CHAPTER IV: PRESENTS.

§ 368. Travellers, coming in contact with strange peoples, habitually propitiate them by gifts. Two results are achieved. Gratification caused by the worth of the thing given, tends to beget a friendly mood in the person approached; and there is a tacit expression of the donor’s desire to please, which has a like effect. It is from the last of these that gift-making as a ceremony proceeds.

The alliance between mutilations and presents—between offering a part of the body and offering something else—is well shown by a statement respecting the ancient Peruvians; which also shows how present-making becomes a propitiatory act, apart from the value of the thing presented. Describing people who carry burdens over the high passes, Garcilasso says they unload themselves on the top, and then severally say to the god Pachacamac,—

“ ‘I give thanks that this has been carried,’ and in making an offering they pulled a hair out of their eyebrows, or took the herb called cuca from their mouths, as a gift of the most precious things they had. Or if there was nothing better, they offered a small stick or piece of straw, or even a piece of stone or earth. There were great heaps of these offerings at the summits of passes over the mountains.”

Though, coming in this unfamiliar form, these offerings of parts of themselves, or of things they prized, or of worthless things, seems strange, they will seem less strange on remembering that at the foot of a wayside crucifix in France, may Edition: current; Page: [84] any day be seen a heap of small crosses, severally made of two bits of lath nailed together. Intrinsically of no more value than these straws, sticks, and stones the Peruvians offered, they similarly force on our attention the truth that the act of presentation passes into a ceremony expressing the wish to conciliate. How natural is this substitution of a nominal giving for a real giving, where a real giving is impracticable, we are shown even by intelligent animals. A retriever, accustomed to please his master by fetching killed birds, &c., will fall into the habit at other times of fetching things to show his desire to please. On first seeing in the morning some one he is friendly with, he will add to his demonstratioins of joy, the seeking and bringing in his mouth a dead leaf, a twig, or any small available object lying near. And, while serving to show the natural genesis of this propitiatory ceremony, his behaviour serves also to show how deep down there begins the process of symbolization; and how, at the outset, the symbolic act is as near a repetition of the act symbolized as circumstances allow.

Prepared as we thus are to trace the development of gift-making into a ceremony, let us now observe its several varieties, and the social arrangements eventually derived from them.

§ 369. In headless tribes, and in tribes of which the headship is unsettled, and in tribes of which the headship though settled is feeble, making presents does not become an established usage. Australians, Tasmanians, Fuegians are instances; and on reading through accounts of wild American races that are little organized, like the Esquimaux, Chinooks, Snakes, Comanches, Chippewas, or are organized in a democratic manner, like the Iroquois and the Creeks, we find, along with absence of strong personal rule, scarcely any mention of gift-making as a political observance.

In apt contrast come accounts of usages among those Edition: current; Page: [85] American races which in past times reached, under despotic governments, considerable degrees of civilization. Torquemada writes that in Mexico, “when any one goes to salute the lord or king, he takes with him flowers and gifts.” Of the Chibchas we read that “when they brought a present in order to negotiate or speak with the cazique (for no one went to visit him without bringing a gift), they entered with the head and body bent downwards.” Among the Yucatanese, “when there was hunting or fishing or salt-carrying, they always gave a part to the lord.” Peoples of other types, as the Malayo-Polynesians, living in kindred stages of social progress under the undisputed sway of chiefs, exemplify this same custom. Speaking of things bartered to the Tahitian populace for food, native cloth, &c., Forster says—“However, we found that after some time all this acquired wealth flowed as presents, or voluntary acknowledgments, into the treasure of the various chiefs.” In Fiji, again, “whoever asks a favour of a chief, or seeks civil intercourse with him, is expected to bring a present.”

These last cases show us how making presents passes from a voluntary propitiation into a compulsory propitiation; for on reading that “the Tahitian chiefs plundered the plantations of their subjects at will,” and that in Fiji, “chiefs take the property and persons of others by force;” it becomes manifest that present-making develops into the giving of a part to prevent loss of the whole. It is the policy at once to satisfy cupidity and to express submission. “The Malagasy, slaves as well as others, occasionally make presents of provisions to their chiefs, as an acknowledgment of homage.” And it is inferable that in proportion to the power of chiefs, will be the anxiety to please them; both by forestalling their greedy desires and by displaying loyalty.

In few if any cases, however, does the carrying of gifts to a chief become so developed a usage in a simple tribe. At first the head man, not much differentiated from the rest, Edition: current; Page: [86] fails to impress them with a fear great enough to make present-giving an habitual ceremony. It is only in a compound society, resulting from the over-running of many tribes by a conquering tribe, that there comes a governing class, formed of head-chief and sub-chiefs, sufficiently distinguished from the rest, and sufficiently powerful to inspire the required awe. The above examples are all taken from societies in which kingship has been reached.

