CHAPTER X: FURTHER CLASS-DISTINCTIONS.

§ 416. Foregoing chapters have shown how, from primitive usages of the ceremonial kind, there are derived usages which, in course of time, lose the more obvious traces of their origin. There remain to be pointed out groups of secondarily-derived usages still more divergent.

In battle, it is important to get the force of gravity to fight on your side; and hence the anxiety to seize a position above that of the foe. Conversely, the combatant who is thrown down, cannot further resist without struggling against his own weight, as well as against his antagonist’s strength. Hence, being below is so habitually associated with defeat, as to have made maintenance of this relation (literally expressed by the words superior and inferior) a leading element in ceremony at large. The idea of relative elevation as distinguishing the positions of rulers from those of ruled, runs through our language; as when we speak of higher and lower classes, upper and under servants, and call officers of minor rank subordinates or subalterns. Everywhere this idea enters into social observances. That tendency to connect the higher level with honourableness, which among ourselves in old times was shown by reserving the daïs for those of rank and leaving the body of the hall for common people, produces in the East, where ceremonial is so greatly developed, various rigid regulations. Writing of Lombock, Wallace says—

“The highest seat is literally, with these people, the place of honour and the sign of rank. So unbending are the rules in this respect, that when an English carriage which the Rajah of Lombock had sent for, arrived, it was found impossible to use it because the driver’s seat was the highest, and it had to be kept as a show in its coach-house.”

Similarly, according to Yule, in Burmah. “That any person should occupy a floor over head, would be felt as an intense degradation. . . . To the same reason is generally ascribed the little use made by the kings of Ava of the carriages, which have at various times been sent to them as presents.” So too of Siam, Bowring remarks:—

“No man of inferior rank dares to raise his head to the level of that of his superior; no person can cross a bridge if an individual of higher grade chances to be passing below; no mean person may walk upon a floor above that occupied by his betters.”

And this idea that relative elevation is an essential accompaniment of superior rank, we shall presently see dictates several kinds of sumptuary regulations.

Other derivative class-distinctions are sequent upon differences of wealth; which themselves originally follow differences of power. From that earliest stage in which master and slave are literally captor and captive, abundance of means has been the natural concomitant of mastery, and poverty the concomitant of slavery. Hence where the militant type of organization predominates, being rich indirectly implies being victorious, or having the political supremacy gained by victory. It is true that some primitive societies furnish exceptions. Among the Dacotahs “the civil-chiefs and war-chiefs are distinguished from the rest by their poverty. They generally are poorer clad than any of the rest.” The like holds of the Abipones, whose customs supply an explanation. A cazique, distinguished by the “peculiar oldness and shabbiness” of his clothes, remains shabby because, if he puts on “new and handsome apparel, . . . the first person he meets will boldly cry ‘Give me that dress’ . . . and unless he immediately Edition: current; Page: [200] parts with it, he becomes the scoff and the scorn of all, and hears himself called covetous and niggardly.” But with a few such exceptions, marks of wealth are regarded as marks of honour, even by primitive peoples. Among the Mishmis,

“The skull of every animal that has graced the board, is hung up as a record in the hall of the entertainer; . . . and when he dies, the whole smoke-dried collection of many years is piled upon his grave as a monument of his riches and a memorial of his worth.”

A like usage occurs in Africa. “The Bambarans,” says Caillié, “hang on the outside of their huts the heads of all the animals they eat; this is looked upon as a mark of grandeur.” And then on the Gold Coast, “the richest man is the most honoured, without the least regard to nobility.” Naturally the honouring of wealth, beginning in these early stages, continues through subsequent stages; and signs of wealth hence become class-distinctions: so originating various ceremonial restrictions.

Carrying with us the two ruling ideas thus briefly exemplified, we shall readily trace the genesis of sundry curious observances.

§ 417. In tropical countries the irritation produced by flies is a chief misery in life; and sundry habits which in our eyes are repulsive, result from endeavours to mitigate this misery. In the absence of anything better, the lower races of mankind cover their bodies with films of dirt as shields against these insect-enemies. Hence, apparently, one motive for painting the skin. Juarros says:—“The barbarians, or unreclaimed Indians, of Guatemala . . . . always paint themselves black, rather for the purpose of defence against mosquitoes than for ornament.” And then we get an indication that where the pigment used, being decorative and costly, is indicative of wealth, the abundant use of it becomes honourable. In Tanna “some of the chiefs show their rank by an extra coat of pigment [red Edition: current; Page: [201] earth on the face], and have it plastered on as thick as clay.” Coming in this way to distinguish the man of power who possesses much, from subject men who possess little, the putting on of a protective covering to the skin, grows into a ceremony indicating supremacy. Says D. Duran of the Mexicans, “they anointed [Vitziliuitl, the elected king] on his whole body with the bitumen with which they anointed the statue of their god Vitzilopochtli;” and specifying otherwise the material used, Herrera says “they crowned and anointed Vitzilocutly with an ointment they called divine, because they used it to their idol.”

