Sept. 7, 1883.] 



KNOWLEDGE ♦ 



147 



was a system of kinship through the mother. The habits 

 of the " much-married " primitive men made mistake about 

 any one's mother less likely than mistake about his father ; 

 and, if in civilised times it is, as the saying goes, a wise 

 child that knows its own father, he was, in barbarous 

 times, a wise father who knew his own child. Examples 

 tracing the kinship through females, father and oflspring 

 being never of the same clan, abound in both ancient and 

 modern authorities, and perhaps the most amusing one that 

 can be given is found in |Dr. Morgan's " Systems of Con- 

 sanguinity." He says that the "natives of the province 

 of Keang-se are celebrated among the natives of the other 

 Chinese provinces for the mode, or form, used by them in 

 address, namely, ' Laon peaon,' which, freely translated, 

 means, ' Oh, you old fellow, brother mine by some of the 

 ramifications of female relationship ! ' " 



The prohibitions arising out of totemism are two : 1. 

 Against intermarriage between those of the same name or 

 crest. 2. Against the eating of the totem by any member 

 of the tribe called after it. 



I. Among both Australians and Indians a man is for- 

 bidden to marry in his own clan, i.e., any woman of his 

 own surname or Ijadge, no matter where she was born or 

 however distantly related to him. 



Were this practice of " Exogamy," as marriage outside 

 the tribe is called, limited to one or two places, it might be 

 classed among exceptional local customs based on a tradi- 

 tion, say, of some heated blood-feud between the tribes. 

 But its prevalence among savage or semi-savage races all 

 the world over points to reasons the nature of which is 

 still a cniic to the anthropologists. The late Mr. McLennan, 

 whose opinion on such a matter is entitled to the most 

 weight, connects it with the custom of female infanticide, 

 which, rendering women scarce, led at once to polyandry, 

 or one female to several males, within the tribe, and to the 

 capturing of women from other tribes. This last-named 

 practice strengthens Mr. McLennan's theory. He cites 

 numerous instances from past and present barbarous races, 

 and traces its embodiment in formal code until we come to 

 the mock relics of the custom in modern times — as, for 

 example, that harmless " survival " in bride-lifting, that is, 

 stealing, as in the word " cattle-lifting." 



Connected with this custom is the equally prevailing one 

 which forbids intercourse between relations, as especially 

 between a couple and their fathers and mothers-in-law, and 

 which also forbids mentioning their names. (I have, by the 

 way, heard more than one cynical son-in-law express regret 

 that certain features of this custom had not survived among 

 ourselves.) So far as the aversion which the savage has 

 to telling his own name, or uttering that of any person 

 (especially the dead), or_ thing feared by him is concerned, 

 the reason is not far to seek. It lies in that confusion 

 between names and things which marks all primitive think- 

 ing. The savage, who shrinks from having his likeness 

 taken in the fear that a part of himself is being carried 

 away thereby, regards his name as something through 

 which ho may Vie harmed. So he will use all sorts of 

 roundabout phrases to avoid saying it, and even change it 

 that he may elude his foes, and puzzle or cheat Death 

 when he comes to look for him. But why a son-in-law 

 should not see the face of his mother-in-law, for so it is 

 among the Aranaks of South America, the Carilis and 

 other tribes of more northern regions, the Fijians, Sunia- 

 trans, Dayaks, the natives of Australia, the Zulus, in brief, 

 along the range of the lower culture, is a question to 

 which no satisfactory answer has been given, and to which 

 referfMice is here made because of its connection with 

 totemism. 



II. Tliat the aniui.al which is the totem of the tribe 



should not^be eaten,^even where men did not hesitate to 

 eat their fellows, is a custom for which it is less hard to 

 account. The division of flesh into two classes of for- 

 bidden and permitted, of clean and unclean, with the 

 resulting artificial liking or repulsion for food which custom 

 arising out of that division has brought about, is pro- 

 bably referable to old beliefs in the inherent sacredness of 

 certain animals. The Indians of Charlotte Island never 

 eat crows, because they believe in crow-ancestors, and they 

 smear themselves with black paint in memory of that tra- 

 dition ; the Dacotahs would neither kill nor eat their 

 totems, and if necessity compels these and like barbarians 

 to break the law, the meal is preceded by profuse apologies 

 and religious ceremonies over the slain. The abstention of 

 the Brahmins from meat, the pseudo-revealed injunction to 

 the Hebrews against certain flesh-foods (that against pork has 

 its origin, it has been suggested, in the tradition of descent 

 from a boar) need no detailing here. But, as parallels, some 

 restrictions amongst the ancient dwellers in these islands 

 are of value. It was, according to Cajsar,* a crime to eat 

 the domestic fowl, or goose, or hare, and to this day the 

 last-named is an object of disgust in certain parts of Russia 

 and Brittany. The oldest Welsh laws contain several 

 allusions to the magical character of the hare, which was 

 thought to change its sex every month or year, and to be 

 the companion of the witches, who often assumed itsshajie.t 

 The revulsion against horseflesh as fuod may have its 

 origin in the sacredness of the white horses, which, as 

 Tacitus remarks,! were kept by the Germans at the public 

 cost in groves holy to the gods, whose secrets they knew, and 

 whose decrees regarding mortals their neighings interpreted. 

 That this animal was a clan-totem among our forefathers 

 there can be no doubt, and the proofs are with us in the 

 white horses carved in outline on the chalk hills of Berk- 

 shire and the west, as in the names and crests of clan 

 descendants. 



The survival of the totem in heraldry is worth more than 

 a passing remark, and will have further reference in a 

 succeeding chapter. 



PRETTY PROOFS OF THE EARTH'S 

 ROTUNDITY. § 



CHIEFLY FOR THE SEASIDE. 

 By Richard A. Proctor. 



{Continued from page 1-10.) 



NEARLY every one must have noticed that when you 

 are in an inland road near the sea, at a consideralile 

 height above the sea-level, you are apt when you get a 

 sudden view of the sea-horizon to find it much higher than 

 you had expected. This is particularly the case if there 

 are steep side-tracks leading down towards the sea from the 

 road you are following and if you have had reason to note 

 the steepness and depth of these side-tracks as you adviince, 

 without however seeing the sea itself for some time. Then 

 when you come upon an opening leading to tlie sea, you 

 look down for the sea-horizon and find that you must turn 

 your eyes upwards to see it : not upwards in reality, nay 



* "Do Bell. Gall.," V., c. 12. 



t Elton's "Origins of English History," p. 297. 



t Gormania, IX., 10. 



§ I beg to state that tliose are entirely mistaken who imagine 

 that these papers are intended for the benelit or instruciion of the 

 Hat earth paradoxers. They are meant entirely for those who know 

 the earth to bo a globe, but (like myself) take interest in noting 

 simple proofs of the fact. 



