The Tribes and Castes of the Central Provinces of India Volume I (of IV)

R >> R.V. Russell >> The Tribes and Castes of the Central Provinces of India Volume I (of IV)

Pages:
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | 42

75. Comparison of Hindu society with that of Greece and Rome. The
_gens_.

In the admirable account of the early constitution of the city-states
of Greece and Italy contained in the work of M. Fustel de Coulanges,
_La Cite Antique_, a close resemblance may be traced with the main
strata of Hindu society given earlier in this essay. The Roman state
was composed of a number of _gentes_ or clans, each _gens_ tracing
its descent from a common ancestor, whose name it usually bore. The
termination of the Gentile name in _ius_ signified descendant, as
Claudius, Fabius, and so on. Similarly the names of the Athenian
g'enh or clans ended in _ides_ or _ades_, as Butades, Phytalides,
which had the same signification. [182] The Gentile or clan name
was the _nomen_ or principal name, just as the personal names of
the members of the totem-clans were at first connected with the
totems. The members of the _gens_ lived together on a section of
the city land and cultivated it under the control of the head of the
_gens_. The original _ager Romanus_ is held to have been 115 square
miles or about 74,000 acres, [183] and this was divided up among the
clans. The heads of clans originally lived on their estates and went
in to Rome for the periodical feasts and other duties. The principal
family or eldest branch of the _gens_ in the descent from a common
ancestor ranked above the others, and its head held the position of
a petty king in the territory of the _gens_. In Greece he was called
>'anax or basile'uc. [184] Originally the Roman Senate consisted
solely of the heads of _gentes,_ and the consuls, flamens and augurs
were also chosen exclusively from them; they were known as _patres_;
after the expulsion of the kings, fresh senators were added from
the junior branches of the _gentes_, of which there were at this
period 160, and these were known as _patres conscripti_ [185]. The
distinction between the eldest and junior branches of the _gentes_
may have corresponded to the distinction between the Kshatriyas and
Vaishyas, though as practically nothing is known of the constitution
of the original Kshatriyas, this can only be hypothetical.

76. The clients.

Within the _gens_, and living in the household or households of its
members, there existed a body of slaves, and also another class of
persons called clients. [186] The client was a servant and dependant;
he might be assigned a plot of land by his patron, but at first could
not transmit it nor hold it against his patron. It is probable that
originally he had no right of property of his own, but he gradually
acquired it. First he obtained a right of occupancy in his land and
of its devolution to his son if he had one. Finally he was given the
power of making a will. But he was still obliged to contribute to such
expenses of the patron as ransom in war, fines imposed by the courts,
or the dowry of a daughter. [187] The client was considered as a
member of the family and bore its name. [188] But he was not a proper
member of the family or _gens_, because his pedigree never ascended
to a _pater_ or the head of a _gens_. [189] It was incumbent on the
patron to protect the client, and guard his interests both in peace and
war. The client participated in the household and Gentile sacrifices
and worshipped the gods of the _gens_. [190] At first the people
of Rome consisted of three classes, the patricians, the clients and
the plebeians. In course of time, as the rights and privileges of the
plebeians increased after the appointment of tribunes, their position,
from having originally been much inferior, became superior to that of
the clients, and the latter preferred to throw off the tie uniting them
to their patrons and become merged in the plebeians. In this manner the
intermediate class of clients at length entirely disappeared. [191]
These clients must not be confused with the subsequent class of the
same name, who are found during the later period of the republic
and the empire, and were the voluntary supporters or hangers-on of
rich men. It would appear that these early clients corresponded very
closely to the household servants of the Indian cultivators, from
whom the village menial castes were developed. The Roman client was
sometimes a freed slave, but this would not have made him a member
of the family, even in a subordinate position. Apparently the class
of clients may have to a great extent originated in mixed descent, as
the Indian household and village menials probably did. This view would
account satisfactorily for the client's position as a member of the
family but not a proper one. From the fact that they were considered
one of the three principal divisions of the people it is clear that
the clients must at one time have been numerous and important.

