DOI Seite / Zitierlink:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.31218#0102
THE CASTE SYSTEM OF NORTHERN INDIA
must belong to a circle of persons whose interests are be-
yond question identical with his. From this point of
view, the caste is a group of men united by bonds of com-
mon blood or common interests in self-defence against the
dangers of the outer world.
Food, of course, is specially liable to infection of this
kind. If the mere fall of the shadow of an
2. Food taboos evilly-disposed person is dangerous, a man
must be very careful who cooks his food,
what food he eats, and in what vessels he cooks it. The
food taboos of Flindu life complicate it to an almost in-
credible degree : and, as has many a time been pointed
out, prevent ‘the growth of the good fellowship which
we are wont to cement at the dinner table’.
Hindu food taboos are of several kinds.
(i) The commensal taboo—which lays down the
persons in whose company a man may eat food.
(ii) The cooking taboo—which lays down the per-
sons who may cook the food that a man eats.
(iii) The food taboo—which lays down what kinds
of food a man may eat.
(iv) The eating taboo—which lays down the proper
ritual at a meal.
(v) The drinking taboo—which lays down the per-
sons from whom a man may take water.
(vi) The smoking taboo—which lays down the per-
sons whose pipe a man may smoke, and in whose com-
pany he may smoke.
(vii) The vessels taboo—which lays down the nature
of the vessels that a man may use for eating, drinking,
and cooking.1
1 Earlier writers, when referring to these taboos, generally use langu-
age that is vague, or even misleading. Sir R. Burn in the Provincial
Census Report of 1901, for instance, uses some variant of the phrase—•
so and so ‘may take food from’ so and so. And Mr. Crooke usually
writes—so and so ‘may eat the food of’ so and so. The phrases might
refer either to the commensal or cooking taboo. In fact, the reference
is always to the latter : but the phrase is then misleading because it does
not bring out the main point—that it is the caste of the cook that matters,
not the caste of the host. I may mention that when referring to these
taboos as a whole, I have usuaily called them ‘commensal and food’
restrictions.
must belong to a circle of persons whose interests are be-
yond question identical with his. From this point of
view, the caste is a group of men united by bonds of com-
mon blood or common interests in self-defence against the
dangers of the outer world.
Food, of course, is specially liable to infection of this
kind. If the mere fall of the shadow of an
2. Food taboos evilly-disposed person is dangerous, a man
must be very careful who cooks his food,
what food he eats, and in what vessels he cooks it. The
food taboos of Flindu life complicate it to an almost in-
credible degree : and, as has many a time been pointed
out, prevent ‘the growth of the good fellowship which
we are wont to cement at the dinner table’.
Hindu food taboos are of several kinds.
(i) The commensal taboo—which lays down the
persons in whose company a man may eat food.
(ii) The cooking taboo—which lays down the per-
sons who may cook the food that a man eats.
(iii) The food taboo—which lays down what kinds
of food a man may eat.
(iv) The eating taboo—which lays down the proper
ritual at a meal.
(v) The drinking taboo—which lays down the per-
sons from whom a man may take water.
(vi) The smoking taboo—which lays down the per-
sons whose pipe a man may smoke, and in whose com-
pany he may smoke.
(vii) The vessels taboo—which lays down the nature
of the vessels that a man may use for eating, drinking,
and cooking.1
1 Earlier writers, when referring to these taboos, generally use langu-
age that is vague, or even misleading. Sir R. Burn in the Provincial
Census Report of 1901, for instance, uses some variant of the phrase—•
so and so ‘may take food from’ so and so. And Mr. Crooke usually
writes—so and so ‘may eat the food of’ so and so. The phrases might
refer either to the commensal or cooking taboo. In fact, the reference
is always to the latter : but the phrase is then misleading because it does
not bring out the main point—that it is the caste of the cook that matters,
not the caste of the host. I may mention that when referring to these
taboos as a whole, I have usuaily called them ‘commensal and food’
restrictions.