§ 370. A more extended form is simultaneously assumed by this ceremony. For where along with subordinate rulers there exists a chief ruler, he has to be propitiated alike by the people at large and by the subordinate rulers. We must here observe the growth of both kinds of gift-making that hence arise.

A place in which the usage has retained its primitive character is Timbuctoo. Here “the king does not levy any tribute on his subjects or on foreign merchants, but he receives presents.” But Caillié adds—“There is no regular government. The king is like a father ruling his children.” When disputes arise, he “assembles a council of the elders.” That is to say, present-giving remains voluntary where the kingly power is not great. Among the Kaffirs, we see gifts losing their voluntary character. “The revenue of the king consists of an annual contribution of cattle, first-fruits,” &c.; and “when a Koossa [Kaffir] opens his granary he must send a little of the grain to his neighbours, and a larger portion to the king.” In Abyssinia there is a like mixture of exactions and spontaneous gifts: besides settled contributions, the prince of Tigré receives annual presents. Evidently when presents that have become customary have ceased in so far to be propitiatory, there is a tendency to make other presents that are propitiatory because unexpected.

If an offering made by a private person implies submission, still more does an offering made by a subordinate ruler Edition: current; Page: [87] to a supreme ruler. Hence the making of presents grows into a formal recognition of supremacy. In ancient Vera Pas, “as soon as some one was elected king . . . all the lords of the tribes appeared or sent relations of theirs . . . with presents.” Among the Chibchas, when a new king came to the throne, “the chief men then took an oath that they would be obedient and loyal vassals, and as a proof of their loyalty each one gave him a jewel and a number of rabbits, &c.” Of the Mexicans, Toribio says—“Each year, at certain festivals, those Indians who did not pay taxes, even the chiefs . . . made gifts to the sovereigns . . . in token of their submission.” And so in Peru, “no one approached Atahuallpa without bringing a present in token of submission.” This significance of gift-making is shown in the records of the Hebrews. In proof of Solomon’s supremacy it is said that “all the kings of the earth sought the presence of Solomon . . . and they brought every man his present . . . a rate year by year.” Conversely, when Saul was chosen king “the children of Belial said, How shall this man save us? And they despised him, and brought him no presents.” Throughout the remote East the bringing of presents to the chief ruler has still the same meaning. I have before me illustrative facts from Japan, from China, from Burmah.

Nor does early European history fail to exemplify present-giving and its implications. During the Merovingian period “on a fixed day, once a-year, in the field of March, according to ancient custom, gifts were offered to the kings by the people;” and this custom continued into the Carolingian period. Such gifts were made alike by individuals and communities. From the time of Gontram, who was overwhelmed with gifts by the inhabitants of Orleans on his entry, it long continued the habit with towns thus to seek the goodwill of monarchs who visited them. In ancient England, too, when the monarchs visited a town, present-making entailed so heavy a loss that in some cases “the passing Edition: current; Page: [88] of the royal family and court was viewed as a great misfortune.”

§ 371. Grouped as above, the evidence implies that from propitiatory presents, voluntary and exceptional to begin with but becoming as political power strengthens less voluntary and more general, there eventually grow up universal and involuntary contributions—established tribute; and that with the rise of a currency this passes into taxation. How this transformation takes place, is well shown in Persia. Speaking of the “irregular and oppressive taxes to which they [the Persians] are continually exposed,” Malcolm says—“The first of these extra taxes may be termed usual and extraordinary presents. The usual presents to the king are those made annually by all governors of provinces and districts, chiefs of tribes, ministers, and all other officers in high charge, at the feast of Nourouze, or vernal equinox. . . . The amount presented on this occasion is generally regulated by usage; to fall short is loss of office, and to exceed is increase of favour.”

The passing of present-making into payment of tribute as it becomes periodic, is clearly exemplified in some comparatively small societies where governmntal power is well established. In Tonga “the higher class of chiefs generally make a present to the king, of hogs and yams, about once a fortnight: these chiefs at the same time receive presents from those below them, and these last from others, and so on, down to the common people.” Ancient Mexico, formed of provinces dependent in various degrees, exhibited several stages of the transition. “The provinces . . . made these contributions . . . since they were conquered, that the gallant Mexicans might . . . cease to destroy them:” clearly showing that the presents were at first propitiatory. Again, “in Meztitlan the tribute was not paid at fixed times . . . but when the lord wanted it.” Then of the tributes throughout the country of Montezuma, we are Edition: current; Page: [89] told that “some of these were paid annually, others every six months, and others every eighty days.” And further of the gifts made at festivals by some “in token of their submission,” Toribio says—“In this way it seems manifest that the chiefs, the merchants, and the landed proprietors, were not obliged to pay taxes, but did so voluntarily.”

