Champion Rustem, who not only in his title but in\nall we know of his general bearings has so great a resemblance to the\nCid that it is a wonder if no historical \u201cdiscoverer\u201d has derived one\nfrom the other, the more so since there have not been wanting writers\nwho denied the Cid\u2019s existence. And if Ruy Diaz de Bivar has his\nanalogue in Rustem, has not Bavieca a perfect counterpart in Rakush?\n\nIt is the horse not his master that leads me into the mazes of the _Shah\nNameh_, but something of Rustem must be told to make Rakush\u2019s story\nintelligible. Like Siegfried, Rustem was of extraordinary size and\nstrength: he looked a year old on the day of his birth. When he was\nstill a child a white elephant broke loose and began trampling the\npeople to death: Rustem ran to the rescue and slew it. A little time\nafter this his father, whose name was Zal, called the boy and showed him\nall his horses, desiring him to choose that which pleased him best, but\nnot one was powerful enough or spirited enough to satisfy him. Unlike\nthe Cid, Rustem wanted a horse that looked as perfect as he really was.\nAfter examining them all and trying many, he noticed at a little\ndistance a mare followed by a marvellously beautiful foal. Rustem got\nready his noose to throw about the foal\u2019s neck, and while he did so, a\nstable-man whispered to him that this foal was, indeed, worth anything\nto secure; the dam, named Abresh, was famous, while the sire had been no\nmortal creature but a djinn. The foal\u2019s name was Rakush (\u201cLightning\u201d), a\nname given to a dappled or piebald horse, and his coat, that was as soft\nas silk, looked like rose-leaves strewn on a saffron ground. Several\npersons who had tried already to capture the foal had been killed by the\nmare, who allowed no one to go near it.\n\nIn fact, no sooner has Rustem lassoed the foal than its mother rushes\ntowards him ready to seize him with her white teeth, which glisten in\nthe sun. Rustem utters a loud cry which so startles the mare that she\npauses for an instant: then, with clenched fist, he rains blow on blow\non her head and neck till she drops down to die. It was done in\nself-defence: still, it is a barbaric prelude.\n\nRustem continued to hold Rakush with his free hand while he conquered\nthe mare, but now the colt drags him hither and thither like an\ninanimate object: the dauntless youth has to strive long for the\nmastery, but he does not rest till the end is achieved. The horse is\nbroken in at one breath, after the fashion of American cow-boys. It\nshould be noticed that legendary heroes always break in their own\nhorses\u2014no other influence has been ever brought to bear on the horse but\ntheir own. Rakush has found a master indeed, but a master worthy of him.\nHe has recognised that there is one\u2014only one\u2014fit to rule him. Like all\ntrue heroes\u2019 horses, he will suffer no other mortal to mount him: if\nBarbary really allowed Bolingbroke to ride him it was a sure sign that\nhis poor royal master was no hero. This same characteristic belonged\nalso to Julius C\u00e6sar\u2019s horse, which was a remarkable animal in more ways\nthan one, as he was reported to have feet like a human being. I have no\ndoubt that Soloman\u2019s white mare, Koureen, followed the same rule as well\nas the angel Gabriel\u2019s reputed steed, Hazi\u00fbm, though I have not found\nrecord of the fact.\n\nWhen the colt is broken in, he stands before his master perfect and\nwithout flaw. \u201cNow I and my horse are ready to join the fighting-men in\nthe field,\u201d says Rustem as he places the saddle on his back, to the\nboundless joy of Zal, whose old, withered heart becomes as green as\nspringtide with the thrill of fatherly pride.\n\nSo Rakush is richly caparisoned and Rustem rides away on him, beardless\nyouth though he is, to command great armies, slay fearsome dragons,\ndefeat the wiles of sorcerers, and do all the other feats with which the\nfresh fancy of a young nation embroidered the story of its favourite\nhero\u2014for, it must be remembered, Firdusi did not invent Rustem any more\nthan Tennyson invented Lancelot. I think there is every reason to\nbelieve that there was a real Rustem just as there was a real Cid; and\nthat the first, like the second, was a combination of the _guerrillero_,\nthe _condottiere_, the magnificent free-booter, with the knight-errant\nor paladin\u2014a stamp which was impressed upon the other _r\u00f4le_ by the\npersonal quality of noble-mindedness possessed by the individual in each\ncase. For years unnumbered the exploits of Rustem have entertained the\nPersian listener from prince to peasant, but the story will ever remain\nyoung because it is of those which reflect that which holds mankind\nspell-bound: the magnetic power of human personality.\n\nOne hears the clear, crisp clatter of the horse\u2019s hoofs as they gallop\nthrough the epic. Docile as Rakush has become, his spirit is unbent; he\nis eager to fight his own battles and his master\u2019s too. Like Baiardo,\nthe horse in Ariosto, he uses his hoofs with deadly effect, and on one\noccasion there is a regular duel between him and another horse while\nRustem is fighting its rider. His rashness inspires Rustem with much\nanxiety in their earlier journeys together. Quite at the beginning, when\nRustem is on his way to liberate his captive king\u2014his first \u201clabour\u201d\u2014he\nlies down to sleep in a forest, leaving Rakush free to graze, and what\nis not his surprise when he wakes to find a large lion extended dead on\nthe grass close by. Rakush killed the savage beast with teeth and heels\nwhile his master slept tranquilly. Rustem remonstrates with his too\nventuresome steed: Why did he fight the lion all alone? Why did he not\nneigh loudly and call for assistance? Had he reflected how terribly\nunfortunate it would be for Rustem if anything were to happen to him?\nWho would carry his heavy battle-axe and all his other accoutrements? He\nconjures Rakush to fight no more lions single-handed. Then and at other\ntimes Rustem talks to Rakush, but Rakush does not answer like the horse\nof Achilles. The Persians of the eleventh century had reached the stage\nof people who take their marvels with discrimination; they accepted\nSimurghs, white demons, phantom elks, giants, dragons, but they might\nhave hesitated about a talking horse. Another of Rustem\u2019s addresses to\nhis horse was spoken after one of his first victories when the enemy was\nin full retreat: \u201cMy valued friend,\u201d he said, \u201cput forth thine utmost\nspeed and bear me after the foe.\u201d The noble animal certainly understood,\nfor he bounded over the plain snorting as he flew along and tossing up\nhis mane, and great was the booty which fell into his master\u2019s hands.\nRustem once said that with his arms and his trusty steed he would not\nmind fighting thirty thousand men. As a matter of fact, he never lacked\nfollowers, for he was of those captains who have only to stamp on the\nground for there to spring up soldiers.\n\nIn the nineteenth century a \u201clegendary hero\u201d wandered with his horse\nover the plains of Uruguay much as Rustem wandered with Rakush. \u201cIn my\nnomad life in America,\u201d writes Garibaldi, \u201cafter a long march or a day\u2019s\nfighting, I unsaddled my poor tired horse and smoothed and dried his\ncoat ... rarely could I offer him a handful of oats since those\nillimitable fields provide so little grain that oats are not often given\nto horses. Then, after leading him to water, I settled him for the night\nnear my own resting-place. Well, when all this was done, which was no\nmore than a duty to my faithful companion of toil and peril, I felt\ncontent, and if by chance he neighed, refreshed, or rolled on the green\nturf\u2014oh, then I tasted _la gentil volutt\u00e0 d\u2019esser pio_!\u201d Marvels are out\nof date, but feeling remains unchanged, and the \u201csweets of kindness\u201d\nwere known, surely, even to the earliest hero who made a friend of his\nhorse and found him, in the solitude of the wild, no bad substitute for\nhuman friends.\n\nIn the story of Sohrab, one of the finest episodes in epic poetry,\nRakush is introduced as the primary cause of it all. Tired with hunting\nin the forest, and perhaps inclined to sleep by a meal of roasted wild\nass, which seems to have been his favourite game, Rustem lay down to\nrest under a tree, turning Rakush free to graze as was his wont. When he\nawoke the horse was nowhere to be seen! Rustem looked for his prints, a\nway of recovering stolen animals still practised with astonishing\nsuccess in India. He found the prints and guessed that his favourite had\nbeen carried off by robbers, which was what had actually happened: a\nband of Tartar marauders lassoed the horse with their kamunds and\ndragged him home. Rustem followed the track over the border of the\nlittle state of Samengan, the king of which, warned of the approach of\nthe hero of the age, went out to meet him on foot with great deference.\nThe hero, however, was in no mood for compliments; full of wrath, he\ntold the king that his horse had been stolen and that he had traced his\nfootprints to Samengan. The king kept his presence of mind better than\nmight have been expected; he made profuse excuses and declared that no\neffort should be spared to recover the horse\u2014meanwhile he prayed Rustem\nto become his honoured guest.\n\nEmissaries were sent in all directions in search of Rakush and a grand\nentertainment was prepared for his master. Pleased and placated, Rustem,\nwho had spared little time for luxury in his adventurous life, finally\nlay down on a delightful and beautifully adorned bed. How poetic was\nsleep when it was associated, not with an erection on four legs, but\nwith a low couch spread with costly furs and rich Eastern stuffs! So\nRustem reposed, when his eyes opened on a living dream, a maiden\nstanding by his side, her lovely features illuminated by a lamp which a\nslave girl held. \u201cI am the daughter of the king,\u201d says the fair vision;\n\u201cno one man has ever seen my face or even heard my voice. I have heard\nof thy wondrous valour....\u201d Rustem, still wondering if he slept or woke,\nasked her what was her will? She answered that she loved him for his\nfame and glory, and that she had vowed to God she would wed no other\nman. Behold, God has brought him to her! She desires him to ask her hand\nto-morrow of her father and so departs, lighted on her way by the little\nslave.\n\nWas ever anything more chaste in its self-abandonment than the avowal of\nthis love, holy as Desdemona\u2019s and irresistible as Senta\u2019s? Nowhere in\nfiction can be found a more convincing illustration of the truth that\nthe essential spring of woman\u2019s love for man is hero-worship. On which\ntruth, in spite of the illusions it covers, what is best in human\nevolution is largely built.\n\nThe king gave glad assent to the marriage, which was celebrated\naccording to the rites of that country. Rustem tarried but one night\nwith his bride: in the morning with weeping eyes she watched him\ngalloping away on the recovered Rakush. Long she grieved, and only when\na son was born was her sad heart comforted. The grandfather gave the boy\nthe name of Sohrab. Rustem had left an amulet to be placed in the hair\nif God gave her a daughter but bound round the arm if a son were born.\n\nIn due course Rustem sent a gift of costly jewels to his wife Tahmineh,\nwith inquiries whether the birth of a child had blessed the marriage?\nAnd now the mother of Sohrab made the fatal mistake of a deception which\nled to all the evil that followed; she sent word that a girl had been\nborn because she was afraid that if Rustem knew that he had a son, he\nwould take him from her. Rustem, disappointed in his hopes, thought no\nmore about Samengan.\n\nThere is no hint that Tahmineh\u2019s fibbing, which, like very many other\n\u201cwhite lies,\u201d ended in dire disaster, was in the slightest degree the\nmoral as well as the actual cause of the fatality. Herodotus said that\nevery Persian child was taught to ride and to speak the truth; by\nFirdusi\u2019s time the second part of the instruction seems to have been\nneglected, for in the _Shah Nameh_ he makes everybody give full rein to\nhis powers of invention without the slightest scruple. The bad\nconsequences are attributed to blind fate, not to seeing Nemesis.\n\nWhat is so agonising in the doom of Sohrab is precisely the lack of\nmoral cause such as exists in the Greek tragedies. Though we do not\naccept as a reality the Greek theory of retribution, we do accept it as\na point of view, and it helps us, as it helped them, to endure the\nunspeakable horror of the \u00c6dipus story.\n\nSohrab goes forth, with a boy\u2019s enthusiasm, to conquer Persia as a\npresent to his unknown father. The two meet, and are incited to engage\nin single combat, each not knowing the other. After a Titanic contest,\nSohrab falls fatally wounded, and only then does Rustem discover his\nidentity. Matthew Arnold\u2019s poem has familiarised English readers with\nthis wonderful scene, and though the \u201catmosphere\u201d with which he\nsurrounded it, is rather classical than Eastern, his \u201cSohrab and Rustum\u201d\nremains the finest rendering of an Eastern story in English poetry. Some\nblind guide blamed him for \u201cplagiarising\u201d Firdusi: in a few points he\nmight have done wisely to follow his original still more closely; at\nleast, it is a pity that he did not enshrine in his own beautiful poem\nSohrab\u2019s touching words of comfort to his distracted father: \u201cNone is\nimmortal\u2014why this grief?\u201d Brave, spotless, kind, Firdusi\u2019s hero-victim\nwho \u201ccame as the lightning and went as the wind\u201d will always rank with\nthe highest in the House of the Youthful Dead.\n\nSohrab had a horse as well as Rustem. This sort of repetition or\nvariation which is often met with in Eastern literature pleases\nchildren, who like an incident much the better if they are already\nacquainted with it, but to the mature sense of the West it seems a fault\nin art. No doubt for this reason Matthew Arnold does not mention\nSohrab\u2019s horse, while doing full justice to Rakush. But connected with\nthe young man\u2019s charger there is a scene of the deepest human interest\nand pathos, when it is led back to his mourning, sonless mother who had\nwatched him ride forth on it, rejoicing in its strength and in his own.\nIt was chosen by him and saddled by him for the first time in his glad\nboyhood; now it is led back alone, with his arms and trappings hanging\nfrom the saddle-bows. In an agony of grief Tahmineh presses its hoofs to\nher breast and kisses head and face, covering them with her tears.\n\nThe mother dies after a year of ceaseless heartbreak; the father and\nslayer grieves with a strong man\u2019s mighty grief, but he lives to\nstruggle and fight. He and his Rakush have many more wondrous\nadventures, passing through enchantments and disenchantments and\nundergoing wounds and marvellous cures both of men and beast, till their\nhour too comes. Rustem had a base-born half-brother, named Shughad, who\nwas carefully brought up and wedded to a king\u2019s daughter, though the\nastrologers had foretold that he would bring ruin to his house. This\nevil genius invites his invincible kinsman to a day\u2019s hunting, having\nsecretly prepared hidden pits bristling with swords. The wise Rakush\nstops short at the brink of the first pit, refusing to advance; Rustem\nis stirred to anger and strikes his favourite, who, urged thus, falls\ninto the pit, but with superhuman energy, though cruelly cut about,\nemerges from it with his rider safely on his back. It is in vain, for\nanother and another pit awaits them\u2014seven times they come up, hacked\nabout with wounds, but on rising out of the seventh pit they both sink\ndying at the edge. Faintness clouds Rustem\u2019s brain; then, for a little\nspace, it grows clear and cool and he utters the accusing cry, \u201c_Thou,\nmy brother!_\u201d The wretch\u2019s answer is no defence of him\u2014there can exist\nnone\u2014but strangely, unexpectedly, in spite of the impure lips that speak\nit, it gives the justification of God\u2019s ways. \u201cGod has willed Rustem\u2019s\nend for all the blood he has shed.\u201d From his own stern faith with its\nSemitic roots, Firdusi took this great, solemn conception of\nblood-guiltiness which allowed no compromise. \u201cThou hast shed blood\nabundantly and hast made great wars.\u201d One thinks, too, of the wail of\none who was of modern men, the most like the old Hebrew type: \u201cAll I\nhave done,\u201d said Bismarck in his old age, \u201cis to cause many tears to\nflow.\u201d\n\nThe king, who is the father-in-law of Shughad, offers to send for a\nmagic balm to cure Rustem\u2019s wounds, but the hero will have none of it.