BOOK II.

INFANTICIDE.

CHAP. I.

Introductory remarks--sketch of the early and extensive prevalence of Infanticide and Human Sacrifices in various countries.

The abolition of Infanticide in India has been the triumph of the philanthropist and the subject of history. "Moor's Hindoo Infanticide" was published in 1811, and in 1815 appeared" Cormack's Account of the Abolition of Female Infanticide in Guzerat, with Considerations on the question of promoting the Gospel in India." Through the circulation of these publications, the well-known suppression of the destruction of children at Saugur by the Marquis of Wellesley in 1802, and the little that is known in this country respecting the Peninsula of Guzerat, a very general impression prevails that Infanticide is abolished in India. It is a painful but necessary task to remove this impression— to show that the evil still exists to a considerable extent, and to rouse the friends of humanity and religion to prosecute the abolition of this and every sanguinary custom in British India. The Parliamentary Papers on Hindoo Infanticide, printed by order of the Honourable House of Commons June 1824, and July 1828, fully substantiate the fact, that, notwithstanding the philanthropic and successful efforts of Colonel Walker and Governor Duncan to abolish this unnatural custom, it has revived; and that the most decisive measures are requisite to effect its entire and speedy abolition. When shall every cruel custom in India be abolished, and thus the progress of Christianity in that country be fa

cilitated? Let the sentiments of the eloquent Burke be known and considered :- "The blood of man should never be shed but to redeem the blood of man. It is well shed for our family, for our friends, for our God, for our kind. The rest is vanity—the rest is crime."

he,

"The prevalence of Human Sacrifices, and the continuance of such in human customs in the nineteenth century of the Christian era, and in the British Dominions, is a fact deeply interesting to every philanthropic mind. The learned Jacob Bryant has given a comprehensive view of the nature and extent of these sacrifices in different ages and countries. "One would think it scarcely possible," says that so unnatural a custom as that of human sacrifices could have existed in the world; but it is very certain that it not only existed, but almost universally prevailed. The Egyptians of old brought no victims to their temples, nor shed any blood at their altars. But human victims, and the blood of men, must here be excepted, which at one period they certainly offered to their gods. The Cretans had the same custom, and adhered to it a much longer time. The nations of Arabia did the same. The people of Duma in particular sacrificed every year a child, and buried it beneath an altar, which they made use of instead of an idol; for they did not admit of images. The Persians buried people alive. Amestris, the wife of Xerxes, entombed twelve persons alive, under ground for the good of her soul. It would be endless to enumerate every city, or every province, where these practices obtained. The Cyprians, the Rhodians, the Phoecians, those of Chios, Lesbos, Tenedos, all had human sacrifices. The natives of the Tauric Chersonesus offered to Diana every stranger whom chance threw upon their coasts. Hence arose that just expostulation in Euripides, upon the inconsistency of the proceeding wherein much good reasoning is implied. Iphigenia wonders, as the goddess delighted in the blood of men, that every villain and murderer should be privileged to escape; nay be driven from the threshold of the temple; whereas, if an honest man chanced to stray thither, he was seized and put to death. The Pelasgi in a time of scarcity vowed that they would give the tenth of all that should be born to them for a sacrifice, in order to procure plenty! Aristomenes, the Messenian, slew three hundred noble Lacedemonians, among whom was Theopompus, the king of Sparta, at the altar of Jupiter, at Ithome; without doubt

the Lacedemonians did not fail to make ample returns, for they were a severe and revengeful people, and offered the like victims to Mars. Their festival of the Deamastigosis is well known, when the Spartan boys were whipped, in the sight of their parents, with such severity before the altar of Diana Orthia that they often expired under the torture. Phylarchus affirms, as he is quoted by Porphyry, that of old every Grecian state made it a rule, before they marched towards an enemy, to solicit a blessing on their undertakings by the sacrifice of human victims.

"The Romans were accustomed to the like sacrifices. They devoted themselves to the infernal gods, and constrained others to submit to the same horrid doom. Hence we read in Titus Livius that in the consulate of Omilius Paulus and Terentius Varro, two Gauls, a man and woman, and two in like manner of Greece, were buried alive at Rome, in the ox-market, where was a place under ground walled round to receive them, which had before been made use of for such cruel purposes. He says it was a sacrifice not properly Roman, that is, not originally of Roman institution, yet it was frequently practised there, and that too by public authority! Plutarch makes mention of a like instance a few years before in the consulship of Flaminius and Furius. There is reason to think that all the principal captives who graced the triumphs of the Romans were, at the close of that cruel pageantry, put to death at the altar of Jupiter Capitolinus! Caius Marius offered up his own daughter for a victim to the Dii Aversunce, to procure success in a battle against the Cimbri, as we are informed by Dorotheus, quoted by Clemens; it is likewise attested by Plutarch, who says her name was Calpurnia. Cicero, making mention of this custom being common in Gaul, adds, that it prevailed among that people even at the time he was speaking; whence we may be led to infer that it was then discontinued among the Romans; and we are told by Pliny that it had then and not very long been discouraged. There was a law enacted, when Lentulus and Crassus were consuls, so late as the 657th year of Rome, that there should be no more human sacrifices; for till that time these horrid rites had been celebrated in open day, without any mask or control, which, had we not the best evidence for the fact, would appear scarcely credible. And, however discontinued they may have been for a time, we find that they were again renewed, though they became not so public,