Instead of earths, paints, and bituminous substances, other people employ for protecting the skin, oils and fatty matters. Proof exists that the use of these also, in great quantity and of superior quality, serves to indicate wealth, and consequently rank; and, guided by the above facts, we may suspect that there have hence arisen certain ceremonies performed in recognition of superior power. Africa furnishes two pieces of evidence which go far to justify this conclusion.

“The richer a Hottentot is,” says Kolben, “the more Fat and Butter he employs in anointing himself and his family. This is the grand Distinction between the Rich and the Poor. . . . Everyone’s Wealth, Magnificence, and Finery being measured by the Quantity and delicacy of the Butter or Fat upon his Body and Apparel.”

And then we read in Wilkinson that—

“With the Egyptians as with the Jews, the investiture to any sacred office, as that of king or priest, was confirmed by this external sign [of anointing]; and as the Jewish lawgiver mentions the ceremony of pouring oil on the head of the high-priest after he had put on his entire dress, with the mitre and crown, the Egyptians represent the anointing of their priests and kings after they were attired in their full robes with the cap and crown upon their head. . . . They also anointed the statues of the gods; which was done with the little finger of the right hand. . . . The custom of anointing was the ordinary token of welcome to guests in every party at the house of a friend. . . . The dead were made to participate in it, as if sensible of the token of esteem thus bestowed upon them.”

When we thus find that among some uncivilized people the abundance and fine quality of the fat used for protecting the skin marks wealth, and consequently rank; when we join with this a proof that the anointing with unguents among the Egyptians was an act of propitiation, alike to gods, kings, deceased persons, and ordinary guests; and when we remember that the anointment with which Christ was anointed was “precious;” we may reasonably infer that this ceremony attending investiture with sovereignty was originally one indicating the wealth that implied power.

§ 418. The idea of relative height and the idea of relative wealth, appear to join in originating certain building regulations expressive of class-distinctions. An elevated abode implies at once display of riches and assumption of a position overlooking others. Hence, in various places, limitations of the heights to which different ranks may build. In ancient Mexico, under Montezuma’s laws, “no one was allowed to build a house with [several] stories, except the great lords and gallant captains, on pain of death.” A kindred regulation exists at the present time in Dahomey; where the king, wishing to honour some one, “gave him a formal leave to build a house two stories high;” and where “the palace and the city gates are allowed five surish [steps]; chiefs have four tall or five short, and all others three, or as the king directs.” There are restrictions of like kind in Japan. “The height of the street-front, and even the number of windows, are determined by sumptuary laws.” So, too, is it in Burmah. Yule says:—“The character of house, and especially of roof, appropriate to each rank, appears to be a matter of regulation, or inviolable prescription;” and, according to Sangermano, “nothing less than death can expiate the crime, either of choosing a shape [for a house] that does not belong to the dignity of the master, or of painting the house white; which colour is permitted Edition: current; Page: [203] to the members of the royal family alone.” More detailed are the interdicts named by Syme.

“Piasath, the regal spire, distinguishes the dwellings of the monarch and the temples of the divinity. To none other is it allowed. . . . There are no brick buildings either in Pegue or Rangoon except such as belong to the king, or are dedicated to their divinity Gaudama. . . . Gilding is forbidden to all subjects of the Birman Empire. Liberty even to lacker and paint the pillars of their houses, is granted to very few.”

§ 419. Along with laws forbidding those of inferior rank to have the higher and more ornamental houses which naturally imply the wealth that accompanies power, there go interdicts on the use by common people of various appliances to comfort which the man of rank and influence has. Among these may first be noted artificial facilities for locomotion.

