African Ethics: Gĩkũyũ Traditional Morality

AFRICAN ETHICS ˜ ˜ ˜ TRADITIONAL MORALITY GIKUYU

Studies in Intercultural Philosophy Studien zur Interkulturellen Philosophie Etudes de philosophie interculturelle

19

Series Founded by

Heinz Kimmerle & Ram Adhar Mall Edited by

Henk Oosterling & Hermann-Josef Scheidgen

Amsterdam - New York, NY 2010

AFRICAN ETHICS ˜ ˜ ˜ TRADITIONAL MORALITY GIKUYU Hannah Wangeci Kinoti

Edited by G. Wakuraya Wanjohi with the assistance of Gerald J. Wanjohi

Cover design: Pier Post The paper on which this book is printed meets the requirements of “ISO 9706: 1994, Information and documentation - Paper for documents - Requirements for permanence”. ISBN: 978-90-420-3088-6 E-Book ISBN: 978-90-420-3089-3 ©Editions Rodopi B.V., Amsterdam - New York, NY 2010 Printed in The Netherlands

K89C<F=:FEK<EKJ GI<=8:< =FI
9 11 13

@EKIF;L:K@FE

15 15 16 19

Rationale for the study Description of the literature The various groups interviewed :?8GK

Gĩkũyũ society in the pre-colonial period Social organization Religious beliefs The concepts of irĭ and irĭĭri Changes that have occurred in Gĩkũyũ society since the 1880s Political changes Economic and social changes Religious and cultural changes ~ :?8GK
Views of early writers What is honesty? Honesty as uprightness (ũthingu) Honesty as truthfulness (ũũma) Honesty as generosity (uuma-andũ) Honesty as fulfilment of expectation (ũhingia) Honesty as diligence (kĩyo)

,

21 21 21 27 34 37 39 43 53 57 57 60 61 71 76 77 86

KXYc\f]Zfek\ekj

Honesty in modern times Gĩkũyũ attitude to Christian vows and promises The effect of the money economy on people’s honesty Conclusion ~ :?8GK<E
Views of early writers What is generosity? (ũtuuna) Generosity as hospitality (ũtugi) Generosity as help (ũteithio) Generosity as uprightness (ũthingu) Generosity as charity (uuma-andũ) The ideal practice of generosity Why generosity is valued Traditional ways of enforcing generosity Generosity in modern times Conclusion ~ :?8GK
Views of early writers What is justice? Justice described in terms of truth (ma) Justice described in terms of defeat (hoota) Defeat in connection with open dispute Defeat in relation to a state of tension between people Justice described in terms of uprightness (ũthingu) Contentment as an aspect of justice Reward and punishment Reward Reward through human agency Reward through superhuman agency Punishment Forgiveness, atonement and restoration Younger generations’ understanding of justice Justice in modern times Conclusion ~ :?8GK<(U CAMBA)

Views of early writers Who is a courageous person? Courage as bravery (ũrũme) Bravery in physical fighting -

91 91 94 98 99 99 102 103 106 110 111 111 112 114 121 123 125 125 128 133 137 137 141 144 145 152 152 153 154 155 161 164 168 170 171 171 175 176 177

KXYc\f]Zfek\ekj

Bravery in litigation Courage as diligence (kĩyo) Courage as endurance (ũkirĩrĩria) Courage as gentleness (ũhooreri) Incentives to courage Material gain Good reputation Confidence Justice Conclusion

179 182 191 196 198 198 200 202 203 203

~ ~ :?8GK
205 205 207 208 211 212 212 213 214 217 220 224 224 227 229 230

Views of early writers Temperance as abstention (kwĩhinga) Abstention from sexual intercourse Abstention from beer drinking Temperance as self-control (gwĩthima) Self-control in beer drinking Self-control in eating Temperance as caution (wĩmenyereri) Temperance as steadfastness (ũkirĩrĩria) Temperance in modern times Factors influencing ideas about temperance Changing attitude to authority Lack of moral teaching and of good example Compromising moral standards Conclusion ><E
231

EFK<J8E;I<=I8G?P 8I:?@M8CD8K
235 255 261 263

89FLKK?<8LK?FI

285

.

GI<=8:< Hannah Kinoti’s book African ethics: Gĩkũyũ traditional morality forms an important contribution to the question of what African philosophy is. The debate about African philosophy arose in connection with the struggle of the African peoples for independence and the regained self-consciousness during the first years of their independence. This debate took place on the African continent and outside it. It was combined with the question what the place of African philosophy is or has to be in the intercultural philosophical discourse of world-philosophy. It was part and parcel of the colonial way of thinking, as it was expressed by the Western philosophers of the Enlightenment, and in a very clear and radical manner by Hegel, that in Sub-Saharan Africa there did not exist any form of philosophy. However, hard facts are the theories developed by the leaders in the struggle for independence, and the ideas worked out to prove that there is and has been through the past centuries a body of thought that had an immediate philosophical impact. Nevertheless, the work in the various Departments of Philosophy at African universities has been and still is strongly oriented towards Western philosophy. In this connection the African style of thinking takes its shape through the specific ways in which it deals with Western ideas. For the actual philosophical work, the question of what traditional African philosophy is as well as its meaning, has extensively been discussed by both African and non-African scholars. Traditional African philosophy is coherent in the chorus constituted by the many voices of African people’s ways of thought. In other words, there is a common thread running through the song of this choir as to what is African in African philosophies. Fortunately, we now know more clearly about the specific philosophical traditions of some of the many African peoples. Claude Sumner, who styles himself as a Canadian by birth and an Ethiopian by choice, has published a five-volume work which is the result of his compilation, translation, and 0

Gi\]XZ\

commentary on Ethiopian philosophy (mainly worked out by members of the Amharic people), dating back to the fourth century. In addition, Sumner has collected and published Proverbs, Songs and Folktales as sources of the philosophy of the Oromo, another large and important ethnic group of Ethiopia. Kwame Gyekye from Ghana has presented in detail the philosophical thought of the Akan. His presentation is mainly based on proverbs and on conversations with Akan sages. Using the concepts of belief and knowledge in the Yoruba language as well as the interpretation of the Yoruba oral tradition, B. Hallen and J.O. Sodipo have brought out the philosophy of the people who find their home in Nigeria, Niger, and Benin. An important contribution has also been accomplished through the interpretation of Yoruba literature by Sophie B. Oluwole. Innocent I. Asouzu has explained at great length the thought of what he calls the anonymous philosophers of the Igbo of Nigeria. What is worked out in an Igbo context has, according to Asouzu, a universal meaning. The presentation of the teachings of Tierno Bokar, the sage of Bandiagara, a city in the present state of Mali, by Amadou Hampaté Ba contains information about the philosophical ideas of this people. Henry Odera Oruka has interviewed several sages of the Luo, Gĩkũyũ, Luhyia, and other Kenyan peoples, as the basis for his work on Sage Philosophy. These are some well known examples of philosophies of different African communities. As for the philosophy of the Gĩkũyũ in Kenya, it has already been presented by Gerald J. Wanjohi who gives a systematic interpretation of the proverbs in the language of this people. In addition to this, the book of Hannah Kinoti offers a more detailed and more concrete explanation of the ethics of the Gĩkũyũ. Thus she contributes in an essential way to the knowledge of a crucial aspect of the philosophy of this people. The literature on Gĩkũyũ culture is used comprehensively. Traditional moral opinions which have been taken mainly from interviews with older people are contrasted with those of middle and younger generations who were also subjects of interviews. The philosophical value of Kinoti’s book stems from the fact that she focuses on key concepts of Gĩkũyũ morality. These are honesty, generosity, justice, courage, and temperance. These concepts are described and analyzed with both precision and sensitivity. In this way a philosophical panorama of Gĩkũyũ ethics is presented. In their mutual relationships, these concepts show clearly how morality is the binding force of the traditional African Gĩkũyũ culture. Zoetermeer/Netherlands, June 1, 2010 Heinz Kimmerle

('

=FI
((

=fi\nfi[

transition from the traditional way of life to the new life under colonialism and Christianity; the third group comprised young people who had little experience of traditional life. The outcome of Kinoti’s unique approach is a valuable book that is well documented and illustrated with Gĩkũyũ pithy sayings, songs and striking proverbs. The study intrigued me from its beginning as she and I discussed her research ideas; at the time, though, I did not fully appreciate its importance. It intrigues me even more now as I see its final outcome and conclusions. I cannot but be amazed by its value and importance. Kinoti herself stresses the importance of this work when she concludes that her study of traditional Gĩkũyũ society shows that “morality and religious belief are inseparable”. In conclusion, I do not hesitate to affirm that Hannah Kinoti’s study is a confirmation that God was already at work in the world before Christ’s coming. His moral law is to be found in all societies. Professor emeritus J.G. Donders (Washington Theological Union)

()

8:BEFNC<;>
(*

8Zbefnc\[^\d\ekj

Crucial to this study was a group of thirty-one informants. It comprised men and women, ranging in age from 20 to 90 years and drawn from the then Nyeri and Kiambu districts of central Kenya. They generously gave of their time and many of them offered Hannah hospitality when she visited their homes. Financial support for the research came from the University of Nairobi. A grant by the Mennonite Central Committee made the publication of the book possible. I would also like to acknowledge the various contributions made to the publication of the book by our children: Karimi (who helped to initiate the publication process), Kathambi, Wangari, Wanjiru and Kimathi. Hannah largely owed her education, from primary school to university, to Mama Ruth, Ruth Wanjiru Gathii. Mama Ruth laboured hard to raise school fees and other expenses through the sale of produce from her farm. Hannah and I were overjoyed when in her old age she was able to witness the award of a PhD degree to Hannah. On Hannah’s behalf and with deep gratitude I dedicate this book to the memory of Mama Ruth. Nairobi, January 2009 George Kinoti

upl ufik_f^iXg_p 8efk\fe>ëubl

When the Gĩkũyũ language was first put into writing, there was no agreement on how to express certain sounds and diphthongs, nor how to translate these into English. Because of this disagreement the word for the Gĩkũyũ people ‘Agĩkũyũ’ and for the language ‘Gĩkũyũ’ were, with rare exceptions, both translated as ‘Kikuyu’. In this work the proper Gĩkũyũ spelling has been employed; it is used both for the people as well as for the language. Editor

(+

@EKIF;L:K@FE IXk`feXc\]fik_\jkl[p

This study of Gĩkũyũ traditional moral values was prompted by my concern about what many people see as a rapid decline in moral standards in Kenya. Kenyan society is becoming more complex and sophisticated due to the introduction of modern education, the influence of mass media and the easier means of travel. But at the same time outcries are being heard against widespread social evils: corruption, robbery, prostitution, broken homes and sexual promiscuity. The large numbers of teenage pregnancies are a matter of great concern as well. While this is happening, African culture is often referred to in the past tense as if it is no longer relevant. Many Kenyan parents desire moral guidance for their children since the misuse of leisure, sexual irresponsibility and immoral conduct among them are on the rise. A study I did on church discipline for the Presbyterian Church of East Africa in 1966 revealed two issues. First, that church discipline had failed to create moral values that the people respected and followed. Second, that loss of respect for traditional values had created a moral vacuum that Christianity had failed to fill. In the course of that study, I interviewed some older church members who were pioneer converts to Christianity. They revealed that they had abandoned the teaching of their children and had entrusted it to schoolteachers. This was because the only knowledge of morals they had was the traditional one and Christian missionaries called these morals ‘pagan’ and ‘evil.’ So their restraint of children was very much limited to ‘do’s’ and ‘don’ts’ as well as simple explanations that ‘the Bible says so’ or that it is necessary to behave in a certain way in order to be ‘a good Christian.’ The elders interviewed complained that they did not always understand the Christian ethics they were supposed to teach. They were resentful that the (,

@ekif[lZk`fe

missionaries had insisted on their absolute loyalty to missionary teaching. In effect, they had been rendered inadequate as elders and leaders of their people. At the time of the interviews these church and community elders regretted that they had not taught the Gĩkũyũ ways that were good, along with their attempts at evangelising the people. I was curious to find out what these elders might have included in their teaching if their culture had not been condemned so strongly. Therefore, the study had four objectives: › To discover the conceptual basis of traditional Gĩkũyũ morality; ›To discover how moral values were sanctioned, that is, how society maintained the moral system; ›To determine whether there was any connection between religious beliefs and morality; ›To examine the extent to which the younger generation understood and subscribed to the traditional moral values. A detailed study was made of five virtues, namely, honesty (wĩhokeku), generosity (ũtaana), justice (kĩhooto), courage (ũcamba) and temperance (wĩkindĩria). Between them these virtues touch on all the important areas of the traditional life. The study was conducted primarily by means of a questionnaire. Three groups of people were interviewed. The first group consisted of old people who had had first-hand experience of traditional life, the second group of middle-aged people and the third group of young people. ;\jZi`gk`fef]k_\c`k\iXkli\

The literature, which formed the secondary source of information for the study, can be divided into five categories. ›The first category consists of books and archival material written by Gĩkũyũ authors who had personal experience of traditional Gĩkũyũ life. These authors were probably all born during the last decade of the 19th century. Therefore, they were able to participate more or less fully in the traditional way of life in their early youth. After their traditional upbringing they received western education in Christian mission schools and consequently had some missionary influence. However, there is ample evidence that their writings were at least partly a reaction against that influence. These authors are: Stanley Kiama Gathigira, Justin Itotia, Mathew N. Kabetu, Jomo Kenyatta and Leonard wa Kariithi Githui. Gathigira believed that no nation could advance without knowledge of the ways of its forefathers. He was concerned about the divided opinion (-

@ekif[lZk`fe

among the Gĩkũyũ regarding the value of their traditional customs and in his writings urges his readers to adapt a more balanced attitude to both the traditional and the new way of life. Kabetu published two invaluable records of Gĩkũyũ traditions. He wrote them to encourage his readers to adopt what is good from both their Gĩkũyũ heritage and the heritage of the ‘advanced races,’ as well as to provide ready material for future researchers into Gĩkũyũ traditions. Kabetu believed that the Gĩkũyũ were bound to suffer moral and social delinquency unless the innovations – which were displacing Gĩkũyũ traditions and customs – had an equivalent moral and social worth. Itotia was probably among the first fifteen teachers to qualify from Jeanes School, Kabete in 1927. The role of a ‘Jeanes teacher’ was to supervise village schools and to help them relate to the local community.1 The main source of inspiration for his writings was the virtuous life of the mature and old people in his community and he expresses his indebtedness to them. Kenyatta’s well-known book, Facing Mount Kenya is based on seminar papers he delivered when he was an anthropology student at the London School of Economics. Because of Kenyatta’s political career, spanning ten years before the publication of the book in 1938, it was branded “a masterly propaganda document.”2 However, Kenyatta says that he restrained his “sense of political grievances” in order to record facts as he knows them and to let the truth speak for itself. Kenyatta shares the conviction that the Gĩkũyũ had a worthy cultural heritage. Kenyatta’s thesis was that Gĩkũyũ economic, social, religious and political systems had a cohesion and integrity better than anything that the colonial system could offer.3 An unpublished manuscript written in the early 1930s by Leonard Githui concentrates on how children were taught the ideals of courtesy and diligence in traditional society. ›The second category of literature consists of two ethnographical studies on the Gĩkũyũ, one by William S. and Katherine P. Routledge, entitled With a prehistoric people and the other by Louis S.B. Leakey, The Southern Kikuyu before 1903. These two books were published in 1910 and 1937 respectively. They are complementary in that the first one describes mainly the Northern Gĩkũyũ and the second one the Southern Gĩkũyũ. William and Katherine Routledge tend to use superlative descriptions about the Gĩkũyũ (among whom they spent five and a half years) and one is left with the impression that they may have idealized a people whose way of life reminded them of their Saxon forefathers. Leakey had the advantage of “being born and bred among the Gĩkũyũ tribe” so that he spoke their language fluently.4 In thoroughness, Leakey’s (.

@ekif[lZk`fe

work, in three volumes, is unsurpassed. Leakey worked with several committees of Gĩkũyũ elders who knew traditional life before the introduction of the colonial administration. He also used information he had collected since childhood.5 ›The third category is the writings of missionaries and colonial administrators who worked among the Gĩkũyũ. These were people with a mission: the administrator to govern and the missionary to civilize and evangelise. Generally, the missionaries and administrators were not interested in studying the Gĩkũyũ customs for what they were but rather so that they could carry out their missions more efficiently. However, some individual administrators, like K.R. Dundas, C.W. Hobley, Harold E. Lambert and H.R. Tate seem to have had a genuine interest in ‘native customs’ but they had to fit their studies in between busy schedules. The question of what values lay behind the customary ways was not immediately relevant to most of these writers. In spite of the obvious limitations of their studies, the work of these administrators enabled them to record information that would otherwise have got lost with the passage of time. Christian missionaries have produced much literature on the Gĩkũyũ. Major works and other records include those by C. Cagnolo, Edmondo Cavicchi, E. May Crawford and A.R. Barlow. Some of this literature is strongly biased, given the general attitude of the missionaries that Gĩkũyũ life was morally degraded. Given their dual mission of civilizing and evangelising, they were more apt to decry than to appreciate what they observed. Cagnolo’s contribution has been found to be particularly problematic in this respect. ›The fourth category consists of Gĩkũyũ proverbs, folk stories and folk songs that exist in written form. In the pre-literate Gĩkũyũ society proverbs and stories were a reservoir of the people’s traditions and wisdom. The number of proverbs available in written form is enormous: Gathigira, Itotia, Barlow and Barra have all compiled lists of them. ›The fifth category comprises the writings of early European travellers. Their views can be regarded as hasty and inaccurate. However, these early writers describe some actual incidents, which touch on moral ideals, and so some of these writings provide information relevant to the present study. They include works by L. von Hőhnel, Joseph Thomson, F. Jackson, J.W. Gregory, J.R.L. MacDonald and F.D. Lugard. The literature presents several difficulties. In addition to some of it being strongly biased, there is the problem of contradiction between authors.

(/

@ekif[lZk`fe

K_\mXi`flj^iflgj`ek\im`\n\[

The interviews that formed the primary data for the research on which the thesis is based were carried out between June 1975 and December 1976. Each person in the various age groups was visited an average of five times. The Old Age Group. The following people, three women and five men, were part of this group: Ruth Wanjiru Gathii, Wanjiku Gicinga, Priscilla Njeri Makumi, Samueli Gitau, Antony Kahindi Mbiiru, Meshak Murage, Gathii Mwathi and Arthur Waciira. They were aged between approximately 70 and 90, keeping in mind that traditionally no records of births were kept. Therefore most of them only knew their approximate age. Two of the women were married with children, grandchildren and great grandchildren. One woman had been a widow for many years. Of the men, four had been traditional elders (one of whom served as a soldier in German East Africa during the First World War) and one had been a teacher, as well as a minister in the Presbyterian Church. The Middle Age Group. Four women and four men were part of this group. Their names are: Beth Gathoni Guandaru, Rahab Waiyigo, Madalina Wambui, Lucy Wanjiku, Jackson Githaiga, Patrick Migui, Duncan Munyiri and Simon Muteru. Their ages ranged between 33 and 60. Of the women, three were married and one was a widow. Of the men, two were teachers, one was the principal of a Teacher Training College and one was a chief. The Young Age Group. The young people, three women and five men, were aged between 20 and 24. Five were university students, one was a college student, one a Form Six leaver and one a shop steward. Their names are: Katherine Kaigi, Leah Maranga, Janet Wambui Muchiri, Gathimbu Mbugua, Karanja Kagecha, Patrick Kagwanja, Joseph Maingi Kubai and Evanson Ndirangu.

(0

2 70 ?C 4 A


K?<:LCKLI8CJ u pl u jfZ`\kp`ek_\gi\$Zfcfe`Xcg\i`f[ >ëubl JfZ`Xcfi^Xe`qXk`fe In the traditional Gĩkũyũ society, the kinship system was composed of the family group (mũciĩ), the extended family group (nyũmba), the sub-clan, (mbarĩ) and the clan (mũhĩrĩga). The kinship system was organized in such a way that individuals were constantly reminded that they belonged to the clan as much as to the family. The family group or homestead (mũciĩ) was the smallest unit of the kinship system. As Leakey says, the family group was “the most fundamental basis of Kikuyu social organization,”1 and the most important social group for the individual. It consisted of a man, his wife or wives and his children. The most important religious and social ceremonies, especially family worship and rites of passage, were centred in the homestead.2 Most of the ceremonies required the presence of all the family members. Through the traditional system of division of labour, each person had some job or other to do for the family. Individuals learnt to value family welfare and to become aware of their first responsibility. It was within the family circle that children obtained most of their education. After the immediate family, the extended or “the greater family (nyũmba) was only slightly less important.”3 Nyũmba comprised several homesteads that were connected patrilineally and were close enough for the founder males to be classified as very close relatives, being brothers and stepbroth)(

:_Xgk\i(

ers. Upon marriage, a man had responsibility first to his own homestead and that of his father, and secondly to the homesteads of his brothers and stepbrothers. Through natural increase, a nyũmba eventually became a sub-clan (mbarĩ). Numerous social occasions brought members of a subclan together and helped strengthen their bond as a social unit. Members of a mbarĩ were expected to help each other. For instance, a man who had surplus land was obliged to put it at the disposal of a fellow member of the sub-clan giving him cultivation rights until such a time as he needed it himself.4 Everybody was automatically a member of one Gĩkũyũ clan (mũhĩrĩga) or another. Though responsibility towards clansmen was relatively less than towards the family and the sub-clan, there were definite obligations and these helped to keep the clan united. Social occasions such as marriage ceremonies brought together members of the same clan. Clansmen were obliged to help each other in matters of defence, hospitality and paying compensation in cases of murder or manslaughter (if a member of the clan killed a member of another clan).5 For the adult members of the society, belonging to an age group (riika) was as important as belonging to a family. At the rite of circumcision, which was a group rite of passage, all those who were thus initiated into adulthood were given a special age-group name. The importance of the group rite of passage was twofold. First, being initiated together meant that all members of the age group thus formed belonged to each other as age mates. They were bound together by virtue of initiation, were responsible for each other’s welfare and were collectively responsible for upholding the good name of their age group. Age mates met most of the social needs of an individual as they were frequently in each other’s company, both at work and during leisure. Each age group was keen to maintain its honour and good reputation. Therefore it encouraged its members to conduct themselves with integrity for the sake of their own personal reputation, that of their family and, equally important, that of their riika. Age mates applied corrective measures to any of their members of whose conduct they did not approve. Secondly, for men, group initiation into adulthood marked the beginning of the group’s public responsibilities. In addition to his family responsibilities, each individual male was now expected to play his part in maintaining law and order and in defending the country. As new age groups were initiated, they joined the junior warrior regiment that was in the process ))

K_\ :lc kliXc  J\kk` e^

of formation. A regiment was complete when it had nine initiation age groups. At that time it took over power and public responsibility from the senior regiment. The responsibilities of a regiment in power included national security, punishment of theft and witchcraft, organization of social activities, such as kĩbaata dances (where important notices were given) and the maintenance of discipline. All general police duties for maintenance of order in market places and elsewhere belonged to the regiment. These duties were carried out through small committees known as warriors’ councils (njaama cia aanake).6 By the time a regiment retired formally, different individuals within it would have long retired from active warrior duties due to their marriage and the raising of children. The younger warriors of the retiring regiment moved down to join the regiment assuming power as senior warriors. Some of the newly married men continued with regimental duties as occasion demanded but eventually they too retired from military duties. Eldership was a social status with definite responsibilities and privileges. Eldership gave a man the important responsibility of managing his own family or homestead (mũciĩ). His ability to manage his family determined how highly he was regarded by the local community. Most elders became members of the Council of Elders (kĩama) and therefore assumed judicial duties in the community.7 Eldership was not automatic: moral integrity and wisdom were important qualifications. In the absence of a central government, one important unifying factor for the entire Gĩkũyũ people was the ruling generation. The whole of the initiated male population was divided into two generations (mariika). In any one period, there was a generation in power (the ‘ruling generation’) while another generation was in the process of formation. The ruling generation was made up of elders and it exercised authority throughout the country for a period of between thirty and thirty-five years. This was the period it took the next ruling generation to be completely formed. That means that not all elders were rulers at any one period because those who attained the elder status after a generation had formally assumed power, automatically became members of the generation in the process of formation. These assumed national power at the next ituĩka (handing over) ceremony. The elders of the ruling generation were highly respected. They were ritual leaders, held prayers to God and performed religious ceremonies on behalf of the entire population.8 They were the country’s legislators; it was their duty to preserve and interpret the tradition, make new rules where neces)*

:_Xgk\i(

sary, administer justice and authorize military operations. In all this, they worked in close consultation with the warrior regiment in power. The territorial unit, rũgongo (ridge, plural ng’ongo), was the other important unit of the Gĩkũyũ society. Ridges are characteristic of Gĩkũyũ country and each ridge had its own territorial unit. Socially, politically and economically, territorial integrity was a matter of great importance. Territorial integrity was maintained by a system of units starting from the smallest unit, namely the village. Each homestead related to other homesteads in the same locality and together they made up a village (itũũra) or a fortified village (kĩhingo). People from different clans could live together as a village. All members of a village, regardless of their clan origin, shared in the common life of the village. Each member participated in all measures connected with the safety or defence of the village, such as the building of fortifications and responding to fire alarms. They were also obliged to help each other in bush clearing, cultivation and hut building.9 The inhabitants of the various villages in a rũgongo were united for various practical purposes. As far as defence was concerned, they acted as a single unit. Villages along the frontier with the Maasai fortified themselves in an attempt to prevent the penetration of Maasai into the rũgongo. The rest of the villages came to their aid if the Maasai attacked. It was at the rũgongo level that the warriors of the regiment in power exercised their executive power. They did this through committees (njaama) drawn from the different villages of a rũgongo. Similarly, there was a rũgongo Council of Elders (kĩama), which performed legislative, judicial, and religious functions for the rũgongo as a whole. Besides conducting ceremonies in times of famine and pestilence, elders from every village in the territorial unit were required to join together from time to time for acts of worship and sacrifice to God.10 Territorial units made up the country (bũrũri) and there were three such countries: Kabete (Kĩambu), Metumi (Mũrang’a) and Gaaki (Nyeri). The country was united in matters of law, custom and religion. Two national committees were responsible for this unity. One committee consisted of elders selected from the ruling generation to represent the ng’ongo. The two committees always worked in consultation but they only came together when matters affecting the whole Gĩkũyũ country demanded attention. Such included the making of new laws, the repealing of old laws and the making of peace treaties with the Maasai. Generally, the function of the warriors of the regimental committee was to communicate the decisions of the Council of Elders to the people, and to enforce such decisions. The warriors were the executive arm of the government. )+

K_\ :lc kliXc  J\kk` e^

Besides the kinship, age groups and territorial systems, there were three other aspects of the Gĩkũyũ social system that helped the individual, whatever his status, to remember the conduct befitting him. The first aspect was the division of every section of the society into senior and junior camps. The second was the use of the idea of thoni. The third was the function of ad hoc disciplinary committees of councils known as njaama. Regarding the division of the various sections of the society into senior and junior camps, no social group was exempt. Girls, boys, circumcised girls, warriors, married women and elders were all divided into senior and junior camps whenever each group had occasion to meet.11 The Gĩkũyũ have a saying, Mũregi gwathuo ndangĩhota gwathana (He who refuses to be commanded cannot command.)12 With that understanding, the senior or older members of each group had authority over the junior members. The younger members were required to obey and respect the senior members. There were certain jobs senior people would do if they were alone but did not do if junior members were present. For instance, when elders were together away from their homes, it was the junior elders who collected firewood and made the fire. The same was true of the warriors. If the junior camp of any group disobeyed or showed disrespect to their seniors, the latter could punish them. The juniors had to pay fees before they could be promoted to the senior status.13 The idea of authority was vital and it was learnt from the peer group immediately senior to one’s own. This was extended to individuals. Similarly, in the home, the older children could give orders to the younger children. The second important aspect of the social system was the principle of thoni. The word thoni has a wide meaning. According to the Kikuyu–English dictionary it means: “Shyness, shame; bashfulness, modesty, deference; (of women, children, etc.) respectful, courteous conduct, decorum and reserve towards husband, seniors, etc., also to relatives-in-law.” Essentially, when a person was said to have thoni, this meant that he behaved in a modest and respectful manner towards other people. The society had an elaborate system of ‘courteous behaviour’ (mĩtugo ya nganyĩĩti) governing all the relationships that existed between people and groups. For instance, the in-law relationship (ũthoni) required the strictest observance of the rules of courtesy by all parties concerned. Some courteous behaviour was simple etiquette but a great deal of it served to emphasize the moral ideals of the society. For instance, when criticizing a person face to face for giving false statements, it was preferable to call him garrulous (wa cau) or ),

:_Xgk\i(

a gossiper (wa mũhuuhu) rather than to call him a liar (mũheenania).14 To give another example, when girls wished to encourage cowardly warriors to go on a raiding or trading expedition, they did not speak to them directly. Instead, they sang words such as: Thaka ĩrĩ guoya ĩgoocagwo nũũ? (Who ever praises handsome but cowardly men?)15 Parents schooled their children in courteous behaviour because public opinion against people who lacked good breeding was strong. Children were taught to cultivate behaviour that earned them people’s gratitude and respect.16 The third aspect of the Gĩkũyũ social system that helped people to be morally alert was the use of ad hoc committees or councils (njaama) for enforcing proper moral conduct. The homestead unit (mũciĩ) did not need the services of njaama since the responsibility of managing a homestead fell on its owner. Beyond the homestead unit, these disciplinary councils were appointed by the groups concerned to deal with the affairs of the particular groups. These councils or deputations were convened from time to time in order to kwaragania bũrũri (pacify the country).17 Every important group was catered for. The extended family group had a council (njaama ya nyũmba) that scrutinized the land matters of the extended family, including inheritance, debts and the rights of orphans in the family. For instance, this council rebuked avaricious people (ahahami), those who tended to encroach on the property of others, or elders who married off their daughters privately without involving relatives.18 Beyond this was the clan council (njaama ya mũhĩrĩga). Since clansmen might be scattered all over the country, this njaama had the task of maintaining contact with clansmen wherever they resided. It also looked after clan lands and resolved land disputes between its clan and other clans. This council disciplined anybody who had killed a fellow clansman. The clan council also made decisions about the execution of clansmen who were habitual criminals.19 Since a habitual criminal was a public nuisance, there was also a public council (njaama yakĩng’ore), made up of representatives from different clans, which was responsible for the execution of perpetrators of witchcraft, habitual thieves and traitors.20 Then there was the generation council (njaama ya mbere) which imposed special fees on all the males of the incoming generation “to teach them humility and respect” before the rule of the country was handed over to them.21 The warriors’ council (njaama ya ita) was convened periodically; among other things, to “ban drinking of beer for purposes of defense,” “to punish fearful young men who did not respond to war alarms” and also to “punish stingy elders.”22 The age-grade Council )-

K_\ :lc kliXc  J\kk` e^

of Elders (njaama ya riika) scrutinized the homes of age mates and went around demanding hospitality and punishing lazy and stingy age mates. The women’s council (njaama ya atumia) demanded fines (ngoima) from elders who harassed or neglected their wives. This council also punished women who had illicit love affairs.23 A council of initiated girls (njaama ya airĩĩtu) was called when the girls in any territorial area had cause to believe that some of their members were earning them a bad name by being indecent, slanderous or marrying too young. The ad hoc council arranged an all-girls dance, known as nduumo, and used the occasion to forbid such conduct. Any girl who did not mend her conduct was ostracized. 24 The various Gĩkũyũ social organizations, therefore, were utilized as a means to put pressure on individuals to conduct themselves in a morally responsible manner. I\c`^`fljY\c`\]j

Leakey rightly emphasized the importance of religion in the traditional Gĩkũyũ society when he said, Belief in God (Ngai) and in the ancestral and departed spirits was the fundamental basis of life as a Kikuyu … Law and order depended more upon religious beliefs than upon the police activities of the njaama (warrior council) or the judicial authority of the kĩama (Council of Elders).25

Both Leakey and Kenyatta stress the unifying role of religion. In Leakey’s words: Religion held each family together, united the inhabitants of every village, bound together the inhabitants of the various villages of a territorial unit and gave the cohesion that was essential to their mutual security.26

Regarding God, there are two main beliefs that can be identified.27 One stresses God’s role as creator and ruler of creation. The other is the belief that God is a God of justice. The traditional Gĩkũyũ recognized God as the sole creator of all things and as personal ruler of creation. God was conceived of as an immanent, benevolent and awesome presence among the people. The evidence of his presence was the permanence and the majesty of the sky, the sun, the ).

:_Xgk\i(

mountains surrounding Gĩkũyũ country and the prominent evergreen sacred trees, which had milk-like or blood-like sap.28 In the Gĩkũyũ conception, God the Creator was also Ngai, the great distributor of things.29 In his creation, the greatest gift he gave was life. He gave other gifts by which life was sustained and safeguarded. Thus he apportioned to the Gĩkũyũ a domain and a means of livelihood based on agricultural pursuits. He approved certain institutions and customs, which made it possible for a society to function. The Gĩkũyũ believed that the God who gave them life also gave them their agricultural way of life that was handed down from generation to generation. One of the Gĩkũyũ myths of origin says that God gave their first ancestors (an old man and his wife) sheep and goats from which Gĩkũyũ flocks and herds were descended. Another myth relates how a man apportioned different articles to his four sons. One son, who became an ancestor of the Gĩkũyũ, was given a digging stick. This myth explains why the Gĩkũyũ referred to themselves as nyũmba ya mũro (the house of the digging stick).30 Together with life and an agricultural way of life, God gave the Gĩkũyũ certain laws. Routledge made enquiries from Gĩkũyũ people who, he says, had not had any missionary influence. According to those informants, God’s laws included prohibitions against murder and stealing. God also commanded that people should respect parents.31 Itotia’s elderly informants also told him: God is angered by people when they behave wickedly (rĩrĩia maganĩite) and are self-loving (eyendi) and swindlers (atuunyani). He is also angered by people who contradict his laws, which he used to communicate through prophets and seers, through diviners and also through parents.32

God was supposed to actually carry out an inspection of the Gĩkũyũ society from time to time. Kenyatta states that the Gĩkũyũ believed God to make visits to their domain “with a view to his carrying out a kind of ‘general inspection’ … and to bring blessing and punishments to the people.”33 Itotia has also stated that when people disobey God, “there must come chastisements in the form of diseases, famine and carnage, for the offending people must be defeated (in battle).”34 Epidemic diseases, adverse weather conditions (which caused crop failure and famine) and battles lost decisively to the Maasai, were considered as evidence of some moral failure. Another of God’s rules was that the Gĩkũyũ must be united. According to Leakey: )/

K_\ :lc kliXc  J\kk` e^

If the inhabitants of different villages lost touch with each other and became too independent of one another, the wrath of God visited them and persisted in punishing them until they became united once more by joint acts of public worship and sacrifices.35

It is not without significance that the Gĩkũyũ believed God to punish them by striking at the very life he had given them. In periods of severe drought, all the ruling elders of a territorial unit gathered to plead with God for rain. Their prayer was that as it was he who had created the people and given them their land and their children, may he have mercy and give them rain, children, cattle, sheep and goats, as well as produce from the fields.36 Traditionally, organized prayers were not a daily routine. As Kenyatta has pointed out, when all was well and everything prospered, it was taken for granted that God was pleased with the general behaviour of the people and the state of the country.37 However, people were constantly aware that they might easily violate God’s rules. Every morning an elder prayed on behalf of his household that his home might be granted peace and well being (ũhoro).38 Other adults also prayed regularly to God.39 Individuals were aware that they were somehow accountable to God for their conduct. In public assemblies, prayers were directed to God that he might endow the ruling elders with wisdom in order to maintain peace and harmony in their deliberations. They prayed to God also that the population might enjoy prosperity and tranquillity and that the flocks and herds might bring forth plenty of offspring.40 Many of these were matters that required human effort. But the fact that people asked God to participate is evidence of their belief that it is ultimately he who maintained the creation. They also believed that he could help people to please him by their good management of the life he had given them. In the traditional Gĩkũyũ conception then, God was the creator and the lord of creation. He had given people rules of conduct aimed at ensuring the well being of society. He himself ensured that these rules were adhered to in the conduct of people. Failure to do so provoked his anger. People experienced God’s anger by way of disease, plague, failure of seasonal rains, persistent Maasai raids and general lack of vitality in man, beast and plant. When people repented and mended their ways, they enjoyed prosperity and well being once more.41 Another important belief about God concerned his justice. This belief affected the people’s moral outlook in three main ways. )0

:_Xgk\i(

First, God did not condone wickedness: he surely punished offences. God’s punishments were corrective and deterrent; they never arose out of malice and were in fact chastisements (mahũũra) or supernatural sanctions of morality. As indicated earlier, the ultimate object of God’s punishments was peace and harmony in the society. In fact, God was interested in the equilibrium of man’s total environment, physical and non-physical. God communicated his concern for peace and harmony by punishing the offending community or the wicked individual (and sometimes his kin as well). This belief acted as a restraint in private and public conduct. Lambert refers to it as “… an ingrained belief that there is an automatic supernatural readjustment when the laws of natural justice have been disregarded.”42 Natural justice required, for instance, that a man acquired property by lawful means. God did not bless any property that was acquired illegally and therefore the owner of such property did not prosper.43 A popular proverb states, Mũgathĩ wa kuoya ũteeaga wa mwene (A stolen necklace causes the loss of one’s own), meaning that good fortune does not accompany any form of theft.44 Natural justice also required that one should deliberately restrain feelings of malice or envy towards those better endowed with property or personality than oneself. Malice can lead to calculated anti-social activities such as theft, destruction of property or murder. Besides disrupting peace, such activities are a criticism of God for rewarding people who have initiative and diligence.45 God’s justice was seen in terms of uprightness, fairness and equity. God disapproved conduct that disrupted peace and harmony and he encouraged personal effort and initiative. Significantly, God was conceived as the “Great Elder” (Gĩthuuri). As such, he was the example of every genuine elder (mũthuuri). Elders were the custodians of morality by means of the various roles they played as heads of their families, councillors, adjudicators, arbitrators and legislators. They had to be people of integrity. The term mũthuuri denotes one able to pick and choose (thuura).46 In a moral sense, the ability to choose refers specifically to a keen sense of justice in terms of honesty, equity and impartiality.47 As adjudicators and arbitrators, Gĩkũyũ elders sought God’s help so that they might uphold justice and at the same time maintain peace and harmony.48 Traditionally, lawsuits were conducted with great thoroughness, including careful investigation and patient consideration of the evidence. Settlement was according to the merits of the suit in question. The elders insisted on the litigants’ honesty and any suspicion of perjury was submitted to the judgment of God. God’s judgment was sought through ‘trial by ordeal.’ God’s justice was also appealed to if the *'

K_\ :lc kliXc  J\kk` e^

elders could not come to a definite decision due to lack of conclusive evidence. A litigant who was trying to establish his sincerity without success also appealed to God’s judgment by requesting trial by ordeal.49 Secondly, the conception of God as a God of justice meant that God was always on the side of right. That being the case, justice was bound to win out, no matter what obstacles were in its way. This belief gave people the determination to see that justice triumphed.50 This was the reason behind the wronged party often absolutely insisting on redress.51 But perhaps the clearest illustration of this belief is the relatively recent struggle for selfdetermination during the colonial rule. Evidence from political speeches, prayers and songs composed during the Mau Mau revolution indicates that the Gĩkũyũ believed that God was bound to restore freedom precisely because he was just. In his justice, he could not fail to see that the people’s grievances were genuine.52 In this connection, F.D. Corfield cites a Gĩkũyũ writer (identified only as Mathu) who says that land is the only social security the African has and that therefore … “the land stolen [through alienation by Europeans] must be restored, because without land the future of the African people is doomed. God will hear us because that is the thing he gave us.”53 In the same vein, Kenyatta says, God said this is our land in which we are to flourish as a people … We want cattle to get fat on our land so that our children grow up in prosperity; we do not want that fat to be removed to feed others …54

The people were convinced that God had not set the Gĩkũyũ or any other people in their land to suffer injustices at the hand of foreigners. They therefore pleaded with God to put things right. A popular song had this refrain: Hoyai ma Thaithai ma Nĩ amu Ngai no ũrĩa wa tene. Pray in earnest, Beseech in earnest For God is the same as of old.55

Thirdly, people believed that God rewarded honest effort to acquire wealth. A popular Gĩkũyũ proverb states, Ngai ateithagia wĩteithĩitie (God helps *(

:_Xgk\i(

him who helps himself).56 In his justice, God had given people certain blessings in fairly equal proportions. The most common gifts people possessed were the soil and time. If an individual was more blessed than another, this was usually the result of how well he managed his time and his plot of land. Diligence in tilling the land and discipline in observing the regularity of time in terms of daily and seasonal activities were vital. For success in agricultural pursuits, there was no alternative to discipline and diligence.57 Another common belief was that God ratified the blessings or curses pronounced by others, especially parents, the aged, the poor and the disabled.58 People who obeyed their parents or who showed kindness to the aged, poor and disabled were continually being blessed. People’s good will and blessings were supposed to be vehicles for God’s blessings.59 Therefore, the Gĩkũyũ belief in God’s justice influenced the people’s morality. In his righteousness God punished evil. God was always on the side of justice and so the wronged or the aggrieved could have the courage to pursue justice. God’s justice was also such that he did not fail to reward a life devoted to diligence and integrity. Traditional beliefs about the spirits of the deceased had a remarkable influence on people’s morality. Several things can be noted. It was believed that the deceased continued to live as spirits and their existence could not be ignored.60 As spirits, they had certain powers and certain limitations. Their influence was supernatural and their approval was necessary for prosperity. They could punish wrongdoers. To give an illustration, people believed that clan ancestral spirits required that boundaries of clan and family land were not to be moved. Therefore, a person who wilfully destroyed trees marking boundaries would die more or less immediately “as a result of supernatural intervention.”61 Being spirits, the deceased did not beget children. They were not self-sufficient in their social needs. They were believed to be particularly keen to continue association with the living; so keen in fact, as to cause the living to suspect them of selfish motives. An individual spirit was believed to possess the character that the individual had when he lived on earth.62 A good man continued as a good spirit. Besides his interest in the living for his own well being as a spirit, he was concerned that the living did not contravene the rules of good conduct, which guaranteed their own well being. His wisdom and counsel continued to be tapped from beyond the grave, as it had been on this side of the grave. The way to accord the spirits of good people the *)

K_\ :lc kliXc  J\kk` e^

respect they deserved was to avoid behaviour that would annoy them. A bad man continued as a bad spirit.63 A bad spirit could harass his living relatives. Whereas the living were happy to continue associating with the spirits of good people, they were anxious to make outcasts of the bad spirits and apparently they were able to do this.64 It was therefore in the interest of every individual to die as a good person so that at one’s death, contact was not severed by the living. Some people were foolish enough to ruin their life on earth and consequently their life as spirits.65 Another belief was that the spirits of the deceased continued to belong to the various groups that they had belonged to in life; there were spirits attached to families, clans, age groups, professional groups, etc. The significance of this is that there was no aspect of life that did not come under the influence and the sanction of the spirits of the departed. There does not seem to have been any context in which an individual might misbehave without arousing the displeasure of the spirits in some capacity or other.66 Therefore, human sanctions in the various spheres of life had the backing of the spirits of the deceased. As far as the individual was concerned, the family unit, consisting of the living and the deceased, was most important from a moral point of view. Children accorded the greatest respect to the spirits of their deceased parents. In life, parents were honoured on account of their sacred role as parents and because of their seniority. Further, they were the immediate human agents that maintained the vital link between the family and the supernatural realities, that is, God and the ancestors. It was believed that behaviour that angered parents when they were still alive was bound to bring serious harm (kĩng’ũki) to the person responsible for that anger.67 The concerns of the spirits were the concern of the living. The collective existence of the departed, representing different generations and age groups, was concerned that the ideals that promoted the peace, harmony and prosperity of the living body politic should be upheld.68 The family ancestral spirits were concerned about the proper care of widows and orphans.69 Spirits of departed professional diviners were concerned about the continued integrity and wisdom of the living members of the profession, and these often sought their aid.70 Whereas spirits supported the ideals that were held dear by the living, they could also be expected to punish any tendencies that hindered the promotion of these ideals. Belief in the active participation of the spirits of the departed in life on earth influenced the conduct of the Gĩkũyũ, not only towards each other **

:_Xgk\i(

but also towards foreigners. Leakey says that the Gĩkũyũ bought land from the Ndorobo instead of acquiring it by ‘right of conquest’ because they believed that the spirits of any Ndorobo killed while defending their land would make such land useless to the invaders. The invaders’ herds and flocks would die, their crops would fail and the land would be destroyed by drought. Therefore, the Gĩkũyũ bought the land and adopted the Ndorobo into their families.71 Another example is that when a Gĩkũyũ man took a Maasai wife he changed his manner of performing certain ceremonies (magongoona) to the Maasai way in order to ensure harmony with the Maasai spirits.72 K_\ZfeZ\gkjf]`iëuXe[`iëuuë i`

The traditional Gĩkũyũ concepts of irĩ and irĩĩri can roughly be translated to mean “wealth” and “honour” respectively, although the terms mean more than this. The main goals in Gĩkũyũ society were irĩ and irĩĩri. These goals formed a strong motive for cultivating the moral ideals that the society recommended. In terms of moral ideals, the traditional Gĩkũyũ recognized two types of people. There was a type which was able to attract wealth and reputation. A person who had the qualities which the Gĩkũyũ believed were necessary for attracting these two blessings was referred to as Mwendo nĩ irĩ na irĩĩri (One favoured by wealth and honour). In normal circumstances each individual had the potential to attract irĩ and irĩĩri. However, some people failed to cultivate the qualities that attracted these blessings. The person who had proved a failure in this respect was referred to as Mũimwo nĩ irĩ na irĩĩri (One rejected by wealth and honour). The Kikuyu–English dictionary defines irĩ as “Sustenance, substance, fortune; the good things of life; property, including wives, children, livestock, gardens; progeny”. When the terms sustenance, substance and fortune are analysed it is found that ‘substance’ includes all that can be said to support an individual life, both materially and non-materially. Thus, for instance, food is irĩ because it maintains a person’s body physically. A wife is a man’s irĩ because she gives him companionship and she helps him to be respected. Irĩ means all things and all relationships that provide the individual with physical and moral support. ‘Substance’ means matter and also strength (hinya). ‘Strength’ means physical strength, stamina, the power to procreate, and also wealth (ũtonga). ‘Fortune’ means both wealth and prosperity (ũgaaciru). It is possible to amass wealth and yet not lead a satisfied or settled life.73 *+

K_\ :lc kliXc  J\kk` e^

From these explanations, it is apparent that what the Gĩkũyũ meant by irĩ carried the idea of the total welfare of an individual. Itotia explains that irĩ means: “Children, estates and all things which benefit people’s lives, giving them strength to work day by day.”74 Irĩiri is derived from the word garĩĩra, which means, “to flourish, do well, prosper.” Garĩĩra also means “to come to a satisfactory conclusion.” Ũrĩĩri is an associated word, which means “prosperity through inheritance of possessions.” The Kikuyu–English dictionary defines irĩĩri as “those who participate in a man’s estate, beneficiaries, heirs.” In other words, irĩĩri are the people who are entitled to benefit from the possessions, material, as well as non-material of a person. According to Itotia, irĩĩri is the reputation given to a person by the people who have seen his works, which he does for himself and for the country.75 In connection with irĩĩri, it is apparent that for the traditional Gĩkũyũ to think of a beneficiary, heir, or progeny is automatically to think of the honour of the benefactor, who usually was a parent. Irĩ and irĩĩri were two greatly desired blessings in traditional Gĩkũyũ society. They were really a double blessing, for irĩĩri usually followed on irĩ. One of the blessings pronounced by an old person on a young person by way of gratitude for some service was: “May irĩ and irĩĩri love you, may you beget obedient children.”76 But the blessing of irĩ and irĩĩri was not something that came to the individual automatically. It was something the individual had to earn by leading a virtuous life. For instance, a man who was not diligent found it difficult to acquire a wife and, therefore children who could honour him by naming their children after him. Such a man might have inherited land from his father but if he lacked the moral qualities necessary for prosperity, his inheritance was not of much use to him. Some of the expressions, which the Gĩkũyũ used to describe the person who was denied the blessings of irĩ and irĩĩri illustrate how much this twin blessing was valued.77 One of the expressions was a mũũra huuhu (gone-withthe-wind). He was like a huuhu (light breeze) whose direction or destination could not be determined. Worse still, he was likened to ũthuri (fart), which offended the air momentarily but soon disappeared. A person whose character did him no good existed in society for a short time, making his name foul as long as he lived. When he died, foulness disappeared with him *,

:_Xgk\i(

and people were glad to be rid of him. Another expression used was mũkũu mũtũgũ (one fallen down prostrate and dead). The expression was used ordinarily to refer to somebody who dropped dead from hunger or exhaustion. A man without irĩ and irĩĩri was called mũkuũ mũtũgũ although he was still alive because, like a dead body, he could not point to his possessions and say, “These belong to me.” If a sudden need arose it found him destitute and desperate.78 There was also the expression mwendia rũhiũ (seller of sword) referring to a man who contracted a matrilocal and matrilineal marriage. That is, although he lived and had children with a woman, she was not properly his wife because he lacked the means to marry her.79 In such circumstances, his name would not survive him because none of the children he had fathered would name their children after him. In other words, he had no descendants of his own, however many children he might have fathered.80 All such people were said to be already destitute, because they lived like the destitute, unable to benefit themselves or other people. It was said of them: They will die prostrate like the destitute because they will not find anyone to wait on them and nurse them at their deathbed. Neither will they leave anyone anything to inherit. Their death being hardly noticed beyond their village, they are truly gone-with-the-wind.81

These were the people whose spirits were given a ‘terminal burial’ so that they might never return to their families to trouble the living.82 In contrast, a man who had lived a good life and had estates, wives, children, flocks, herds and a good record of service to his community and clan died a contented person. He left a legacy of irĩ and irĩĩri. After death, he was referred to as mũtiga irĩ na irĩĩri (one who has left behind wealth and honour).”83 The living continued to bless him, saying: Aromaama kuuraga nĩ gũtũtigĩra ngamba cia marimũũthio. (May he sleep where the rain continues to fall for leaving an inheritance of fallow lands for us to graze our animals.)84

This was a figurative way of saying that those people whom the living held in fond memory had left behind estates, gardens, crafts, skills and good works, as a result of which the living continued to prosper.85 In summary, it can be said that the concept of irĩ and irĩĩri was a major incentive for people to lead morally upright lives and to work diligently for themselves and for society. *-

K_\ :lc kliXc  J\kk` e^

u pl u jfZ`\kp :_Xe^\jk_Xk_Xm\fZZlii\[`e>ëubl j`eZ\k_\(//'j Over the last hundred years or so, the Gĩkũyũ have experienced tremendous changes in their political, social and cultural life. The majority of the Gĩkũyũ still live in the traditional homeland, which comprises the Nyeri, Murang’a and Kiambu administrative districts. However, since the coming of the Europeans at the end of the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th century, large numbers of people have made their homes in other parts of Kenya. At the beginning of the colonial period, the Gĩkũyũ were in great demand as porters for the construction and maintenance of railway lines and roads, as cheap labour on European farms and as unskilled labourers in the burgeoning urban centres. Soon, numbers of Gĩkũyũ people were to become squatters on the settlers’ farms in the so-called ‘white highlands.’ Following the outbreak of the Mau Mau conflict in 1952, many Gĩkũyũ who had made the white highlands their only or second home were repatriated to the ‘reserve.’ Again, since Kenya’s independence, quite a few Gĩkũyũ people have found permanent homes outside their homeland in Central Province. Some Gĩkũyũ people are also to be found beyond the national boundaries in search of a livelihood. Leakey remarks that mobility is probably one of the most obvious characteristics of the Gĩkũyũ. Mobility implies change and the need to adjust to a new environment and new conditions. In their pre-colonial history of migration and settlement into what finally became Gĩkũyũ land, the Gĩkũyũ experienced important changes.86 The period between the beginning of the 17th century and the end of the 19th century saw them consolidate themselves as an ethnic group, distinct from the Ndia and the Gichugu. The ecology of the area made it necessary for those who were hitherto hunters and pastoralists to become mainly agriculturalists. This was also a period of upheavals in which the Gĩkũyũ experienced opposition from the Gumba, the Athi and the Maasai. The Gĩkũyũ assimilated the Gumba and the Athi who had preceded them into the area and absorbed elements of their languages and ceremonial dances into their culture.87 With their pastoral Maasai neighbours they established a curiously balanced relationship of war and peace. The Maasai were evidently instrumental in the development of the defensive tactics, which the northern Gĩkũyũ adopted during this period. The tactics included special huts (gaaru) where warriors lived in readiness for war and a special kind of alarm (mbu) given as warning against the approach of an enemy.88 By the time the Gĩkũyũ were settling into present-day southern Kiambu they had adopted elaborate diplomatic methods of acquiring land from the Athi (Ndorobo) that *.

:_Xgk\i(

were very similar to their marriage process.89 There is also evidence that the traditional Gĩkũyũ government made provision for the making of new laws and the repealing of old laws as need arose. However, in all these innovations the Gĩkũyũ seem to have remained a fairly strong ethnic group whose culture and morality was not unduly upset. On the whole, they seem to have been masters of their situation. The Gĩkũyũ encounter with the British colonial power was a different matter. Change then became rapid, drastic and, in some respects, disruptive. After the initial encounter in the mid-1890s change seems to have been so swift that by 1909 Katherine Routledge was calling for an urgent “full record of native habit and custom” because the Gĩkũyũ way of life was changing fast.90 By the mid 1930s some literature was being written in the vernacular by indigenous authors who had received some western education. The main reason for writing was to inform the youth about the traditions of the Gĩkũyũ “because many things have changed.”91 By 1938 Kenyatta was expressing the Gĩkũyũ people’s outcry that they were “no more where they used to be” and that “all is confusion.”92 Such an outcry may sound surprising, especially since the Gĩkũyũ were known to have been near rebellion in their demand for more western education since the early 1920s. However, it is clear from what Kenyatta goes on to say, that whatever aspects of change the Gĩkũyũ were experiencing, it was in the area of morals where there were regrettable effects: Religious rites and hallowed traditions are no longer observed by the whole community. Moral rules are broken with impunity, for in place of unified tribal morality there is now … a welter of disturbing influences, rules and sanctions, whose net result is only that a Gĩkũyũ does not know what he may or may not, ought or ought not, to do or believe, but which leaves him in no doubt at all about having broken the original morality of his people.93

In these sentiments, Kenyatta has support from a number of authors who themselves were active instruments of change among the Gĩkũyũ. Writing in 1923, A. R. Barlow concluded an account on the Gĩkũyũ by saying: Civilization has come upon them with a rush since the first white men came amongst them. Many influences are now extended upon them, which are changing their ideas and their manner of life for good and for evil …94

*/

K_\ :lc kliXc  J\kk` e^

Cagnolo also looks at the Gĩkũyũ after some thirty years of ‘civilizing’ and he too recognizes some ‘good’ and some ‘evil’ in their new state. He writes: “In three short decades the Kikuyu tribe has progressed so far ahead that an observer today could not imagine their primitive condition of thirty years ago.”95 Cagnolo is somehow taken aback by this headlong progress, for he goes on to say that it is “with startling suddenness” that the Gĩkũyũ “… finds himself confronted by the precious patrimony of civilization, which Europe has only collected after 2,000 years of slow, laborious progress.”96 One of the consequences of this sudden change was that the Gĩkũyũ was stripped of the beliefs that ruled his actions, and he lacked a new firm moral foundation.97 As a District Commissioner based in Kiambu, H. E. Lambert stated in his 1942 Annual report: Individualism is the most obvious political trend of the modern Kikuyu, and it has developed … with such rapidity that it constitutes the most serious threat to the structure of a society based not long ago on its very anti-thesis …98

Lambert went on to suggest that the European had a duty to help the Gĩkũyũ to return to “some sort of social stability” since … “it was our own infringement of his social system, which removed him from the position of equilibrium he had achieved for himself before our advent.”99 The early writers quoted above demonstrate that the very rapid change the Gĩkũyũ experienced was felt in every sphere of life and had serious repercussions on the people’s moral standards. Here we describe briefly the main areas of change. These include the political, economic and social spheres of life. They also include religion, education, culture and morals. Gfc`k`ZXcZ_Xe^\j

Political changes were among the first sudden changes the Gĩkũyũ experienced during the colonial period. Suddenly, and for the first time in their history they had a master, with the result that they began to suffer insecurity due to the greatly diminished power of the indigenous political machinery.