A like transition is traceable in early European history. Among the sources of revenue of the Merovingian kings, Waitz enumerates the freewill gifts of the people on various occasions, besides the yearly presents made originally at the March gatherings. And then, speaking of these yearly presents in the Carolingian period, the same writer says they had long lost their voluntary character, and are even described as a tax by Hinemar. They included horses, gold, silver, and jewels, and (from nunneries) garments, and requisitions for the royal palaces; and he adds that these dues, or tributa, were all of a more or less private character: though compulsory they had not yet become taxes in the literal sense. So, too, with the things presented to minor rulers by their feudal dependants. “The dona, after having been, as the name sufficiently indicates, voluntary gifts, were in the twelfth century become territorial dues received by the lords.”

In proportion as values became more definite and payments in coin easier, commutation resulted. Instance, in the Carolingian period, “the so-called inferenda—a due originally paid in cattle, now in money;” instance the oublies, consisting of bread “presented on certain days by vassals to their lords,” which “were often replaced by a small annual due in money;” instance, in our own history, the giving of money instead of goods by towns to a king and his suite making a progress through them. The evidence may fitly be closed with the following passage from Stubbs:—

“The ordinary revenue of the English king had been derived solely from the royal estates and the produce of what had been the Edition: current; Page: [90] folkland, with such commuted payments of feormfultum, or provision in kind, as represented either the reserved rents from ancient possessions of the crown, or the quasi-voluntary tribute paid by the nation to its chosen head.”

In which passage are simultaneously implied the transition from voluntary gifts to involuntary tribute, and the commutation of tribute into taxes.

§ 372. If voluntary gifts to the supreme man by-and-by become tribute, and eventually form a settled revenue, may we not expect that gifts made to his subordinates, when their aid is wished, will similarly become customary, and at length yield them maintenance? Will not the process above indicated in relation to the major State-functionary, repeat itself with the minor State-functionaries? We find that it does so.

First it is to be noted that, besides ordinary presents, the ruling man in early stages commonly has special presents made to him when called on to use his power in aid of an aggrieved subject. Among the Chibchas, “no one could appear in the presence of a king, cazique, or superior, without bringing a gift, which was to be delivered before the petition was made.” In Sumatra, a chief “levies no taxes, nor has any revenue, . . . or other emolument from his subjects, than what accrues to him from the determination of causes.” Of Gulab Singh, a late ruler of Jummoo, Mr. Drew says—“With the customary offering of a rupee as nazar [present] any one could get his ear; even in a crowd one could catch his eye by holding up a rupee and crying out. . . . ‘Maharajah, a petition.’ He would pounce down like a hawk on the money, and, having appropriated it, would patiently hear out the petitioner.” There is evidence that among ourselves in ancient days a kindred usage existed. “We may readily believe,” says Broom, referring to a statement of Lingard, “that few princes in those [Anglo-Saxon] days, declined to exercise Edition: current; Page: [91] judicial functions when solicited by favourites, tempted by bribery, or stimulated by cupidity and avarice.” And on reading that in early Norman times “the first step in the process of obtaining redress was to sue out, or purchase, by paying the stated fees,” the king’s original writ, requiring the defendant to appear before him, we may suspect that the amount paid for this document represented what had originally been the present to the king for giving his judicial aid. There is support for this inference. Blackstone says:—“Now, indeed, even the royal writs are held to be demandable of common right, on paying the usual fees:” implying a preceding time in which the granting of them was a matter of royal favour obtained by propitiation.

Naturally, then, when judicial and other functions come to be deputed, gifts will similarly be made to obtain the services of the functionaries; and these, originally voluntary, will become compulsory. Ancient records yield evidence. Amos ii. 6, implies that judges received presents; as are said to do the Turkish magistrates in the same regions down to our day; and on finding that habitually among the Kirghis, “the judge takes presents from both sides,” we see that the assumption of the prophet, and of the modern observer, that this usage arose by a corruption, adds one to those many cases in which survival of a lower state is mistaken for degradation of a higher. In France, the king in 1256 imposed on his judicial officials, “high and subalterns, an oath to make or receive no present, to administer justice without regard to persons.” Nevertheless gifts continued. Judges received “spices” as a mark of gratitude from those who had won a cause. By 1369, if not before, these were converted into money; and in 1402 they were recognized as dues. In our own history the case of Bacon exemplifies not a special and late practice, but an old and usual one. Local records show the habitual making of gifts to officers of justice and their attendants; and “no approach to a great man, a magistrate, or courtier, was ever made Edition: current; Page: [92] without the oriental accompaniment—a gift.” “Damage cleer,” a gratuity to prothonotaries, had become in the seventeenth century, a fixed assessment. That the presents to State-functionaries formed, in some cases, their entire revenues, is inferable from the fact that in the twelfth century the great offices of the royal household were bought: the value of the presents received was great enough to make the places worth buying. Good evidence comes from Russia. Karamsin “repeats the observations of the travellers who visited Muscovy in the sixteenth century:—‘Is it surprising,’ says these strangers, ‘that the Grand Prince is rich? He neither gives money to his troops nor his ambassadors; he even takes from these last all the costly things they bring back from foreign lands. . . . Nevertheless these men do not complain.’ ” Whence we must infer that, lacking payments from above, they lived on gifts from below. Whence, further, it becomes manifest that what we call the bribes, which the miserably-salaried officials in Russia now require before performing their duties, represent the presents which formed their sole maintenance in times when they had no salaries. And the like may be inferred respecting Spain, of which Rose says:—“From judge down to constable, bribery and corruption prevail. . . . There is this excuse, however, for the poor Spanish official. His government gives him no remuneration, and expects everything of him.”