77. The plebeians.

Below the clients came the plebeians, whose position, as M. Fustel
de Coulanges himself points out, corresponded very closely to that
of the Sudras. The plebeians had no religion and no ancestors;
they did not belong to a family or a _gens_. [192] They were a
despised and abject class, who lived like beasts outside the proper
boundary of the city. The touch of the plebeian was impure. [193]
"When tribunes were created a special law was necessary to protect
their life and liberty, and it was promulgated as follows: 'It is
forbidden to strike or kill a tribune, as if he was an ordinary
plebeian.' It would appear then that a patrician had the right to
strike or kill an ordinary plebeian, or at least that he was amenable
to no legal punishment for doing so." [194] Similarly in the ancient
Greek cities the citizens were known as >agajo'i or good, and the
plebeians as kako'i or bad. This latter class is described by the
poet Theognis as having had aforetime neither tribunals nor laws;
they were not allowed even to enter the town, but lived outside like
wild beasts. They had no part in the religious feasts and could not
intermarry with the proper citizens. [195]

This position corresponds exactly with that of the Sudras and the
existing impure castes, who have to live outside the village and
cannot enter or even approach Hindu temples.

M. de Coulanges considers that the plebeians were to a large
extent made up of conquered and subjected peoples. An asylum was
also established at Rome for broken men and outlaws from other
cities, with a view to increasing the population and strength of
the state. Subsequently the class of clients became absorbed among
the plebeians.

78. The binding social tie in the city-states.

Thus the gradation of society in the city-states of Greece and
Italy, the account given above being typical of them all, is seen to
correspond fairly closely with that of the Hindus, as exemplified in
the Hindu classics and the microcosm of Hindu society, the village
community. It is desirable, therefore, to inquire what was the tie
which united the members of the _gens_, the _curia_ or _phratry_,
and the city, and which distinguished the patricians from the
plebeians. On this point M. Fustel de Coulanges leaves us in no
doubt at all. The bond of union among all these bodies was a common
sacrifice or sacrificial meal, at which all the members had to be
present. "The principal ceremony of the religion of the household was
a meal, which was called a sacrifice. To eat a meal prepared on an
altar was, according to all appearance, the first form of religious
worship." [196] "The principal ceremony of the religion of the city
was also a public feast; it had to be partaken of communally by all
the citizens in honour of the tutelary deities. The custom of holding
these public feasts was universal in Greece; and it was believed
that the safety of the city depended on their accomplishment." [197]
M. de Coulanges quotes from the _Odyssey_ an account of one of these
sacred feasts at which nine long tables were set out for the people
of Pylos; five hundred citizens were seated and nine bulls were
slaughtered for each table. When Orestes arrived at Athens after the
murder of his mother, he found the people, assembled round their king,
about to hold the sacred feast. Similar feasts were held and numerous
victims were slaughtered in Xenophon's time. [198] At these meals the
guests were crowned with garlands and the vessels were of a special
form and material, such as copper or earthenware, no doubt dating
from the antique past. [199] As regards the importance and necessity
of being present at the Gentile sacrificial feast, the same author
states: "The Capitol was blockaded by the Gauls; but Fabius left
it and passed through the hostile lines, clad in religious garb,
and carrying in his hand the sacred objects; he was going to offer
a sacrifice on the altar of his _gens_ which was situated on the
Quirinal. In the second Punic war another Fabius, he who was called
the buckler of Rome, was holding Hannibal in check; it was assuredly
of the greatest importance to the Republic that he should not leave
his army; he left it, however, in the hands of the imprudent Minucius;
it was because the anniversary day of the sacrifice of his _gens_ had
come and it was necessary that he should hasten to Rome to perform the
sacred rite." In Greece the members of the _gens_ were known by the
fact that they performed communal sacrifices together from a remote
period. [200] As already seen, a communal sacrifice meant the eating
together of the sacred food, whether the flesh of a victim or grain.

79. The Suovetaurilia.

The Roman city sacrifice of the Suovetaurilia, as described by M. de
Coulanges, is of the greatest interest. The magistrate whose duty it
was to accomplish it, that is in the first place the king, after him
the consul, and after him the censor, had first to take the auspices
and ascertain that the gods were favourable. Then he summoned the
people through a herald by a consecrated form of words. On the
appointed day all the citizens assembled outside the walls; and
while they stood silent the magistrate proceeded three times round
the assembly, driving before him three victims--a pig, a ram and a
bull. The combination of these three victims constituted with the
Greeks as well as the Romans an expiatory sacrifice. Priests and
attendants followed the procession: when the third round had been
accomplished, the magistrate pronounced a prayer and slaughtered
the victims. From this moment all sins were expiated, and neglect of
religious duties effaced, and the city was at peace with its gods.