*0

:_Xgk\i(

In 1890, the Imperial British East Africa (IBEA) Company set up a permanent station at Dagoretti. During the following decade or so of ‘pacification’ the Gĩkũyũ were to experience much loss of life and property in a series of campaigns (called ‘punitive expeditions’ by the British) which were designed not only to punish dissident African groups but also to elevate friendly, collaborating African leaders to power.100 These punitive expeditions were characterized by killings, burning of villages and confiscation of livestock and other property. By 1895, when the British government took over the Mt. Kenya region from the IBEA Company, the southern Gĩkũyũ had been virtually subdued. A series of natural calamities between 1894 and 1899 (locusts, drought, rinderpest, severe famine and smallpox) helped to reduce them numerically, physically, and in morale. As a result, they were not only resigned to the presence of the white man but the one-time warriors became porters and servants of the white man. Soon after, white settlers began to arrive and to alienate land. Thus the Gĩkũyũ landowners “were quickly and dramatically turned into an agricultural proletariat for European farmers.”101 Meanwhile, all over Gĩkũyũ country dubious characters were roaming, raiding, trading, and corrupting the Gĩkũyũ. They included European, Goan and Arab traders and raiders who were setting the Gĩkũyũ up against each other and corrupting them with guns, loose sex life, robbery and murder. One such character was John Boyes, who gave himself the title ‘King of the Wakikuyu.’ He elevated an opportunist, Karuri, to great chief in Murang’a, conducted six punitive raids in Nyeri and Murang’a, ‘married’ three Gĩkũyũ wives, and impersonated the government, besides other mischief.102 In order to control the activities of traders and adventurers who were giving the government a bad name, the administration decided to establish effective jurisdiction, but not before Murang’a and Nyeri had been subdued. Using Gĩkũyũ collaborators, Maasai levies and the gun, any resistance was met decisively. The loss of livestock, homes and human life was so great that the correct figures were withheld from the Colonial Office. By 1902, the Gĩkũyũ had been completely subdued, desiring nothing but peace and co-operation with their masters.103 The transformation of the Gĩkũyũ into a subject people brought with it numerous problems, the total effect of which was to rob the people of their self-determination and render them emasculated. At the outset there was need to establish effective administration as the British were short of personnel and “there was no visible traditional authority with which to work.” Therefore “…the administrative officers turned to the motley crowd of mercenaries who had served them as porters, guides or askari [soldiers, guards] and created them chiefs.”104 +'

K_\ :lc kliXc  J\kk` e^

Any other people who seemed prominent such as the traditional athamaki (spokesmen) and the ‘bold spirits’ “who exaggerated their importance” were also made chiefs.105 Traditionally, the Gĩkũyũ were egalitarian. The creation of chiefs caused a major political and social disruption to Gĩkũyũ society. Observing that their government found no pattern in the western world, Cagnolo suggested that the Gĩkũyũ traditional government “is best described as government by agreement.”106 Leakey also emphasized this: The Kikuyu did not believe in vesting power and authority in any one man; the policy was always to have a number of men vested jointly with the same authority, none of whom was junior or senior to his colleagues ….The Kikuyu organization was a true example of the committee principle.107

As agents of the colonial government, chiefs became a new and striking feature in Gĩkũyũ society. Partly to maintain the favour bestowed on them by the colonial masters and partly due to the unprecedented and unchecked power they enjoyed, they over-reached themselves in many ways in their unconventional behaviour. They violated custom and tradition. They undermined pre-colonial political institutions, engaged in widespread corruption and produced intense factional struggles for control of office.108 With the help of their unsalaried retainers (njaama) they exploited their positions in the maintenance of law and order, tax-collection, coercive recruitment of labour forces and as influential members of the native tribunals. They used their positions to acquire land, livestock, money and wives through unlawful means. Some became men of great wealth and high social status, much feared because of the foreign power behind them. But they were not respected.109 Perhaps the section of the Gĩkũyũ society to have suffered the sense of redundancy and impotence more that any other during the colonial period were the former guardians of Gĩkũyũ tradition and customary law: the elders. Besides the chiefs, two other organs of local administration set up by the colonial administration were the Native Tribunals and the Local Native Councils. These were established “in an effort to retain traditional African councils through which African peoples had been governed before the British advent.”110 A Court’s Ordinance of 1897 acknowledges tribal judicial authorities as courts of law with powers, inter alia, to punish breaches of +(

:_Xgk\i(

native custom.111 However, the government was to supervise their judicial activities and to ensure particularly that punishments were not inhumane and convictions were not obtained through witchcraft, torture, or “barbarous practices”.112 In effect, this meant that criminals did not need to fear for their lives since punishment became light. Dishonest litigants also did not need to fear that the tribunals might appeal to supernatural judgment through the ordeal of the oath, as used to be the case. The native tribunals were not allowed to deal with cases of murder. These cases went direct to the District Commissioner and he, in turn, might refer them to the High Court. The High Court might impose capital punishment. Capital punishment was contrary to Gĩkũyũ traditional justice for traditionally a murder was compensated and the killer allowed to live. Under the new system, the elders constantly witnessed the miscarriage of justice and they were helpless in the face of it. The administration would have liked to believe that the native tribunals were “the greatest bulwark of native social life”.113 In actual fact, they were not. In spite of their considerable authority over civil disputes and their jurisdiction over land cases, they were unable to safeguard social integrity as Lambert observes: The tribunal system, unlike the clan system, is impersonal enough to put expedition before equilibrium and is apt to frame its judgments on what it deems the law rather than a consideration of the social implications its judgments may entail.114

Moreover, the tribunals were serving the interests of the colonial administration, not tribal integrity. The elders therefore enjoyed little morale and were driven into an attitude of apathy, of sulky acquiescence, or even hostility.115 Gĩkũyũ elders did not fare any better as members of the local native councils. The Local Native Council was supposedly developed from the traditional kiama (Council of Elders). Initially, councils of elders were convened from time to time to advise chiefs and local British officials on matters of administration. In 1925, they were formally adopted as instruments of local government. The District Commissioner was chairman of the council because “guidance from outside [was] essential.”116 Membership was confined to elders. Besides the dominating presence of chiefs, “tribesmen of character and who have benefited by literary education” were included “to lead native opinion.”117 The councils were empowered to collect revenue locally and to initiate development in teaching natives ‘civic sense’ and ‘cooperative action’ in a bid to improve “the weakness of the tribal machine in former times for collective action other than war.”118 +)

K_\ :lc kliXc  J\kk` e^

One very important effect of the changes that occurred during the colonial period is that the leadership and influence of elders were curtailed. In traditional society, the elders were the guardians of custom and tradition. They ensured that proper morality was respected and they had ways of sanctioning it through the traditional legal and political system. But suddenly their power was reduced and in many instances they were made superfluous. Their sense of inadequacy has continued to this day since public and community affairs tend to be placed in the hands of younger and more ‘educated’ people. In traditional society, the warriors shouldered the responsibilities of the country’s defence and the maintenance of law and order. Warriors, in their work as agents of law and order, played an essential role in maintaining the moral fabric of the society. With the coming of colonial rule they lost this role. When they began to be recruited as porters and servants they suddenly found that their scope for initiative and responsibility in the community was reduced. Since the establishment of colonial rule, Gĩkũyũ young men have had little to do with their traditional role of police duties.
During the early colonial period, the British Government implemented land and labour policies that caused far reaching economic and social changes among the people of Kenya. These policies concerned the alienation of African land for European settlement and African labour to work on the European farms. The Gĩkũyũ were affected to a very large degree because both their land and labour were in high demand. The moral consequences of what happened in those early days may be difficult to assess, but they are part of the reason behind the outcries of several authors mentioned above. These moral consequences are still a reality today. The policy of land alienation was adopted in 1900. In 1901 it was legalized by an Order in Council. The Order defined ‘crown lands’ as all public lands “which are subject to the control of His Majesty.” The Order authorized the Commission “to sell, grant, lease or otherwise dispose of ” crown lands. Apparently, land under ‘native occupation’ was not to be included in the scheme. However, under the provisions of the Crown Lands Ordinance of 1902 “nearly 6,000 square miles were alienated during the succeeding thirteen years.”119 Much of this land alienated was actually occupied by the Gĩkũyũ. Certain contingencies in the course of land alienation had inevitably broadened the meaning of ‘crown lands.’ The Crown Lands Ordinance of 1915 took into account what had happened and redefined crown lands +*

:_Xgk\i(

to include “all lands occupied by the native tribes of the Protectorate and lands reserved for the use of the members of any tribe.”120 The practical meaning of that Ordinance was that “no native tribe in the country was given any legal and definite right to any land.”121 This law was relaxed in 1926 after considerable damage had already been done to the local inhabitants. As a result of an attractive advertisement by the railway authorities inviting Europeans to the Protectorate, from the year 1902 there was an influx of intending farmers and land prospectors, in addition to other visitors. Most of them preferred to acquire farms on the land to the north and west of Nairobi. This was the Gĩkũyũ land of which F.D. Lugard had written not so long before: “The cultivation in Kikuyu is prodigiously extensive, indeed the whole country may be said to be under tillage.”122 And W.D.A. Ross quotes an early writer who observed: “With the exception of small patches of excellent grass … and a few small swamps, every available piece of ground is under cultivation, and the district may be described as one vast garden.”123 Due to the persistent pressure from “clamorous applicants”124 the process of land alienation in Gĩkũyũ land was carried out with great speed between 1903 and 1906. This exercise left the Gĩkũyũ population dispirited. Some landowners were compensated while others received nothing. According to Rosberg and Nottingham, some 8,000 people received 8,000 shillings in compensation for land and 3,000 remained uncompensated.125 (An informant related that one Gĩkũyũ landowner was presented with a blanket and a bottle of whiskey. When he was told that the land belonged to the European, he realized at that point that the presents were payments for the land.) Some regulation existed which stipulated that land under native occupation should not be alienated. The Commissioner, Sir Charles Eliot, disregarded this. Officially, he defended his action by reporting in his annual report: “In the last famine (of 1898 and 1899) large plantations were abandoned, and subsequently the owners, instead of attempting to repair the damage done to their land, went to other districts.”126 Unofficially, however, Eliot was known to be giving land away without qualms because he was “openly contemptuous of the local Africans” who “shocked him by their barbarity and their nudity.”127 When he resigned his post, he wrote: “No one can doubt that the rich and exceptionally fertile ++

K_\ :lc kliXc  J\kk` e^

district of Kikuyu is destined to be one of the chief centres of European cultivation.”128 In order to ensure that Gĩkũyũ labour was readily available, Eliot’s policy was to interpenetrate European farms into Gĩkũyũ country so that the Gĩkũyũ and the Europeans would occupy alternate ridges. The Gĩkũyũ who already occupied the areas granted to Europeans were simply included within the land given away. Pressure was then put on them either to stay and become wage-earning labourers or to depart. In other areas, the Gĩkũyũ residents were evicted. This process continued until well after the First World War; so it became possible for existing settlers to expand their estates by encroaching on any land along their boundaries that they could interpret as being occupied.129 As a result, “a broad wedge of European occupation was driven across the lands of the Kikuyu.”130 The sudden poverty of those who had lost land can be appreciated. Other Gĩkũyũ people who still held land suffered from insecurity as their land might be taken any time. But it is also quite likely that some of the landholders in the ‘reserve’ were not aware that they had ceased to have legal right to land. In 1920, the British government annexed the country and named it Kenya Colony. It was then impressed on the Gĩkũyũ that the question of land rights even under their recognized gĩthaka (land) system was no longer relevant. A case of disputed land ownership came before the High Court in 1921 and was discussed. In dismissing the case, the Chief Justice said: In my view the effect of the Crown Lands Ordinance 1815 and the Kenya (Annexation) Order in Council 1920 by which no native rights are reserved, and the Kenya Colony Order in Council 1921 … is clearly inter alia to vest land reserved for the use of the native tribe in the Crown. If that be so, then all native rights in such reserved land, whatever they be under the gĩthaka system, disappeared, and the natives in occupation of such Crown Lands became tenants at will of the Crown on the land actually occupied.131

In 1926, African legal rights to land were recognized. Gĩkũyũ grievances over land could also not continue to be entirely ignored by the colonial government. A Kenya Land Commission of 1934 … concluded that all grievances of the Kikuyu with regard to land could be removed, and the past wiped out, by the addition of 21,042 acres to +,

:_Xgk\i(

the existing reserves, while provision for the expansion of the population required a further 383 square miles.132

Members of the Commission regarded this provision for land as generous, because they observed: In the early days of European immigration, at any rate, the theory appears to have been followed that, provided adequate arrangements were made for any natives who happened to be on the land … Government was fully entitled to regard the land concerned as available for alienation.133

Apart from the fact that no ‘adequate arrangements’ had been made to compensate those who had lost land, in view of the cultural and ethical value attached to land by the Gĩkũyũ, no adequate arrangement could ever have been made for the displaced persons. By 1934, the Gĩkũyũ had become quite restless and vocal regarding their lost land. Some colonial administrators were beginning to understand that loss of land meant much more to the Gĩkũyũ than material poverty. The issue of the alienated land could never be settled so long as it was treated in terms of European legal conceptions. In his comments on the report of the Kenya Land Commission (1934) the Chief Native Commissioner said: The whole fallacy of such a theory appears to be contained in the word ‘adequate.’ There can be no adequate arrangement for a man evicted from the only spot on earth where he had the right to live. 134

The chief Native Commissioner observed further that, under Gĩkũyũ custom and customary law, land tenure meant much more than ‘occupational rights.’ “Under their own customary law, Kikuyu had rights to live on and to cultivate their family estates, but had no rights to live or cultivate anywhere else (except as duly accepted tenants).”135 Therefore, the Chief Native Commissioner concluded that in the European misunderstanding of Gĩkũyũ customary law: A number of families and sub-clans have been evicted from land on which under their own law they had an inalienable right to live, and those same clans and families now have no right to live anywhere else under their own law, and under English law can only live on farms if the

+-

K_\ :lc kliXc  J\kk` e^

farmers are willing to accept them as squatters and they themselves are willing to sign agreements to work for the farmer.136

Therefore, in the alienation of much of their land, the Gĩkũyũ were hit at the very core of their cultural life. European settlement disrupted traditional life, necessarily including the moral system. Perhaps equally serious was the example set by the Europeans that ‘might makes right.’ The policy whereby a “foreign Government acquired the absolute ownership of the whole of the land by merely behaving as its owner”137 was implemented at the level where Gĩkũyũ individuals actually lost land to European individuals. This was a terrible moral shock to the Gĩkũyũ. There seems to have been a belief that some philanthropic goal was being achieved, namely the civilizing effect of the European presence among the Gĩkũyũ. However, European conduct over land had a negative influence on the people. The first Gĩkũyũ agents of colonial administration, the chiefs, were acknowledged opportunists who seized the opportunity of the prevailing land policy to deprive people of their plots by telling them it had become government property. They then sold it and retained the proceeds from it or simply appropriated it to themselves. 138 This conduct contrary to tradition has found parallels in the subsequent history of the Gĩkũyũ. In contrast to this arbitrary appropriation of land, the Gĩkũyũ custom and customary law had definite guidelines on land tenure. These guidelines were determined by the sacredness with which land was regarded and the high value attached to human relationships. In this connection, Kenyatta says that: “Land tenure was carefully and ceremonially laid down so as to ensure to an individual or a family group a peaceful settlement on the land they possessed.”139 The Gĩkũyũ recognized several types of land holding rights, which ensured the security of every family, including those who were not landowners. Hence, the customary institutions of ‘cultivation rights through inheritance or purchase.’ A landowner did not dispose of his land without the approval of his family and of enough notice to other people to whom he had given cultivation and building rights. As has been mentioned, the selling and buying of land was a solemn process very similar to the marriage process. Rites of transfer of land to the new owner and mutual agreements were always performed in the presence of witnesses. Supernatural powers were supposed to ratify what people agreed on so long as the transactions were done conscientiously according to customary law. The transactions were +.

:_Xgk\i(

concluded with a sacrificial communal meal, which sealed the good will between the seller and the buyer, the meal being shared with witnesses. In all this it was understood that land sold was redeemable at a future date should a pressing need to do so arise.140 Kenyatta quotes an early Report on Gĩkũyũ Land Tenure as saying: There are several places in the Nyeri and Fort Hall districts where one may stand and see more than a thousand acres at a stretch with scarcely an acre uncultivated, and the disputes, which occur, though complicated and troublesome, are surprisingly few.141

There are three main explanations for the remarkably few land disputes in Gĩkũyũ traditional society. First, every piece of land had acknowledged owners according to the customary law of land holding. People respected the rights of ownership and boundaries were properly fixed. It was a futile effort for anybody to try and move a boundary mark or to claim a piece of land that was acknowledged to belong to someone else. Public opinion against that kind of greed and the painstaking courts of clan elders did not allow such a person to get very far. Secondly, people had a high regard for each other so that few would deliberately contravene their neighbour’s rights. Thirdly, the religious element in the various aspects of traditional Gĩkũyũ land tenure and land utility was a strong controlling factor. The various religious rituals connected with land transactions between people and agricultural activities such as planting, crop protection and harvesting, all suggest that the Gĩkũyũ did not lose sight of the supernatural sanction of morality. Thus, for instance, Kenyatta and Leakey say that the Gĩkũyũ had bought land from the Ndorobo. Leakey points out that by the sheer might of numbers the Gĩkũyũ could have conquered the Ndorobo and taken the land. However, they did not use force because they believed that the angered spirits of any Ndorobo killed in the course of defending the land would make it impossible for the Gĩkũyũ to prosper on the alienated land. Quite often, it was a Ndorobo individual who took the initiative and sought a buyer for his estate among the Gĩkũyũ. When such an estate was bought, the Ndorobo’s security and that of his family, was ensured through mutual adoption. In that way, the Ndorobo continued to hunt on the land he no longer owned and for which he had received payment. The present and former owners did not molest each other because they had become blood brothers. The Gĩkũyũ had formally acquired the right to cultivate. As more and more land was brought under cultivation and hunting ground diminished the Ndorobo were assimilated into the Gĩkũyũ society through inter-marriage.142 +/

K_\ :lc kliXc  J\kk` e^

Therefore, this was the kind of conduct the Gĩkũyũ had been used to prior to European occupation. The Europeans were evidently free from such restraints for theirs was a different civilization.143 The Gĩkũyũ were bound to learn from such conduct since part of the European mission was to ‘uplift’ the Africans. Apparently, one of the lessons they learned through their experience of European land alienation was that one’s conscience need not be unduly troubled by injustices done to others. The subsequent years, in which the settlers prospered, rapidly proved to the Gĩkũyũ that misfortune does not necessarily follow misconduct or miscarriage of justice. It was not very long before Lambert, a European colonial administrator based in Kiambu, was complaining that the Gĩkũyũ who had purchased land in Kiambu were no longer respecting the Gĩkũyũ tradition of regarding purchased land as redeemable by its previous owners. The idea of permanent rights obtained by ‘purchase’ came into existence and was subsequently strengthened and formalized into ‘custom’– the Kikuyu ‘custom’ of irredeemable sale – by observation of the European system of freehold in the settled area next door.144

Lambert observed also that the Native Tribunals, a colonial creation, did not come close to the old clan court in dealing with land disputes. The Tribunals system, unlike the clan system, is impersonal enough to put expedition before equilibrium and is apt to frame its judgments on what it deems the law rather than on a consideration of the social implications its judgments may entail. A tribunal stops a squabble once and for all– with luck– by dividing up the land between the litigants; the old clan court would have divided only the cultivation rights and would have regarded finality as anti-social …145

The colonial labour policy caused even more drastic economic and social changes, with severe moral repercussions among the Gĩkũyũ. It affected the whole population, whereas the land policy affected mostly the families in the Kiambu area. In the words of Norman Leys, the colonial labour policy …. “allotted to Africans the duty of working on land alienated to Europeans and to Europeans the right to own the land and to reap the profits of its exploitation.”146 The sole aim of the early colonial labour policy was industrial and financial prosperity in the quickest possible time. The newly constructed Uganda Railway from Mombasa to Kisumu had cost the British over ₤5 million and +0

:_Xgk\i(

was running at a loss. The Protectorate badly needed revenue to maintain the government departments. The settlers had come to make money. The Africans were “the greatest asset.”147 Voluntary labour, by a good number of young men who availed themselves for short periods and then disappeared into the reserves was not sufficient. The European estates needed labour throughout the year. The quickest way to develop the estates and the country was to direct and retain as many able-bodied Africans into the labour market as possible. The country’s prosperity was to be achieved within ten years. Within twenty years the Kenya peasantry in central Kenya had, to a very large extent, been turned into an “industrial proletariat.”148 There was one major problem to be solved in this whole exercise. In their traditional situation, the Africans were on the whole self-sufficient so that they had no need for money. They also had work to do in the reserves since they were agriculturalists. It was therefore necessary to introduce conditions that would force them to work for wages. This policy is well documented as the following quotations by Leys and Ross show. According to Leys, One of the most striking features of the official attitude as shown in public reports is the evident resentment at tribal self-sufficiency. For a tribe to be content with its own produce is referred to almost as if it was wicked. To increase the wants of Africans was the universally approved object to be pursued. It is hard to see why a self-sufficient empire should be admirable and a self-sufficient tribe reprehensible; but one has to admit that Africans cannot reach the best things in our civilization until they learn to spend money on things many of which are valueless, and some even injurious. But the real reason the authorities tried to persuade Africans to want money and what money can buy was not that these trade goods would do them any appreciable good. The object aimed at was to induce Africans to become wage earners.149

Ross had this to say, For at least a generation there was a steady demand, often outspoken but always operative, that the native should be impoverished under heavy taxation by Government coupled with depressed wages for workers. This at times took ingenious forms, as when the Colonists’ Association … urged that the government should only buy European-grown maize, and not native-grown … Whether the native could or could not earn more money than a low standard rate of wages, it was regarded as an antisocial act for any employer to pay him more.150

,'

K_\ :lc kliXc  J\kk` e^

For this reason, constant pressure was brought to bear upon African young men to leave their homes and become farm labourers. Others became unskilled labour in the burgeoning urban areas. Pressure was put upon them by way of forced recruitment, taxation, registration of labourers under particular employers and vagrancy regulations. The Gĩkũyũ were particularly affected by the labour policy. An initial labour survey had established that the ‘prolific’ agricultural tribes were to be preferred and the Gĩkũyũ met that preference. A number of them were already living in or near some of the alienated land and they just had to adjust themselves to the new conditions of life. Large numbers made regular migrations to the Rift Valley, where there were large European estates, for a compulsory period of eight months a year. In due course, a good number settled more or less permanently in the estates. Others did the same in the urban centres. In other words, more and more wage earners failed to return home. But it was not long before young women and children began to be required to work in the estates also, and they too sometimes failed to return home.151 The adverse results of these male and youth absences on the Gĩkũyũ homelife cannot be exaggerated. The absence of men in particular had a serious effect on the economic, social, and moral life of the people. The majority of the able bodied men were recruited into the labour market and some were married men. Married or not married, the men’s share of work in their homes and local community was abandoned. Loss of their share of agricultural activities meant that less food was grown and the situation worsened as time went on. If they were husbands and fathers, their place in the homes and their traditional authority was a missing factor in home life. Numbers of these men took temporary wives during their long absences. Others returned home sick and weakened by poor working conditions and diseases associated with European civilization.152 By way of evidence, A. R. Barlow’s criticism of the colonial labour policy as it affected the Gĩkũyũ can be quoted. Writing in 1913 in the Church of Scotland Mission publication Kikuyu news, Barlow said: As regards the Kenya district,153 one doubts whether the number of natives leaving it to go to work could very well be increased. The maximum supply of labour has been obtained for some time back by means of press-gang system … The usual argument one meets when urging that the native needs time to attend to his own affairs is that the male native while at home does no work, but lolls about watching

,(

:_Xgk\i(

his woman slave for him. This is an erroneous idea. We believe that the home life of the native should be preserved and allowed to develop its best characteristics which is impossible when the father and sons of the family are at home only at odd times, separated by months of absence. We believe, again, that the moral and spiritual development of the children of the soil is of as much importance as the financial prosperity of their conquerors.154

There were serious moral effects resulting from compulsory labour recruitment and heavy taxation. Some of the attitudes that the Gĩkũyũ acquired at that time have continued with them to this day. Thus, many wage earners do not work hard because they believe their labour benefits somebody else. Regarding recruitment of labour in the Gĩkũyũ reserves, this task fell to chiefs or headmen who were the agents of the government at the local level. Their own position or favour with the government depended on how well they succeeded in this assignment, as well as in collecting the hut tax. Inevitably, the chiefs were oppressive. The people grew to resent them and to associate them with the injustices of the colonial regime. People were compelled to obey them out of fear and not out of respect. The government itself came to be regarded as something remote and impersonal, to be obeyed mostly out of fear as well. This was a great change of attitude for a people who had for centuries known a system of ‘government by agreement’ in which every elder and warrior had been an active participant. Since people were rendered helpless to run their own affairs and make their own decisions, they became suspicious of authority.155 In traditional society, the Gĩkũyũ were used to practices of mutual help and communal labour. In mutual help, a man or woman called upon friends and neighbours to help him or her to do a job. Customarily, such a person initiated the job before calling upon other people; this was to demonstrate to them that he or she was not calling upon them out of laziness but that he or she required their help in order to complete the work faster. In other words, people sought aid from others, not labour. With such an arrangement, people worked diligently even when work belonged to somebody else because they knew they all stood to gain. They were all free to call upon each other as need arose. In communal labour people carried out tasks that were deemed necessary for the convenience and welfare of the community. For that reason nobody was paid and nobody supervised, the workers did not need prompting. But when the Gĩkũyũ were rounded up and taken to the European estates ,)

K_\ :lc kliXc  J\kk` e^

as labourers, they neither worked hard nor willingly. Their obvious resentment and unwillingness to work only served to confirm the European prejudiced belief that the African was apathetic and indolent. This belief was held to justify forced labour on the moral ground that the African would gain by learning to work.156 But slackness was simply their means of protest against forced labour and low wages. Unfortunately, this attitude has continued and today it remains true that wage earners do not work to the best of their ability. Nor are people willing to work without the inducement of money. I\c`^`fljXe[ZlckliXcZ_Xe^\j

The preceding sections have shown that the influences of colonial administration and European settlement in Kenya had far-reaching moral consequences for the Gĩkũyũ. The Christian missions, on their part, undermined the whole cultural basis of Gĩkũyũ morality, first through direct teaching against certain aspects of Gĩkũyũ culture, and secondly because their teaching and influence changed the people’s attitude to some of their traditional beliefs and behaviour patterns. For instance, this is true of the Gĩkũyũ beliefs regarding taboos (mĩgiro) which had an important role in morality. The Christian missions which worked among the Gĩkũyũ held the general outlook of the 19th century missionaries to Africa. This outlook “denied any culture of value in Africa.”157 It held that “everything in non-Christian religions and cultures was evil.”158 It also believed in the utter superiority of western culture. In their double mission of evangelising and civilizing the Gĩkũyũ, the missionaries believed that part of their function was to overhaul the existing Gĩkũyũ culture. Individual missions and missionaries may have differed in the degree to which they condemned Gĩkũyũ culture, but this general attitude dominated their activities.159 A few examples from reports of missionaries can be cited by way of illustration. Writing in 1917, Filippo Perlo, a pioneer missionary with the Consolata Mission, described Gĩkũyũ life as he judged it in 1902 as “essentially deplorable, barbarous, inhuman.”160 According to Perlo, “Every moral principle in which our civilization glories and which our religion commands is … simply reversed …161 Perlo explains that the “crude reality” of the conditions, which the missionaries found, became “the basis and impulse of all the extensive civilizing missionary work, which has been carried out in subsequent years.”162 Virginia Blakeslee, was a missionary with the African Inland Mission (AIM) from 1911 to 1954. In her description of Gĩkũyũ country she says:

,*

:_Xgk\i(

Kikuyu land … has been dominated by the prince of darkness for past ages. The flooding of the district with the light of the gospel has revealed the hidden things of darkness, the character and source of every evil tribal custom.163

To Blakeslee, conversion to Christianity was simply a decision to “leave the paths of the Agĩkũyũ to take the path of God.”164 Writing in 1923, Barlow concludes a description of Gĩkũyũ life by saying, “Such are the characteristics of the people whom the Church of Scotland Mission, with missions from other churches, is working to win for the Kingdom of Christ and to assist to advance in the scale of humanity.”165 To give one more example, Knapp, another AIM missionary among the Gĩkũyũ reported to the United Missionary Conference held in Nairobi in 1901 that “… only the enemy of righteousness could have been responsible for the customs and superstitions of these natives.”166 Knapp cited a few Gĩkũyũ customs to be actively “deprecated” by the missionaries. His opinion was that “there are many social and domestic customs, which could never be associated with decent living, to say nothing of Christian living.”167 With this attitude to Gĩkũyũ culture and the belief that their mission was to evangelise and civilize, the missionaries set to work, commending the gospel and western civilization. They also taught actively against such Gĩkũyũ customs as polygamy, nguĩko,168 drinking of native beer and dancing. By 1933, Cagnolo wrote: “A good number of families, Christian or merely emancipated from barbarous customs, have adopted a standard of living with lodgings, diet, and manner which border on the civilized.”169 As a result of Christian missionary effort, significant changes occurred in the area of religion and education. First, in traditional society, religion was centred in the home. Religion was a family affair and every member of the family participated in important religious ceremonies. Religious activities in the home ensured family unity and the authority of the parents. Family religious activities were concerned with the welfare of family members. Persistent maladies in the family, for instance, drove the whole family to sacrifice to God and to undergo a thorough ‘cleansing’ of conduct, including the minute details of courtesy. Family religious activities helped to maintain a morality based on the belief that conduct had direct results on family welfare. For the individual member of the family, the most important critical moments of his life, including ini,+

K_\ :lc kliXc  J\kk` e^

tiation into adulthood and marriage, occurred in the home. When under missionary influence, religious activities were moved away from the home to the mission centre or to the church building, religion became a matter of individual, personal choice. Even when a whole family was converted to Christianity, family worship did not become a significant element of the ‘civilized’ families. In some cases, members of the same family belonged to different Christian denominations, which emphasized different beliefs and modes of conduct. The traditional connection between religion and morality thus tended to disappear. Secondly, in the traditional setting religion was the concern of the whole society. The Gĩkũyũ interpreted national calamities, such as drought, as Ngai’s punishment for moral misconduct. Under missionary teaching and other modernizing influences, religion ceased to be a national concern. Also, as individuals and as a people the Gĩkũyũ’s attitude to God changed. God has come to be seen as one who defers punishment for misconduct to some distant future. The missionary teaching about a ‘Day of judgment’ seems to have had the effect of making people feel that they need not concern themselves continually with moral uprightness. God’s judgment is so remote, if not uncertain, that it is difficult for people to remember it in the pressing business of daily living.

,,

2 70 ?C 4 A
!

?FE<JKP(WI~HOKEKU) M`\njf]\Xicpni`k\ij The literature is sharply divided regarding honesty or reliability. Routledge seems to have understood the factors that explain the divided opinion. He himself assesses the Gĩkũyũ individual as “by nature extraordinarily honest.”1 Routledge also observes that the Gĩkũyũ were apt to retaliate by attitude and action the treatment they received from Europeans when their country was being occupied. “... bright and intelligent, trustful and truthful in contact with one European, he becomes stupid and unreliable, tricky, and treacherous to a degree, in the hands of another.”2 Routledge’s view is echoed by Hobley who at first described the Gĩkũyũ as a “turbulent and treacherous tribe.”3 Hobley said that the Gĩkũyũ character was “complex”, “secretive”, “conservative” and “difficult to understand.” He recounted his experience of their “treachery.” In the early days of European occupation the Gĩkũyũ would come into the camp one afternoon but the next morning “ they would fire arrows at us … for no apparent reason.”4 Some years later the Gĩkũyũ had apparently become adjusted to the new order and Hobley was “on close terms with the elders,” being himself “instrumental in reviving and obtaining official recognition of the Kĩama.” It is then he noticed that “the Kikuyu character had apparently changed.”5 Routledge says that the Gĩkũyũ had “a very definitive code of morals inculcated by authority.”6 Routledge arrived at this conclusion after interviews with some Gĩkũyũ who denied learning it from the missionaries. The Gĩkũyũ claimed that the ultimate authority behind their code was God. God gave the code through the mouthpiece of generations of parents. This ,.

:_Xgk\i)

code included prohibitions against stealing, murder, disrespect for and disobedience of parents. Apparently, one of Routledge’s informants qualified the injunction against murder as not binding where a stranger was concerned, unless shelter had already been offered. Regarding stealing, Routledge observes that the injunction not “to steal is obeyed, and the Akikuyu are as a nation particularly honest.” Regarding telling the truth, Routledge says that it is “not necessarily looked upon as an obligation.”7 Cagnolo has a different view on these matters. He believes that Gĩkũyũ children did not receive any education from their parents, so they grew up to be good or bad according to their disposition and the family’s examples. According to him, a child was neither instructed nor restrained unless it was clear that his behaviour would bring trouble on the parents. Only then would the child hear a “few rules of ordinary honesty.” Obedience was something insisted on but a persistently naughty child was left to itself; the parents would simply say: Ũhoro nĩ waku (It’s your own concern).8 Regarding stealing, Cagnolo says the action was “not held to be very blameworthy.” A child might only get into trouble if his thieving caused parents the inconvenience of being held responsible. However, Von Hőhnel who observed some warriors flogging two thieves at a marketplace, “compelling them to restore the property stolen” contradicts this view. 9 Cagnolo seemed to believe that the Gĩkũyũ regarded dishonesty as a positive value. Children were not only allowed to indulge in it, they were expected to cultivate it: “Telling lies is a matter of course and it is a mark of superior intelligence and smartness if you can deceive your supposedly clever neighbours.”10 Crawford goes further and suggests that, in fact, dishonesty was part of the community’s inherent nature: “Falsehood, treachery and sensuality seem to be bred in their very bones ….”11 He regards the medicine man as the epitome of deception and greed: “He is a most shocking old fraud, but that does not prevent persons of all sorts and conditions flocking to him for advice. Indeed he thrives on their credulity, and in his worldly-wise way he finds his occupation most profitable.”12 For his services, the medicine man insisted on ‘cash down’, and he was distinctively averse to the credit system.13 Other writers posit that honesty was a Gĩkũyũ ideal. Leakey, as well as the Gĩkũyũ authors allude to honesty within the context of what Kenyatta ,/

? fe\jkp (w~ıhoke ku)

calls “the fundamental nature of personal relationships” and “social obligations.”14 Every status in the traditional society had certain responsibilities and obligations attached to it. Children were taught to be obedient, to be honest members of their family and to play their part in the tasks, together with other members of the family. If, for instance, a girl brought her mother some garden produce, such as green vegetables or young beans, the mother usually demanded to know where she got them from, to make sure that the girl had not stolen them from other people’s gardens.15 Adults were all required to show a sense of duty. They were expected to be people of integrity who fulfilled the expectations of their families and the society in general. As will be shown in chapter four, there were social and religious sanctions against those who did not live up to society’s expectations. In connection with honesty, particular value was attached to friendships.16 The strength of kinship relationships lay in the element of friendship and the individual was wise to nurture it. Kinship was a relationship of mutual respect and honour that could not be maintained without regard to the principles of honesty. There were many mutually beneficial arrangements made between people that could not have succeeded without a high degree of honesty. For instance, there was the practice of placing domestic animals under the custody of other people. This practice ensured that the individual had some property elsewhere if he should by any chance lose what he had in his home. The success of this custom depended on the bonds of friendship.17 It was also a recognised custom among the less well-to-do to purchase an animal jointly with a friend, give it to him to look after and eventually to divide up the offspring.18 Itotia says that some poor people became rich through this practice. Another arrangement between friends involved putting animals together and taking turns at herding them (gũtuuanĩra rũũru.) This allowed every person concerned a sufficient period in which to attend to other duties. According to Leakey, if anyone discovered that his animal was missing he would not suspect that his companion had stolen it.19 This sense of honesty was also evident in joint ventures involving tillage of land (ngwatio), house building and other jobs that required cooperative effort. In this connection Itotia says that “those loved by irĩ” value “joint possession, partnership, joint effort” (ngwatanĩro). This is because, in the final analysis, nobody can be completely self-sufficient: no lone effort can produce sufficient resources.20

,0

:_Xgk\i)

It is clear from the literature that some people were honest, while others were not. Those who were known to be honest were entrusted with important roles in society. Such were the women who became midwives and others who became keepers of the war insignia.21 Whereas not everybody was known for integrity, those who were enjoyed high regard. For instance, Kenyatta points out that a sacrificial lamb, slaughtered in connection with prayers for rain, was given only by somebody who was beyond reproach. The owner must have acquired it through lawful means and must himself be known to be honest and trustworthy.22 From what Leakey and Kenyatta say it would seem that the medicine man depended on his sincerity rather than his wits for success. These two authors contradict everything Crawford says about the medicine man. Stressing that the medicine man was in close contact with God, they emphasize that people’s confidence in medicine men depended on the accuracy of their diagnosis of ailments, the effectiveness of their prescriptions, their ability to keep confidences, and their willingness to accept payment only after they had seen the results of their cures.23 Significantly, Routledge attributes the relatively few cases of suicide to the presence and services of the medicine man.24 In conclusion, we can point to Itotia. He emphasizes that the real motive for honesty was personal welfare. Consideration of personal welfare restrained the individual from stealing, lying, covetousness, malice, extortion, slander and anger.25

N_Xk`j_fe\jkp6 The word wĩhokeku normally describes the quality of being reliable or trustworthy. From a moral point of view, however, this word has a wider meaning and includes other qualities, such as modesty, generosity and diligence. The informants associated other words with the Gĩkũyũ idea of honesty: they used various key words. One such word was ũthingu (uprightness). This is described most clearly by the Old Age Group. The other informants include ũũma (truthfulness), ũtaana (generosity), ũhingia (fulfilment of expectations) and kĩyo (diligence). Traditionally, uprightness (ũthingu) was the most essential quality possessed by an honest person. An upright person could be trusted to be modest, responsible, generous and diligent. Another word used frequently by informants in connection with wĩhokeku is ũgima (maturity). Honesty and the qualities treated in subsequent chapters describe a person whom the Gĩkũyũ would call mature (mũgima). The Gĩkũyũ valued maturity and traditional education was designed to help the individual become mature. -'

? fe\jkp (w~ıhoke ku)

The methods used to help the growing child to develop moral maturity are described by the Old and Middle Age groups by the key word ũthingu. The wide range of qualities traditionally included in the virtue of honesty well illustrates the Gĩkũyũ conception of morality as an integrated whole, as well as the fact that among them there was no distinction between public and private morality. This can be shown by looking at how a young man was expected to advance to the highest position of honour, that of a council elder. As an initiated young man he was supposed to be sociable, amiable and courteous to the elders, the women and especially the girls, with whom he danced and practised nguĩko. In conformity with traditional law, military requirement and public opinion, he abstained from beer. At this stage, his conduct, both public and private, affected his prospects for marriage. The young man’s main ambition was to establish a homestead of his own in order that he might be judged capable of holding a responsible position in society since, to qualify for this, he had first to prove responsibility in his own home. But a man had to acquire property before he could establish a homestead. For this he had to be brave and industrious. Even after marriage and raising a family, a man had to prove that he was mature enough for public responsibility by the manner he conducted the affairs of his own home. Only the man who had demonstrated complete moral integrity and a high degree of wisdom could rise to the highest grade of a council elder. ~thingu) ?fe\jkpXjlgi`^_ke\jj (u

Results of interviews with the Old and Middle Age groups indicate that the basic quality of the honest person is uprightness (ũthingu).26 The word ũthingu was mentioned more frequently by the informants in the Old Age Group; they gave it a wide application. The Middle Age Group mentioned the word mostly in reference to sexual fidelity within the marriage bond. The informants in the Young Age Group did not mention the word although there was reason to believe that they were familiar with its meaning to some extent. In spite of this discrepancy between the three age groups it is clear that the qualities and conduct which are summarised by the Old Age Group as ũthingu are in fact described by other words by the other two groups. Therefore, it seems correct to say that uprightness is the basic quality of the honest person. To the Old Age Group uprightness was the quality that distinguishes the ‘true and honourable’ person from the ‘good for nothing’ rascal. From a moral point of view, the Gĩkũyũ have two expressions that can be said to distinguish the upright from the deceitful. The former, nĩ mũndũ (is -(

:_Xgk\i)

a person) while the latter, ti mũndũ (is a non-person).27 The informants in the Middle Age Group distinguish between people who possess ũgima wa ngoro (maturity of heart) and those who lack it. To both age groups maturity (ũgima) is quite distinct from an individual’s stage of physical development. There are adults who lack it and young people who possess it. Both age groups agree that the essential quality present in honest people is maturity. It would seem therefore that ũthingu and ũgima mean the same thing and are often used interchangeably. Informants in the Old and Middle Age groups regard the process of bringing up children as the process of inculcating maturity. An informant in the Old Age Group explains that traditionally a child was brought up in such a way that the emergent adult would be mũndũ mũgima wa kwĩhokwo (a mature, reliable person). Similarly, an informant in the Middle Age Group says that when a child was born, it was hoped that he would develop physically, in intelligence and in maturity (anenehe, oohĩge na agimare).28 In an endeavour to instil maturity in the growing child, traditional society employed two complementary methods. The more formal method involved subjecting the child to ‘stages of cutting’ (marua or matĩĩna ma ndemo). In a sense this was a way of punctuating the natural spontaneous physical development of the individual with some experience of pain. The first experience of pain involved extraction of the two lower front permanent teeth (kwehwo). They were extracted with a knife soon after the child had a number of permanent teeth at the age of six or seven. The second experience was the piercing of the upper ears (gũtoonywo ndũũgĩra). An awl was used for this and thin sticks or reeds were inserted into the holes. Boys would be roughly between ten and fifteen years when the upper ears were pierced. The third experience involved the piercing of the ear lobes (gũtoonywo matũũ). This was done with a barberry thorn and a thin stick was inserted into the hole. The hole was progressively enlarged by inserting bigger cylindrical pieces of wood. Eventually the big ear loop was fitted into the groove of a flat circular piece of wood, known as ndebe. A short ear loop was an indication of lack of endurance of the pain and discomfort attendant upon this rite. Soon after the piercing of the ear lobes boys and girls could anticipate the fourth and the most important experience of pain. This was the rite of circumcision (irua) through which the young people were finally initiated into adulthood. By the time boys were initiated they had stopped “growing upwards,” that is, they were approximately 18 years of age. Girls were much younger as they were initiated before experiencing the first menses, approximately at the age of 12.29 -)

? fe\jkp (w~ıhoke ku)

In preparation for their circumcision, boys entered a nine-year period of mũhingo (ban). Shortly before circumcision they passed through a period of general lawlessness and mischief. Dressed roughly, they roamed about the countryside, dancing to the amusement of onlookers (gũtathaiya), begging, grabbing and stealing food from people.30 During this short period, when the boys were known as ngurũ, they were supposed to be nostalgic about the immature, childish behaviour (wana) that they were about to forsake. On undergoing circumcision and during convalescence, the initiates were regarded as passing from childhood to adulthood. When their wounds were healed their heads were ritually shaved. Upon the shaving of heads the initiates became ciumĩri (emerging adults). The ritual shaving was the definite point at which the initiate was formally regarded as an adult. Prior to the shaving he was referred to as mwana (a child); after the shaving he became mũndũ mũgima (adult). In one sense mũndũ mũgima meant that he had become fully developed. More importantly, it meant that he had become a morally responsible person. Henceforth he was to conduct himself as befitted his new status of mature adulthood. At each of the painful stages the individual realized that he was steadily progressing towards maturity. As it were, he was “stepping out of one state into another.”31 By the time he had stepped into the state of adulthood it was hoped that he had also become a “mature, reliable person.” This is clearly borne out in the ritual known as gũtiritha. Girls would undergo this ritual on the day after circumcision while they were still in pain from the operation. All the girls who had shared the same initiation facilities underwent the ritual together. As each girl was anointed with oil the matron anointing her intoned the following words: Mwana ũrĩa mwega Mũthingu Weheragĩra athuuri na atumia njĩra Ũria mũthingu Ũtaraagia ndeto cia maheeni. The good child Who is upright Who makes way for elders. The upright one Who does not tell lies.32

-*

:_Xgk\i)

According to an informant in the Old Age Group, this ritual sought to impress upon the initiates a sense of ‘modesty and respect’ (thoni) as well as truthfulness (ũũma).33 These ideals are aspects of what the Old Age Group describes as uprightness (ũthingu). It was hoped and expected that an initiated young man or woman would be morally mature and therefore upright. However, experiences of pain in themselves did not impart maturity. The rites of passage had their value in impressing on the growing child the qualities that should accompany natural growth. Traditionally, however, people believed that constant teaching was the only really effective way of instilling maturity in the child. To stress this, informants in the Old Age Group repeated the proverb, Njũgũma njega yumaga ikũũrĩro (A good club is obtained from its source). Accordingly, it was the primary duty of parents to nurture their children to maturity. Through example and admonition, responsible parents helped their children to acquire attitudes and habits of maturity. This kind of teaching was informal, spontaneous and constant. As children took their places in the family and local community, they were supposed to imitate adult ways in as much as it was reasonable to expect children to do so. Mature adult ways made the growing child to be regarded as mature long before he or she was formally declared mature after undergoing circumcision. To say that a child was mature was meant to say that he or she had qualities of reliability or trustworthiness (wĩhokeku). These qualities included respect (gĩtĩĩo), modesty (thoni), obedience (wathĩki) (especially to parents) generosity (ũtaana) and diligence (kĩo). In spite of parental efforts, some did not attain maturity. For some reason or other, they did not acquire a sense of responsibility and such behaviour as would earn them the respect of others. Instead they were immoral (imaramari) and untrustworthy. Such was the boy who stole other people’s sugarcane, or who allowed animals to feed on other people’s crops, and who was generally disobedient to his parents. Such also was the disobedient girl, one who was overly playful, at variance with her brothers, spoke disrespectfully to her mother (kwaria ngara) and showed no respect to other people. A child of whom people were apt to say ũyũ ndakaagĩra (this one will never grow aright) grew to be an immature adult.34 They became adults who were unreasonable, stingy, spiteful, disrespectful or aggressive. In short, they generally suffered from a sense of self-importance. They had no uprightness (ũthingu) and were therefore unreliable and untrustworthy. To demonstrate that mature conduct was highly valued, several informants -+

? fe\jkp (w~ıhoke ku)

in the Old Age Group refer to the oaths that newly initiated warriors and maidens used to take. Warriors used to take a he-goat to a secluded place where no elder, woman or child was likely to intrude. There they performed the ceremony of kũringa thenge (striking the he-goat). As they beat the he-goat to death they pledged to observe a code of behaviour that would earn them respect and trust. Simultaneously, they invoked a curse on any of their members who might depart from the approved conduct. Hence the following form of the curse: Mũndũ ũkaanywa njoohi, thenge ĩno ĩromũrĩa. Mũndũ ũtagaconokera athuuri na atumia, thenge ĩno ĩromũrĩa. Mũndũ ũgatũnga mũtumia na gĩthũri, thenge ĩno ĩromũrĩa. Mũndũ ũkaringĩra mũirĩtu, thenge ĩno ĩromũrĩa.35 Anyone who will drink beer, may this curse fall on him. Anyone who will not show respect to married women and elders (causing us to be despised) may this curse fall on him. Anyone who will not get out of the way for a married woman, may this curse fall on him. Anyone who will dissuade a girl from marrying her suitor, may this curse fall on him.

Initiated maidens held a corresponding ceremony, also in seclusion. However, instead of beating a he-goat, they tugged a leather strap until it snapped. They invoked a curse on any who might disregard their code of behaviour “that they might snap like this leather strap.”36 Since the three age groups have different understanding of uprightness, the ideas of each group are described separately. Information obtained from the Old Age Group provides several practical illustrations of conduct that made a person to be regarded as honest (mwĩhokeku). Respectful behaviour rated high. In connection with respect, modesty (thoni) was an essential quality. From what the informants say, modesty seems to be a blend of humility and refinement. It is the ingredient in people’s behaviour that promotes mutual respect. For instance, on meeting married women along a path, a young man would step aside to let them pass. If he met a woman of his mother’s age they would both leave the path and each would walk in the bush. Girls were usually full of fun and laughter. If a young man intended to enter a hut where girls were chatting, he did not surprise them. Rather he cleared his throat loudly (gũthamara) -,

:_Xgk\i)

as a way of announcing his presence. The girls would stop chattering immediately and leave their seats, thus showing him respect.37 When eventually a respectful young man needed a wife, he hardly needed to court his chosen girl. The women recommended him to her as “good, modest, respectful” and therefore honest. Such a man found a wife easily. To the Old Age Group marriage was traditionally a relationship of respect. For instance, a man who intended to marry a girl gave her an ornament (ithaga) as a token of love. On account of that token she stopped dancing with him. By the same token, other men with whom she continued to dance would not court her. If a suitor took a friend with him on a visit to his prospective in-laws and the friend used bad language (kiugo kĩũru) or insults (irumi), that was regarded as great disrespect. The young man would have to give a “ram of propitiation” (ngoima) for his friend’s behaviour. From then on the suitor would no longer trust his friend (ndangĩmwĩhoka rĩngĩ).38 Honesty in a married woman is evidenced by her respect for the sanctity of marriage. She does not commit adultery. Her fidelity (gũkindĩria) ensures that her home is established and will be remembered by future generations. In Gĩkũyũ idiom she will leave a legacy of iganjo (a home that was).39 Similarly, a married man safeguarded his honesty by resisting the desire for other women and in not neglecting or chasing away his wife from the home. People who lacked honesty in these matters were regarded as disreputable. A girl demonstrated her honesty by her chastity as she waited for marriage. In the meantime, her work at home would be commendable. Similarly, a young man would spend his time as mwanake kũna (a true young man) without degrading himself but waiting to take a wife at the right time. To be trustworthy was to gũthondeka rĩĩtwa (to make a name). A trustworthy man therefore need not spend a night in the bush if darkness overtook him because people would readily open their homes to him. On the other hand, if a man wished to be known as mũhũũni or mũroba (carefree) because of the way he talked and acted, the name stuck. If in later life he should try to repent, his efforts would be futile because such a stain did not erase. No man can rectify a bad name such as maraya (prostitute) or mwaganu (rogue). Therefore, to be honest is to guard one’s name throughout life. It is to avoid roguishness because a rogue cannot hope to be offered respect and hospitality in people’s homes.40 --

? fe\jkp (w~ıhoke ku)

It takes a long time for people to stop trusting a person who has a reputation for honesty. However, it is possible for such a person to lose his reputation because of some dishonest action, even if he tries to conceal it: nothing remains hidden forever. Any deed, which is not right and proper, somehow emits a flash of warning that the person is departing from integrity. People may even rationalize that these are small misdeeds of a man who is otherwise good. However, it remains true that one’s trustworthiness has departed. In this connection, the Gĩkũyũ have a saying: Kũganwo nĩ kũũra (To be praised is to become lost). When a person is given much praise he tends to overdo things. In overdoing he stumbles and spoils his trustworthiness. This is especially true in the realm of speech, when a person is giving testimony of what he knows. A trustworthy person tries very hard therefore not to destroy his honesty through too much self-confidence (kwĩgerera).41 There is another aspect of uprightness that is considered of vital importance to honesty. This is respect for other people’s right to property. Therefore, someone demonstrates his honesty by avoiding kũhuutia (to touch) another person’s property. The traditional Gĩkũyũ believe that something stolen will somehow cause misfortune to the thief. For this reason, traditionally, most Gĩkũyũ people would not steal a straying domestic animal. If such an animal was found, it was restored to the owner. If the owner was not known, the person who found it announced it in the market place. If a lost animal died it was hung on a tree along a public path (rũtumo) so that the owner might take possession of it.42 Yet another quality interpreted as uprightness by the Old Age Group is generosity (ũtaana). In the context of honesty, generosity means good actions and gracious words. Informants in this group would therefore say, Wĩhokeku nĩ gwĩka wega na kwaria wega. (Honesty is to do good and to speak graciously). The generous or affable person tends to attract the respect and goodwill of other people. People reciprocate his generosity in friendship and in various deeds of kindness. The Gĩkũyũ say, Ũtaana nĩ kanua (Generosity is in the mouth). However, a ‘good mouth’ is not necessarily a reliable indication of uprightness. Informants in the Old Age Group recognize that there are many people who feign grace and geniality in their talk but they are really motivated by greed. They talk nicely to other people with the intention of extorting things and obtaining favours from their victims. Such people are described -.

