Before CHAPTER XXIX THE RIGHT OF PROPERTY (concluded)
Project Gutenberg EPUB3 edition
Westermarck, Edward
The Chukchi201 and Koriaks202 consider theft reputable or glorious if committed on a stranger, though criminal if committed in their own communities. The hill people of the Central Provinces of India, whilst observant of the rights of property among themselves, do not scruple to plunder those to whom they are under no obligation of fidelity.203 The Bataks of Sumatra, who hardly ever steal among themselves, are expert at pilfering from strangers when not restrained by the laws of hospitality, and think it no moral offence to do so.204 Other tribes in the Malay Archipelago likewise hold it allowable to plunder the same stranger or traveller who, when forlorn and destitute, would find a hospitable reception among them.205 “The strict honesty,” says Mr. Melville, “which the inhabitants of nearly all the Polynesian Islands manifest towards each other is in striking contrast with the thieving propensities some of them evince in their intercourse with foreigners. It would almost seem that, according to their peculiar code of morals, the pilfering of a hatchet or a wrought nail from a European is looked upon as a praiseworthy action.
Or rather, it may be presumed, that, bearing in mind the wholesale forays made upon them by their nautical visitors, they consider the property of the latter as a fair object of reprisal.”206 In Fiji theft is regarded as no offence at all when practised on a foreigner.207 The Savage Islanders consider theft from a tribesman a vice, but theft from a member of another tribe a virtue.208 Of the Sandwich Islanders, again, we are told that they stole from rich strangers on board well loaded ships, whereas Europeans settled among them left their doors and shops unlocked without apprehension.209 Speaking of the honesty of the Herbert River natives, Northern Queensland, Mr. Lumholtz adds:—“It is, of course, solely among members of the same tribe that there is so great a difference between mine and thine; strange tribes look upon each other as wild beasts.”210 The aborigines of West Australia “would not consider the act of pillaging base when practised on another people, or carried on beyond the limits of their own tribe.”211
Among the For tribe of Central Africa “it is not considered right to rob strangers, but the chiefs wink at this offence, and the stranger runs but a poor chance of obtaining justice.”212 Of the Mandingoes Caillié observes that, while they do not steal from each other, “their probity with respect to others is very equivocal and in particular towards strangers, who would be very imprudent to shew them any thing that might tempt their cupidity.”213 When an Eastern Central African is plundered by a companion, he may be heard exclaiming, “If you had stolen from a white man, then I could have understood it, but to steal from a black man——.”214 Among the Masai the warriors and old men have a profound contempt for a thief, but “cattle-raiding from neighbouring tribes they do not consider stealing.”215 The Wafiomi216 and Shilluk217 regard theft or robbery committed on a stranger as a praiseworthy action, though they never or rarely practise it on members of their own people. The Barea and Kunáma218 and the inhabitants of Saraë219 consider it honourable for a man to rob an enemy of his tribe. The Kabyles of Djurdjura, who demand strict mutual honesty from members of the same village, see nothing wrong in stealing from a stranger.220 Among the Bedouins “travellers passing without proper escort from or introduction to the tribes, may expect to lose their beasts, goods, clothes, and all they possess. There is no kind of shame attached to such acts of rapine….