So natural has habit now made to us the payment of fixed sums for specified services, that we assume this relation to have existed from the beginning. But when we read how, in slightly-organized societies, such as that of the Bechuanas, the chiefs allow their attendants “a scanty portion of food or milk, and leave them to make up the deficiency by hunting or by digging up wild roots;” and how, in societies considerably more advanced, as Dahomey, “no officer under government is paid;” we are shown that originally the subordinates of the chief man, not officially Edition: current; Page: [93] supported, have to support themselves. And as their positions enable them to injure or to benefit subject persons—as, indeed, it is often only by their aid that the chief man can be invoked; there arises the same motive to propitiate them by presents that there does to propitiate by presents the chief man himself. Whence the parallel growth of an income. Here, from the East, is an illustration come upon since the foregoing sentences were first published:—“None of these [servants or slaves] receive any wages, but the master presents each with a suit of clothes at the great yearly festival, and gifts are also bestowed upon them, mostly in money (bakshish), from such visitors as have business with their master, and desire a good word spoken to him at the opportune moment.”

§ 373. Since, at first, the double of the dead man, like him in all other respects, is conceived as being no less liable to pain, cold, hunger, thirst; he is supposed to be similarly propitiated by providing for him food, drink, clothing, &c. At the outset, then, presents to the dead differ from presents to the living neither in meaning nor motive.

Lower forms of society all over the world furnish proofs. Food and drink are left with the unburied corpse by Papuans, Tahitians, Sandwich Islanders, Malanans, Badagas, Karens, ancient Peruvians, Brazilians, &c. Food and drink are afterward carried to the grave in Africa by the Sherbro people, the Loango people, the inland Negroes, the Dahomans, and others; throughout the Indian hills by Bhils, Santals, Kukis; in America by Caribs, Chibchas, Mexicans; and the like usage was general among ancient races in the East. Clothes are periodically taken as presents to the dead by the Esquimaux. In Patagonia they annually open the sepulchral chambers and re-clothe the dead; as did, too, the ancient Peruvians. When a potentate dies among the Congo people, the quantity of clothes given from time to time is so great “that the first hut in which the body Edition: current; Page: [94] is deposited becoming too small, a second, a third, even to a sixth, increasing in dimensions, is placed over it.” And, occasionally, the gifts made by subordinate rulers to the ghost of a supreme dead ruler, simulate the tribute paid to him when living. Concerning a royal funeral in Tonquin, Tavernier writes:—

“There proceeds afterwards Six Princesses who carry Meat and Drink for the deceased King. . . . Four Governours of the four chief provinces of the Kingdom, each bearing a stick on his shoulder, on which hangs a bag full of Gold and several Perfumes, and these bags contain the Presents which the several Provinces make unto the deceased King, for to be buried with his corps, that he may make use of the same in the other World.”

Nor can there be any doubt about the likeness of intention. When we read that a chief among the New Caledonians says to the ghost of his ancestor—“Compassionate father, here is some food for you; eat it; be kind to us on account of it;” or when the Veddah, calling by name a deceased relative, says—“Come and partake of this. Give us maintenance, as you did when living;” we see it to be undeniable that present-giving to the dead is like present-giving to the living, with the difference that the receiver is invisible.

Noting only that there is a like motive for a like propitiation of the undistinguished supernatural beings which primitive men suppose to be all around them—noting that whether it be in the fragments of bread and cake left for elves by our Scandinavian ancestors, or in the eatables which Dyaks place on the tops of their houses to feed the spirits, or in the portions of food cast aside and of drink poured out for the ghosts before beginning their meals, by various races throughout the world; let us go on to observe the developed present-making to the developed supernatural being. The things given and the motives for giving them remain the same; though the sameness is disguised by the use of different words—oblations to a deity and presents to a living person. The original identity is well shown in the Edition: current; Page: [95] statement concerning the Greeks—“Gifts, as an old proverb says, determine the acts of gods and kings;” and it is equally well shown by a verse in the Psalms (lxxvi. 11)—“Vow, and pay unto the Lord your God: let all that be round about him bring presents unto him that ought to be feared.” Observe the parallelism in detail.