:_Xgk\i)

as ndĩĩra kanua, meaning those who earn their living through deceitful talk, or andũ a nda (people of the stomach). Some of them are so driven by envy (rũitho) and spite (rũmena) that they have no scruples about stealing from their benefactors. The Old Age Group believes that greed (ũkoroku) and covetousness (gũcuumĩkĩra) are the traits in the human character that undermine honesty the most. The greedy and the covetous have a burning desire to grab and possess (gũthara).43 As stated above, the Middle Age Group makes reference to the word ũthingu mostly in connection with sexual fidelity. The informants are quick to add, however, that fidelity in matters of sex is only part of a person’s total integrity. They argue that a man or woman of integrity will avoid adultery or fornication as a consequence of the same moral maturity that will restrain him or her from stealing or committing murder. To informants in this group then, the not-yet-married men and women demonstrate ũthingu (uprightness) by abstaining from sexual intercourse. A girl, who is able to conduct herself with maturity and to abstain from sex earns a good reputation and is regarded as unspoiled (gathirange). Some of the informants explain that in former days sexual fidelity did not necessarily mean that unmarried men and women avoided bodily contact altogether. They used to practise nguĩko, alternately referred to as kũrerana (to nurture each other). Nguĩko was a practice that was supposed to help circumcised young men and girls to learn about each other in an intimate way. The rules governing nguĩko ensured that young men and girls provided each other with the ‘nurture’ of bodily contact without engaging in sexual intercourse. A mature man or girl could be trusted to exercise self-control and prove his or her reliability. A girl demonstrated her maturity by securing her garments between her legs and round her waist in such a way as to render sexual intercourse impossible. On his part, a man demonstrated his maturity by complying fully with the rules of nguĩko that confined the practice to fondling and ‘rubbing breasts’ (thigana). A mature man proved his reliability by avoiding to ‘touch’ a girl’s garments,’ that is, he neither attempted to loosen the garments she had secured to herself, nor did he persuade her to do so.44 Among married people, fidelity was expected of both partners. They were expected to be faithful to each other and not to commit adultery. A wife was to avoid careless talk with men or jokes which alluded to sex (itherũ ihuunyũku). If her husband should die, she was able to live alone. To the Middle Age Group informants, the basis of sexual fidelity is the respect and the fear that exist between people. Sexual fidelity results in -/

? fe\jkp (w~ıhoke ku)

mutual trust between husbands and wives, men and women. The Middle Age Group recognize other areas of human conduct that illustrate maturity, and therefore honesty. For instance, a grown-up girl demonstrates her maturity by behaving responsibly to her brothers and sisters. She relieves her mother of much of the work in the home. When she visits friends she returns home before nightfall. The mature girl is considered good because her conduct and her work commend her. An immature girl, however, takes on few responsibilities at home and is in the habit of insulting those who attempt to correct her. On his part, a mature young man demonstrates his maturity by living sensibly. He is disciplined and does not let nightfall overtake him sitting in a bar. During the day he does not join ndundu (private sessions) of other young men who form ad hoc groups to gossip. If he is employed, he helps his parents financially. An immature man does not remember the needs of his parents. A man like that will spend years away from home earning a salary before visiting his parents or if he does visit them he takes them no provisions or money. Instead, he comes with friends and expects his mother to offer them hospitality without ascertaining whether she has the means to do so. Yet another is a loiterer who is often to be found leaning against posts in the market place. When a mature girl marries into a home she gives sincere service and co-operation to her husband’s parents. Her father-in-law can call on her to do small jobs for him, such as feeding the calves. Her mother-in-law can leave her in charge of things if she has to go away. She in turn can leave her baby with her mother-in-law when she goes to do something like fetching firewood. She adapts so well to her new home that her husband is rendered mũremwo nĩ kũmwatha (unable to command her). That is, he will not be able to complain about her because his parents will defend her. Other people will also commend her goodness, saying that she has brought harmony into the home. Maturity in a married couple is seen in the quality of the life in their home. The aim is that their family should prosper (gũkũria mũciĩ). To this end they go about their concerns with mutual respect and a high degree of mutual confidence. People do not hear of quarrels between them. They do not make their problems and needs public. In fact, they work in such unity -0

:_Xgk\i)

that people do not know how they go about their affairs. When people make reference to them they commend them on account of maũndũ moogima na maharĩrĩku (their mature and orderly affairs). The immature couple, on the other hand, does not seem to have a clear plan of what they want for their home. The wife is to be heard complaining that her husband does not help her, that he roams about and returns home late in the evenings. The husband is apt to complain that his wife is a ‘bully’ (mũnyamarania), meaning that she tends to command him rather than to obey him. Such a couple cannot develop their home because they lack the necessary respect and harmony. In other words, the Middle Age Group describes honesty as a sense of responsibility. This is not so much an ideal in the mind as a practical demonstration that one is able to manage one’s own affairs successfully, as well as to meet the expectations of those who have a right to expect services. The informants in this group make repeated references to wĩhokeku as gwĩthondekera maũndũ (the ability to manage one’s own affairs), mũndũ kũmenyerera wĩra wake (the duty of the individual to ensure that his particular work is properly done) and kũramata mũcĩi (the ability to manage one’s home). A person who has this sense of responsibility and duty is himself further described as being disciplined (kũgaacĩra, gũkindĩrĩka). This group maintains further that it is other people who judge whether a person possesses the qualities that make him trustworthy. Thus, when people are electing leaders they investigate whether a prospective leader has maturity in terms of being a good manager of his own affairs and also whether he is temperate (gũkindĩrĩka) and self-respecting. Such a person is ndarĩ ũcuuke (is not open to scandal), ndangiunwo mũtĩ (has no demerit and mũciĩ ũrĩ ririi (his home has some ‘glory’ about it). For instance, such a person will not give cheques to harambee (self-help) projects that will ‘bounce’ when presented to the bank.45 Lack of maturity, and therefore of honesty, is seen in people whose speech lacks grace; they are people who talk carelessly and do not keep confidences. When the informants in the Young Age Group associate respect with honesty, they regard respect as both the result and the essence of honesty. Essentially, a person who carries out a responsibility entrusted to him by another does so because he has respect for him or her. This group believes .'

? fe\jkp (w~ıhoke ku)

it is easier to conduct oneself with honesty towards those one respects. But respect is also a consequence of honesty; a trustworthy person is generally respected. Children will trust and respect their parents mostly because parents have proved to be worthy of respect. A person who is trustworthy or reliable is acceptable to other people. He is readily listened to if he has suggestions to make. This shows that people respect his words. An untrustworthy person finds it hard to get an audience because people tend to suspect his motives. Reliable people are not only respected, they are also elevated to positions of leadership. ~u ~ma) ?fe\jkpXjkilk_]lce\jj(u

All the informants in the three age groups describe honesty as truthfulness, an honest person is essentially mũndũ wa ma (a truthful person). To all the informants, truthfulness is discerned in the person who does not tell lies and whose actions are right and sincere. To the Old and Middle Age groups, truthfulness in word normally means that a person speaks what he knows to be ‘simply so’ (nĩguo). This is normally the plain truth of a matter (ma biũ). In many cases, facts of a matter can be proved through investigation so that the person who gives them is vindicated. However, it is possible to distort facts, even unintentionally. For this reason a truthful person normally gives considerable thought to what he says in order to minimize error as much as possible. The Young Age Group agrees that there are people who become reputable on account of their truthfulness. People can be heard to say of such, “if you hear so and so saying that, it is indeed so.” Informants in the Young Age Group further agree that every individual is expected to be truthful in this way. The Old and Middle Age groups emphasize that personal reputation is a strong incentive to verbal accuracy. A person always guards his words so that occasion does not arise when he is accused of telling lies since that would cause him embarrassment. To the Old Age Group, even if a person does not utter deliberate lies he is still regarded as untruthful if he gives ũhoro ũtari wa ho (inaccurate information). Gĩkũyũ society traditionally marked such untrustworthy people. In traditional society, people were wary of a person who behaved as if he was the only knowledgeable one (mũmenyi) or the only wise one (mũũgĭ). If an occasion arose when such a person said something that was found to be untrue he was publicly denounced as untrustworthy. Since public ridicule was harmful to a person’s self-esteem, it was advisable to avoid putting oneself into a position of .(

:_Xgk\i)

embarrassment. For this reason the traditional Gĩkũyũ advised moderation in speech: hence the proverb, Ũũgĩ mũnene ũkirithagio ihiga (Too much sharpness is rubbed against a stone). In other words, a person who handles a very sharp knife will blunt it a little so that it does not cut him while he is using it. Similarly, a person must control his talking in order to avoid the danger of being embarrassed. Truthful people are considered beneficial to the community. Such people are believed when they give testimony in a dispute or lawsuit. When honest elders sat in a tribunal that tried a suspect, it did not matter whether the suspect was tried in his own home area or away from home. They employed justice so that if they found him guilty it meant that any other tribunal would have come to the same conclusion. An honest tribunal was not expected to practice favouritism. In most cases the judgement of a case satisfied the litigating parties, regardless of whether they won or lost the case. However, in some cases one litigating party might have hoped to win the case although he had no reasonable ground for winning. If he lost, he went away grumbling that the adjudicators had been bribed or that they had favoured his opponent. He might even rationalize his defeat by quoting the proverb, Mũruĩra kwene ndoomaga (One circumcised in an alien land does not show courage). As already stated, all the informants believe that honesty must be demonstrated both in word and deed. An individual who does not tell lies should also be expected to act honestly. According to the Middle Age Group, a person avoids telling lies when he endeavours to fulfil what he has promised. If, for instance, he promises to give iron sheets to a harambee (selfhelp) project, he will honour his promise. Likewise, if a man tells his fatherin-law that he will deliver some goats to him on a certain day, he will duly deliver them on that day. Informants in the Young Age Group also say that when honest children are sent to the shops to buy things, they do not cheat their parents about the change: they return the correct change. According to this group, there are school children who cannot be trusted to take fees to school. These are the children who are apt to quote a higher figure with the idea of retaining the balance. Most of the informants in the Young Age Group say that people expect elders in responsible positions to be honest in word and deed. They especially refer to the committees that look after cattle dips and other co-operative ventures. Regarding honest action, the Young Age Group makes several other observations. Financial matters take up most of its attention. A few examples .)

? fe\jkp (w~ıhoke ku)

will suffice. They observe, for instance, that people who handle money that does not belong to them and avoid stealing gain a reputation for honesty and people trust them. Individuals may then request such people to handle financial matters on their behalf. An honest shopkeeper will deal honestly with all customers regardless of whether they are able to check the weights and measures of the commodities he sells them. He is also careful not to short change customers who have difficulty in counting money due to age or illiteracy. It is possible for a shopkeeper to short change a customer by mistake. If he denies the fact, the customer will regard him as a cheat. Shopkeepers who agree to count the change again are regarded as honest. An honest person who comes across money will not keep it but will do his best to discover its owner. Some informants say that the finder would be unwise to take the money to the headman as he might pocket it himself. Sometimes it happens that when people take their coffee berries to the factory, someone weighs another person’s coffee by mistake. An honest person will disclose the mistake he has made and will rectify the records. However, some people, do not disclose their mistake and take the attitude that “coffee is coffee anyway; it does not matter who owns it.”46 Some women demonstrate their honesty by refraining from spending ‘coffee money’ when they receive it on behalf of their husbands. Informants in the Young Age Group believe that such women respect their husbands. Children show their honesty at school by carrying on working even in the teacher’s absence. Honest children will also avoid copying each other’s work when doing assignments. Those people who learn and do examinations by correspondence act dishonestly if they look up answers or ask other people do to the examinations for them. At home, children show their honesty if they perform their duties well, even in the absence of their parents. The honest children will also not ‘touch’ money unless they are given it, even if they know where to find it in the house. According to the informants in this group, people tend to act honestly toward those they fear or respect (gwĩtigĩra). For instance, a matatu (small public transport vehicle) driver will return all the money he earns to the owner of the matatu. The driver may be a man who drinks yet he will not touch the money that belongs to his employer. Another matatu driver keeps lying to the matatu owner that ‘there is no work’ (gũtirĩ wĩra) while in fact he is diverting the earnings to himself. Such people set up their .*

:_Xgk\i)

own matatu business as soon as they are dismissed. This is because they will have dishonestly accumulated enough capital to enable them to start matatu operations. The informants in the Young Age Group are of the opinion that people who avoid stealing will have been brought up from childhood to regard stealing as bad. The informants believe that honesty must start at home with parents, then relatives and then other people. In other words, if a child does not learn to act honestly from an early age while under the care of his parents, he might be expected to deal dishonestly with other people without a prick of conscience when he grows up. A child learns to act honestly at home by being taught to help himself to things openly or to get parental permission. Through constant counsel a child will grow up knowing what is expected of him. Although the informants in the Young Age Group agree that in principle people should speak the truth, they are of the opinion that people should be free to use their discretion. For instance, if a person is confronted by thugs it would be unwise to tell them the truth regarding the place where he has kept his money. To give another example, people could chase someone who, in desperation, rushes into someone’s house for refuge. If the pursuers should ask the owner of the house if he has seen the fleeing person, he should answer “yes” or “no” depending on the circumstances. The pursuers could be intending to assault the fugitive. On the other hand, they could be trying to arrest him for some crime he has committed. If that is so, then he should reveal where the culprit is hiding. Some of the informants also feel that when a person fails someone he respects it may be better to exonerate himself with a lie than to tell the simple truth. Thus, for instance, if someone fails to keep an appointment because he forgot about it, he should find a better reason to give for his failure to keep the appointment. All the informants in the three age groups agree that although truthfulness is valued highly, deceit is common. They give various reasons why people tell lies and act dishonestly. Some people tell lies in order to avoid embarrassment or ridicule. They commit offences but deny responsibility. These are the people who like to save face or those who are anxious to continue enjoying people’s respect in spite of their untrustworthiness. They will therefore deny, swear and even take an oath in the hope of convincing their accusers that they are honest. Other people tell lies because they are afraid of facing the consequences of their actions.

.+

? fe\jkp (w~ıhoke ku)

According to some informants in the Middle Age Group, fear of punishment makes some people lie to the authorities that they have paid taxes when they have not. Some men will lie that they are not responsible for pregnancies because they are afraid of paying compensation. Greed or desire for gain drives other people to act dishonestly and tell lies. Some civil servants will lie to the government that they intend to occupy the house they have applied for whereas they intend to let it out. Others embezzle funds, while still others practise other forms of corruption. There are also people who, out of jealousy or malice, will steal the property of others, especially from the rich or from foreigners. The Old and Middle Age Groups believe that greedy people, that is, those who obtain property by unlawful means, sooner or later will meet with misfortune. In this connection, several informants in both groups quote the proverb, Mũgathĩ wa kũoya ũteeaga wa mwene (A stolen string of beads causes the loss of one’s own). Agreeing with this view, the informants in the Young Age Group are of the opinion that the honest person is a contented person: he has peace and joy and God blesses what he has acquired honestly. God also helps him to manage properly what he has. In his industrious life he has no desire for other people’s property. On the other hand, the person who thinks it is not necessary to practice honesty in every area of life finds that in the long run, he does not enjoy peace of mind. Besides being troubled by his conscience, he might get into serious trouble because some dishonest acts are also criminal. Even a respectable person who gets into the habit of embezzling funds may eventually be found out and punished. All the informants further agree that dishonest people are the cause of disputes. In the course of a dispute they force honest people to resort to swearing because their statements are doubted or contradicted. The Old and Middle Age groups maintain that since society has always had dishonest people, false accusations, litigations and various levels of swearing are part of life. Traditionally, an oath (muuma) was the final resort in a bid to resolve disputes or to establish the innocence of people accused of various offences; it was an appeal to the judgement of supernatural powers. Its effect was believed to be baneful to the liar and his family. Although the oath was generally feared and was only occasionally resorted to, some dishonest people still requested the use of the oath in the hope of exoneration. Some of them sought out a medicine man soon after taking the oath to cleanse them of the effect of the oath. Others were hardened criminals who had escaped being apprehended many times. Hardened criminals .,

:_Xgk\i)

grew sceptical about the fatal effect of swearing falsely under oath. Such was a habitual thief who had stolen numerous times and, in spite of the curses (kũrumwo), death had not caught up with him. Being undeterred by the bewitching charms placed on property to ward off thieves, his motto was: Kaba ngore ũrogi, ndikoone mwene (Better to find bewitching charms than to find the owner). 47 ~) ?fe\jkpXj^\e\ifj`kp(uuma-andu

The three age groups also describe honesty in terms of generosity.48 However, the word generosity (ũtaana) is actually only mentioned by the informants in the Old Age Group. Sometimes this group substitutes the word wega (goodness) for generosity. The Middle Age Group talks of uuma-andũ (benevolence) and the Young Age Group uses the word wendani (charity). All the three groups are evidently talking about the same quality, best defined as generosity. As noted in a preceding section, the Old Age Group regards generosity as one of the essential components of the quality of uprightness (ũthingu). The generous person is affable, benevolent, and gracious in word and deed. For the Middle Age Group, benevolence (uuma andũ) is closely associated with honesty because the benevolent person (muuma andũ) has several qualities that make him trustworthy (mwĩhokeku). Intrinsically, the muuma andũ possesses the ‘quality of being good’ (kwagĩra). This is goodness without selfishness so that it is benevolent. He also possesses wisdom (ũũgĩ) and the ability to counsel (ũtaarani). To his community he is ‘the bringer of harmony and good will between people’ (mũiguithania). The way he talks and handles people is such that he is generally a source of joy (gĩkeno). Muuma andũ is also seen to employ justice (kĩhooto) in all he does. In other words, he possesses maturity, reasonableness and a sense of fair play. For these reasons, muuma andũ is loved, respected and trusted. His services are sought in various ways. For instance, since he is known to counsel people without self-interest people will go to him for advice. He does not talk publicly or indiscriminately about matters that have come to his knowledge confidentially. In Gĩkũyũ idiom, he does not engage in ndeto cia bara ndarĩ (roadside gossip). For this reason, married couples who need counsel will go to a muuma andũ. In the community, people might have a concern about the conduct of a particular individual. Rather than counsel .-

? fe\jkp (w~ıhoke ku)

the person as a group, they might send him to a muuma andũ. For example, a woman whose conduct is not in keeping with her status might be sent to a female muuma andũ for counsel. A muuma andũ is often asked to oversee (kũrũgamĩrĩra) a project or a matter on behalf of a family or the public. He may be given leadership because people know he will not mislead them. People will entrust their money to him or their domestic animals for his safe custody. He may be asked to divide (kũgaya) meat for a big gathering. He will also be asked to share out property on certain occasions. His selflessness is an asset to the community. Above all, a muuma andũ is a genuine friend. People seek out the affable person for the deep heart-to-heart bond that is not dependent on the ability to exchange material gifts. Several informants observed that muuma andũ is an ideal personality. But not many people combine all the qualities of generosity to a high degree. The Young Age Group closely associate wendani (love or charity) with honesty. By wendani the informants mean good will towards other people. They describe such a person as mwenda andũ (one who loves people, a charitable person). Somehow his demeanour makes him stand out above others; he is humane and reliable. If such a person is in a position of influence, he will find a job for someone who is unemployed without asking for a bribe. Humane or benevolent people bring harmony and peace (ũiguuano) to their community; they are often involved in establishing peace and understanding between contending parties. ~hingia) ?fe\jkpXj]lc]`cd\ekf]\og\ZkXk`fe(u

Honesty is also described as fulfilment (ũhingia). Fulfilment is specifically explained by all the informants in the Old Age Group and the majority of informants in the Young Age Group. In answer to the question “What is honesty?” these informants actually mentioned the word kũhingia (to fulfil) among other key words. Informants in the Middle Age Group do not mention the word specifically. However, they allude to the characteristics associated with it, using such words as ‘maturity’ and ‘truthfulness.’ Some of the examples provided by the Young Age Group to explain fulfilment of expectation are similar to those provided by the Middle Age Group to explain maturity. On the other hand, informants in the Young Age Group do not mention the word maturity. But the quality they describe would be regarded as maturity by the Middle Age Group and as uprightness by the Old Age Group. It can be said, therefore, that the Middle Age Group is not ignorant of the moral quality involved in the key word ũhingia. Of the ..

:_Xgk\i)

two groups that describe fulfilment, the Old Age Group has much to say on things the Young Age Group is ignorant of. Therefore, it seems best to record their descriptions separately. In their description, the informants in the Old Age Group mentioned the verb kũhingia (to fulfil) together with that which is fulfilled. ‘That which is fulfilled’ includes an agreement, a promise (kĩriko), an appointment (gĩathi) and an expectation (wĩhoko). The essential moral quality in fulfilling a promise, keeping an appointment or meeting the just expectation of another is a sense of right or justice (kĩhooto). A just person has no ill will or malice (kĩũnũhu) and will readily fulfil the just expectation of another. In the context of fulfilment, therefore, honesty is defined as doing that which is just (kĩhooto). That is, to be trustworthy or reliable is to habitually fulfil the just or reasonable expectations of other people. A person who habitually fulfils his promises is regarded as honest. Some of the promises he makes involve things he intends to give to friends or things he intends to do for them. He is therefore also regarded as generous. But a generous person may also be called a liar because he is not able to fulfil all he promises. Nevertheless, people do not doubt his generosity or honesty because he is known to endeavour to fulfil what he promises. What he fails to honour in practice he ‘makes good with his mouth.’ That is, he is always able to give acceptable reasons for his failure to fulfil some promises. Similarly, a person who keeps appointments is regarded as honest. If he promises to be at a place at some appointed time, he will endeavour to fulfil his promise. Dishonest people, on the contrary, do not keep their promises or appointments. Such is the stingy woman who is offered hospitality by another woman. She promises to reciprocate at a future date. When her visit is returned, however, she hides what food there is, pretends to be happy at seeing her friend and apologises for having been visited at a time of scarcity. She makes another appointment but on the material day she absents herself from home so that her friend does not find her. In traditional society, some friendships grew stronger than others, depending on the degree to which people fulfilled each other’s expectations. When a person placed his animals under the custody of another (kũhithia), he expected the custodian to accord them good care. An honest custodian ensured that indeed he looked well after his friend’s property. He did ./

? fe\jkp (w~ıhoke ku)

not steal any of the animals placed under his custody nor the offspring born while the animals were under his care. Some of the animals under his custody might be better specimens than his own. Nevertheless, he did not exchange them with his own animals when eventually he handed the flock to its owner. In due time, the custodian invited the owner to inspect his animals and take them home. Accordingly, the owner performed the ceremony of kũhithuria (fetching animals from custody). When he took his animals away he presented the custodian with some of the offspring. The two friends thus not only obeyed the customary law governing kũhithia, but they became even greater friends as a result of the custodian’s honesty. 49 Fulfilling the just expectation of another is also illustrated by the way the poor and the rich placed themselves under each other’s obligation. If a relatively poor man had a good crop of sweet potato vines, a rich man might ask him to fatten two or three rams for him on the sweet potato vines. When the poor man had fattened the rams to the owner’s satisfaction, the rich man customarily gave the poor man a goat in return for his services. According to an informant, the results of such mutual trust were threefold. First, there was blessing (kĩraathimo); God blessed the poor man because of his sweat. The goat given him might produce a herd that eventually might fetch him a wife. Secondly, the two parted in a good way, each experiencing the warmth of gratitude. Thirdly, the rich man earned a name for justice because he did not exploit his poor neighbour.50 Conversely, a dishonest person had no sense of justice. In spite of the good done to him he would disdain the doer. For instance, if in the above example, the rich man was not trustworthy, he would take his fattened rams and would not give anything in recognition of the poor man’s work and fatigue (mĩnoga). People would regard him as wicked (mwaganu), bad (mũũru), a swindler (mũtuunyani) and extortioner (mũrĩa ng’ũũrũ). Further, his conduct resulted in disputes (maciira). The poor man would normally call upon adjudicators and elders to demand his due from the rich man on his behalf. If the rich man had in fact promised to give something in return, he would be seen to have refused to fulfil a promise. Promise or no promise, however, his would be a case of failure to reciprocate a good deed. The poor man’s case against him is summarized in the proverb, Ngũkũhaka maguta, ũkahaka mũhu! (I anoint you with oil and you cover me with ashes!).51 Within the context of fulfilment, three aspects of honesty are illustrated in the case of a woman who might beg for a baby sitter (mũreri wa mwana) from another woman. She would beg for one because she had no ‘little girl’ .0

:_Xgk\i)

of her own to mind her baby. Usually such a request would be granted. One aspect of honesty (wĩhokeku) would be the generosity shown by the little girl’s mother in loaning her to the other woman. The other would be the faithful service given by the girl in minding another woman’s baby. The third would be the gratitude shown by the woman at the end of the girl’s temporary service. She would show it by taking her back to her mother with much joy and many gifts. She would of course have cared for the little girl as if she were her own daughter. At the end of her service the woman would give her a token of thanks in the form of a bracelet known as gĩcomoyo. She might also provide the girl with a garment, in anticipation of her initiation soon after she would return home. The woman would then escort her home, carrying a large quantity of millet and other food gifts (itega) that women friends helped to carry.52 Honesty is proved by repaying a good deed regardless of time lapse. The opportune time to return good is when someone learns that the person who once helped him is experiencing some trouble, such as illness or famine. On hearing such news he will determine to reciprocate in some way the help he was once given. In this context, honesty is described by the Old Age Group as an attitude of good will that does not depend on yesterday’s good deed. Rather it is sustained for a long time since the person does not forget the good done to him. To the Old Age Group, every status carries with it some obligations. Individuals who are true to their status and role in the family and in the community can be said to fulfil people’s expectations of them; that is, they are reliable and honest. It is in this sense that an informant in this group said, Wĩhokeku manifests itself from an early age by such traits as diligence (kĩyo) and generosity (ũtaana). By the time a boy or girl is initiated he or she is seen to have fulfilled expectations and to have become trustworthy (akoonwo nĩahingĩĩtie na agatuika mwĩhokeku).53

Ordinary men and women, young people and children would demonstrate their honesty in faithfully carrying out their duties and responsibilities to family and society. In traditional society, individuals who had special responsibilities were particularly careful to fulfil people’s expectations of them. For instance, after childbirth a woman was expected to observe a ‘period of seclusion’ for four or five days during which period another woman (mũhiũhĩria) nursed her. During this period the mũhiũhĩria was expected to abstain from sexual intercourse.54 Only a malicious woman /'

? fe\jkp (w~ıhoke ku)

would break this rule. To give another example, the diviner (mũragũri) was recognised both for his honesty and wisdom. His wisdom lay in his ability to discern malice and to avoid it. Since he did not use his intelligence for evil he was able to fulfil people’s need for counsel. He was described as mũheeani kĩrĩra (the giver of counsel). He advised people when to plant food crops, when to impose the ban (mũhingo) on boys in preparation for their initiation and when to hold certain ceremonies.55 Traditionally, initiated young men or warriors served society in military and police duties. As is to be expected, not every warrior was honest in terms of being disciplined and courageous. But warriors who had won the respect of parents for their fidelity and bravery were often entrusted with the care of the neighbourhood girls. They escorted the girls to dances and ensured none were molested. During trade expeditions to distant places such trusted men accompanied the women. Under no circumstances would they abandon those entrusted to them.56 When raiding or fighting the Maasai, the warriors expected not only bravery but also moral encouragement and sympathy from each other. A warrior’s first concern was his own security as well as victory. He was careful to go with brave and willing warriors, as this warriors’ song indicates: Ngathiĩ na kenda wĩrutĩire utakoiga gathukĩ nĩ mĩũndũ. I will go with nine committed companions who will not take a stump for a man.57

Cowards were easily frightened by shapes and shadows. At twilight, a tree stump may seem to imitate the movements of a person and would seem to cower or raise itself as the person makes the same movements. A brave warrior who undertook exploits with cowards would never bring anything home. Therefore, if he was to bring back booty, a warrior must go on raiding expeditions with warriors (njamba) who were not afraid of stumps at twilight. These were individuals who were reliable (eehokeku) by their very mettle. To go about it alone would be futile because one would be overpowered by the enemy. The select, faithful warriors were not only good at fighting but also at defending each other. Each warrior expected and implored his fellow warriors to defend him during the encounter with the enemy: Riika mũngitĩre na moota ndikaae gũitĩrĩrũo thĩ ta nyũmba. Age mates, defend me with bows so that I am not brought down like a /(

:_Xgk\i)

hut.58

Similarly, close relatives and friends had special obligations to ensure each other’s survival. In circumstances when food and water were scarce people were apt to be selfish over the little available. Nevertheless, the individual sought to obtain them for himself and for his special friend or kin. This was true, for instance, when a trading expedition had to go for days without water. When a little was found people scrambled for it and passed the container of water to their favourites: Maaĩ ma njango Mwendanĩrĩrio Ũtarĩ wao akaraara atakunda Search after water is a matter of favouritism. He who has no relative will sleep thirsty.59

In a battle with the Maasai, a high degree of honesty is seen in the Gĩkũyũ warrior whose compassion for an injured fellow warrior overrides all considerations of personal safety and convenience. He sees a fellow warrior with a spear lodged in his thigh and tells him, “Pull it out!” Then he finds some leaves and closes the spear wound. After that first aid the two proceed towards home slowly, sleeping under trees at night. Eventually, they reach the home of the injured man and the compassionate warrior hands his fellow warrior over to his own people. Subsequently, the rescued man will find occasion to express publicly his gratitude to the man who “did not allow the Maasai to come after me and kill me.”60 The idea of respect was discussed in an earlier section in the context of uprightness. Within the context of fulfilment (ũhingia), respect is shown in the form of gratitude by one person to another. The person shown gratitude will most probably have met the other person’s need in one way or another. However, respect does not always follow a fulfilled need: it is sometimes anticipatory. When it is anticipatory it includes esteem and hope (mwĩhoko). The expression kwĩhoka ng’ania can be interpreted to mean “to trust so and so.” It can also be interpreted to mean “to hope that so and so will oblige.” The element of respect may be concealed but it is nevertheless present. Kwĩhoka is to have a high regard for another and to be at the same time solicitous of his special favour or service. These might be the sentiments behind a boy’s efforts to win the special favour of a particular initiated young man (in view of the boy’s own imminent initiation). The /)

? fe\jkp (w~ıhoke ku)

boy may favour the young man with gifts. These gifts are an indication that he wishes the young man to be his sponsor (mũtiiri) during his circumcision. Eventually he will explicitly ask the young man to sponsor him. By so doing, he is in fact seeking to establish a relationship of respect and mutual obligation between him and the young man. If the young man sponsors him he will, for all practical purposes, from then on regard the young man as his father. In most cases the young man will agree to sponsor the boy. However, if the boy is known to have immoral habits (ũmaramari), such as stealing sugarcane from people’s gardens, letting animals eat people’s crops when he is grazing them or being disobedient to his parents, the young man will not oblige him. He will be apprehensive about establishing a deep relationship with a mũmaramari (one who wantonly disregards law and custom). Yet, since the boy had shown him respect, his problem becomes how to refuse without snubbing him. He may therefore give excuses, such as that he had planned a journey and will be absent at the time of circumcision. In giving excuses he will be trying to reciprocate respect by avoiding to put the boy to shame (kũmũmenithia).61 The above example alludes to an important principle of conduct among adults in traditional society. A man or woman did his best to safeguard his self-esteem. He or she tried to avoid embarrassment as much as possible. Not everyone was accorded the same degree of respect. For this reason, an elder who wanted young men in his neighbourhood to do a job for him (gutũma wĩra) did not approach just any young man. He singled out one young man whom he knew to be respectful and asked him for assistance as an individual. It was then the responsibility of the young man to approach as many of his age mates as he chose to help him. In the same way, a woman who needed the help of initiated girls approached one of them; this one, in turn, asked for assistance. If a respected elder had only daughters he would build a man’s hut (thingira) in his homestead and invite young men to be sleeping there, in this way protecting his cattle against thieves and wild animals. Since they respected him they did not fail to come. If the homestead should be raided and one of the young men was killed in the process, the elder did not pay compensation since the deceased young man was like a son to him. Also, the young men did not expect to be fed when they came to spend the night in the elder’s homestead. However, whenever the elder slaughtered a bull he would give them the portion prescribed by custom.62 In connection with the idea of fulfilment, emphasis was laid on the impor/*

:_Xgk\i)

tance of doing a job well, or looking after other people’s things without appropriating or spoiling them. In Gĩkũyũ idiom this was expressed as kwaga kũhuutia (to avoid touching). When a person undertook a task for another ‘without touching’ he was deemed honest. Such was the wife who did not touch the honey which her husband hid (hitha) beside her bed in her hut. A dishonest wife served the honey to her friends when they called on her. The children might then discover that there was honey in the hut and take it secretly. When the husband found out that the honey had been used he lost trust in his wife. From time to time people were put to the test in order to determine their degree of honesty in regard to ‘touching.’ This was because stealing ‘a little thing’ or ‘a small amount’ was an indication that the person had tendencies to greed (ũkoroku). Elders might ask a few men to slaughter and roast animals for them. Each person was given an animal to manage on his own. When the meat was ready and the elders sat down to eat, they might ask to be served the little pieces of meat first, that is, the kidneys, lungs, etc. The individuals who did not produce them because they had eaten them were rebuked and might be ordered to pay a ram as compensation for what they had taken. Moreover, they lost the trust of the public. Normally, people avoided ‘touching’ any meat while doing such an assignment. An informant summarizes this aspect of honesty by saying that honesty is like a process. First, a person determines that another person is worth trusting, he then exercises that trust by placing his property under his custody. Finally, if no harm comes to his property, he establishes that the person is indeed trustworthy. Respect (gĩtĩĩo) follows naturally. Moreover, the trust and respect accorded him is based on justice (kĩhooto): he has earned it because of his conduct. On the other hand, greed in all its forms shows one as dishonest: a greedy person cannot command people’s respect and trust.63 Turning to the Young Age Group, the informants in this group explain that to fulfil (kũhingia) is ‘to carry out a duty or a responsibility’ (gwĩka). This could be a particular task a person has been given by another or a task that a person assumes automatically by virtue of his status. Honesty in terms of fulfilling duties and performing tasks basically requires two things: that someone knows what his job is supposed to be and that he has a sense of responsibility. It is expected that every individual realises what is expected of him in performing his duties. Thus teachers should /+

? fe\jkp (w~ıhoke ku)

demonstrate their honesty or reliability to their pupils by performing the teaching job with zeal. Pupils on their part should do their work properly without needing to be constantly urged to work. At home, children should perform their assigned tasks to the best of their ability whether the parents are present or absent. A husband expects his wife to look after the children. A woman who is married to a widower is expected to take good care of her stepchildren. Clear knowledge of what is expected helps a person to be honest. It is especially helpful if there are conditions attached. Thus an employee in a commercial firm knows that he can lose his job if he fails the firm in certain ways. Therefore, he works responsibly in order to keep his job. In a way his honesty is made easy for him because he is in no doubt about what is expected. People who look after the affairs of the public need to have a high degree of integrity to ensure the success of those affairs. For instance, a person who is given the responsibility to oversee a harambee (self-help) project is expected to discharge his duties conscientiously and not to steal the money people have contributed for the project. Essentially, honesty is to do for others what one would do for oneself. A person who is entrusted with a responsibility by another does his best to fulfil the matter entrusted to him. He will try not to wrong or cheat the one who has trusted him in that way. Thus, for instance, a person who looks after another’s domestic animals feeds them well and ensures they come to no harm. The Young Age Group believes that the aspect of honesty is of great benefit to the community. An individual who fulfils the expectations of others will normally find that people have conferred on him a high status and given him great responsibilities so as to benefit the community. However, a person’s life is normally scrutinized carefully before he is elevated. For instance, during local elections people scrutinize an aspiring leader’s conduct at home. If he is found not to manage his family affairs well, they will conclude he cannot manage public affairs. The informants in the Young Age Group recognize that there are conflicts within an individual that can prevent him from fulfilling what is expected of him. When a boy has been entrusted with the job of grazing his father’s cattle he wants to please his father by ensuring that the cattle are under constant watch. While grazing the cattle he will be in the company of other boys with whom he will be inclined to play. While he is busy playing, the /,

:_Xgk\i)

cattle under his care might eat a neighbour’s crop. It is also not usual for the children of Christian parents to sneak out of the house when they are expected to have retired to bed. Since their parents do not allow them to attend dances and initiation ceremonies, when there are such functions in the neighbourhood they attend stealthily. When the parents discover such behaviour they regard the children as dishonest. Some of the informants also cite the conflict people suffered during the State of Emergency in the 1950s. Some people felt duty bound to be loyal to the colonial government and at the same time they felt obliged to support the Mau Mau cause. Such people could not be regarded as honest either by the Government or the Mau Mau. This group also believes that there are people who just have no integrity for particular responsibilities. Certain people will not be asked to look after beer because their desire to drink will overcome them. A young man might not entrust his sister to some of his friends.64 In a family there may be a child who is trustworthy in many respects but if he is short tempered, aggressive and quarrelsome he cannot be entrusted with the care of younger children. ?fe\jkpXj[`c`^\eZ\ (kı~yo)

Only the Old Age Group specifically described honesty in terms of diligence or industry. Diligence is closely associated with honesty by the Old Age Group because it is the diligent who can be relied upon to maintain themselves and their families. Since personal and family welfare requires a high degree of selfsufficiency, the industrious man or woman can be trusted to fulfil the need for self-sufficiency. The lazy, on the other hand, are destined to poverty. In that sense they disappoint those who depend on them for sustenance. Lazy young men disappoint their parents. Lazy parents disappoint their children. Some of the lazy live by their wits instead of working with their hands. They will readily tell lies and they will easily steal other people’s property. In traditional society, the diligent proved their reliability in various ways. In a polygamous family, for instance, there might be one wife who becomes a favourite (ngatha) with the husband. She may have earned that position by a combination of diligence in her work and an ability to anticipate the needs of her husband. For instance, after a busy day in the fields she might return home in good time to make a fire in her hut. Then when the husband returns from grazing animals or attending a lawsuit she will be able to /-

? fe\jkp (w~ıhoke ku)

welcome him into a warm and comfortable hut. The other wives might pride themselves in their ability to work long hours, saying, Niĩ ndingĩonwo nyaarĩrĩ ngĩinũka (I can’t show my heels when returning home) but the favourite wife takes the attitude that the care of her husband is as much her duty as tilling her garden. In the words of an informant, “She attracts him with fire.” That is, he can rely on her to provide him with warmth and food and to engage him in pleasant conversation when he returns home in the evening.65 The preference given to the favourite wife does not necessarily mean that the other wives are not reliable. Another wife may demonstrate her trustworthiness by diligently tilling the land. By trading with the produce of her garden, her husband may be able to buy a goat or even a cow. Earlier, it was mentioned that an elder or a woman could request a young man or girl to do a specific job. Only the diligent were chosen in this way. So the trusted and respected young men and girls were also those who were diligent. Trustworthiness in terms of diligence and generosity is seen in some children at an early age. Such children are encouraged to become more diligent and generous so that by the time they are adults they will have proved to be reliable (eehokeku). Hence the proverb, Njũgũma njega yumaga ikũũrĩro (A good club is got from its source). Sometimes a person who was homeless or poor because of circumstances beyond his control would attach himself to an established home. If he proved to be diligent and good-natured, the family accepted him as one of their own. In other words, the person who is capable of ‘maintaining himself ’ (kwĩhota) because he has initiative and diligence is appreciated and rewarded by other people. Hence another proverb, Mwana ũrĩ kĩyo ndaagaga mũthambia (A diligent child does not fail to find someone to wash him). Traditionally, the individual was expected to show initiative and to be diligent. This is emphasized repeatedly in songs that groups of people sang while working together. For instance, when a young man asked his age mates to help him cultivate a field, he expected them to work hard in order to complete the job. It was quite possible for people to pretend to work and achieve little. In the following song a young man encourages his friends to till as much ground as possible: /.

:_Xgk\i)

We ũrĩ rũteere rũa ithũĩro, Nĩ we ndũmĩĩte wĩra, arũme aya-ĩ Ndũkandutĩre wĩra na maũũgĩ You at the far end on the west, You men, you are the ones I have invited to work. Do not work for me deceitfully.66

A young man thus challenged would be keen to show that he was working earnestly: Nĩũkuona ũria ndĩretungumania? Na nyũkwa arĩ mũciĩ Akuuga ũtũmĩĩte kĩgũũta! Do you see how enthusiastically I work? And your mother at home probably supposes you have invited a lazy man!

The young man for whom his age mates are working would be planning to reciprocate. But while working for different people, the young men would also be discovering how compassionate different mothers were: Tũkũrĩma gũũkũ na tũkarĩme kwanyu Tũkarore kana nyũkwa Arĩ gĩtha ta maitũ. We shall cultivate here, Then we shall go and cultivate your place So we can find out whether your mother Is as compassionate as my mother.67

One way of expressing compassion was through hospitality. For this reason every son would expect his mother to provide plenty of food for the labourers. The diligent mother could be relied upon not to let her son down. The lazy young man was out of place in the midst of such a working party. He therefore excused himself and went visiting and loitering with others of his type. Since he did not cooperate with the industrious his share of work at home was not accomplished. The result was that his mother was driven to exchange her bangles for food when she might have harvested like other women: //

? fe\jkp (w~ıhoke ku)

Nyina wa kĩgũũta, tambararia njara Warũruo mũringa Tondũ ti niĩ ndeerire mũrũguo Atindage mbũrũũrũ. The mother of the indolent, stretch your arm So your bangle can be removed Since I was not the one who told your son To spend his days wandering.68

In fact, indolence caused a person to indulge in other more serious forms of dishonesty. Since the lazy had to subsist, they did so by their wits. They employed lies, pleasant talk or even feigned wisdom so that they might be provided for by those they managed to deceive. For instance, when men of enterprise went away for days on end into Maasailand to trade, their mothers and wives were naturally anxious about them. In anticipation of their return the women folk kept some food ready. When the return of such an expedition was imminent, loiterers hung around the homes of those who had gone. Under the pretext of welcoming the weary travellers they would share the food, which the mothers had kept ready: Ĩ uĩ wai, gacũrũ karĩa Ngũigĩirũo ni iya ngũnyuĩra kũ? Nĩ matinda thoome Metereire rũgendo no rũgooka.

The porridge Mother has prepared, where shall I drink it? There are those loiterers outside the gate Who await the return of the expedition.69

The unscrupulous loiterers might even manage to convince the anxious mothers that their sons were not likely to return soon or even that they were dead. They pretended to sympathize with the mothers in the hope of being fed. The song below gives an indication of the contempt in which such lazy men were held by those who returned from the expedition safe and sound: Ĩ uĩ wai, gĩtaria thĩ Kĩronja na magũrũ! Kierire iya, “Ni tũrĩe matirooka.” /0

:_Xgk\i)

The loafer May he be crippled from the feet up! He told the mother, “Let us eat, they will never come.”70

Indolence was regarded as a sure way to invite famine. Whereas the diligent did their best to fight famine, their efforts were futile if their neighbours were lazy and could not be relied upon to do their part for the common good. Also, the more poor people there were in the community, the quicker the resources were drained because those who had were obliged to share with those who did not have. As a result, the level of material welfare in such a community remained low. Therefore, the more diligent people in the community took it upon themselves to rebuke the lazy. Such people could not expect to enjoy the goodwill of their neighbours. So they would sing: Aria marĩ mũrimo ũũrĩa, No tũgaikania ngongo, arũme aya-ĩ Nĩ inyuĩ mwatemeire ng’aragu rũteere! You on the other side of the river, We shall surely manhandle you,. For you have cut a path for famine!71

The diligent men and women demonstrated their reliability by taking initiative. They were able to satisfy those who had a right to expect service or duty from them. They did not wait to be urged to serve because they were honest and dependable. For instance, a diligent girl watched her mother’s supplies of firewood and took the initiative to fetch some more when it was required. Wakarirũ, ndiuma mũthii ngũ, hĩ ai hũ Nĩ ĩtara rĩa iya rĩndorire na tha, hĩ ai hũ. Wakarirũ, I was not planning to fetch firewood, But mother’s firewood rack looked at me pleadingly.72

These then are some of the ways the diligent demonstrate the moral value of honesty. To the Old Age Group, Kĩyo nĩ kĩo wĩhokeku (Diligence is honesty). That is, a diligent person is trustworthy and dependable.

0'

? fe\jkp (w~ıhoke ku)

?fe\jkp`edf[\iek`d\j Among the changes experienced by the Gĩkũyũ since the coming of western civilization are the introduction of Christianity and of the cash economy. Most Gĩkũyũ people have been influenced by Christianity, particularly through the education system pioneered by Christian missionaries. Christian influence continues through the continuing work of the churches. The majority of the informants were influenced to some extent or other and some were practising Christians. It was therefore found useful to find out how seriously Christians take the vows and promises they make in church. With respect to money, the informants in the Old Age Group and some in the Middle Age Group knew the Gĩkũyũ tradition before money was accepted and handled to the extent it is today. It was found appropriate also to enquire whether working with money has affected people’s ideas and practices in regard to honesty. The informants in the Young Age Group were also believed to have some opinion on the matter in view of their own experience and observations of Gĩkũyũ society. upl uXkk`kl[\kf:_i`jk`XemfnjXe[gifd`j\j >ëubl

To the Old Age Group there is basically no difference between the traditional and the Christian demands for honesty. The prohibitions (mĩgiro), which need to be observed in both cases, serve similar purposes. Any person who disregards either the traditional or the Christian prohibitions is deemed to be untrustworthy. On the other hand, the person who makes a genuine effort to observe them proves his trustworthiness. However, the informants in the Old Age Group believe that vows, pledges, promises (mĩĩhĩtwa) affect people differently, depending on whether they make them in the Christian or the traditional context. In this connection, the informants distinguish between Gĩkũyũ vows (mĩĩhĩtwa ya Gĩkũyũ ) and church vows (mĩĩhĩtwa ya kanitha). Gĩkũyũ vows belong to a morality, which is sanctioned in definite ways within a person’s lifetime. Traditionally, people were believed to meet misfortune for violating rules of conduct that they had vowed to observe. There are also many instances when people punished others for violating rules of conduct. On the other hand, church vows are not believed to affect people in definite ways during their present life. People generally believe that the effects of violating church vows will not be felt until the second coming of Jesus Christ when judgement will be delivered on individuals. In spite of this general belief, however, some people do attribute the misfortunes of others to their failure to honour one or another church vow.73

0(

:_Xgk\i)

According to the Old Age Group, Christians take their church vows less seriously than the traditional Gĩkũyũ took theirs. The informants give several reasons for this. First, the people who make vows in church do not have any traumatic experience involving actual pain to help impress the vows on them. To merely sit down and have some words read from a book, whereupon candidates declare their promises verbally is hardly impressive. Such promises do not penetrate the heart and are soon forgotten. Serious Gĩkũyũ vows on the other hand were accompanied by pain, shedding of blood and threats of death. An example is the experience of initiation under which important pledges to observe certain moral principles were made. Secondly, Christian and other kinds of solemn vows are made within the modern context (kĩĩrĩu). To the Old Age Group ‘modernity’ is a very bewildering phenomenon, which has arrived subtly and yet forcefully. However, the important thing about modernity is that it renders things lukewarm (kũraria). It makes people insensitive to the morality which traditional Gĩkũyũ society considered proper. Consequently, people do not honour promises, they do not frown at casual sex, and they do not respect their parents. Indeed, they do not seem to realize that to do evil is wrong. Thirdly, Christian vows are ineffective because the goal for which they are made is far away and remote. Somehow, the idea of a judgement at a remote time in future when people will be punished or rewarded, postpones the urgency of strict adherence today. What is not urgent loses its seriousness and importance.74 In addition to these reasons, the informants in the Old Age Group agree that people today make little effort to restrain themselves from greed and covetousness. Unrestrained desire has been a major cause of failure to keep vows. An informant illustrates graphically how such desire hinders people from honouring their vows. Christians do not keep vows because of the eye, the tongue, the hand and the leg. The eye sees money; you vowed not to steal; you take it. Thus a government servant who draws a big salary will put his money aside and stretch his hand to steal from the government. The eye sees someone’s admirable wife, you vowed not to commit adultery; the tongue speaks to her …75

This informant notes that most people who hold offices are ‘Pauls, Peters and Johns,’ people who have received Christian baptism and who have solemnized their marriage in church. In their association with Christianity they have at one time or other made a promise to observe Christian moral0)

? fe\jkp (w~ıhoke ku)

ity. Yet a job seeker will go to a Paul and will be given repeated appointments until he or she yields and offers a bribe. A man may offer food and beer, but a woman is normally required to offer her body. The informants in the Middle Age Group are generally of the opinion that the vows that people make in church are difficult to keep. They suggest three main reasons. One reason is that the vows are too demanding. For instance, at baptism a person vows, “I denounce the devil.” That means that he vows to adopt a whole way of life because to denounce the devil is to denounce sin. Again at marriage a man vows to love his wife as his own body. Such pledges are very difficult to keep. The informants observe that Gĩkũyũ vows, on the other hand, were initiated by the people themselves and demanded nothing beyond what a person could fulfil. Another reason why Christian vows are not kept is that the church does not provide enough teaching on Christian living. Where teaching and guidance is lacking the relevance of the vows becomes lost. Consequently people do not feel the obligation to observe them strictly. The vows are regarded rather as a matter of formality and people neither respect nor value them. According to the Middle Age Group, the reason that Christians do not keep their vows is due to the lack of role models or examples to emulate. This group suggests that church leaders are not the models they should be, possibly because they are themselves not persuaded about the vows they make. Thus a man may swear that he will take only one wife but in his heart he is not convinced about the rationale for monogamy. A good number of converts to Christianity who made solemn promises to fight female circumcision are known to have made secret arrangements for their own daughters to be circumcised. Some informants attribute this anomalous situation to tension between the Gĩkũyũ culture and the apparently legalistic demands of the church. The informants in the Young Age Group all agree that the majority of Christians do not honour their Christian vows. They suggest several reasons for this. One reason is that some people do not consider the implications of the vows at the time of making them. Such people will honour their vows when life is easy but fail to do so when difficulties arise, such as lack of peace and unity at home or in the church community. Other people simply forget the vows they made and behave as if they had never made them. There are also those who are merely interested in a ‘Christian’ name or in a church wedding because such practices are fashionable. The vows such 0*

:_Xgk\i)

people make are a mere formality and are of no consequence to them. According to the Young Age Group, people will also exploit the idea of forgiveness taught in Christianity. Doing wrong, repenting and assuming God has forgiven is an attractive order of things. People will therefore not only break their vows, but they will also commit sins such as adultery because they can always be forgiven. And some people are in the habit of searching for parts of the Bible that seem to justify their actions. However, the three age groups agree that there is a minority of Christians who are genuine and who seek to live by the injunction: “work out your own salvation.”76 K_\\]]\Zkf]k_\dfe\p\Zfefdpfeg\fgc\Ëj_fe\jkp

The common opinion of all the informants is that money has affected people’s idea of honesty for the worse and that, in this respect, matters are in fact deteriorating. The views of the Old Age Group are summarized by a proverb quoted by one of the informants, which says, Gĩcinga nĩ kĩhiũ ngwatĩro (The handle of the wooden torch is burning). When the holding end of a torch burns, the torch is thrown back into the fire and people are left without light. This simply means that the state of affairs is bad.77 The informants in all three age groups agree that, generally, the Gĩkũyũ attach too much value to money. Many people are preoccupied with money to the extent that human relationships are being destroyed. All the informants in the Old Age Group agree that the Gĩkũyũ as a people have become ‘unsteady’ (kwagaga) because of money. According to this group, people have been known to commit crimes in order to obtain money. The informants in the Middle Age Group regard money as a curse because it is destroying society. Several informants in this group say that a person may be trustworthy in other areas of life but where money is concerned he cannot be relied upon. Many people yield easily to the temptation to acquire money dishonestly. With respect to money people behave in ways that are contrary to recognised rules of maturity and decorum. Several informants recalled a song that was popular in the early 1950s. Mbeeca nĩciokire kwĩhia Kũreehe ũthũ na rũmena, Mũndũ arandũrage nyina, Kũrĩ ũkarandũra mũka Rirĩa me toro!

0+

? fe\jkp (w~ıhoke ku)

Money came to bring harm To bring enmity and rancour, A man claiming a debt from his mother, Another will claim a debt from his wife While they sleep!78

According to the informants in the Young Age Group, money has been given a value way above all other things and people want to keep much more money than they really need. The problem is that money does not satisfy, so that the more one has the more one wants. People therefore always plot ways to obtain more money. Some people who cannot get money legally will most certainly find illegal ways of obtaining it. The problem is made worse by the fact that money is much easier to handle than other commodities and that, therefore, it is easy to cheat about it. The informants in the Old Age Group state that it took some time for the Gĩkũyũ to be adversely affected by money. When it was first introduced, the Gĩkũyũ did not value it to the extent of wanting to acquire it dishonestly. If a person found a rupee coin, he took it to the market place and tried to trace its owner by announcing he had found the coin. If nobody claimed it he repeated the announcement on the following market day. Nobody would claim the coin unless he was sure it belonged to him. The person who found it would only keep the coin if nobody claimed it. Today, even the old people, who knew life before the rupee was introduced, have come to value money highly. According to informants in this group, the present young generation is going to be destroyed by money. This is because people are murdering others because of money; even husbands and wives kill each other on account of money. The most abominable thing is that a son will kill his own mother because of a disagreement over money. Formerly, when people began to work in salaried employment, a man would be able to take his money to a friend for safe custody. When he needed the money it was all there. It also used to be possible for two people to buy a cow jointly. One of them would take the responsibility of looking after it. When the cow had offspring the two would call elders to divide the herd between them. However, today people have become so dishonest that projects involving pooling money belonging to several people often fail. One or more of those involved will steal some of the money. When that happens the other partners will withdraw from the project. Thus, not only will the project fail, but also the trust which was initially there will be lost. Several informants in the Middle Age Group say that it is a fact that some 0,

:_Xgk\i)

people will already have planned how to steal the money even before a joint project has been embarked upon. Both groups of informants maintain that church elders or people who claim to be Christians have also been known to steal public money. The informants in the Middle Age Group observe that some years back, when there was not much money around, people were more reliable in their jobs. For instance, a person could spend the whole day cultivating for another and earn only two shillings. Today, while casual labourers are paid relatively more, they work less. People have become more interested in money than in good human relationships. The casual employee does not work hard because he does not wish to complete the work and then find that the following day he has nowhere to earn his bread. Some public buildings, such as churches, have stood for years uncompleted partly because people cheat about their giving. When contributions are asked for a person will clasp ‘something’ in his hand and put it in the bag. However, the ‘something’ he places in the bag is a very meagre sum. The informants in the Young Age Group have also observed that people are not ready to trust each other in the matter of money. Although people will readily believe a man who says he has lost a bunch of keys or even a goat, they will not believe him if he says he has lost public money entrusted to him. People are more ready to assume that ‘he has eaten it’ (nĩ kũrĩa arĩĩte). The informants in this group argue that this assumption is justified by the fact that people have been known to steal public money. The informants agree that many people do not have a rational attitude to money. People seem to be little concerned about impoverishing others in their bid to acquire money and some have exploited the ignorance and good will of others. For instance, some young men have been known to beg land title deeds from old men promising to return soon with money. Instead of the promised money, the old men have witnessed their plots being auctioned. Other people have pushed their way into co-operative societies, claiming high qualifications, practical experience overseas and commitment to high ethical standards. Before long they are found to have misappropriated public funds. Several reasons have been given to explain the lack of honesty where money is concerned. Some informants in the Old and Middle Age Groups mention greed. According to an informant in the Old Age Group, many people are led by their stomachs and yet stomachs have no shame and will 0-

? fe\jkp (w~ıhoke ku)

keep on asking for more.79 An informant in the Middle Age Group says that people are apt to forget the proverb, Mĩtĩ ya gĩthanka ndĩigananaga (Trees of a field do not all grow to the same height). In their desire to rise to the level of government ministers some people will even rob banks. Another proverb says, Mũtongi ndatheethũkaga (He who wishes to become wealthy must not become impatient), meaning that a person accumulates wealth patiently. But those who are greedy have no patience.80 According to some informants in the Young Age Group, money is power and the way to good social standing. It is also a means of satisfying the new needs associated with technological advances, such as cars and modern clothes. Since people like to have the high standards of living and the power money gives, they will do anything to get money. Some people will engage in illegal practices such as smuggling of goods for high financial gain. Most of the informants in the Middle Age Group say that money gives a sense of independence, but that this has caused many married people to become alienated from each other. In former times a couple that was having marital problems had to be reconciled sooner or later out of necessity. An offended wife could retaliate by denying her husband food and sexual relations but this could not go on for long. Today, however, if a husband offends his wife she may have to swallow her anger since denying him these things does not necessarily make him be deprived of them. A man with money and who does not particularly wish to be reconciled with his wife can live comfortably for years. There are women to whom he can go, eating places where food can be bought and laundry services are available as well. Similarly, a woman who wants to leave her husband and has money of her own has nothing to stop her. The Middle Age Group generally feels that money has destroyed and continues to destroy “the good and proper living which has beauty (mũtũũrĩre mwega ũrĩ riiri).”81 Some of the informants in the Middle Age Group maintain that the State of Emergency, which the Gĩkũyũ experienced in the mid 1950s, brought their customs and traditions to a rather sudden end. Since then people have largely lived like town people. What seems to have suffered most is the family bond. Therefore, the prevalent attitude towards money must be seen within the context of many other things that have gone wrong. The fact that a son will beat his father over money, a wife will steal her husband’s money and a child will defraud his parents of money is explained, at least partly, by the loss of a meaningful home life and close family ties. However, one 0.