\nHe is now quite collected, though his life-blood is ebbing away. In a\nquiet voice he asks Shughad to do him the kindness of stringing his bow\nand placing it in his hands, so that when dead he may be a scarecrow to\nkeep away wolves and wild beasts from devouring his body. With a hateful\nsmile of triumph Shughad complies; Rustem grasps the bow, and taking\nunerring aim lets go the arrow, which nails the traitor to the tree,\nwhither he rushed to hide himself. So Rustem dies, thanking the Almighty\nfor giving him the power to avenge his murder.\n\nThere are few better instances of the long survival of a traditional\nsentiment than the fact of the king\u2019s (or the chief\u2019s) stable being\nregarded in modern Persia as an inviolable sanctuary. This must have\noriginated in the veneration once felt for the horse. The misfortunes\nwhich befell the grandson of Nadir Shah were attributed to his having\nput to death a man who took refuge in his stable. No horse will carry to\nvictory a master who profanes his stable with bloodshed. Even political\noffenders or pretenders to the throne were safe if they could reach the\nstable for as long as they remained in it.\n\n\n------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\n\n\n\n XV\n\n ANIMALS IN EASTERN FICTION\n\n\nI WAS looking idly at the motley Damascus crowd behind whose outward\nstrangeness to my eyes I knew there lay a deeper strangeness of ideas,\nwhen in the middle of a clearing I saw a monkey in a red fez which began\nto go through its familiar tricks. I thought to myself, \u201cHow very near\nthat monkey seems to me!\u201d It was like the well-known figure of an old\nfriend. So it is with the animal-lore of Eastern fiction; it seems very\nnear to us; its heroes are our familiar friends. Perhaps we would lose\neverything in the treasure-house of Oriental tales sooner than the\nstories of beasts. If those stories had a hidden meaning which escapes\nus we are not troubled by their hidden meaning. In their obvious sense\nthey appeal to us directly, without any effort to call up conditions of\nlife and mind far removed from our own. We take them to our hearts and\nkeep them there.\n\nIndeed, the West liked the Eastern stories of beasts so well that it\nborrowed not a few without any acknowledgment. We all know that the\nWelsh dog, Gellert, whose grave is shown to this day, had a near\nrelative in the mungoose of a Chinese Buddhist story which exists in a\ncollection dating from the fifth century. The same motive reappears in\nthe _Panchatantra_, a Sanscrit collection to which is assigned a\nslightly later date. These are the earliest traces of it that have come\nto light, but its subsequent wanderings are endless. The theme does not\nvary much; a faithful animal saves a child from imminent peril: it is\nseen with marks of blood or signs of a struggle upon it, and on the\nsupposition that it has killed or hurt the child, it is killed before\nthe truth is discovered. The animal varies according to the locality,\nand amongst the other points of interest in this world-legend is that of\nreminding us of the universal diffusion of pet animals. We learn, too,\nwhich was the characteristically household animal with the people who\nre-tell the story: in Syria, Greece, Spain, as in Wales, and also\n(rather to our surprise) among the Jews, we hear of a dog. The weasel\ntribe prevails in India and China, the cat in Persia. Probably in India\nand in China dogs were not often admitted inside the houses; in a\nChinese analogous tale, of which I shall speak presently, there is a\ndog, but the incidents take place on the highway. The mungoose was the\ntraditional pet of India because its enmity to snakes must have gained\nfor it admittance into dwelling-places from very early times, and\nwherever man lives in domesticity with any animal that he does not look\nupon as food, he cannot save himself from becoming attached to it only a\nlittle less than he is attached to the human members of his household.\nTo this rule there are no exceptions.\n\nIn the matter of folk-tales, even when we seem to have a clue to their\norigin, it is rash to be dogmatic. It has been remarked that the origin\nof this story was probably Buddhist, because it is unquestionable that\nBuddhist monks purposely taught humanity to animals. Supposing that the\nstory was diffused with a fixed purpose over the vast area covered at\none time or another by Buddhism, it would have started with a wide base\nwhence to spread. Moreover, as I mentioned, we find it first in a\nBuddhist collection of stories. But I am far from sure that the story\ndid not exist\u2014nay, that the fact may not have happened\u2014long before\nGautama preached his humane morality. Why should not the fact have\nhappened over and over again? It is one of those stories that are more\ntrue than truth. I can tell a perfectly true tale which, though not\nquite the same as \u201cGellert\u2019s hound,\u201d deserves no less to go round the\nworld. A few years ago a man went out in a boat on a French river to\ndrown his dog. In mid stream he threw the dog into the water and began\nto row away. The dog followed and tried to clamber up into the boat. The\nman gave it some severe blows about the head with the oar, but the dog\nstill followed the boat. Then the man lost his temper and lost his\nbalance: just as he aimed what he thought would be the final blow he\ntumbled into the water, and as he did not know how to swim he was on the\npoint of being drowned. Then the dog played his part: he grasped the\nman\u2019s clothes with his teeth and held him up till assistance came. That\ndog was never drowned!\n\nThings are soon forgotten now, but if this had only happened on a\nChinese canal three thousand years ago we might still have been hearing\nabout it. More folk-tales arose in such a way than an unbelieving world\nsuspects.\n\nIn the Chinese Buddhist version of Gellert we are told that a very poor\nBrahman who had to beg his bread possessed a pet mungoose, which, as he\nhad no children, became as fondly loved as if it had been his son. How\ntrue is this touch which shows the love of animals as the _katharsis_ of\nthe heart-ache or heartbreak of the childless! But, by and by, to the\ngreat joy of the Brahman, his wife bore him a son; after this happy\nevent he cherished the mungoose even more than ever, for he said to\nhimself that it was the fact of his having treated it as if it had been\nhis child which had brought him the unhoped-for good luck of having a\nreal child of his own. One day the Brahman went out to beg, but before\nhe went out he told his wife to be sure and take good care of the child\nand carry it with her if she left the house even for a minute. The woman\nfed the child with cream and then remembered that she had to grind some\nrice; she went into the garden to grind it and forgot to take the little\nboy with her. After she was gone, a snake, attracted by the smell of the\ncream, crept quite close to where the child lay and was going to bite\nit, when the mungoose perceived what was going on and reflected: \u201cMy\nfather has gone out and my mother too and now this poisonous snake\nwishes to kill my little brother.\u201d So the mungoose attacked the\npoisonous snake and tore it into seven pieces. Then it thought that,\nsince it had killed the snake and saved the child, it ought to acquaint\nits father and mother of what had happened and rejoice their hearts.\nTherefore it went to the door and waited for them to return, its mouth\nstill covered with blood. Just then the Brahman came home and he was not\npleased to see his wife without the child in the out-house, where the\nmill was. Thus, though this is left for the hearer to infer, he was\nalready vexed and anxious, when he met the mungoose waiting by the door\nwith blood on its mouth. The thought rushed into his mind, \u201cThis\ncreature, being hungry, has slain and eaten the child! \u201cHe took up a\nstick and beat the mungoose to death. (Such a little thing, it is so\neasily killed!) After that he went into the house, where he found the\nbaby sitting up in his cradle playing merrily with his fingers, while\nthe seven pieces of the dead snake lay beside him! Sorrow filled the\nBrahman now; alas, for his folly! The faithful creature had saved his\nchild and he, thoughtless wretch that he was, had killed it!\n\nOnly in this version are we informed of just what the devoted animal\nthought; which may be a sign of its Buddhist origin. In the modern\nIndian variant, the mungoose, tied by a string, does not succeed in\ngetting free till after the child has been bitten by the snake with\nwhich he had been playing, thinking it a new toy. The cobra took the\nplay in good part till the child accidentally hurt it; then, angry with\nthe pain, it bit him in the neck. When the mungoose got loose the deed\nwas done and the cobra had slunk back into its hole. Off ran the\nmungoose into the jungle to find the antidote which the Indian natives\nbelieve that this creature always uses when it is itself bitten by\nsnakes. The mother comes in at the moment when the mungoose is returning\nwith the antidote: she sees the child lying motionless, and thinking\nthat the mungoose has killed it she seizes it and dashes it to the\nground. It quivers for a few seconds, then it dies. Only when it is\ndead, does the mother notice the snake-root which it still holds tightly\nin its mouth. She guesses the whole truth and quickly administers the\nantidote to the child, who recovers consciousness. The mungoose \u201chad\nbeen a great pet with all the children and was greatly mourned for.\u201d\n\nIn the Sanscrit version preserved in the _Panchatantra_ collection the\nmother has brought up an ichneumon with her only child, as if it had\nbeen his brother; nevertheless, a sort of fear has always haunted her\nthat the animal might hurt the child sooner or later. I must interrupt\nthe story to remark how often the inglorious Shakespeare of these poor\nlittle folk-tales traces with no mean art the psychological process\nwhich leads up to the tragic crisis. What more true to life than the\nobservation of the two opposing feelings balancing each other in the\nsame mind till some accident causes one of them to gain uncontrollable\nmastery?\n\nWhen the woman has killed her innocent little favourite she is bitterly\nunhappy, but instead of blaming her own hastiness, she says it was all\nher husband\u2019s fault: what business had he to go out begging, \u201cthrough a\ngreedy desire of profit,\u201d instead of minding the baby as she had told\nhim to do, while she went to the well to fetch water? And now the\nreprobate has caused the death of the ichneumon, the darling of the\nhouse!\n\nThe touching trait of the creature, which runs to its master or mistress\nafter saving the child, with the charming confidence and pride which any\nanimal shows when it knows that it deserves praise, appears in nearly\nall the versions. Prince Llewellyn\u2019s greyhound goes out to meet him \u201call\nbloody and _wagging his tail_.\u201d The ichneumon ran joyously to meet its\nmistress, and the cat, in the Persian version, came up to its master\n\u201crubbing against his legs.\u201d In the Persian tale the child\u2019s mother dies\nat its birth, and it is stated that she was very fond of the cat, which\nmade the man even more grieved that he had killed it.\n\nIn German folk-lore the story of the dog \u201cSultan\u201d sounds as if it were\ninvented by some happy-souled humorist who had the Llewellyn motive in\nhis mind, but who wanted to tell a merry tale instead of a sad one.\n\u201cSultan\u201d is so old that his master wishes to kill him, though much\nagainst the advice of his wife. So \u201cSultan\u201d consults a wolf of his\nacquaintance, who proposes the stratagem of pretending that he is going\nto eat the good people\u2019s child, while \u201cSultan\u201d pretends to come up just\nat the nick of time to save it. The plan is carried out with complete\nsuccess, and \u201cSultan\u201d lives out his days surrounded by respect and\ngratitude.\n\nThere are several Eastern tales which are of the same family as\nLlewellyn\u2019s hound, but in which the animal, instead of saving a child,\nconfers some other benefit on its possessor. In a Persian fable a king\nkills his falcon because it spilled a cup of water which he is about to\ndrink: of course, the water was really poisoned. A current folk-tale of\nBengal makes a horse the victim of its devotion in preventing its master\nfrom drinking poisonous water.\n\nRather different is the following Chinese tale, which is to be found,\ntold at more length, in Dr. Herbert H. Giles\u2019s delightful book, \u201cStrange\nStories from a Chinese Studio\u201d:\u2014\n\nThere was a man of Lu-ngan who had scraped together enough money to\nrelease his father from prison, where he was like to die of all the\nuntold miseries of Chinese durance. He got on a mule and set out for the\ntown where his father was languishing, taking the silver with him. When\nhe was well on his way, he was much annoyed to see that a black dog\nwhich belonged to the family was following him; he tried in vain to make\nit go back. After riding on for some time, he got off the mule to rest\nand he took the opportunity for throwing a large stone at the dog, which\nran away, but as soon as he was on the road again the dog trotted up and\ntook hold of the mule\u2019s tail, as if trying to stop it. The man beat it\noff with the whip, but it only ran round in front of the mule, and\nbarked frantically so as to impede its progress. The man now reflected,\n\u201cThis is a very bad omen,\u201d and he got fairly into a rage and beat the\ndog off with such violence that it did not come back. So he continued\nhis journey without further incidents, but when he reached the city in\nthe dark of the evening, what was not his despair on finding about half\nhis money gone! He did not doubt that he must have dropped it on the\nway, and after passing a night of terrible distress he remembered,\ntowards dawn, the strange way in which the dog behaved, and he began to\nthink that there might be some connexion between this and the loss of\nhis money. Directly the gates were open he retraced his steps along the\nroad, though he hardly hoped to find any clue to his loss, as the route\nwas traversed by many travellers. But at the spot where, on the previous\nday he dismounted from his mule to rest, he saw the dog stretched dead\non the ground, its hair still moist with perspiration, and when he\nlifted up the body by one of its ears, he found his lost silver safely\nconcealed underneath it! His gratitude was great, and he bought a\ncoffin, in which he placed the dog and then buried it. The place is\nknown as \u201cthe Grave of the Faithful Dog.\u201d\n\nIt is not true that every one in China eats dogs, but some do, and the\ntrade in such animals is a recognised business. There are several cat\nand dog restaurants at Canton. This unenviable habit gives rise to the\nstory of a merchant who had made a good stroke of business at Wu-hu and\nwas going home in a canal boat, when he noticed on the bank a butcher\nwho was tying up a dog previous to killing it. It is not stated if the\nmerchant had always a tender heart or if his good fortune in the town\nmade him wish to do a good turn to some living thing; anyhow, he\nproposed to buy the dog. The butcher was no fool; he guessed that the\ntrader would never leave the dog to its fate after thinking about\nrescuing it\u2014what dreadful sleepless nights such a proceeding would cost\nany of us! So he boldly asked a great deal more than the dog was worth,\nwhich was paid down, and the animal was untied and put on the boat with\nhis new master. Now it so happened that the boatman had been a brigand,\nand, though partially reformed, the feeling that he had on board a\ntraveller with a large sum of money was too strong a temptation for him.\nSo he stopped the boat by running it among the rushes and drew out a\nlong knife, with which he prepared to murder his passenger. The merchant\nbegged the brigand not to mutilate him or cut off his head, because such\ntreatment causes the victim to appear in the next world as no one would\nlike to. Brigands are generally religious, and this one was no\nexception; he was willing to oblige the merchant and tied him up, quite\nwhole, in a carpet, which he threw into the river. The dog, which had\nbeen looking on, was in the water in a moment, hugging and tugging at\nthe bundle till he got it to a shallow place. Then he barked and barked\ntill people came to see what was the matter, and they undid the carpet\nand found the trader still alive. The first thought of the rescued man\nwas to track the thief, for which purpose he started at once to go back\nto Wu-hu. At the time of starting, much to his distress, he missed the\ndog. On arriving at Wu-hu he hunted among the endless boats and shipping\nfor the boat by which he had travelled, but unfortunately he could see\nnothing of it, and at last he gave up the search and was going home with\na friend when what should he see but his lost dog, which barked in a\ncurious way as if to invite him to follow it. The merchant did so, and\nthe dog led him to a boat that was lying close to the quay. Into this\nboat the dog jumped and seized hold of one of the boatmen by the leg. In\nspite of blows the animal would not let go, and then the merchant, on\nlooking hard at the boatman, recognised him as the very man who tried to\nmurder him, though he had a nice new suit of clothes and a new boat. The\nthief was arrested and the money found at the bottom of the boat. \u201cTo\nthink,\u201d says the story-teller, \u201cthat a dog could show gratitude like\nthat!