To this kind of pursuit they were brought up from their earliest years, and it was a proverb among them, showing its demoralizing influence, that "a Toorkmun on horseback knows neither his father nor his mother." They professed to believe that the murder of a heretic is grateful to the Almighty, and they generally killed most of the old persons who fell into their hands on their marauding expeditions, as a propitiatory offering to Him. 1

The ancient peoples of Europe differed little in their conduct towards those outside the tribe from the predatory nations of Western and Central Asia. Cæsar says of the Gauls that the nobles spent their time chiefly in war with their neighbours, either inflicting injuries, or repelling those inflicted on them, the power of doing this through the greater number of their retainers being the only influence they acknowledged.2 Of the Germans, he states that robbery outside of the territory of the tribe was considered meritorious,3 while Tacitus affirms that they were a very warlike race, and that during peace they spent whole days and nights alternately feasting and sleeping, their festivities often terminating in abusive language and bloodshed.4 The Scandinavian Norsemen were a nation of pirates, who under the dreaded name of Vikings,5 created terror from the North Sea to the Mediterranean, and their Icelandic descendants followed in their footsteps. Yet, notwithstanding their defective morality in their dealings with foreigners, all the peoples whose manners have been 1 Burnes' "Travels into Bokhara" (1834), vol. ii. pp. 64, 251. 2 "De Bell. Gall." lib. vi., ch. xv. 3 Do., ch. 21.

4 Germania, ch. xv.

For an interesting account of the Vikings, see Dr Dasent's Appendix to "The Story of Burnt Njal." Dr Henry gives a curious account of the piratical Danish invaders of Britain, whose cruelty was only equalled by their insolence.-"The History of Britain,” vol. ii. p.

535 seq.

compared in this chapter show in their general character a great advance over peoples of an earlier stage of culture. Thus the Icelanders, although fond of good cheer, were. "a simple sober people, early to bed and early to rise." They were great at work, all alike taking part in the labour which was required by the rigour of the climate. To do something and to do it well was, says Dr Dasent, the Icelander's aim in life.1 Moreover, although he had no compunction in taking a man's life when he desired to gratify the feeling of revenge, yet he did it manfully, openly, and without shame for what he had done. "To kill a man and say that you had killed him, was manslaughter; to kill him and not to take it on your hand was murder. To kill men at dead of night was also looked on as murder," as was the slaying of a foe, and leaving his body without the covering of sand or gravel, which was the usual mode of burial. It was strength of character rather than goodness which governed the Icelander in his conduct towards his fellows, but his "virtue" must have had at least an element of good, seeing that it led him "to do what lay before him openly like a man, without fear of either foes, friend, or fate; to hold his own and speak his mind, and seek fame without respect of persons; to be free and daring in all his deeds." To his friends and kinsmen he was to be gentle and generous, and to turn no man from his door who sought food or shelter, even though he were a foe.2 Hospitality was no less esteemed among the ancient Germans than by the Scandinavians. Tacitus states that it was thought by the Germans wrong to refuse the rights of hospitality to any human being, and that no difference was made in this respect between a friend and a stranger. The guest was presented with

1 op. cit., Introd., pp. 113, 115.

2 Do., p. 33 seq.

anything he desired, although he was expected to give in return whatever he was asked for. The Germans were, moreover, very faithful in the maintenance of their family friendships, although not so much so, apparently, in the observance of their treaty engagements.1 The ancient Irish would seem also to have been remarkable for their hospitality. According to Leland it was their most striking virtue, the lowest of the people claiming reception and refreshment "by an almost right." The historian says that even in his day a wandering beggar entered the house of a farmer or gentleman with as much freedom as an inmate. The curious custom of fosterage, which according to Sir Henry Maine, was widely diffused among Aryan communities, and which had an extraordinary development among the Irish, may probably be taken as evidence that family alliances and the ties of friendship were no less valued by them than by the Germans.

3

Curiously enough, we find among the modern nations. who have been compared with the ancient peoples of Europe the development of the very same traits of character as those for which the latter were distinguished. The most sacred virtue of the sanguinary Mainote was hospitality. A poor man had been known to kill his only mule to provide supper for a stranger. Any stranger," says Lord Carnarvon, "who places himself upon a bench in the church, which is understood to indicate that he is friendless, is immediately received by some chief, and tended with every care during his stay in the country; and any one who should dare to inflict wrong or insult upon him while

1 Germania, ch. xxi.

"History of Ireland," vol. i. Prel. Disc. p. xxx.

3 "The Early History of Institutions," p. 241. Among the Circassian nobles on the birth of a child it was immediately consigned to a chief to be brought up.-See l'allas' "Travels," vol. i. p. 406.

enjoying such protection, would call down upon himself the full vengeance of the clan."1 The character ascribed by Fortis to the Morlacchi is of the same nature. They are generous and hospitable, opening their poor cabins to the stranger, and never ask, and often obstinately refuse to accept, any recompense. They are as ready to relieve. the wants of their neighbours as to aid the passing traveller. Friendship is a sacred duty when once its obligations are entered into. The engagement is made at the foot of the altar, the union of two male or female friends being blessed by the priest before the assembled multitude.2 If we pass into Asia we find the most warlike and turbulent peoples acknowledging the most perfectly the law of hospitality. Pallas describes the Circassian princes and knights as following no other occupation but war, pillage, and the chase, but among them the right of hospitality called kunak, was established on certain principles which were sacredly observed. The person subject to its protection was perfectly secure from all injury, as in case of attack he would be defended with the whole power of his host and those related to him. The murder or injury of a guest was avenged with as much severity as the death of a relative by consanguinity.3 It is the same with the "pirate of the desert," who will perish rather than abandon the traveller who has confided himself to his protection and eaten of his bread and salt. Even by the Toorkmuns -of whom according to Burnes,5 their neighbours say, "A Toorkmun is a dog and will only be kept quiet with a bit of bread, like a dog give it then, is the doctrine of the traveller, and pass unmolested "-hospitality is considered a sacred duty.6 Burnes affirms that this

4

on

practice is spontaneous to the Toorkmuns and to all the other Mahommedan peoples of Central Asia,1 and this would certainly seem to be the case with the Afghans. When referring to a man's want of hospitality, they say that he has no Pooshtoonwullee (nothing of the customs of the Afghans). To rob a man of his guest is considered a most grievous affront. A stranger who enters the house of an Afghan is under his protection so long as he remains in the village. The protection does not continue, however, beyond the village lands, or perhaps those of the tribe, and hence the traveller may be plundered by the very persons whose guest he had just been. A man's bitterest enemy, however, is safe so long as he is under his roof. Custom requires that protection should be granted to the suppliant even more readily than to the guest. In pursuance of nannawautee, as it is called, "a person who has a favour to ask, goes to the house or tent of the man on whom he depends, and refuses to sit on his carpet, or partake of his hospitality, till he shall grant the boon required. The honour of the party thus solicited will incur a stain if he does not grant the favour asked of him; and, so far is the practice carried, that a man over-matched by his enemies, will sometimes go nannawautee to the house of another man and entreat him to take up his quarrel, which the other is obliged to do, unless he is utterly unable to interfere with effect, or unless some circumstance renders his interference obviously improper."2 The practice of hospitality is particularly noticeable among the Dooraunees. A stranger, whether an Afghan or not, is everywhere well received and provided with food and 1 op. cit., i. p. 20.

2 Elphinstone op. cit. p. 226 seq. This writer very properly compares the custom mentioned in the text with an analogous custom of the Greeks and Romans in relation to suppliants (see infra).