The practice of private blood revenge is not unknown to other peoples of Southern Europe. The two principal tribes into which the Albanians are divided, the Toskes and the Guegues, live in a state of constant feud.2 Among the Morlacchi, the Slavonian population of Dalmatia, justice and vengeance have, says the Abbé Fortis, the same meaning, and therefore the Morlach does not know how to forgive injuries. Quarrels are thus almost inextinguishable. "They pass from father to son, and the mothers do not forget to inculcate in their children, while still of tender age, the duty of revenging a father who has been slain, and often to show them, with this object, the bloody shirt or the arms of the dead." 3 Sir Gardner Wilkinson says of the inhabitants of the neighbouring district of Montenegro, that the love of revenge is their ruling passion, and that the custom of blood-feud was universal, quarrels extending from families to villages, until whole districts were sometimes involved in hostilities with their neighbours.4 In the year 1831 the government attempted to abolish the lex talionis, but it had the utmost difficulty to induce the people to forego the practice of blood-revenge for murder.5 Whether this custom has existed among the Slavonians of Southern Europe from time immemorial, or whether it has been introduced in comparatively modern times, owing to the difficulty in obtaining redress through the state for private injuries, may perhaps be doubtful. Among certain Asiatic peoples of much the same degree of culture as the Montenegrins, it has 1 The blood-feud would seem to be still active among the people of the Two Sicilies, as among the Corsicans.

2 Hahn's "Albanesische Studien" (1854), p. 13.

3 Lettre de M. L'Abbé Fortis à Mylord Comte de Bute sur les mœurs et usages des Morlaques (1778).

Dalmatia and Montenegro (1848), vol. i., p. 457.

5 Krasinski's "Montenegro and the Slavonians of Turkey" (1853),

probably always existed. Pallas says of the Circassians, or Tscherkess, that they most scrupulously adhered to the custom of blood-feud. The murder of any one was required to be avenged by the next heir, even though at the time he should be an infant, and he would have been treated as an outcast from society if he did not use every endeavour to avenge himself on the murderer, either publicly or clandestinely. All the relations of a murderer were considered equally guilty with himself, and the feuds engendered were perpetuated through succeeding generations, unless peace could be purchased, or obtained by intermarriage between the rival families. No prince or knight would, however, accept the "price of blood." 1 Elphinstone makes much the same remarks as to blood-feud among the Afghans. Although private revenge is forbidden by the government and preached against by the Mollahs, retaliation on an aggressor is considered by the people both lawful and honourable.2 The Eusofyzes, who boast of their freedom, are described by Elphinstone as being in a state of continual feud among themselves. He says: : "Scarce a day passes without a quarrel; if there is a dispute about water for cultivation, or the boundaries of a field, swords are drawn and wounds inflicted, which lead to years of anxiety and danger, and end in assassination. Each injury produces fresh retaliation, and hence arise ambuscades, attacks in the streets, murders of men in their houses, and all kinds of suspicion, confusion, and strife. As these feuds accumulate, there is scarce a man of any consequence who is not upon the watch for his life." 3 The lex talionis is usually stringently enforced among the Bedouins of Arabia, who consider it a point of 1 "Travels through the Southern Provinces of the Russian Empire" (Eng. Ed. 1812), i., p. 390.

2 "Account of the Kingdom of Caubul,” (1815), p. 166. 3 Do., p. 339.

honour to be revenged for the death of a relative. Only those persons, however, within the fifth generation from the common ancestor of themselves and the person slain are within the feud, and the man who slays the seducer of his wife is exempt from retaliation.1

If the recognised right of private revenge for injuries has been perpetuated to the present day among the peoples above mentioned, it would be surprising if such a custom had not been in operation among the primitive nations of ancient Europe. Mr Kemble points out, in fact, that the right of feud lies at the root of all Teutonic legislation, and that it is recognised especially by the early English law, which "admits, as its most general term, that each freeman is at liberty to defend himself, his family, and his friends; to avenge all wrongs done to them, as to himself shall seem good; to sink, burn, kill, and destroy, as amply as a royal commission now authorises the same in a professional class, the recognised executors of the national will in that behalf." 2 The strict application of the lex talionis, which is expressed with such exactness among the Mosaic regulations (Exodus xx.), has however been felt by most peoples who have attained to even a moderate degree of culture as a great evil, and various attempts have been made from time to time to moderate its inconveniences. Even the aborigines of Australia, among whom, as with all other savages, the right of private revenge is fully recognised, have endeavoured to mitigate the evils

1 Burckhardt, "Notes on the Bedouins" (1830), pp. 84, 159. This traveller says that the custom referred to in the text has, more than any other, prevented the Arab tribes from exterminating each other, showing that, like modern duelling, it is not an unmitigated evil.