:_Xgk\i)

informant believes that the older generations, that is, people initiated in 1914 or earlier, still firmly hold on to honesty.82

:feZclj`fe From the foregoing it can be concluded that the three age groups understand honesty in basically similar terms. It was reasonable to be honest. That is, it paid to be reliable, to fulfil one’s duties and to keep appointments and promises. When a person was scrupulous in this way people trusted and liked him, and assisted him in his efforts to get wealth and to gain the esteem of the community. He thus had much to gain for being honest. At the community level, moral values such as honesty, uprightness, diligence and generosity were reasonable because they promoted the trust, peace, harmony and good will that were necessary for the well being of society. However, the Old Age Group has the most comprehensive idea about honesty. The idea of diligence (kĩyo) discussed by the Old Age Group is hardly referred to by the other two groups. Also, the Old Age Group’s broad understanding of uprightness (ũthingu) is narrowed down by the Middle Age Group to mean little more beyond sexual fidelity. However, the three age groups demonstrate that their understanding of the conduct referred to as wĩhokeku is broad. From the contributions of the Old and Middle Age Groups it is clear that maturity is regarded as being a most important quality. In this connection, it would seem that the rites of passage had a vital function in inculcating the idea of mature, responsible adulthood. The section on maturity demonstrates also how society taught its members. Parents were the primary teachers. Peers, who had been similarly taught, helped each other to maintain the moral standards that the community required. The three age groups have further shown that in Gĩkũyũ traditional society there is no individual who is exempt from duties and responsibilities to other people. Children and adults alike have a status in society. A person is regarded as reliable or trustworthy when he or she is true to his or her status with respect to the circles of relatives and associates. The three age groups seem to be equally concerned about the growing failure on the part of many people to see money in the right perspective. The groups are generally agreed that many people have valued money so highly that they will use any means, honest or dishonest, to acquire it, including cheating close relatives or friends. They would like to see the traditional attitude to property and to human relationships restored. 0/

2 70 ?C 4 A
"

~TAANA) ><E
It seems probable that the indifferent treatment accorded to the poor was due to a general disapproval of poverty. Many poor were poor because they were lazy or because of some other moral weakness. Therefore, at least some of the poor were regarded as despicable.5 In addition, the poor might 00

:_Xgk\i*

also be ill and people were afraid of them dying in their homes and becoming defiled by them. The host might also fear being accused of poisoning his guest.6 Cagnolo observes that hospitality was so common and warm-hearted that nobody was anxious about what he would eat while on a journey.7 Nevertheless, Cagnolo was of the opinion that Gĩkũyũ generosity was not a virtue because, according to him, it was taken to ridiculous lengths. The Gĩkũyũ “make a fetish of hospitality” because they will give visitors food before being asked.8 Moreover, personal ownership of various articles was interpreted so broadly that a relatively poor person did not need to bother providing himself with household effects. A neighbour never refused to lend. While this might be excusable in the old order, Cagnolo says: Even nowadays that a certain degree of civilization has spread, one may often meet a man wearing the trousers of one, skirt of another, hat of a third one, and having of his own nothing but his body preening itself in its borrowed feathers.9

However, evidence from other sources indicates that traditional Gĩkũyũ society discouraged both parasitic tendencies and prodigality. Generally, cooked food was given liberally. Ornaments and household effects might be borrowed and loaned. Foodstuffs were also at times given to relatives, friends or neighbours. But in spite of this apparent liberality the average individual longed for self-sufficiency. In rather subtle ways society discouraged its members from leaning too heavily on others. The individual who begged too often was despised. A borrowed article could be demanded back any time. Hence such proverbs as (Ũhooi ĩraaragĩria mwana (Begging causes one’s child to sleep hungry); Ithaga rĩene rĩnogagia ngingo (Another’s ornament tires the neck) and Mũhooi ndagaathimaga (A beggar (of meat) does not fry fat).10 Cagnolo comments on what he considers another lavish practice: “In civilized countries one cannot imagine anyone building his house on another man’s land: among the Akikuyu it is an ordinary occurrence.”11 Cagnolo is referring to the well-established custom whereby relatively poor men or families attached themselves to wealthy landowners as tenants-atwill (ahooi) or immigrants (athaami). Also some poor men became voluntary servants (ndungata) of wealthy men in order to earn property.12 These customs were dependent on the generosity of the wealthy landowners. (' '

~ taana) > \e\ifj` kp (u

From what Kenyatta, Leakey and Muriuki say it would seem that these customs were beneficial to all the parties concerned. It is evident also that the initiative for such relationships came from the poor or needy party, who depended on the philanthropy of the wealthy to uplift them. According to Leakey: Men who were poor and who went off to become tenants on the estates of wealthy men did so in the hope that they would be able, gradually, to acquire sufficient wealth to buy land and become the founders of a sub-clan themselves. To become a tenant on one of the big estates was regarded as one of the best stepping stones to ultimate wealth, and the chance of founding a sub-clan of one’s own.13

It was customary for a man who wished to sell his land to give the first option to his tenants. If none of them wished to buy it, he offered it to his richer friends.14 Several authors observe that the Gĩkũyũ attached great importance to mutual help and to the reciprocation of generous deeds.15 Leakey stresses that the village community was a “definite social unit” and that the common ties that bound the villages together included mutual help and mutual defence. Individuals and families alike turned to other members of the village “on innumerable occasions in their daily life.”16 Moreover, helping others and reciprocating a good deed was regarded as a duty for every individual. Defaulters were in danger of having their needs ignored or of being punished.17 However, although it was reasonable to expect help from others, people were unwilling to be exploited. The individual requiring help with manual work had to show that he was requesting others to assist him, not wishing to exploit them. For that reason he had to initiate the work before calling for help. Leakey explains: “By starting the work himself, a man demonstrated both his willingness and his ability to do the necessary work on his own, and gave proof that he was not incompetent and lazy.”18 From the evidence of the literature, it can be concluded that the idea and practice of generosity gave no encouragement to laziness or lack of initiative. This was in keeping with the Gĩkũyũ philosophy of life discussed throughout this study. Generosity presupposes diligence, for the individual must have the wherewithal to be generous. Generosity also presupposes a benevolent disposition. The Gĩkũyũ say, Tha nyũmũ itirĩ kĩguni (Dry sympathy has no benefit). By this they mean that a person who offers sympa(' (

:_Xgk\i*

thy to another following a misfortune must be ready to offer him material help, as well as advice on how he can improve his lot. According to Daniel Mugia, a more recent Gĩkũyũ writer, this should be advice appropriate to his level of understanding and competence. Only when advice is given sensitively can it benefit the one who seeks it.19 There is evidence to show that, in traditional society, men of initiative did not lack good counsel from the prosperous. Itotia says that the Gĩkũyũ distinguished two kinds of envy (ũiru). One type of envy was uncharitable and the person who was envious in this way was constantly looking for ways to harm prosperous people. The other, who had the more acceptable type of envy, saw the success of another and went to him to seek advice on how he too could succeed. Such a person was readily instructed and eventually climbed the ladder from small beginnings.20

~ taana) N_Xk`j^\e\ifj`kp6(u Ũtaana is the quality of being generous or liberal. As far as this quality is concerned, the oral sources distinguish two main types of people in Gĩkũyũ society. There is the generous or liberal person (mũtaana) and the mean or stingy person (mũkarĩ). In the study of generosity these two types of people are constantly compared. The informants in the three age groups distinguish three characteristic qualities of a generous person. The first quality is compassion (tha).21 Compassion for people encourages the generous to be the kind of people they are. In this connection, the Gĩkũyũ say, Ũtaana nĩ tha (Generosity is compassion). The generous person is basically sympathetic towards other people: it is in his nature to be kind. The stingy person lacks sympathy for others and his behaviour causes them to regard him as mean. The second quality is joy (gĩkeno). The informants maintain that a generous person is basically a cheerful person. His joy is prompted by a genuine feeling of goodwill towards other people. He rejoices when he sees another person. His joy and goodwill often express themselves in liberality. A generous person is often referred to as a person who has a good heart (ngoro njega). The stingy person is regarded as having no genuine joy. He does not genuinely rejoice at seeing another person. Such a person is said to have a bad heart (ngoro njũru), that is, to be ill-natured. Generosity will be described through the key words hospitality (ũtugi), help (ũteithio) uprightness (ũthingu) and charity (uuma-andũ).

(')

~ taana) > \e\ifj` kp (u

~ tugi) >\e\ifj`kpXj_fjg`kXc`kp(u

All the informants in the three age groups readily describe generosity as hospitality. The word ũtugi means both kindness and willingness to give. The generous person is hospitable basically because he has compassion for other people and rejoices in being kind to them. Gĩkũyũ traditional custom required that both the casual caller and the invited guest were accorded hospitality to one extent or another. Evidently, this is still commonly practised for the informants in the Young Age Group are apt to think that hospitality is taken so much for granted that a person has to be exceptionally hospitable to qualify as generous. To the informants in the Old and Middle Age Groups, what qualifies a person as generous is the manner in which he offers hospitality. For instance, a generous woman will show joy at seeing a visitor. She will offer the visitor a seat and offer food to him or her fairly quickly. All the time she will be talking cordially to the visitor. A stingy woman, on the other hand, may offer hospitality but she makes it clear to the visitor that she is upset by the visit. She wears an expression of displeasure. Another stands by the entrance of the house and talks to the visitor from that position so that the visitor does not enter the house. In its description of hospitality, the Old Age Group emphasizes that there are three main aspects involved in the practice of hospitality. These include spontaneous giving (kũheeana), offering of a meal to a visitor (kũgagũra) and speed (mĩtũkĩ). Spontaneous giving means giving away willingly what belongs to one. Giving is a gesture expected of anyone who receives visitors at home. The informants say that the visitor ought to be given food without his having to intimate that he is hungry. A generous person will always find something to give, no matter how small. Moreover, a generous person does not wait to be visited: he will sometimes persuade a passer-by to stop and have something to eat. Traditionally, it was a common practice for a person to send for someone else in order to offer him hospitality. In former days, when an elder slaughtered a bull, he sent for the young men of the neighbourhood to come and stretch out the hide to dry. In return, the elder gave the young men their portions of the slaughtered bull, as prescribed by custom. These portions included the right rib, raw fat and blood. The elder sent for the young men because he was obliged by customary law to give local warriors the three ('*

:_Xgk\i*

portions of the bull. But even with respect to such a compulsory custom, it was possible to distinguish between generous and mean elders. The latter slaughtered their animals secretly with the help of family members only. Strictly, kũgagũra (giving breakfast to another) refers to the first meal given to a person on waking up in the morning. The practice, however, is stretched to include any first meal that a person gives to another at any time of the day.22 The same applies to the term mũrooki which means ‘one who visits a home early in the morning.’ Mũrooki is extended to mean anyone who visits a home at any time which can reasonably be regarded as morning. In the traditional practice of hospitality, every morning caller (mũrooki) was given breakfast (ngagũro). As a rule, visitors at other times of the day were also fed. The traditional Gĩkũyũ woman did not allow a person who entered her homestead to leave without eating something. If the caller said he was in a hurry she would reply, “In my home nobody goes away without having breakfast.” An elder might have brewed beer for an invited guest. If someone else called before the invited guest had arrived, he too was given some to drink. According to the informants in the Old Age Group, the practice of giving any caller to a home something to eat developed for two reasons. On the one hand, it was improper for a visitor to beg for food in people’s homes. On the other hand, he could well be very hungry and there was food in the home where he visited. In the days when people travelled on foot, some of the callers to a home could be assumed to be in need of refreshment. By customary rule, anybody had a right to cooked food. Therefore, allowing a visitor to go away unfed was wrong. The Gĩkũyũ believed that if a person who was starving was denied hospitality, he went away angry. If by any chance he should die soon after and should pronounce a ‘dying curse’ (kĩĩgau) on those who had been unkind to him, the curse would affect them. It was therefore wise to have a guest leave refreshed and pleased.23 The third thing mentioned by the Old Age Group is speed (mĩtũkĩ). In a sense, quick service was the essence of hospitality. The Gĩkũyũ have a saying, Ũtaana nĭ mĩtũkĩ (Generosity is speed). What distinguishes the generous person from the stingy person is the sense of urgency he puts into the matter of giving hospitality. Stingy people delay their offer of food in the hope that the visitor will give up waiting and go on his way. Quite often, the stingy betray themselves by the way they respond to callers. Compare two women who are told that some company has arrived. The generous one will most likely say, “Let them sit down, I am bringing food.” The stingy (' +

~ taana) > \e\ifj` kp (u

one will say, “So we have visitors, I will cook then (Nĩngũkĩruga).”24 Also when a generous man brings a visitor home he ensures that the visitor is given something to eat as soon as possible. But a stingy man will sit talking with his companion for a long time before he orders food. Usually, by the time he comes round to ordering the food the visitor is ready to go away. According to the Old Age Group, a host or hostess should assume that a visitor is in urgent need of refreshments. To delay hospitality is to act ungenerously. The Middle Age Group has basically the same ideas as the Old Age Group. Informants in this group emphasize the ideas of welcoming (kũnyiita ũgeni), speed (mĩtũki) and giving (kũheeana). Kũnyiita ũgeni refers to all that goes with welcoming a guest, feeding him and generally making him comfortable. The informants in this group stress the value of engaging a visitor in cordial talk (mĩario mĩega) as this makes even an unexpected visitor feel welcome and loved. If the unexpected visitor is somebody who has entered a home seeking accommodation because darkness has overtaken him, giving him hospitality involves giving him enough food to eat and finding him a place to sleep. In some cases, accommodation might be a matter of spreading dry banana leaves on the floor since there may not be a better accommodation available. On his departure, the guest is advised on the best way to get to his destination. Some informants in this group observe that, in a polygamous home, not all wives are good at making guests feel welcome. But there is usually one wife who is excellent at hospitality and the husband tends to take his visitors to her.25 In connection with speed, the Middle Age Group feels it is a good policy to offer food to a visitor before relaxing to talk. This is because the visitor could well be longing for food. In this connection, an informant has quoted the proverb, Ng’aragu ndĩhooyagwo ũhoro (Hunger is never asked to relate its story).26 According to the informants in this group, giving within the context of hospitality involves providing small amounts of foodstuffs for the visitor to take away. This is a common practice among women. Regarding hospitality, the Young Age Group informants observe that, unlike former days when it was usual for people to offer visitors a serving of food (rũiga rũa irio), today the usual thing to give is tea. Nevertheless, what matters in hospitality is whether the visitor feels welcome or not. The attitude shown to the visitor is more important than the actual treatment. For that reason, one visitor might sleep on the floor and go away feeling he (' ,

:_Xgk\i*

has received proper hospitality while another may sleep in a comfortable bed and yet not feel welcome. The informants in the Young Age Group observe that where women visitors are concerned, part of the practice of hospitality involves giving them some foodstuffs, such as sweet potatoes, to take away. ~teithio) >\e\ifj`kpXj_\cg(u

Generosity has also been described as help (ũteithio). Following are the ideas of the three age groups regarding help. The word gũteithia means “to help, to assist, to aid”, or “to put oneself at the disposal of and assist with.” The informants make three general comments in connection with help. First, in order for a person to help another he must have some sympathy for him. The generous person is essentially compassionate. Secondly, what counts as help is sometimes in the form of material things and sometimes in the form of counsel. Thirdly, the generous person does not reserve his help only to his relatives and friends. He considers that anybody in need deserves whatever help he can give. Therefore, some of the recipients of his help may be strangers. As the word uteithio suggests, most of the help the generous person is required to give is merely supportive but help given in time of dire need is vital as it may aid in rescuing someone from imminent death. The informants in the Old Age Group describe help in such terms as hatũra (extricate), gitĩra mũoyo (safeguard life) and hubũra (uncover). When the informants describe generosity as help that extricates, they are thinking of someone who helps another to achieve an end that the latter could not achieve without that help. Acts of that kind of help continually take place in society. For instance, in traditional society it was an accepted practice that an elder would give a young man a cow to help him to marry. This kind of aid was more or less obligatory among clansmen. When a non-clansman gave this type of help it was given out of sheer generosity. Someone could lend or give a garment to someone who was visiting a place and wished to look presentable. Sometimes a woman would give some of her firewood to another who had finished her own. In traditional society it was considered a gesture of generosity when a young man courted a girl on behalf of someone else (kũhira) thus enabling him to marry her.27 Also, sometimes a man went to an elder and told him (' -

~ taana) > \e\ifj` kp (u

he wished to be initiated into divination (gũkunũrũo), but he did not have all the things he needed such as skins and honey. The elder gave him what he required, telling him, “Do the necessary.” According to the informants in the Old Age Group, acts of generosity regarded as ways of ‘safe-guarding life’ are basically those that rescue people from starvation and from imminent death. For instance, in former days when famine struck one area, people went to seek foodstuffs in distant parts of the country and brought it back so that those in dearth were saved from complete starvation. This practice was known as gũthogora (procure food from a distant place). People who had food generally shared it with those who were experiencing famine, especially as famine did not hit the whole country at the same time. Similarly, a poor family could obtain vital help from the local rich men within the locality who had flocks, herds and granaries of grain. If a poor family was much afflicted by famine, an elder could approach a rich man in the neighbourhood and enter into an arrangement known as kũgwatia mwana (to attach a child). The poor man would promise to attach one of his growing daughters to the home of the rich man in exchange for provisions every time the family suffered hunger. The child who had been promised grew up in her own home until she was of marriageable age. At the appropriate time the rich man gave a token of marriage payment (rũraacio) to the poor man to complete marriage negotiations for her. This served to show clansmen that the girl was married. According to an informant in this group, this arrangement was a better alternative for the poor than resorting to stealing. There was also always a fair chance that the girl might have chosen to marry into that home anyway.28 However, appeals by the poor to the wealthy to rescue them in time of great dearth did not always involve marriage contracts. A widely known song, sung during the clearing of land for cultivation, suggests that some promises were commonplace: Itonga cia mbũri na cia ng’ombe Tũguneei nĩtwathira Na ithuĩ nĩtũkaamũguna Na macungu wathima. Rich men with goats and cattle Succour us, we perish

('.

:_Xgk\i*

We in turn will succour you With vegetables during the rains.29

It was also common for a woman who had harvested her crops to give some to another woman simply because she knew the latter had not harvested anything. According to the Old Age Group, another practice that shows how a generous person helped another was itega (presents of foodstuffs and other commodities). Itega was taken to a relative or a friend during a special occasion. The occasion might be the birth of a baby, an initiation ceremony or a visit by in-laws. Traditionally, itega served to make it possible for its recipient to entertain his guests and casual callers generously. The person who gave itega was therefore releasing facilities (kũhubũra) so that his friend or relative had plenty of food with which to practice hospitality. Itega was also a gesture by the giver that he respected the recipient. Itega carried some measure of obligation, the degree of obligation depending on the degree of mutual respect in the case of friends, and the closeness of blood relationship in the case of relatives. Generally, a bigger itega was given to a relative than to a friend. To give an example of how itega was conducted: when an elder planned an initiation ceremony, he informed his friends and relatives. The friend or relative informed his wife who, in turn, gathered her women friends and asked them to bring a small load (mburungo) of foodstuff to her home on some appointed day and time. Meantime the elder, being the one giving the itega, rallied his friends and relatives to help him accumulate a good-sized itega. On the appointed day the women would bring the various loads of food to his home. They were counted and the convoy set out to the home where the itega was to be taken. The elder took the lead with a bull and with one woman who carried the honey he had been collecting. He would have sent word that he was taking itega on a certain day. Later, when he himself had a need, he would inform those to whom he had given itega so that they could reciprocate the help. That way people kept each other under obligation.30 In their description of generosity as help, the informants in the Middle Age Group distinguish between material and non-material help. The former involves things given by one person to another. The latter involves giving counsel or advice. Help is meant to benefit the recipient in one way or another. Material help could, for instance, get somebody out of a mere (' /

~ taana) > \e\ifj` kp (u

inconvenience or out of dire need. What matters is not the amount of help but rather the fact that one person feels the obligation to help another. Some of the informants observed that when a person dies what people remember most about him is his generosity. Another observation is that during times of famine the poor people remember the generous because these are the people who sustain them. The generous person is essentially a person who is sensitive to the needs of others and is in sympathy with them. In this connection, some people have been known to give building sites to the destitute. Others have used their vehicles to transport people whom they do not know but who are sick, to hospital without asking for payment. A generous person may also decide to help a boy who wants to be circumcised but has nobody to provide facilities for him. During communal work, such as building a hut for somebody, a generous person will not only take part in the work but will also provide some food to the work party. This is because he reckons that the person being helped to build might find it difficult to provide enough food for all the people involved. The Young Age Group has also described generosity as help. The informants in this group believe that sympathy for or appreciation of another’s need is what motivates people to give help. People who have sympathy for others do not wait to be appealed to but will help spontaneously. According to the Young Age Group, the generous person does not give because he has an abundance of things. Rather, he shares what he has because other people are more needy or less fortunate than him. Thus, a woman could have planned to prepare some foodstuff for her family when another woman who has nothing to cook for her family calls on her. The generous woman will share the foodstuff and may consequently have less to cook for her own family. This shows that the generous person is prepared to sacrifice something for the sake of another. Another person might come to learn about a boy who wants to go to school but lacks finances. When the person helps the boy, it is because he fully sympathizes with the boy’s plight. According to the Young Age Group, generous people are the ones mainly responsible for the success of self-help projects because they give generously. They are keen to see a project that is meant to help people succeed to completion. In their deep sympathy with other people the generous people are concerned about the most appropriate kind of help to give in time of (' 0

:_Xgk\i*

need. Thus a woman who is mourning her husband’s death is shown sympathy and support by other women when they do certain jobs for her, such as harvesting her potatoes. According to the three age groups then, the various ways in which people help each other are expressions of generosity. ~thingu) >\e\ifj`kpXjlgi`^_ke\jj(u

Here only the ideas of the Old Age and Middle Age groups are described since the Young Age Group says nothing about uprightness. The word ũthingu is mentioned in all the themes being treated in this study, and under each theme an aspect of uprightness relevant to that theme is described.31 Under generosity, the word means both gentleness and inoffensiveness. According to the Old Age Group, ũthingu means uprightness or righteousness. The quality of ũthingu is found in people whose first concern in the community is to promote peace and goodwill. Their neighbours regard such people as generous because their very lives are exemplary. What they give to other people is a good example and this by itself is looked on as help. They are described as being gentle (ahooreri) and as having a ‘good mouth’ (kanua keega).32 A person who is said to have a ‘good mouth’ does not offend people by the words he speaks. For instance, he does not insult other people. What is even more appreciated, however, is that the upright man or woman, the one who is said to have kanua kega is essentially a generous person. His words can be taken at their face value because he is a person who does not flatter people in order to obtain things or favours from them. If anything, he is noble and his words are usually wise. The upright person is so regarded because in society there are people who earn their living through deceitful talk. They are described as having ndĩĩra kanua (a deceitful mouth) by some of the informants in the Old Age Group. When such people speak they strike the listener as cordial, considerate, wise and interesting and as people who always have something good to say about their listeners. But in fact, what the person is doing is to flatter his victims so that he can extract something material or a favour from them. People who have come to know ndĩĩra kanua well, know them as crafty people who are always getting and never giving; they are mean and of no benefit to anyone but themselves. To the Old Age Group then, uprightness, which is the quality of gentleness or inoffensiveness, is one aspect of generosity. (('

~ taana) > \e\ifj` kp (u

~) >\e\ifj`kpXjZ_Xi`kp(uuma-andu

The quality described as uuma-andũ is essential in all forms of generosity. Uuma-andũ means charity, philanthropy or kindness. It is also another word for generosity. A generous person is also described as a muuma-andũ, meaning that he is a charitable or a particularly kind person. Much of what is said in the other key words, namely hospitality, help and uprightness, could therefore be repeated under charity. However, there are certain qualities of the generous person that are better described under uuma-andũ than under a quality like hospitality. They are not prominent but they do mark out some people as particularly generous. According to some informants in the Old Age Group, there are people who enchant a neighbourhood through their acts of consideration. These acts show them up as being more than usually preoccupied with the welfare of their neighbours. In traditional society, these were the people who disregarded the strict requirements of traditional law in favour of the people with whom they dealt. For instance, traditional law required that if an animal died while under the care of a custodian, the custodian should give the carcass to the owner of the dead animal. A muuma-andũ, however, might tell the custodian that if any of his animals should die he could deal with the carcass as he saw fit. He also told the custodian he could slaughter a goat of his from time to time if he so desired.33 A muuma-andũ also kept a calabash of beer ready for uninvited guests who might call in his home. The warriors also knew that there was one elder who always allowed them to enter his home any time and drink milk. If they needed blood, he gave them arrows (mĩguĩ) and told them to go into the herd and draw blood to their satisfaction. Not every elder was generous to this extent.

K_\`[\XcgiXZk`Z\f]^\e\ifj`kp Although the Gĩkũyũ value generosity, the informants in the Old and Middle Age groups do not consider generosity as a moral value unless it is practised in moderation and unless it is controlled by a sense of justice. Some of the informants in both groups make reference to ‘bad generosity’ (ũtaana mũũru), prodigality (ũitangi) and ‘generosity without a sense of justice’ (ũtaana ũtarĩ kĩhooto). From the responses of the informants in both groups it is evident that what the Gĩkũyũ regard as generosity is the practice that is midway between prodigality and stinginess (ũkarĩ). It is also evident from the responses of the informants that the reason for this is that there are many people who take advantage of people who are too liberal in giving away their material (((

:_Xgk\i*

possessions. Ideally, a generous person is not prodigal. On the other hand, there are people who are so careful with their possessions as to be regarded stingy. Whereas the majority of people do not expect to subsist on the generosity of other people, those who are too mean could deny generosity to really deserving cases and, for that reason, earn the ill will of others. People are normally reluctant to rush to the aid of those who have a reputation for meanness. The wise person therefore strikes a balance between too much and too little liberality. Regarding prodigality (ũitangi), there are people who do not know the limits of giving. Their hospitality is extravagant and they cannot deny anyone anything asked of them. Such are the hosts or hostesses who entertain guests lavishly, quite beyond what they can comfortably afford. Such people are regarded as unwise. In traditional society they were likened to a Muroki character in a Gĩkũyũ folk story whose cattle got finished because he gave them away to his visitors liberally.34 A prodigal woman does not realize that she should store some of her garden produce (kũiga kĩgĩĩna) in order to sustain her until the next harvest. For instance, when she harvests millet she is so obliging that every woman who visits her and begs for a little is given some. In the end, she finds that the main purpose for which she had grown the millet is not accomplished. Such a woman ends up begging seed to plant in spite of the fact that she had harvested like other women. Since some people give to their own detriment, an informant in the Old Age Group observes that a sense of justice is vital where generosity is concerned.35 A person who gives his material possessions in order to help other people must not give them the impression that they can continue to obtain things from him easily. They must not think that they have merely ‘come across things’ (gũkora). A generous person gives out of a sense of the justice (kĩhooto) that teaches that in a community people are obliged to aid each other, but it should not encourage laziness. The lazy must not be allowed to think that they can continue to subsist on the liberality of their neighbours.36 For this reason, another informant in the Old Age Group says that the generous person should practise stinginess towards certain people because in so doing he helps such people to value self-sufficiency.37

N_p^\e\ifj`kp`jmXcl\[ The sections that have described generosity as hospitality and as help have shown that much of generosity involves giving away one’s possessions to other people. In practising hospitality, the generous person goes out of his way in order to feed his guests and make them feel welcome. Since generos(()

~ taana) > \e\ifj` kp (u

ity involves a certain amount of inconvenience on the part of the generous, why then it is valued? The informants give a number of reasons why the Gĩkũyũ value generosity. First, it is important that anybody in need should receive the help he requires. Especially the informants in the Old Age Group emphasize that people have a right to expect help from others. A hungry person should obtain food at once. That is why one of the features of traditional practice of hospitality is speed (mĩtũkĩ). The informants in this group point out that traditional society enjoined every individual to regard himself as having some responsibility for sustaining other people’s lives. This obligation was symbolically emphasized every time a baby was born. As soon as a woman gave birth, her husband went to fetch foodstuffs for her from other people’s gardens. According to some of the informants, a new mother is in sudden need of food and her community must make this available.38 Also, a traveller who calls on a home might well be in urgent need of refreshments and these must be available. Secondly, generosity promotes goodwill between people. When people have experienced the generosity of others, they respond by showing gratitude to them. Quite often, gratitude is expressed in terms of other generous deeds so that generosity is reciprocated. Informants in all three age groups maintain that when people keep seeing each other in the course of reciprocating generosity, they maintain their mutual sympathy. The Old Age Group informants also point out that where there is goodwill, life is safeguarded. As mentioned in the section describing hospitality, the traditional Gĩkũyũ believed that the curse of a dying person could cause misfortune and even death to those affected by it. Since a person dying of hunger could easily curse those who had denied him food, hospitality was a check against the ill will that might cause misfortune and death.39 Thirdly, to a large extent, generosity guarantees the welfare of the generous. God is supposed to guarantee good fortune to the generous person. Luck (mũnyaka) attends him, and when his affairs prosper, people attribute his welfare to his generosity.40 One of the descriptive terms for a generous person is ‘one who is favoured by wealth (mwendwo nĩ irĩ).’ The generous person’s welfare is also due to the goodwill extended to him by those who have benefited from his giving, his counsel, his demeanour or his charitable ways. People do not subject generous people to the mischief that they play on stingy ones. According to the informants in the Old Age Group a generous man hardly ever lost his livestock from theft. The community ((*

:_Xgk\i*

around him protected his animals even from thieves who might come from some distance away. On the other hand, a stingy man’s sheep and goats were continually being stolen as a form of punishment, often by his very neighbours. Generosity is also regarded as an insurance against scarcity. Several informants in the Middle Age Group quote the proverb, Mũoni ũmũũthi ti we mũoni rũũciũ (He who has today is not the one who has tomorrow). According to them, the possibility that some day one could lack while others have is a good reason for sharing whatever one happens to have. In this connection, another informant in the Middle Age Group quotes the proverb, Kũheeana nĩ kũiga (To give is to deposit). Explaining this proverb, the informant says that a generous person does not only cater for his own future welfare but also for that of his children since people extend their generosity to the descendents of a generous person.41 Other informants say that generosity is valued because nobody can possibly be completely self-sufficient. In a community where generosity is an accepted way of life, people feel free to beg and borrow things from each other and to share with each other whatever they have. Some informants in the Young Age Group observe that in fact people are often forced by their social environment to be generous because the stingy lose goodwill. The fourth reason why generosity is valued is that generosity helps to promote the spirit of co-operation in the community. The informants in the Middle and Young Age groups observe that many of the self-help projects that have succeeded have been supported by generous people. As a consequence, people who might not naturally be generous are encouraged to support the projects more generously than they would otherwise have done. Finally, generosity is valued because it induces people to be diligent. Several informants in the Old and Middle Age groups quote the proverb, Mũtaana nĩ ũrĩ gĩa kũheeana (The generous is he who has something to give). Such a person ensures that he has sufficient, not just to cater for his own needs but in order to be generous to others. To make this possible, he needs to be a diligent worker. This was especially true in traditional society where everything depended on land tillage.

KiX[`k`feXcnXpjf]\e]fiZ`e^^\e\ifj`kp Since generosity was highly valued, Gĩkũyũ society had various ways of encouraging people to be generous. Although one would expect people to ((+

~ taana) > \e\ifj` kp (u

be generous in a society where the benefits of possessing this virtue were so evident, Gĩkũyũ society was not content to leave things to chance. The society made certain that the obligation to be generous was impressed on its members. In the words of a Middle Age Group informant: “Generosity is valued because people want to have others they can trust around them.”42 Gĩkũyũ society employed several measures to enforce generosity. Both positive and negative measures generally aimed at encouraging generosity and discouraging lack of generosity. Some of the measures are still employed today. The first of the positive measures was the praise that was openly and liberally given to generous people. All the informants in the Old Age Group state that a generous person enjoyed a good reputation (ngumo njega). His reputation would spread to distant places through travellers to whom he had given hospitality. Also, people whom he had helped in various ways spoke in his praise when they went back home. Many people thus came to know a generous person by reputation (na ngumo) and those who did extended their goodwill to him. People whom he did not know but who knew of him by reputation, took every opportunity to show him kindness. On account of him, his relatives and friends were given warm hospitality when they visited places where his reputation had spread. Within his own neighbourhood a generous person was liked. According to an informant in the Old Age Group, “People found no fault with a generous person.”43 That is, since he had a benevolent nature, nobody accused him of malice, theft or witchcraft. When somebody tried to defame a generous person, other people defended him and so attempts to spoil his reputation were fruitless. Many times the generous person was not aware of the ‘victories won’ on his behalf. However, if it should happen that somebody planned to harm him, someone was bound to warn him so that he could take precautions. According to the Old Age Group, one of the terms of praise used for a generous person was njamba (courageous person or person of prowess). This term was used mostly to praise people whose bravery or diligence in tilling the land was combined with generosity. A mean person, however rich or brave, was not praised simply because he did not benefit people. According to an informant in this group, a person who had possessions but was mean was perpetually being cursed. Whenever his name was mentioned someone was bound to say, “Aroaga! Kwĩ mũndũ kũu? Aroaga! Nĩ ciakĩ?” Roughly translated, this means: “What kind of a person is that? May he lack possessions for there is no point of him having things he will not share.” ((,

:_Xgk\i*

In connection with praise, the Middle and the Young Age groups do not have much to say. Several informants in the Middle Age Group, however, say that in former days people found occasion to extol (kũraha) those who had done commendable acts such as rescuing stolen animals and restoring them to the owners. Some of the informants believe that normally when people are introduced to a generous person, it is partly so that they can extend their love to him. An informant in this group also says that in traditional society people showed openly that they trusted a generous person. For instance, a generous elder was often asked to take custody of people’s animals because he was known to be considerate and to treat other people’s animals well. People would tell him that they trusted him. Several informants in the Young Age Group simply said that a generous person was respected. A second measure for enforcing generosity was the way gratitude (ngaatho) was expressed in traditional society. In a sense the first measure described above, ngumo njega (good reputation) and gratitude are related. People praised those individuals to whom they felt gratitude. According to the Old Age Group, ngaatho is the remembrance of a good deed done. A person who had received some generosity from another expressed gratitude verbally more or less immediately. But he also felt indebted to his benefactor and therefore felt obliged to give him a token of the respect in which he held him. He expressed his gratitude to the generous person in more than words. The informants in the Old Age Group give some examples to illustrate what they mean by gratitude (ngaatho). The practice of itega, described under the key word help, was usually an expression of gratitude. A person would give itega to reciprocate an itega given to him at a time when he was in need. An elder might be invited for a drink and, while he is holding his horn of beer, he sees a man passing by who once helped him out of some difficulty. He would immediately call him to come and drink from the horn. Ideally, ngaatho is shown at a time when the generous person has all but forgotten a good deed done to someone. The informants in all three age groups stress that gratitude is not payment. Sometimes the circumstances might compel a person to show ngaatho immediately. However, this is not considered a good thing because gratitude might then be interpreted as payment. In fact, many generous people refuse to take what may look like payment. Ideally, ngaatho is supposed to indicate that the action of the ((-

~ taana) > \e\ifj` kp (u

generous person is not taken for granted. The person who has cause to be grateful to another usually waits until his benefactor has some need, and then expresses his gratitude. For instance, a woman could help another and nothing special passes between them for two or three years. But when, for example, the one to whom she was generous learns that she has fallen ill, or that she is experiencing a shortage of food, she will visit her at once, taking some foodstuffs with her. The custom of expressing gratitude in this way produced two desirable results. First, in the course of reciprocating relatively small acts of generosity, good friendships developed between people. The informants in the three age groups maintain that strong bonds of friendship are established on account of the remembrance of a generous deed. Some of the friendships started as the result of mere acquaintance can become lasting. In this connection, several informants in the Old Age Group quote the proverb, Ndũgũ yumaga njĩrainĩ (Friendship sprouts through meetings on the road). Second, the friendships thus established were sustained through the perpetual indebtedness people felt towards each other. This was because anybody who received some ngaatho felt obliged also to return ngaatho. The Gĩkũyũ therefore say, Ngaatho ĩthingatagio ĩngĩ (Gratitude should follow close upon another (gratitude).44 Third, protection was given to the property of the generous person. According to the Old Age Group, a generous man hardly ever lost his cattle. If raiders struck his home and drove away the cattle, a great number of people responded to the alarm raised and the cattle were rescued. The property of a generous man was safeguarded because people argued, “If we let the property of a generous man go, how will he continue to give?” On the other hand, if the raid involved a stingy man, hardly anybody responded to the alarm.45 According to an informant in the Old Age Group, one reason why people were generous to anybody in need rather than only to their friends and relatives was the consideration, “If I am not generous, who will respond to my alarm?”46 Fourth, people showed willingness to labour in the fields of a generous person. According to the Old Age Group, a generous person did not lack people to work for him. Since his fields were well cultivated, he usually had plenty of foodstuffs with which to practise hospitality.

((.

:_Xgk\i*

Gĩkũyũ society also had several ways of discouraging meanness. The informants in the Old Age Group explain that in traditional society all forms of meanness were regarded as offences against the reasonable order of things (kĩhooto). Several informants stated that “generosity is justice (ũtaana nĩ guo kĩhooto).”47 To be mean was to conduct oneself unjustly. For this reason meanness was discouraged in rather strong and definite ways. The following are some of the measures employed by society to discourage meanness. First, public opinion was strong against the mean man or woman. The informants in the Old Age Group provide several expressions that society used to ridicule stingy people. A stingy person was referred to as one whose arm was contracted so that it could not perform the act of giving. He was also referred to as njara mboko (crooked arm) because it was as if his arm was deformed and could not stretch out to give. Another expression used to describe the miser was, “ngundi njiru mugiruo nĭ ka (the dark fist to whom it is taboo to say, take).”48 In other words, the stingy person was viewed as clenching his fists to hold on tightly to whatever he had in his hand, under the mistaken idea that giving would bring him harm. Second, the term that aptly described the lot of the ungenerous was mũũri (one bound to be lost). It refers to a fugitive, an ill-fated person and a solitary, unsociable person. The necessary isolation and bad fortune of the miserly is implied in the word. According to the informants in the Old Age Group, people stole things belonging to a stingy person simply because he was a mũũri. Their argument was: “What does mũũri own property for?” In this connection, another term used to refer to the ungenerous was mũimwo-nĩ-irĩ (one destitute of wealth). Since people talked freely, the ungenerous knew that they were regarded with contempt. The degree of contempt varied from person to person as not all of them were pronounced misers, but all mean people felt isolated. To illustrate this, an informant in the Middle Age Group quotes the proverb, Mũkarĩ nĩ mũrĩa gake (The stingy person eats his own little thing). Another informant in this group quotes the proverb, Mũkarĩ nĩ mũrĩa wiki (The stingy person eats alone). The Old Age Group has shown, under the description of positive measures, that whereas people readily responded to the alarms of a generous person, they were not enthusiastic about rushing to the rescue of property belonging to a miser. Nor were neighbours keen to work for a stingy person.

((/

~ taana) > \e\ifj` kp (u

Third, mean people were subjected to some light-hearted mischief. The mischief was meant to vex them enough to realize that it paid to be generous. According to informants in the Old Age Group, young people were particularly good at playing mischief on stingy women. It was the habit of young people to visit homes of neighbours and spend the evenings together. Sometimes they visited several homes in one evening. Wherever they visited they were usually given something to eat. At times they purposely visited women whom they knew to be stingy in order to spoil their food. Sometimes they timed the visit to coincide with the time when food cooking on the hearth would be almost ready to serve. The woman might delay removing the pot from the hearth in the hope they would tire of waiting and go. If they lingered too long she would eventually serve the food. By this time the food would be overcooked and the young people would refuse to eat it. Other times they simply said they had already eaten and were not hungry. Then they would go, leaving the woman annoyed. On other occasions, according to the informants in the Old and Middle Age groups, the young people found opportunity to throw soot, snuff, or the droppings of goats into the cooking pot of a stingy woman. When she served the food it was found to be unfit to eat. These experiences were not only annoying but also embarrassing. Yet the woman could not complain because she knew she had become an object of mischief due to her stinginess.49 Several informants in the Old and Middle Age groups quote the Gĩkũyũ saying, Cia mũka mũkarĩ iriĩagwo na mambura (The stingy woman’s food is only eaten during a ritual). According to the informants, a time comes when even the stingy woman has to open her home and provide food. Such occasions included the circumcision of her children. During the precircumcision celebrations, when people went to her home in numbers, her food was eaten extravagantly. Her granaries were raided and people ensured they exhausted her stocks of foodstuff. Fourth, the ungenerous were sometimes subjected to more serious mischief such as theft and destruction of property. As mentioned above, people stole from a mũũri. They took his things, not because they were destitute, nor because they approved of stealing, but simply because they believed a mũũri had no need for owning property since he did not practise generosity. Neighbours were also not ready to protect the crops of a stingy woman. An informant in the Young Age Group remembers a song he used to sing with other children while herding animals:

((0

:_Xgk\i*

Mbũri mũgũnda Wa mũka mũkarĩ Marĩĩaga na ũ? Ĩ, Na mũrũme. Goat in the pot Of a stingy woman Who eats with her? Surely her husband.50

Children were punished if they allowed animals to enter people’s gardens. However, ungenerous women or men could expect the destruction of their crops by animals. Due to the seriousness of some of the mischief the people might play on the ungenerous person, rich men were particularly careful not to annoy the poor through meanness. Since murder was punished by compensation with goats, a poor man had really nothing to lose if he should kill. According to an informant in the Old Age Group, a rich man feared that stinginess on his part might provoke a poor man to anger. The turn of events might lead to the rich man being killed by a man who “has nothing of his that can be confiscated (ũtarĩ kĩndũ angioywo)” and thus his killing would not be compensated.51 Fifth, direct punishment of the offender discouraged lack of generosity. Punishment was meted out by the ungenerous person’s own family, by his peer group or by warriors. According to the Old Age Group, the warriors, whose responsibilities included keeping law and order, could beat up big boys for their stinginess and other antisocial tendencies. The warriors also beat up stingy initiated girls when they went dancing, ‘for giving us a bad reputation.’ If a bride was discovered to be stingy and rude to her husband, she was upbraided and beaten up by warriors who were her own relatives because she caused them embarrassment. If an elder persistently failed to invite warriors to obtain their portions of meat when he slaughtered bulls, they punished him by imposing a fine of a ram or a bull (ngoima) as they thought fit. They also fined an elder who put a spell on his plot of sugarcane, thus forbidding people to use it. A stingy elder might also be ordered by his age mates to slaughter an animal (ngoima) for them because he had ‘denied age mates something.’ According to an informant in this group, people watched and disciplined each other over lack of generosity and other antisocial tendencies. ()'

~ taana) > \e\ifj` kp (u

These were the common measures taken to enforce generosity. An informant in the Old Age Group observed that for a small generous deed a person was rewarded with much gratitude. For stinginess over such a common thing like cooked food a person was subjected to much harm.52 Generosity was therefore regarded as reasonable conduct.

>\e\ifj`kp`edf[\iek`d\j Generosity was highly valued in Gĩkũyũ society and for that reason severe sanctions were employed to enforce it. What about the modern period? How has it affected the Gĩkũyũ attitude to generosity and to its practice? The views of each of the three age groups were sounded on this question. According to the Old Age Group, the two basic types of people, the generous and the stingy are still to be found in modern Gĩkũyũ society. The people who were formerly generous with food are today generous with money to one extent or other. Today, the generous person is the person who meets someone he has not seen for some time and tells him to enter an eating place and have some tea. Another meets someone, and on realizing that his acquaintance has not got much money, gives him some bus fare, or a little money ‘to buy sugar.’ However, the Old Age Group is of the opinion that there are more stingy people in the modern period than there were traditionally. According to an informant in this group, when people talk of generosity today, they should not use the traditional yardstick. Because, if the traditional yardstick is used, then “none is good.”53 The fact that people have money and that there are public eating places means that people can now show hospitality anywhere they meet. In former times hospitality was centred in the home because that was where food and goats, the means of showing generosity, were found. The informants in the Old Age Group, although they admit money to be a great convenience, believe that it has caused problems with respect to the practice of generosity. Many people think that dishing out money generously is extravagant. Therefore, people do not give money to those they do not know. Formerly, a person’s possessions came from the land he tilled. He used the food for nourishment and as gifts. Today, a person’s food as well as what he gives away has to come from wages earned. Often, wages hardly cover needs. For this reason people cannot afford to be liberal with money. This state of affairs affects people’s generosity. Modern generosity now depends to a large extent on one’s degree of acquaintance (kĩmenyano). Someone gives to someone else because they were in school together, ()(

:_Xgk\i*

because they were circumcised together, or because they are related to each other. The traditional idea of giving to anyone (o mũndũ) does not apply today. Some of the informants in the Old Age Group believe that some people have become stingy because of contemptuousness (kũira). People may look at a poor, unkempt person and decide that he is not worth his gift. According to one informant in this group, this attitude of contempt for the poor is a new development. Formerly, the rich were careful not to give the poor any cause to retaliate by showing unreasonable contempt.54 The informants in the Old Age Group also believe that today people exercise undue economy of food which, in effect, makes them stingy. In former days, the attitude people held in connection with food was that cooked food does not cost goats (irio hĩu itiumaga mbũri). Cooked food was not sold or bartered: it was cooked to be eaten. Today, people would rather throw away cooked food which they cannot use than call a passer-by to come and eat it. The result is that some people suffer hunger while their neighbours have food to spare. According to an informant in the Old Age Group, modern Gĩkũyũ people are characterized by individualism or ‘the care of my own thing.’ People are therefore not concerned about maintaining the bonds that made the idea of giving meaningful. For instance, since clansmen are not involved in the marriage ceremonies of children, the practice of itega becomes redundant. Individualism has also rendered the idea of gratitude (ngaatho) meaningless. To the Old Age Group, many people seem to be self-sufficient in a way not understood by traditional society. People do not seem to think that they will ever need their neighbours. So they are steadily killing the idea of mutual indebtedness in society. The Middle Age Group also has several things to say about the modern period and generosity. First, this group agrees with the Old Age Group that the introduction of the cash economy has made the expression of generosity more instantaneous than was possible in the past. In former days one had to visit someone at home to be offered hospitality but today food can be offered to someone in any number of eating places. Second, this group believes that although there are still generous people today, money has on the whole affected people’s generosity negatively. People tend to ‘count money too much’ so that they are hesitant to give it away. For instance, people are no longer willing to work for others unless they are paid. A ())

~ taana) > \e\ifj` kp (u

woman would prefer to sell her maize and buy herself some sugar, rather than to give the maize to a new mother. According to the informants, the idea of itega is dying because people regard it more and more as debt (thiirĩ) and people want to be free of debts. According to the Young Age Group, even today there are people who seem to be born generous. These are individuals who give from a genuine desire to help others. However, there are few such people. Today, many people feel obliged to support only their wives, children and close relatives. Others who would be willing to give money find that they do not have enough of it. The more people sell their assets for money, the less they are able to give. Among the causes this group cites as decreasing generosity are inflation, overcrowding in the rural areas, growing individualism and the fact that life is becoming too rushed, especially for the younger generations. Some of the informants in the Young Age Group observed that education has had an effect on people’s generosity. Many people assume that they will not be welcome in the home of educated people. According to this group, rich people also tend to keep the company of other rich people and in that way forego the opportunity to show generosity to the less fortunate.

:feZclj`fe With respect to generosity as a moral value in traditional society, it can be concluded that it was valued mainly because it promoted the well being of the community and the welfare of the individuals in that community. The individual and the community needed each other. The individual might indeed have an impulse to help others in need. But he also had to consider his personal security since society could be either a threat to or a guarantee of that security. Therefore, those who were generous catered for their own good as well as for the good of others. The stingy were as much their own enemies as they were the enemies of the community. In due course, the generous person was rewarded for his generosity for the process of reciprocating kindness really had no end. Society had no patience with fools, whether they were rich or poor. Wisdom was more important than liberality for the fool will give and still be scorned in spite of his giving. To give indiscriminately was tantamount to prodigality. Although people did not decline gifts from the prodigal, they did not approve of him for he ended up impoverished. Ideally, generosity was supposed to be practised in such a way that it did not encourage people to depend on the charity of their neighbours. People were encouraged to be ()*

:_Xgk\i*

self-sufficient. To be stingy in giving was to lack a sense of justice. Not to give at all was foolish; what society advocated was moderation in giving. Wisdom in this sense was the ability to maintain a cordial relationship with other people, whether one parted with one’s substance or not.

()+

2 70 ?C 4 A
#


ALJK@:<(KI~HOOTO)  M`\njf]\Xicpni`k\ij In its description of Gĩkũyũ justice, the literature by early European writers generally focuses on lawsuits. However, the literature does show that there was more to Gĩkũyũ ideas of justice than judicial procedure. It becomes clear from a survey of the literature that justice was primarily concerned with the maintenance of peace and goodwill in society. Lambert discusses the traditional Gĩkũyũ principles of justice involved in judicial procedure and suggests that the maintenance of peace depended on the recognition of three principles.1 The first principle was that the settlement of disputes should be by deliberation rather than by the use of force. The second principle was that the correction of imbalance should be by compensation rather than by retaliation. The third principle was that adjudication should be done impartially. Therefore, this was done by elders because they were deemed to be “beyond the practicalities and impetuosities of self-interested youth.”2 These principles are well illustrated by the other authors who have described Gĩkũyũ judicial procedure. Regarding settlement by deliberation, several writers observe that the Gĩkũyũ loved debate, though to casual observers they seemed unnecessarily long and tedious.3 Lawsuits and other discussions of public importance were usually held in an open space (kĩhaaro) where, according to Cavicchi, “one’s voice may be heard,” for “freedom of speech” is to the Kikuyu perhaps the most essential of liberties.4 When a case was taken to the Council of Elders (kĩama), they were prepared to hear both sides of the suit (),

:_Xgk\i+

in detail. The function of the kĩama was to arbitrate between the litigating parties and for this to be possible, clear evidence was required.5 Cagnolo and Routledge have noted the remarkable order and calm that prevailed in these deliberations. During the usually lengthy litigations only one person was allowed to speak at any one time and according to Cagnolo, “one man after another … may be emphatic but not angry.”6 Anger and hot temper were considered hindrances to justice. Although the parties to litigation were allowed plenty of time to state their case, there were safeguards against a delay in reaching a settlement. First, in a case involving a plaintiff and a defendant, the defendant was assumed to be guilty and it was his task to prove his innocence. Each party would have brought along his counsellor, relatives and friends. If the defendant was guilty, his friends and relatives did not defend him. Their role was in fact to urge him to confess his guilt, bearing in mind that if he was innocent he was at liberty to deny all the accusations. According to Lambert, the mũthamaki (counsel) chosen by a plaintiff or a defendant warned his client as follows: “He will not twist the argument to suit his client’s case if he believed him in the wrong, but he will give him some assistance in meeting the judgement debt if the judgement goes against him.”7 Routledge observes that there was “a curious childlike impulse to confess on the part of the guilty person.”8 Secondly, the facts of a case were common knowledge in a community where people knew each other well and where little went on undetected.9 Thirdly, both plaintiff and defendant went into a lot of expense as they both paid equal court fees and continued to provide meat feasts for the Council of Elders who heard the case so long as it lasted. Only a fool would therefore want his case to take longer than was absolutely necessary. Fourthly, if there was not enough evidence by which to judge a case, the Council of Elders submitted the litigants to supernatural judgement, that is, to trial by ordeal. Trial by ordeal was dreaded and if a person was guilty he usually confessed before this trial would be resorted to. The second principle of justice, that correction of imbalance was by compensation rather than retaliation, is also well illustrated by early European writers. The traditional Gĩkũyũ did not believe in retaliation, for as the proverb says, Mwĩrĩhĩria nĩ we mũũru (He who revenges himself is the bad one)10 In other words, the idea of justice was not to revenge wrongs but rather to restore the equilibrium that a wrong or a crime had upset. In fact, the Gĩkũyũ believed that retaliation only served to upset the equilibrium further. Therefore, in a case where a man killed another and a member of ()-

A ljk` Z\ ( k~ıhooto)

the dead man’s family killed the murderer, no compensation was payable. Death should not be paid by another death but by compensation. The Gĩkũyũ say, Hiti ndiheeagwo keeri (A hyena should not be given (a meal) twice).11 When a wrong had been done, the customary procedure was for the wronged party to seek compensation, not directly from the offender but through the Council of Elders.12 In case of theft of property, compensation was heavy; this served to deter people from stealing. For instance, the compensation for one stolen goat ranged between two and ten goats.13 Compensation for murder was 100 goats if the deceased was a man and 30 goats in the case of a woman.14 In order to avoid the expense of council dues, petty thefts were often settled by mutual agreement in the presence of witnesses.15 However, if mutual agreement was not forthcoming the plaintiff did not hesitate to take the case to the Council of Elders in spite of the cost involved. Beecher comments: “There was a curious part in the Kikuyu makeup which makes a man seek to get the smallest wrong redressed, no matter what the costs are”.16 Regarding correction of imbalance, and the efficacy of compensation, the literature highlights two things. First, as Lambert stresses, the administration of justice was based on equity rather than on a codified law. There were recognized principles to which every judgement must conform. But every case was judged on its own merits.17 Secondly, the offender was helped to pay compensation for his offence by his own relatives or clansmen. He did not feel the burden of payment as much as he felt the disapproval of his kinsmen. Lambert observes that the acceptance of responsibility by the kindred of the offender did not reduce the effect of the fines they paid. The reason behind this was that “…in general the wider the group which suffers as a result of an offence, the stronger the public opinion against a repetition of it.”18 Leakey says that in traditional Gĩkũyũ society, thieving “was to all intents and purposes unknown.” He explains that the absence of thieving was due not so much to fear of punishment as to it being “contrary to native law and custom.” The person who went against this prohibition became an outcast (njangiri). Such a person was ostracized by his age mates, being “banned from all social affairs” and so he was made to feel that life for him was not worth living. Moreover, his family disinherited and disowned him. If ().