\u201d To which Dr. Giles adds that dogs in China are usually \u201cill-fed,\nbarking curs\u201d which, if valued as guardians of house and chattels, are\nstill despised. But beautiful moral qualities have the power to conquer\nloathing, and even in those countries where the dog is regarded\ngenerally with aversion it is still the chosen type of sublime fidelity\nand love.\n\nI can never think of Chinese dogs without remembering a story told by my\ncousin, Lord Napier of Magdala, of an incident which, he said, gave him\nmore pain than anything that had ever happened to him in his life. When\nhe was in China he chanced to admire a dog, which was immediately\noffered to him as a gift. He could not accept the offer, and next day he\nheard that the owner of the dog with all his family, five persons, had\ndrowned himself in a well. Probably they imagined that he was offended\nby their offering him a mere dog.\n\nIn India, to return to that home of legend, the two most sublime Beast\nStories are to be found in the Great Epic of the Hindu race, the\n_Mahabharata_. They are both stories of the faithfulness of man to\nbeast, and they afford consolation for the sorry figure presented by the\nhuman actor in the martyred mungoose tale. The first of these stories is\nthe legend of the Hawk and the Pigeon. A pigeon pursued by a hawk flies\nfor protection to the precinct of sacrifice, where a very pious king is\nabout to make his offering. It clings to the king\u2019s breast, motionless\nwith fright. Then up comes the hawk, which, perching on a near\nvantage-ground, begins to argue the case. All the princes of the earth\ndeclare the king to be a magnanimous chief; why, therefore, should he\nfly in the face of natural laws? Why keep its destined food from the\nhawk, which feels very hungry? The king answers that the pigeon came\nflying to him, overcome by fear and seeking to save its life. How can he\npossibly give it up? A trembling bird which enters his presence begging\nfor its life? How ignoble it would be to abandon it! Surely it would be\na mortal sin! In fact, that is exactly what the Law calls it!\n\nThe hawk retorts that all creatures must eat to live. You can sustain\nlife on very little, but how are you going to live on nothing at all? If\nthe hawk has nothing to eat, his vital breath will depart this very day\n\u201con the road where nothing more affrights.\u201d If he dies, his wife and\nchildren will die too for want of their protector. Such an eventuality\ncannot be contemplated by the Law: a law which contradicts itself is a\nvery bad law and cannot be in accordance with eternal truth. In\ntheological difficulties one has to consider what seems just and\nreasonable and interpret the point in that sense.\n\n\u201cThere is a great deal to be said for what you say, best of fowls,\u201d\nreplies the king, who is impressed by the hawk\u2019s forensic skill and\nbegins to think him a person not to be trifled with; \u201cyou are very well\ninformed; in fact, I am inclined to think that you know everything. How\n_can_ you suppose, then, that it would be a decent thing to give up a\ncreature that seeks refuge? Of course, I understand that with you it is\na question of a dinner, but something much more substantial than this\npigeon can be prepared for you immediately; for instance, a wild boar,\nor a gazelle or a buffalo\u2014anything that you like.\u201d\n\nThe hawk answers that he never, by any chance, touches meat of that\nsort: why does the king talk to him about such unsuitable diet? By an\nimmutable rule hawks feed on pigeons, and this pigeon is the very thing\nhe wants and to which he has a perfect right. In a delicate metaphor he\nhints that the king had better leave off talking nonsense.\n\nThe king, who sees that arguments are no good, now declares that\nanything and everything he will give the hawk by way of compensation,\nbut that as to the pigeon, he will not give it up, so it is no good\ngoing on discussing the matter.\n\nThe hawk says, in return, that if the king is so tenderly solicitous on\nthe pigeon\u2019s account, the best thing he can do is to cut out a piece of\nhis own flesh and weigh it in the scales with the pigeon\u2014when the\nbalance is equal, then and then only will the hawk be satisfied. \u201cAs you\nask that as a favour,\u201d says the king, \u201cyou shall have what you wish\u201d\u2014a\nconsent which seems to contain a polite hint that the hawk might have\nbeen a little less arrogant, for in the hawk\u2019s demand there was no\nmention of favours.\n\nThe king himself cuts out the piece of his flesh (no one else would have\ndared do it). But, alas! when it is weighed with the pigeon, the pigeon\nweighs the most! The king went on cutting pieces of his flesh and\nthrowing them into the scales, but the pigeon was still the heaviest. At\nlast, all lacerated as he was, he threw himself into the scales. Then,\nwith a blast of revelation, the esoteric sense of the story is made\nplain. There is something grand in the sudden antithesis.\n\nThe hawk said: \u201cI am Indra, O prince, thou that knowest the Law! And\nthis pigeon is Agni! Since thou hast torn thy flesh from thy limbs, O\nthou Prince of Men, thy glory shall shine throughout all worlds. As long\nas there be men on earth they will remember thee, O king. As long as the\neternal realms endure thy fame shall not grow dim.\u201d\n\nSo the gods returned to heaven, to which the pious Wusinara likewise\nascended with his renovated body, luminously bright. He needs not to\ncomplete his sacrifice\u2014himself has he offered up.\n\nThe listeners (Eastern stories are for listeners, not for readers) are\nexhorted to raise their eyes and behold with the mind\u2019s vision that pure\nand holy abode where the righteous dwell with the gods in glory\nineffable.\n\nThis beautiful fable belongs to the general class of the ancient stories\nof Divine visitants, but it has a more direct affinity with the lovely\nlegends of the Middle Ages, in which pious people who give their beds to\nlepers or others suffering from loathsome disease find that it was\nChrist they harboured. Though the story of the Hawk and the Pigeon may\nbe used simply as a fairy tale, the moral of it is what forms the\nessential kernel of other-worldly religions. Through the mazes of Indian\nthought emerges the constant conviction\u2014like a Divine sign-post\u2014that\nmartyrdom is redemption. The gods themselves are less than the man who\nresigns everything for what his conscience tells him to be right. Indra\nbows before Wusinara and seeks to learn the Law from him. India\u2019s gods\nare Nature-gods, and Nature teaches no such lesson:\u2014\n\n \u201cThere is no effort on _my_ brow\u2014\n I do not strive, I do not weep,\n I rush with the swift spheres and glow\n For joy, and when I will, I sleep.\u201d\n\nHigher religions are a criticism of Nature: they \u201coccupy the sphere that\nrational interpretation seeks to occupy and fails, and fails the more\nthe more it seeks,\u201d and if they change with the change of moral\naspirations they are still the passionate endeavour of the soul to\nsatisfy them.\n\nThe Buddhists took the story of the Hawk and the Pigeon and adapted it\nto their own teaching. Indra, chief of the gods, feels that his god-life\nis waning\u2014for the gods of India labour, too, under the sense of that\nmysterious fatality of doom which haunted Olympus and Walhalla. Indra,\nknowing his twilight to be near, desired to consult a Buddha, but there\nwas not one at that time upon the earth. There was, however, a virtuous\nking of the name of Sivi, and Indra decides to put him to the ordeal,\nwhich forms the subject of the other story, because, if he comes out\nscathless, he will be qualified to become a full Buddha. King Sivi had a\nsevere struggle with himself, but he conquered his weakness, and when he\nfeels the scale sink under him he is filled with indescribable joy and\nheaven and earth shake, which always happens when a Buddha is coming\ninto existence. A crowd of gods descended and rested on the air: the\nsight of Sivi\u2019s endurance caused them to weep tears that fell like rain\nmingled with divine flowers, which the gods threw down on the voluntary\nvictim.\n\nIndra puts off the form of a dove and resumes his god-like shape. What,\nhe asks, does the king desire? Would he be universal monarch? Would he\nbe king of the Genii? _Would he be Indra?_ There is a fine touch in this\noffer from the god of his godship to the heroic man, and, like most\nBuddhist amplifications of older legends, it might be justified from\nBrahmanical sources, as by incredible self-denial it was always held to\nbe possible to dethrone a god and put oneself in his place. But Sivi\nreplies that the only state he craves is that of a Buddha. Indra\ninquires if no shade of regret crosses the king\u2019s mind when he feels the\nanguish reaching to his bones? The king replies, \u201cI regret nothing.\u201d\n\u201cHow can I believe it,\u201d says Indra, \u201cwhen thy body trembles and shivers\nso that thou canst hardly speak?\u201d Sivi repeats that from beginning to\nend he has felt no shadow of regret; all has happened as he wished. In\nproof that he speaks truth, may his body be as whole as before! He had\nscarcely spoken when the miracle was effected, and in the same instant\nKing Sivi became a Buddha.\n\nThere is a Russian folk-tale which seems to belong to this cycle. A\nhorse which was ill-treated and half-starved saves the child of one of\nhis masters from a bear. He has a friend, a cat, who is also\nhalf-starved. After he has saved the child he is better fed and he gives\nthe cat part of his food. The masters notice this and again ill-treat\nhim. He resolves to kill himself so that the cat may eat him, but the\ncat will not eat her friend and resolves to die likewise.\n\nThe second great story of man and beast contained in the _Mahabharata_\nis that of Yudishtira and his dog. Accompanied by his wife and by his\nbrethren, the saintly king started upon a pilgrimage of unheard-of\ndifficulty which he alone was able to complete, as, on account of some\nslight imperfections that rendered them insufficiently meritorious to\nreach the goal, the others died upon the way. Only a dog, which followed\nYudishtira from his house, remains with him still. At the final stage he\nis met by Indra, who invites him to mount his car and ascend to heaven\nin the flesh. The king asks if his brethren and the \u201ctender king\u2019s\ndaughter,\u201d his wife, are to be left lying miserably upon the road? Indra\npoints out that the souls of these have already left their mortal coil\nand are even now in heaven, where Yudishtira will find them when he\nreaches it in his corporeal form. Then the king says, \u201cAnd the dog, O\nlord of what Is and Is to be\u2014the dog which has been faithful to the end,\nmay I bring him? It is not my nature to be hard.\u201d Indra says that since\nthe king has this day obtained the rank of a god together with\nimmortality and unbounded happiness, he had better not waste thoughts on\na dog. Yudishtira answers that it would be an abominably unworthy act to\nforsake a faithful servant in order to obtain felicity and fortune.\nIndra objects that no dogs are allowed in heaven; what is a dog? A\nrough, ill-mannered brute which often runs away with the sacrifices\noffered in the temples. Let Yudishtira only reflect what wretched\ncreatures dogs are, and he will give up all idea of taking his dog to\nheaven. Yudishtira still asserts that the abandonment of a servant is an\nenormous sin; it is as bad as murdering a Brahman. He is not going to\nforsake his dog whatever the god may say. Besides, it is not violent at\nall, but a gentle and devoted creature, and now that it is so weak and\nthin from all it has undergone on the journey and yet so eager to live,\nhe would not leave it, even if it cost him his life. That is his final\nresolve.\n\nArguing in rather a feminine way, Indra returns to the charge that dogs\nare rough, rude brutes and quite ignores the good personal character\ngiven to this dog by its master. He goes on to twit Yudishtira with\nhaving abandoned his beloved Draupadi and his brothers on the road down\nthere, while he makes all this stand about a dog. He winds up with\nsaying, \u201cYou must be quite mad to-day.\u201d\n\nRepelling the disingenuous charge of abandoning his wife and brethren,\nYudishtira remarks with dignity that he left not them but their dead\nbodies on the road: he could not bring them to life again. He might have\nsaid that Indra himself had pointed out to him this very fact. The\nrefusal of asylum, the murder of a woman, the act of kidnapping a\nsleeping Brahman, the act of deceiving a friend\u2014there is nothing, says\nYudishtira, to choose between these four things and the abandonment of a\nfaithful servant.\n\nThe trial is over and the god admits his defeat. \u201cSince thou hast\nrefused the divine chariot with the words, \u2018This dog is devoted,\u2019 it is\nclear, O Prince of Men, that there is no one in heaven equal to thee.\u201d\nYudishtira, alone among mortals, ascends to bliss in his own body. And\nthe dog\u2014what of the dog? One is sorry to hear that the dog vanished and\nin his place stood Yama, King of Death.\n\nTo us, far away from the glamour of Eastern skies, the\ngod-out-of-the-machine or out of the beast-skin is not always a welcome\napparition. We cannot help being glad when, sometimes, the animals just\nremain what they are, as in the charming Indian fable of the Lion and\nthe Vulture. A lion who lived in a forest became great friends with a\nmonkey. One day the monkey asked the lion to look after its two little\nones while it was away. But the lion happened to go to sleep and a\nvulture that was hovering overhead seized both the young monkeys and\ntook them up into a tree. When the lion awoke he saw that his charges\nwere gone, and gazing about he perceived the vulture holding them tight\non the top branches of the nearest tree. In great distress of mind the\nlion said, \u201cThe monkey placed its two children under my care, but I was\nnot watchful enough and now you have carried them off. In this way I\nhave missed keeping my word. I do beg you to give them back; I am the\nking of beasts, you are the chief of birds: our nobility and our power\nare equal. It would be only fair to let me have them.\u201d Alas!\ncompliments, though they will go very far, do little to persuade an\nempty stomach. \u201cYou are totally unacquainted with the circumstances of\nthe case,\u201d replied the vulture; \u201cI am simply dying of hunger: what is\nthe equality or difference of rank to me?\u201d Then the lion with his claws\ntore out some of his own flesh to satisfy the vulture\u2019s appetite and so\nransomed the little monkeys.\n\nIn this fable we have the Hawk and the Pigeon motive with the miraculous\nkept in but the mythological left out.\n\nLike a great part of the Buddhist stories of which the Lion and the\nVulture is one, we owe its preservation to the industrious Chinese\ntranslator. In the same work that contains it, the _Tatchi-lou-lun_, we\nare told how, when a bird laid her eggs on the head of the first Buddha\nwhich she mistook for the branch of a tree, he plunged himself into a\ntrance so as not to move till the eggs were hatched and the young birds\nhad flown. The Buddha\u2019s humanity is yet again shown by the story of how\nhe saved the forest animals that were fleeing from a conflagration. The\njungle caught fire and the flames spread to the forest, which burnt\nfiercely on three sides; one side was safe, but it was bounded by a\ngreat river. The Buddha saw the animals huddling in terror by the\nwater\u2019s edge. Full of pity, he took the form of a gigantic stag and\nplacing his fore-feet on the further bank and his hind-feet on the\nother, he made a bridge over which the creatures could pass. His skin\nand flesh were cruelly wounded by their feet, but love helped him to\nbear the pain. When all the other animals had passed over, and when the\nstag\u2019s powers were all but gone, up came a panting hare. The stag made\none more supreme effort; the hare was saved, but hardly had it crossed,\nwhen the stag\u2019s backbone broke and it fell into the water and died. The\nauthor of the fable may not have known that hares swim very well, so\nthat the sacrifice was not necessary, unless, indeed, this hare was too\nexhausted to take to the water.