SAVAGERY AND SURVIVALS. 393 



of some ceremonies, while it is said that in ancient Russia the 

 father, taking a new whip, would strike his daughter gently, and 

 then hand it over to the groom, indicating thereby that a change 

 of master had taken place. 



The blood-feud or revenge offers a field of similar interest to a 

 student of legal and institutional history. Formerly, before the 

 age of judges, state prisons, and reformatory institutions, it was 

 the custom for an individual to take the law into his own hands. 

 " Self-help," says Farrer, " is for individuals the first rule of ex- 

 istence. But generally this deficiency in the legal protection of 

 life and property is made up for by a principle which lies at the 

 root of savage law the principle, that is, of collective responsi- 

 bility, of including in the guilt of an individual all his blood re- 

 lations jointly or singly/' * One can see upon reflection why the 

 avenging of murders or wrongs committed should be regarded as 

 a family or tribal rather than a personal affair, on account of 

 the powerful influence it must have in repelling crime and keep- 

 ing the public peace. A good illustration of blood vengeance we 

 have among the native Australians to-day, where it is regarded as 

 one's holiest duty to avenge the death of his nearest relation. 

 The force of public opinion compels the man to do his duty by 

 his relative. It is the custom among a certain Brazilian tribe for 

 the " murderer of a fellow-tribesman to be conducted by his rela- 

 tives to those of the deceased, to be by them forthwith strangled 

 and buried, in satisfaction of their rights ; the two families eat- 

 ing together for several days after the event as though for the 

 purpose of reconciliation." But the affair is not always so hap- 

 pily and permanently healed, for if the guilty one escape the 

 avenger slays his nearest relative. Consequently, it was a matter 

 of the greatest importance that the punishment should be visited 

 upon the real culprit, and frequently both families united in 

 hunting down the murderer. But more often, where the inno- 

 cent received the punishment due the guilty, hereditary feuds 

 sprang up between the tribes, and tribal warfare resulted. 



The right of revenge was a recognized principle of the Jewish 

 law, as seen in the following quotation from Exodus : " And if any 

 mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life, eye for eye, tooth 

 for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burning for burning, wound 

 for wound, stripe for stripe." f It was likewise a right recognized 

 by the law and custom of the Germans. In time the right of re- 

 venge gave way and certain modifications of the old institution 

 were made to relieve its severity. This was probably due, as Ty- 

 lor suggests, to the increase of population and the growth of town 

 life. Among the Jews the right of revenge was suspended on 



* Farrer's Primitive Manners and Customs, p. 163. f Exodus, xxi, 23-25. 