:_Xgk\i+

an ostracized, disinherited person was caught red-handed and killed, his death did not count as death.19 According to Routledge, a thief paid the first time he stole, was banished the second time he stole, and was killed if he repeated the crime a third time.20 He adds that the lynch law applied to persistent thieves and murderers and was an expression of “an aggrieved populace.”21 The third principle of justice given by Lambert was that adjudication was done by the elders because they were able to be impartial enough to bring about the desired peace and equilibrium. This principle was based on the belief that the elder (mũthuuri) had left “the hot-bloodedness of youth behind” and was able to discern, deliberate, and come to carefully considered conclusions.22 This virtue (wisdom) qualified elders to be leaders and men of authority who were obeyed willingly.23 Every individual was supposed to cultivate a keen sense of justice. Not everybody excelled in it but those who did became recognized as leaders (athamaki) from an early age.24 Lambert says, “The Kikuyu say a true mũthamaki is ruled by his head and not his heart; he looks before he leaps and he never loses his temper.”25 According to Lambert, “An elder could be impartial if his immortality on earth has been…arranged satisfactorily, that is, he has several healthy, prosperous descendants in the patrilineal line.”26 Besides the freedom of speech within the judicial system, already noted, some of the early writers made references to the Gĩkũyũ respect for freedom of choice. Both Routledge and Leakey refer to this, particularly in connection with marriage. According to Routledge, “A girl’s betrothal is entirely her own affair,” and even when occasionally a girl child was bespoken by an older man, “she would not be obliged to marry him on coming to years of discretion unless she so desired.”27

N_Xk`jaljk`Z\6 The word kĩhooto is derived from the root hoota which means “to defeat” or “to convince” morally. It is used in everyday language, in a variety of contexts. However, in all contexts the word is used to appeal to people’s sense of right and wrong, reasonableness or fairness. Kĩhooto can be defined as that which has the irresistible force of right. It means the reasonable order of things.28 The best English equivalent of kĩhooto is justice. Informants described kĩhooto in terms of three key words, namely ma ()/

A ljk` Z\ ( k~ıhooto)

(truth), hoota (defeat) and ũthingu (uprightness). These three words express the principal ideas of Gĩkũyũ justice. There are other ideas related to justice that are not covered by the key words and these are also discussed in this chapter. These issues concern the traditional Gĩkũyũ ideas and practice on reward and punishment, as well as the place of forgiveness and restoration in the scheme of the Gĩkũyũ concept of justice. But first it will be useful to make some general statements on how the Gĩkũyũ have understood justice traditionally. Informants defined the word kĩhooto as that which has such force of right that nothing can upset it. Kĩhooto is self-vindicating and indisputable. In order to explain the morally convincing power of kĩhooto, practically every informant quoted the proverb: Kĩhooto kiunaga ũta mugeete (A convincing answer breaks a bow set ready to shoot). Basically this proverb means that justice prevails over the force of might. It also means that justice overcomes all that is not just and right. Another proverb, quoted by some informants says, Mũingatwo na njũgũma nĩacookaga no mũingatwo na kĩhooto ndacookaga (He who is driven away by a club returns, but he who is driven away by justice does not return). If there is a dispute between two men, about property, for instance, it can only end when the claimant is convinced that the matter has been settled justly. Until he is thus convinced, he and if necessary his children after him, will continue to press the claim. Yet another proverb says, Kĩhooto gĩtingatĩkaga (Justice resists all efforts to chase it away.) That is, justice is not only unyielding, it also resists all efforts to conceal it. Thus justice is conceived of as a living thing, able to heave out of any place and vindicate itself against falsehood. The idea that justice ultimately triumphs is echoed by still another proverb, Ma ndĩkuuaga (Truth does not die). People may employ various ways like falsehood or malice to cover up truth and frustrate justice. So long as truth is concealed and justice is denied, the matter drags on and on. But justice stands triumphant in every matter that is eventually straightened out. The ‘force of right’ as conceived of by the informants is affirmed by the proverb Kĩhooto gĩtingĩagararĩka (Justice cannot be disregarded). In Gĩkũyũ idiom kĩhooto is the weapon with which a person defeats a critic. Justice is applicable to all aspects of life: there is no area of life, private or public, which is not subject to the scrutiny of justice. Moreover, justice has numerous ways of vindicating itself. For these reasons, justice must be respected if ()0

:_Xgk\i+

the affairs of the individual and of the community are to prosper. Justice is present, for instance, in every peaceful home. It is the guiding principle of every peacemaker who separates two disputing parties. It ensures goodwill, peace and harmony in the community.29 Several informants repeated that kĩhooto does not have many words to describe it. Kĩhooto corresponds to truth, and truth is basically simple. A person who has a sense of justice is a person who is trustworthy; he is an upright person. These general statements, as well as other information obtained from the informants, indicate that the idea of kĩhooto is best understood within the context of some basic ideas held by traditional Gĩkũyũ society. These ideas concern community life and the rights, privileges and responsibilities of the individuals who constitute that community. The ideas have also to do with the forces believed to be at work in community life. However, besides serving that purpose, they are themselves part of the context of kĩhooto. The first basic idea concerns the ideal community life. This is community life that enjoys prosperity, harmony, goodwill and peace. This ideal is ensured when members of a community have a sense of justice. People demonstrate their sense of justice by subscribing to those attitudes and modes of conduct that are supposed to be reasonable ways of achieving prosperity, social harmony, goodwill and peace. One aspect of this is that every man should endeavour to be as self-sufficient as possible. An informant in this group has expressed this as, “Kĩhooto is that a man should have his own cow, plot of land and wife.”30 That this idea of personal ownership and self-sufficiency was very strong in traditional society is evidenced by the elaborate system of identification for individuals, as well as for property. The second idea held traditionally by the Gĩkũyũ was that every individual has a right to enjoy the fruits of his labour. He has a right to own what he has acquired for himself. Therefore he is obliged to recognise not only what belongs to him but also what belongs to other people. This means that he must safeguard what belongs to him and must not interfere with that which is not his. A man safeguarded his property by ensuring that what belonged to him bore some evidence of identity or ownership. Where domestic animals were concerned, an owner was obliged to take note of both the physical appearance of his animals as well as the circumstances under which he obtained them. Since people were constantly placing animals under custody of friends and relatives, it was important that people care(*'

A ljk` Z\ ( k~ıhooto)

fully distinguished animals belonging to them and those that were merely under their guardianship. Traditional Gĩkũyũ society respected the idea of exclusive ownership. Thus a married woman belonged to a particular man by virtue of his having given the gift (thuugo) of a virgin ewe and a virgin he-goat (mũatĩ na harika) to her parents. The husband publicly proclaimed his ownership of her by the sacrificial feast of a ram (ngoima) given to her clansmen. These steps safeguarded the woman from the claim of other men.31 Where land was concerned, the individual cultivator of a piece of land might only hold it as a trustee of the family land. Nevertheless, as long as the land was under his name it belonged to him and nobody else could claim it. Domestic animals were owned exclusively by those who had acquired them. The idea of exclusive ownership was counter-balanced by the idea of generosity. People were constantly giving and receiving certain things. Indeed, some things were owned precisely so that the owner might be able to use them as gifts. Such included an elder’s honey or a woman’s measure of castor oil. So long as they were not given out they belonged to the owner. Nevertheless, those who expected to receive these gifts had no right to take them before they were actually given to them by the owner. In the event of the birth of a baby, tradition allowed that tokens of certain food crops, such as bananas and sugarcane, should be harvested from the gardens of neighbours. However, the owner had a right to know what had happened and the peelings were not thrown away for a specified number of days. If he followed the trail to the home where the foodstuffs were taken he would find the peelings heaped in a certain spot in the hut and would know at once that his foodstuffs had been taken according to the accepted custom.32 According to informants in the Old Age Group, the most significant evidence of the traditional respect for personal ownership rights was the fact that stealing was a crime that was heavily punished. Punishment for theft was always deterrent and a habitual thief was eventually eliminated from society. The thief received no sympathy from other people for essentially he had no sense of justice. He deprived other people of property to which they were morally entitled. The majority of the people acquired property through hard work and scrupulous management. One traditional song summarizes the issues associated with stealing like this: Mũngĩigua kabu Ruteere rwa mũgũnda (*(

:_Xgk\i+

Mũtigetĩke Nĩ nyina wa kĩgũũta, Hũyũ-hũ-ĩĩ i Ũraarũrwo mũringa If you hear a cry of alarm At the border of the garden Do not respond It is the mother of the slothful (son) Who is having her bangles removed.33

This means that a woman caught collecting food crops from a neighbour’s garden had no alternative but to pay dearly for them: her ornaments were forcibly removed. There may have been a state of famine or her own garden might have lacked the particular crop she was caught stealing, but no excuse could override two considerations. First, she had no right to take food from other people’s gardens. Secondly, her sons had no right to be idlers and thus drive their mother to the shameful state of being a thief. Theft had to be punished and idleness must be condemned. Another example of the serious view that the Gĩkũyũ took of theft concerns the stealing of domestic animals. If a man stole an animal in order to eat it, it was described as nyamũ (an animal, simply – not specifying the kind of animal). If it was slaughtered and eaten, anybody who participated in whatever way in the feast was fined ten goats. This was regardless of whether he was aware or not that the animal was stolen. Nor did it matter whether he had eaten to his full or had merely smeared himself with some of the animal’s fat. There have always been people in society whose conduct undermines justice as is indicated by the examples of thieves and idlers. Some of those people commit serious crimes (ngero) such as murder, arson, and witchcraft (ũrogi). Other malefactors and people of ill commit crimes like perjury or damage to other people’s domestic animals or other property. There are people who are selfish and mean. In one way or another, these and other mischief workers (imaramari) disturb the peace, the harmony, the prosperity and goodwill that ought to prevail in society. Traditional Gĩkũyũ society was constantly appealing to such people to respect kĩhooto (the reasonable order of things). Society did this through various sanctions. Depending on the type of offence, these sanctions ranged from admonition, ridicule of offenders, compensation paid in property, (*)

A ljk` Z\ ( k~ıhooto)

banning or ostracising of offenders to killing of habitual criminals. There were also positive sanctions that further encouraged people to respect justice. Such positive sanctions included appreciation and gratitude shown to those who behaved justly. These sanctions are described in greater detail in a later section of this chapter. Aljk`Z\[\jZi`Y\[`ek\idjf]kilk_ (ma)

Truth (ma) is one of the key words mentioned by every informant in connection with justice. The three age groups have similar ideas regarding truth. To the old people, ma means both proof and truthfulness. To the middle aged and the young people ma means factual evidence as well as truthfulness. All the informants conceive of truth as the opposite of all forms of falsehood, including lies, hypocrisy and deception. According to informants in the Old Age Group, the word ma comes into use when there is doubt or dispute, that is, when an action or a statement actually is called into question. In that case, proof depends very much on evidence (ũira). The need for evidence is called for every time different parties have a dispute. To give an example, an elder calls some initiated young men and asks them to cultivate his sugarcane plot, promising to give them oil for their bodies when the job is completed. So the young men complete the job. They go to the elder’s home and he gives them a piece of raw ram’s fat, telling them to fry it in order to extract oil. The fat is put into the pot and placed on the hearth. While it is cooking the exhausted young men find some shade outside and lie down to rest. However, in this home there are some naughty boys. They help themselves to the entire contents of the pot. Consequently, a disagreement arises between the young men and the elder. They want the promised oil but he is unwilling to produce any more. It becomes necessary to call other elders to arbitrate. The arbitrators listen to the evidence on both sides and examine the exhibits before them. The sugar-cane plot has been cultivated. The pot supposedly containing oil is empty. The young men have not smeared any oil on themselves. The arbitrators will announce to the contending parties, “We have seen kĩhooto; the elder will have to give the young men some oil.”34 Regarding respect for personal ownership, by far the most important evidence had to do with proof of ownership. In order to avoid disputes over ownership of domestic animals and land the traditional society observed identification marks on animals and boundary marks on land.

(**

:_Xgk\i+

Each clan had distinguishing marks for their cattle, sheep and goats. One of those marks entailed cutting out patterns on the ears of stock animals. Each clan adopted a different pattern. The action was known as kũgĩĩrima and the pattern thus made was known as gĩĩrima. Marking also entailed cutting away part of the tails of young sheep. This job was done by men in the evening round a bonfire at the gateway (boinĩ). Although these were routine evening jobs, a lot more was happening here to further the course of justice. The younger male members of the household were taught to recognize the subtle marks and characteristics that distinguished the animals belonging to the family. It was important to recognize animals belonging to every household, even though they bore the distinguishing marks of the clan. Here too, in the course of discussion and conversation the young men were counselled by their elders to respect each boundary mark (gĩtoka kĩa mũhaka). The clan forefathers would have planted these boundary marks. No individual had the right to shift a boundary mark arbitrarily. Boundary marks could only be moved after careful deliberation and unanimous agreement of the parties concerned. It was here too that the young men were taught that the girls with whom they danced and practised nguĩko35 did not belong to them. Each of those girls was to be respected as belonging to someone else (nĩ wene). A girl belonged to her father until by virtue of marriage she belonged to her husband. An unmarried man did not own a wife. In other words, he did not beget children. Children were the evidence or the proof of marriage. Their rightful place was therefore within the married state of their parents. This brings us to another kind of evidence, that is, proof of marriage. The traditional Gĩkũyũ society regarded it as of great importance that a woman should be married strictly according to established custom. This was because customary marriage included features that aimed at guaranteeing its permanence by protecting both the man and the woman. The features of customary marriage that were considered to constitute and symbolize kĩhooto included thuugo, rũraacio and ngurario.36 Thuugo has been defined as a ‘gift given in courting a girl.’ This gift consisted of a virgin ewe and a virgin he-goat (mwatĩ na harika). The prospective husband took these animals to the hut of the girl’s mother on a particular evening. This gift was a testimony that a certain man intended to marry a girl in that house. Together with thuugo the man took along a fattened ram referred to as ngoima. This ram would be slaughtered at a future day during the ceremony known as ngurario.

(* +

A ljk` Z\ ( k~ıhooto)

These three animals were never delivered by the suitor alone. He always asked and got the help of at least one special friend (wakĩri). In this way he did not only get the practical and moral support of a friend, or friends, but also of a witness or witnesses. Should the question ever arise in future as to whether he had actually married the girl the man could show that he had given thuugo, using the men who had delivered the gift with him as witnesses. Rũraacio consisted of the animals taken to the girl’s home as bride-wealth. Again a man did not take them alone: friends accompanied him. They helped him to deliver the animals and they were also witnesses that all things pertaining to the marriage of the girl were done in order. If at a future date the man’s wife should desert him he had the right to demand from her father the entire rũraacio and possibly its natural increase as well. Ngurario was the ceremony that finally ratified the marriage contract. When the fattened ram (ngoima) was slaughtered for the girl’s clan, it was a public declaration by her parents that their daughter was married to a particular man. The marriage was therefore sealed in the presence of many witnesses. Henceforth, the two clans represented by the girl and her suitor regarded each other as relations-in-law. These three features of marriage went a long way to safeguard against the break-up of marriage. It was not kĩhooto for a woman thus married to desert her husband. If she had grievances against him, the in-laws on both sides would do their very best to solve the problems. Similarly, a man could not easily ‘throw away’ his wife. The Gĩkũyũ did everything possible to settle matters concerning justice once for all. In their idiom gũkindĩra kĩhooto meant ‘to leave no loop-holes in a settlement’. If, for instance, a marriage should end in divorce in spite of all efforts, the rũraacio was returned. In order to conclude the matter, the woman’s father or brothers gave the man an extra ram. This was referred to as ndũrũme ya gũtharia nyũmba (the ram for demolishing the woman’s hut). It was evidence that the woman’s family owed nothing more to her former husband as far as this particular marriage was concerned.37 These illustrations show the importance traditional society attached to evidence (ũira). A matter that could be proved through clear evidence could not be contradicted. Rather, it became ‘that which has force of right’ (kĩhooto). (*,

:_Xgk\i+

However, evidence alone was not enough to reveal the truth in every instance. Knowledge was also important. The individual who knew the facts of a matter possessed the truth about it. If he could give testimony about it without distorting the facts then he could be said to possess kĩhooto. Moreover, in the course of justice, it was an added advantage to be able to discern the significance of what one knew. The person who could give interpretation to the knowledge he possessed was not only knowledgeable but also wise. To give an illustration, it was not enough for a man to know he had so many heads of animals in his herd. Besides being able to identify them, he should know the facts concerning his acquisition of them. This knowledge helped to guard him against any questions that might be raised regarding his right to include them in his herd. Some of the animals may rightfully belong to him to dispose of as he wished. However, others might merely be under his care. If he should confuse them and dispose of the wrong animal he would almost certainly get into dispute with the rightful owner. Knowledge, which can be said to be wisdom, is also ‘that which has the force of right’ (kĩhooto). A person who had knowledge as well as a sense of equity assisted the community in minimizing disputes and in litigation over property. The old people interviewed believe that trustworthiness was essential in verifying the truth of a matter. It is possible to possess the facts of a matter and to have clear evidence and yet to distort the facts to the extent that truth cannot be arrived at. The moral quality of trustworthiness is therefore essential in enabling justice to triumph in a straightforward manner. This quality was found in people who had maturity (ũgima). The middle-aged informants said that if a person had been arrested for some alleged crime, he should not tell lies in order to be released. He must not implicate other people in a bid to prove his innocence. When a person speaks the truth he is punished or released according to his evidence (kĩhooto). If he is found guilty it is just either to punish him or to forgive him. Conversely, justice is not done if a person is acquitted only to discover later that he has told lies. Such a person may sometimes escape punishment but he is the kind of person who becomes a habitual criminal. This group also said that an adjudicator, magistrate or judge does justice when he passes judgement according to the truth established. On his part this demands the ability to ‘dig up evidence’ (kwenjera ũira).

(*-

A ljk` Z\ ( k~ıhooto)

According to the informants in the Young Age Group, truthfulness becomes especially important in circumstances of dispute and litigation. On such occasions, a person who respects justice will state the truth of the matter in question to the best of his knowledge and regardless of the consequences. If he does that he is said to kũrũgamĩra kĩhooto (stand firm on justice). It is possible to have a ‘clean case’ (ciira mũtheru) if the litigating parties are straightforward and are genuinely interested in the solution of the problem rather than in taking advantage of each other. A magistrate who, in a lawsuit, is concerned to find out the truth of a matter upon which to base his judgement was said to respect justice. This group believes that nowadays bribes are given widely in order to influence those in a position to judge cases. Therefore, when a magistrate delivers a judgement that is biased, people assume the party he favours has bribed such a magistrate. The young people interviewed believe that it is possible for a boundary to shift slightly over the years. If the family responsible for the shift agrees to correct the mistake without fuss, then they are seen to be truthful people. There are families who refuse to restore the boundary to its original position. Such people do not respect justice. Aljk`Z\[\jZi`Y\[`ek\idjf][\]\Xk (hoota)

Hoota is another key word associated with justice. As stated earlier, hoota means to defeat, to overcome, to convince or to convict. It implies the presence of at least two parties who are in a state of dispute or conflict. When an issue is resolved in favour of one party that party is said to have defeated the other. The common expressions kũhoota (to defeat) and kũhootwo (to be defeated) are also used in a moral sense. From the responses of the old people interviewed, it would seem that there are two circumstances in which ‘defeat’ is used in a moral sense. It is used, first, in an open dispute, when parties actually litigate and, secondly, when, even though there is no open conflict, there exists tension between two parties. Defeat in connection with open dispute

Disputes and litigations arise because some people are dishonest and others are malicious. However, sometimes people simply misunderstand each other with no one meaning any harm. Whatever the case, when disputes arise, justice has to be done through a process of sifting evidence. This process is referred to as gũkinyĩra kĩhooto (to pursue justice). Certain moral qualities are essential in all parties concerned if justice is to be done. (*.

:_Xgk\i+

These include wisdom or intelligence (ũũgĩ), honesty and patience. A good knowledge of customary laws and traditions is also important. Lack of wisdom could easily make a person lose a case to another. Wisdom shows itself in the person who is able to debate or argue out a case (gũciira), as well as to listen intelligently (gũthikĩrĩria). Arguing out a case may involve only the two parties to a dispute. If both parties are intelligent and honest they can solve the matter between them without calling arbitrators. They would each give reasons until they either reach a compromise or one is defeated. To be defeated in this way is to realize that the other party has force of right against which there is no argument. The one who concedes will himself be convinced that his opponent is in the right. He will realize that it is futile for him to keep on arguing. Hence the proverb, Mũingatwo na kĩhooto ndacookaga (He who is driven away by justice does not return). In litigation, especially before a Court of Elders, the arbitrators’ first concern is to discover the truth of the matter. Besides piecing together the evidence put before them, they look for signals that might confirm the honesty, or betray the dishonesty, of the contending parties. The person who gives coherent evidence is normally expected to have the ‘force of right’ (kĩhooto). This is the person who can support his evidence with facts such as dates and circumstances. He can call witnesses to support his evidence. Moreover, he is composed because of the confidence that he is speaking the truth. He does not stumble at questions thrown at him. Nor is he shaken by questions and remarks meant to confuse him. On the other hand, a person who seems ill at ease as he gives evidence is considered to lack the ‘force of right.’ This is the person whose heart and temples throb as he speaks. He repeatedly stumbles over his evidence especially when he is required to clarify points. Such a person is likely to lose the case not because he necessarily lacks intelligence but because his conscience betrays him.38 The ability to argue out a case and to ‘defeat’ depends not only on the honesty of the contender but also on his ability to control his temper during litigation. A litigant who loses his temper and displays impatience towards his opponent by insulting him or using strong language is regarded as obstructing justice. He gives people the impression that he regards the Court of Elders as collaborators rather than arbitrators. It is as if he is asking the court to restrain his opponent while he avenges himself. In Gĩkũyũ idiom he is asking the court to Nyiitĩra njohe magũrũ (Hold (the (*/

A ljk` Z\ ( k~ıhooto)

head) for me while I tie the legs). But justice does not know force of might or insults. If such a person has the ‘force of right’ and wins the case, he is nevertheless admonished or fined a fee for his tendency to lose his temper and disrupt the peace. The ability to listen intelligently is as important as the ability to debate. This is especially true if the case is complicated and it is not easily discernible which party has kĩhooto. In open court, listening ability is presumed on the part of those who are present as spokesmen for the parties concerned or as arbitrators between the parties. A good spokesman is able to follow and analyse every piece of evidence produced. When his time comes to defend his party he gives his opponents a tough time unless it is already clear to him that his client is defeated. Such a debater is renowned for his alertness and expert listening. Those who listen in order to arbitrate between contending parties are interested in arriving at a fair judgement. Their main objective is to maintain peace between contending parties by judging cases according to the principle of equity. Since in traditional society the arbitrators succeeded in doing justice to the contending parties and in maintaining peace between them, they were regarded as peacemakers (ateithũrani). They were also known as ‘those who have the ability to discern and choose’ (atwithania), ‘debaters’ (aciiri) and ‘judges’ (athamaki a ciira). It is worth pointing out that the court that arbitrated in disputes was constituted by elders (athuuri). Age was one of the qualifications for this office but not every old man qualified to be a court elder (mũthuuri wa kĩama). Some men attained old age without ever attaining the qualities that would merit this office. The title mũthuuri means one who is able to choose and to discern. It was the appropriate title given to those whose life in the community testified to their dignity and integrity. Significantly, the old informants referred to old men who did not command respect in the diminutive: gathuuri (small old man). Among elders or even among younger people a few individuals were exceptionally intelligent and people recognized their ability to discuss and debate. Such individuals were accorded leadership and people referred to them as athamaki (sing. mũthamaki). Whether a mũthamaki was a spokesman for one of the contending parties or arbitrator among the elders who listened to the case, his presence was important. It was not unusual for people to insist that a particular person should be present because Ng’ania (*0

:_Xgk\i+

atarĩ ho ciira ũyũ ndũngĩciirĩka (If so and so is not present, this case will be troublesome). From what the old people interviewed said, it would seem that anybody who was accused of some offence or crime remained suspect until he could prove his innocence. Significantly, a suspect who argued out his case and convinced his accusers that he was innocent was said to ‘exonerate himself ’ (gwĩkũũra). He redeemed himself from open accusation and also from suspicion of guilt. In redeeming himself he ‘defeated’ his accusers. In traditional society, if a crime was committed and a suspect succeeded in redeeming himself, someone else was placed under suspicion and charged with the crime. This process could go on until the culprit was found. However, it usually did not take long for the culprit to be discovered. In the close-knit traditional society a criminal was fairly quickly discovered. Special friends might protect a criminal for a time but sooner or later they abandoned him because they were afraid of ruining their own reputation. When a crime had been committed and the culprit was not known, it became necessary to investigate the suspect. Traditionally, this was done by spying on the person. The suspect was investigated secretly until eventually he was directly charged. For instance, if a man suspected that it was a particular person who had stolen his property, he made contact with one of the suspect’s close friends. For instance, the investigator might brew beer, invite the suspect’s friend and broach the subject at the time when the guest was under the influence of alcohol. He would be careful to give the impression he was not too concerned about the matter. If the suspect’s friend did not deny flatly but seemed to evade the issue, the investigator could surmise the suspect’s guilt and openly accuse him. Another method was a careful and a patient watch over a suspect’s movements. In the recent past, if a man stole an animal he exchanged it for money for it was foolish to keep a stolen animal. If a theft was committed in a village the suspect would be expected to show evidence of possessing more money than was usual for him. A friend of the suspect was appointed to establish whether he had suddenly acquired a large sum of money. He was likely to show this by lavish spending in the market place. If he was found to have suddenly acquired a large sum of money he was openly charged with stealing and selling the missing animal. If a person was murdered, his best friend was investigated first. His movements prior to the death of the deceased were carefully reviewed. If the (+ '

A ljk` Z\ ( k~ıhooto)

suspect denied having been to a place where someone had seen him, then there would be reason to accuse him of murder. In any case he was investigated until he was proved to be guilty or innocent. These investigations often led to an open dispute or a lawsuit before a Court of Elders. In spite of prior investigation it might still be difficult to convict a suspect. If the investigations did not seem to be producing clear evidence one way or the other then the suspect was subjected to supernatural judgement. The litigation parties swore under oath. The oath was believed to have ill effects on the liar and his family. The oath was a strong weapon against false accusation and baseless suspicion. An innocent suspect might ask his accusers, “What thing can I do so that you will know that I am not responsible?” If it was suggested to him that he should swear under oath, if he did not hesitate to do so and if the period in which he was expected to die elapsed without ill effect on him, the people agreed they had accused him falsely and would declare him innocent. As mentioned in the chapter on honesty, the elders or one of the disputing parties could request the oath in order to shorten arguments. The party that requested the oath was usually the innocent party. However, sometimes an audacious culprit requested the oath in the hope that he might escape its effects and dupe his accusers. If the elders suggested the oath but the accused hesitated to swear, he was declared guilty and ordered to pay compensation for the wrong he had done. Since the effect of the oath was supposed to be serious, if the clansmen knew that their man was guilty, they did not allow the ceremony to proceed. They intervened and paid compensation on behalf of their man. In other words, they declared ‘conviction’ or ‘defeat’ on behalf of their relative. The informants in the Old Age Group regard the method of open dispute or lawsuit as one of the ways in which justice kept a constant check on the things that caused disharmony in society. Defeat in relation to a state of tension between people

Interviews with informants in the Old Age Group revealed that ‘defeat’ as defined above was also applied in situations of tension where it was deemed wise to avoid open conflict. This was especially true of family relationships. Traditionally, the Gĩkũyũ recognized the value of indirect contention. (+(

:_Xgk\i+

Besides being an outlet for tension, it sought to appeal to a sense of fair dealing (kĩhooto) between people. How this was done is best demonstrated by giving an example. In traditional society a married woman was under the authority of her husband. She was accountable to him if she neglected any of the duties that daily fell on her as a mother and a wife. At the same time, she was very much under the ‘authority’ of the clanswomen by virtue of their being her companions and workmates. If these women had a joint project they demanded the presence of each of their members. A woman who isolated herself on the excuse that she had too many jobs at home to attend to was sooner or later ostracized. This is evidenced by one of the songs they used to sing on their way to communal work or social gathering. Ĩ, ĩ mwaigua twakirimana Mwaigua twarũrũngana Mũka ũrĩ mũciĩ ti witũ; Mũikie ciana mũgongo Mũka ũrĩ mũciĩ ti witũ When you see us converge When you see us gather from all directions The woman at home does not belong to us; Throw babies on your back. The woman at home does not belong to us.39

This song was sung to summon the women from their homes. But it was also meant for the husbands’ ears. They were telling the men that they were united against any husband who was unduly authoritative and a hard taskmaster. A man might naturally want to stop his wife from joining the gathering. Her absence from home would be felt in one way or another. Besides, the women gossiped. A man who ill-treated his wife had cause to suspect that she would expose him. Indeed a woman whose husband was unreasonable did not confront him directly. She waited for an occasion like communal work to tell the others about his behaviour. The very knowledge that this would happen restrained many men from ill-treating their wives.40 A husband did not stop his wife from joining the women; if he did he would make matters worse for himself. Rather, he noted what urgent job she did not accomplish and made sure he punished her for her negligence. (+)

A ljk` Z\ ( k~ıhooto)

For instance, if she left no firewood for use in her absence, she would find on her return that the wooden bars she used to close the granary had been used as fuel. Since the woman knew in advance the day fixed for the gathering, she ensured that her husband had no cause to punish her. She made sure that she left cooked food for the family, fodder for the calves and the stall-fed animals, firewood and water. These and any other accomplished jobs were her ‘justification’ (kĩhooto) for going. At the assembly of women the voice of the reasonable husband was also heard. A woman who was aware she had been beaten for her arrogance or disobedience told the others about it. If she did not, someone else who knew her circumstances was sure to do so. Such a woman was advised that usually a man did not rebuke or chastise his wife without a good reason. They sang an appropriate song: Ndĩreerirwo ndiũĩ kwaria Nanjaragĩria arũme ng’ere ng’ere; Mũgambo wa iria ngũruta kũ? Njaragĩrie arũme ngahooreria I was told I don’t know how to speak I speak to men roughly; Where shall I get a smooth voice? To speak to men and pacify.41

Similarly children were under the authority of their parents and traditional etiquette forbade children from expressing anger and criticism towards parents directly. During their dance, however, which parents went to watch, the young people gave vent to their irritation. For instance, a boy who was anticipating initiation into adulthood but whose father was dragging his feet about making the necessary preparations could get very annoyed with his father. During a dance he might sing something like this: Kĩgotho nĩ oorio Kaĩ oonaga ũũkĩ Akaarĩrĩria kanua? Let Kigotho be asked When he sees honey Does he open his mouth ready to swallow it?

(+ *

:_Xgk\i+

~thingu) Aljk`Z\[\jZi`Y\[`ek\idjf]lgi`^_ke\jj(u

To the question “What is justice?” my informants in the Old Age Group made frequent reference to the word ũthingu (uprightness). The old people in fact tended to suggest that the words ũthingu, kĩhooto and ũgima (maturity) convey practically the same meaning as far as ethics is concerned. Basically the old people were saying that the mature person is an upright person and therefore possesses a keen sense of justice. The younger people interviewed did not mention the word ũthingu during the discussions on justice. This is not altogether surprising. As was explained earlier, the meaning of the word ũthingu has narrowed in the course of time. However, the words which the younger people used are part of the meaning of what old people call ũthingu. The middle age informants used the word ũgaacĩriru, which can be interpreted as probity. The other words used by this group were ũgima (maturity) and wĩhokeku (reliability). The informants in the Young Age Group used the words wagĩrĩru (rightness) and ũiganania (equity). The moral state and conduct that the old people described as uprightness have been repeatedly referred to in all the themes of this study. Before describing the sense in which the traditional society conceived the just man as upright, it will be helpful to recapitulate the way in which uprightness has featured in the four other values described in the preceding sections. This exercise should help to illuminate the kind of person who exemplified justice in traditional Gĩkũyũ society. Under the theme of ‘generosity’ the upright person was shown to be the person whose conduct promotes peace and goodwill in the community. His intrinsic qualities include inoffensiveness (ũhooreri) and geniality (kanua keega). He is regarded as wise, because with the quietness of his character, he conducts his affairs well and causes no bitterness to anyone. His generosity is recognised more because of his exemplary conduct than because of his material gifts. He is not cunning like those who flatter other people in order to extract things and favours from them. Under the theme of ‘courage’ the upright person is described as steadfast. His wisdom is recognized in that he is forbearing and able to subdue his anger when provoked. By the same token he is able to separate quarrelling parties. He suffers neither from too much gentleness nor from aggressiveness. People find no occasion to embarrass him because he is not presumptuous. He therefore commands respect. (+ +

A ljk` Z\ ( k~ıhooto)

Under the theme of ‘temperance’ the upright person is recognised as the person of resolution. His singleness of purpose enables him to be forbearing and diligent. With respect to the theme of ‘honesty’ uprightness is shown to be the basic deportment of the trustworthy person. This is the person whose conduct demonstrates the principles of maturity (ũgima). These principles include a sense of responsibility, diligence, generosity and courtesy. It was shown that the main preoccupation of such a person is the desire to fulfil the just expectations of other people and to grace his own name. The nature of the upright person is such that he cannot be accused of greed, covetousness, extortion, hypocrisy or malice. Under this theme it is further stressed that the process of bringing up children was one of inculcating the principles of maturity. This was done through a combination of formal and informal methods. The child was spontaneously encouraged to imitate adult conduct as he carried out certain jobs and responsibilities entrusted to him. At the same time, the practice of rites of passage impressed on the growing child that there was a definite direction towards which he was developing. He was growing towards responsible adulthood characterized by ũgima (maturity).42 :fek\ekd\ekXjXeXjg\Zkf]aljk`Z\

Within the context of justice, the informants in the Old Age Group emphasized that the upright person was basically the person who was concerned to enjoy prosperity not only materially but also in the kind of mental health he maintained. For this reason he cultivated an attitude of contentment and serenity. The traditional society believed that material possessions alone did not guarantee a person’s welfare or total well being. According to a Gĩkũyũ proverb, Gũthinga gũkĩrĩĩte gũtonga (Virtue is better than wealth). That is, wealth does not make a person virtuous but virtue is essential for personal welfare. Therefore, it is important that one should cultivate virtue. Itotia mentions that those Gĩkũyũ ancestors who can be described as having left behind a fortune (atiga irĩ) nurtured themselves with ‘foods that give joy to the mind.’ From his description, it is clear that what constitutes ‘food for the mind’ was virtuous conduct. Itotia gives reasons for the proper nurture of the mind: People should guard mind and thoughts carefully. A person who has had thoughts, whose heart daily has grief, sadness, stress and anxiety (cieha), who is buried in disconsolation and solitude (gwĩthikĩĩra na ihooru) (+,

:_Xgk\i+

cannot have a prosperous body. He cannot achieve worthwhile jobs and he meets early death. He might commit suicide or murder because his heart is embittered against other people.43

Contentment was valued as a state of mind which contributed much to the cause of justice in society. Contentment was achieved when the individual was able to reason with himself about his need for welfare. He took the attitude that other people have a right to their fortune. Conversely, he had no right to deprive anyone of his fortune. This was because he was persuaded that whatever was dishonestly or unlawfully acquired does not prosper. Secondly, he remembered that God (Ngai) was behind every good fortune. Ngai is so called because he is the Great Giver. He apportions to each person some fortune and whether that fortune prospers or not depends on the initiative and the sustained effort of the person concerned. This kind of attitude meant that the upright individual did not covet what other people owned, nor did he feel malice towards those who had things he did not have. At the same time, he appreciated his own fortune. That is, he did not belittle whatever property he owned or whatever job he did for his livelihood. The people who learnt to value contentment and patient initiative were not discouraged when those who had amassed property sang in praise of it. They used to sing: Ngũinĩra ĩno ĩmwe Mainĩra nyĩngi Rũngũ rũmwe rũciaraga nyingĩ I will praise my single animal When they praise their herds. One gourd-plant produces many (gourds)44

On the contrary, people who had a negative attitude regarding their fortunes brought trouble on themselves because they tended to be complacent about improving their lot. According to the informants of the Old Age Group, people who are discontented show their attitude of mind in various ways. For instance, the covetous person is perpetually surveying what other people possess and saying to himself Ũĩ tũũrĩa! (I wish I could have that!). He desires a share of what other people possess and forgets to appreciate what he himself has. The result of this attitude is that he suffers ill health.45 Some covetous people end up in open conflict with others. Their desire to possess other people’s property leads them to make false claims. (+ -

A ljk` Z\ ( k~ıhooto)

The discontentment which brings about avarice also causes the person so affected to behave maliciously. Malice is responsible for many injustices in community life. These range from small mischief to serious crimes. The malicious are not necessarily interested in extortion. Rather, they like to deprive others of the joy of ownership. A malicious person will therefore cleverly discourage a prospective landowner from buying a piece of land. Another will maliciously slash a neighbour’s cow for no apparent reason or will encourage a wife to desert her husband. Still another will kill someone. For instance, an old man interviewed told about a malicious woman who had the habit of killing her co-wife’s babies a few months after they were born. The unsuspecting mother would leave the baby asleep in bed as she went about her chores. Her co-wife would keep a watchful eye on her as she went about her work. One day her opportunity arrived. She dashed into the co-wife’s house, took the sleeping baby between her knees, pressed her knees (thus exerting pressure on the baby’s internal organs) and put the baby back to bed. Then she dashed out again. The baby fell ill and eventually died because the ailment could not be cured. Foul play was suspected each time the baby died in such strange circumstances. Eventually the malicious woman was caught red-handed by the husband. He pretended he was going on a journey but stealthily returned and hid in the house where the baby was sleeping. As was her habit, the woman came and put the baby between her knees. Just as she was preparing to press, he asked her, “What do you want to do to the baby?” She dropped the baby, jumped up and ran out. Another example of malicious behaviour involved a recent accident in another polygamous family well-known to an informant. One wife added her excreta into the cooking pot of her co-wife and of course the food was inedible. All the wives denied any knowledge of the mischief until the husband threatened to invoke trial by ordeal. The culprit confessed to having done it. She could not give a good reason for the mischief. She was the youngest wife and apparently nothing seemed to please her. Eventually she committed suicide. In the more recent past, when the Gĩkũyũ began to work for money, covetous people exhibited another aspect of envy. When such a person sold an item to someone else and the buyer had duly given him the money he had asked for, he nevertheless refused to accept that the deal had been a fair exchange. He would cast covetous eyes on the item he sold and in the end destroyed it in order to deprive the new owner of the joy of possessing it. The following account by one of the informants throws light on several traits of the discontented criminal. (+.

:_Xgk\i+

I had a half-brother, a great scoundrel, a great thief. Once he had a court case and he needed Ksh. 60.00 urgently. He went to another half-brother of mine who lived there and told him, “I would like you to find me Ksh. 60.00. I need the money.” Then he came to me and told me his need and how the case stood. I called my wife and told her to hand him Ksh. 60.00. I told him, “I have not given you that money for keeps. I have untied my money for you and expect you to repay it.” To that he replied, “Give me a boy to accompany me home.” I gave him one of my sons. When they got to his home he gave the boy a heifer and told him, “Tell your father to sell this heifer.” Whatever its cost, tell him to take what is due to him and give me the balance. I sold the heifer for Ksh. 120.00 to the half-brother of the man he had approached before coming to me, but I did not know what had gone on between them and he did not know the heifer was not mine. I simply told him, “I am selling a heifer as I need some money. Can you buy it?” He told me, “I have some money which my wife gave me after selling some potatoes, so I think I can buy it for her.” Meanwhile matters went well with the other half-brother. One day he asked me to whom I had sold the heifer and I told him. He said, “Did he buy it and yet I have been to him and he told me he did not have money?” I replied, “It was not he who bought it but his wife who produced her own money after selling her potatoes.” “That is well,” he said and went away. The next morning the other half-brother called urgently. The heifer’s stomach was very inflated. While we were trying to examine what the matter was it took a few steps back, collapsed and died. We said that was just a calamity and left the matter there. That scoundrel lived on. Eventually he came to me and told me, “I said he should not possess it. He had no money for me yet he goes and buys my heifer so that he can exhibit it to me.” “What did you do to it?” I asked. “I went at night and gave it poison.” Both these men are dead and I have never told this story to anyone. I have never talked about it because it is like recalling a malicious spell that could bounce back on me. Yet as far as I am concerned we only had a deal over the cow and I had no other motive. As time went on that man had no proper house. He built a hut in the spot where that blue gum tree stands but the hut had no thatching. He used to spend nights in the bush, under thickets. He was very unsettled. Then he sold his land and squandered the money. Since he had nowhere to lodge, he formed the habit of lodging in homes. I had cleared my land of bushes and trees and demolished my thingira (man’s hut) because of him. He would come at night and let himself in there to sleep. I was afraid he might do some crime because he was a thorobeya (person who surveys a place with the (+/

A ljk` Z\ ( k~ıhooto)

purpose of committing a crime). I was afraid one night he might enter my thingira when he was followed because of some crime he had committed. That way he would land me into unpleasant experiences not of my doing. So I told him, “This land here was bequeathed to Kabiru and me. The land bequeathed to you was the same size as mine but yours is now in your stomach. You came to share mine but I refuse. I do not chase you away: the country is a great expanse.” Do you see that malice has many sides?

According to the old people interviewed, malicious deeds were done in secret, an indication that they were unjustified. However, people believed that God did not allow injustice to go unpunished. A malicious person often met with misfortune. In whatever way he tried to rationalize his troubles, the truth was that he was suffering because of harbouring malice. Generally the eventual end of such malefactors was public vengeance as the following story illustrates. During the big famine of 1889 known by the Gĩkũyũ as Ng’aragu ya Rũraya a young man called Wacogo left his home in Kabete (Kiambu) and travelled north to Metumi (Muranga) in search of refuge. He attached himself to a wealthy man called Cege as a voluntary servant (ndungata). He was diligent and good-natured and he endeared himself to Cege’s large family (Cege had three wives) and to the whole neighbourhood. Wacogo was also an expert in piercing ears and many children went to him to have their ears pierced. One of Cege’s daughters, a small child of about five, formed the habit of saying, “I belong to Wacogo.” When the girl became older she often said that when her time came she would marry Wacogo. Cege became envious and afraid of Wacogo. He thought Wacogo would one day turn around and ask for payment for his services. He decided to kill him and cast a spell on him. In the meantime, people had begun to suspect Cege in connection with several deaths in the neighbourhood. As Wacogo was dying from witchcraft, Cege’s elder brother went to Cege and admonished him for killing Wacogo and yet he had been such a faithful servant to him. Cege removed the spell from Wacogo and cast it on his brother for rebuking him. Cege’s brother– who had not been ill– was suddenly dying and was taken to the bush. Since this was a clear case of death through bewitching, the elders of the neighbourhood agreed to keep vigil at night in order to discover who the witch was. The culprit would certainly approach the body under the cover of night. The elders concealed themselves in pairs of two around the body. Eventually, in the dead of the night Cege came along stealthily

(+0

:_Xgk\i+

and paused twice as he approached the body because of mwoyo (soul). Then he touched the body twice with a mũthaakwa leaf (soft leaf of a woody shrub). First he touched the feet and then the head and ordered his brother to sit up. “Curse your people,” his brother told him, “Why should I curse them? What have they done to me?” “You are not going to curse them?” “No” “Sleep then.” He touched him again on the feet and the head with the mũthaakwa leaf and he fell back dead. Cege crept back home and slept. Early the following morning the elders went to Cege’s home and called him. They ordered him to produce the poison he had been using. He produced it and he named several other victims he had killed through witchcraft. His son was made to carry the poison to a certain place and Cege was executed by burning. The poison was burnt with him.

The above account was given by one of the oldest informants. She was a little girl during the famine mentioned; the people involved were known to her. According to the old informants, the people who suffered discontentment, jealousy, covetousness and other such vices were an easy target for deception and exploitation. They were vulnerable and were often victims of society’s greedy cheats. The latter were interested in what they could obtain to eat. They offered to help for some fee or reward those who wished to destroy the objects of their frustrations. Such a cheat could simply wrap up soot and deceive the purchaser that it was a very effective poison when administered according to prescription. Of course, when the prescription did not work the cheat’s victim might be steeped into even more expensive ways of solving his problem. To avoid the inevitable end of the covetous and the malicious, the upright sought to cultivate contentment. This attitude ensured them peace of mind as well as peace with other people. The upright person was also careful to be truthful. Apart from being generally honest in his dealing with other people, the upright person was particularly careful to avoid lying to close relatives and friends. To them a lie constituted an exaggeration or a twist of fact aimed at giving a particular impression to the hearer. According to an informant, Maheeni matirĩ hũũni (Lies have no wealth). In other words, certain exaggerations or distortion (, '

A ljk` Z\ ( k~ıhooto)

of facts do not contribute to the future welfare of the liar. For instance, a man who exaggerated the extent of his property to his wife was likely to lose her respect when years passed and the property was not in evidence. Human feelings could cause a man to favour another woman more than his own mother or wife. According to the Old Age Group the ‘reasonable order of things’ (kĩhooto) is that a man should consider his first duty to be to his mother or to his wife (if he was married). Men who neglected this duty, and expended themselves working for other women, were castigated by other men in songs like the following: Niĩ ndikarĩmĩra, hũ yũ hũ hĩ, Mũka ũtarĩ maitũ Ngwacĩ ĩrĩa nene, hũ yũ hũ hĩ, Nĩ ya mũbĩĩcĩ wa mwene I will not cultivate, hũ yũ hũ hĩ, For a woman not my mother. The big sweet potato, hũ yũ hũ hĩ, Is for one’s son. Niĩ ndikarĩmĩra, hũ yũ hũ hĩ, Mũka ũtarĩ wakwa Ndũũma ĩrĩa nene, hũ yũ hũ hĩ, Nĩ ya muumi na ũrĩrĩ I will not cultivate, hũ yũ hũ hĩ, For a woman not my own . The big arrowroot, hũ yũ hũ hĩ, Is for him who emerges from the (marriage) bed.46

In the light of Gĩkũyũ traditional beliefs about home and the duty of every individual, justice required that the demands of a man’s family would come first. According to the old people interviewed, it is evident that uprightness is a component of justice. Upright people in traditional society were just because they cultivated attitudes of contentment; they were truthful and they were fair. Their attitude and conduct ensured that they promoted peace and goodwill in the community and especially in their homes.

(,(

:_Xgk\i+

I\nXi[Xe[gle`j_d\ek People in traditional Gĩkũyũ society believed that retribution was an integral part of justice. Good was rewarded and in that way was promoted. Evil was punished and therefore discouraged. From what the informants say, good (wega) means everything that promotes peace, goodwill, harmony and well being in the society. Evil (ũũru) means all that harms or disrupts the peace and goodwill that should exist in society. Justice functions to ensure social harmony and the welfare of each individual in society. For this reason, evil deeds must somehow be redressed so that social harmony and the personal welfare of individuals can prevail. The informants in the Old Age Group believed quite strongly that justice did not fail to do its work. Retribution was constantly carried out through both human and super-human agencies. Although reward and punishment are closely connected, they will be described separately. I\nXi[

The informants in the Old Age Group defined reward as the return of moral rectitude. The morally upright individual was the source of his own reward, for the kind of life he led generated its own benefits. For example, courageous people (those who were diligent in seeking their wherewithal) could rightly expect the rewards of ‘cow, wife and land’ and the personal welfare these rewards provided. Those who lacked courage (the cowardly and the lazy) were denied these rewards. However, they had mostly themselves to blame. A song to encourage people to be brave and diligent says this: Mwanake ũrĩ guoya Na ithe nĩ arĩ guoya Hũ hĩ Mekũũria iria tũkaarĩnyua kũ? A cowardly young man And a cowardly father They ask, where shall we ever drink milk?47

So the virtuous life is the source of its own reward. Reward also comes to the morally upright from outside. In this connection, the old people distinguished two agencies of reward, the human and the superhuman. (,)

A ljk` Z\ ( k~ıhooto)

Reward through human agency

Reward through human agency comes to the deserving individual in the form of gratitude (ngaatho). People showed gratitude to others for two main reasons. First, gratitude was shown in appreciation of a good deed that someone had done but even more for the kind of character one exhibited. Secondly, gratitude was shown to a person in anticipation of the fact that the same character would continue to be exhibited. This second reason made reward a kind of inducement for good conduct. As an old woman put it, reward is a “debt felt in the heart to return good to someone who has performed a good deed.” Essentially, the good that was returned to such a person was not only gratitude but also respect (gĩtĩĩo).48 Gratitude and respect were expressed in a number of ways. One way in which people expressed their gratitude and respect to the deserving was the readiness with which they accorded him or her hospitality. People would readily open their homes to a person who exemplified justice, such as a man who was trustworthy and straightforward and was mature in his conduct. Generally, anybody seen to ‘do justice’ (gwĩka kĩhooto) was rewarded through verbal gratitude and appreciation. Such a person might expose a malefactor who intended to do harm to another person. In exposing the malefactor, he arrested the evil that might have been done. The most common way of expressing gratitude and respect was to give tokens of appreciation. Today a person would be given a bought article, some foodstuff or some money. Sometimes domestic animals were given. In traditional Gĩkũyũ society, at times a deep friendship developed as a result of the mutual trust, respect and dependence existing between two elders. This was a relationship based on justice. In due course one elder would give the other ‘a goat of companionship’ (mbũri ya wathiomo). This was a token of appreciation. Traditionally, an upright girl was rewarded by her father when she attained the age of marriage. He provided her with coiled wire ornaments (mũrĩnga) and copper wire ornaments (icango) to adorn her neck, arms and legs. These were tokens of appreciation for the conduct that had won her respect and graced her name. Besides adornment, the father was interested in providing his daughter with some security for her future family. In case of famine she could remove some of the ornaments and exchange them for food. Therefore, her father’s reward to her was some kind of investment.49

(,*

:_Xgk\i+

Reward through superhuman agency

Concerning reward through superhuman agency, the commonest idea held by the Old Age Group was that long life is God’s reward for a virtuous life. Without exception, the informants in the Old Age Group affirmed that part of the fortune which God bestows on the virtuous man and woman is long life. When a bad person died early in life that was taken as deserved punishment. When a good person died untimely, people said that it was fate (ndirũ) for after all, God’s ways are difficult to discern.50 As a general rule, therefore, the upright are blessed with long life. In life they are supernaturally protected from many an accident or event which claimed the lives of their contemporaries. A proverb was quoted in this connection. It says, Gĩathĩ kiega no kĩa Ngai. (The only good appointment is that which is determined by God).51 This proverb summarizes Gĩkũyũ belief in the natural and in the supernatural reward of a virtuous life. Blessed is he who meets death leaning upon his staff. The words of an informant [Meshak Mũrage] can be appropriately quoted: A good man has nine legs. He has crawled on four, walked on two and spent his ripe old age on three, the third being the staff upon which he supports his weakened limbs. Hoary hair and the staff are the terminal reward of the man and woman who has produced children, and who is variously called mũtugi (the hospitable one), mwendwo nĩ irĩ (the one favoured by property), muuma andũ (the generous one) and mũthingu (the upright one). So they are the rewards of a mũthamaki (ruler/king).52

To the traditional Gĩkũyũ, God’s ways may sometimes be difficult to discern. But God is regarded as just to the extent that he does not embarrass him who makes an effort to lead a life of moral rectitude. Significantly, the Gĩkũyũ regarded the staff not merely as a handy tool for physical support and for purposes of grazing: it was also regarded as a symbol of virtue. Whether the individual actually realized it or not, the staff was handled in anticipation of the fact that eventually the person would use it for support in old age. A small child was given a small wand (gathanju) to hold when taking animals out to graze. Girls and relatively young married women did not normally hold sticks when walking unless they were grazing animals. But a girl must hold a wand (rũthanju) when on a mission to invite her relatives to the initiation ceremony which marked her entry into adulthood. A bride was presented with a special staff referred to as mũithũiya as soon as she entered her new home as a married woman. She (, +

A ljk` Z\ ( k~ıhooto)

held this staff when she made the ceremonial visit to her mother (gũcokia makinya) soon after marriage. The staff became one of her precious possessions; she would lean upon it for support in her old age.53 Symbolically then, the individual accustomed him- or herself to handling the staff. On a deeper and moral level he or she was meant to cultivate the character that would make it possible to lean upon it eventually. The Gĩkũyũ believed that virtue could not be acquired in latter years if it was to be genuine and enduring. Hence the proverb, Njũgũma njega yumaga ikũũrĩro (A good club is got from the source). Therefore, a child was encouraged to cultivate uprightness (ũthingu) as he grew up.54 Leading a virtuous life was not seen as being necessarily easy or lucrative. Nevertheless, God’s reward of the blessings which were believed to accompany a fulfilled life made it worthwhile to strive for virtue. Hence the proverb, Njĩra ndaya ĩkinyia (The long but sure way takes someone to his destination). The grasp the informants in the Young Age Group have of reward through supernatural agency is not as well stated, though it is close to the Old Age Group’s understanding. Several informants say that when old people bless young people and pronounce words to the effect “May you live long” (ũrotũũra) such blessings are not in vain. People who are thus blessed are usually those who exhibit conduct the old people approve of. The other idea of this group is that an upright person enjoys peace. A person who has wronged nobody and who does his best to lead an upright life can rightly expect that God approves of him. This is partly why he feels at peace. Gle`j_d\ek

This section on punishment as an integral part of justice is dominated by the ideas of the Old Age Group since the younger generations are not very conversant with this tradition. The Middle and Young Age groups are not able to explain why punishment is part of the ‘reasonable order of things’ (kĩhooto) as well as the Old Age Group. The Old Age Group regards punishment in two main senses. First, the wrongdoer deserves his punishment. The person who is punished must himself agree that his punishment is deserved since it is a consequence of his wrongdoing. In traditional society a man could not deny it because he had been proved guilty, he became resigned and accepted punishment. Before a notoriously mischievous person was given one of the prescribed (,,

:_Xgk\i+

punishments he was told that he had brought it upon himself. In this connection the Gĩkũyũ have a saying, Kũheragio wĩhereetie (People mortify him who mortifies himself). Secondly, punishment served to encourage good and discourage evil. Traditional punishment, therefore, fell into two categories. There was reformative punishment and punishment aimed at purging society of notorious criminals. Since punishment had a definite purpose to serve, the traditional Gĩkũyũ considered it a mistake to ignore any wrongdoing, however small. Several informants in the Old Age Group repeated the saying that, Gũtirĩ ũũru na kaũru (There is no such thing as a little wrong). To be overlooked, an offence would have to be considered very trivial indeed. The reason is that once an offence has been overlooked, the course of justice is weakened because an offender could make a habit of offences. However, an offender might be admonished instead of being punished. In fact, punishment often followed repeated admonitions. The offender might even be forgiven. But as will be demonstrated later, forgiveness was traditionally granted either on condition or at some cost to the offender. According to the informants in the Old Age Group, it was difficult for society to maintain absolute vigilance against offenders. Much crime was done in secret and so the wrongdoers escaped apprehension. Other crimes and offences were done under such subtle circumstances that it was difficult for people to discover and punish them. It was believed, however, that the supernatural forces co-operated with society to bring about the deserved punishment to offenders. Misfortunes were generally believed to be consequences of some offence or other committed by the victim or by some close relative. But even apart from this superhuman surveillance against wrongdoing, God was believed to approve every just punishment that people administered to their fellows. In what follows, it will be noted that what was punished was not so much the misdeed as the disregard by the offender of some moral principle. Accordingly, neglect of duty was punished. A husband could justifiably beat his wife for neglecting her duty to feed him. Apart from the fact that she should have understood that to be part of her duties as a married woman, it was unfair to expect other people’s wives to fulfil that duty. Extra-marital affairs could easily develop if other women were to feed him.A wife could also be punished by her husband for taking snuff. The problem was not so much the actual sniffing of tobacco but the common habit of ‘going to (, -

A ljk` Z\ ( k~ıhooto)

beg for a little tobacco while the food is cooking.’ Tobacco was regarded as ‘the start of gossip’ (kĭrutia kĭa ũhoro/njuukũ).55 People did not beg tobacco simply because they were short of it. The habit was often an excuse to engage in gossip or in extra-marital affairs. A mother might leave her young children round the hearth in the evening, with a pot cooking and a fire burning. In her absence accidents could happen. More often than not she overstayed her visit and things went wrong at home. For the same reason that a man should not beg food, a woman should not beg tobacco. A child who took goats out to graze and allowed them to feed on people’s crops was whipped by his father and also by the owner of the crops. He would probably have been sleeping or playing. But he needed to learn to respect other people’s property and not to destroy it, either through negligence or wantonly. Disobedience was also punished. It was punished because of the implied defiance of authority vested in the parent, the husband, the clan or the age group of the individual, as the case might be. Disobedience was also punished because there was usually a good reason (kĩhooto) in forbidding certain things and in demanding compliance in others. As a rule, a son did not start drinking beer until his father gave him permission to do so.56 A father who found his son drinking prior to obtaining permission stopped drinking beer himself to express his anger. A father’s anger was enough punishment to a son. If he wanted his father to drink again he would have to placate him by giving him a he-goat or a ram. This was a token of repentance. He would also promise to stop drinking. As a rule, a son would be anxious to see his father drink again. Many family ceremonies involved beer and if the father stopped drinking the ceremonies could not be held. Irresponsible behaviour which resulted in pregnancy outside marriage was also punished. The man was ordered to pay compensation to the girl’s father. Both partners to the misdeed suffered disrepute but the girl especially was subjected to a good deal of humiliation as her value at marriage was lowered. The matter was considered especially serious if the two belonged to clans which did not intermarry. They were seen as having defied family authority on the matter. Punishment was exercised in a bid to discourage birth of children outside legally constituted family circles. A child’s proper welfare in terms of rights and privileges was only guaranteed in a home where both parents were legally married. Assault was regarded as a crime and was punished. A person who assaulted another, damaging any part of his body, was ordered to pay compensa(,.