There were two essential features of this ceremony: the first, that
no stranger should be present at it; and the second, that no citizen
should be absent from it. In the latter case the whole city might not
have been freed from impurity. The Suovetaurilia was therefore preceded
by a census, which was conducted with the greatest care both at Rome
and Athens. The citizen who was not enrolled and was not present at
the sacrifice could no longer be a member of the city. He could be
beaten and sold as a slave, this rule being relaxed only in the last
two centuries of the Republic. Only male citizens were present at
the sacrifice, but they gave a list of their families and belongings
to the censor, and these were considered to be purified through the
head of the family. [201]

This sacrifice was called a _lustratio_ or purification, and in the
historical period was considered to be expiatory. But it does not
seem probable that this was its original significance. For there would
not in that case have been the paramount necessity for every citizen
to be present. All females and children under power were purified
through the list given to the censor, and there seems no reason why
absent citizens could not have been purified in the same manner. But
participation in this sacrifice was itself the very test and essence
of citizenship. And it has been seen that a public meal was the
principal religious rite of the city. The conclusion therefore seems
reasonable that the Suovetaurilia was originally also a sacrificial
meal of which each citizen partook, and that the eating of the deified
domestic animals in common was the essence of the rite and the act
which conferred the privilege of citizenship. The driving of the
sacrificial animals round the citizens three times might well be a
substitute for the previous communal meal, if for any reason, such as
the large number of citizens, the practice of eating them had fallen
into abeyance. The original ground for the taking of a census was to
ensure that all the citizens were present at the communal sacrifice;
and it was by the place which a man occupied on this day that his rank
in the city was determined till the next sacrifice. If the censor
counted him among the senators, he remained a senator; if among the
equites, he remained a knight; if as a simple member of a tribe,
he belonged henceforward to the tribe in which he was counted. If the
censor refused to enumerate him, he was no longer a citizen. [202] Such
was the vital importance of the act of participation in the sacrifice.