nor so general; for, not very long after this, it is reported of Augustus Cæsar, when Persia surrendered in the time of the second triumvirate, that besides multitudes executed in a military manner, he offered up upon the Ides of March three hundred chosen persons, both of the equestrian and senatorian order, at an altar dedicated to the manes of his uncle Julius. Even at Rome itself this custom was revived; and Porphyry assures us that in his time a man was every year sacrificed at the shrine of Jupiter Latiaris. Heliogdbalus offered the like victims to the Syrian deity, which he introduced among the Romans. The same is said of Aurelian.*

66

The Gauls and the Germans were so devoted to this shocking custom that no business of any moment was transacted among them without being prefaced by the blood of men. They were offered to various gods, but particularly to Hesus, Taranis, and Shautates. These deities are mentioned by Lucan, where he enumerates the various nations who followed the fortunes of Cæsar. The altars of these gods were far removed from the common resort of men, being generally situated in the depth of woods, that the gloom might add to the horror of the operation, and give a reverence to the place and proceeding. The persons devoted were led thither by the Druids, who presided at the solemnity, and performed the cruel offices of the sacrifice. Tacitus takes notice of the cruelty of the Hermunduri in a war with the Catti, wherein they had greatly the advantages, at the close of which they made one general sacrifice of all that were taken in battle. The poor remains of the legions under Varrus suffered, in some degree, the same fate. There were many places destined for this purpose all over Gaul and Germany, but especially in the mighty woods of Arduenna, and the greater Hercinian forest, a wild that extended above thirty days' journey in length. The places set apart for this solemnity were held in the utmost reverence, and only approached at particular seasons. Lucan mentions a grove of this sort near Masselea, which even

*"In Homer and Virgil, we have accounts of human sacrifices, communicated in such a way as indicates no abhorrence in the poet, and was meant to inspire none on the part of the reader. Cæsar informs us that it was a prevalent maxim among the Gauls, that the deity could not be appeased unless the life of one man, which had been forfeited by guilt, were atoned by the life of another who was innocent." (De Bel. Gal. L. vi. c. 15.)

the Roman soldiers were afraid to violate, though commanded by Cæsar. Claudian compliments Stillico that, among other advantages accruing to the Roman armies through his conduct, they could now venture into the awful forest of Hercinia, and follow the chase in those so much dreaded woods, and otherwise make use of them.

These practices prevailed among all the people of the North, of whatever denomination. The Massageta, the Scythians, the Getes, the Sarmatians, all the various nations upon the Baltic, particularly the Suevi and Scandinavians, held it as a fixed principle that their happiness and security could not be obtained but at the expense of the lives of others. Their chief gods were Thor and Woden, whom they thought they could never sufficiently glut with blood. They had many celebrated places of worship, especially in the island of Rugen, near the mouth of the Oder, and in Zealand. Some, too, very famous among the Sumnones and Nahanvalli. But the most reverenced, and the most frequented, was at Upsal, where there was every year a grand celebrity, which continued for nine days. During this term they sacrificed animals of all sorts, but the most acceptable victims, and the most numerous, were men!

"Of these sacrifices none were esteemed so auspicious and salutary as a sacrifice of the prince of the country. When the lot fell for the king to die it was received with universal acclamations and every expression of joy; this once happened in the time of a famine, when they cast lots, and it fell to the king Domalder to be the people's victim, and he was accordingly put to death. Olaus Triliger, another prince, was burnt alive to Woden. They did not spare their own children! Harold, the son of Gunild, the first of that name, slew two of his children to obtain a storm of wind. 'He did not let,' says Verstegan, to sacrifice two of his sons unto these idols, to the end he might obtain such a tempest at sea as should break and disperse the shipping of Harold, king of Denmark.' Saxo Grammaticus mentions a like fact; he calls the king Haquin, and speaks of the persons put to death as two hopeful young princes. Another king slew nine sons in order to prolong his own life, in hopes, probably, that what they were abridged of would, in a great measure, be added to himself; such instances did not often occur; but the common victims were very numerous. Adam Bremensis, speaking of the awful grove of Upsal, where these horrid rites were celebrated, says, that there was not a single tree but what was reve