Food and drink, which constitute the earliest kind of propitiatory gift to a living person, and also the earliest kind of propitiatory gift to a ghost, remain everywhere the essential components of an oblation to a deity. As, where political power is evolving, the presents sent to the chief at first consist mainly of sustenance; so, where ancestor-worship, developing, has expanded a ghost into a god, the offerings have as elements common to them in all places and times, things serving for nutrition. That this is so in low societies no proof is needed; and that it is so in higher societies is also a conspicuous fact; though a fact ignored where its significance is most worthy to be remarked. If a Zulu slays an ox to secure the goodwill of his dead relative’s ghost, who complains to him in a dream that he has not been fed—if among the Zulus this private act develops into a public act when a bullock is periodically killed as “a propitiatory Offering to the Spirit of the King’s immediate Ancestor;” we may, without impropriety, ask whether there do not thus arise such acts as those of an Egyptian king, who by hecatombs of oxen hopes to please the ghost of his deified father; but it is not supposable that there was any kindred origin for the sacrifices of cattle to Jahveh, concerning which such elaborate directions are given in Leviticus. When we read that among the Greeks “it was customary to pay the same offices to the gods which men stand in need of: the temples were their houses, sacrifices their food, altars their tables;” it is permissible to observe the analogy between these presents of eatables made to gods, and the presents of eatables made at graves to the dead, as being both derived from similar presents made to the Edition: current; Page: [96] living; but that the presentation of meat, bread, fruits, and liquors to Jahveh had a kindred derivation, is a thought not to be entertained—not even though we have a complete parallel between the cakes which Abraham bakes to refresh the Lord when he comes to visit him in his tent on the plains of Mamre, and the shew-bread kept on the altar and from time to time replaced by other bread fresh and hot (1 Sam. xxi, 6). Here, however, recognizing these parallelisms, it may be added that though in later Hebrew times the original and gross interpretation of sacrifices became obscured, and though the primitive theory has since undergone gradual dissipation, yet the form survives. The offertory of our Church still retains the words—“accept our alms and oblations;” and at her coronation, Queen Victoria offered on the altar, by the hands of the archbishop, “an altar-cloth of gold and an ingot of gold,” a sword, then “bread and wine for the communion,” then “a purse of gold,” followed by a prayer “to receive these oblations.”

Evidence from all parts of the world thus proves that oblations are at first literally presents. Animals are given to kings, slain on graves, sacrificed in temples; cooked food is furnished to chiefs, laid on tombs, placed on altars; first-fruits are presented to living rulers, to dead rulers, to gods; here beer, here wine, here chica, is sent to a potentate, offered to a ghost, and poured out as libation to a deity; incense, burnt before ancient kings, and in some places burnt before distinguished persons, is burnt before gods in various places; and besides such consumable things, valuables of every kind, given to secure goodwill, are accumulated in royal treasuries and in sacred temples.

There is one further remark of moment. We saw that the present to the visible ruler was at first propitiatory because of its intrinsic worth, but came afterwards to have an extrinsic propitiatory effect as implying loyalty. Similarly, the presents to the invisible ruler, primarily considered as directly useful, secondarily come to signify obedience; and Edition: current; Page: [97] their secondary meaning gives that ceremonial character to sacrifice which still survives.

§ 374. And now we come upon a remarkable sequence. As the present to the ruler eventually develops into political revenue, so the present to the god eventually develops into ecclesiastical revenue.

Let us set out with that earliest stage in which no ecclesiastical organization exists. At this stage the present to the supernatural being is often shared between him and those who worship him. While the supernatural being is propitiated by the gift of food, there is, by eating together, established between him and his propitiators a bond of union: implying protection on the one side and allegiance on the other. The primitive notion that the nature of a thing, inhering in all its parts, is acquired by those who consume it, and that therefore those who consume two parts of one thing, acquire from it some nature in common—that same notion which initiates the practice of forming a brotherhood by partaking of one another’s blood, which instigates the funeral rite of blood-offering, and which gives strength to the claims established by joining in the same meal, originates this prevalent usage of eating part of that which is presented to the ghost or to the god. In some places the people at large participate in the offering; in some places the medicine-men or priests only; and in some places the last practice is habitual while the first is occasional, as in ancient Mexico, where communicants “who had partaken of the sacred food were engaged to serve the god during the subsequent year.”