:_Xgk\i+

tion to his victim. In punishing assault the society was trying to discourage wanton aggressiveness. If a person had a grievance against another, the right procedure was to seek redress or reconciliation through the arbitration of a third party. Traditional society also punished ungenerous tendencies. These included stinginess, selfishness and self-isolation. These tendencies were interpreted as undermining the unity that should ideally exist between clansmen and age-mates. If an elder, for instance, proved to be stingy and did not offer other elders proper hospitality on being visited, his age-mates punished him. He was ordered to slaughter a ram (ngoima) or a bull (ndeegwa).57 It was considered a more serious matter when an elder did not call clansmen to share in the meat of the sacrificial ram (ngoima) that sealed his daughter’s marriage. This was like saying that he wished to conduct his affairs alone. He was therefore ostracised. Invariably an ostracised individual found he could not exist alone. Such an elder would soon plead with his clansmen to re-establish association with him. Before they could do so he was ordered to slaughter a bull and a sacrificial ram (ndeegwa na ndũrũme ya horio) for them. If a young man was at variance with his father he could not expect his father to marry him off without raising the issue with him. When his time for marriage came, his father would order him to give him a he-goat and a measure of honey. These were propitiatory gift (thĩnjo) to show the young man’s repentance and his wish for unity with his father. If he defied this order his father would take no part in his marriage negotiations. In effect, this meant he could not get married because the father’s part was vital. The young men of the warrior class also discouraged selfishness in their age mates. During a meat feast, if any warrior hid a piece of meat in order to eat it later privately, he was punished by the other warriors.58 Among the crimes which the Old Age Group enumerated were those to do with attempts by some people to deprive others of what was rightfully theirs. These included theft, malicious destruction of property and murder. In traditional society a thief was punished because he took ‘without being given.’ Punishment for theft was heavy. Among acts of destruction, arson was a serious crime because when a hut had been burned down it took time to replace the stock which had been destroyed. It was especially considered unreasonable for a man to set a hut on fire simply because he had quarrelled with his wife or son.59 (,/

A ljk` Z\ ( k~ıhooto)

Murder was a serious crime because it deprived a person of his or her life in an irreversible manner. To ambush a victim was especially condemned because it gave him no chance to defend himself. Murder was also heavily compensated. Some people killed by administering poison or by bewitching. Criminals who destroyed life in such a callous manner were themselves purged from society; they were ritually killed. Of the crimes of murder, the killing of family members was considered the most terrible. Killing a man, his wife and his child was regarded as destruction of a seed (mbeu) or of a species (kĩruka).60 Habitual thieves, dealers in witchcraft and other malefactors were completely removed from society through public killing or through disowning (gũte/gũikia na kĩano). The quick death of a person formally outlawed was caused by the combined effect of loneliness and the ill will focused on him by society. High on the list of malefactors were those who were known to suffer from covetousness (riitho rĩraya). Their kind of envy (rũitho) was believed to bring ‘baneful influence’ (gũtheetha) on their targets. These were the people known to cause destruction of other people’s property. They were also largely responsible for malicious disruption of happy marital relationships. In people’s estimation, the covetous were worse than professional dealers in black magic (arogi). Sooner or later they were accused of witchcraft and killed.61 Regarding superhuman agency in punishment, the Gĩkũyũ believed that just punishment had the approval of God. God was believed to be on the side of justice and against evil. Therefore, God could be expected not only to approve of punishments but also to aid in the fight against evil. His involvement with the people was on a daily basis. If people were disobedient his punishment came sooner or later, often sooner than later. The Gĩkũyũ did not believe in a future judgement or retribution. Rather, they believed that people experienced the fruits of their conduct in their earthly life. The fruits of misconduct were particularly bitter because God’s punishments were directed at life. They came in the form of a drought that caused famine, human disease and pestilence, loss of livestock through disease, or defeat in a battle against the Maasai. When these things happened people interpreted them as God’s chastisements (mahũũra). This realization always drove people to seek God’s forgiveness through sacrifices and prayers. There were a number of points to indicate that God was believed to approve just punishment. First, punishment was not to be administered as revenge. It might be heavy and deterrent but it was not revenge. That is why murder, (,0

:_Xgk\i+

for instance, was compensated in terms of goats rather than in the death of the killer. The reasonable action was to avoid causing another death. The Gĩkũyũ said, Tũtikũhe hiti keerĩ (We shall not give to the hyena twice).62 Secondly, the council elders, who constituted a tribunal for the purpose of administering justice, pledged under solemn oath that they would carry out their duty with integrity. The oath subjected them to supernatural punishment if they failed to do justice. Thirdly, in the instances of disputes and crimes where there was no convicting evidence, the people resorted to supernatural means of detection. They might administer the oath to the disputing parties or to a suspect. If an offence had been committed and nobody had admitted guilt, the unnamed culprit was ritually cursed in the belief that this curse would cause supernatural punishment and elicit his confession. The Gĩkũyũ believed that even if people should fail to punish offenders, God or supernatural powers would surely punish. Thus such misfortunes as accidental or violent death, illness, and loss of livestock from disease were often interpreted as supernatural means of punishment for an offence.63 Untimely death was the most common way in which God was believed to punish offenders. The kind of conduct that more or less guaranteed long life has already been described. Those who led immoral lives could be expected to meet untimely and often violent death. For instance, malicious people did their evil activities under cover. But, in the words of an informant, “a malicious secret deed begets the doer a bad death.”64 Some of the informants in the Old Age Group believe that many deaths today are a result of injustices of which people are guilty. Other deaths are occurring because people have become sceptical that their evil ways will result in ill effect. According to these informants, people do not repent and seek cleansing when they do evil and so they become defiled. Their defilement has a baneful effect on them. To explain how this is the case, an informant recalls that during the Mau Mau oathing ceremonies, when many people took the oath, those people who had taken the oath went home to their families and in this way defiled their homes. This was contrary to tradition, for traditionally an oath was a serious matter and anyone who took an oath was first cleansed before mixing with his family.65 Regarding the baneful effect of scepticism, informants in the Old Age Group believe that people are increasingly disregarding the fact that evil deeds have the potential to destroy society. People rationalize malpractices, such as bribery, which are contrary to the ‘reasonable order of things’ (kĩhooto). (- '

A ljk` Z\ ( k~ıhooto)

Supernatural punishment is also visited upon people because they have neglected the ‘death-bed pronouncements’ (kĩĩgau) of their departed forefathers. Some of the pronouncements were enshrined in customs that people used to follow meticulously. For instance, the traditional marriage procedure contained certain elements that were like an unbroken chain of promises from father to son, right down the line of ancestry. This chain has been broken because marriage procedure has become a haphazard affair. Lastly, this group believes that supernatural baneful effects are being felt because people have neglected customary family religious ceremonies that formerly served to give a family vital unity.66 The Middle and Young Age groups display little knowledge of the traditional principles of punishment. But both groups agree with the Old Age Group that punishment acted as a deterrent in traditional society. These groups also mention some of the deeds that are punished today such as theft, assault or even verbal rudeness. Regarding murder, both groups say that the convicted murderer was traditionally killed. The Middle Age Group is aware that in traditional Gĩkũyũ society a murder was compensated and the murderer spared so long as he was not a habitual criminal. As far as these groups are concerned therefore, it is not clear how far back tradition goes. The two groups hold that there is an element of retaliation in punishment so that killing a murderer is justifiable.67

=fi^`m\e\jj#Xkfe\d\ekXe[i\jkfiXk`fe Justice functions to promote peace, unity and goodwill in the local community. Punishment and reward are part of justice. But forgiveness and atonement are also part of kĩhooto (the reasonable order of things). Justice allows for forgiveness even when punishment is deserved. The traditional belief was that social peace and community welfare can never be disturbed beyond repair because there is a remedy for every ill. The traditional practice of eliminating habitual criminals was part of the remedy. The Old Age Group believes that forgiveness and reconciliation are necessary and right for one reason: to save life. In a closely-knit society, like that of the traditional Gĩkũyũ, the bonds that tied people together were strong. An individual’s offence affected vital relationships. In many cases, the fact that a relationship had been injured was of greater significance than the offence itself and the punishment prescribed. It was therefore reasonable that forgiveness and reconciliation should be available.

(-(

:_Xgk\i+

When a mature child offended a parent, the parent’s anger was greater punishment to the child than anything else: the strained relationship was difficult to endure. The son or daughter would most likely produce a token of repentance and plead with the parent for forgiveness. Forgiveness would almost certainly be granted as the parent argued that: “I did not bear you to cause your death.”68 In traditional society, when someone, for example a warrior, became a habitual offender, his age mates ostracized him because his conduct gave them a bad reputation. Ostracism involved cursing the victim (kũroga) as well as completely isolating him. Such a person became a pitiable recluse and could easily die from the isolation imposed upon him. However, that was usually not allowed to happen because his father or another close relative would plead for his redemption. The age mates were persuaded into agreeing that in the death of the offender they would be the losers. They agreed that they would “not spill …[their] own honey”69 but remove the curse they had put on him. A person destined to be ritually outlawed (gũteeo) could also be redeemed before that actually happened. A relative or age mate could suddenly decide to act on his behalf and rescue him. He would offer to pay whatever the community demanded in order to avert the ritual outlawing. His reason for so doing would be that there was more to be gained in the person’s life than in his death. Moreover, a man thus rescued was likely to feel indebted to his rescuer and to mend his ways. Nevertheless, the Gĩkũyũ did not believe in forgiveness ‘just like that’ (o ro ũguo), that is, without some cost to the offender. Forgiveness was dependent on acceptance of responsibility by the offender. If the offender was hesitant to accept responsibility he was pursued until he did accept it. Having done so, he must at least be admonished (gũkaanio). Also, it was not enough to simply ask for forgiveness: the offender must offer something to the person offended as a token of his repentance. He must show that no disrespect was meant in the offence. The conclusion of any affair of wrongdoing was some form of atonement (horohio). The ‘reasonable order of things’ appears to have been that the individual should not suffer from evil that was not confessed. Hence, the family cleansing ceremonies (ndahĭkanio) that were performed from time to time. During the ceremonies each family member was supposed to vomit ‘what you know and what you do not know.’ The formula used, (-)

A ljk` Z\ ( k~ıhooto)

Tahĭka wariga ĩrĩa ĩriganĩire indicated that each person was cleansed from the evil he openly confessed, the evil he dared not mention and those he might not be aware of. There were two other occasions mentioned by the Old Age Group as providing general forgiveness and atonement for un-confessed guilt. One was the conclusion of the initiation ceremonies when the newly initiated young people emerged as adults. During the ceremony of kuumithio, when a sacrificial lamb was slaughtered, the young adults were blessed with these words: Horohio Na ũigue thooguo na nyũkwa Na wendwo nĩ andũ.

Be atoned for Obey your father and mother And find favour with people.70

The other occasion was during the sealing of marriage negotiations. During the ceremony of ngurario, the time of the slaughtering of the sacrificial ram served the double purpose of blessing the married couple as well as of gũthaahũra (removing guilt) which either of the couple might be suffering from. This seems to have been necessary because there was always a possibility that the betrothed couple might have violated a rule governing sexual conduct that they dared not reveal. In view of the traditional concern to spare the life of an offender rather than to snuff it out, there had to be a sufficient reason for a habitual criminal to be given up as incorrigible and consequently to be executed. The decision to eliminate such a criminal was made by his family but with the full agreement of his age mates. This agreement was necessary and would be a guarantee to prevent rashness in such an extreme punishment. Prior to arriving at this decision, his family would have pleaded and reasoned with him. In spite of their efforts, he would have persisted in committing crimes, thus causing strife at home. The family would have grown tired of paying compensation to the various people who had claimed loss or injury occasioned by his crimes; they therefore would have disowned him, saying that, after all, “they did not cultivate their fields for him alone.”71 They therefore turned him over to the society for public execution.

(- *

:_Xgk\i+

Though they participated in his execution, they were not blamed, either for his evil ways or for his death. A ritual execution song makes this clear: Warema-ĩ! Waremire ithe Na akĩrema nyina, Na akĩrema mũhĭrĭga; Ndangĩrema bũrũri. Warema-ĩ! Nĭnyonererio Mũciĩ wa kĭremekũ-ĩ! The incorrigible! Who defied father, And defied mother, And defied the clan. He cannot defy the country. The incorrigible! Direct me to the home of the obstinate!72

The public execution was carried out in one of the three recognized methods: burning alive, rolling the person down a precipice in a beehive, or drowning. This public purge of a criminal served to reform many a would-be habitual rogue.

Pfle^\i^\e\iXk`fejËle[\ijkXe[`e^f]aljk`Z\ Interviews with the Middle Age and Young Age groups revealed that the younger generations have a basic traditional understanding of kĩhooto. However, their interpretations of it are modified by the changes in their social environment, changes brought about by various modernizing influences. For instance, practically every informant quoted and explained the proverb, Kĩhooto kiunaga ũta mũgeete (A convincing answer breaks a bow set ready to shoot), thus demonstrating their understanding and respect for reasonableness and resolving of disputes through deliberation and discussion. On the other hand, some of the concepts and the vocabulary used by the old people were unfamiliar to the younger people. The illustrations they used to explain justice were also drawn from modern Gĩkũyũ society. The words commonly used by the middle-aged informants to describe justice were ũgaacĩrĩru (probity), ũgima (maturity) and wĩhoheku (honesty). In their use of these words the informants were basically saying that justice (- +

A ljk` Z\ ( k~ıhooto)

was exemplified in conduct that was right and well-balanced. In the words of an informant, “Kĩhooto is doing the true and right thing so that nobody is wronged.” In general terms, this means that a person does to others that which he would wish them to do to him. A person of probity is therefore generous to other people in the widest sense; he is cordial, helpful and inoffensive. In their turn, the informants in the Young Age Group use the word wagĩrĩru (rightness). To the young informants, rightness is the basic attitude of those who have a sense of justice. Such people are honest and fair; their desire is to do what is right. They have a sense of equity. People with a sense of equity may insist on their rights but they equally respect other people’s rights. Both groups provided examples of the kind of conduct found in people who have a sense of justice. According to the Middle Age Group, a person who has a sense of justice is not only law-abiding but all his dealings with other people are straightforward. He has a sense of fairness and avoids cheating other people. For instance, if he has employees he pays them fair wages and pays them promptly. A judge who respects justice judges cases without favouritism, according to the strict demands of justice. Similarly, local counsellors and elders who make up local tribunals are expected to be people who do not take bribes. According to the informants in the Young Age Group, a sense of equity is especially necessary in those who mediate between disputing or quarrelling parties. Land disputes are common and the elders who settle them are required to do so in a manner that causes no complaints. This they can only do by being fair to all parties concerned. The young people interviewed were of the opinion that upright people are the ones who combine in themselves a keen sense of self-respect as well as sympathy with other people’s conditions and situations. A husband like that may punish his wife but he will not persecute her. Similarly, a teacher like that will punish disobedient pupils but will not torture them. A polygamist may have a wife who spreads rumours that he favours one wife over the others. If he is able to sort out the cause of complaint and to restore peace at home without beating his wife, he is said to have employed justice. Regarding reward and punishment as integral parts of justice, informants in the Middle Age and Young Age groups were in remarkable agreement (-,

:_Xgk\i+

with the old people. For instance, the Middle Age Group explained that the principle behind reward is summarized in the proverb, Wega ũrĩhagwo na wega (Good is repaid with good). Alternatively, Wega ndũrĩhagwo na ũũru (Good is not repaid with evil). This group stressed that reward is not a bribe. An informant in the young age group says: “Reward is like increasing to a person his strength to go on doing good.”73 Thus people openly declare their respect for the person who is upright. This is the person who is known to respect justice and to be trustworthy and generally at peace with other people. The younger generations also believe in supernatural retribution, although their ideas are not as clear as those of the older people. For instance, according to the Middle Age Group, when a person becomes corrupt and disregards the principles of fair play, he may become rich quickly. Should his affairs begin to go wrong, people say that his misfortune serves him right. They make reference to the proverb, Mũgathĩ wa kuoya ũteeaga wa mwene (If you pick up a (lost) string of beads, it will be the loss of your own). This means that ill-begotten goods do not bring a person prosperity. In the same vein, several informants in the Young Age Group say that when old people bless the young and say, Ũrotũũra (May you live long) a blessing like this is not idle words. People usually receive such a blessing when they are of good conduct. The other idea by this group is that an upright person enjoys peace. A person who has wronged nobody and who does his best to live an upright life can expect that God will approve of him. This is why he feels at peace. Equally important, the young people recognize that the Gĩkũyũ believed in the value of forgiveness. There are two main reasons why this was so. The first is that they were more ready to take account of the future. It was more sensible to forgive. This was especially true of mischief and wrongs committed by children. Children were apt to allow animals to feed on other people’s crops. They were also apt to fight and cause injury to each other. These and other matters always involved parents because it was their responsibility to make amends for their children’s misdeeds. A parent affected by the conduct of these children might not ask his neighbour for compensation because his own child might become involved in the same mischief on a future occasion. However, the children were not spared instant caning by the parents as well as by the neighbours whom they had wronged. Of course, the parent would promise to keep a closer watch on his children. (- -

A ljk` Z\ ( k~ıhooto)

The other reason for a leaning towards forgiveness is that the Gĩkũyũ took into consideration who it was that had done wrong. The relationship did not right the wrong but it tempered the seriousness with which it was taken. To give an example, this group observes that at present men have been known to kill others because of having extra-marital affairs with their wives. Traditionally, this would not happen: no man would kill another (who might even be his friend) for this offence. The reason: he might on a future day be guilty of the same misdeed. What he would do is either to stop the affair privately or expose the person to the Council of Elders. The elders would demand that he slaughter an ox as punishment; they would also admonish him. The informants in the Middle Age Group believe that the very fact that Gĩkũyũ society always made provision for arbitration is an indication of the value attached to forgiveness and reconciliation. In former times when elders separated disputing parties through discussion, the guilty party was admonished while the wronged party promised to end the matter, in effect, he forgave the misdeed. To some extent, arbitration still goes on today. It serves to elicit forgiveness between people and to bring about reconciliation. Even when there are no elders near, people will normally look for a third party to help bring about reconciliation. In a case where there is a feud between two families, the fact that parents will still sometimes allow their children to befriend each other is an indication of a desire for reconciliation. According to the Young Age Group, there is value in forgiveness. There is no justification in punishing a wrong that has been done unintentionally or out of ignorance. If the wrongdoer does not normally do wrong, then he should be forgiven and warned not to repeat the offence. Since there is an element of retaliation in punishment, there are people who forgive in order to avoid adding up wrongs. There are others who forgive because they have been forgiven. If the wronged person is merciful he will also forgive easily. There are certain considerations that elicit forgiveness even when it may be easier to retaliate. For instance, a person might decide not to expose a close relative and will forgive him instead since failure to forgive may cause additional problems. A brother may wrong another brother and that one may take him to court, resulting in a jail term. It may well happen then (-.

:_Xgk\i+

that the brother who accused him will find himself having to support the jailed brother’s wife and children. Wrongs between wives and husbands are also more satisfactorily handled by forgiveness rather than punishment. In the same way, a child will hardly have another alternative than to forgive a father. The Young Age Group believes that to forgive is to show pity on someone because he has repented. When a person shows repentance and thus indicates that no disrespect was meant, forgiveness is forthcoming. Also, sometimes a person neutralizes a wrong by doing something commendable immediately after the wrong. This is how children will at times escape parental punishment.

Aljk`Z\`edf[\iek`d\j The preceding section has illustrated that the contemporary Gĩkũyũ society, the majority of which is relatively young, has a fair understanding of kĩhooto. This is to be expected since cultural values are to a large extent handed down from generation to generation. However, the social changes affecting the society are also affecting the way in which contemporary Gĩkũyũ society is living up to its ideal of the reasonable order of things. The following section attempts to summarize some of the ways in which the informants, both old and young, see justice and injustice at work in the modern Gĩkũyũ society. The informants agreed that Gĩkũyũ society has always had upright people who are exemplary in matters of justice. It has also had examples of improbity. These fall into several categories: those who engage in direct criminal acts, such as theft and robbery, murder, extortion and witchcraft, and those who are deceitful but pretend to be honest and innocent. When the latter enter into litigation they stubbornly insist that they are innocent. They are the ones who make it necessary for people to resort to swearing under oath because they will not readily accept guilt. There is a third category of people who lack probity: these are people who disdain others. They overestimate themselves and by the same token underestimate others. An example of this type is the man who wrongs another and waits to be taken to court. When he is in court, the magistrate finds him guilty and orders him to compensate the plaintiff. Then he appeals against the magistrate’s ruling, not because he is genuinely convinced he is in the right, but because he wants to punish the plaintiff. Both, of course, will spend time and money in connection with the case. The plaintiff will spend (- /

A ljk` Z\ ( k~ıhooto)

money on the petition, on transport, on food and on accommodation (if his home is far away from the courts). He will necessarily neglect the work he could have been doing. By the time the final judgement is given, he will have been thoroughly ‘punished.’ In comparison he may be awarded little or nothing. The defender will have subjected him to much injustice and will have demonstrated how much he disdains him. For this reason, some people may these days hesitate to seek redress for injustice done to them for fear of suffering even more when the matter goes to court. People who give and receive bribes provide a fourth example of improbity. Those who give bribes expect people in influential positions to disregard the principles of fair play in order to favour them. Some of the people who are in positions of leadership or influence use their positions to allocate themselves property as well as benefits which should rightly go to more deserving people. According to the informants, this corruption makes those involved insensitive to the demands of justice. When contempt and rapacity combine in one individual he is bound to seize every opportunity to gratify himself at the expense of others. One informant says that her late father was a headman during the earlier period of British rule in Kenya.73 He had eight wives, none of whom he had married according to Gĩkũyũ custom. Each of them was his ‘loot’ by virtue of ‘elevation.’ His family did not lack meat though he hardly ever slaughtered his own sheep. This headman is an example of a class of civil servants who subjected people to many injustices during the colonial period. These were chiefs and headmen who were appointed by the then government to administrative positions. Having suddenly assumed high political status they overemphasized their importance. By virtue of the fact that they were agents of a strong foreign power they intimidated and instilled fear in the local community. Some of them were in the habit of sending retainers (njaama) out with instructions to “bring so and so’s daughter to me.” The girl would simply be ambushed and abducted. Thus she would be forcibly married without proper courtship and marriage negotiations.74 This was great injury to the girl and her parents.75 The retainers were at other times sent to fetch, by force of might, stall-fed rams, freshly brewed beer, sugarcane or anything else the headman coveted in the homestead or garden of an elder he did not fear. The stall-fed ram would have been fattened for a particular purpose, perhaps to meet a debt or to be slaughtered during a family ceremony. To deprive a person of such an animal was therefore to disregard his needs and his wife’s labours. Similarly, beer would have been brewed for some special or ceremonial occasion. When the retainers suddenly carried it away this (-0

:_Xgk\i+

meant that the occasion was ruined. However, in the new circumstances of the colonial government, the people thus disdained were considered ‘small men’ and were unable to seek redress against such injustice. One chief ‘borrowed’ a hyrax skin cloak from an elder’s house saying that he wanted to parade in it for an important government occasion. The elder was not at home when the chief took it and he was both upset and apprehensive that he might never see his cloak again. Indeed, it was never returned. Finally, according to the Middle Age Group, foolish people provide another example of improbity. These are people who lack maturity in the moral sense discussed earlier. They lack a sense of responsibility and a desire for personal dignity; they seem to live for the day. Such is the man who sells his land in order that he may have cash to spend on himself. In spite of the fact that his family may have nowhere else to go he will sell the land and leave the new owner to evict the family at the latter’s convenience. The foolish also include the loafer (njangiri/ mũkora) and the prostitute (maraya). These are regarded by the Middle Age Group as people who take little thought about settling down in life.

:feZclj`fe From the descriptions of justice given by the three age groups, it can be concluded that the idea of justice is central to the Gĩkũyũ moral system. There was a lot of consistency between the three age groups on this matter, though the Old Age Group had the most to contribute on the subject and was able to provide illustrations not known to the other two groups. Justice was a vital component of the Gĩkũyũ moral system. In Gĩkũyũ conception to say that a person has a sense of justice is to say that the person is convinced that there is a reasonable order of doing things and that he subscribes to that order.

(.'

2 70 ?C 4 A
$

~CAMBA) :FLI8><(U The Gĩkũyũ have always valued courage. In traditional society, courage (ũcamba) was one of the characteristics that helped them to safeguard their territory from warlike neighbours such as the Maasai and the Galla. Their value for courage also helped them to sustain the productivity of their gardens and to maintain self-sufficiency in food. This chapter describes the traditional Gĩkũyũ concept of courage which is – with certain changes – an important aspect of Gĩkũyũ life also in modern times.

M`\njf]\Xicpni`k\ij Some early European writers described the Gĩkũyũ as brave while others denied that they possessed this virtue. Among those who said the Gĩkũyũ were not brave was J.R.L. MacDonald, who took part in punitive expeditions in South Gĩkũyũ for the Imperial British East African Company. Describing the Gĩkũyũ war tactics, he says that the warriors merely masqueraded in their war paint and achieved no deeds of bravery. According to him, the Gĩkũyũ never ventured to meet the Maasai in the open. Instead, having fortified their bravery with “copious draughts of pombe” (beer) and “breathing gore and destruction” against the Maasai, they were content to attack the nearest elderly Maasai who might have gone to the forest to collect firewood. However, from his experience of the primitive expeditions, MacDonald admits that the Gĩkũyũ “caused more trouble than their numbers and fighting power should warrant.” Describing them as “turbulent” he points out that they were not likely to keep quiet until the colonial military power was reinforced by the building of more forts.1 Richard Meinertzhagen, who was engaged in the pacification of Northern (. (

:_Xgk\i,

Gĩkũyũ, describes them as a “stubborn tribe” and says that the task of subduing them was not easy.2 Both Cagnolo and Routledge point out that since the Gĩkũyũ were agriculturalists, they were not warlike as compared with the pastoral Maasai and the Galla. Cagnolo makes the claim that the Gĩkũyũ owed their survival to the British who arrived in time providentially to prevent these two ‘lions’ from annihilating them.3 Routledge says that the Gĩkũyũ did not give bravery in fighting a very high place in their scale of moral values,4 He observes: “As a nation they are devoid of the military instinct; as individuals, they do not cultivate proficiency in arms.”5 However, he concedes that the Gĩkũyũ were “a force to be reckoned with” in their own territory. Their war tactics and defence measures were such that they were able “to imprint a lesson on raiders that was not forgotten.” He describes them as very good at defence: Their method of defense … might strike terror into the hearts of the boldest, for at the shortest notice they had war pits ready that rendered any track or path almost impassable either to advance or to retreat by.6

Routledge also commends their boldness in negotiating rivers during Maasai raids. He describes them as “good swimmers” even though they swam “after the manner of the dog!”7 The Gĩkũyũ made two types of bridges where necessary. Near the mountains where rivers flowed along narrow precipitous gorges, a bridge would be made by felling a huge tree across the river. Elsewhere, the Gĩkũyũ made suspension bridges with split tree trunks, sticks and strong creepers, providing foot planks to walk along and hand rails to hold. These bridges were evidently safe to use but formidable to look at. According to Sir Charles Eliot, These constructions present great terror to ordinary Europeans; but it is surprising to see how a native with a heavy load on his head will step across the loose and swaying cords, hardly touching the side-strings, and with no more sign of nervousness than a bird on a thin branch.8

In his book, The Southern Kikuyu before 1903, Louis Leakey devotes a chapter to warfare and raiding. From his account it is apparent that the (.)

~ cam ba) :fliX^\ (u

Gĩkũyũ esteemed bravery greatly and did some very daring things. From time to time, Gĩkũyũ warriors raided Maasai territorial country and fought Maasai warriors on their own territory. Leakey points out that in theory there was no compulsory military service and individual warriors could refrain from participating in a raid if they chose to. A few warriors did in fact remain behind for one reason or another. However, most of them chose to participate in raids. Indeed, it was difficult to restrain them from participating because their reputation and their future were at stake. Leakey says: “A warrior who never went raiding soon acquired the reputation of being a coward, and had great difficulty in getting a wife.”9 He describes two types of raiding. One was a major raid involving many warriors. The spoils resulting from such a raid were shared according to merit so that the braver the warrior, the greater his share: “Some warriors would get ten animals, others five, some only one or even a bare half share in a cow or heifer.”10 A warrior was obliged to actually be brave and not merely to masquerade. Otherwise he gained neither wealth nor reputation. The other type of raiding involved only a few warriors. It was planned during the dry season when Maasai cattle were far away by Lake Naivasha or at the Narok River. Raiding those cattle involved several days’ journey and was highly risky. But the warriors were not deterred.11 Sometimes, if a girl was captured during a raid, it was possible for the Maasai warriors to redeem her immediately. In that case, the warriors on both sides agreed on a duel between two champions, one from each side. Whether the Gĩkũyũ warriors took away the raided cattle and the girl or returned the lot to the Maasai depended on the outcome of the duel. Bravery in physical combat against the Maasai had other rewards. Only a warrior who had killed a Maasai warrior in person to person combat was entitled to sing victory songs (kaari).12 According to Leakey, Gĩkũyũ warriors exercised a lot and in the process gained boldness. Exercise often took the form of inter-clan fights which however “did not cause ill-feeling” in spite of the fact that the warriors were fighting over real issues, such as disputes over boundaries and livestock. At any rate, such disputes were never resolved by warriors fighting but by the discussion and the deliberation of elders.13 Leakey says further that cowardly men of the warrior class were in fact punished by the regimental council of warriors.14

(.*

:_Xgk\i,

There was another type of bravery that did not involve physical fighting. This was the ability to litigate and thus help the cause of justice. Early European writers made comments about it. Bravery in litigation was traditionally conceived of as a combination of the ability to reason and to debate. This ability was interpreted as evidence that a person was intelligent and wise and had therefore the necessary qualities of leadership. In this connection Lambert observes that leadership (ũthamaki) was “essentially a quality, not a rank.” People who became athamaki (leaders) were recognized for their intelligence and their ability to reason and argue. Cavicchi describes the Gĩkũyũ as being, “…extremely good at grasping the strong and the weak point in every argument – especially law and justice.”15 And Routledge says that “Lengthy debate on every possible occasion is second nature to the Agĩkĩyũ.”16 Observing that intelligence and eloquence is much prized by the Gĩkũyũ, Routledge comments: “The Bantu genius for words is seen at its best when a court case proves to be complicated.”17 In 1890, Lugard wrote in his diary, “…I was especially struck with the vast extent of the cultivation in comparison to the few villages I see. This seems to mark the Kikuyu as an industrious race.”18 Before entering Gĩkũyũ country, Lugard had heard reports that food was “extraordinarily abundant and cheap” there.19 Such reports would possibly have come from Thomson and von Hőhnel. Thomson describes how the Gĩkũyũ women frequently “disposed of their abundance” to his porters, and von Hőhnel describes the people as “industrious natives” and “zealous agriculturalists.”20 Von Hőhnel was a member of Count Teleki’s expedition that was the first party to actually traverse Gĩkũyũ country from south to north on its way to Lake Rudolf. Von Hőhnel writes: “During our march here we had passed through districts so carefully and systematically cultivated that we might have been in Europe.”21 Describing their traditional means of livelihood Cagnolo (a missionary) says that the Gĩkũyũ consider the field and the goat as “the two basic pillars on which the whole of the Gĩkũyũ stands,” yet they do nothing to improve their agriculture which “remains in its infant stage.” According to Cagnolo, “what works is nature, human industry concurs very little.”22 The Gĩkũyũ seem to have struck the European settlers and the colonial administrator as grossly ignorant of the “dignity of labour.” Dundas (an administrator) says that the European farmers in Kiambu expected administrative officers both (.+

~ cam ba) :fliX^\ (u

to recruit native labour and to teach farm labourers dedication to labour. He complains that there was much futile talk about teaching Africans the dignity of labour but that this was hardly exemplified in practice.23 The European writers refer to another example of courage, namely endurance. For instance, Cagnolo describes the stoical undergoing of pain by circumcision candidates. During the operation: “The candidate faces him [the circumciser] without flinching: no one must show dismay. Every onlooker stares inquisitively at the patient’s face to see if he shows any sign of pain, or if he is enduring the process stoically.”24 Cagnolo says that a few candidates succumbed to pain “in spite of their determination to exhibit no signs of weakness” to the great amusement of onlookers. But the majority “do not blink, but stand the pain as firm as a rock” and on the following day they “ostentatiously make light of all they have been through as they go out to hunt small animals.”25 Although some European writers found it difficult to admit, there is clearly enough evidence to show that the early Europeans who came into contact with the Gĩkũyũ found them to be a courageous people. Finally, we could end this section by citing Cavicchi, a Roman Catholic missionary. He gives an account of the Gĩkũyũ as he knew them before 1953 and describes them as “never surrendering in the face of difficulties.”26

N_f`jXZfliX^\fljg\ijfe6 The word ũcamba can be defined as the quality of being a njamba (hero). The Gĩkũyũ use the word njamba in a variety of contexts to describe people who accomplish or succeed in any of the things approved by society. The key word is ability (ũhoti). Njamba is therefore used for many different actions, such as: a person who plunges into a river and rescues a drowning victim; one who manages to rescue a child or property from a burning house; a diligent farmer who succeeds in growing plenty of foodstuffs; a person who puts up a strong legal defence and receives his claim. The word njamba is also extended to describe those who manage to pass examinations. And again, in sport those who compete well and go on to win are described as njamba. A warrior renowned for his bravery in fighting the Maasai was called njamba. So was a person who tracked down and killed an animal that had been terrorizing the local community. All such champions are said to have ability (ũhoti) or perhaps more correctly, they are said to exercise their ability. People who have qualities such (.,

:_Xgk\i,

as boldness, determination and diligence qualify to be regarded as able and therefore can be described as njamba. In short, the term njamba was a confirmed title given to those who excelled in one way or another, in conformity with the values of the society. The question, “of what value is this ability?” was more important than the ability itself. Some people were able fighters but because of their aggressiveness they were never called njamba except in derision to mean bully. The consideration as to how the society benefited from a person’s courage explains why among the people described as njamba were those who were able to control their temper and thus displayed patience in their dealings with other people. Among njamba were also people who could heal pain and other forms of illnesses. Again, those who exhibited patience in bearing insults or pain were called njamba since it proved them tough enough to face the various tests of everyday life. Generous people were also said to be njamba. The Gĩkũyũ have a saying, Ũtaana nĩguo ũcamba (Generosity is courage). This need not be puzzling when we consider that, in actual fact, generosity was essential in everything that promoted the society’s welfare. In general, the informants described the courageous person as brave, diligent, persevering and forbearing. These qualities are described in this chapter. ~ru ~me) :fliX^\XjYiXm\ip (u

The Gĩkũyũ word for bravery is ũrũme. There is an etymological similarity between the word ũrũme and the word for men, arũme (sing. Mũndũ mũrũme). Bravery clearly had something to do with masculinity. Men particularly were required to demonstrate the quality of bravery because of their traditional military duties. Although the informants did not emphasize the idea of masculinity (they said that bravery was expected of everyone) exceptionally militant women, who could fight off cattle raiders or other thieves, were looked on by their fathers as ‘sons’ and by their husbands as ‘brothers.’ All the informants described bravery in terms of the ability to fight (kũrũa). A further distinction was made between physical combat and litigation. Traditionally, in both types of fighting bravery is only valued as an asset if it is controlled by a sense of right or good reason. The informants believed in the ability of right or ‘convincing reason’ (kĩhooto) to vindicate itself (.-

~ cam ba) :fliX^\ (u

against obstacles and opposition. The conviction therefore that one was ‘fighting for a good reason’ (kũrũĩra kĩhooto) induced one to be brave. Bravery in physical fighting

Physical fighting was approved in cases of territorial and personal defence, protection of property and challenging of an enemy. The old people interviewed spoke approvingly of the former fights against the Maasai. Regimental battles against the Maasai provided many a redoubtable warrior the opportunity to test and prove his boldness. When the opposing forces were closing in on each other, it was usual for a champion to declare that he wished to tackle his match on the Maasai side single-handedly, saying Reke ngue na njamba ĩno (If I must die, let me die over that njamba). The warriors who fought boldly and killed their Maasai opponents were entitled to sing kaari (victory songs) in which they graphically recounted their combat tactics and also taunted cowardly warriors. Raids against the Maasai were supposed to result in wealth in the form of cattle taken from them. Often the raids involved only a small band of warriors and every warrior had to play his part if he was to get a share of the cattle. Warriors were therefore urged to think brave and to translate their brave thoughts into action. Kĩbĩicĩ kĩa ngĩa ndirĩ guoya Guoya nĩũtindĩkĩĩtwo nĭ thĩĩna Ngaathiga njoya Aanake moige,’One!’ Ng’iri-ri-ri-ri. Ngĩgwa nja ĩrĩ ng’ombe! Son of a poor man, I have no fear Fear has been dislodged by poverty. I shall flutter my feathers And warriors will point out, “There!” Ng’iri-ri-ri-ri.* As I land in a homestead full of cattle!27

These fights also prevented the Maasai from overrunning Gĩkũyũ territory. The warriors who brought spoils from Maasailand were seen to benefit their families. They were also the buttresses of Gĩkũyũ country against Maasai raids. In fact, every warrior took it upon himself to protect his father’s livestock from wild animals and Maasai raiders. For this reason, every young (..

:_Xgk\i,

man carried weapons when he took animals to graze in the grasslands or to the salt licks. At times it was necessary for him to kill marauding animals and to fight against raiders. A young man therefore expected his father to provide him with weapons. On his part, he pledged to fight bravely whenever the need arose. According to all the informants, since every individual has a right to property, he or she should be ready to protect or rescue it from thieves and other malefactors. This may involve physical fighting and people should not shrink from it if it is the only alternative. Traditional society believed that fighting in a bid to protect one’s property was in essence resistance against evil people who sought to destroy people by snatching what one had earned through hard labour. Several of the old people stated that struggling or fighting against criminals does not necessarily mean that a person actually becomes locked in physical combat with the criminal. Rather, fighting criminals includes crying out and making noise in order to attract the help of neighbours. Crying out for help in such circumstances is therefore an act of courage. It is in fact foolish to try and struggle alone with a criminal who may be stronger or better prepared for a fight. Some of the informants also said that it was unwise to follow stolen cattle immediately because thieves could lay an ambush and kill the pursuers. Traditionally, pursuers took a detour and sped ahead in order to meet the stolen cattle in front. That way they avoided being killed in an ambush. The informants in the Old Age Group believe that the efficacy of justice is such that a person who is fighting within the context of resisting evil somehow escapes death. However, if he should die protecting his property, the cause is not lost because other people will most likely ensure that his property is restored to the family. The protection of livestock from dangerous animals and raiders was therefore a strong motive for bravery. Herdsmen who took their animals into the grasslands bordering Maasailand had to be prepared to face danger. Relatively small boys who accompanied their grown up brothers to graze animals learnt early to carry weapons. Their big brothers gave them practical lessons on how to handle danger. According to Githui wa Kariithi, one of the important lessons a boy learnt early was that it was an honour to die while protecting property and so a man should not run away and abandon his property merely because he was threatened.28 Interviews with younger people revealed that their ideas about bravery were remarkably similar to those of the old people. The middle age informants stressed that a person ought to protect his property because he will have (./

~ cam ba) :fliX^\ (u

expended his energy acquiring it. In resisting thieves and other criminals a person needs boldness as well as some knowledge of defence tactics. He must not allow his things to go without an attempt to rescue them; at the same time he must not foolishly expose himself to danger. To this group, physical strength is an asset but people who cannot boast of great strength are also capable of resisting criminals. Since neighbours will often respond to cries for help a person ought to raise the alarm even as he struggles with his assailant. The informants in the Young Age Group believe that a young man should defend his father’s home from outside interference. This may involve having to fight physically. According to the young people, physical strength was not necessarily an indication of a person’s bravery. Nevertheless, it was an asset in physical combat. Several people quoted the proverb, Njamba ti ikere (The champion is not determined by the calves of the legs). They believe that bravery is the will to stand up to a challenge rather than the strength of muscle one can boast of. This will is transformed into boldness to defy bullying peers. Thus a relatively small boy could suddenly turn and beat off a bully who had made a habit of intimidating him. When boys are looking after cattle sometimes bigger boys monopolize the ford where cattle are taken to drink water. They may intimidate the small boys so that the cattle brought by the latter either drink very late or go without water. The only way the small boys can resolve the problem is to fight the bullies. They may feel a sudden compulsion to stand their ground because their cattle have as much right to drink as anybody else’s. Similarly, this sense of moral right can cause a child to intervene if his father has made a habit of beating his mother. The child may suddenly jump on his father and shout, “Don’t touch her!”29 Bravery in litigation

In traditional Gĩkũyũ society the ability to litigate was highly valued. When disputes arose between people over property or other rights, the preferred method of resolving them was by litigation rather than by physical fighting. Litigation was preferred because physical fighting almost always aggravated matters. If the fights resulted in injuries or death, the original dispute might have to be shelved while the matter of assault or killing was dealt with. Besides, there was hardly any matter that was conclusively resolved through physical fighting. Even after fighting it out, some sort of reconciliation had to be sought through the mediation of elders. In other words, the force of might was not conclusive. In litigation, however, the party in the right won through force of right (kĩhooto). And if there should be no winner, the (.0

:_Xgk\i,

matter would have been discussed and exhausted through peaceful means. The readiness and willingness of ad hoc courts of elders to adjudicate cases was a great incentive for people to take recourse to litigation. To give an illustration, one of the old informants related that in his extended family a dispute arose over land ownership. One day he returned home to find his mother and wife crying because the sons of his stepbrother had entered his land and had erected new boundaries with the help of some members of the Local Native Council. A section of his land had been transferred to his stepbrother. His first impulse was to kill somebody just to register his anger. He, in fact, intended to kill his stepbrother for instigating his sons to carry out this act. So in fury he dashed into his house and emerged with his sword. As he hurried to his stepbrother’s house bent on slashing him, he suddenly thought, “Why does a reasonable man need to kill?” Having thus reasoned with himself, he found he was calm enough to speak to his stepbrother and the elders who had demarcated the land for they had not yet dispersed. He told them he objected to their uncustomary action of dividing property in the absence of the interested parties. The outcome of this case was that the family lands were officially surveyed, consolidated and demarcated to the great satisfaction of my informant for he ended up with a larger parcel of land. This example demonstrates the difference between physical fighting and verbal deliberation. Whereas the former is offensive, aggressive, violent, and painful – that is, all the things associated with virility – the latter expresses itself in cool, patient persistence so that the matter causing dispute or conflict is resolved through face-to-face discussion. In litigation, bravery was seen in the party that did not give up fighting until justice had been established. An old informant said that ability to litigate established a person as having ũcamba wa ihooto (reasoning ability). Litigation brought about a kind of ‘defeat’ that resulted from the employment of the principle of justice (kĩhooto). When a dispute arose, the courageous person was the one who did not allow the matter to drop, especially when he considered himself to be in the right and had enough evidence to prove it. The ability to litigate, therefore, demonstrated the type of courage that resisted crafty and greedy people. Such people were often full of schemes meant to deprive others of their property. The ways of crafty people were subtle and devious. Their major weakness was that they lacked ‘good reason’ (/'

~ cam ba) :fliX^\ (u

or justice (kĩhooto) to support or justify their dealings with other people. They dealt unreasonably with their relatives and neighbours. When that happened disputes and litigations were bound to result. This was because a strong sense of justice prevented the wronged party from resigning himself to injustice. Usually a person who was in the right had facts to support his claims. But in litigation much more was called for than simple statements of facts. The courageous person showed his bravery by producing his facts without allowing himself to be confused by those who were interested in confusing issues in order to obstruct justice. Such a person was at the same time bold, enduring and patient. He was not easily provoked to anger, however much he might be contradicted or insulted during litigation. Nor did he become excited and loud. He remained consistently firm and calm. In their belief that courage results from a keen sense of justice, informants described the ability to litigate as ũcamba wa gũthikũria kĩhooto (courage which exhumes justice). Courageous litigants were concerned that facts of a matter were brought into the open so that the truth might become evident and thus allow justice to prevail. In the course of litigation the courageous were seen to have the upper hand. They were seen to be constantly exposing what dishonest people were ‘burying.’ An informant recalled that at one time he and his brother jointly bought a cow. The informant undertook its custody. After the cow had produced several offspring, the two brothers decided to divide the herd between them. On several occasions they had discussed how to divide the animals and on each occasion they failed to agree. One of them wanted more animals because he argued that his brother had been benefiting from the milk. The other argued that whatever milk he had drunk was merely a reward for his labour as the custodian. It was not until they both agreed to face facts honestly that the cattle were divided to their satisfaction. The ideal litigant described above has four main opposites. The first is the person who is both bold and alert but who considers it in his interest to ‘bury justice’ (gũthika kĩhooto). During litigation, this person understands the issues at stake perfectly but he concentrates on shifting emphasis from the main issue in an attempt to conceal what really matters. He tends to out-talk other contestants in his attempt to steer the discussion to a nebulous level. The second is the person who is initially interested to see justice prevail but he is not morally consistent. Sooner or later he succumbs to those who work at confusing issues with the aim to conceal the truth. They prevail over him by way of threats or bribes. (/(

:_Xgk\i,

The third opposite is the person who is easily excitable. Such a person is not open to discussion when a dispute arises. He resorts to physical fighting or stirs up other people to foolish fights. Or he may resort to altercation in the course of a dispute. This type of person is not able to litigate. Whether he assaults other people physically or verbally he hinders amicable solution to disputes. He mistakes his aggressiveness for bravery. The fourth opposite is the person who is too quiet (mũkiri). Although he is unobtrusive, his silence does not help the course of justice. He does not offer help when facts are sought. His silence aids to impede a matter and for that reason he is considered a coward. Bravery was therefore interpreted in terms of both physical and verbal combat. For bravery to qualify as a moral value, it has to be prompted by a sense of right or what the Gĩkũyũ broadly call kĩhooto (justice). The traditional Gĩkũyũ distinguished types of conduct which were either direct opposites of bravery or which have a semblance of bravery but could not be said to be examples of courage. One type of conduct which exemplifies this is what the informants referred to as ũrũme mũnene mũũru (bad or excessive bravery).30 In a sense, all acts of bravery result from a definite resolve to put away fear and to face the odds. However, true bravery is always controlled, while excessive bravery is not bridled. Uncontrolled bravery was seen in the person who became easily excited and tended to fight or insult other people when provoked. Such people also incited others to fight. They were foolhardy and foolishly plunged themselves into danger, which sometimes resulted in death. Mistaking their physical strength and aggressiveness for bravery, they bullied and intimidated other people. Since they caused resentment in the people they intimidated, they were resisted. From time to time, such aggressors were harmed or even killed by the very people they intimidated. :fliX^\Xj[`c`^\eZ\ (kı~yo)

In traditional Gĩkũyũ society, the diligent or industrious person was described as courageous. Diligence (kĩyo) was described as courage (ũcamba) because it depended on certain moral qualities and because it rewarded those who had it. In their description of courage as diligence, the old people interviewed emphasized two things. The first thing is that diligent people possess certain qualities that are the essence of courage. These qualities include strong willpower or resolution, stamina and perseverance. These qualities (/)

~ cam ba) :fliX^\ (u

are summarized as endurance (ũũmĩrĩru). The individual who is said to have the ability (ũhoti) to accomplish what he sets out to do is the one who exercises these qualities. He is characterized by determination and persistent effort, rather than by special talents. For instance, he is the one who takes the initiative to clear a piece of virgin land in order to plant crops. In former days, industrious people endured the long and hazardous journey to Maasai country when they went on trading expeditions. The second thing stressed is that the reward of diligence is material well being. What really gives people the incentive to work diligently is the threat of poverty. When a person realizes that his material well being is dependent on his diligence, he adopts a positive attitude to manual work and does not shrink from obstacles. Traditionally, while a young man tackled a difficult task, he encouraged himself by singing: Kĩbĩĩcĩ kĩa ngĩa ndirĩ guoya. Guoya nĩũtindikĩĩtwo nĭ thĩĩna. Son of a poor man, I have no fear; Fear has been dislodged by poverty.31

A Gĩkũyũ proverb says, Thĩĩna ndũrĩĩaga no mbatha ĩrĩĩaga (Poverty does not kill, but pride kills). In other words, a poor man sooner or later improves his lot through diligence but a proud man sooner or later brings himself misfortunes and eventually poverty. Another proverb urges the individual to learn from nature, Ngari ndirĩĩagwo nĩ wĩra (The ant-eater does not die of work.) In other words, heavy work and sweat do not kill a person. A third proverb admonishes: Mwana wa ngĩa ndarĩ maithori (A poor man’s child has no tears). But in citing this proverb, people normally add a rider, no kĩo arĩ (but he has diligence). Gĩkũyũ society was generally happy with persons who showed initiative and right ambition: such people were helped along by those who had already succeeded. Diligence, however, is not confined to manual work. Rather, the diligent person is the one who attends to all his affairs so that none of his concerns are neglected. The affairs of an industrious person are said to prosper (kũgaacĩra).

