e consequences were considered certain to follow
its omission."[49] Thus the sacredness of a chief was deemed dangerous
to all persons with whom he might come, whether directly or indirectly,
into contact; it was apparently conceived as a sort of electric fluid
which discharged itself, it might be with fatal effect, on whatever it
touched. And the sacredness of a chief was clearly classed with the
uncleanness of a dead body, since contact with a dead body involved the
same dangerous consequences as contact with the sacred person of a chief
and had to be remedied in precisely the same manner. The two conceptions
of holiness and uncleanness, which to us seem opposite and even
contradictory, blend in the idea of taboo, in which both are implicitly
held as it were in solution. It requires the analytic tendency of more
advanced thought to distinguish the two conceptions, to precipitate, as
it were, the components of the solution in the testing-tube of the mind.

[49] J. B. Stair, _Old Samoa_, pp. 127 _sq._ Compare
Violette, _op. cit._ p. 168; G. Brown, _Melanesians and
Polynesians_, pp. 231, 280, 285. In this work Dr. Brown remarks
(p. 231) that there is no clear explanation of the custom of
sprinkling coco-nut water as a purificatory rite. But the
explanation given by Stair, which I have quoted in the text, is
clear and satisfactory, and elsewhere (p. 285) Dr. Brown
implicitly adopts the same explanation, where he says that the
man who had served kava to a sacred chief "sprinkled himself all
over to wash away the sacredness (_paia_)."

The profound respect which the Samoans entertained for their chiefs
manifested itself in yet another fashion. A special form of speech was
adopted in addressing a chief, in conversing in his presence, or even in
alluding to him in his absence. Thus there arose what is called a
chiefs' language, or polite diction, which was used exclusively in
speaking to or of a chief, whether the speaker was a common man or a
chief of lower rank. But it was never used by a chief when he was
speaking of himself. Persons of high rank, in addressing others and
alluding to themselves, always employed ordinary language and sometimes
the very lowest terms; so that it was often amusing to listen to
expressions of feigned humility uttered by a proud man, who would have
been indignant indeed if the same terms which he applied to himself had
been applied to him by others. Thus,