A sketch in an African book of travels, representing the king of Obbo making a progress, seated on the shoulders of an attendant, shows us in its primitive form, the connexion between being carried by other men and the exercise of power over other men. Marking, by implication, a ruling person, the palanquin or equivalent vehicle is in many places forbidden to inferior persons. Among the ancient Chibchas, “the law did not allow any one to be carried in a litter on the shoulders of his men, except the Bogota and those to whom he gave the privilege.” Prior to the year 1821, no person in Madagascar “was allowed to ride in the native chair or palanquin, except the royal family, the judges, and first officers of state.” So, too, in Europe, there have been restrictions on the use of such chairs. Among the Romans, “in town only the senators and ladies were allowed to be carried in them;” and in France, in past times, the sedan was forbidden to those below a certain rank. In some places the social status of the occupant is indicated by the more or less costly accompaniments. Kœmpfer says that in Japan, “the bigness and length of these [sedan] Edition: current; Page: [204] poles had been determined by the political laws of the empire, proportionable to every one’s quality.” . . . The sedan “is carried by two, four, eight, or more men, according to the quality of the person in it.” The like happens in China. “The highest officers are carried by eight bearers, others by four, and the lowest by two: this, and every other particular, being regulated by laws.” Then, elsewhere, the character of appliances for locomotion on water is similarly prescribed. In Turkey, “the hierarchy of rank is maintained and designated by the size of each Turkish functionary’s boat;” and in Siam “the height and ornaments of the cabin [in barges] designate the rank or the functions of the occupier.”

As the possession of chair-bearers, who in early stages are slaves, implies alike the mastery and the wealth always indicative of rank in societies of militant type; so, too, does possession of attendants to carry umbrellas or other protections against the sun. Hence interdicts on the use of these by inferiors. Such restrictions occur in comparatively early stages. In Fiji (Somo-somo) only the king and the two high priests in favour, can use the sun-shade. In Congo only those of royal blood are allowed to use an umbrella, or to be carried in a mat. The sculptured records of extinct eastern peoples, imply the existence of this class-mark. Among the Assyrians,

“the officers in close attendance upon the monarch varied according to his employment. In war he was accompanied by his charioteer, his shield-bearer or shield-bearers, his groom, his quiver-bearer, his mace-bearer, and sometimes by his parasol-bearer. In peace the parasol-bearer is always represented as in attendance, except in hunting expeditions, or where he is replaced by a fan-bearer.”

Adjacent parts of the world show us the same mark of distinction in use down to the present time. “From India to Abyssinia,” says Burton, “the umbrella is the sign of royalty.” Still further east this symbol of dignity is multiplied to produce the idea of greater dignity. In Siam, at the Edition: current; Page: [205] king’s coronation, “a page comes forward and presents to the king the seven-storied umbrella,—the savetraxat or primary symbol of royalty.” And when the emperor of China leaves his palace, he is accompanied by twenty men bearing large umbrellas and twenty fan-bearers. Elsewhere umbrellas, not monopolized by kings, may be used by others, but with differences; as in Java, where custom prescribes six colours for the umbrellas of six ranks. Evidently the shade-yielding umbrella is closely allied to the shade-yielding canopy; the use of which also is a class-distinction. Ancient America furnished a good instance. In Utlatlan the king sat under four canopies, the “elect” under three, the chief captain under two, and the second captain under one. And here we are reminded that this developed form of the umbrella, having four supports, is alike in the East and in Europe, used in exaltation of both the divine ruler and the human ruler: in the one region borne by attendants over kings and supported in a more permanent manner over the cars in which idols are drawn; and in the other used alike in state-processions and ecclesiastical processions, to shade now the monarch and now the Host.

Of course with regulations giving to higher ranks the exclusive enjoyment of the more costly conveniences, there go others forbidding the inferior to have conveniences of even less costly natures. For example, in Fiji the best kind of mat for lying on is forbidden to the common people. In Dahomey, the use of hammocks is a royal prerogative, shared in only by the whites. Concerning the Siamese, Bowring says:—“We were informed that the use of such cushions [more or less ornamented, according to rank] was prohibited to the people.” And we learn from Bastian that among the Joloffs the use of the mosquito-curtain is a royal prerogative.

§ 420. Of sumptuary laws, those regulating the uses of foods may be traced back to very early stages—stages in Edition: current; Page: [206] which usages have not yet taken the shape of laws. They go along with the subordination of the young to the old, and of females to males. Among the Tasmanians, “the old men get the best food;” and Sturt says, “only the old men of the natives of Australia have the privilege of eating the emu. For a young man to eat it is a crime.” The Khond women, Macpherson tells us, “for some unknown cause, are never, I am informed, permitted to eat the flesh of the hog.” In Tahiti “the men were allowed to eat the flesh of the pig, and of fowls, and a variety of fish, cocoa-nuts, and plantains, and whatever was presented as an offering to the gods, which the females, on pain of death, were forbidden to touch.” After stating that the Fijian women are never permitted to enter the temple, the United States’ explorers add—“nor, as we have seen, to eat human flesh, at least in public.”