\n\nWe can picture the first Buddhist missionaries telling such stories over\nthe vast Chinese empire to a race which had not instinctively that\ntender feeling for animals which existed from the most remote times in\nthe Indian peninsula. A good authority attributes the present Chinese\nsensitiveness about animals wholly to those early teachers.\n\nA Sanscrit story akin to the preceding ones tells how a saint in the\nfirst stage of Buddhahood was walking in the mountains with his disciple\nwhen he saw in a cavern in the rock a tigress and her newly-born little\nones. She was thin and starving and exhausted by suffering, and she cast\nunnatural glances on her children as they pressed close to her,\nconfident in her love and heedless of her cruel growls. Notwithstanding\nhis usual self-control, the saint trembled with emotion at the sight.\nTurning to his disciple, he cried, \u201cMy son, my son, here is a tigress,\nwhich, in spite of maternal instinct, is being driven by hunger to\ndevour her little ones. Oh! dreadful cruelty of self-love, which makes a\nmother feed upon her children!\u201d\n\nHe bids the young man fly in search of food, but while he is gone he\nreflects that it may be too late when he returns, and to save the mother\nfrom the dreadful crime of killing her children, and the little ones\nfrom the teeth of their famished mother, he flings himself down the\nprecipice. Hearing the noise, and curious as to what it might mean, the\ntigress is turned from the thought of killing her young ones, and on\nlooking round she sees the body of the saint and devours it.\n\nThe most remarkable of all the many Buddhist animal stories is that of\nthe Banyan Deer, which is in the rich collection of old-world lore known\nas the _J\u0101taka Book_. The collection is not so much an original Buddhist\nwork as the Buddhist redaction of much older tales. It was made in about\nthe third century B.C. The Banyan Deer story had the additional interest\nthat illustrations of it were discovered among the bas-reliefs of the\nstupa of Bharhut. I condense the story from the version of it given in\nProfessor T. W. Rhys Davids\u2019 \u201cBuddhist India.\u201d\n\nIn the king\u2019s park there were two herds of deer, and every day either\nthe king or his cook hunted them for venison. So every day a great many\nwere harassed and wounded for one that was killed. Then the golden-hued\nBanyan Deer, who was the monarch of one herd, went to the Branch Deer,\nwho was king of the other herd, and proposed an arrangement by which\nlots were to be cast daily, and one deer on whom the lot fell should go\nand offer himself to the cook, voluntarily laying his head on the block.\nIn this way there would be no unnecessary suffering and slaughter.\n\n[Illustration:\n\n _Photo:_ _Griggs._\n THE BANYAN DEER.\n (_From \u201cSt\u00fbpa of Bharhut,\u201d by General Cunningham._)]\n\nThe somewhat lugubrious proposition met with assent, and all seems to\nhave gone well till one day the lot fell to a doe of the Branch king\u2019s\nherd, who was expecting soon to become a mother. She begged her king to\nrelieve her of the duty, as it would mean that two at once should\nsuffer, which could never have been intended. But with harsh words the\nBranch king bade her be off to the block. Then the little doe went\npiteously to the Banyan king as a last hope. No sooner had he heard her\ntale than he said he would look to the matter, and what he did was to go\nstraight to the block himself and lay his royal head upon it. But as the\nking of the country had ordered that the monarchs of both herds should\nbe spared, the cook was astonished to see King Banyan with his head on\nthe block, and went off in a hurry to tell his lord. Mounted in a\nchariot with all his men around him, the sovereign rode straight to the\nplace. Then he asked his friend, the king of the deer, why had he come\nthere? Had he not granted him his life? The Banyan Deer told him all.\nThe heart of the king of men was touched, and he commanded the deer to\nrise up and go on his way, for he gave him his life and hers also to the\ndoe. But the Banyan Deer asked how it would be with all the others: were\ntwo to be saved and the rest left to their peril? The king of men said\nthat they too should be respected. Even then the Banyan Deer had more to\nask: he pleaded for the safety of all living, feeling things, and the\nking of men granted his prayer. (What will not a man grant when his\nheart is touched by some act of pure abnegation?)\n\nThere is a curious epilogue to the story. The doe gave birth to a most\nbeautiful fawn, which went playing with the herd of the Branch Deer. To\nit the mother said:\u2014\n\n \u201cFollow rather the Banyan Deer,\n Cultivate not the Branch!\n Death with the Banyan were better far\n Than with the Branch long life.\u201d\n\nThe verse is haunting in its vagueness, as a music which reaches us from\nfar away. \u201cFollow rather the Banyan Deer!\u201d ... follow the ideal, follow\nthe merciful, he who loses his life shall find it.\n\nThe Indian hermit of whatsoever sect has always been, and is still, good\nfriends with animals, and when he can, he gives asylum to as many as he\nis able, around his hermitage. This fact, which is familiar to all,\nbecomes the groundwork of many stories. One of the best is the elaborate\nChinese Buddhist tale of Sama, an incarnation of Buddha, who chose to be\nborn as a son to two old, blind, childless folks, in order to take care\nof their forlornness. When the child was ten years old he begged his\nparents respectfully to go with him into the solitary mountains where\nthey might practise the life of religious persons who have forsaken the\nworld. His parents agreed; they had been thinking about becoming hermits\nbefore his birth, but that happy event made them put the thought away.\nNow they were quite willing to go with him. So they gave their worldly\ngoods to the poor and followed where he led.\n\n[Illustration:\n\n _Photo:_ _Mansell._\n EGYPTIAN FOWLING SCENE.\n British Museum.\n (_Mural painting._)]\n\nThere is a beautiful description of the life in the mountains. Sama made\na shelter of leaves and branches, and brought his old parents sweet\nfruits and cool water\u2014all that they needed. The birds and beasts of the\nforest, showing no fear, delighted the blind couple with their song and\nfriendship, and all the creatures came at Sama\u2019s call and followed him\nabout. Herds of deer and feathered fowl drank by the river\u2019s bank while\nhe drew water. Unhappily one day the king of Kasi was out hunting in\nthose wilds and he saw the birds and the deer, but Sama he did not see\nand an arrow he aimed at the herd pierced the boy\u2019s body. The wounded\nboy said to the king, \u201cThey kill an elephant for its ivory teeth, a\nrhinoceros for its horn, a kingfisher for its feathers, a deer for its\nskin, but why should I be killed?\u201d\n\nThe king dismounted, and asked him who he was\u2014consorting with the wild\nherds of the forest. Sama told him that he was only a hermit boy, living\nan innocent life with his blind parents. No tiger or wolf had harmed\nthem, and now the arrow of his king laid him low.\n\nThe forest wailed; the wild beasts and birds, the lions, tigers, and\nwolves uttered dismal cries. \u201cHark, how the beasts of the forest cry!\u201d\nSaid the old couple to one another, \u201cNever before have we heard it so.\nHow long our son has been gone!\u201d\n\nMeanwhile, the king, overcome by sorrow and remorse, tried in vain to\ndraw the arrow from the boy\u2019s breast. The birds flew round and round\nscreaming wildly; the king trembled with fear. Sama said, \u201cYour Majesty\nis not to blame; I must have done ill in a former life, and now suffer\njustly for it: I do not grieve for myself but for my blind parents ...\nwhat will they do? May heavenly guardians protect them!\u201d\n\nThen the king said, \u201cMay I undergo the torments of hell for a hundred\n\u00e6ons, but O! may this youth live!\u201d It was not to be; Sama expired, while\nall the wood birds flocking together tried tenderly to staunch the blood\nflowing from his breast.\n\nI cannot tell the whole story, which has a strong suggestion of some\npoetic fancy of Maeterlinck. In the end Sama is brought back to life,\nand the eyes of his parents are opened. The king is admonished to return\nto his dominions and no longer take life in the chase.\n\nIn a Jaina hermit story a king goes hunting with a great attendance of\nhorses, elephants, chariots, and men on foot. He pursues the deer on\nhorseback, and, keen on his sport, he does not notice, as he aims the\narrow, that the frightened creature is fleeing to a holy ascetic who is\nwise in the study of sacred things. Of a sudden, he beholds the dead\ndeer and the holy man standing by it. A dreadful fear seizes the king:\nhe might have killed the monk! He gets off his horse, bows low, and\nprays to be forgiven. The venerable saint was plunged in thought and\nmade no answer; the king grew more and more alarmed at his silence.\n\u201cAnswer me, I pray, Reverend Sir,\u201d he said. \u201cBe without fear, O king,\u201d\nreplied the monk, \u201cbut grant safety to others also. In this transient\nworld of living things, why are you prone to cruelty?\u201d Why should the\nking cling to kingly power, since one day he must part with everything?\nLife and beauty pass, wife and children, friends and kindred\u2014they will\nfollow no man in death: what do follow him are his deeds, good or evil.\nWhen he heard that, the king renounced his kingdom and became an\nascetic. \u201cA certain nobleman who had turned monk said to him, \u2018As you\nlook so happy, you must have peace of mind.\u2019\u201d\n\nIt may be a wrong conception of life that makes men seek rest on this\nside of the grave, but one can well believe that the finding of it\nbrings a happiness beyond our common ken. For one thing, he who lives\nwith Nature surely never knows _ennui_. The most marvellous of dramatic\npoems unfolds its pages before his eyes. Nor does he know loneliness;\neven one little creature in a prisoner\u2019s cell gives a sense of\ncompanionship, and the recluse in the wild has the society of all the\nfurred and feathered hosts. The greatest poet of the later literature of\nIndia, K\u00e1lid\u00e1sa, draws an exquisite picture of the surroundings of an\nIndian heritage:\u2014\n\n\u201cSee under yon trees the hallowed grains which have been scattered on\nthe ground, while the tender female parrots were feeding their unfledged\nyoung ones in their pendant nests.... Look at the young fawns, which,\nhaving acquired confidence in man, and accustomed themselves to the\nsound of his voice, frisk at pleasure, without varying their course.\nSee, too, where the young roes graze, without apprehension from our\napproach, on the lawn before yonder garden, where the tops of the\nsacrificial grass, cut for some religious rite, are sprinkled round.\u201d[9]\n\nFootnote 9:\n\n Sir William Jones\u2019s translation.\n\nIn the play of _Sacontala_\u2014which filled Goethe with a delight\ncrystallised in his immortal quatrain\u2014no scene is so impressed by\ngenuine feeling and none so artistic in its admirable simplicity as that\nin which the heroine takes leave of her childhood\u2019s pet.\n\nThe hermit, who has been the foster-father of Sacontala, is dismissing\nher upon her journey to the exalted bridegroom who awaits her. At the\nlast moment she says to him: \u201cMy father, see you there my pet deer,\ngrazing close to the hermitage? She expects soon to fawn, and even now\nthe weight of the little ones she carries hinders her movements. Do not\nforget to send me word when she becomes a mother.\u201d\n\nThe hermit, Canna, promises that it shall be done; then as Sacontala\nmoves away, she feels herself drawn back, and turning round, she says,\n\u201cWhat can this be fastened to my dress?\u201d\n\nCanna answers:\u2014\n\n \u201cMy daughter,\n It is the little fawn, thy foster child.\n Poor helpless orphan! It remembers well\n How with a mother\u2019s tenderness and love\n Thou didst protect it, and with grains of rice\n From thine own hand didst daily nourish it,\n And ever and anon when some sharp thorn\n Had pierced its mouth, how gently thou didst tend\n The bleeding wound and pour in healing balm.\n The grateful nursling clings to its protectress,\n Mutely imploring leave to follow her.\u201d\n\nSacontala replies, weeping, \u201cMy poor little fawn, dost thou ask to\nfollow an unhappy wretch who hesitates not to desert her companions?\nWhen thy mother died, soon after thy birth, I supplied her place and\nreared thee with my own hands, and now that thy second mother is about\nto leave thee, who will care for thee? My father, be thou a mother to\nher. My child, go back and be a daughter to my father!\u201d\n\n * * * * *\n\nIt is the fatality of the dramatist that he cannot stamp with truth\nsentiments which are not sure of a response from his audience: he must\nstrike the keyboard of his race. We can imagine how thoroughly an Indian\naudience would enter into the sentiment of this charming scene. To the\nlittle Indian girl, who was still only a child of thirteen or fourteen,\nthe favourite animal did not appear as a toy, or even as a simple\nplaymate. It was the object of grave and thoughtful care, and it\nreceived the first outpouring of what would one day be maternal love.\n\n\n------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\n\n\n\n XVI\n\n THE GROWTH OF MODERN IDEAS ON ANIMALS\n\n\nTHE last age of antiquity was an age of yeast. Ideas were in\nfermentation; religious questions came to be regarded as\n\u201cinteresting\u201d\u2014just as they are now. The spirit of inquiry took the place\nof placid acceptance on the one hand, and placid indifference on the\nother. It was natural that there should be a rebound from the effort of\nAugustus to re-order religion on an Imperial, conventional, and\nunemotional basis. Then, too, Rome, which had never been really Italian\nexcept in the sublime previsions of Virgil, grew every day more\ncosmopolitan: the denizens of the discovered world found their way\nthither on business, for pleasure, as slaves\u2014the influence of these last\nnot being the least important factor, though its extent and character\nare not easy to define. Everything tended to foment a religious unrest\nwhich took the form of one of those \u201creturns to the East\u201d that are ever\ndestined to recur: the spiritual sense of the Western world became\nOrientalised. The worship of Isis and Serapis and much more of Mithra\nproved to be more exciting than the worship of the Greek and Roman gods\nwhich represented Nature and law, while the new cults proposed to raise\nthe veil on what transcends natural perception. No doubt the atmosphere\nof the East itself favoured their rapid development; the traveller in\nNorth Africa must be struck by the extraordinary frequency with which\nthe symbols of Mithraism recur in the sculpture and mosaics of that once\ngreat Roman dependency. Evidently the birthland of St. Augustine bred in\nthe matter-of-fact Roman colonist the same nostalgia for the Unknowable\nwhich even now a lonely night under the stars of the Sahara awakes in\nthe dullest European soul. Personal immortality as a paramount doctrine;\na further life more real than this one; ritual purification, redemption\nby sacrifice, mystical union with deity; these were among the un-Roman\nand even anti-Roman conceptions which lay behind the new, strange\npropaganda, and prepared the way for the diffusion of Christianity. With\nthe Italian peasants who clung to the unmixed older faith no progress\nwas made till persecution could be called in as an auxiliary.\n\n[Illustration:\n\n _Photo:_ _Mansell._\n ASSYRIAN LION AND LIONESS IN PARADISE PARK.\n British Museum.]