Here the fact which concerns us is that from the presents thus used, there arises a maintenance for the sacerdotal class. Among the Kukis the priest, to pacify the angry deity who has made some one ill, takes, it may be a fowl, which he says the god requires, and pouring its blood as an offering on the ground while muttering praises, “then Edition: current; Page: [98] deliberately sits down, roasts and eats the fowl, throws the refuse into the jungle and returns home.” The Battas of Sumatra sacrifice to their gods, horses, buffaloes, goats, dogs, fowls, “or whatever animal the wizard happens on that day to be most inclined to eat.” And by the Bustar tribes in India, Kodo Pen “is worshipped at a small heap of stones by every new-comer, through the oldest resident, with fowls, eggs, grains, and a few copper coins, which become the property of the officiating priest.” Africa has more developed societies which show us a kindred arrangement. In Dahomey, “those who have the ‘cure of souls’ receive no regular pay, but live well upon the benevolences of votaries:” in their temples, “small offerings are daily given by devotees, and removed by the priests.” Similarly in Ashantee, “the revenue of the fetishmen is derived from the liberality of the people. A moiety of the offerings which are presented to the fetish belongs to the priests.” It is the same in Polynesia. Describing the Tahitian doctor as almost invariably a priest, Ellis states that he received a fee, part of which was supposed to belong to the gods, before commencing operations. So, too, was it in the ancient states of Central America. A cross-examination narrated by Oviedo, contains the passage:—

And then in Peru, where worship of the dead was a main occupation of the living, the accumulated gifts to ghosts and gods had resulted in sacred estates, numerous and rich, out of which the priests of all kinds were maintained. A parallel genesis is shown us by ancient historic peoples. Among the Greeks “the remains of the sacrifice are the Edition: current; Page: [99] priests’ fees,” and “all that served the gods were maintained by the sacrifices and other holy offerings.” Nor was it otherwise with the Hebrews. In Leviticus ii. 10, we read—“And that which is left of the meat offering shall be Aaron’s and his sons’ ” (the appointed priests); while other passages entitle the priest to the skin of the offering, and to the whole of the baked and fried offering. Neither does the history of early Christianity fail to exhibit the like development. “In the first ages of the Church, those deposita pietatis which are mentioned by Tertullian were all voluntary oblations.” Afterwards “a more fixed maintenance was necessary for the clergy; but still oblations were made by the people. . . . These oblations [defined as ‘whatever religious Christians offered to God and the Church’], which were at first voluntary, became afterwards, by continual payment, due by custom.” In mediæval times a further stage in the transition is shown us:—“Besides what was necessary for the communion of priests and laymen, and that which was intended for eulogies, it was at first the usage to offer all sorts of presents, which at a later date were taken to the bishop’s house and ceased to be brought to the church.” And then by continuation and enlargement of such donations, growing into bequests, nominally to God and practically to the Church, there grew up ecclesiastical revenues.

§ 375. The foregoing statements represent all presents as made by inferiors to propitiate superiors; ignoring the presents made by superiors to inferiors. The contrast between the two in meaning, is well recognized where present-making is much elaborated, as in China. “At or after the customary visits between superiors and inferiors, an interchange of presents takes place; but those from the former are bestowed as donations, while the latter are received as offerings: these being the Chinese terms for such presents as pass between the emperor and foreign Edition: current; Page: [100] princes.” Concerning donations something must here be said, though their ceremonial character is not marked.

As the power of the political head develops, until at length he assumes universal ownership, there results a state in which he finds it needful to give back part of that which he has monopolized; and having been originally subordinated by giving, his dependants are now, to a certain extent, further subordinated by receiving. People of whom it can be said, as of the Kukis, that “all the property they possess is by simple sufferance of the rajah,” or people who, like the Dahomans, are owned in body and estate by their king, are obviously so conditioned that property having flowed in excess to the political centre must flow down again from lack of other use. Hence, in Dahomey, though no State-functionary is paid, the king gives his ministers and officers royal bounty. Without travelling further afield for illustrations, it will suffice if we note these relations of causes and effects in early European times. Of the ancient Germans, Tacitus says—“The chief must show his liberality, and the follower expects it. He demands at one time this war-horse; at another, that victorious lance imbrued with the enemy’s blood. The prince’s table, however inelegant, must always be plentiful; it is the only pay of his followers.” That is, a monopolizing supremacy had, as its sequence, gratuities to dependants. Mediæval days in France were characterized by modified forms of the same system. In the thirteenth century, “in order that the princes of the blood, the whole royal house, the great officers of the crown, and those . . . of the king’s household, should appear with distinction, the king gave them dresses according to the rank they held and suitably to the season at which these solemn courts were celebrated. These dresses were called liveries (livrées) because they were delivered,” as the king’s free gifts: a statement showing how acceptance of such gifts went along with subordination. It needs scarcely be added that Edition: current; Page: [101] throughout the same stages of progress in Europe, the scattering of largesse to the people by the kings, dukes, and nobles, was similarly a concomitant of that servile position in which such return as they got for their labour in addition to daily sustenance, was in the shape of presents rather than in the shape of wages. Moreover, we still have in vails and Christmas-boxes to servants, &c., the remnants of a system under which fixed remuneration was eked out by gratuities—a system itself sequent upon the earlier system under which gratuities formed the only remuneration.

