lean. He who touches either falls under a taboo, and needs
purification.[1126] The tabooed things could only be eaten
sacrificially and sacramentally, i.e. as disgusting and unusual
they had greater sacrificial force.[1127] This idea is to be
traced in all ascetic usages, and in many mediaeval developments
of religious usages which introduced repulsive elements, to
heighten the self-discipline of conformity. In the Caroline
Islands turtles are sacred to the gods and are eaten only in
illness or as sacrifices.[1128]

+356. Philosophy of cannibalism.+ If cannibalism began in the interest
of the food supply, especially of meat, the wide ramifications of its
relations are easily understood. While men were unable to cope with the
great beasts cannibalism was a leading feature of social life, around
which a great cluster of interests centered. Ideas were cultivated by
it, and it became regulative and directive as to what ought to be done.
The sentiments of kinship made it seem right and true that the nearest
relatives should be eaten. Further deductions followed, of which the
cases given are illustrations. As to enemies, the contrary sentiments
found place in connection with it. It combined directly with ghost fear.
The sacramental notion seems born of it. When the chase was sufficiently
developed to give better food the taboo on human flesh seemed no more
irrational than the other food taboos above mentioned. Swans and
peacocks were regarded as great dainties in the Middle Ages. We no
longer eat them. Snakes are said to be good eating, but most of us would
find it hard to eat them. Yet why should they be more loathsome than
frogs or eels? Shipwrecked people, or besieged and famine-stricken
people, have overcome the loathing for human flesh rather than die.
Others have died because they could not overcome it, and have thus
rendered the strongest testimony to the power of the mores. In general,
the cases show that if men are hungry enough, or angry enough, they may
return to cannibalism now. Our horror of cannibalism is due to a long
and broad tradition, broken only by hearsay of some far-distant and
extremely savage people who now practice it. Probably the popular
opinion about it is that it is wicked. It is not forbidden by the rules
of any religion, because it had been thrown out of the mores before any
"religion" was founded.

[1039] See Andree, _Anthropophagie_; Steinmetz, _Endokannibalism,