In the case of rude tribes, in the savage or semi-savage state, there is on record such a multitude of instances of the existence of the blood-feud, that its universality among men in that state cannot be doubted. Its incidents are usually the same which sir G. Grey found subsisting- among the aborigines of Australia, and of which, in his Journals of Travel in the Northieeet of Australia, lie has given a vivid description. The Austra lian tribe usually includes several stocks or bodies of men, between whom blood-rela tionship is acknowledged; and every member of a stock is bound to assist in taking vengeance for a personal injury done to any of his kinsmen. On the other hand, though a hunt is always made for the actual wrong-doer, the injury may be satisfactorily avenged upon any member of his stock. As to the Australian and similar tribes, there is no relationship acknowledged between members of the same family unless they are also members of the same stock (see article TRIBE), the blood-feud occasionally 3 arra rs father against son, and brother against brother. It often leads to the break-up ofa tribe.
Of the prevalence of the blood•fend amongtribes which have advanced to what is willed the patriarchal state also, there is very ample evidence. Amona. such tribes, the cohesion of the family is very powerful; everything ,relating to the family is quasi sacred ; and the duty of taking vengeance for kindred blood is not mesely a matter of honor, but of religion, Volney's description of the blood-feud, as practiced among the Bedouins, will do for all the tribes of this class; and it might almost stand for a descrip tion of the vendetta. "The interest of the ssommon safety," lie says, "has for ages established a law among them (the Bedouins) wnich decrees that the blood of every man. who is slain must be avenged by that of his murderer. This vengeance is called tar, oz.
retaliation; and the right of exacting it devolves upon the nearest of kin to the deceased. So nice are the Arabs upon this point of honor, that if any one neglects to seek his retaliation, he is disgraced forever. He therefore watches every opportunity of re venge; if his enemy perishes from any other cause, still he is not satisfied. His venge ance is directed against the nearest relation. These animosities are transmitted as an inheritance from father to children, and never cease but by the ektinction of one of the families, unless they agree to sacrifice the criminal, or purchase the blood for a stated price in money or in flocks. Without this satisfaction, their is neither peace, nor truce, nor alliance between them, nor sometimes even between whole tribes." The blood feud is observed almost precisely as described above, among the Circassian, the Druses, and the numerous hordes of central Asia; it seems to have had the same inci dents, too, similar tribes in ancient times—e.g., among the Greeks of the Homeric period, among the Germans in the time of Tacitus, among the northern nations who overran Europe after the fall Qf the Roman empire. The Corsican vendetta seems to be
the same thing as the Bedouin tar, surviving, with slight modifications, in a secluded island, where the law has never made itself supreme, long ages after the progress of society and the consolidation of government have, effaced every trace of it, except at a few isolated points ou the neighboring continent of Europe. The vendetta exists in Sicily and in Sardinia, as well as in Corsica; in Calabria also; and it (or we should rather say, the blood-feud) flourishes vigorously among the Montenegrins and the Alba nians.
The right of private war which subsisted in Europe in the middle ages—introduced by the northern nations who shared the spoils of the Roman empire—was just a inodifi cation of the blood-feud. This right belonged only to the nobility, and could be exercised only against men of, equal rank. R was usually resorted to on account of insults publicly done, of atrocious acts of violence or bloodshed, and similar injuries. The right of vengeauce devolved first upon the next of kin ; but all the kindred within the degrees of relationship to which the ecclesiastical prohibitions of marriage extended, were bound to take up the quarrel; and this obligation was so far sanctioned by law, that if any one failed to fulfill it, he was deemed to have renounced his kindredship, and to have lost his rights of succession. Vassals, equally with kinsmen, became implicated in the vengeance of their lords; and every person present when the cause of quarrel arose was required to take side with one or other of the parties. For several centuries, private wars were constantly being waged within the kingdoms of the continent, and the efforts of kings and ecclesiastics to restrain them produced little effect until gov ernments became strong enough to prohibit them, and to enforce the prohibition.
It is now apparent that the vendetta represents a system which prevailed everywhere before the consolidation of society into the state, and the establishment of a police capable of protecting life and property. This system was a rude substitute for govern meat and the administration of justice. The family, or the body of kindred, formed, in fact, a commonwealth of itself; its members held firmly together; and when one was injured, all the little state was injured. The Nagas have no government, and among them the blood-feud is the only check—it is not altogether ineflicient—upou the selfish ness and the passions of individuals. As society became consolidated, the exercise of this right of vengeance was curtailed—remaining longest with the nobility, who counted it as one of their most valuable privileges, and maintained as long as possible. They had to surrender it at last, because the state grew strong enough to supersede the action of individuals in redressing injuries, and was able to do this with greater fairness, and without the same admixture of calamitous results.