\n\nIn such a time it was a psychological certainty that among the other\nEastern ideas which were coming to the fore, would be those ideas about\nanimals which are roughly classed under the head of Pythagoreanism. The\napostles of Christ in their journeys East or West might have met a\nsingular individual who was carrying on an apostolate of his own, the\none clear and unyielding point of which was the abolition of animal\nsacrifices. This was Apollonius, of Tyana, our knowledge of whom is\nderived from the biography, in part perhaps fanciful, written by\nPhilostratus in the third century to please the Empress Julia Domna, who\nwas interested in occult matters. Apollonius worked wonders as well\nattested as those, for instance, of the Russian Father John, but he\nseems to have considered his power the naturally produced result of an\naustere life and abstinence from flesh and wine which is a thoroughly\nBuddhist or Jaina theory. He was a theosophist who refrained from\nattacking the outward forms and observances of established religion when\nthey did not seem to him either to be cruel or else incongruous to the\ndegree of preventing a reverential spirit. He did not entirely\nunderstand that this degree is movable, any more than do those persons\nwho want to substitute Gregorian chants for opera airs in rural Italian\nchurches. He did not mind the Greek statues which appealed to the\nimagination by suggestions of beauty, but he blamed the Egyptians for\nrepresenting deity as a dog or an ibis; if they disliked images of stone\nwhy not have a temple where there were no images of any kind\u2014where all\nwas left to the inner vision of the worshipper? In which question,\nalmost accidentally, Apollonius throws out a hint of the highest form of\nspiritual worship.\n\n[Illustration:\n\n _Photo:_ _Alinari._\n LAMBS.\n (_Relief on fifth century tomb at Ravenna._)]\n\nThe keenly intellectual thinkers whom we call the Fathers of the Church\nsaw that the majority of the ideas then agitating men\u2019s minds might find\na quietus in Christian dogma which suited them a great deal better than\nthe vague and often grotesque shape they had worn hitherto. But there\nwas a residuum of which they felt an instinctive fear, and peculiar\nnotions about animals had the ill-luck of being placed at the head of\nthese. It could not have been a fortunate coincidence that two of the\nmost prominent men who held them in the early centuries were declared\nfoes of the new faith\u2014Celsus and Porphyry.\n\nWhen the Church triumphed, the treatise written by Celsus would have\nbeen no doubt entirely destroyed like other works of the same sort, had\nnot Origen made a great number of quotations from it for the purpose of\nconfutation. Celsus was no _born\u00e9_ disputant after the fashion of the\nOctavius of Minucius, but a man of almost encyclop\u00e6dic learning; if he\nwas a less fair critic than he held himself to be, it was less from want\nof information than from want of that sympathy which is needful for true\ncomprehension. The inner feeling of such a man towards the Christian\nSectaries was not near so much that of a Torquemada in regard to\nheretics as that of an old-fashioned Tory upholder of throne and altar\ntowards dissent fifty years ago. It was a feeling of social aloofness.\n\nYet Celsus wished to be fair, and he had studied religions to enough\npurpose not to condemn as delusion or untruth everything that a\nsuperficial adversary would have rejected at once; for instance, he was\nready to allow that the appearances of Christ to His disciples after the\nCrucifixion might be explained as psychical phenomena. Possibly he\nbelieved that truth, not falsehood, was the ultimate basis of all\nreligions as was the belief of Apollonius before him. In some respects\nCelsus was more unprejudiced than Apollonius; this can be observed in\nhis remarks on Egyptian zoomorphism; it causes surprise, he says, when\nyou go inside one of the splendid Egyptian temples to find for divinity\na cat, a monkey or a crocodile, but to the initiated they are symbols\nwhich under an allegorical veil turn people to honour imperishable\nideas, not perishable animals as the vulgar suppose.\n\nIt may have been his recondite researches which led Celsus to take up\nthe question of the intelligence of animals and the conclusions to be\ndrawn from it. He only touches lightly on the subject of their origin;\nhe seems to lean towards the theory that the soul, life, mind, only, is\nmade by God, the corruptible and passing body being a natural growth or\nperhaps the handiwork of inferior spirits. He denied that reason\nbelonged to man alone, and still more strongly that God created the\nuniverse for man rather than for the other animals. Only absurd pride,\nhe says, can engender such a thought. He knew very well that this, far\nfrom being a new idea, was the normal view of the ancient world from\nAristotle to Cicero; the distinguished men who disagreed with it had\nnever won more than a small minority over to their opinion. Celsus takes\nEuripides to task for saying\u2014\n\n \u201cThe sun and moon are made to serve mankind.\u201d\n\nWhy mankind? he asks; why not ants and flies? Night serves them also for\nrest and day for seeing and working. If it be said that we are the king\nof animals because we hunt and catch them or because we eat them, why\nnot say that we are made for them because they hunt and catch us?\nIndeed, they are better provided than we, for while we need arms and\nnets to take them and the help of several men and dogs, Nature furnishes\nthem with the arms they require, and we are, as it were, made dependent\non them. You want to make out that God gave you the power to take and\nkill wild animals, but at the time when there were no towns or\ncivilisation or society or arms or nets, animals probably caught and\ndevoured men while men never caught animals. In this way, it looks more\nas if God subjected man to animals than _vice vers\u00e2_. If men seem\ndifferent from animals because they build cities, make laws, obey\nmagistrates and rulers, you ought to note that this amounts to nothing\nat all, since ants and bees do just the same. Bees have their \u201ckings\u201d;\nsome command, others obey; they make war, win battles, take prisoner the\nvanquished; they have their towns and quarters; their work is regulated\nby fixed periods, they punish the lazy and cowardly\u2014at least they expel\nthe drones. As to ants, they practise the science of social economy just\nas well as we do; they have granaries which they fill with provisions\nfor the winter; they help their comrades if they see them bending under\nthe weight of a burden; they carry their dead to places which become\nfamily tombs; they address each other when they meet: whence it follows\nthat they never lose their way. We must conclude, therefore, that they\nhave complete reasoning powers and common notions of certain general\ntruths, and that they have a language and know how to express fortuitous\nevents. If some one, then, looked down from the height of heaven on to\nthe earth, what difference would he see between our actions and those of\nants and bees? If man is proud of knowing magical secrets, serpents and\neagles know a great deal more, for they use many preservatives against\npoisons and diseases, and are acquainted with the virtues of certain\nstones with which they cure the ailments of their young ones, while if\nmen find out such a cure they think they have hit on the greatest wonder\nin the world. Finally, if man imagines that he is superior to animals\nbecause he possesses notion of God, let him know that it is the same\nwith many of them; what is there more divine, in fact, than to foresee\nand to foretell the future? Now for that purpose men have recourse to\nanimals, especially to birds, and all our soothsayers do is to\nunderstand the indications given by these. If, therefore, birds and\nother prophetic animals show us by signs the future as it is revealed to\nthem by God, it proves that they have closer relations with the deity\nthan we; that they are wiser and more loved by God. Very enlightened men\nhave thought that they understood the language of certain animals, and\nin proof of this they have been known to predict that birds would do\nsomething or go somewhere, and this was observed to come true. No one\nkeeps an oath more religiously or is more faithful to God than the\nelephant, which shows that he knows Him.\n\nHence, concludes Celsus, the universe has _not_ been made for man any\nmore than for the eagle or the dolphin. Everything was created not in\nthe interest of something else, but to contribute to the harmony of the\nwhole in order that the world might be absolutely perfect. God takes\ncare of the universe; it is that which His providence never forsakes,\nthat which never falls into disorder. God no more gets angry with men\nthan with rats or monkeys: everything keeps its appointed place.\n\nIn this passage Celsus rises to a higher level than in any other of the\nexcerpts preserved for us by Origen. The tone of irony which usually\ncharacterises him disappears in this dignified affirmation of supreme\nwisdom justified of itself not by the little standards of men\u2014or ants.\nIt must be recognised as a lofty conception, commanding the respect of\nthose who differ from it, and reconciling all apparent difficulties and\ncontradictions forced upon us by the contemplation of men and Nature.\nBut it brings no water from the cool spring to souls dying of thirst; it\nexpounds in the clearest way and even in the noblest way the very\nthought which drove men into the Christian fold far more surely than the\nlearned apologies of controversialists like Origen; the thought of the\ncrushing unimportance of the individual.\n\nThe least attentive reader must be struck by the real knowledge of\nnatural history shown by Celsus: his ants are nearly as conscientiously\nobserved as Lord Avebury\u2019s. Yet a certain suspicion of conscious\nexaggeration detracts from the seriousness of his arguments; he strikes\none as more sincere in disbelieving than in believing. A modern writer\nhas remarked that Celsus in the second half of the second century\nforestalled Darwin in the second half of the nineteenth by denying human\nascendancy and contending that man may be a little lower than the brute.\nBut it scarcely seems certain whether he was convinced by his own\nreasoning or was not rather replying by paradoxes to what he considered\nthe still greater paradoxes of Christian theology.\n\nThe shadow of no such doubt falls on the pages of the neoplatonists\nPlotinus and Porphyry. To them the destiny of animals was not an\nacademic problem but an obsession. The questions which Heine\u2019s young man\nasked of the waves: \u201cWhat signifies man? Whence does he come? Whither\ndoes he go?\u201d were asked by them with passionate earnestness in their\napplication to all sentient things. Plotinus reasoned, with great force,\nthat intelligent beast-souls must be like the soul of man since in\nitself the essence of the soul could not be different. Porphyry (born at\nTyre, A.D. 233), accepting this postulate that animals possess an\nintelligent soul like ours, went on to declare that it was therefore\nunlawful to kill or feed on them under any circumstances. If justice is\ndue to rational beings, how is it possible to evade the conclusion that\nwe are also bound to act justly towards the races below us? He who loves\nall animated nature will not single out one tribe of innocent beings for\nhatred; if he loves the whole he will love every part, and, above all,\nthat part which is most closely allied to ourselves. Porphyry was quite\nready to admit that animals in their own way made use of words, and he\nmentions Melampus and Apollonius as among the philosophers who\nunderstood their language. He quoted with approval the laws supposed to\nhave been framed by Triptolemus in the reign of Pandion, fifth king of\nAthens: \u201cHonour your parents; make oblations of your fruits to the gods;\nhurt not any living creature.\u201d\n\nNeoplatonism penetrated into the early Church, but divested of its views\non animal destiny; even the Catholic neoplatonist Bo\u00ebthius, though he\nwas sensitively fond of animals (witness his lines about caged birds),\nyet took the extreme view of the hard-and-fast line of separation, as\nmay be seen by his poem on the \u201cdownward head,\u201d which he interpreted to\nindicate the earth-bound nature of all flesh save man. Birds, by the by,\nand even fishes, not to speak of camel-leopards, can hardly be said to\nhave a \u201cdownward head.\u201d Meanwhile, the other manner of feeling, if not\nof thinking, reasserted its power as it always will, for it belongs to\nthe primal things. Excluded from the broad road, it came in by the\nnarrow way\u2014the way that leads to heaven. In the wake of the Christian\nGuru came a whole troop of charming beasts, little less saintly and\nmiraculous than their holy protectors, and thus preachers of the\nreligion of love were spared the reproach of showing an all-unloving\nface towards creatures that could return love for love as well as most\nand better than many of the human kind. The saint saved the situation,\nand the Church wisely left him alone to discourse to his brother fishes\nor his sister turtle-doves, without inquiring about the strict orthodoxy\nof the proceeding.\n\nUnhappily the more direct inheritors of neoplatonist dreams were not\nleft alone. A trend of tendency towards Pythagoreanism runs through\ntheir different developments from Philo to the Gnostics, from the\nGnostics, through the Paulicians to the Albigenses. It passes out of our\nsight when these were suppressed in the thirteenth century by the most\nsanguinary persecution that the world has seen, but before long it was\nto reappear in one shape or another, and we may be sure that the thread\nwas never wholly lost.\n\n[Illustration:\n\n \u201cIL BUON PASTORE.\u201d\n (_Mosaic at Ravenna._)]\n\nAn effort has been made to prove that the official as well as the\nunofficial Church always favoured humanity to animals. The result of\nthis effort has been wholly good; not only has it produced a delightful\nvolume,[10] but, indirectly, it was the cause of Pope Pius X.\npronouncing a blessing on every one who is working for the prevention of\ncruelty to animals throughout the world. _Roma locuta est._ To me this\nappears to be a landmark in ethics of first-class importance.\nNevertheless, historically speaking, it is difficult to resist the\nconclusion that the diametrically opposite view expressed by Father\nRickaby in a manual intended for use in the Jesuit College at\nStonyhurst,[11] more correctly gives the measure of what had been the\npractical teaching of the Church in all these ages. Even now,\nauthoritative Catholics, when enjoining humanity to animals, are careful\nto add that man has \u201cno duties\u201d towards them, though they may modify\nthis by saying with Cardinal Manning (the most kind-hearted of men) that\nhe owes \u201ca sevenfold obligation\u201d to their Creator to treat them well.\nWas it surprising that the Neapolitan peasant who heard from his priest\nthat he had no duties to his ass went home, not to excogitate the\nsevenfold obligation but to belabour the poor beast soundly? Though the\ndistinction is capable of philosophical defence, granted the premises,\nto plain people it looks like a juggling with words. When St. Philip\nNeri said to a monk who put his foot on a lizard, \u201cWhat has the poor\ncreature done to you?\u201d he implied a duty to the animal, the duty of\nreciprocity. He spoke with the voice of Nature and forgot, for the\nmoment, that animals were not \u201cmoral persons\u201d nor \u201cendowed with reason,\u201d\nand that hence they could have \u201cno rights.\u201d\n\nFootnote 10:\n\n \u201cL\u2019\u00c9glise et la Piti\u00e9 envers les animaux,\u201d Paris, 1903. An English\n edition has been published by Messrs. Burns and Oates.\n\nFootnote 11:\n\n \u201cMoral Philosophy,\u201d p. 250.\n\nAt an early date, in the heart of official Catholicism, an inconsistency\nappeared which is less easily explained than homilies composed for\nfishes or hymns for birds; namely, the strange business of animal\nprosecutions. Without inquiring exactly what an animal is, it is easy to\nbestow upon it either blessings or curses. The beautiful rite of the\nblessing of the beasts which is still performed once a year in many\nplaces involves no doctrinal crux. In Corsica the priest goes up to the\nhigh mountain _plateaux_ where the animals pasture in the summer, and\nafter saying Mass in presence of all the four-footed family, he solemnly\nblesses them and exhorts them to prosper and multiply. It is a\ndelightful scene, but it does not affect the conception of the moral\nstatus of animals, nor would that conception be affected by a right-down\nmalediction or order to quit. What, however, can be thought of a regular\ntrial of inconvenient or offending animals in which great care is taken,\nto keep up the appearance of fair-play to the defendants? Our first\nimpression is, that it must be an elaborate comedy; but a study of the\nfacts makes it impossible to accept this theory.\n\nThe earliest allusions to such trials that seem to exist belong to the\nninth century, which does not prove that they were the first of the\nkind. One trial took place in 824 A.D. The Council of Worms decided in\n866 that if a man has been killed by bees they ought to suffer death,\n\u201cbut,\u201d added the judgment, \u201cit will be permissible to eat their honey.