"The Saxons in England" (1849), vol. i., p. 268. "The Story of Burnt Njal," a tale (translated by Dr Dasent) of Icelandic life towards the end of the tenth century, forms a fitting commentary on the statement in the text.

attendant on its exercise. The duty of shedding blood in case of death as a kind of atonement is enforced, but various plans have been invented by which that duty may be performed without giving rise to a blood feud.1 This is strictly an application of the lex talionis, but among peoples of a more advanced culture, attempts are made to dispense altogether with the taking of blood revenge.2 It is assumed that every injury can be valued, and on payment of the agreed fine, however this is ascertained, the injury is considered as atoned for. At first the acceptance of such an atonement is wholly at the discretion of the party injured or his relatives, in cases of homicide. Thus, among the Afghans, notwithstanding the persistence of blood feuds, an offender, even if he have committed homicide, may, by supplicating pardon of the person injured, through the intercession of some powerful man of the tribe, obtain forgiveness after passing through a certain ceremony, and making the agreed compensation.3 The authorities intervene, if at all, only by way of mediation. In Beluchistan, the friends of a murdered man may insist on the criminal being put to death, and in this case he is delivered to them to do with him as they please. Usually, however, they accept a heavy fine, or they keep the offender as a slave at hard labour. An exception is made where the person slain is a foreigner, in which case every one concerned in his death is immediately executed, probably

1 Supra, p. 315, and see authorities referred to.

The acceptance by the Zulus of compensation in cases of homicide (Supra, p. 293) arises in some measure from their slight regard for human life, and their greediness for cattle.

3 Elphinstone, op. cit., p. 170.

4 This was the custom in Persia down to the present century, when the offender was allowed to compound for his life by the payment of a sum of money to the family of the deceased. Porter's Travels in Georgia, Persia, &c." (1821), vol. ii., p. 75.

66

Pottinger's "Travels in Beloochistan and Sinde" (1816), p. 292.

because there is no one to accept compensation. Among the Bedouins, homicide may usually be atoned for by a pecuniary fine paid to the relatives of the deceased, and even occasionally the offence is pardoned without any satisfaction, if the culprit throws himself on their magnanimity.1 The Slavonians of Southern Europe also sometimes accept fines, by way of compensation, for homicide, and among the Morlacchi the amount of the fine is determined by a court of arbitration. The offender has publicly to beg pardon with certain ceremonies, somewhat resembling those practised among the Afghans under the like circumstances, and which are thus described by Krasinski :--" The judges and spectators form a large circle, in the midst of which the culprit, having suspended from his neck a gun or a poniard, must creep on his knees to the feet of the offended party, who taking the weapon from his neck, raises him, and embraces him, saying, 'God pardon you!' 'God pardon you!' The spectators congratulate, with joyous acclamation, the reconciled enemies, who not only forgive their mutual injuries, but often become sincere friends. This ceremony, which is called the circle of blood,' is concluded by a feast, given at the expense of the guilty party, of which all the spectators partake."

"2

The mode of ascertaining the compensation payable in cases of homicide among the Morlacchi, would appear to have been that adopted among the ancient peoples of Europe. The Roman Legis Actio Sacramenti presupposed a quarrel and its reference to an arbitrator, and the old Irish law of Distress, which occupied a large space in the Senchus Mor, had a similar origin. Sir Henry

1 Mayeux, "Les Bédouins" (1816), tom. ii., p. 100. According to Burckhardt, where a small fine is accepted, the offender must acknowledge himself and his family to be khasnai to the other person, i.e., in a state of obligation, op. cit., p. 181.

2

op. cit., p. 13.