By desert law, the act of passing through the desert entails forfeiture of goods to whoever can seize them.”221 Indeed, the Arab is proud of robbing his enemies, and of bringing away by stealth what he could not have taken by open force.222 The Ossetes “distinguent … le vol commis au préjudice d’une personne étrangère à la famille, et le vol commis au préjudice d’un parent. Le premier, à proprement parler, n’est pas un acte criminel; le second, au contraire, est tenu pour un délit.”223
Similar views prevailed among the ancient Teutons. “Robberies,” says Caesar, “which are committed beyond the boundaries of each state bear no infamy, and they avow that these are committed for the purpose of disciplining their youth and of preventing sloth.”224 The same was the case with the Highlanders of Scotland until they were brought into subjection after the rebellion of 1745.225 “Regarding every Lowlander as an alien, and his cattle as fair spoil of war,” says Major-General Stewart, “they considered no law for his protection as binding…. Yet, except against the Lowlanders or a hostile clan, these freebooters maintained, in general, the strictest honesty towards one another, and inspired confidence in their integrity…. In the interior of their own society all property was safe, without the usual security of bolts, bars, and locks.”226 In the Commentary to the Irish Senchus Mór it is stated that, whilst an ordinary thief loses his full honour-price at once, committing theft in another territory deprives a person of only half his honour-price, until it is committed the third time.227 Throughout the Middle Ages all Europe seems to have tacitly agreed that foreigners were created for the purpose of being robbed.228 In the thirteenth century there were still several places in France in which a stranger who fixed his residence for a year and a day became the serf of the lord of the manor.229 In England, till upwards of two centuries after the Conquest, foreign merchants were considered only as sojourners coming to a fair or market, and were obliged to employ their landlords
as brokers to buy and sell their commodities; and one stranger was often arrested for the debt, or punished for the misdemeanour, of another.230 In a later age the old habit of oppression was still so strong that, when the State suddenly wanted a sum of money, it seemed quite natural that foreigners should be called upon to provide a part of it.231 The custom of seizing the goods of persons who had been shipwrecked, and of confiscating them as the property of the lord on whose manor they were thrown, seems to have been universal;232 and in some European countries the laws even permitted the inhabitants of maritime provinces to reduce to servitude people who were shipwrecked on their coast.233 The sea laws of Oléron, which probably date from the twelfth century, tell us that in many places shipwrecked sailors meet with people more inhuman, barbarous, and cruel than mad dogs, who slaughter those unhappy mariners in order to obtain possession of their money, clothes, and other property.234 In the latter part of the Middle Ages attempts were incessantly made by sovereigns and councils to abolish this ancient right, so far as Christian sailors were concerned,235 whereas the robbing of shipwrecked infidels was not prohibited.236 But for a long time these endeavours were far from being successful;237 and it was even argued that, as shipwrecks were punishments sent by God, it was impious to be merciful to the victims.238
Source notes
191 Dodge, op. cit. p. 79.
192 Powers, Tribes of California, p. 410 sq.
193 Sproat, op. cit. p. 159. Cf. Macfie, Vancouver Island and British Columbia, p. 468.
194 Eastman, Dacotah, p. xvii.
195 Egede, op. cit. p. 124 sq.
196 Cranz, op. cit. i. 175. See also Dalager, op. cit. p. 69.
197 Nansen, First Crossing of Greenland, ii. 335 sq. Cf. Idem, Eskimo Life, p. 159 sq.
198 Murdoch, ‘Ethnological Results of the Point Barrow Expedition,’ in Ann. Rep. Bur. Ethn. ix. 41. Seemann, Voyage of “Herald,” ii. 65; Armstrong, Discovery of the North-West Passage, p. 196 (Western Eskimo).
199 Richardson, Arctic Searching Expedition, i. 352.
200 Nelson, in Ann. Rep. Bur. Ethn. xviii. 293.
201 Georgi, op. cit. iii. 183.
202Ibid. iii. 170. Krasheninnikoff, op. cit. p. 232.
203 Hislop, op. cit. p. 1.
204 Marsden, op. cit. p. 389.
205 Crawfurd, op. cit. i. 72.
206 Melville, Typee, p. 295, n. 1. See also Williams, Missionary Enterprises, p. 530 (Samoans); Hale, op. cit. p. 73 (Micronesians).
207 Williams and Calvert, op. cit. p. 110.
208 Thomson, Savage Island, p. 94.
209 von Kotzebue, op. cit. iii. 255.
210 Lumholtz, Among Cannibals, p. 148.
211 Chauncy, in Brough Smyth, op. cit. ii. 278 sq.
212 Felkin, ‘Notes on the For Tribe of Central Africa,’ in Proceed. Roy. Soc. Edinburgh, xiii. 234.
213 Caillié, op. cit. i. 353. Cf. Mungo Park, op. cit. p. 239 sq.
214 Macdonald, Africana, i. 182.
215 Hinde, op. cit. p. 104. Cf. Johnston, Kilima-njaro Expedition, p. 419.
216 Baumann, Durch Massailand, p. 179.
217 Petherick, Travels in Central Africa, ii. 3. Beltrame, Il Fiume Bianco, p. 83.
218 Munzinger, Ostafrikanische Studien, p. 531.
219Ibid. p. 386.
220 Kobelt, Reiseerinnerungen aus Algerien und Tunis, p. 223.
221 Blunt, op. cit. ii. 204 sq.
222 Burckhardt, Bedouins and Wahábys, p. 90.
223 Kovalewsky, Coutume contemporaine, p. 343.
224 Caesar, De bello Gallico, vi. 23.