"They have also a vague and confused idea of the immortality of the human soul, and of a future state of happiness or misery. They say that the soul of a dying person makes its escape through the nostrils, and is borne away by the wind; to heaven, if of a person who has led a good life; but if of an evil-doer, to a great cauldron, where it shall be exposed to fire until such time as _Batara-guru_ shall judge it to have suffered punishment proportioned to its sins; and feeling compassion shall take it to himself in heaven: that finally the time shall come when the chains and bands of _Naga-padoha_ shall be worn away, and he shall once more allow the earth to sink; that the sun will be then no more than a cubit's distance from it, and that the souls of those who, having lived well, shall remain alive at the last day, shall in like manner go to heaven, and those of the wicked be consigned to the before-mentioned cauldron, intensely heated by the near approach of the sun's rays, to be there tormented by a minister of _Batara-guru_, named _Suraya-guru_, until, having expiated their offences, they shall be thought worthy of reception into the heavenly regions."[52] _Cannibalism._--Of all the tribes of the old world those of the Oceanic stock have most generally, and, I fear, most justly, been accused of cannibalism. For the sake, however, of giving the full benefit of any modified form of this horrible habit to nations that have been improperly charged with feeding on the flesh and blood of their fellow-creatures, it must be remembered that the simple fact of human flesh being tasted, does not constitute cannibalism--_i.e._, habitual cannibalism. It has been tasted by savage tribes under three different influences. 1. As a mark of honour--Sir Walter Raleigh writes of the Arawaks, that this was showing posthumous respect. 2. Don Ruy de Guzman, writes of the Charruas, that they were not cannibals; and what Don Ruy de Guzman states has not been definitely contradicted. Nevertheless, it has not been denied that after their discoverer and enemy, Solis, had been killed in war, his body was tasted, if not eaten. This, however, was exceptional; and was done, not for the gratification of appetite, but in the way of revenge. Charles II. disinterred the judges of his father on the same principle; that is, he did a thing against his own nature and against the usage of his compatriots, under a violent stimulus. 3. Human flesh is eaten, as _food_, in some cases under incipient famine only; in others, from absolute appetite, and with other food to choose from. This last is true cannibalism. Of cannibalism so gratuitous as to come under the last of these categories, I know of no authentic cases: that is, I know of no case where the victim has been other than a captured enemy; but then I believe that the feast is one of the _certaminis gaudia_.