80. The sacrifice of the domestic animal.

The Roman sacrifice of the Suovetaurilia was in no way peculiar,
similar rites being found in other Greek and Latin cities. Some
instances are recorded in the article on Kasai, and in _Themis_
[203] Miss Jane Harrison gives an account of a sacrifice at Magnesia
in which a bull, ram and he- and she-goats were sacrificed to the
gods and partaken of communally by the citizens. As already seen,
the act of participation in the sacrifice conferred the status of
citizenship. The domestic animals were not as a rule eaten, but their
milk was drunk, and they were used for transport, and clothes were
perhaps sometimes made from their hair and skins. Hence they were the
principal source of life of the tribe, as the totem had been of the
clan, and were venerated and deified. One common life was held to run
through all the members of the tribe and all the domestic animals of
the species which was its principal means of support. In the totem
or hunting stage the clan had necessarily been small, because a
large collection of persons could not subsist together by hunting
and the consumption of roots and fruits. When an additional means
of support was afforded by the domestication of an important animal,
a much larger number of persons could live together, and apparently
several clans became amalgamated into a tribe. The sanctity of the
domestic animals was much greater than that of the totem because they
lived with man and partook of his food, which was the strongest tie
of kinship; and since he still endowed them with self-consciousness
and volition, he thought they had come voluntarily to aid him in
sustaining life. Both on this account and for fear of injuring the
common life they were not usually killed. But it was necessary to
primitive man that the tie should take a concrete form and that he
should actually assimilate the life of the sacred animal by eating
its flesh, and this was accordingly done at a ceremonial sacrifice,
which was held annually, and often in the spring, the season of the
renewal and increase of life. Since this renewal of the communal life
was the concrete tie which bound the tribe together, any one who was
absent from it could no longer be a member of the tribe. The whole of
this rite and the intense importance attached to it are inexplicable
except on the supposition that the tie which had originally constituted
the totem-clan was the eating of the totem-animal, and that this tie
was perpetuated in the tribe by the communal eating of the domestic
animal. The communal sacrifice of the domestic animal was, as already
seen, typical of society in the tribal or pastoral stage. But one very
important case, in addition to those given above and in the article
on Kasai, remains for notice. The Id-ul-Zoha or Bakr-Id festival of
the Muhammadans is such a rite. In pre-Islamic times this sacrifice
was held at Mecca and all the Arab tribes went to Mecca to celebrate
it. The month in which the sacrifice was held was one of those of
truce, when the feuds between the different clans were in abeyance
so that they could meet at Mecca. Muhammad continued the sacrifice of
the Id-ul-Zoha and it is this sacrifice which a good Muhammadan takes
the pilgrimage to Mecca to perform. He must be at Mecca on the tenth
day of the month of Z'ul Hijjah and perform the sacrifice there, and
unless he does this there is no special merit in making the journey
to Mecca. It is incumbent on every Muhammadan who can afford it to
make the pilgrimage to Mecca or the Hajj once in his life and perform
the sacrifice there; and though as a matter of fact only a very small
minority of Muhammadans now carry out the rule, the pilgrimage and
sacrifice may yet be looked upon as the central and principal rite
of the Muhammadan religion. All Muhammadans who cannot go to Mecca
nevertheless celebrate the sacrifice at home at the Indian festival
of the Id-ul-Zoha and the Turkish and Egyptian Idu-Bairam. At the
Id-ul-Zoha any one of four domestic animals, the camel, the cow,
the sheep or the goat, may be sacrificed; and this rule makes it a
connecting link between the two great Semitic sacrifices described in
the article on Kasai, the camel sacrifice of the Arabs in pre-Islamic
times and the Passover of the Jews. At the present time one-third
of the flesh of the sacrificial animal should be given to the poor,
one-third to relations, and the remainder to the sacrificer's own
family. [204] Though it has now become a household sacrifice, the
communal character thus still partly survives.

81. Sacrifices of the _gens_ and phratry.

Both in Athens and Rome there was a division known as phratry or
_curia_. This apparently consisted of a collection of _gentes_, g'enh,
or clans, and would correspond roughly to a Hindu subcaste. The
evidence does not show, however, that it was endogamous. The bond
which united the phratry or _curia_ was precisely the same as that of
the _gens_ or clan and the city. It consisted also in a common meal,
which was prepared on the altar, and was eaten with the recitation
of prayers, a part being offered to the god, who was held to be
present. At Athens on feast-days the members of the phratry assembled
round their altar. A victim was sacrificed and its flesh cooked on
the altar, and divided among the members of the phratry, great care
being taken that no stranger should be present. A young Athenian
was presented to the phratry by his father, who swore that the boy
was his son. A victim was sacrificed and cooked on the altar in the
presence of all the members of the phratry; if they were doubtful
of the boy's legitimacy, and hence wished to refuse him admittance,
as they had the right to do, they refused to remove the flesh from
the altar. If they did not do this, but divided and partook of the
flesh with the candidate, he was finally and irrevocably admitted to
the phratry. The explanation of this custom, M. de Coulanges states,
is that food prepared on an altar and eaten by a number of persons
together, was believed to establish between them a sacred tie which
endured through life. [205] Even a slave was to a certain degree
admitted into the family by the same tie of common eating of food. At
Athens he was made to approach the hearth; he was purified by pouring
water on his head, and ate some cakes and fruit with the members of
the family. This ceremony was analogous to those of marriage and
adoption. It signified that the new arrival, hitherto a stranger,
was henceforth a member of the family and participated in the family
worship. [206]