(/*

:_Xgk\i,

Informants in the Old Age Group remember well how the people in Gĩkũyũ society discouraged laziness and despondency among its members. Such vices were certain to bring about poverty and destitution. The evidence of how society fought laziness is contained in traditional songs which some of the informants could remember. For example, those who prepared to go on long expeditions discouraged their members from entertaining thoughts of defeat about the journey: Muugi nĩ kũraya, Arokua ategaĩĩte Atarĩ nguo ya mwĩrĩ. Whoever says it is far, May he die before making his will without a garment on his body.32

The main idea expressed in this song is that the despondent person deserves to die destitute, having no property to bequeath to others, nor garments to cover his nakedness. Destitution was seen as a result of despondency. In another song, a young man going on such a journey encouraged his mother to be confident of his return because a few days of hunger and exhaustion could not possibly kill him. Nyina mũirũ, Tiga kũndĩrĩra Ndigaakua no gũthonda mwĩrĩ. Black mother, Do not cry for me I will not die, just grow thin.33

Young men were impatient with idlers among them. A loafer was rebuked by his own age mates, especially when his conduct was known not to match his words. Even the mothers of such idlers, and of the procrastinators who never went for a raid into Maasai country, were urged not to feed them. Such people did not deserve to benefit from other people’s labours, not even their mothers’ cooking! Nyina wa ndiirũ igĩrĩ, Na ĩngĩ ya ithatũ Akũhanda nyũngũ kũruga! (/+

~ cam ba) :fliX^\ (u

The mother of two procrastinators, And a third one to boot, Puts a pot on the fire to cook!34

It is clear that Gĩkũyũ society tended to despise the poor because even though they were given the same opportunity as other people, they did not exert themselves. There was hardly any excuse, for instance, for a man not to own sheep and goats since there were several facilities to enable the poor to start their own herds. Some people took custody of rich men’s animals and in return for their services they were given a few animals. Given proper care, these animals could produce and increase so that eventually a poor man could became relatively rich. Other people obtained livestock through barter of foodstuffs they had grown on their plot of land. Among the Gĩkũyũ, some elders were the owners of large herds of cattle, goats and sheep. At their age and with their wealth they could afford to live at ease. Anyone observing their comfort and relatively relaxed pace of life might form the impression that the rich were not industrious. Rich elders were keen to correct this impression in case the poor should imitate them and slacken in their work. At beer parties, when they openly gloried in their riches, they were also quick to point out that they had had their time of industry; their wealth was not obtained through idleness. They would sing: Njirũ ici mũkuona gwa itonga-ĩ Ti cia itonga, Nĩ cia mũramũki, Huragia mũthanga Gatagatĩ ka ngware ikĩgamba-ĩ ngware, ngware mũrũ wa iya, Ndũgagũre mwana-ĩ, Na niĩ ndĩĩgagũre mũthiori. These black (sheep and goats) you see in the Homes of the wealthy, Do not belong to the rich, but to the early risers, They belong to the one, Who scratches sand Between the crowings of the partridge. Partridge, my beloved brother,

(/,

:_Xgk\i,

Give your young one breakfast, While I go hungry.35

As this song shows, diligence required zeal and resolution. To obtain property was a hard task, requiring much labour and determined effort. It is like scratching the sand for the earthworm. But he who starts early and is persistent cannot fail to obtain something. Failure to obtain a meal does not deter him from work. He ties a belt tightly round his waist to reduce hunger pangs. Those who hope to obtain property must be impatient to get going, for an early start is an advantage. Their impatience makes them determined to overcome the obstacles that hinder their progress. This kind of zeal was much in evidence among warriors. For instance, there were occasions when they were called aanake a ngurũ (ngurũ dancers). On these occasions they donned women’s dress, contrary to custom. Small boys that accompanied them were called njimbĩrĩ cia ngurũ and were dressed like small girls.36 Amid meat eating, they danced and sang words to the effect that they longed for the strength, the vitality, the unity and the zeal that would enable them to obtain property. For instance, they sang that no time of day or season was too early for them to venture out: Tene, tene, tene, tenange Mũkũyũ ũtanaitĩka mathangũ. Early, early, early, still earlier Before the fig tree sheds its leaves.37

The Tana, as well as other big rivers were obstacles because they hindered free movement for those wishing to travel far in search of property. The warriors’ longing to subdue such obstacles is expressed in the following verse: Ĩĩ nguru ĩrĩ hinya ngũrutĩrũo kũ? Ya gũkunda Thagana ngũkũ ĩmwe Aanake maringe na maaĩ ma ndu Ndeeherwo mũkũyũ na mwarĩ. Where will a strong tortoise be found? To swallow the Tana waters in one gulp,

(/-

~ cam ba) :fliX^\ (u

So that warriors may cross knee-deep water, To fetch me the brown (sheep) and its daughter (ewe).38

From the evidence of informants, big rivers such as Tana, Mathioya, Chania and Marewa, did not deter trading expeditions from crossing. Brave and strong young men got into the river first and positioned themselves across its width ready to rescue any person who might lose balance and fall. The rest of the expedition joined hands or supported each other in other ways as they helped each other cross the river. The strong young men who had gone in first crossed after everybody else had landed safely on the other side. Traditionally the Gĩkũyũ were agriculturalists. They described themselves as nyũmba ya mũro (the house of the digging stick).39 The most valuable inheritance that parents could bequeath to their children was their love for land tillage. Parents started educating their children early about tilling the land with zeal. In their teaching and example they were helping their descendants to receive a heritage as agriculturalists. Girls learnt from their mothers and other womenfolk as they accompanied them to the garden. Besides learning gardening skills, they learnt that there were njamba cia wĩra (excellent workers) who were distinct from ordinary women. These njamba were the women who excelled in keeping their gardens well cultivated and always worked fast and efficiently. Their granaries had plenty of food. During famine these women managed to continue having food. A young girl should therefore aspire to become a njamba cia wĩra. In traditional society, an elder had his own gardens where he cultivated irio cia mũndũ mũrũme (a man’s crop). These were perennial and root crops, also known as tuberous crops (irio cia menja) since they involved much digging in planting and harvesting. These crops included coco yams, bananas, sugarcane and sweet potatoes. A man taught his sons how to cultivate these crops. He also gave them gardens where they could grow their own crops as they practiced the skills he taught them. The crops belonged to the sons to do with them as they liked.40 One of the lessons a young man learnt was that a man must keep herds and flocks and at the same time cultivate food crops. These pursuits required good management of time, as well as diligence. A son learnt from his father that even for young people diligence was an asset. People were always ready to assist a diligent person should he suddenly fall into trouble or have an urgent need. Therefore when a young man worked in his garden he might sing:

(/.

:_Xgk\i,

Ndeeriruo nĩ Kĩgotho, ti baba, hũ- yũ- hũ- hĩ Ndĩrĩmagĩre kagũnda Mwana ũrĩ kĩyo, hũ- yũ- hũ- hĩ Ndaagaga mũthambia. I was told by Kĩgotho, my father To always cultivate a small garden for myself. A diligent child Does not lack someone to wash him.41

A father also taught his son that a person’s land did not produce unless effort was put into it. Some weeds, like couch grass, unless it was controlled could render a plot of land completely unproductive. A diligent person should never abandon a garden simply because of the amount of labour required to control the weeds. Therefore a young man as he dug up the couch grass might sing: Mwaroka mũgũnda wa Kĩgotho mũrakorire kĩ? Tũrakorire, hũ-yũ-hũ-hĩ, thangari ĩgĩthaama Ĩgĩthĩ thangari, hũ-yũ-hũ-hĩ, nĩ ĩthaamaga O ta mũndũ! When you went early in the morning to Kigotho’s land. What did you find? We found couch grass migrating. So couch grass migrates just like a person!42

Often a man migrated in search of better fortunes elsewhere. Metaphorically speaking the couch grass had to migrate in search of better fortune in a lazy man’s garden! As far as the moral value of courage was concerned, there was one way in which the idlers (ndiirũ) could clear their disrepute as cowards (iguoya). If they became diligent cultivators, they too could be referred to as njamba. This is because they would then have plenty of perennial food crops with which they could feed their families and buy livestock. In fact, they were in a somehow enviable position. Fighting and raiding the Maasai, as well as travelling to distant places for trade, were necessary but time consuming. These were also risky activities, particularly raiding, as some of the warriors might get killed in the process. Also, the animals brought home, either (//

~ cam ba) :fliX^\ (u

from raiding or trading, might die of diseases or might be unhealthy. In contrast, land tillage was a peaceful pursuit and definitely rewarding. Little went wrong with perennial crops. The man with plenty of food crops and no animals to boast of was better off than the man with plenty of livestock and no crops. If famine should strike due to the failure of seasonal rains it was the owners of perennial crops who sustained the population. Even in normal circumstances, diligent cultivators acquired livestock through barter of their crops. Brave warriors might boast of their exploits and chide the procrastinators, but they also recognized the courage of those who utilized[took advantage of] their absence from raiding by tending their gardens: Ndiirũ, mwangĩria kĩ? Thũnũ nene? Na mĩgũnda mĩnyuthe ta njua? Idler, what more have you than I? Big buttocks? And gardens softened like skins.43

Even those who brought back sheep and goats after the trading expeditions were rather sensitive to the critical remarks of the cultivators whom they left behind: Ndũkanjĩtire ng’ondu nyakĩnyuko Ndaatigire ũkĩnyuka mũgũnda. Do not call my sheep a weakling I left you labouring in your garden.44

The other thing that the informants in the Old Age Group emphasized was that the diligent are optimistic: they have initiative. By their very nature they do not sit back in resignation when circumstances are hard. Rather, they look ahead and visualize a better future when their welfare will have improved. In traditional society, a man who started off poor but was diligent was always able to improve his lot. Lastly, the informants in the Old Age Group observed that the opposite of diligence is indolence or laziness (ũgũũta). The society has always contained lazy people though some might not seem to be lazy. The lazy are not only idlers but also those who lack the will to accomplish much. Those who (/0

:_Xgk\i,

talk of jobs they plan to accomplish but have no evidence of jobs completed are said to have merely boasted of courage (ũcamba wa kanua).45 The desire for wealth was a strong motive for courage. To state the obvious, without property, one was poor. The Gĩkũyũ said that poverty did not kill because they recognized that poverty was not an illness. On the other hand, they said, Thĩĩna ũciaraga gũkua (Poverty breeds death) because on an explicit level lack of property resulted in hunger and bad health. The fear of being poverty stricken and being despised was a strong incentive to diligence and self-reliance and this required courage. The realization that one’s well being and honour are dependent on one’s initiative was a sure antidote for apathy and cowardice. Routledge observed that among the Gĩkũyũ: “The poor man is looked upon with that pity which is akin to contempt.”46 Even though Gĩkũyũ society encouraged its members to be generous and to help each other, it equally discouraged the parasitic existence of an individual. Not even a son should expect to live off his father’s labours without showing evidence of diligence on his part. The Gĩkũyũ aptly said, Thigira ndũrĩĩagwo (The placenta is not eaten) meaning that personal welfare is not a birthright but an achievement. In traditional society, the people who remained poor were generally lazy. Those who were known to have been responsible for their own poverty were despised for their lack of courage. They were of no help, either to themselves or to other people. The Gĩkũyũ say that the only sympathy the poor can show to a person in dire need is the moan of the helpless, the hopeless and the non-resourceful: Ũũĩ ũũĩ (O dear, O dear). Hence the proverb, Ũũĩ ũũĩ ndirĩ kĩguni (O dear, o dear, has no benefit). What has benefit is diligence. Another proverb says, Thĩĩna ndũrĩ ũgariũre; ũtonga ũrĩ ũgariũre (Poverty cannot be managed, wealth can be managed). The courageous, that is, the diligent have the will to manage wealth as it is futile to try to manage poverty.47 Since poverty cannot be managed, the poor become victims, from whichever angle they are viewed. They are not able to manage their lives or to give themselves a sense of direction. Personal welfare becomes an illusion. A poor person merely exists without a sense of well being and so one is as good as dead.

(0 '

~ cam ba) :fliX^\ (u

Cavicchi recalls challenging a man who (out of character) had been rude to an old man. The man had explained that the Gĩkũyũ do not respect the poor because “A man with no property of his own is evidently unable to acquire some because he is stupid.”48 Since no normal person prefers to be poor, the Gĩkũyũ also said, Kũrĩma nĩ kwĩenda (To till the land is to love oneself). In other words, there is no shortcut to personal welfare: people must work diligently. ~ kirı~rı~ria) :fliX^\Xj\e[liXeZ\(u

The informants further described courage as the ability to endure pain, hardships and discomfort. Endurance (ũkirĩrĩria, wĩtiirĩrĩria) was a highly valued quality in Gĩkũyũ society. The informants explained that the Gĩkũyũ practice of giving children an experience of pain during the rites of passage was meant to toughen them. The emergent adult was expected to be persevering and patient in the face of the pain, discomfort and hardship that he or she was bound to face in life. Stoical endurance of pain and discomfort was therefore one of the qualities taught to children from an early age. The power to endure was tested from time to time during children’s play, or at certain stages in a child’s development. For example, a boy was not supposed to cry if a calf stepped on him when he was learning to milk its mother. When a boy was away from home herding animals, he might have to walk over thorny ground or he might have no other food to eat except wild fruit and berries. He was not expected to complain since this was good training for the hardships that he would experience sooner or later. Girls were also encouraged to practice carrying quite heavy loads. The need to bear pain with a stoical indifference was taken so seriously that initiates were thoroughly conditioned to persevere without flinching during circumcision. This conditioning was done during the ceremonies that preceded the circumcision. Singing and dancing took a prominent part and through songs as well as by means of direct advice the initiates were exhorted and encouraged to be stoical. Those who showed no signs of pain were highly praised. Mũũmĩra kahiũ Ndangĩrĩa mbũri No arĩire ndeegwa!

(0 (

:_Xgk\i,

He who endures the knife, Should not eat a goat, He is fit to eat a bull!49

Endurance is in fact always present in brave and diligent people. It has been demonstrated in examples that brave people must have the ability to persist in order to win. The warriors who went to raid the Maasai country had to endure difficult terrain as well as difficult weather conditions. Cowards were neither able to face the cold on the mountains nor the combat with the Maasai warriors. Iguoya no ‘ruku, ruku’ Ciorere mũrangiinĩ nĩ heho Na tũthiaka tũirũ ta ũrũrũ. These cowards, May they rot from cold in the bamboo forest With (their) quivers as black as soot.50

Gĩkũyũ warriors kept their quivers in their mother’s huts, where they were hung on pegs. A coward’s quiver was black from soot because it was rarely removed from the peg. A brave warrior’s quiver was red because it constantly rubbed against his shoulder blades which were smeared with red ochre. Similarly, hunger, thirst, and exhaustion did not deter the diligent from working long hours or from walking far. These were the necessary discomforts they had to endure if they were to obtain anything. Traditional society encouraged its members to exert themselves and to endure discomfort. People were encouraged to work long hours in the fields. The Gĩkũyũ distinguished between lazy people, those who started their midday rest at about 11 a.m. and the ‘excellent workers’ who worked for a further hour before resting, in order to see ‘evidence of a day’s work (mĩhonia). In the long run the latter achieved much more. Gĩkũyũ women used to carry extremely heavy loads on their backs and they took pride in this ability. According to the old people interviewed, much of the singing the people did was meant to make the work seem less, the loads lighter and the distances shorter. And so people encouraged each other in song to work a little longer, carry a little more and walk a little farther. For example, it was the job of young women and grown up girls to go far into the forest from time to time in order to get good firewood. On (0)

~ cam ba) :fliX^\ (u

those occasions they tended to carry extra heavy loads partly because these expeditions were not a daily affair. Not only the firewood must be sufficient to last some days but on coming home it also had to be shared with one or two other women. So on top of the main load (which was quite heavy in terms of size and weight) there was a smaller load (njoherera). Therefore, as they carried the heavy loads homeward, they sang that they were satisfied that they had the best firewood and also that their loads would gladden several people in the village: Mũtĩ mũirũ, mũtĩ wa itimũ Mũtĩ ũtarĩ ndoogo Mũtĩ mũirũ. Black wood, (fit to be) a spear handle Wood without smoke, Black wood. Ikundi no igĩrĩ Hatu no igĩrĩ Harĩ kĩa ĩyai Na kĩa mũthagaani No njoherera nĩ Ya nyina wa Ruhaco No ndagakene! The piles are but two Only two There is one for dear mother. And one for the one who meets me And the extra one For Ruhaco’s mother But she shouldn’t rejoice!

When one woman’s load began to lean more on to one side, because she was beginning to feel tired and to lose control, the others would comment in song so that she would prop it up and would summon up some more energy to carry on: Ndĩrerirwo-i mũrigo nĩ ũiniĩ Wa mũka ũrĩa-ĩ twarutire ng’ongo Mũtĩ mũirũ. (0*

:_Xgk\i,

I heard that the load was lopsided, Of the wife we married from far. Black wood.

Some of the women would have made arrangements for their friends to meet them at a rendezvous in order for them to be relieved of the heavy loads. But even those who, for one reason or another, could not find relief were not deterred from carrying on. When the ones who had been relieved and who were now less tired carried their loads into the courtyards, the exhausted woman was confident that she would be able to carry her load up to the granaries. Ngwĩtwaranĩra na ũrĩ mũthagaani Akĩrekia nja-ĩ Ndekie makũmbĩinĩ Mũtĩ mũirũ. I will go with the one who has a relief As she (the relieved one) drops (her load) in the courtyard I will drop (mine) by the granaries Black wood.

Similarly, since the trading expeditions to Maasai country were long and hazardous, the men and women sang as they trekked. The threat of poverty forbade anyone of thinking the distance too long. Crossing big rivers was particularly hazardous because the Gĩkũyũ traders were carrying goods to sell to the Maasai. Rivers did not deter them: first they sang as if in prayer and then used the most appropriate method of crossing in the circumstances: Marewa ndagũthaitha Ndũkandwarĩre mbakĩ Na mũkuui wayo Marewa, I plead with you Do not carry away my tobacco And its bearer.51

This aspect of courage, fortitude, was also a great help towards the stability of marriages in traditional society. No man or woman had the illusion that (0+

~ cam ba) :fliX^\ (u

married life was an easy matter. A man had to look after his wife (or wives if he was a polygamist) and his children. He had to provide them with adequate clothing, adornments and provisions for food and feasts during the numerous religious and social ceremonies. The needs of his family forced a man to be tough and to work constantly. It was a great embarrassment for a man if his wife returned to her father’s home because he had not provided for her. Children could also cause their father embarrassment if he failed to make provisions for their initiation and delayed it. A married woman had to combine the qualities of fortitude, diligence and patience. Married life as both wife and mother was demanding. A girl was advised that she did not get married to be waited upon. A wife had her own garden where she grew food. She had several stall-fed rams that she tended, and of course it was her duty to feed her husband and children. She had numerous other household chores. If the relationship between the husband and the wife became strained for one reason or another, the wife was advised not to run away from the situation. Running away meant that she forfeited the prospect of a settled life and possibly the welfare of her children. The Gĩkũyũ have a saying, Gũtirĩ kwa arũme kwega (No man’s home is good). This saying originated from a story about a woman who thought that her husband was harsh because she had a lot of work in his home. She ran away and joined herself to another man to whom she complained that her first husband was a hard taskmaster. The man told her she was welcome to live with him, adding that his home was not without work. Soon the man was preparing to brew sugarcane beer and so he took the woman to his sugarcane garden and proceeded to cut down the sugarcane for her to carry. She could hardly walk under the weight of the sugarcane load he had made her carry. Under its weight she cried out, Kaĩ gũtirĩ kwa arũme kwega-ĩ (Now I know that no man’s home is good!). She realized her naivety in thinking that after several trials she would eventually get an ideal husband. The middle age informants interpreted courage as the ability to face hard times (mathĩĩna). These could be times of distress, as when a supportive member of the family died, when there was scarcity of food or when a whole herd was wiped out by some disease. Poverty, suffering and other hardships were likely to follow. In such circumstances, a person was expected to endure whatever suffering might accompany these circumstances and to resolve to expect an improvement in his lot. The informants in the Young Age Group believe that times of emotional (0,

:_Xgk\i,

stress call for endurance. Besides the ability to withstand pain and discomfort, a person is expected to overcome stress. The young people were of the opinion that the traditional training in endurance, with experience like piercing the ears and circumcision, was worthwhile. Today, circumcision is done in hospitals and any pain felt is negligible. But some of the informants believe that religious teaching about trusting God in all distressing circumstances helps a person to endure them. This is because the person does not feel destitute. The young informants interpreted the Gĩkũyũ word ũũmirĩru to mean boldness. They talked of the boldness that people in positions of responsibility need in order to take a firm stand on certain issues. According to the informants, just as we can talk of the courage to make decisions, this group felt that since parents, teachers and leaders are in positions of supervision (kũrũgamĩrĩra), they should carry out their responsibilities without fear. In the view of this group, proper understanding of one’s role as a parent or a teacher gives boldness. Thus a parent will know that he has a right to discipline his children, and a teacher that he has a right to punish pupils. Some heads of schools fail to administer schools in the right way, possibly because they lack courage. The young people interviewed were of the opinion that older people are generally confident in what they are doing. In contrast, many young people do certain things in fear because they feel that older people don’t approve of them. They mentioned such things as having boyfriends or girlfriends, and going to watch films. Young people do not want their parents to know what they are doing so they find themselves telling lies. Consequently, they do not lead confident lives. ~ hooreri) :fliX^\Xj^\ekc\e\jj (u

Steadfastness was another aspect of courage described by the informants (the Old Age Group). It was also mentioned by the two other groups. The informants in the Old Age Group used the word ũhooreri, which ordinarily means humility. In the context of courage, ũhooreri means the the quiet confidence of the person who has control of his emotions. According to the Old Age Group, the person who combines the qualities of firmness, gentleness and cordiality is considered courageous. These qualities can be summarized as wisdom (ũũgĩ). The truly courageous man is the wise man. This is demonstrated in several ways. (0-

~ cam ba) :fliX^\ (u

A wise man prefers to be forbearing (gũkirĩrĩria) when provoked. He avoids fighting and getting into strife with people because he discerns the unpleasant and sometimes regrettable consequence of such conduct. When provoked, he is more preoccupied with calming himself than with taking up the challenge. Consider two people who have argued over a matter. One of them calls people to mediate between them to stop the imminent fight. This may look cowardly but he is the wiser of the two and is therefore considered to be the courageous one. He is said to possess gentleness (or inoffensiveness) and patience. Such people prefer to wait for a matter to be investigated rather than to jump to conclusions and act unadvisedly. A man may lose a goat and someone may tell him that a third party has stolen it. The third party is approached and denies it. The courageous man will wait patiently for investigations to be carried out. He will not offend the suspect in any way. But he will be firm in demanding his compensation should the third party be found guilty of stealing. The informants in the Old Age Group pointed out, however, that too much gentleness (kũhoorera) is not a virtue. A person who is too gentle can in fact be described as a moron. He remains inert or quiet when he could act to defend his rights. Such a person is despised. He is also the kind of person who will be exploited. Some of the middle age informants said that people who strike a balance between aggressiveness and gentleness exemplify courage. This was referred to as gentle firmness. They also spoke about conduct between husbands and wives as requiring courage. To give an example of what they meant by gentle firmness, they mentioned that a prudent wife exhibits a careful balance of the ideals of give and take. She makes no outright demands on her husband for money, clothes and other provisions. Nevertheless, she obtains her rights. She manages to do so through her diligence, fidelity and cordiality. She gives her husband no cause to seek comfort outside the home he provides for her.52 Another example of gentle firmness is shown by a wife who, although she knows that she is the one who in fact controls matters in the household (having the ideas and the initiative) she will nevertheless be careful never to cause her husband embarrassment. Besides showing him respect, she is careful when his friends and age mates visit him at home to show that she respects and obeys him. She communicates this to them in the way she accords his guests hospitality and by watching how she speaks to her husband in their presence.

(0.

:_Xgk\i,

A third example concerns men. A stupid man tries to show that he is the boss of his home by being aggressive and thus compelling obedience from his wife and children. But a wise man knows that his courage as a husband and father should serve to consolidate (gũcokanĩrĩria) his home. He will therefore behave with maturity (ũgima) towards his family. In Gĩkũyũ idiom, when people say that a person aathaga gwake na thiarĩ (rules his house with a club) it is because they disapprove of his rashness and his foolish quarrels with his wife.53 The middle age informants agreed with the older informants that the marital situation takes a special kind of courage for each partner to live with the other. In other words, it takes wisdom. The young people interviewed were similarly of the view that meekness is an aspect of courage. According to informants in this group, a person should be able to control himself and to show meekness when such conduct is called for. For instance, when a boy is visiting a different neighbourhood, he could be bullied by other boys. Since he is sure to be outnumbered, he would be wise not to respond to their bullying in order that they might leave him alone. He does not have to fight to prove that he is courageous. The old people talked about a related aspect of courage which is seen also in the person who is usually able to calm strained relationships and emotive situations. Such a person is often separating contending parties by ‘throwing reason’ (gũikia ihooto) at the contending parties, like a person who throws water onto a flaming fire. Such people are often informally asked to mediate between neighbours and to give them advice (kĩrĩra). They are regarded as njamba because, through this type of generosity, they win people over. People respect them because they are not presumptuous.

@eZ\ek`m\jkfZfliX^\ When asked the question why courage was valued, the responses showed that the Gĩkũyũ had definite incentives to courage. They included material gain, a good reputation, a sense of confidence and security, and justice. DXk\i`Xc^X`e

The image of a brave warrior who went on a raid to Maasailand, brought home spoils, gained a high reputation and eventually settled down to a relatively comfortable life with a family, with land and with livestock was highly attractive. Equally attractive was the image of a young man who more than compensated for his lack of bravery in raiding by diligence (0/

~ cam ba) :fliX^\ (u

in tilling the land. In fact, the diligent cultivator was envied because he managed to acquire all the domestic animals he needed by trading with his food crops. The more peaceful but very challenging pursuits of land tillage, animal husbandry and trade were in fact regarded as more rewarding. Courage was therefore an asset to anyone who wanted to acquire property and to improve his lot materially. When the spoils from Maasailand were divided among warriors, those who had distinguished themselves fighting received greater rewards. If a brave warrior selected an animal for himself no one felt called to challenge him. The Gĩkũyũ feared poverty very much. One of their proverbs states, Kaba gũkua gũkira gũthĩĩna (It is better to die than to be poverty-stricken). The need to acquire property was a strong motive for courage. In the traditional setting of a subsistence economy and polygamous families, where each son received a share of his father’s possessions, nobody could rely entirely on inheritance. If one wished to acquire wealth he had to work hard. This fact was often stressed by wealthy old men when they admonished young people, encouraging them to be diligent.54 Personal ownership of property was one way of catering for personal welfare. The society made it clear to the individual that it was obliged to carry him, but not the whole way. Through direct counsel and through experience the individual was urged to aim at material self-sufficiency and honour. Existential wisdom had shown that, Kĩnya kĩrĩ itĩna nĩ kĩo kĩĩgaga (A gourd with a flat bottom stands firm on its own). The individual was persuaded on a number of scores to seek self-sufficiency. Bata ndũrutanagwo (A person’s need cannot be fully met by other people). There are certain needs the society is not willing to shoulder for the individual. Mũndũ ndagũragĩrũo mũka na akagemerio (A man does not have a wife married and adorned for him). People may be willing to give but they can never give sufficiently. Cia ũhooyo itĩyuragia ikũmbĩ (That which comes from charity is never sufficient to fill a granary). Well-wishers may happen not to have anything to spare in spite of a beggar’s dire need. Ũhooi ũraragĩria mwana (Habitual begging makes one’s child sleep hungry). Above all, the individual who had made a habit of begging earned disrespect for himself. Also, the state of dependence on others undermined the individual’s self-esteem and confidence. He had to swallow some humiliation and insults from his benefactors. Hence the proverb, Gĩthũmbi gĩtire ngoro (A beggar (who works for other people for small rewards of food) has no self-respect). Therefore, for the sake of (0 0

:_Xgk\i,

independence and respectability the individual had to be concerned about personal property. It was even better if he could own more than average. When western education was first introduced into Gĩkũyũ country, it was the courageous people who were not afraid of its challenges. These courageous pioneers were at a material advantage in the new social order resulting from the introduction of western culture. Characteristically, in this new social and economic order, the Gĩkũyũ youth began to clamour for the kind of weapons that would enable them to survive in the new world. Koruo nĩ ndemi na mathaathi Baba ndagwĩtia kĩruugũ Njoke ngwĩtie itimu na ngo. Baba, rĩu ngũgwĩtia gĩthoomo If it were ndemi and mathaathi* Father, I would ask you for a meat feast. Then ask you for a spear and a shield But Father, I now ask you for an education.

The middle age informants were also of the opinion that a good education and a diligent search for property will reward a person materially. According to them, a good education and material benefits are both fruits of labour. This group observes that trouble, necessity and desperation are all inducements to courage. When a person is threatened by imminent poverty there is nothing left for him to do but to take courage. Today in Kenya, it is not usual to find that a person who at one time was destitute is now the owner of property. The major reason for this change of fortune would be his determination to be courageous and improve his lot. The middle age informants, as well as the young people were aware that in traditional society people did not become rich without either the courage to raid the Maasai or to till the land. The young people observed that today a diligent farmer who amasses property together with a good education will get good results. A courageous person becomes rich quickly because he is able to do things of which other people are afraid. However, misdirected effort brings poor results. Some of the young people mentioned that they had been advised by their parents and grandparents to aim high. >ff[i\glkXk`fe

In traditional society, a good reputation was a highly valued non-material )''

~ cam ba) :fliX^\ (u

reward for courage. The word njamba (which was applied to the brave, the diligent and the enduring alike) was a conferred title. Only those persons who excelled in the eyes of society were referred to as njamba: they had won the respect of the public. Such were the initiates who did not fear the circumcisers’ knife. In adult life they were expected not to flinch at difficulties. Often people expressed their respect and honour to the courageous people by way of material gifts. Sometimes these gifts were quite small tokens of respect as when people holding a meat feast saw a man of reputation passing by and invited him to share “because a man like you should not pass by without being given something.” People regarded it as a privilege to give such a person something. Hence the proverb Kĩrĩ hinya kĩrĩaĩgĩra mwarĩ wene (A strong man is invited to eat (in a feast) for a maiden though he is no relative of hers!) A Gĩkũyũ song says: Nyama njerũ Itaheeagwo Ndamĩheirwo Ndaiyũkĩa gathiaka. The prime white meat I used not to be given I began to be given it When I took up the quiver.55

Public appreciation was therefore an incentive to courage. By the same token, brave warriors who had killed Maasai warriors and therefore had qualified to sing the special warrior song known as kaari collected many sheep and goats from their relatives. Although the middle age informants did not talk about reputation, they were of the opinion that a desire for respect is an incentive to courage. Those who lack courage are despised and are sometimes ill-treated as well. Therefore, a strong motive for courage is a desire to put a stop to any tendency by other people to despise one. Some of the informants quoted the Gĩkũyũ proverb that says Mumenwo arutagwo mbaki iniũrũ (The despised person gets his snuff removed from his nostril). But people do not take advantage of the courageous. Hence the saying, Wa njamba wĩtigagĩrwo ũrĩ thiaka (The arrow of the heroic warrior is feared while still in the quiver). Besides, a courageous person is exemplary and people will not only remember him but will also emulate him. )' (

:_Xgk\i,

The young people also commented that courage is worthwhile because the courageous have a good reputation and are respected. Such people are normally given leadership. The names of courageous men, such as Wang’ombe wa Ihura and Dedan Kimathi, live on long after their death. Younger generations who hear of them may emulate them and become heroic themselves. The proverb Kaba gũkua ngumo ĩtũũre (Better to die and your reputation lives on) was repeated by several informants. The informants said they have grown to value courage because people do not like cowards. :fe]`[\eZ\

Another incentive to courage was confidence. The courageous person had to have confidence in the first place but an act of courage confirmed the confidence one had and induced more confidence. The traditional Gĩkũyũ society encouraged its members to meditate on mental ideas that would foster confidence. Expressions such as gũtĩrĩ ũndũ ũtũũraga (nothing lasts) and itikuuagwo igĩrĩ (people do not die twice) encouraged people to face up to any ordeal or challenge. The accomplishment of any kind of feat helped to give people confidence, so that they were prepared to repeat it and to improve on their performance the next time. The old people interviewed stressed that self-pity did not benefit a person and that it was always good policy to face up to things and leave it to God to pity one if one deserved pity. In this connection, the Gĩkũyũ have a saying, Njamba ihoyaga Ngai (He who has courage prays to God). This proverb means that the courageous person is sustained by the thought that God helps in every genuine, reasonable effort. Another proverb says, Kaba kũrĩrĩwo nĩ Ngai gũkĩra kwĩrĩrĩra (Better to be pitied by God than to nurse self-pity). This proverb is told with the conviction that God deals compassionately with those who show him not the tears of despondency and despair but evidence of real effort to combat problems. Hence the proverb, Ngai ateithagia wĩteithĩĩtie (God helps those who help themselves.) The middle age people interviewed agreed with the old people that since nothing lasts, an attitude of confidence helps people to meet any crisis. The informants pointed out that even when there is no material gain, a person enjoys a sense of achievement from a courageous deed. On the same issue, the young people said that courage makes a person secure: people do not play the fool with him. It also gives a person confidence in whatever he is doing. If a person is holding a position of responsibility, confidence makes him feel up to it.

)')

~ cam ba) :fliX^\ (u

There is a necessary relationship between courage and optimism or confidence. Optimism is part of confidence so that courageous people generally are keen to try something new. Optimism induces courage and the results of courage keep optimism alive. Traditional society encouraged its members to cultivate optimism so that they could conduct themselves with confidence. With optimism, they faced the reality of hard work. Nothing short of courage brought the welfare of one and all. Proverbially they said, Gũtirĩ kĩhonia kĩega (No cure is nice). That is, all things that bring about the people’s welfare are acquired through sweat. Therefore, people should honour work and apply themselves diligently. Aljk`Z\

Justice was an incentive to courage in two ways. First, it was considered just that every individual should acquire personal property and to have the right to such property. Justice also required that a man should safeguard his property and this required courage. Secondly, the duty to uphold justice as it affected every area of life was a reason for courage. The Gĩkũyũ understanding of justice (kĩhooto) as the reasonable way of things, meant that courage was essential for the protection of the family. According to the young informants, any behaviour that is not reasonable should be resisted. This includes standing up against outsiders who interfere with one’s home, resisting thieves, and intervening if parents are quarrelling unreasonably. These are instances when justice demands courage. Justice therefore becomes a motive for courage. There is a strong relationship between courage and justice. Good reason must motivate courageous acts; otherwise courage is not a virtue. Fighting without a sense of right merely provokes strife and only achieves discord. Physical fighting is a foolish approach to disputes; peaceful means, such as litigation and discussion, bring more satisfying solutions.

:feZclj`fe The various aspects of courage described in this chapter have demonstrated that courage was traditionally a high moral value. At the individual level, it was reasonable that a person should be courageous. The courageous person acquired wealth that not only met his material needs but also gave him a measure of independence; it also helped to earn him an honoured place in society.

)'*

:_Xgk\i,

Thus, bravery was valued but too much bravery became foolhardiness. The foolhardy over-reached himself in his aggressiveness, and this resulted in foolish fights or insults. The foolhardy only succeeded in souring relationships and creating enemies. Certain traditional values on courage still hold among the younger generations, as shown by the responses of the younger informants.

)'+

2 70 ?C 4 A
%

K
:_Xgk\i-

Regarding the drinking of beer, the written sources are generally agreed that the Gĩkũyũ exercised moderation. Young men abstained in order to devote themselves to military duties.6 Commenting on the drinking habits of elders, Leakey says that the elders did not drink beer only for pleasure. He says: “The vast majority of occasions when beer was consumed were connected with religious rites and ceremonies.”7 The literature has quite a lot to say about temperance in the context of sexual behaviour. The other writers do not support Cagnolo’s views about Gĩkũyũ sexual morality. He says, for instance, that parents did not concern themselves about the sexual behaviour of their children since children “cannot beget before puberty.” He describes Gĩkũyũ dances as occasions of “great corruption, bringing men to the level of beast.”8 But Leakey observes that although Gĩkũyũ children had considerable freedom, “they received a great deal of instruction from their parents” and were “subjected to a good deal of discipline.” He goes on to say that at puberty children were allowed to play at having sexual intercourse but parents “constantly warned them against actual sexual intercourse.” Mothers examined their daughters from time to time and the knowledge that this would happen was usually enough to make girls “obey the rules laid down for them.” Kenyatta and Leakey both say that children’s dances were attended by grown-ups in order to ensure good conduct. According to Kabetu, the familiarity achieved at dances did not lead to promiscuity. From what the literature says, it seems that two methods were used to help people exercise self-control with regard to sexual behaviour. First, people were taught to treat the opposite sex with great respect. According to Barlow’s informant, during the final preparations for initiation, both girls and boys were accommodated in the same facilities in order to be instructed. They were specifically instructed to regard each other as brothers and sisters, not as lovers.9 The same attitude was required of the warriors when they raided the Maasai. Any warrior who captured a Maasai girl was to treat her as if he were her brother or guardian; on no account was he to have sexual intercourse with her.10 Secondly, people were taught to prize a good reputation highly. Intemperate behaviour earned a person a bad reputation. During nguĩko, for instance, the question of reputation was at stake.11 According to Kenyatta, behaviour leading to conception was “absolutely against the tribal law” and “The law punishes it by imposing social stigma upon the offenders.”12

)' -

K\d g\iXeZ\ (w~ık i nd~ıra)

If conception should result from the behaviour of two young people, the man paid a heavy fine and in addition he was “made a social outcast ... by all the young men and girls of his own age group.”13 The girl was punished by being made to provide a feast for the men and for her age-mates. She was also “liable for ridicule.”14 If a man tried to remove a girl’s garments during nguĩko he ran the risk of being avoided by girls “as they would not trust or have confidence in him.”15 Whereas the society did not limit the individual freedom to pursue pleasure, people were encouraged to exercise moderation. For instance, when there was a dance that might go on for many days, people commended as wise the people who danced for a short period, say eight days, and then turned their minds to other things, like trade or cultivation.16

K\dg\iXeZ\XjXYjk\ek`fe (kwı~hinga) A temperate person exercised abstention (kwĩima). According to the informants, to abstain is to avoid doing something that is within one’s power to do because of some reason important to the person concerned. For instance, married people might avoid sexual intercourse for a period of time because of certain ceremonies taking place in the home. The old people interviewed distinguished between a ‘public ban’ (mũhingo) and a ‘self-imposed ban’ (kwĩhinga) in order to emphasize the element of personal decision involved in abstention. In traditional society both types of prohibition were observed and although they served similar purposes they were quite distinct. In mũhingo some organized group in society imposed the ban and the individuals concerned were required to comply. For example, the council might decide that in order to enhance the strength and discipline of the regiments for defence, certain age groups must not drink beer for a certain number of seasons. This meant that all warriors in the affected age groups, including those married with children who had a right to drink, must abstain from it. If a particular warrior had a ceremony in his home that required him to drink beer he sipped a little and instead of swallowing it, he spat it on his chest. No affected warrior was allowed to drink until the ban was lifted. The practice of public bans helped people in their self-imposed ban to a large extent. Since public opinion was strongly against contravening the ban, it was not difficult for an individual to abstain, say, from beer. However, ‘to prohibit oneself ’ (kwĩhinga) was quite distinct from ‘to comply with a prohibition’ which was what mũhingo required. In kwĩhinga, a person )'.

:_Xgk\i-

had to be personally persuaded or convinced that to abstain from certain things and habits was the best course for him or her. There was always a minority of intemperate people who were unable to abstain. These earned for themselves the notorious title “mischievous” or “wicked” (imaramari) because they did not abstain from sexual intercourse when it was advisable to do so. Also, whereas young men were required to assist in the brewing of beer but were not allowed to drink it, there were a few who ‘drank a little’ (gũkunda kanini). Such people became addicted to alcohol to the extent that they were perpetually helping other people to brew beer so that they could drink a little at each place. Although warriors and young women were prohibited from drinking beer, during festivities such as marriages, the festive mood was such that few did abstain. They had to ensure, however, that their fathers did not see them either drinking or being drunk. It was taken for granted that a son was prohibited from drinking beer until his father formally gave him permission. This normally happened when the son’s first-born child was ready for initiation into adulthood. Ceremonial drinking was part of the important rituals associated with initiation and the youth’s father had to participate in the drinking. But, as was pointed out before, if he was still engaged in military service and his child was being initiated when he was ‘compelled’ to abstain by public ban, he sipped a bit and spat the beer on his chest. Traditionally, the Gĩkũyũ associated abstention with sexual morality and the drinking of intoxicants, and to some extent with the taking of snuff by women. Many women abstained from taking snuff because the habit of kũhooya mbakĩ (going to beg for snuff) from other people usually led to gossip and loss of time that should have been spent on more useful activities. Also a woman could be visiting a man-friend under the pretext of begging for snuff. 8Yjk\ek`fe]ifdj\olXc`ek\iZflij\

Regarding traditional sexual behaviour among the Gĩkũyũ, the informants made a distinction between nguĩko and sexual intercourse. These were two different forms of sexual behaviour and they served different purposes. Nguĩko belonged properly to the post-initiation period, prior to settled married life. The essential purpose of nguĩko was the ‘mutual nurture’ (kũrerana) of the young adults of both sexes. It was also referred to as kũria wanake na ũirĩĩtu (to enjoy youthfulness). The informants emphasized that the initiated young people were only interested in each other’s nyondo na njoya (breasts and warmth). That is, nguĩko involved limited sex play. The atmosphere of mutual attraction and bodily warmth of the opposite sexes )'/

K\d g\iXeZ\ (w~ık i nd~ıra)

were believed to effect vigorous development of the whole person.17 The practice of nguĩko was strictly controlled, with definite rules to be observed. The couples engaging in nguĩko were forbidden from behaving as if they were married to each other. Sexual intercourse belonged properly to the married state where the married couple engaged in it for procreation, for various ceremonial purposes centred in the home, or for mutual pleasure. With that distinction between nguĩko and sexual intercourse in mind, when the older informants talked about abstention they referred to the latter practice. In traditional Gĩkũyũ society unmarried young people were required by customary law and morality to abstain from sexual intercourse. Before initiation, boys and girls were ‘children’ so they did not even practice nguĩko.18 While nguĩko was considered proper for initiated young men and women they were under public ban from sexual intercourse. A large majority of the unmarried young people succeeded in abstaining from sexual intercourse. They succeeded because they were taught to regard sexual intercourse between unmarried people as taboo (mũgiro).19 In practical terms, they respected themselves and each other and therefore it was easy to abstain. A young man of the warrior class was generally regarded as “a chip of God” (kĩenyu kĩa Ngai). Any behaviour by him or by his girl friends that might affect his fortune was to be avoided. The girl attracted to him had a responsibility to help him avoid engaging in illicit sexual behaviour. A virgin was regarded as gathirange (pure); her parents had brought her up properly. Her integrity and the authority of her parents protected her from being violated. So any young man who might unlawfully be practicing nguĩko with her had to remember that she belonged to her parents until by good fortune a particular man would claim her as wife.20 This lesson was impressed on young men from early boyhood when they began to attend dances with age mates of the opposite sex. When boys and girls performed the ngũcu dance, for instance, a boy would sing: Niĩ nyinĩĩte na karĩa Keeragwo nĩ ithe, “Ndookera.” I am dancing with the special little (girl). To whom her father says, ‘Call on me early in the morning.’

To that another boy would respond: )'0

:_Xgk\i-

O na wainwo, Ndũgaakene. No mũgũrani ũrĩ Ngai. Though she dances with you Don’t be happy. One’s spouse is chosen by God.21

Therefore, young people learned from an early age to associate with each other in dance and later in nguĩko, but they did not preoccupy their minds with sex. The informants gave two reasons why young people were strongly advised to abstain from sexual intercourse. The first reason concerned the proper development of the whole person. The habit of engaging in sexual intercourse could easily lead to conception before the young people concerned were ready for the heavy responsibilities of setting up a home and bringing up children. Traditional society considered it very important that after initiation young people should spend some time in the state of maidenhood and warriorhood before entering upon the responsibilities of married life. The period of life between initiation and married life was expected to be a period of physical and moral maturing. In the words of an informant, they were supposed to ‘become solid’ (kũmata). In the belief that like produces like, the young people were expected to have developed into physically and morally strong people before they began to produce offspring. The second reason concerned the integrity of the individual and his or her reputation. The majority of people aspired to a dignified life. A pregnancy outside of marriage did not contribute towards what people aspired to. An unmarried girl who became pregnant was considered impatient and lacking in foresight. It was an ‘accident’ that damaged her reputation and which might lead to general disorder on her part. Her age mates despised and ostracized her; her parents were embarrassed and her prospective spouse rejected her. If the man responsible for the pregnancy did not marry her she faced the prospect of eventually marrying a man not of her choice. A young man who caused a pregnancy was suddenly faced with expenses, as he was required to pay compensation for the pregnancy. If the girl should die in childbirth before he had paid compensation for the pregnancy, he had to pay compensation for the pregnancy and pay compensation for manslaughter. Like the girl, he too suffered disrepute.

)('

K\d g\iXeZ\ (w~ık i nd~ıra)

However, a small minority of young people indulged in mischief (ũmaramari). A young man might persuade a girl to have sexual intercourse with him secretly. He would give her a verbal oath (muuma wa kanua) never to tell anyone about his action. But if the girl fell ill and the diviner/ medicine man discerned that her illness was due to defilement (thaahu), she had to confess before treatment was prescribed. There was also the occasional young man who frequented the home of an elder in the latter’s absence and visited one of his wives. Such an illicit affair was bound to be discovered by his age mates. When that happened, he would be punished secretly by being commanded to provide them with an animal for slaughter (ngoima). The age mates made sure that the matter was kept secret for two reasons. First, such behaviour put the whole age set into disrepute. Secondly, if the matter became publicized, relationships in the home of the wronged elder would be strained. There was also the occasional girl who made the habit of visiting her man friend alone in his hut. Such conduct was bound to lead to pregnancy. Within the married state, abstention from sexual intercourse was observed at specific periods in the life of the woman concerned. This was mainly because of the need to space children and thus to ensure the future health of the children she conceived and bore. Here the responsibility lay mostly on the wife. She abstained from sexual intercourse from the third month of pregnancy until the time when she had weaned the baby. To indicate the proper time when another child should be born, the informants used expressions such as, “The child should be able to run on his own in case of danger,” “The child should be able to tell his mother ‘let me hold the baby for you.’”22 During the period when the woman could legitimately conceive another child she abstained from sex for the seven days of her menses. According to my informants, if a man had only one wife, he was obliged to abstain from sexual intercourse when his wife did. If he had no hut (thingira), he also could seek food and accommodation among his male age mates in the neighbourhood. 8Yjk\ek`fe]ifdY\\i[i`eb`e^

Besides the ban imposed on certain warrior classes for military purposes, there were other reasons why young men abstained from beer. One reason, according to informants in the Old Age Group was the respect sons had for their fathers. Whether a son was married or unmarried he abstained from beer drinking until his father gave him permission to drink. Part of the reason for this was that much of the beer brewed in a home was for cer)((

:_Xgk\i-

emonial purposes, and it was the father who performed these ceremonies for the family. Therefore, the beer belonged to the father and his sons could not drink it without his permission. At the time when it became necessary for a married son to perform ceremonies for his own wife and children, his father formally gave him permission to drink. Another consideration that made people abstain from alcohol was material welfare. In traditional society only the wealthy old men had the right to drink for pleasure. Having worked diligently during their younger days in order to ensure their welfare in old age, they could afford to relax. In the words of an informant, “Wealthy old men have wives, grown-up male and female children, cattle, goats and gardens. Since you (poor man) do not have these things, what right have you to drink?”23

K\dg\iXeZ\Xjj\c]$Zfekifc(gwı~thima) The old people interviewed described temperance also as self-control. Traditionally, gwĩthima was practiced in connection with the drinking of beer, the eating of food in public and in sexual intercourse. The ability or inability of individuals to exercise moderation in these matters distinguished the temperate from the intemperate person. The temperate person was decorous, mainly because he or she was mindful of his or her personal esteem and welfare. On the contrary, the intemperate person was greedy. The informants interpreted greed as love of self, a behaviour that does not take other people’s needs into account. The intemperate person basically has lost the proper perspective regarding personal esteem and welfare. Therefore, the conduct of such a person lacks decorum. Self-control was especially exhibited in a person’s behaviour with respect to eating and drinking. J\c]$Zfekifc`eY\\i[i`eb`e^

In traditional society, beer drinking was the privilege of elders in their later years. It was brewed in homes for various ceremonial purposes. The participation of the elder was essential so that for him there was no question of abstention. What the temperate elder did was to drink in moderation. Drinking in moderation was regarded as important because, although people did not dislike beer, they found faults with it. Excess with respect to drink caused a person to ‘lose the sense of himself ’ (kwĩrigwo). In that state he might act indecently. For instance, he might fall along a path where children or his in-laws might see him lying immodestly. He might fall down in his courtyard and this was taboo.24 He might stagger and fall on a tree )()

K\d g\iXeZ\ (w~ık i nd~ıra)

stump and hurt himself. A drunkard was also vulnerable to wild animals such as leopards or even hyenas because he was too weak to fight them or run for cover. Quarrels and serious fights could result from drinking excessively. Also, while an elder spent his time in a drunken stupor, his duties of tending domestic animals would be neglected. In traditional society, only disrespectable, greedy people drank excessively. Such people were referred to as andũ a nda (people of the stomach). They went around homes, helping to brew beer. Since they were entitled to drink some of it for their services, they soon got drunk. Decent people drank in only one home and decided they had had enough. A self-respecting elder maintained his sobriety in spite of drinking beer. This he did by drinking up to a self-imposed level referred to as gũkinyia njano (up to the mark). This was not so much a question of the quantity of beer he drank. In fact, his attitude to beer and his manner of drinking determined how much he drank. Also, the environment in which he drank determined the amount he would take. Since beer was brewed in homes for a particular purpose the elder was either the host or an invited guest. The atmosphere was genial and respectful: Gĩkũyũ convention demanded that he observed decorum. He would therefore determine that he was not going to lose his sense. Ordinarily, the beer was part of a complete meal so that the elder associated it closely with whatever else there was to eat. He could say he had had enough beer in the same way he could say he had eaten to satisfaction. Normally, an elder invited another elder to his home when he wished to give him beer. The latter brought along with him his small drinking horn. According to convention, an invited guest like that was given porridge, food and meat before beer was produced. During the conversation, the elder would be holding his horn of beer, taking occasional sips. By the end of the visit he would have drunk four or five small hornfuls. He did not gulp down his beer because that manner of drinking would not only make him drunk, but would cause him to be regarded as greedy. J\c]$Zfekifc`e\Xk`e^

In traditional Gĩkũyũ society, a person could cause permanent damage to his reputation by the manner in which he conducted himself when eating in public. If a person who made a casual visit to a home was offered a halfcalabash of porridge, emptied it and asked for more, it suggested that he was greedy. If he emptied several half-calabashes his hostess would decide )(*

:_Xgk\i-

that he did not deserve to be offered any food unless there was plenty to spare. When eating food in public, the temperate individual preferred to behave decorously even if this might mean he did not eat enough. According to the informants, what was wrong with the greedy person was that he rated himself as more important than other people. He was someone who exalted himself (mwĩkĩrĩri) and behaved as if he deserved preferential treatment. People said of him, Mwĩkĩrĩri ndatigagia mũcũrĩ (He who serves himself does not overlook the handle of the calabash).25 This means that when a greedy person serves himself, he fills the container completely, leaving nowhere to hold it. This was regarded as foolish behaviour because this intemperance served only to scandalize him while it did not affect the welfare of other people. Hence another saying, Mũkoroku atharaga maaĩ (The greedy person grabs water). In other words, he who is greedy will make a spectacle of himself over a commodity as plentiful as water merely to quench his thirst. In contrast, the temperate person would patiently wait his turn. If he takes food in public, he will serve himself a moderate amount. When sealing a marriage deal, at the time when the stall-fed ram (ngoima) was slaughtered for the clan, clansmen reputed as temperate would be selected to divide the meat. On account of the many people participating in the feast, each could only receive a small portion. Failure to serve each participant might cause some people to grumble. At meat feasts connected with lawsuits, the elder requested to divide the meat for the three categories of elders present, was particularly careful not to earn himself the disrespect of young elders (kamatimũ) on account of greed.26 At home, a mother might not consider herself to be in the public eye but in fact she was. This was particularly true during famine. Since her family looked up to her for food, she often preferred to eat less herself so that she might give her husband and her children a little more. When the children continued to thrive in spite of the famine, they appreciated their mother for the importance she attached to their well being.

K\dg\iXeZ\XjZXlk`fe(wı~menyereri) Temperance was also described as caution (wĩmenyereri). Wĩmenyereri is derived from the verb kwĩmenyerera which means ‘to take care of oneself ’ or ‘to guard oneself.’ It is commonly used in connection with any situation or circumstance that involves risk to one-self. It is also the word used in connection with sexual relationships. )(+

K\d g\iXeZ\ (w~ık i nd~ıra)

According to the old people interviewed, in traditional society, a mother normally warned her daughter to wĩmenyerere (take care of yourself) as she played and danced with boys. The girl was warned that to engage in careless play or in illicit sexual intercourse was tantamount to kwĩananga (destroying yourself). That is, such conduct could affect her reputation and the prospects of a properly settled life. The informants emphasized that the responsibility to observe caution rested primarily with the individual. When a girl was sexually assaulted, the term used was kũnyitwo (to be forced/raped) or gũthũũkio (to be destroyed), indicating that the circumstances were beyond her control. 27 Growing girls were encouraged by their parents to report to them any man who made indecent advances to them; such men were severely dealt with. Therefore, girls knew that when they refused to yield sexually to a man they had the support and approval of their families. One of the informants recounted how a man she knew quite well one day approached her as she was drawing water at a spring. He told her to let him touch her genitalia and she innocently told him that she must first ask her father whether she should allow anybody to touch her. The man thought she was joking, but she hurried home and went straight to her father’s hut where she found him conversing with another elder. She took the courage to interrupt them and reported the matter. The following day, her father sent for the man and for a few elders from the neighbourhood. The man was fined six goats for his misconduct. When the girl was eventually initiated, her age group was given the name, huutia ngoige (touch me and I will report you!). Traditional society did not take chances with small beginnings that might lead to sexual violation. The society protected small girls as well as women. But they had to play their part in discouraging behaviour that could lead to sexual assault. Hence, wĩmenyereri. In connection with sexual caution then, the informants said that women, being more vulnerable, have greater responsibility. The informants further quoted the maxim, Njũgũma njega yumaga ĩkũũrĩro (A good club comes from its source). In other words, a child becomes an upright adult only if he or she has been trained to be upright from early childhood. In this connection, the informants emphasized that girls were constantly warned to take care of themselves. Instruction on how to conduct themselves accompanied the warning; proper conduct included not exposing the genitalia. Accordingly, a small girl was dressed in a small skin made up of several soft skin strips. As the little girl played with small boys in the uninhibited )(,

:_Xgk\i-

manner of small children, her genitalia were on the whole out of sight. A small girl was also taught to ‘sit properly’ because she ‘was not a boy.’ Before initiation, she was often warned that, if she engaged in sexual intercourse, this action would come to be known during her circumcision. She would be ridiculed and would not heal quickly. After initiation she was warned that if she engaged in sexual activities, other than the approved mutual fondling (nguĩko), the matter would be known at the time of her marriage and she would be ridiculed by her husband and ostracized by the women. When a girl was approaching adolescence she was provided with three garments. Henceforth, she continued to wear these three garments. They included a pubic apron (mwengũ), a fork-tailed half skirt which overlapped the apron some way, and a long cloak. The practical function of these garments was to cover her nakedness. The two inner garments were also used for protection during nguĩko. A girl learnt the technique and the habit of overlapping and tucking in her apron and skirt every time she sat down and every time she engaged in nguĩko.28 To guard against illicit sex among the young, other measures were also employed. Adults regarded young people’s dances seriously and they were therefore carefully organized. Dances involving uninitiated boys and girls were held in homesteads and adults watched and cheered the young dancers. Under indirect adult supervision, the children were being exposed to each other in order to acquire the habit of association without indulging in mischief (ũmaramari). As far as initiated young people were concerned, a girl did not attend a dance unless accompanied by a young man whom she and her parents trusted to take good care of her. This was usually a relative or a neighbour. The dances themselves had appointed supervisors who ensured discipline. After young girls were initiated they joined the company of older girls (after paying them some inducement). The older girls instructed them regarding the correct relationship between girls and young men. This was practical education regarding prohibitions, rights and privileges. For instance, the girls were told how to secure their garments when visiting men’s huts. They were instructed always to visit a man’s hut as a group. Girls were advised not to be committed to any man until there was a formal engagement to a particular person. After this, she had to stop any further nguĩko until after marriage when the couple would legitimately have sexual intercourse. The girl was instructed on ways of alerting the others if in the course of nguĩko )(-

K\d g\iXeZ\ (w~ık i nd~ıra)

a man made extra-ordinary advances to her. In such circumstances she and her companions had a right to express their anger by beating the offending man, demolishing his bed and henceforth boycotting his hut. Parents kept a close watch on their daughter’s physical development. She was instructed to report to her mother the commencement of her first menses so that they could perform the rite of kũoerwo for her.29 After this ceremony, the girl was regarded as a mature person (mũndũ mũgima). For a girl to hide her first menses would be considered a very serious matter. Should she become pregnant without kũoerwo having been done she would be referred to as mũirĩĩtu wa mũonjo (a crippled maiden) and it would be difficult for her to find a husband. A married woman took care of herself by ensuring that she did not conceive too often because she was likely to suffer ill health and overwork. Besides, she would be ridiculed by other women. Although a young man did not need to observe stringent measures in regard to sex, he was nevertheless required to behave responsibly towards his female acquaintances. If a man made a girl pregnant his father would usually prevail upon him to marry the girl. A young man was keen to marry out of love; he was therefore careful not to make such a mistake. There was one important issue that the initiated young man himself had to take care of, particularly if he was handsome and attracted many girls. Girls would pamper such a person with attention, taking food to his hut, engaging him in conversation and nguĩko and favouring him during dances. As a result, he might spend a lot of time grooming himself. He would then have little time to engage in economic pursuits that would enable him to obtain wealth with which to marry a wife. Meantime, his less handsome age mates would be concentrating on activities that rewarded them with prosperity. Since girls were not obliged to marry those they enjoyed their youth with, they would eventually abandon the handsome man and marry men with property. Girls preferred such men because their diligence was an insurance against poverty. They were also more settled as marriage partners. A handsome man who was wise would therefore limit the time he spent with his girl admirers so that he might concern himself with pursuits that would enable him to obtain property.