Of food-restrictions other than those referring to age and sex, may first be named one from Fiji—one which also refers to the consumption of human flesh. Seeman says “the common people throughout the group, as well as women of all classes, were by custom debarred from it. Cannibalism was thus restricted to the chiefs and gentry.” Of other class-restrictions on food, ancient America furnishes examples. Among the Chibchas, “venison could not be eaten unless the privilege had been granted by the cazique.” In San Salvador, “none formerly drank chocolate but the prime men and notable soldiers;” and in Peru “the kings (Yncas) had the coca as a royal possession and privilege.”

Of course there might be added to these certain of the sumptuary laws respecting food which prevailed during past times throughout Europe.

§ 421. Of the various class-distinctions which imply superior rank by implying greater wealth, the most curious remain. I refer to certain inconvenient, and sometimes painful, Edition: current; Page: [207] traits, only to be acquired by those whose abundant means enable them to live without labour, or to indulge in some kind of sensual excess.

One group of these distinctions, slightly illustrated among ourselves by the pride taken in delicate hands, as indicating freedom from manual labor, is exhibited in marked forms in some societies that are comparatively little advanced. “The chiefs in the Society Islands value themselves on having long nails on all, or on some, of their fingers.” “Fijian kings and priests wear the finger nails long,” says Jackson; and in Sumatra, “persons of superior rank encourage the growth of their hand-nails, particularly those of the fore and little fingers, to an extraordinary length.” Everyone knows that a like usage has a like origin in China; where, however, long nails have partially lost their meaning: upper servants being allowed to wear them. But of personal defects similarly originating, China furnishes a far more striking instance in the cramped feet of ladies. Obviously these have become signs of class-distinction, because of the implied inability to labour, and the implied possession of means sufficient to purchase attendance. Then, again, as marking rank because implying riches, we have undue, and sometimes excessive, fatness; either of the superior person himself or of his belongings. The beginnings of this may be traced in quite early stages; as among some uncivilized American peoples. “An Indian is respectable in his own community, in proportion as his wife and children look fat and well fed: this being a proof of his prowess and success as a hunter, and his consequent riches.” From this case, in which the relation between implied wealth and implied power is directly recognized, we pass in the course of social development to cases in which, instead of the normal fatness indicating sufficiency, there comes the abnormal fatness indicating superfluity, and, consequently, greater wealth. In China, great fatness is a source of pride in a mandarin. Ellis tells us Edition: current; Page: [208] that corpulence is a mark of distinction among Tahitian females. Throughout Africa there prevails an admiration for corpulence in women, which, in some places, rises to a great pitch; as in Karague where the king has “very fat wives”—where, according to Speke, the king’s sister-in-law “was another of those wonders of obesity, unable to stand excepting on all fours,” and where, “as fattening is the first duty of fashionable female life, it must be duly enforced by the rod if necessary.” Still stranger are the marks of dignity constituted by diseases resulting from those excessive gratifications of appetite which wealth makes possible. Even among ourselves may be traced an association of ideas which thus originates. The story about a gentleman of the old school, who, hearing that some man of inferior extraction was suffering from gout, exclaimed—“Damn the fellow; wasn’t rheumatism good enough for him,” illustrates the still-current idea that gout is a gentlemanly disease, because it results from that high living which presupposes the abundant means usually associated with superior position. Introduced by this instance, the instance which comes to us from Polynesia will seem not unnatural. “The habitual use of ava causes a whitish scurf on the skin, which among the heathen Tahitians was reckoned a badge of nobility; the common people not having the means of indulgence requisite to produce it.” But of all marks of dignity arising in this way, or indeed in any way, the strangest is one which Ximenez tells us of as existing among the people of ancient Guatemala. The sign of a disorder, here best left unspecified, which the nobles were liable to, because of habits which wealth made possible, had become among the Guatemalans a sign “of greatness and majesty;” and its name was applied even to the deity!

§ 422. How these further class-distinctions, though not, like preceding ones, directly traceable to militancy, are indirectly Edition: current; Page: [209] traceable to it, and how they fade as industrialism develops, need not be shown at length.

Foregoing instances make it clear that they are still maintained rigorously in societies characterized by that type of organization which continuous war establishes; and that they prevailed to considerable degrees during the past warlike times of more civilized societies. Conversely, they show that as, along with the rise of a wealth which does not imply rank, luxuries and costly modes of life have spread to those who do not form part of the regulative organization; the growth of industrialism tends to abolish these marks of class-distinction which militancy originates. No matter what form they take, all these supplementary rules debarring the inferior from usages and appliances characterizing the superior, belong to a social régime based on coercive co-operation; while that unchecked liberty which, among ourselves, the classes regulated have to imitate the regulating classes in habits and expenditure, belongs to the régime of voluntary co-operation.