82. The Hindu caste-feasts.

The analogy of Greece and Rome would suggest the probability that
the tie uniting the members of the Indian caste or subcaste is also
participation in a common sacrificial meal, and there is a considerable
amount of evidence to support this view. The Confarreatio or eating
together of the bride and bridegroom finds a close parallel in the
family sacrament of the _Meher_ or marriage cakes, which has already
been described. This would appear formerly to have been a clan rite,
and to have marked the admission of the bride to the bridegroom's
clan. It is obligatory on relations of the families to attend a wedding
and they proceed from great distances to do so, and clerks and other
officials are much aggrieved if the exigencies of Government business
prevent them from obtaining leave. The obligation seems to be of
the same character as that which caused Fabius to leave the army in
order to attend his Gentile sacrifice at Rome. If he did not attend
the Gentile sacrifice he was not a member of the _gens_, and if a
Hindu did not attend the feast of his clan in past times perhaps he
did not remain a member of the clan. Among the Maratha Brahmans the
girl-bride eats with her husband's relations on this day only to mark
her admission into their clan, and among the Bengali Brahmans, when
the wedding guests are collected, the bride comes and puts a little
sugar on each of their leaf-plates, which they eat in token of their
recognition of her in her new status of married woman. The members
of the caste or subcaste also assemble and eat together on three
occasions: at a marriage, which will have the effect of bringing
new life into the community; at a death, when a life is lost; and
at the initiation of a new member or the readmission of an offender
temporarily put out of caste. It is a general rule of the caste feasts
that all members of the subcaste in the locality must be invited, and
if any considerable number of them do not attend, the host's position
in the community is impugned. For this reason he has to incur lavish
expenditure on the feast, so as to avoid criticism or dissatisfaction
among his guests. These consider themselves at liberty to comment
freely on the character and quality of the provisions offered to
them. In most castes the feast cannot begin until all the guests
have assembled; the Maheshri Banias and one or two other castes are
distinguished by the fact that they allow the guests at the _pangat_
or caste feast to begin eating as they arrive. Those who bear the host
a grudge purposely stay away, and he has to run to their houses and beg
them to come, so that his feast can begin. When the feast has begun
it was formerly considered a great calamity if any accident should
necessitate the rising of the guests before its conclusion. Even if
a dog or other impure animal should enter the assembly they would not
rise. The explanation of this rule was that it would be disrespectful
to Um Deo, the food-god, to interrupt the feast. At the feast each man
sits with his bare crossed knees actually touching those of the men
on each side of him, to show that they are one brotherhood and one
body. If a man sat even a few inches apart from his fellows, people
would say he was out of caste; and in recent times, since those out
of caste have been allowed to attend the feasts, they sit a little
apart in this manner. The Gowaris fine a man who uses abusive language
to a fellow-casteman at a caste feast, and also one who gets up and
leaves the feast without the permission of the caste headman. The
Hatkars have as the names of two exogamous groups _Wakmar_, or one
who left the Pangat or caste feast while his fellows were eating; and
_Polya_, or one who did not take off his turban at the feast. It has
been seen also [207] that in one or two castes the exogamous sections
are named after the offices which their members hold or the duties
they perform at the caste feast. Among the Halbas the illegitimate
subcaste Surait is also known as Chhoti Pangat or the inferior feast,
with the implication that its members cannot be admitted to the proper
feast of the caste, but have an inferior one of their own.

83. Taking food at initiation.

When an outsider is admitted to the caste the rite is usually
connected with food. A man who is to be admitted to the Dahait caste
must clean his house, break his earthen cooking-vessels and buy new
ones, and give a feast to the caste-fellows in his house. He sits
and takes food with them, and when the meal is over he takes a grain
of rice from the leaf-plate of each guest and eats it, and drinks a
drop of water from his leaf-cup. After this he cannot be readmitted
to his own caste. A new Mehtar or sweeper gives water to and takes
bread from each casteman. In Mandla a new convert to the Panka caste
vacates his house and the caste _panchayat_ or committee go and live
in it, in order to purify it. He gives them a feast inside the house,
while he himself stays outside. Finally he is permitted to eat with
the _panchayat_ in his own house in order to mark his admission into
the caste. A candidate for admission in the Mahli caste has to eat
a little of the leavings of the food of each of the castemen at a
feast. The community of robbers known as Badhak or Baoria formerly
dwelt in the Oudh forests. They were accustomed to take omens from
the cry of the jackal, and they may probably have venerated it as
representing the spirit of the forest and as a fellow-hunter. They
were called jackal-eaters, and it was said that when an outsider was
admitted to one of their bands he was given jackal's flesh to eat.