\u201d\nA relic of the same order of ideas lingers in the habit some people have\nof shooting a horse which has caused a fatal accident, often the direct\nconsequence of bad riding or bad driving. The earlier beast trials of\nwhich we have knowledge were conducted by laymen, the latter by\necclesiastics, which suggests their origin in a folk-practice. A good,\ncharacteristic instance began on September 5, 1370. The young son of a\nBurgundian swineherd had been killed by three sows which seemed to have\nfeared an attack on one of their young ones. All members of the herd\nwere arrested as accomplices, which was a serious matter to their\nowners, the inmates of a neighbouring convent, as the animals, if\nconvicted, would be burnt and their ashes buried. The prior pointed out\nthat three sows alone were guilty; surely the rest of the pigs ought to\nbe acquitted. Justice did not move quickly in those times; it was on\nSeptember 12, 1379, that the Duke of Burgundy delivered judgment; only\nthe three guilty sows and one young pig (what had _it_ done?) were to be\nexecuted; the others were set at liberty \u201cnotwithstanding that they had\nseen the death of the boy without defending him.\u201d Were the original ones\nall alive after nine years? If so, would so long a respite have been\ngranted them had no legal proceedings been instituted?\n\nAn important trial took place in Savoy in the year 1587. The accused was\na certain fly. Two suitable advocates were assigned to the insects, who\nargued on their behalf that these creatures were created before man, and\nhad been blessed by God, who gave them the right to feed on grass, and\nfor all these and other good reasons the flies were in their right when\nthey occupied the vineyards of the Commune; they simply availed\nthemselves of a legitimate privilege conformable to Divine and natural\nlaw. The plaintiffs\u2019 advocate retorted that the Bible and common sense\nshowed animals to be created for the utility of man; hence they could\nnot have the right to cause him loss, to which the counsel for the\ninsects replied that man had the right to command animals, no doubt, but\nnot to persecute, excommunicate and interdict them when they were merely\nconforming to natural law \u201cwhich is eternal and immutable like the\nDivine.\u201d\n\nThe judges were so deeply impressed by this pleading that to cut the\ncase short, which seemed to be going against him, the Mayor of St.\nJulien hastened to propose a compromise; he offered a piece of land\nwhere the flies might find a safe retreat and live out their days in\npeace and plenty. The offer was accepted. On June 29, 1587, the citizens\nof St. Julien were bidden to the market square by ringing the church\nbells, and after a short discussion they ratified the agreement which\nhanded over a large piece of land to the exclusive use of the insects.\nHope was expressed that they would be entirely satisfied with the\nbargain. A right of way across the land was, indeed, reserved to the\npublic, but no harm whatever was to be done to the flies on their own\nterritory. It was stated in the formal contract that the reservation was\nceded to the insects in perpetuity.\n\nAll was going well, when it transpired that, in the meantime, the flies\u2019\nadvocates had paid a visit to that much-vaunted piece of land, and when\nthey returned, they raised the strongest objection to it on the score\nthat it was arid, sterile, and produced nothing. The mayor\u2019s counsel\ndisputed this; the land, he said, produced no end of nice small trees\nand bushes, the very things for the nutrition of insects. The judges\nintervened by ordering a survey to find out the real truth, which survey\ncost three florins. There, alas! the story ends, for the winding up of\nthe affair is not to be found in the archives of St. Julien.\n\nRecords of 144 such trials have come to light. Of the two I have\ndescribed, it will be remarked that one belongs, as it were, to criminal\nand the other to civil law. The last class is the most curious. No doubt\nthe trial of flies or locusts was resorted to when other means of\ngetting rid of them had failed; it was hoped, somehow, that the\nelaborate appearance of fair-play would bring about a result not to be\nobtained by violence. We can hardly resist the inference that they\ninvolved some sort of recognition or intuition of animals\u2019 rights and\neven of animal intelligence.\n\nIn the dawn of modern literature animals played a large, though\nartificial, part which must not be quite ignored on account of its\nartificiality, because in the Bestiaries as in the \u00c6sopic and Oriental\nfables from which they were mainly derived, there was an inextricable\ntangle of observations of the real creature and arbitrary ascription to\nhim of human qualities and adventures. At last they became a mere method\nfor attacking political or ecclesiastical abuses, but their great\npopularity was as much due to their outer as to their inner sense. There\nis not any doubt that at the same time floods of Eastern fairy-tales\nwere migrating to Europe, and in these the most highly appreciated hero\nwas always the friendly beast. In a romance of the thirteenth century\ncalled \u201cGuillaume de Palerme\u201d all previous marvels of this kind were\noutdone by the story of a Sicilian prince who was befriended by a\nwere-wolf!\n\nIt is not generally remembered that the Indian or Buddhist view of\nanimals must have been pretty well known in Europe at least as early as\nthe fourteenth century. The account of the monastery \u201cwhere many strange\nbeasts of divers kinds do live upon a hill,\u201d which Fra Odoric, of\nPordenone, dictated in 1330, is a description, both accurate and\ncharming, of a Buddhist animal refuge, and in the version given of it in\nMandeville\u2019s \u201cTravels,\u201d if not in the original, it must have been read\nby nearly every one who could read, for no book ever had so vast a\ndiffusion as the \u201cTravels\u201d of the elusive Knight of St. Albans.\n\nWith the Italian Renaissance came the full modern \u00e6sthetic enjoyment of\nanimals; the admiration of their beauty and perfection which had been\nappreciated, of course, long before, but not quite in the same spirit.\nThe all-round gifted Leo Battista Alberti in the fifteenth century took\nthe same critical delight in the points of a fine animal that a modern\nexpert would take. He was a splendid rider, but his interest was not\nconfined to horses; his love for his dog is shown by his having\npronounced a funeral oration over him. We feel that with such men\nhumanity towards animals was a part of good manners. \u201cWe owe justice to\nmen,\u201d said the intensely civilised Montaigne, \u201cand grace and benignity\nto other creatures that are capable of it; there is a natural commerce\nand mutual obligation between them and us.\u201d Sir Arthur Helps, speaking\nof this, called it \u201cusing courtesy to animals,\u201d and when one comes to\nthink of it, is not such \u201ccourtesy\u201d the particular mark and sign of a\nman of good breeding in all ages?\n\nThe Renaissance brought with it something deeper than a wonderful\nquickening of the \u00e6sthetic sense in all directions; it also brought that\nspiritual quickening which is the co-efficient of every really upward\nmovement of the human mind. Leonardo da Vinci, greatest of\nartist-humanists, inveighed against cruelty in words that might have\nbeen written by Plutarch or Porphyry. His sympathies were with the\nvegetarian. Meanwhile, Northern Churchmen who went to Rome were\nscandalised to hear it said in high ecclesiastical society that there\nwas no difference between the souls of men and beasts. An attempt was\nmade to convert Erasmus to this doctrine by means of certain extracts\nfrom Pliny. Roman society, at that time, was so little serious that one\ncannot believe it to have been serious even in its heterodoxy. But\nspeculations more or less of the same sort were taken up by men of a\nvery different stamp; it was to be foreseen that animals would have\ntheir portion of attention in the ponderings of the god-intoxicated\nmusers who have been called the Sceptics of the Renaissance. For the\nproof that they did receive it we have only to turn to the pages of\nGiordano Bruno. \u201cEvery part of creation has its share in being and\ncognition.\u201d \u201cThere is a difference, not in quality, but in quantity,\nbetween the soul of man, the animal and the plant.\u201d \u201cAmong horses,\nelephants and dogs there are single individuals which appear to have\nalmost the understanding of men.\u201d\n\nBruno\u2019s prophetic guess that instinct is inherited habit might have\nsaved Descartes (who was much indebted to the Nolan) from giving his\nname an unenviable immortality in connexion with the theory which is\nnearly all that the ignorant know now of Cartesian philosophy. This was\nthe theory that animals are automata, a sophism that may be said to have\nswept Europe, though it was not long before it provoked a reaction.\nDescartes got this idea from the very place where it was likely to\noriginate, from Spain. A certain Gomez Pereira advanced it before\nDescartes made it his own, which even led to a charge of plagiarism.\n\u201cBecause a clock marks time and a bee makes honey, we are to consider\nthe clock and the bee to be machines. Because they do one thing better\nthan man and no other thing so well as man, we are to conclude that they\nhave no mind, but that Nature acts within them, holding their organs at\nher disposal.\u201d \u201cNor are we to think, as the ancients do, that animals\nspeak, though we do not know their language, for, if that were so, they,\nhaving several organs related to ours, might as easily communicate with\nus as with each other.\u201d\n\nAbout this, Huxley showed that an almost imperceptible imperfection of\nthe vocal chord may prevent articulated sounds. Moreover, the click of\nthe bushmen, which is almost their only language, is exceedingly like\nthe sounds made by monkeys.\n\nLanguage, as defined by an eminent Italian man of science, Professor\nBroca, is the faculty of making things known, or expressing them by\nsigns or sounds. Much the same definition was given by Mivart, and if\nthere be a better one, we have still to wait for it. Human language is\nevolved; at one time man had it not. The babe in the cradle is without\nit; the deaf mute, in his untaught state, is without it; _ergo_ the babe\nand the deaf mute cannot feel. Poor babes and poor deaf mutes should the\nscientific Loyolas of the future adopt this view!\n\nI do not know if any one has remarked that rural and primitive folk can\nnever bring themselves to believe of any foreign tongue that it is real\nhuman language like their own. To them it seems a jargon of meaningless\nand uncouth sounds.\n\nChanet, a follower of Descartes, said that he would believe that beasts\nthought when a beast told him so. By what cries of pain, by what looks\nof love, have not beasts told men that they thought! Man himself does\nnot think in words in moments of profound emotion, whether of grief or\njoy. _He cries out_ or he _acts_. Thought in its absolutely elementary\nform is _action_. The mother thinks in the kiss she gives her child. The\nmusician thinks in music. Perhaps God thinks in constellations. I asked\na man who had saved many lives by jumping into the sea, \u201cWhat did you\nthink of at the moment of doing it?\u201d He replied: \u201cYou do not think, or\nyou might not do it.\u201d\n\nThe whole trend of philosophic speculation worthy of the name lies\ntowards unity, but the Cartesian theory would arbitrarily divide even\nman\u2019s physical and sensational nature from that of the other animals. To\nremedy this, Descartes admitted that man was just as much an automatic\nmachine as other creatures. By what right, then, does he complain when\nhe happens to have a toothache? Because, says Descartes triumphantly,\nman has an immortal soul! The child thinks in his mother\u2019s womb, but the\ndog, which after scenting two roads takes the third without demur, sure\nthat his master must have gone that way, this dog is acting \u201cby springs\u201d\nand neither thinks nor feels at all.\n\nThe misuse of the ill-treated word \u201cNature\u201d cannot hide the fact that\nthe beginning, middle, and end of Descartes\u2019 argument rests on a\nperpetually recurrent miracle. Descartes confessed as much when he said\nthat God _could_ make animals as machines, so why should it be\nimpossible that He _had_ made them as machines? Voltaire\u2019s clear reason\nrevolted at this logic; he declared it to be absurd to imagine that God\nhad given animals organs of feeling in order that they might _not_ feel.\nHe would have endorsed Professor Romanes\u2019 saying that \u201cthe theory of\nanimal automatism which is usually attributed to Descartes can never be\naccepted by common sense.\u201d\n\nOn the other hand, while Descartes was being persecuted by the Church\nfor opinions which he did _not_ hold, this particular opinion of his was\nseized upon by Catholic divines as a vindication of creation. Pascal so\nregarded it. The miraculous element in it did not disturb him.\nMalebranche said though opposed by reason it was approved by faith.\n\nDescartes said that the idea that animals think and feel is a relic of\nchildhood. The idea that they do _not_ think and feel might be more\ntruly called a relic of that darkest side of perverse childhood, the\nexistence of which we are all fain to forget. Whoever has seen a little\nchild throwing stones at a toad on the highway\u2014and sad because his hands\nare too small to take up the bigger stones to throw\u2014will understand what\nI mean. I do not wish to allude more than slightly to a point which is\nof too much importance to pass over in silence. Descartes was a\nvivisector: so were the pious people at Port Royal who embraced his\nteaching with enthusiasm, and liked to hear the howls of the dogs they\nvivisected. M. \u00c9mile Ferri\u00e8re, in his work \u201cL\u2019\u00e2me est la fonction du\ncerveau,\u201d sees in the \u201csouls\u201d of beasts exactly the same nature as in\nthe \u201csoul\u201d of man; the difference, he maintains, is one of degree;\nthough generally inferior, it is sometimes superior to \u201csouls\u201d of\ncertain human groups. Here is a candid materialist who deserves respect.\nBut there is a school of physiologists nowadays which carries on an\nunflagging campaign in favour of belief in unconscious animal machines\nwhich work by springs, while denying that there is a God to wind up the\nsprings, and in conscious human machines, while denying that there is a\nsoul, independent of matter, which might account for the difference.\n\u201cThe wish is father to the thought.\u201d _Non ragionam di lor ma guarda e\npassa._\n\nThe strongest of all reasons for dismissing the machine theory of\nanimals is their variety of idiosyncrasy. It is said that to the\nshepherd no two sheep look alike; it is certain that no two animals of\nany kind have the same characters. Some are selfish, some are unselfish,\nsome are gentle, some irretrievably ill-tempered both to each other and\nto man. Some animals do not show much regret at the loss of their\noffspring, with others it is manifestly the reverse. \u00c9douard Quinet\ndescribed how on one occasion, when visiting the lions\u2019 cage in the\nJardin des Plantes, he observed the lion gently place his large paw on\nthe forehead of the lioness, and so they remained, grave and still, all\nthe time he was there. He asked Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire, who was with\nhim, what it meant. \u201cTheir lion cub,\u201d was the answer, \u201cdied this\nmorning.\u201d \u201cPity, benevolence, sympathy, could be read on those rugged\nfaces.\u201d That these qualities are often absent in sentient beings what\nman can doubt? But they are not to be found in the best mechanical\nanimals in all Nuremberg!\n\nNor do machines commonly act as did the dog in the following true story\nwhich relates to something that happened during the earthquake of Ash\nWednesday, 1887. At a place called Ceriana on the Italian Riviera a poor\nman who earned his living as a milk-carrier was supposed to have gone on\nhis ordinary rounds, on which he was used to start at four o\u2019clock in\nthe morning. No one, therefore, thought of inquiring about him, but the\nfact was, that having taken a glass or two of wine in honour of the last\nnight of the Carnival, he had overslept himself, and was still asleep\nwhen his cottage fell down upon him. He had a large dog which drew the\nlittle cart bearing the milk up the mountain paths, and the dog by\nchance was outside and safe. He found out where his master lay and\nsucceeded in clearing the masonry so as to uncover his head, which was\nbleeding. He then set to work to lick the wounds; but, seeing that they\nwent on bleeding, and also that he could not liberate the rest of the\nbody, he started in search of help, running up and down among the\nsurrounding ruins till he met some one, whom he caught hold of by the\nclothes. The man, however, thought that the dog was mad and fled for his\nlife. Luckily, another man guessed the truth and allowed himself to be\nguided to the spot. History repeats itself, at least the history of\ndevoted dogs. The same thing happened after the greater earthquake at\nMessina, when a man, one of the last to be saved, was discovered through\nthe insistence of his little dog, who approached a group of searchers\nand whined piteously till he persuaded them to follow him to the ruins\nwhich concealed his master.