Thus it becomes tolerably clear that while from presents offered by subject persons, there eventually develop tribute, taxes, and fees; from donations made by ruling persons there eventually develop salaries.

§ 376. Something must be added concerning presents passing between those who do not stand in acknowledged relations of superior and inferior.

Consideration of these carries us back to the primitive form of present-making, as it occurs between members of alien societies; and on looking at some of the facts, there is suggested a question of much interest—Whether from the propitiatory gift made under these circumstances there does not originate another important kind of social action? Barter is not, as we are apt to suppose, universally understood. Cook, speaking of his failure to make any exchange of articles with the Australians, says—“They had, indeed, no idea of traffic.” And other statements suggest that when exchange begins, the thought of equivalence between the things given and received scarcely arises. Of the Ostyaks, who supplied them “with plenty of fish and wildfowl,” Bell remarks—“Give them only a little tobacco and a dram of brandy, and they ask no more, not knowing the use of money.” Remembering that at first no means of measuring values exists, and that the conception of equality of value has to grow by use, it seems not impossible that Edition: current; Page: [102] mutual propitiation by gifts was the act from which barter arose: the expectation that the present received would be of like worth with that given, being gradually established, and the exchanged articles simultaneously losing the character of presents. One may, indeed, see the connexion between the two in the familiar cases of gifts made by European travellers to native chiefs; as where Mungo Park writes—“Presented Mansa Kussan [the chief man of Julifunda] with some amber, coral, and scarlet, with which he appeared to be perfectly satisfied, and sent a bullock in return.” Such transactions show us both the original meaning of the initial present as propitiatory, and the idea that the responsive present should have an approximately-like value: implying informal barter. Nay more. Certain usages of the North American Indians suggest that even a circulating medium may originate from propitiatory presents. Catlin writes:—

“Wampum has been invariably manufactured, and highly valued as a circulating medium (instead of coins, of which the Indians have no knowledge); so many strings, or so many hand’s-breadth, being the fixed value of a horse, a gun, a robe, &c. In treaties, the wampum belt has been passed as the pledge of friendship, and from time immemorial sent to hostile tribes, as the messenger of peace; or paid by so many fathoms’ length, as tribute to conquering enemies.”

Speculation aside, we have to note how the propitiatory present becomes a social observance. That along with the original form of it, signifying allegiance, there goes the spread of it as a means to friendship, was shown in ancient America. Of the Yucatanese we read that, “at their visits the Indians always carry with them presents to be given away, according to their position; those visited respond by another gift.” In Japan, so rigorously ceremonious, the stages of the descent are well shown. There are the periodic presents to the Mikado, expressive of loyalty; there is “the giving of presents from inferiors to superiors;” and between equals “it is customary on the occasion of a first visit Edition: current; Page: [103] to a house to carry a present to the owner, who gives something of equal value on returning the visit.” Other races show us this mutual propitiation taking other forms. Markham, writing of Himalayan people, states that exchanging caps is “as certain a mark of friendship in the hills, as two chiefs in the plains exchanging turbans.” But the most striking development of gift-making into a form, occurs in Bootan; where “between people of every rank and station in life, the presenting of a silk scarf constantly forms an essential part of the ceremonial of salutation.”

“An inferior, on approaching a superior, presents the white silk scarf; and, when dismissed, has one thrown over his neck, with the ends hanging down in front. Equals exchange scarfs on meeting, bending towards each other, with an inclination of the body. No intercourse whatever takes place without the intervention of a scarf; it always accompanies every letter, being enclosed in the same packet, however distant the place to which it is despatched.”

How gift-making, first developed into a ceremony by fear of the chief ruler, and made to take a wider range by fear of the powerful, is eventually rendered general by fear of equals who may prove enemies if they are passed over when others are propitiated, we may gather from European history. Thus in Rome, “all the world gave or received New Year’s gifts.” Clients gave them to their patrons; all the Romans gave them to Augustus. “He was seated in the entrance-hall of his house; they defiled before him, and every citizen holding his offering in his hand, laid it, when passing, at the feet of that terrestrial god . . . the sovereign gave back a sum equal or superior to their presents.” Because of its association with pagan institutions, this custom, surviving into Christian times, was condemned by the Church. In 578 the Council of Auxerre forbade New Year’s gifts, which it characterized in strong words. Ives, of Chartres, says—“There are some who accept from others, and themselves give, devilish New Year’s gifts.” In the twelfth century, Maurice, Edition: current; Page: [104] bishop of Paris, preached against bad people who “put their faith in presents, and say that none will remain rich during the year if he has not had a gift on New Year’s day.” Notwithstanding ecclesiastical interdicts, however, the custom survived through the Middle Ages down to modern times. Moreover, there simultaneously developed kindred periodic ceremonies; such as, in France, the giving of Easter eggs. And present-makings of these kinds have undergone changes like those which we traced in other kinds of present-makings: beginning as voluntary, they have become in a measure compulsory.