\n\nNor, again, do machines act like a cockatoo I heard of from a witness of\nthe scene. A lady was visiting the zoological gardens in a German town\nwith her daughter, when the little girl was seized with the wish to\npossess a pretty moulted feather which was lying on the ground in the\nparrots\u2019 cage. She made several attempts to reach it, but in vain.\nSeeing which, an old cockatoo hopped solemnly from the back of the cage\nand taking up the feather in his beak, handed it to the child with an\nair of the greatest politeness.\n\nOne of the first upholders of the idea of legislative protection of\nanimals was Jeremy Bentham, who asked why the law should refuse its\nprotection to any sensitive being? Most people forget the degree of\nopposition which was encountered by the earlier combatants of cruel\npractices and pastimes in England. Cobbett made a furious attack on a\nclergyman who (to his honour) was agitating for the suppression of\nbull-baiting, \u201cthe poor man\u2019s sport,\u201d as Cobbett called it. That it\ndemoralised the poor man as well as tormented the bull never entered\ninto the head of the inimitable wielder of English prose, pure and\nundefiled, who took it under his (happily) ineffectual protection. \u201cThe\ncommon law fully sanctions the baiting of bulls,\u201d he wrote, \u201cand, I\nbelieve, that to sell the flesh of a bull which has _not_ been baited is\nan offence which is punishable by that very law to which you appeal\u201d\n(\u201c_Political Register_,\u201d June, 1802).\n\nSocieties for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals had, in their day, to\nundergo almost as much criticism and ridicule in England as they now\nmeet with in some parts of the Continent. Even the establishment of the\nDogs\u2019 Home in London raised a storm of disapproval, as may be seen by\nany one who turns over the files of the _Times_ for October, 1860. If\nthe friends of humanity persevere, the change of sentiment which has\nbecome an accomplished fact in England will, in the end, triumph\nelsewhere.\n\nUnfortunately, humane sentiment and humane practice do not progress on a\nlevel line. As long ago as 1782 an English writer named Soame Jenyns\nprotested against the wickedness of shooting a bear on an inaccessible\nisland of ice, or an eagle on the mountain\u2019s top. \u201cWe are unable to give\nlife and therefore ought not to take it away from the meanest insect\nwithout sufficient reason.\u201d What would he say if he came back to earth\nto find whole species of beautiful winged creatures being destroyed to\nafford a barbarous ornament for women\u2019s heads?\n\nThe \u201cdiscovery\u201d of Indian literature brought prominently forward in the\nWest the Indian ideas of animals of which the old travellers had given\nthe earliest news. The effect of familiarity with those ideas may be\ntraced in many writers, but nowhere to such an extent as in the works of\nSchopenhauer, for whom, as for many more obscure students, they formed\nthe most attractive and interesting part of Oriental lore. Schopenhauer\ncannot speak about animals without using a tone of passionate vehemence\nwhich was, without doubt, genuine. He felt the intense enjoyment in\nobserving them which the lonely soul has ever felt, whether it belonged\nto saint or sinner. All his pessimism disappears when he leaves the\nhaunts of man for the retreats of beasts. What a pleasure it is, he\nsays, to watch a wild animal going about undisturbed! It shows us our\nown nature in a simpler and more sincere form. \u201cThere is only one\nmendacious being in the world, and that is man. Every other is true and\nsincere.\u201d It strikes me that total sincerity did not shine on the face\nof a dog which I once saw trotting innocently away, after burying a\nrabbit he had caught in a ploughed field near a tree in the hedge\u2014the\nonly tree there was\u2014which would make it easy for him to identify the\nspot. But about that I will say no more. The German \u201cFriend of the\nCreature\u201d was indignant at \u201cthe unpardonable forgetfulness in which the\nlower animals have hitherto been left by the moralists of Europe.\u201d The\nduty of protecting them, neglected by religion, falls to the police.\nMankind are the devils of the earth and animals the souls they torment.\n\nFull of these sentiments, Schopenhauer was prepared to welcome\nunconditionally the Indian conception of the Wheel of Being and to close\nhis eyes to its defects. Strauss, too, hailed it as a doctrine which\n\u201cunites the whole of Nature in one sacred and mysterious bond\u201d\u2014a bond in\nwhich, he goes on to say, a breach has been made by the Judaism and\ndualism of Christianity. He might have observed that the Church derived\nher notions on the subject rather from Aristotle than from Semitic\nsources.\n\nSchopenhauer came to the conclusion that the ill-treatment of animals\narose directly from the denial to them of immortality, while it was\nascribed to men. There is and there is not truth in this. When all is\nsaid, the well-conditioned man always was and always will be humane;\n\u201cthe righteous man regardeth the life of his beast.\u201d And since people\nreason to fit their acts rather than act to fit their reasoning, he will\neven find a motive for his humanity where others find an excuse for the\nlack of it. Humphry Primatt wrote in 1776: \u201cCruelty to a brute is an\ninjury irreparable because there is no future life to be a compensation\nfor present afflictions.\u201d\n\nMr. Lecky, in his \u201cHistory of European Morals,\u201d tells of a Cardinal who\nlet himself be bitten by gnats because \u201c_we_ have heaven, but these poor\ncreatures only present enjoyment!\u201d Could Jaina do more?\n\nStrauss thought that the rising tide of popular sentiment about animals\nwas the direct result of the abandonment by science of the\nspiritualistic isolation of man from Nature. I suspect that those who\nhave worked hardest for animals in the last half-century cared little\nabout the origin of species, while it is certain that some professed\nevolutionists have been their worst foes. The fact remains, however,\nthat by every rule of logic the theory of evolution _ought_ to produce\nthe effect which Strauss thought that it had produced. The discovery\nwhich gives its name to the nineteenth century revolutionises the whole\nphilosophic conception of the place of animals in the Universe.\n\nLamarck, whom Cuvier so cruelly attacked, was the first to discern the\nprinciple of evolution. At one time he held the Chair of Zoology at the\nUniversity of Paris; but the opposition which his ideas met with crushed\nhim in body, though not in soul, and he died blind and in want in 1829,\nonly consoled by the care of an admirable daughter. His last words are\nsaid to have been that it is easier to discover a truth than to convince\nothers of it.\n\nAn Italian named Carlo Lessona was one of the first to be convinced. He\nwrote a work containing the phrase, \u201cThe intelligence of animals\u201d\u2014which\nwork, by the rule then in force, had to be presented to the\necclesiastical Censor at Turin to receive his permit before publication.\nThe canon who examined the book fell upon the words above mentioned, and\nremarked: \u201cThis expression, \u2018intelligence of animals,\u2019 will never do!\u201d\n\u201cBut,\u201d said Lessona, \u201cit is commonly used in natural history books.\u201d\n\u201cOh!\u201d replied the canon, \u201cnatural history has much need of\nrevision.\u201d[12]\n\nFootnote 12:\n\n See Dr. F. Franzolini\u2019s interesting monograph on animal psychology\n from the point of view of science (\u201cIntelligenza delle Bestie,\u201d Udine,\n 1899).\n\nThe great and cautious Darwin said that the senses, intuitions,\nemotions, and faculties, such as love, memory, attention, curiosity,\nimitation, reason, of which man boasts, may be found in an incipient, or\neven, sometimes, in a well-developed condition in the lower animals.\n\u201cMan, with all his noble qualities, his God-like intellect, still bears\nin his bodily frame the indelible stamp of his lowly origin. Our\nbrethren fly in the air, haunt the bushes, and swim in the sea.\u201d Darwin\nagreed with Agassiz in recognising in the dog something very like the\nhuman conscience.\n\nDr. Arnold said that the whole subject of the brute creature was such a\npainful mystery that he dared not approach it. Michelet called animal\nlife a \u201csombre mystery,\u201d and shuddered at the \u201cdaily murder,\u201d hoping\nthat in another globe \u201cthese base and cruel fatalities may be spared to\nus.\u201d It is strange to find how many men of very different types have\nwandered without a guide in these dark alleys of speculation. A few of\nthem arrived at, or thought they had arrived at, a solution. Lord\nChesterfield wrote that \u201canimals preying on each other is a law of\nNature which we did not make, and which we cannot undo, for if I do not\neat chickens my cat will eat mice.\u201d But the appeal to Nature will not\nsatisfy every one; our whole human conscience is a protest against\nNature, while our moral actions are an attempt to effect a compromise.\nPaley pointed out that the law was not good, since we could live without\nanimal food and wild beasts could not. He offered another justification,\nthe permission of Scripture. This was satisfactory to him, but he must\nhave been aware that it waives the question without answering it.\n\nSome humane people have taken refuge in the automata argument, which is\nlike taking a sleeping-draught to cure a broken leg. Others, again, look\nfor justice to animals in the one and only hope that man possesses of\njustice to himself; in compensation after death for unmerited suffering\nin this life. Leibnitz said that Eternal Justice _ought_ to compensate\nanimals for their misfortunes on earth. Bishop Butler would not deny a\nfuture life to animals.\n\nSpeaking of her approaching death, Mrs. Somerville said: \u201cI shall regret\nthe sky, the sea, with all the changes of their beautiful colouring; the\nearth with its verdure and flowers: but far more shall I grieve to leave\nanimals who have followed our steps affectionately for years, without\nknowing for certainty their ultimate fate, though I firmly believe that\nthe living principle is never extinguished. Since the atoms of matter\nare indestructible, as far as we know, it is difficult to believe that\nthe spark which gives to their union life, memory, affection,\nintelligence, and fidelity, is evanescent.\u201d\n\nIn the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, seven or eight small works,\nwritten in Latin in support of this thesis, were published in Germany\nand Sweden. Probably in all the world a number, unsuspectedly large, of\nsensitive minds has endorsed the belief expressed so well in the lines\nwhich Southey wrote on coming home to find that a favourite old dog had\nbeen \u201cdestroyed\u201d during his absence:\u2014\n\n ... \u201cMine is no narrow creed;\n And He who gave thee being did not frame\n The mystery of life to be the sport\n Of merciless man! There is another world\n For all that live and move\u2014a better one!\n Where the proud bipeds, who would fain confine\n Infinite Goodness to the little bounds\n Of their own charity, may envy thee!\u201d\n\nThe holders of this \u201cno narrow creed\u201d start with all the advantages from\nthe mere point of view of dialectics. They can boast that they have\nplaced the immortality of the soul on a scientific basis. For truly, it\nis more reasonable to suppose that the soul is natural than\nsupernatural, a word invented to clothe our ignorance; and, if natural,\nwhy not universal?\n\nThey have the right to say, moreover, that they and they alone have\n\u201cjustified the ways of God.\u201d They alone have admitted all creation that\ngroaneth and travaileth to the ultimate guerdon of the \u201cLove which moves\nthe sun and other stars.\u201d\n\n\n------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\n\n\n\n INDEX\n\n\n\n\n------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\n\n\n\n Abd\u00e2ls, 261-262\n\n Abu Djafar al Mausur, Caliph, 232\n\n Abu Jail, 241-243\n\n Achilles, 26-27, 298\n\n Adi Granth, 201\n\n _\u00c6sop\u2019s fables_, 25, 29-30, 80-81\n\n Aethe, 26\n\n Aethon, 26\n\n Afghan ballad, 241-243\n\n African pastoral tribes, 95\n\n Agamemnon, 25-26, 29\n\n Agassiz, 364\n\n Agora Temple, 77\n\n _Ahimsa_, 166-167, 172, 193\n\n Ahriman, 124-126, 143, 145-146, 149-151, 158-159\n\n Ahriman, hymn to, 125\n\n Ahuna-Vairya, 138\n\n Ahura Mazda, 116, 121-122, 136, 138-139, 143, 154, 158-159\n\n Alberti, Leo Battista, 154, 158-159, 352\n\n Albigenses, 346\n\n Alexander the Great, 75, 133\n\n Alfonso, King of Spain, 291-292\n\n Alger, W. R., 286\n\n Alhambra, 229\n\n Al Rak\u00eem, 230\n\n Amatongo, 107-109\n\n Amazulu, 107\n\n _L\u2019\u00e2me est la fonction du cerveau_, 357\n\n Ammon, Temple of, 31\n\n Amon Ra, 103\n\n Amritsar, 201\n\n Anaxandrides, 82\n\n Anchorites, 179, 252-254\n\n Andromache, 26\n\n Animals, treatment of, in India, 19;\n the purgatory of men, 21;\n slaying of, by Greeks, 24-25;\n naming of, 26;\n prophetic powers of, 27-28;\n talking, 29;\n Roman treatment of, 45-46;\n butchery of, at Colosseum, 51;\n imported for arena, 51-52;\n humanity of, 53-54;\n performing, 54-55;\n Plutarch on kindness to, 64-71;\n Plutarch on animal intelligence, 67-71;\n instances of discrimination of, 75-76;\n domestication of, 90-91;\n value of, 94-95;\n excuses for killing, 100;\n attitude of savages to, 107-108;\n killing of, by priests, 148-150;\n Zoroastrian treatment of, 147-157;\n in sacred books, 188;\n Hebrew treatment of, 212-220;\n hunting of, by Moslems, 224-225, 232, 241-243;\n musical instinct in, 245-246;\n and the Messiah, 247-252;\n and saints, 259;\n stories of, 306-316;\n theory of Celsus as to intelligence of, 340-344;\n theory of Porphyry, 344;\n the Church and humanity, 346;\n animal prosecutions, 347-351;\n Renaissance admiration of, 352-353;\n animals and thought, 355;\n automata\n theory, 353-359, 365;\n societies to protect, 359-360;\n ill-treatment and immortality, 362;\n principle of evolution, 363\n\n Antelope, 240\n\n Ants, wisdom of, 76-77;\n killing of, 149-150;\n Hebrew proverb, 216;\n in the Koran, 227;\n social economy of, 341-342\n\n Apis, 102, 144\n\n Apollo, 246\n\n Apollonius of Tyana, 268-269; 337-340; 345\n\n Apsarases, the, 279-280\n\n Apuleius, 55\n\n Arch\u00e6ological Congress, 95\n\n Archetypes (_see_ Fravashi)\n\n Ard\u00e2 V\u00eer\u00e2f, 159-165\n\n Arena, cruelties of the, 45-46\n\n Ariosto, 297\n\n Aristophanes, 28\n\n Aristotle, 58, 78, 80, 269, 340, 362\n\n Arnold, Dr., 364\n\n Arnold, Sir Matthew, 302-303\n\n Aryans, 13, 18, 113-115\n\n Asceticism, 179-183\n\n Astrachan, 258\n\n Ataro, 162\n\n Atharva-Veda, 208\n\n Atman, 14\n\n Augustus, 336\n\n Automata theory, 353-359, 365\n\n Avebury, Lord, 343\n\n Avesta, 113, 116, 120, 123, 125, 128, 131, 133-140, 143, 145-148, 153,\n 155, 159, 163, 233-234\n\n\n Bactria, 131\n\n Baiardo, 297\n\n Balaam\u2019s ass, 212-213, 219\n\n Balius, 26-27\n\n Balkis, Queen, 229\n\n Bankes\u2019 horse, 283\n\n Banyan deer, 327-230\n\n Barbary, 296\n\n Basan, Bulls of, 144\n\n Basri, Hasan, 234\n\n _Battle of the frogs and mice_, 29\n\n Baudelaire, 18\n\n Bavieca, 289-294\n\n Bears, legends of, 88-89\n\n Beast tales, 28, 317, 351\n\n Beaver (_see_ Udra)\n\n Bedouins, 272\n\n Behkaa, 104\n\n Benares, 183\n\n Benedict XII., 49\n\n Bentham, Jeremy, 359\n\n Bhagavad, Gita, 14\n\n Bion, 64\n\n Birds, in captivity, 56-57;\n Plutarch\u2019s views on, 78;\n language of, 226-227;\n and St. Francis, 259-260\n\n Bismarck, 304\n\n Bi\u2019sm-illah, custom of saying, 224\n\n Bivar, Ruy Diaz de, 289-294\n\n Blackbird, White, 51\n\n Blake, Wm., 251\n\n Bleeck, 153\n\n Blessing the beast, rite of, 347\n\n Boccaccio\u2019s falcon, 285\n\n B\u0153otia, 62\n\n Bo\u00ebthius, 345\n\n Bolingbroke, 296\n\n Bosanquet, Dr. R. C., 95\n\n Brahmans, 14, 21, 169, 175, 183, 309\n\n _Breath from the veldt, A_, 240\n\n British school at Athens, 95\n\n Broca, Professor, 354\n\n Browning, Robert, 138\n\n Bruno, Giordano, 216, 260-261, 353\n\n Bubastis, 81\n\n Bucephalus, 75\n\n Buddhism, 21, 105-106, 124, 130, 167-173, 187, 190-196, 261, 273, 308,\n 321-328\n\n _Buddhist India_, 328\n\n Buffalo of Karileff, 254\n\n Bull-baiting, 50, 359-360\n\n Bull-fights, 32, 47-50\n\n Bulls, 143-146\n\n _Bundehesh_, 142-143\n\n Burgundy, Duke of, 349\n\n Burial, methods of, 123-124\n\n Burkitt, Prof. F. C., 135-136\n\n Burns and Oates, 346\n\n Burns, Robert, 59\n\n\n C\u00e6sar, Julius, 51, 53, 55, 296\n\n Cagliari, 248\n\n Callaway, Canon, 109\n\n Cambaleth, 195\n\n Cambyses, 144\n\n Camels, 286\n\n Canna, 333-334\n\n Carbonaria, 49\n\n Carlyle, Thos., 33\n\n Cartesian philosophy, 353-355\n\n Carthage, 211\n\n Cassandra, 29\n\n Cato, 45\n\n Cats, 80-83, 155, 222, 258, 278, 314, 322\n\n Celsus, 73, 339-344\n\n Celts, 273-274\n\n Ceriana, 358\n\n Cervantes, 290\n\n Chanet, 355\n\n Chantal, Mdme. de, 178\n\n Chariot-racing, 30\n\n Charles, King (the Peace), 50\n\n Chesterfield, Lord, 364\n\n Childebert, 254-255\n\n _China, religion of_, 327\n\n Chinese, belief and folk-lore, 104-106;\n saving of animal life, 194;\n folk-lore stories, 306-308, 313-316, 326-330.\n\n Chinvat, 154, 158, 162\n\n Choo-Foo-Tsze, 104\n\n Christianity, approach of, 337-338\n\n Cicada, 260\n\n Cicero, 16, 50, 58-59, 128, 340\n\n Cignani, 208\n\n Cimon, 31\n\n Circuses, 54-55\n\n _Clothilde\u2019s God_, 93\n\n Clovis, 93\n\n Clytemnestra, 29\n\n Cobbett, 359\n\n Cockatoo, Story of a, 359\n\n Colonna, Cardinal, 49\n\n Colosseum, Butchery at inauguration of, 51\n\n Comte, Auguste, 133\n\n Concha, 57-58\n\n Confucianism, 104-105, 130\n\n Constantinople, 233\n\n Constantinople, Council at, 14\n\n _Contemporary Review_, 6\n\n Copenhagen National Museum, 47\n\n Corinna, Parrot of, 56\n\n Corsica, 347\n\n Crete, 32, 77, 95\n\n Cuvier, 363\n\n Cyrus, 118, 121-122\n\n\n Daevas, 116\n\n d\u2019Alviella, Count Goblet, 5\n\n Damascus, 231, 306\n\n Dante, 13, 160, 162-163, 187\n\n Darmesteter, James, 241\n\n Darius, 119, 121-122\n\n Darwin, Charles, 150-151, 206, 344, 363-364\n\n Darwin, Francis, 175\n\n Davids, Professor T. W. Rhys, 328\n\n Deathlessness of souls, 91-92\n\n Deer (_see_ Banyan deer)\n\n Dervishes, 234-235, 261\n\n Descartes, 16, 353-357\n\n Deucalion, dove of, 78\n\n Diaz, Gil, 293\n\n Digby, Sir Kenelm, 283\n\n Dog, grave of a faithful, 314\n\n Dogs, 57-59, 79-80, 114-115, 151-153, 158, 229-233, 244, 306-308, 312,\n 314-316, 322-324, 358-359\n\n Dog\u2019s Grave, the, 79\n\n Dolmen-builders, 92-93, 96\n\n Domestication of animals, 90-91\n\n Doughty, Charles M., 236\n\n Doukhobors, 32\n\n Downe, 283\n\n Draupadi, story of, 322-324\n\n Dravidians, 18-19, 163\n\n Duperron, Anquetil, 135, 152\n\n\n Eden, Garden of, 208-209\n\n Eden, Garden of (picture by Rubens), 247\n\n Edkins, Joseph, D.D., 327\n\n _l\u2019\u00c9glise et la Piti\u00e9 envers les Animaux_, 346\n\n Egyptian cosmogony, 103-104\n\n El Djem, well at, 109\n\n Elephants, legend of, 74-75, 77;\n in Oriental books, 188;\n white elephant killed by Rustem, 294\n\n Eleusinian mysteries, 32\n\n Elisha and the she-bears, 248-249\n\n Elmocadessi, Azz\u2019Eddin, 236\n\n Empedocles, 14-15, 34, 72\n\n Epictetus, 73-74\n\n Epirus, 57\n\n Erasmus, 16, 353\n\n Eskimo, the, 88-89, 92\n\n Euripides, 78, 190, 246, 340\n\n Evolution, theory of, 363-365\n\n\n Falcon, Persian fable of a, 313\n\n Faliscus, Gratius, 57\n\n Fargard XIII., 152\n\n Ferri\u00e8re, \u00c9mile, 357\n\n _Fioretti_, 74, 258\n\n Firdusi, 141, 225, 240, 294, 296, 301-304\n\n Flesh-eating, 24-25, 31-32, 61-64, 71, 85-86, 148, 193-194, 217-218\n\n Folk-lore Association of Chicago, 102\n\n _Folk-Songs of Southern India_, 17\n\n Foxes, 106\n\n Franzolini, Dr. F., 363\n\n Fravashi, 117, 145, 162\n\n\n Games, Roman, 47-48, 51-52\n\n Gargantuan feasts, 148\n\n Garibaldi, 294, 298\n\n G\u00e2th\u00e2s, 134, 139, 144-145\n\n Gautama, 308\n\n Gayatri, 117-118, 138\n\n Gayo Marathan, 143\n\n Gellert, Beth, 306-307, 309, 312\n\n Geus Urva, 143-144\n\n Ghusni, 241\n\n Giles, Dr., 105, 313, 316\n\n Gladiators, importation of, 52-53\n\n Gnostics, 346\n\n Goat, Story of a, 245\n\n Goethe, 333\n\n Gover, Charles E., 17\n\n Gray, Asa, 150-151\n\n Gubernatis, Count de, 290\n\n _Guillaume de Palerme_, 351\n\n Gun\u00e1dhya, 245\n\n Guru, 168, 181, 345\n\n Gymnosophists, 172\n\n\n Hall, 283\n\n Hallal, custom of the, 224\n\n Hatem, Tai, 285-286\n\n Hatos, 290\n\n Hawk and the pigeon, legend of, 317-321, 325\n\n Hazi\u00fbm, 296\n\n Heber, Bishop, 231\n\n Hebrews, the, 114, 145, 149, 159, 161, 207-208, 212-220, 284\n\n Hector, 26\n\n Hedgehog, appreciation of the, 79\n\n Heine, 344\n\n _Helena_, 190\n\n Helps, Sir Arthur, 352\n\n Henotheism, 118\n\n Hera, 25-27\n\n Heraclites, 72\n\n Herakles, 24\n\n Hermits (_see_ Anchorites)\n\n Herodotus, 31, 81, 128, 148-149, 301\n\n Hero-worship, 299-300\n\n Hidery, 102\n\n Hinduism, 13, 17, 218-219, 265-266\n\n _History of European Morals_, 362\n\n Homa, 148-149\n\n Homer, 23-26, 77, 79, 241\n\n Homizd IV., 161\n\n Honover, 138\n\n Horace, 76\n\n Horses, famous, 26-27;\n sacrifice of, 114;\n in Oriental books, 188;\n St. Columba\u2019s horse, 255;\n in chivalrous age, 281-282;\n thinking, 283;\n Arab and his horse, 285-288;\n Hatem\u2019s horse, 285-286;\n the Cid\u2019s horse, 289-294;\n horse of Rustem, 294;\n talking, 298;\n Bengal fable, 313;\n Russian folk-lore tale, 322\n\n Hugo, Victor, 19, 45, 57, 164\n\n Humanitarianism, 145-147, 175, 198-200, 243, 308, 346\n\n H\u00fasheng, 141-142\n\n Huxley, Professor, 354\n\n\n Ibl\u00eds, 142\n\n Ibsen, 186\n\n Ichneumon, 311-312\n\n \u201cIliad,\u201d 25\n\n Immortality, 159, 362\n\n Improta, Leandro, 22\n\n Indian doctrine of transmigration, 14-17\n\n Indra, 116-117, 319-323\n\n Insects, killing of, 149\n\n _Intelligenza delle Bestie_, 363\n\n Iranians, 113-134, 155\n\n Isaiah, 249\n\n Isis, 336\n\n Islam, 160, 221\n\n Issaverdens, Padre Giacomo, 209\n\n Itongo, 107, 259\n\n Itvara, 186\n\n\n Jacobi, Professor Hermann, 169, 199\n\n Jaina hermit\u2019s story, 332\n\n Jainism, 168-193, 196-200\n\n _J\u0101taka Book_, 328\n\n Jebb, Sir Richard, 135\n\n Jenyns, Soame, 360\n\n Jesus Christ, 130, 145, 188, 216, 231, 244, 249-252, 320\n\n Jews (_see_ Hebrews)\n\n Jinas, 170\n\n Joghi, 181\n\n John, Father, 338\n\n John XXII., Pope, 49\n\n Jones, Sir William, 135, 152, 225, 333\n\n Jonson, Ben, 283\n\n Joseph of Anchieta, 255-256\n\n Josephus, 24\n\n Julia Domna, Empress, 338\n\n\n K\u00e1lid\u00e1sa, 333\n\n Kamb\u00f4ga, 188\n\n Karileff, 254\n\n Karman, 175-177\n\n Kasi, King of, 330-331\n\n Katmir, 230\n\n Keats, John, 207\n\n Kempis, Thomas \u00e0, 171\n\n Keshub Chunder Sen, 25\n\n Khordah Avesta, 134, 137, 159\n\n Kirghis, the, 85\n\n Koran, 136, 221-223, 226-230, 237, 261, 287\n\n Koureen, 296\n\n\n Lahore Zoological Gardens, 236\n\n Lake dwellers, 90\n\n Lamarck, 363\n\n Lamartine, 69\n\n Lampus, 26\n\n Lancelot, 296\n\n Lane, 224\n\n Language, definition of, 354-355\n\n Laplander, the, 87-90\n\n Lapwing, Solomon and the, 228-229\n\n Lebid, 237-239\n\n Lecky, 362\n\n _Legenda Aurea_, 249, 258\n\n Leibnitz, 365\n\n Leland, C. G., 277\n\n Leopardi, 59, 125, 187\n\n Lesbia\u2019s sparrow, 56\n\n Lessona, Carlo, 363\n\n Leveson, Major, 269\n\n Lion, legend of a humane, 53;\n Christ in the lions\u2019 den, 250-251;\n St. Jerome and the, 253;\n lioness at Chartres, 262;\n eating of monkeys and men by, 268-269;\n love for his mate, 269-270;\n legend of vulture and, 325;\n sympathy of, 358\n\n _Lion\u2019s Kingdom_, 30\n\n _Lives_, Plutarch\u2019s, 65, 74\n\n Lizard, sacredness of, 108-110\n\n Lockhart, 291\n\n Lombroso, 267\n\n Long, Rev. J., 168\n\n Lotus-flower, white, 176\n\n Lucian, 15, 56, 278\n\n Lucretius, 84, 206, 239\n\n Lyall, Sir Alfred, 180\n\n Lyall, Sir Chas., 238\n\n Lyc\u00e6us, Mount, 273\n\n Lycanthropy, 274-275\n\n\n Maeterlinck, 331\n\n Magians, the, 119, 124, 127-129, 148, 226\n\n Magic, 273-280\n\n Magpie, legend of a, 77-78\n\n _Mahabharata_, 317, 322\n\n Mahavira, 169-173, 197-198\n\n Mahmoud, 241\n\n _Malay Magic_, 224\n\n Malebranche, 356\n\n Man, ages of, 84\n\n Mandeville, 196, 352\n\n Man-eating animals, 268, 270-272\n\n Manich\u00e6ism, 127, 261\n\n Manning, Cardinal, 347\n\n Manu, Institutes of, 29\n\n Marcellus, Theatre of, 55\n\n Marcus Aurelius, 59\n\n Mare, story of the creation of, 288\n\n Marne, 254\n\n Marriage in the East, 139-140\n\n Martial, 58\n\n Massaia, Cardinal, 262\n\n Matreya, 170\n\n Mazdaism, 116-119, 124, 129, 133-139, 155, 157-158, 159, 160-161, 225,\n 233\n\n Mecca, 231\n\n Media, 129\n\n Medina, 232\n\n Melampus, 344\n\n Melior, parrot of, 56-57\n\n Menelek, Emperor, 229\n\n Merodach, 122\n\n Metempsychosis (_see_ Transmigration)\n\n Michelet, 364\n\n Mill, J. S., 127\n\n Millais, Guille, 240\n\n Milton, John, 205\n\n Minotaur legend, 30\n\n Mithra, 120, 147, 158, 336\n\n Mivart, 354\n\n Modi, Jivanji Jamsedji, 45\n\n Mohammedanism, 109, 130, 216-217, 221-222, 248\n\n Monkeys, 306\n\n Monotheism, 118-123, 128\n\n Montaigne, 352\n\n _Moral Philosophy_, 346\n\n \u201cMorocco,\u201d 283\n\n Moslemism, 221-236\n\n Moti (tiger at Lahore), 236\n\n Moufflons, 85\n\n Muklagerri Hills, 171\n\n Mule of the Parthenon, 66-67\n\n Mungoose stories, 306-307, 309-311\n\n Murad, Sultan, 223\n\n\n Nanak, Baba, 201\n\n Napier, Lord, of Magdala, 316\n\n Naples, gladiatorial shows at, 49\n\n Natural History Museum, S. Kensington, 240\n\n Natural History Society, Bombay, 45\n\n Nedrotti, the, 98\n\n Ne-kilst-lass, 102\n\n Nemesianus, 57\n\n Nennig, mosaic at, 47-48\n\n Neolithic Age, 91-92\n\n Neoplatonism, 344-346\n\n Newman, Cardinal, 11\n\n _Nibelungenlied_, 140\n\n Nirvana, 178, 190-192\n\n Nizami, 243-244\n\n Nobarnus, 52\n\n Non-killing (_see_ _Ahimsa_)\n\n\n Oakesmith, Dr., 63\n\n Octavius, 339\n\n Odoric, Fra, 194-196, 351\n\n _Odyssey_, 23, 25\n\n Okubo, 122\n\n Oppert, Prof. Jules, 118\n\n _Oriental Proverbs_, 168\n\n _Orientalists, Congress of_, 47, 168\n\n Origen, 14, 339, 343\n\n Origin of man and animals, 84-86\n\n _Origin of Species_, 85\n\n Ormuzd, 124, 126\n\n Orpheus, 32, 246-247\n\n Orphic sect, 31\n\n Oseberg, 94\n\n Ovid, 15\n\n Owls, 112\n\n\n Pahlavi, 134-135\n\n Paley, 364\n\n Pallas Athene, 112\n\n _Panchatantra_, the, 307, 311\n\n Pandion, King of Athens, 345\n\n _Paradise Lost_, 205\n\n Paris, University of, 363\n\n Parrots, 56-57, 359\n\n Parsis, food of the, 119-120;\n burial customs of, 124;\n and the Avesta, 133-135;\n and the Ard\u00e2 V\u00eer\u00e2f, 164-165\n\n Parthenon, the, 66-67\n\n Pascal, 356\n\n Patmore, Coventry, 174\n\n Patmos, Seer of, 160\n\n Paul the Hermit, 254\n\n Paulicians, 346\n\n Pausanias, 50-51, 128, 273\n\n Pavia, Corte da, 282\n\n Peace in Nature, 210-212, 231-232, 332-333\n\n Pelicans, legend of, 92\n\n Pereira, Gomez, 354\n\n Pericles, 30, 66\n\n Persepolis, 121, 133\n\n Persians of the eleventh century, 298\n\n Petrarch, 49\n\n Petronius, 51, 58\n\n Philo, 346\n\n Philostratus, 338\n\n Piet, Om, 240\n\n Pigs, 115, 232\n\n Pinder, 294\n\n Pius X., 346\n\n Plato, 15-16, 20\n\n Pliny, 66-67, 353\n\n Plotinus, 344\n\n Plutarch, 45, 62-69, 74, 353\n\n Pluto, 20\n\n Podarges, 26\n\n _Political Register_ (1802), 360\n\n Pompeii, mosaic at, 83\n\n Porphyry, 28, 339, 344, 353\n\n Portionuculo, 260\n\n Primatt, Humphry, 362\n\n Prometheus, 65\n\n Prosecution of animals, 347-351\n\n Provence, 90\n\n Psalms, quotation from, 219-220\n\n Punishment in the Ard\u00e2 V\u00eer\u00e2f, 163-164\n\n Purgatory and animal incarnation, 21\n\n Pythagoreanism, 14-15, 33-34, 59-60, 72, 175, 337, 346\n\n\n Quartenary Age, 86-88\n\n Quinet, \u00c9douard, 357-358\n\n\n Rakush, 294-300\n\n Raleigh, Sir Walter, 283\n\n Ravenna, mosaic at, 73\n\n Ravens, 272\n\n Reasoning power of animals, 158-159;\n Plutarch\u2019s views on, 67-69\n\n Reinach, M. S., 80, 101\n\n Reindeer hunters, 86-89, 96;\n and the Lapps, 285\n\n _Religion of Plutarch_, 63\n\n Religions, Congress for History of, 120\n\n Religious knowledge in animals, 72-74;\n early religions, 93\n\n Renan, 225\n\n Reptiles, killing of, 149\n\n R\u00e9ville, Albert, 136\n\n Rhinoceroses, 51\n\n Rickaby, Father, 346\n\n Rig-Veda, 113-115, 117, 139\n\n Romanes, Professor, 356\n\n \u201cRooh Allah,\u201d 231\n\n Rozinante, 290\n\n Rustem, 294-305\n\n\n Sacerdotalism, 168\n\n Sacontala, 233-234\n\n Sacred birds, animals, and reptiles, 100-101, 104-110\n\n Sacred carpet, 222, 227\n\n Sacrifices, funeral, 12-13;\n Greek, 24-25;\n bloodless, 31;\n belief in, 94;\n of domestic animals, 95-96;\n Gift and Pact, 96;\n Totemism, 97-98;\n of Persians, 119;\n in the _Bundehesh_, 143;\n to Homa, 148-149;\n for Udra-killing, 156;\n the \u201cTrue Sacrifice\u201d legend, 183-184;\n apostolate for abolition of animal, 337\n\n Sadi, 225\n\n St. Anthony, 254, 259\n\n St. Augustine, 273, 337\n\n St. Bernard, 256-257\n\n St. Columba, 255\n\n St. Edward the Martyr, 274\n\n St. Francis, 74, 167, 234, 257-263\n\n St. Fran\u00e7ois de Sale, 178\n\n St. James, 54\n\n St. Jerome, 253-254\n\n St. Josephat, 261\n\n St. Julien, town of, 349-350\n\n St. Marculphe, 255\n\n St. Martin, 259\n\n St. Paul, 211-212\n\n St. Philip Neri, 347\n\n St. Teresa, 184\n\n St. Thomas Aquinas, 275\n\n Saint-Calais, 255\n\n Saint-Hilaire, Geoffroy, 358\n\n Sakya Muni, 129, 169, 197\n\n Sama, Legend of, 330-332\n\n Samengan, 299-301\n\n S\u00e1s\u00e1nians, 119, 139-140\n\n _Satyricon_, 51\n\n Schopenhauer, 206, 258, 361\n\n Sebectighin, 240-241\n\n Secundra Orphanage, 45\n\n Semites (_see_ Hebrews)\n\n Seneca, 59-61, 82\n\n _Sensitive Plant, The_, 174\n\n Serapeum, 102\n\n Serapis, 336\n\n Serpent, the, 110-111\n\n Sestius, 61\n\n _Seven Sleepers of Ephesus_, 229-230\n\n _Shah Nameh_, 141, 294, 301\n\n Shakespeare, William, 256, 282-283\n\n She-wolves of Rome, 44-45\n\n Sheba, 228\n\n Sheikh of T\u00fas, 141\n\n Shughdad, 303\n\n Siam, 194\n\n Siegemund and Siegelind, 140\n\n Siegfried, 294\n\n Siena, 208\n\n Sikhs, 201\n\n Simurghs, 298\n\n Sivi, King, 321-322\n\n Smith, Dr. H. P., 110\n\n Snakes, in India, 265-266;\n and the mungoose, 309-311\n\n Societies to protect animals, 356-360\n\n Socrates, 156, 162\n\n Sohrab, 299-305\n\n Solomon in the Valley of Ants, 227\n\n Soma, 148\n\n Somerville, Mrs., 100\n\n Sophocles, 90\n\n Sotio, 60-61\n\n Southey, Robert, 365-366\n\n Srosh, 162\n\n Stable, a sanctuary, 305\n\n Stag, fable of a, 326\n\n Statius, 53, 56-57\n\n _Stel\u00e6_, 80\n\n Stevenson, R. L., 196\n\n Stoics, the, 65, 71\n\n Stork, legend of a, 255\n\n _Strange Stories from a Chinese Studio_, 313\n\n Strauss, 362-363\n\n Sufism, 225\n\n Suicide in India, 186\n\n \u201cSultan,\u201d 312\n\n Sumner, Charles, 281\n\n Sutras, 11-12\n\n Suttees, 12\n\n Swan-maidens (_see_ Apsarases)\n\n Swine-flesh, forbidding of, 232\n\n Sycamore-tree at Matarea, 248\n\n Symmachus, 52-53\n\n\n Tahmineh, 301, 303\n\n Taliumen, 142\n\n Taoism, 105-106\n\n _Tatchi-lou-lun_, 326\n\n Taylor, John, 283\n\n Taylor, Canon Isaac, 91\n\n Temple, building, 121-122;\n Jaina temples, 171\n\n Tennyson, 296\n\n Thaumaturgy, 181-183\n\n Thebaid, 181\n\n Theogony, 128\n\n Theophrastus, 56\n\n Theocritus, 83\n\n Thomas, Pseudo-, 248\n\n _Three Merchants, Parable of the_, 176\n\n Tiberius, 61\n\n Tigers in India, 265-268, 270-272\n\n Tigress, fable of the, 327\n\n _Times, The_, 360\n\n Tirthakaras, 170-171\n\n Titus, 52\n\n Tobias, 92-93\n\n Tobit\u2019s dog, 114\n\n Todas, 285\n\n Torquemada, 151, 339\n\n Totemism, 96-102, 107, 272\n\n Transformation, 270-280\n\n Transmigration, 11-21, 186-189, 261\n\n Tribal system, 129\n\n Triptolemus, 345\n\n Troglodite Age, 88-89\n\n _Trusty Lydia_, 58\n\n\n Udra, the 155-156\n\n Ulemas, 234, 288\n\n Upanishads, 12-13\n\n Uruguay, 298\n\n\n Valencia, 292\n\n Varro, 275\n\n Varuna, 116\n\n Vedas, 13-14, 20, 93, 117-178, 183, 279-280\n\n Vegetarianism, 167, 172, 193\n\n Velasquez\u2019s horse, 284\n\n Venid\u00e2d, 134, 152, 156-157\n\n Vespasian, 55\n\n Viking ship, 13, 94\n\n Vinci, Leonardo da, 353\n\n Virgil, 25, 275, 336\n\n Vispered, 134\n\n Vivisection, 29, 357\n\n Voltaire, 247, 356\n\n\n Walaric, 255\n\n Were-wolves, 274-277, 351\n\n Wildebeest and Om Piet, 240\n\n Witchcraft (_see_ Magic)\n\n Wolf, the, 149, 268, 273-277\n\n Wolf of Agobio, 257-258\n\n Women and Jainism, 184-186\n\n Wordsworth, William, 65\n\n Worms, Council of, 348\n\n Wu-hu, 314-315\n\n Wusinara, 317-319\n\n\n Xanthus, 26-28\n\n Xantippus, 79\n\n Xenocrates, 30\n\n\n Yama, 20, 158, 203, 324\n\n Yasna, 134-135\n\n Yogis, legend of two, 235\n\n Yudishthira, story of, 322-324\n\n\n Zal, 294-296\n\n Zarathustra (_see_ Zoroaster)\n\n Zechariah\u2019s war-horse, 284\n\n Zend (_see_ Avesta)\n\n Zoolatry, 144\n\n _Zoological Mythology_, 290\n\n Zoomorphism in Egypt, 102, 340\n\n Zor\u00e1k, 142\n\n Zeus, 25, 273\n\n Zoroaster, teaching of, 113, 118-125, 129-165, 225\n\n\n\n UNWIN BROTHERS, LIMITED PRINTERS, WOKING AND LONDON\n\n\n\n\n------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\n\n\n\nTranscriber\u2019s note:\n\n \u25cb Missing or obscured punctuation was silently corrected.\n\n \u25cb Typographical errors were silently corrected.\n\n \u25cb Inconsistent spelling and hyphenation were made consistent only\n when a predominant form was found in this book.\n\n \u25cb Unpaired double quotation marks were left intact if correction\n was not obvious.","title":"The Place of Animals in Human Thought","tradition":"folklore-oral-tradition","translated_text":null,"word_count":99546}