§ 377. Spontaneously made among primitive men to one whose goodwill is desired, the gift thus becomes, as society evolves, the originator of many things.

To the political head, as his power grows, presents are prompted partly by fear of him and partly by the wish for his aid; and such presents, at first propitiatory only in virtue of their intrinsic worth, grow to be propitiatory as expressions of loyalty: from the last of which comes present-giving as a ceremonial, and from the first of which comes present-giving as tribute, eventually changing into taxes. Simultaneously, the supplies of food &c., placed on the grave of the dead man to please his ghost, developing into larger and repeated offerings at the grave of the distinguished dead man, and becoming at length sacrifices on the altar of the god, differentiate in an analogous way: the present of meat, drink, or clothes, at first supposed to beget goodwill because actually useful, becomes, by implication, significant of allegiance. Hence, making the gift grows into an act of worship irrespective of the value of the thing given; while, as affording sustenance to the priest, the gift makes possible the agency by which the worship is conducted. From oblations originate Church revenues.

Thus we unexpectedly come upon further proof that the control of ceremony precedes the political and ecclesiastical Edition: current; Page: [105] controls; since it appears that from actions which the first initiates, eventually result the funds by which the others are maintained.

When we ask what relations present-giving has to different social types, we note, in the first place, that there is little of it in simple societies where chieftainship does not exist or is unstable. Conversely, it prevails in compound and doubly-compound societies; as throughout the semi-civilized states of Africa, those of Polynesia, those of ancient America, where the presence of stable headships, primary and secondary, gives both the opportunity and the motive. Recognizing this truth, we are led to recognize the deeper truth that present-making, while but indirectly related to the social type as simple or compound, is directly related to it as more or less militant in organization. The desire to propitiate is great in proportion as the person to be propitiated is feared; and therefore the conquering chief, and still more the king who has made himself by force of arms ruler over many chiefs, is one whose goodwill is most anxiously sought by acts which simultaneously gratify his avarice and express submission. Hence, then, the fact that the ceremony of making gifts to the ruler prevails most in societies that are either actually militant, or in which chronic militancy during past times has evolved the despotic government appropriate to it. Hence the fact that throughout the East where this social type exists everywhere, the making of presents to those in authority is everywhere imperative. Hence the fact that in early European ages, while the social activities were militant and the structures corresponded, loyal presents to kings from individuals and corporate bodies were universal; while donations from superiors to inferiors, also growing out of that state of complete dependence which accompanied militancy, were common.

The like connexion holds with religious offerings. In the extinct militant States of the New World, sacrifices Edition: current; Page: [106] to gods were perpetual, and their shrines were being ever enriched by deposited valuables. Papyri, wall-paintings, and sculptures, show us that among ancient Eastern nations, highly militant in their activities and types of structure, oblations to deities were large and continual; and that vast amounts of property were devoted to making their temples glorious. During early and militant times throughout Europe, gifts to God and the Church were more general and extensive than they are in our relatively industrial times. It is observable, too, how, even now, that representative of the primitive oblation which we still have in the bread and wine of the mass and the sacrament (offered to God before being consumed by communicants), recurs less frequently here than in Catholic societies, which are relatively more militant in type of organization; while the offering of incense, which is one of the primitive forms of sacrifice among various peoples and survives in the Catholic service, has disappeared from the authorized service in England. Nor in our own society do we fail to trace a kindred contrast. For while within the Established Church, which forms part of that regulative structure developed by militancy, sacrificial observances continue, they are not performed by that most unecclesiastical of sects, the Quakers; who, absolutely unmilitant, show us also by the absence of an established priesthood, and by the democratic form of their government, the type of organization most characteristic of industrialism.

The like holds even with the custom of present-giving for purposes of social propitiation. We see this on comparing European nations, which, otherwise much upon a par in their stages of progress, differ in the degrees to which industrialism has qualified militancy. In Germany, where periodic making of gifts among relatives and friends is a universal obligation, and in France, where the burden similarly entailed is so onerous that at the New Year and at Easter, people not unfrequently leave home to escape it, Edition: current; Page: [107] this social usage survives in greater strength than in England, less militant in organization.

Of this kind of ceremony, then, as of the kinds already dealt with, we may say that, taking shape with the establishment of that political headship which militancy produces, it develops with the development of the militant type of social structure, and declines with the development of the industrial type.