~ kirı~rı~ria) K\dg\iXeZ\Xjjk\X[]Xjke\jj(u The old people interviewed also described temperance as steadfastness )(.

:_Xgk\i-

(ũkirĩrĩria). Steadfastness appeared to be an essential characteristic of the temperate person. Among the qualities evident in the temperate person, patience and wisdom ranked high. Such a person was reasonable and did not allow emotions to control him. He was also steadfast when he set his mind on something. The informants in the Old Age Group said that the temperate person has patience or forbearance (ũkirĩrĩria mũraya). He is able to quell his anger when provoked, to restrain his hand from hitting someone and to refrain his tongue from decrying another. A person like that does not engage in fights even when other people challenge him and suggest he is a coward. The temperate person prefers peace because he knows the damaging effect of strife in the community. For this reason he is careful of what he says about anybody to people who might report his words. He considers there is nothing to be gained from disparaging others. In connection with land tillage and marriage relationships, another related quality that the temperate people had was single-mindedness. An informant had this to say: It is a great error for a people to fail to grasp the things that ensure their preservation. Other nations do not allow foreigners to teach their children because they want to give their own children a way of life. The Gĩkũyũ are ‘the house of the digging stick’ and a child was given a garden of his own so that he may learn to cultivate.30

According to this informant, the experience of land tillage taught people to believe in the purpose of effort and of human relationships. Regarding tillage, a child learnt early that a diligent person does not give up on a piece of land merely because it is difficult to make it produce a high yield. Instead, he accepted the necessity of patient effort in crop husbandry and eventually acquired livestock through the sale of his crops. The lesson from land tillage was applicable to the marriage relationship. The same informant said that a marriage was contracted in the traditional society so that a home might be established. A home was considered to be the security of every man, woman and child, the place where every individual had his basic roots. This understanding made each party to a marriage determined to honour it, however difficult the marriage relationship might be.

)(/

K\d g\iXeZ\ (w~ık i nd~ıra)

In practical terms, this meant that the married couple cultivated patience and sympathy with each other. Even if there might be reasons to behave differently, each partner to the marriage was advised to be diligent in making the home because this was their security. Marriage partners resolved to honour their marriage because children needed to be reared well; they needed to grow up in an atmosphere of friendship, goodwill and stability. There were two main reasons for this. First, children needed to have a special attachment to their home. If they left home they should be happy to return. This would include their willingness to assist their aging or ailing parents. Secondly, children needed to recognize their parents as such and to accept their authority. Upon marriage, a girl was obliged to respect her husband’s authority (watho). This meant that she stopped showing interest in any of her previous male associates. She was advised that in marriage there was no room for fecklessness. She had to resolve that her marriage to this particular man was final and had to stop thinking that somebody else might have made a better husband. She was obliged to settle down to a life of harmony with her husband; this entailed agreeing with him and feeding him well (kũmũmenya nda).31 On his part, a man was advised that husbands should not rule their home in a despotic manner. A man won his authority over his wife precisely by winning her respect and this was best accomplished by demonstrating his own respect for her. For instance, he would show his preference for her by treating her kindly. The informants also mentioned an aspect of steadfastness (ũkirĩrĩria) that concerns restraint from stealing. They maintained that the traditional Gĩkũyũ believed that there was no sure way to riches except through diligence in tilling the land. The results of good husbandry were slow but certain. Raiding the Maasai for cattle was risky as a warrior might be killed in the process. Stealing other people’s property did not pay as it was heavily punished. Some of the informants in the Middle Age Group observed that when a person had been placed in charge of a public store with commodities like sugar and cooking oils, it would take steadfastness to leave the provisions alone and go to the shops to buy the same commodities for himself. The informants in the Young Age Group also referred to such a circumstance to point out that it takes a strong character to forego the temptation to steal.

)(0

:_Xgk\i-

K\dg\iXeZ\`edf[\iek`d\j Without exception, informants expressed their concern at the change that has taken place in relation to the virtue of temperance: change has been fast, bewildering and disconcerting. The indications that it is continuing are disheartening to the majority of the informants. The prevailing conduct in relation to sex and alcohol is viewed as a threat to ‘strength for existence’ as concerns the individual, as well as with respect to Gĩkũyũ society. Older informants displayed a strong sense of gloom and despondency while recounting their observations of change. Change to them has been total and devastating: There is no ‘Gĩkũyũ-ness’ left. Gĩkũyũ laws, customs and traditions have been erased …. Uprightness is gone. The upright parent is dying sooner rather than later from grief. When he steps out of his homestead he sees things he does not want to see.32

Among the sights that dishearten the old are the number of staggering drunkards, single girls who are pregnant and loitering youths. These persons strike the old people as unconcerned about their plight and disdainful of the ‘ignorant’ old people. In this connection another informant is more personal: “These days, things have come to us in a very bad way … I see some things and experience nausea … In fact, the reason I found it difficult to continue drinking beer was because of seeing nauseous things …”33 The older informants represent the section of Gĩkũyũ society that has experienced most fully the impact and shock of the encounter between western and indigenous cultures. These people have had to make quick and drastic adjustments right from that time until the present day. Interviews with these people reveal that they have hardly had an opportunity to reflect and determine what really has been happening. They are reduced to generalizing about a world that has bewildered them. An informant who is trying to explain the phenomenon of pregnancies of single girls says: “Since the white man (comba) came things changed a lot. Vice became rampant; chastity became scarce … The idea of uprightness was steadily blotted until it was obliterated … That is why there are many pregnancies among unmarried girls today.”34

))'

K\d g\iXeZ\ (w~ık i nd~ıra)

Not long ago people frowned on unmarried mothers. Such pregnancies were not many. Then suddenly there was a change of attitude and pregnancies “are not being regarded as faults.”35 According to the informants, some young men now prefer to marry girls who are pregnant. This complete reversal of Gĩkũyũ moral attitude is difficult to explain. An informant says that it is a contradiction of every effort and desire of the Gĩkũyũ people and of the missionaries who have evangelised them. “When the missionaries taught us things of God and about the way to live they wanted chastity to prevail. What went wrong puzzles me. It puzzles me because they taught chastity….”36 This informant suggests that there is a phenomenon called `modernism’ (kĩĩrĩu) which is difficult to explain. The effect of modernism is that people behave contrary to their will. Another informant explains that what has come to the Gĩkũyũ is ‘civilization.’ He observes: “Yet a civilized man will deceive his wife, a civilized man will deceive his mother. Why does a fullgrown man tell lies to a woman? Let a husband speak truth to his wife.”37 Another informant expresses the general attitude held by the older people that the ‘civilized’ modern Gĩkũyũ are a people devoid both of physical strength and of willpower. He compares the past generations with the present one and says that formerly, children were “born by redoubtable men and women who used to drink healthful herbal brews.” Today’s children are born of parents who exist on tea. Interestingly, this imagery of the non-nourishing stimulant is repeated by another informant. Explaining that formerly married women had enough strength or will to abstain from sex for long periods, she says, “Long ago babies were reared long enough. Today it seems like the soil is hot; I don’t know whether it is the drinking of tea that has made people impulsive.”38 Still another informant confirms the bewilderment of the older people by saying that God has allowed the phenomenon of the pregnancies among unmarried girls. “In former days did not young men and maidens live side by side? Did such things happen?”39 According to the older informants, until recently, fathers used to be compensated for their daughter’s pregnancies. Today, most parents are no longer able to pursue the issue of pregnancies. The tendency has been for parents to leave children to go where they want and to do as they please. The parents take the attitude that children belong to the country or to the government. This group observes further that today young people are refusing ))(

:_Xgk\i-

to commit themselves to marriage on a permanent basis. They prefer to ‘live together’ (mũikaranio), both partners having a good measure of freedom to leave the other at will. In these circumstances neither is able to establish a home. Neither belongs to the other, each belongs to the country. Their children belong to the country. The children walk away as soon as they can and have no mind to return where they were born. These children do not learn to honour their parents, let alone to recognize parental authority. An informant foresees a time in the near future when many people will belong to no particular family, only to the government. The majority will become vagabonds (njangiri). Devoid of the sense of kinship, which is the basis of all proper home life, they will have a difficult old age and will most likely waste away.40 Older people believe that today people are disregarding the rules that enable people to lead a satisfying, stable life. Here is a summary of the views of the middle-aged informants regarding temperance in the modern period, “Everybody is bewildered. It looks like moral brakes no longer function and things are just accelerating….”41 This group believes that the moral constraints that controlled the use of alcohol in the past as well as sexual behaviour are now on the whole disregarded. The idea and practice of temperance has suffered because people have lost respect for themselves and for each other: An elder will neglect his home. A young man will beat his father over land because he is greedy and wants it. Today even children and women are drinking. Many homes have become impoverished and have run dry of respect.42

According to this group, women are the greater losers. Some girls have made sex their business, for lack of other jobs. Others have become carefree but they end up disillusioned and miserable. Today girls are ‘don’t cares’ … and yet they are disillusioned. When a girl discovers she is pregnant, she becomes afraid and runs away from home for fear of the parents. Sometimes she runs after the boy who does not want her. Some of them end up dying while trying to abort …43

When the parent therefore introduces his unmarried daughter to family planning methods it is out of concern for her life rather than his conviction that she should be planning a family prior to marriage. Another informant )))

K\d g\iXeZ\ (w~ık i nd~ıra)

in this group laments: “The way we want our children to live is not the way they will live.”44 The majority of the informants in this group would gladly welcome revival of the practice of nguĩko if it would teach young people to exercise restraint in sexual relations while learning about each other at the same time. The Young Age Group has its own past to refer to. These young people are also bewildered for they have seen rapid changes within their own lifetime: When I was small I rarely saw young men drinking. Bars were built at an amazing speed and soon young men began to frequent them. In former days beer was not considered so important. People took fermented gruel. I do not know why there has been such rapid change.45

Regarding sexual behaviour, the informants in the Young Age Group see the current state of affairs in the same way as the other two groups. They observe much promiscuity in spite of people’s wishes to the contrary: “Sexual immorality was not accepted, but now things are changing. Some time ago, an unmarried girl getting pregnant was something to cause a lot of embarrassment in her home…”46 The opinion of the Young Age Group is that Gĩkũyũ society has become confused about sexual morality. People’s attitudes are contradictory and the young people do not know what is expected of them. The following three quotations describe the situation further. According to a young man: “Every time a boy moves with a girl it is assumed that there must be something immoral going on.”47 A girl informant remarked this: “The situation is so confused that in fact the girl who becomes pregnant is regarded as better morally.”48 The above observations can be compared to one by another young man: “Some of the men have lost confidence in the fertility of girls. A friend told me that he cannot marry a girl until he has made her pregnant, because the girl might have led a very loose life.”49 The general opinion of this group is that in the current confusion regarding proper sexual morality the girls suffer because they are unable to discern the attitudes and motives of the men who befriend them. In this connection, a male informant says that young men are not bothered to behave ))*

:_Xgk\i-

responsibly towards girls because they do not have to pay dowry. They will therefore encourage girls to have sexual relations with them and yet they do not intend to marry them.50 The three age groups are all of the opinion that Gĩkũyũ morality has changed a lot as far as temperance is concerned. The informants in the three age groups also feel that the situation may be irredeemable since change continues at a fast rate. A majority of the informants, however, state that there still are some individuals who have not fallen victim to the forces of change. These are said to belong to strong families. Strong families are identified as those that have maintained traditional Gĩkũyũ beliefs to a large extent, as well as those who hold strong Christian beliefs.

=XZkfij`e]cl\eZ`e^`[\XjXYflkk\dg\iXeZ\ All informants recognized three main factors that have contributed towards the change in attitude towards temperance. These include a changing attitude to authority, lack of moral teaching and moral example, and compromising moral standards. :_Xe^`e^Xkk`kl[\kfXlk_fi`kp

The three age groups believe that respect for authority was important in the past. This respect helped to foster temperate behaviour. However, there is some difference of opinion within the three groups about what constitutes authority. The Young Age Group associates authority with parents. A minority also mention God, saying that people who believe God punishes evil will avoid doing wrong. The Middle Age Group has a similar conception of authority. Some informants also include civil powers. This group believes that respect for vows and fear of taboos was a restraint against intemperance. According to the Old Age Group, authority includes the authority of parents over children, the authority of a husband over his wife and the authority of a peer group over its members. In traditional society, the younger members of society were also controlled by the warrior police force. The elders were a restraining authority as well. The Old Age Group also includes supernatural authority. The importance of the latter authority is indicated by the fear formerly attached to taboos and respect for vows made under oath. From the contributions of the three groups, it can be concluded that among the significant differences between the traditional and the modern Gĩkũyũ society is its attitude towards authority. Three things stand out regarding traditional society. First, for any single individual there were several ))+

K\d g\iXeZ\ (w~ık i nd~ıra)

agents of control that exerted pressure on the person throughout his life. Secondly, the individuals grew to respect these agents so that their attitude to authority was one of respect and even fear. Thirdly, there were certain strong convictions compelling the individual to either exert authority or to submit to authority, as the case might be. Modern Gĩkũyũ society, on the other hand, is characterized by a general scepticism and this affects its attitude to authority. This scepticism is a trend whose beginnings can be traced to the beginning of the 20th century, that is to say when the generation represented by the Old Age Group was young. The informants in the Old Age Group agree that it was their generation that began to regard some traditional means of behaviour control as irrelevant. They are the people who began to get disinterested in the reasons behind the traditional tenets of morality. For our purposes it will suffice to focus on three main areas illustrating the changing attitude towards authority as the society moves from the traditional to the modern way of life. These areas are: parental authority, the authority of the peer group and attitude towards taboos. With respect to parental authority in traditional society, parents regarded it as their moral duty to gwatha ciana (command, discipline and control their children). They exercised authority over their children through counsel, commands, prohibitions and sanctions. The area of temperance received particular attention because it was considered that misconduct in matters of sex and alcohol robbed people of vitality. On their part, children were obliged to gwathĩkĩra aciari (obey their parents). The obedient child had his rewards but the disobedient child was termed mbũra matũ (one who has no ears).51 Sanctions against such children were unpleasant and might include isolation and open ostracism. Parents warned their children to avoid the company of mbũra matũ in order that they would not be corrupted by them. The age of the child did not make a difference as far as the authority of the parent was concerned. An adult man, even though he had his own wife and children, was nevertheless his father’s son and was therefore under his authority. Informants in the Old Age Group give the example of an angered parent rebuking or chastising an adult son or daughter without the latter retaliating. No son or daughter was too old to be counselled. However, parental authority was not tyrannical. Parents were normally careful not to lord it over their children. Parental authority was governed by a combination of persuasion and firmness. Through casual talk and )),

:_Xgk\i-

formal counsel parents were constantly instilling in their children the values they adhered to, including the moral value of temperance. An obedient child ‘heard’ and guarded him or herself against the pitfalls the parent had pointed out. Even if a child disregarded warnings, he or she could not claim to be ignorant. Parental discipline in such a case was heavy but on principle had to be deterrent. Particularly in reference to temperance, the child had to learn that actions had consequences and that every individual was largely the author of his own welfare. The informants in the three age groups point out that parents today do not control their children as they ought to. People’s circumstances have changed and the informants mention the factors that make parental control difficult. These include the mobility of modern society, as well as differences in education and income between the old and young. However, the most significant change has been the attitude that obedience to parents is no longer considered a moral obligation. The Old Age Group believes that moral obligations are being diluted by the growing inability of people to maintain a proper home life, a place where children can become accustomed to parental authority. The Middle Age Group says that there has been a change of attitude about the relevance of moral discipline, especially with respect to sex and alcohol. The effect is that parents feel helpless to control their children. The Young Age Group generally are of the opinion that parents are afraid to command their children. On the other hand, children are also generally unwilling to submit to the authority of their parents. In traditional society the local community exercised authority over the individual. An individual’s misconduct did not pass unnoticed. The community sanctioned morality mainly through gossip and ridicule. However, it was the peer group that the individual feared most. Age mates of the same sex formed a compact group with considerable power over its members. Concerned about their reputation, the age group exerted pressure on its members to observe proper morality. Among the initiated but unmarried, the age set sanctioned the moral conduct of its members. This occurred not only through gossip and ridicule but also through corporal punishment and ostracism of offenders. Supernatural sanctions were employed as well. Newly initiated male age sets used to take a solemn oath (kũringa thenge), promising to observe strict personal and public morality. Among other things, they vowed to abstain from alcohol and to avoid sexual mischief. Initiated girls made similar vows. They invoked a curse on any age mate who contravened the rules. ))-

K\d g\iXeZ\ (w~ık i nd~ıra)

Modern Gĩkũyũ society does not recognise authority of peers over an individual. Organised peer groups do not even exist today. Some of the informants in the Old Age and Middle Age groups believe that sexual misconduct among the young began when young men and girls began to meet as couples in secret. There was no effective group to belong to since the idea of age set began to lose its relevance. The authority of the age set in sex conduct was undermined when converts to Christianity began to wage war against the sins of ‘adultery, fornication and flirtation’ (ũtharia na ũũmbani). Converts believed that these sins were associated with the practice of nguĩko and traditional dances.52 Those converted to Christianity when the faith was first brought to the country substituted Christian vows for the traditional vows under oath. Under the new authority they swore or made vows that, among other things, they would abstain from alcohol, adultery and fornication. However, the authority behind the new vows seemed remote. Punishment, either by human agent or through supernatural power, did not follow upon disregard of such vows. As a result of the same scepticism that caused people began to break taboos, they also began to break the new vows. Morality associated with temperance has thus inevitably changed. An informant in the Middle Age Group summarized the modern situation: There used to be taboos … but now people don’t fear taboos … I believe one reason why things are going from bad to worse is because people no longer fear anything. They don’t fear oaths, they don’t fear civil authority and they don’t fear God.53

CXZbf]dfiXck\XZ_`e^Xe[f]^ff[\oXdgc\

Lack of moral teaching and of good examples for people to follow is seen as another factor that has brought about rapid changes in the area of temperance. Traditional teaching on moral conduct has become impracticable and so there is no public opinion to restrain people. Modern education concentrates on academic subjects. In traditional society, teaching and specific instructions on moral conduct were given to children by parents, sponsors at initiations and by older people in general. The Old Age Group says that with the introduction of the modern type of education and of western culture, parents began to find it difficult to teach their children. Those who became Christians trusted that their children would read the Bible and receive the necessary instruction.54 )).

:_Xgk\i-

Interviews with the Old and Middle age groups indicate that people in Gĩkũyũ society generally hold the attitude that the printed word is both informative and instructive. Moreover, what is contained in a book is regarded as superior to what a parent may say to a young student. Some of the informants in the Middle Age Group say that parents have started to feel incompetent to instruct their children in the principles of moral conduct. The majority of parents in the old and middle age categories are hardly literate. They cannot verify the soundness of the literature their children read. Those parents who make an attempt to counsel their children are discouraged by the young people’s lack of interest. There is a general tendency in the young to look down on ‘old fashioned’ matters. So the parent finds his counsel is dismissed as irrelevant and he loses his audience. Interviews with the Young Age Group indicate that the young people suffer mainly from three problems as far as teaching is concerned. First, the majority of parents are busy in employment and do not have time to sit down and talk with their children. Some also travel from place to place. New environments tend to make them forget what they have been taught at home. Second, much of what they know about traditional moral conduct, especially in relation to sex and alcohol, has been mostly hearsay. Whatever vital information the older generations have offered has been offered casually as if it was incidental; it has not been systematic. The reasons why people should behave in certain ways were not made clear. For instance, some young people have heard that unmarried young people used not to engage in sex. Some of the informants do not know the reason why young people were not drinking in the past, at a time when beer did not cost any money.55 Thirdly, what teaching young people are receiving is on the whole confusing. They hear that to engage in sexual intercourse is wrong and they also hear that what is wrong is not sexual intercourse but conception. They hear that drinking is evil and they also hear that what is wrong is to behave in a disorderly manner. They are told that certain conduct is indecent but they are also shown films that demonstrate such conduct on the screen. They do not know how to resolve these contradictions. Connected with the problem of teaching proper moral conduct, there are no models to emulate. Some of the informants in the Old and Middle Age groups trace this problem to the time when isolated individuals began to disregard taboos and vows. In due course the small beginnings led to a big problem. ))/

K\d g\iXeZ\ (w~ık i nd~ıra)

This private disregard for moral tenets is coupled with the phenomenon of double standards and this makes teaching and counsel difficult to accept. From the early days some converts to Christianity, who had vowed to remain monogamists, were known to have ‘loosened their vows’ (kuohora mĩĩhĩtwa) and to have secretly kept other women or to have become polygamous secretly. Yet they continued to preach against the practice. There are parents who are known to disapprove behaviour in their children in which they themselves engage, including illicit sexual relations. Hypocrisy is also found in young people. According to an informant in the Old Age Group, young people are forcing elders to leave bars by showing disapproval at seeing them there. The reason they do this is that they do not want elders to see their misbehaviour there.56 :fdgifd`j`e^dfiXcjkXe[Xi[j

The constant adjustment of moral standards is both a cause and a consequence of a change in attitude towards temperance. The tendency is prevalent in modern society and clearly started when confusion began to be evident with respect to sexual morality. Contrary to traditional practice, parents and society at large found it increasingly difficult to apply effective sanctions against children who contravened approved sexual conduct. Since misconduct was not punished there was little to deter others from following suit. Parents used to rebuke and chastise their children who misbehaved sexually. Today, few children need worry about premarital sex and pregnancies because parents no longer rebuke their children. Instead, when pregnant girls wed, their parents lavish them with gifts for the new baby.57 They do this in spite of their conviction that such open approval only worsens the state of affairs. The older people in society have compromised a lot, in spite of their better judgement. According to an informant in the Old Age Group, old people are behaving contrary to the maxim Yenda mũno yakũũra rũrĩra (When it (the cow) loves (the calf) too much, it dislodges its navel (by constant licking)).58 The same effect is brought about by an opposite attitude assumed by some Christian parents. According to an informant in the Young Age Group, these parents refuse to ask for compensation if their daughters become pregnant before marriage. Others refuse to attend their children’s weddings if the girls are pregnant. This attitude is encouraging young men to misbehave sexually because there are no sanctions against misconduct.59 However, the majority of Christian parents have no option but to wink at what they see. Whereas a few years ago it was possible for parents to say ))0

:_Xgk\i-

they would not allow ‘illegitimate’ children into their home, today they are hesitant to be adamant since this attitude serves no purpose.60

:feZclj`fe The descriptions of temperance by the three age groups indicate that the three groups understand the moral value of temperance in basically similar terms. Nevertheless the experiences of the groups are different. For all practical purposes, the Old Age and the Young Age groups can hardly be said to belong to the same society. Morality associated with temperance has seen drastic changes. The situation seems to be out of control and Gĩkũyũ society is genuinely bewildered and despondent. Temperance has tended to be regarded as the sum total of morality. This is one reason the informants have had so much to say. It is evident that the widespread abuse of sex and alcohol robs individuals, homes and society as a whole of their vitality. That being so, it is hardly surprising that the three age groups are equally concerned about the future prospects of a society where moral standards have degenerated to a very large extent.

)*'

><E
> \e\ iX cZfeZclj`fe

groups, warriors, elders, kinsmen and the local community) and second, of supernatural agents (God and ancestral spirits). The whole system was an integrated one: the human agents worked together harmoniously and assisted the individual in their different ways to conform to the moral code. Reward and punishment played an essential role in maintaining morality. Taboos also served an important function. Third, there was a clear connection between religion and morality. Religion played a central role in Gĩkũyũ society; God was seen as the ultimate authority in morality. His laws were inbuilt in his creation and in the way of life he gave to the Gĩkũyũ people. God was seen as a God of justice, which implied that he was involved with people’s daily lives, blessing the good and punishing those who broke moral rules. Judgement was experienced in the present life and it therefore mattered how the community and the individuals conducted their daily lives. The Gĩkũyũ believed that the spirits of the departed were also concerned about the conduct of the living. The blessings of wealth and honour resulted from the approval of God and of the ancestral spirits as much as from human effort. People believed they were accountable to God and so they could not ignore or discard the moral code. Fourth, the younger generations have considerable knowledge of traditional Gĩkũyũ morality and approve of it.* But there is a great discrepancy between what people know and what they practice today. It is evident from this study that because of the changed social, economic and political circumstances it is impossible to revert to traditional African morality. However, it should be possible to adapt it to the changed circumstances. Based on the study, two suggestions can be made. ›In order to maintain high moral standards the whole society must not only understand the importance of morality but must actively participate in sanctioning it. In modern Kenya churches and other religious communities, as well as schools and parents have a crucial role to play in teaching moral values and in setting high moral standards. ›Religious belief and morality are inseparable because morality ultimately derives its authority from God. To be effective, the teaching of morality should be done as part of religious instruction in schools, homes, churches and other religious establishments.

)*)

EFK<J8E;I<=
@ekif[lZk`fe 1.

The idea of a Jeanes teacher was imported from the southern United Sates where Negro education was especially developed. A Jeanes teacher was supposed to be a constant source of inspiration and encouragement to the school community, different from the Government Inspector whose presence was intimidating. See C.P. Groves. The planting of Christianity in Africa, Vol. IV, p. 114-117.

2.

See J. Murray-Brown. Kenyatta, p. 191.

3.

Ibid.

4.

L.S.B. Leakey. The Southern Kikuyu before 1903, p. xi.

5.

Ibid.

:_Xgk\i( 1.

L.S.B. Leakey. The Southern Kikuyu before 1903, Vol. 1 p. 1.

2.

Ibid.

3.

Ibid. (Muriuki substitutes the term nyũmba for mũciĩ. Apart from this, he agrees with Leakey. See G. Muriuki. A history of the Kikuyu, 1500-1900. p. 35-36.)

4.

Leakey, loc. cit.

5.

S. K. Gathigira. Mĩikarĩre ya Agikũyũ, p. 1-3.

6.

Ibid., op. cit., p. 5.

7.

An elder’s highest ambition was to become a council elder. It was a status of great honour but also of heavy responsibility. Gathigira, op. cit., p. 6. For an account of the four grades of council elders, see Leakey, op. cit., Vol. II, p. 994-998.

8.

Leakey, op. cit., Vol. III, p. 1279-1281; Gathigira, op. cit., p. 33.

9.

Leakey, op. cit., Vol. I, p. 7-8, 157-159.

10. Failure to do so was believed to make God angry and to cause disunity. 11. Gathigira, op. cit., p. 5-6.

)*,

Efk\jXe[i\]\i\eZ\j

12. Barra, 1000 Kikuyu proverbs, p. 64. 13. Leakey, op. cit., Vol. II, p. 708-732. 14. L. Githui wa Kariithi. “Ũhindũri wa mĩtaarire ya Agĩkũyũ.” (Unpublished manuscript), p. 42. 15. Ibid. p. 13. 16. Ibid., p. 2-5, 30-32; Justin Itotia. Endwo nĩ irĩ na irĩĩri. This book is devoted giving advice on how children and young people can cultivate the kind of conduct that earns them the blessing of wealth (irĩ) and honour (irĩĩri). 17. Itotia. Mũtiga irĩ na irĩĩri aromaama kuuraga, p. 37-45. 18. Ibid. p. 41. 19. Ibid. 20. Ibid. p. 43. 21. Ibid. p. 37-39. 22. Ibid. p. 39; Leakey, op. cit. Vol. II, p. 732-737. 23. Itotia. Mũtiga irĩ na irĩĩri aromaama kuuraga, p. 39-40. 24. Ibid. p. 45. 25. Leakey, op. cit., Vol. 1, p. 16-17. 26. Ibid; Kenyatta, op. cit., p. 251. 27. For descriptions of Gĩkũyũ beliefs about God, see Leakey, op. cit., Vol. III, p. 1074-1078; J. Kenyatta. Facing Mount Kenya, p. 231-263; W.S. and K.P Routledge. With a prehistoric people: the Akikuyu of British East Africa, p. 225-228; Itotia. Mũtiga irĩ na irĩĩri aromaama kuuraga, p. 76-79; Gathigira, op. cit., p. 29-33. 28. Itotia. Mũtiga irĩ na irĩĩri, p. 77. 29. For the myth about God the distributor, see Kenyatta, op. cit., p. 3-5. 30. Cf. E. Cavicchi. Problems of change in Kikuyu tribal society, p. 15. For the myth that explains why the Gĩkũyũ are agriculturalists, see Muriuki, op. cit., p. 46-47. 31. Routledge, op. cit., p. 245. 32. Itotia, op. cit., p. 77. 33. Kenyatta, op. cit., p. 234. 34. Itotia. Mũtiga irĩ na irĩĩri, p. 77. 35. Leakey, op. cit., Vol. I, p. 17; see also Vol. II, p. 901-902. 36. Ibid. 37. Kenyatta, op. cit. p. 237. 38. Cavicchi, op. cit. p. 6. 39. S.G. Kibicho. “The Kikuyu conception of God: its continuity into the Christian era, and the question it raises for the Christian idea of revelation.” (Ph.D. thesis), p. 40. 40. Kenyatta, op. cit., p. 238. 41. Itotia. Mũtiga irĩ na irĩĩri, p. 77. 42. H.E. Lambert. Kikuyu social and political institutions, p. 121. 43. For the discussion of why the Gĩkũyũ bought land from the Ndorobo instead of possessing it by force, see Leakey, op. cit., Vol. I, p. 90. A particular misconduct supposed to anger

)*-

Efk\jXe[i\]\i\eZ\j

God was extortion (ũtuunyani). See Itotia. Mũtiga irĩ na irĩĩri, p. 77. 44. Barra, op. cit. p. 54. This proverb is quoted several times by the informants. 45. Itotia. Mũtiga irĩ na irĩĩri, p. 60. 46. Lambert, op. cit., p. 117; Kibicho, op. cit., p. 55; Cavicchi, op. cit., p. 17. 47. A Gĩkũyũ elder (mũthuuri) was expected to live up to these qualities even in his private life with his family. Cf. C. Cagnolo. The Akikuyu: their customs, traditions, and folklore, p. 50, where he says that an elder was not a tyrant but a moderator. 48. Kenyatta, op. cit., p. 219. 49. Ibid. p. 223-225; Leakey, op. cit., Vol. III, p. 1006-1013; Routledge, op. cit., p. 213; Cagnolo, op. cit., p. 151-154. 50. Kibicho, op. cit., p. 54. 51. Routledge, op. cit., p. 220. 52. Although opinion is divided regarding the real nature of the Mau Mau movement, there is clear evidence that it made reference to traditional Gĩkũyũ belief in God’s justice. See D.L. Barnett and K. Njama, Mau Mau from within, p. 198-203; F. Ochieng and K. Janmohammed, eds. “Some perspectives on the Mau Mau movement.” Kenya historical review, Vol. 5, no. 2, 1977. 53. F. D. Corfield, “The origins and growth of Mau Mau: an historical survey. Sessional paper no. 5 of 1959/60, Colony and Protectorate of Kenya. p. 11. 54. Kenyatta, as cited by Corfield, op. cit., p. 302. 55. Gakaara Wanjau. Nyimbo cia gũkũngũirĩa wĩathi, p. 1. 56. This seems to be an alternative to the proverb, Njamba ihoyaga na Ngai (This hero prays to God.) 57. The Gĩkũyũ year (mwaka) had two seasons determined by the long and short rains. With two rainy seasons in the year, the agricultural activities varied between planting, weeding, scaring off animals and birds from crops, harvesting, and preparing the ground for the next planting. The day was divided into fifteen periods regulating the daily routine with varied tempo. Disciplined people reaped more benefits from the land than those who were lax with time. See Leakey, op. cit., Vol. 1, p. 173-174; Cagnolo, op. cit., p. 195-196; Gathigira, op. cit., p. 68-70; Itotia. Mũtiga irĩ na irĩĩri, p. 33-34; Itotia. Endwo nĩ irĩ na irĩĩri. p. 66-69; B.M.Gecaga. Kariuki na Muthoni: a study of childhood among the Kikuyu, p. 11-15; K.R. Dundas, “Kikuyu calendar,” Man, No. 9, 1909. 58. Itotia. Endwo nĩ irĩ na irĩĩri, p. 81. 59. Itotia. Mũtiga irĩ na irĩĩri, p. 88. 60. Ibid., p. 78-79, Kenyatta, op. cit., p. 263-268; Leakey, op. cit., Vol. III, p. 1103-1117. 61. Leakey, op. cit., Vol. I, p. 108. 62. Ibid., Vol. III, p. 1108. 63. Itotia. Mũtiga irĩ na irĩĩri, p. 79. 64. Gathigira, op. cit., p. 33. 65. Kenyatta, op. cit., p. 285-286. 66. Ibid., 266-267.

)*.

Efk\jXe[i\]\i\eZ\j

67. Itotia. Mũtiga irĩ na irĩĩri, p. 78. 68. Kenyatta, op. cit., p. 266-267. 69. Itotia. Mũtiga irĩ na irĩĩri, p. 73. 70. Leakey, op. cit., Vol. III, p. 1122, 1147. 71. Ibid., Vol. I, p. 90. 72. G. Kershaw. “The land is the people: a study of Kikuyu social organization in historical perspective.” Ph.D. thesis, p. 118-20. 73. Itotia says that material possessions alone did not guarantee an individual’s welfare. For total welfare, other supports were necessary. He goes on to say that the ‘blessed departed’ (atiga irĩ) nurtured themselves with ‘foods that give joy to life.’ Itotia. Mũtiga irĩ na irĩĩri, p. 80. 74. Itotia. Endwo nĩ irĩ na irĩĩri, p. 6. 75. Ibid., p. 7. 76. Ibid. p. 81. 77. Kenyatta seems to suggest that it was possible to have some measure of irĩ and that it was more difficult to earn honour. Thus, a man could have a home and children, and yet be a rascal. See Kenyatta, op. cit., p. 9. 78. Itotia. Endwo nĩ irĩ na irĩĩri, p. 7. 79. Ibid; J.M. Fisher. “The anatomy of Kikuyu domesticity and husbandry,” p. 4; Leakey, op. cit., Vol. III, p. 960-963. 80. It was a serious matter to a Gĩkũyũ not to have descendants who would keep his name remembered (through the Gĩkũyũ system of naming children). 81. Itotia. Mũtiga irĩ na irĩĩri, p. 15. 82. Ibid.; Gathigira, op. cit., p. 30-31. 83. Itotia. Mũtiga irĩ na irĩĩri, p. 1. The deceased is said to leave behind both his irĩ (children) and other irĩ, that is, all matter of substance, including plants, animals, etc. 84. Itotia. Endwo nĩ irĩ na irĩĩri, p. 7. 85. Ibid. 86. For a full account of the Gĩkũyũ pre-colonial history, see Muriuki, A history of the Kikuyu, 1500-1900. 87. Ibid., p. 37-40; G. Muriuki. “The problem of the Gumba and the Athi in Kikuyu history.”; G. St. J. Orde-Browne. The vanishing tribes of Kenya, p. 20-22; Leakey, op. cit., Vol. 1, p. 51, 89. 88. Muriuki. A history of the Kikuyu, 1500-1900, p. 66; Routledge, op. cit., p. 15, 30. 89. Muriuki, op. cit., p. 79; Kenyatta, op, cit., p. 25-40; Leakey, op. cit., Vol. I, p. 92-105. 90. Routledge, op. cit., p. xviii. 91. Gathigira, op. cit., p. ii; Itotia. Endwo nĩ irĩ na irĩĩri, p. ii. 92. Kenyatta, op. cit., p. 251. 93. Ibid. 94. A.R. Barlow. Kikuyu: 1898-1923: Semi-Jubilee book of the Church of Scotland Mission, p. 29.

)*/

Efk\jXe[i\]\i\eZ\j

95. Cagnolo, op. cit., p. 9, 258. 96. Ibid., p. 263. 97. Ibid. According to Cagnolo, this was especially true of the Gĩkũyũ who were merely “emancipated from barbarous customs” but not necessarily Christianised. See p. 258. 98. LAMB/1/6, University of Nairobi Archives. 99. Ibid.; C.G. Rosberg and J. Nottingham also observed that rapid changes occurred among the Gĩkũyũ because they had no marginal land to cushion them off from the Europeans. See The myth of Mau Mau: nationalism in Kenya, p. 23. 100. R.L. Tignor, The colonial transformation of Kenya: the Kamba, Kikuyu and Maasai from 1900 to 1939, p. 15; Leakey, op. cit., p. 80-85. 101. Tignor, op. cit., p. 4. 102. Muriuki, op. cit., p. 157-159; J. Boyes, John Boyes, king of Wakikuyu, p. 284. 103. Routledge, op. cit., p. ix-xi; Muriuki, op. cit., p. 162-166. 104. Muriuki, op. cit., p. 167; Norman Leys rationalizes that it was necessary to make hurried political arrangements to create chiefs who would recruit the much needed labour force to clear an 800 miles route to Uganda and to carry loads. Punitive expeditions were supposed to subdue people enough for them to submit to the authority of the chiefs. See N. M. Leys, Kenya, p. 171-172. 105. Muriuki, op. cit., p. 167. 106. Cagnolo, op. cit., p. 119. 107. Leakey, op. cit., Vol. III, p. 993. 108. Tignor, op. cit., p. 53. 109. Ibid. p. 32-59; Muriuki, op. cit., p. 167-169; Kenyatta op. cit., p. 225-226; Anthony Kahindi, Rahab Waiyigo, oral interviews. 110. Tignor, op. cit., p. 44. 111. C.W. Hobley, Bantu beliefs and magic, with particular reference to the Kikuyu and Kamba tribes of Kenya Colony, p. 306. 112. Tignor, op. cit., p. 44. 113. Hobley, op. cit., p. 308. 114. LAMB/1/6 University of Nairobi Archives 115. Tignor, op. cit., p. 44. 116. Hobley, op. cit., p. 311. 117. Ibid. 118. Ibid., p. 313. 119. G. Bennett. Kenya, a political history: the colonial period, p. 10. 120. See Rosberg and Nottingham, op. cit., p. 19; Tignor, op. cit., p. 4; F.B. Welbourn, East African rebels, p. 116; W.D.A. Ross, Kenya from within, p. 57. 121. See Leys, op. cit., p. 78; Bennett, op. cit., p. 9. 122. As quoted by W.D.A. Ross, op. cit., p. 41. 123. Ibid. 124. Ibid., p. 64-66.

)*0

Efk\jXe[i\]\i\eZ\j

125. Rosberg and Nottingham, op. cit., p. 19. 126. Ross, op. cit., p. 62. 127. Bennett, op. cit., p. 10. 128. Ibid., p. 23. But cf. ibid., p. 14, 15; See also Sir Charles Eliot. East Africa Protectorate, p. 104; cf. p. 174. 129. Ross, op. cit., p. 65. 130. Ibid. 131. Ibid. p. 87, “Civil case 626 of 1922.” 132. Welbourn, op. cit., p. 118. 133. Ibid. 134. Ibid., p. 119. 135. Ibid. 136. Ibid. According to a memorandum presented to the Parliamentary Commission in 1924 by the Kikuyu (Native) Association, “many Gĩkũyũ who had lost land had become wanderers, moving from one estate to another.” See Ross, op. cit., p. 56. 137. Leys, op. cit., p. 81. 138. Muriuki, op. cit., p. 167-169; Tignor, op. cit., p. 42-59; Kenyatta, op. cit., p. 225-.226. 139. Kenyatta, op. cit., p. 21. 140. Ibid., p. 21-40; Itotia. Endwo nĩ irĩ na irĩĩri, p. 30-31. 141. Kenyatta, op. cit., p. 25-26. 142. Leakey, op. cit., Vol. 1, p. 89-95; Muriuki, op. cit., p. 39. 143. Harry Thuku has a short paragraph to illustrate this; he quotes the case of Koinange’s land, which was split in the middle. A European occupied the section containing the graves of Koinange’s father and grandfather. Koinange had to exhume his father’s bones from the alienated land. Harry Thuku: an autobiography. p. 16. 144. LAMB/1/6 “Kiambu District annual report, 1942.” University of Nairobi Archives. 145. Ibid. 146. Leys, op. cit., p. 184. 147. Ibid. 148. Ibid., p. 298. 149. Ibid., p. 185. Reduction of the reserves was another ‘solution’ to the problem of tribal self-sufficiency. 150. Ross, op. cit., p. 99. 151. A circular issued by the District Commissioner of Kiambu in 1919 to estate owners referred to the additional labour required to harvest coffee. In part, the D.C. said, “I intend to arrange for temporary supply of child labour from the Reserves.” The D. C. instructed those who intended to do this to indicate so, “stating the number required, the time for which they may be most needed.” See Ross, p. 105-106, 225-226. 152. Leys, op. cit., p. 298. 153. Now Central Province. 154. Ibid., p. 189-190. Such outcries as Barlow’s seem to have gone unheeded. In 1921, the

)+'

Efk\jXe[i\]\i\eZ\j

bishop of Zanzibar was urging the Government to stop “encouraging men to come out of the reserves.” His argument was that “The ruler is morally bound to remain as empire of the conflicting claims of capital and labour.” See Ross, op. cit., p. 89. 155. Muriuki, op. cit., p. 167-169, 177; Ross, op. cit., p. 104-105, 225-227; Leys, op. cit., p. 172, 203, 277-278. 156. Leys, op. cit., p. 61, 188-9; Ross, op. cit., p. 89; Westermann, The African today, p. 40; C.W. Hobley, Kenya: from chartered company to Crown Colony, p. 180-183. 157. A. Hastings, African Christianity, p. 37-38, 42; M. Fortes and G. Dieterlen. African systems of thought, p. 31; L.G. Cowan, J. O’Conwell, D.G. Scanlon, eds. Education and nation building in Africa, p. 4-5. 158. A.R.Vidler, The church in an age of revolution, p. 252. 159. Barlow, op. cit., p. 29; Cagnolo, op. cit., p. 266. 160. Cagnolo, citing Filippo Perlo, op. cit., p. 257. 161. Ibid. 162. Ibid. p. 254. 163. V. Blakeslee. Beyond the Kikuyu curtain, p. 7. 164. Ibid. 165. A.R. Barlow, op. cit., p. 29. 166. Knapp was quoting another source. For details on this conference see G.H. Mungeam, Kenya: select historical documents, 1884-1923, p. 166-203. 167. Ibid., p. 167. 168. For an explanation of this sexual practice, see Chapter 2. 169. Cagnolo, op. cit., p. 258. :_Xgk\i) 1.

Routledge, op. cit., p. 245.

2.

Ibid, p. 246. Beecher describes the Gĩkũyũ as “independent,” “but possessed of a marvellous gift of friendship when once it is established.” See L.J. Beecher, The Kikuyu, p. ii.

3.

Hobley, Kenya: from chartered company to Crown Colony, p. 78.

4.

Ibid. p. 160.

5.

Ibid.

6.

Ibid.

7.

Ibid.

8.

Cagnolo, op. cit., p. 73.

9.

L. von Hőhnel. Discovery of Lakes Rudolf and Stefanie, p. 294.

10. Cagnolo, op. cit., p. 73-74. 11. E.M. Crawford. By the equator’s snowy peak: a record of medical missionary work, p. 54. 12. Ibid., p. 61. 13. Ibid. 14. Kenyatta, op. cit., p. 112, 115. 15. Githui wa Kariithi, op. cit., p. 4-5.

)+(

Efk\jXe[i\]\i\eZ\j

16. Leakey says that friendship was valued to the extent that a man sometimes “publicly” showed he had a special friend by brewing “beer of companionship” for him. Op. cit., Vol. I, p. 287-289. 17. Itotia. Endwo nĩ irĩ na irĩĩri, p. 23. 18. Ibid., p. 22-23. 19. Leakey, op. cit., Vol. I, p. 214. 20. In this connection, the Gĩkũyũ have a proverb: Mũrĩmi ũmwe ndaiyũragia ikũmbĩ (One cultivator cannot fill the granary) meaning that one man’s effort cannot meet all the needs. S.K. Gathigira, Ng’ano na thimo cia Ũgĩkũyũ, p. 33. 21. Kabetu, Kirira kia Ũgĩkũyũ; Leakey, op. cit., Vol. II, p. 726. 22. Kenyatta, op. cit., p. 244. 23. Ibid., p. 242, 281, 295; Leakey, op. cit., Vol. III, p. 1120-1121, 1124, 1150-1151, 1152. 24. Routledge, op. cit., p. 320. 25. Itotia. Mũtiga irĩ na irĩĩri, p. 64-66, 83. 26. The meaning of the word ũthingu has obviously changed over the years. Today the word is commonly used to refer to piety in the Christian sense. The Young Age Group would be familiar with the word in this sense. However, from their descriptions of honesty it is evident that informants in the Young Age Group are not ignorant of the conduct that the Old Age Group describes as ũthingu. 27. Arthur Waciira interview. The full implication of these expressions is best understood in the context of the Gĩkũyũ idea of wealth (irĩ) and honour (irĩĩri) that was described in Chapter 1. Ũthingu is the essential quality of the person able to live long and enjoy wealth and honour. People who are not upright might as well be regarded as non-persons. 28. Ibid.; Rahab Waiyigo interview. 29. Leakey confirms that before the introduction of British rule, boys were not initiated before they were 17 or 19 years old. Those who formed the first set of a new regiment were at least 22 years old. They had to be grown up before initiation as they took up military duties soon after this ceremony. Lambert explains that the age was reduced during the British rule because boys were also required to pay tax. To the Gĩkũyũ it was unethical to require young people to take on adult responsibilities before they had been initiated into adulthood. See Leakey, op. cit., Vol. II, p. 587-588; Lambert, op. cit., p. 12: Gathigira, op. cit., p. 42. 30. Ngurũ boys took this opportunity also to punish stingy women and elders. An informant, Reuben Gathii, arranged with other ngurũ boys to punish his own mother because she was stingy. On a day she had invited women for communal work the boys turned up to dance and in the course of dancing added soot to the large quantity of porridge she had prepared for the women. The porridge had to be thrown away to his mother’s great embarrassment. 31. Rahab Waiyigo interview. 32. Ruth Wanjiru Gathii interview. This informant speaks from personal experience. Gũtirithio may be a local variation of the ceremonies described by Gathigira and Leakey.

)+)

Efk\jXe[i\]\i\eZ\j

Gathigira describes a ceremony known as kuumithio or gũtherio (to be cleansed) during which the initiates were given specific instructions on the subject of modesty (thoni). Leakey describes the ceremony of kũrutwo ũrimũ (to have foolishness removed) that was performed on the day after the operation when the initiates were still weak from loss of blood. The rituals performed symbolized removal of the foolishness that was an attribute of childhood. See Gathigira, op. cit., p. 51-53; Leakey, op. cit., Vol. II, p. 633. 33. Ruth Wanjiru Gathii interview. 34. Arthur Waciira and Meshak Murage interviews. 35. The words of this curse were provided by Gathii Mwathi. For a similar ceremony at the beginning of a new regimental rule, see Leakey, op. cit., Vol. II, p. 734-736. 36. Samueli Gitau interview. 37. Arthur Waciira interview. 38. Ibid. 39. Priscilla Nyeri Makumi interview. Iganjo is an abandoned homestead. Future generations remember the spot where a good man or woman once lived. 40. Anthony Kahindi Mbiiru interview. 41. Gathii Mwathi interview. 42. Arthur Waciira and Meshak Murage interviews. 43. Gathii Mwathi and Anthony Kahindi Mbiiru interviews. 44. Rahab Waiyigo and Simon Muteru interviews. For more about nguĩko and other aspects of sexual behaviour, see Chapter 6. 45. Duncan Munyiri interview. 46. Joseph Maingi Kubai interview. 47. Gathii Mwathi interview. 48. Chapter 3 is devoted to the theme of generosity. Here generosity is only described as one of the qualities of an honest person. 49. The majority of informants in the Old Age Group cited this practice as an example of honesty. 50. Meshak Murage interview. 51. Ibid. 52. Ruth Wanjiru Gathii interview. 53. Meshak Murage interview. 54. Priscilla Njeri Makumi interview. 55. Gathii Mwathi interview. 56. Arthur Waciira and Ruth Wanjiru Gathii interviews. 57. Sung by Meshak Murage. 58. Ibid. 59. Ibid. 60. Arthur Waciira interview. 61. Meshak Murage interview. 62. Anthony Kahindi Mbiiru interview.

)+*

Efk\jXe[i\]\i\eZ\j

63. Ibid. 64. Joseph Maingi Kubai and Gathimbu Mbugua interviews. Both of these Young Age Group informants maintain that some of their friends can be completely trusted to treat girls with respect. There are other friends to whom Mbugua would not introduce his girl friend. 65. Priscilla Njeri Makumi interview. The expression “I can’t show my heels ...” means that she would not return home from the fields in daylight. In traditional public opinion, the woman who was too industrious and worked until she could no longer distinguish weeds from crops in the dark was unwise. She tended to neglect her other duties, such as having a meal for the family ready in time; her children were bound to sleep hungry. Also, it was not safe for her to walk home after dusk. Some of the women who lingered on in the fields were the dishonest ones who stole food from other people’s fields. 66. This song as well as the next one were sung by Meshak Murage. 67. Sung by Meshak Murage. 68. Sung by different informants: Gathii Mwathi, Meshak Murage, Ruth Wanjiru Gathii, Reuben Gathii, Lydia Murugi. 69. Sung by Gathi Mwathi. 70. Sung by Meshak Murage. 71. Sung by Gathii Mwathi. 72. Song provided by Ruth Wanjiru Gathii and Lydia Murugi. 73. Priscilla Njeri Makumi. This informant mentioned three pioneer converts to Christianity who were believed to have died early in life because they failed to honour their Christian vows to remain monogamous. Although this claim may be received with scepticism, it comes from a member of an age group that believes strongly that a person who breaks a solemn oath (as Christian vows were regarded by early converts) could die as a result. 74. Ruth Wanjiru Gathii and Arthur Waciira interviews. The informants in the Old Age Group have more to say about the phenomenon ‘modern’ under the theme of temperance in Chapter 6. 75. Samueli Gitau interview. 76. This quotation from the Bible (Philippians 2:12) was quoted by Karanja Kageca. 77. Meshak Murage interview. 78. Sung by Salome Wakonyo. It was widely sung in the mid 1950s and early 1960s 79. Meshak Murage interview. 80. Duncan Munyiri interview. 81. Beth Gathoni interview. 82. Gathii Mwathi interview. :_Xgk\i* 1.

Routledge, op. cit., p. 246.

2.

Ibid.

3.

J.M. Fisher. The anatomy of Kikuyu domesticity and husbandry. p. 87-88.

4.

Ibid.

)++

Efk\jXe[i\]\i\eZ\j

5.

The Gĩkũyũ society distinguished between two kinds of poor people. One kind was virtuous, had initiative and was able to improve its lot, given the opportunity. The society made provision for such people through the practice of granting cultivation and building rights to ahooi, athaami and athoni (beggars, immigrants and in-laws). A relatively poor man could also provide custody to a rich neighbour’s animals for which he received returns. The second kind of poor people brought poverty on themselves due to laziness, vanity or self-depreciation. The former kind were respected and helped while the latter kind were admonished. If they did not improve, they were despised. See Kenyatta, op. cit. p. 32-35; Leakey, op. cit., Vol. I, p. 114-119, 210-11; Itotia. Mũtiga irĩ na irĩĩri. p. 13-14; Itotia. Endwo nĩ irĩ na irĩĩri, p. 95; Cavicchi, op. cit., p. 88-89; E.N. Wanyoike, An African pastor, p. 8-9.

6.

Routledge, op. cit. p. 248; Crawford, op. cit., p. 58.

7.

Cagnolo, op. cit., p. 22.

8.

Ibid. 205-206.

9.

Ibid., p. 30.

10. Barra, op. cit., p. 27; Itotia. Mũtiga irĩ na irĩĩri, p. 63; N. Njururi. Gĩkũyũ proverbs, p. 80. 11. Cagnolo, op. cit., p. 56. 12. See note 5 above. 13. Leakey, op. cit. Vol. I, p. 114. 14. Ibid., p. 106. 15. Examples of mutual help and reciprocity of generous deeds included: mutual hospitality, communal or joint ventures in cultivation (ngwatanio), herding (nduuanĩro ya ndũũru), hut-building and putting out fires. See Leakey, op. cit., Vol. I, p. 131, 137, 157, 169, 170, 210; Kenyatta, op. cit., p. 78; Itotia. Endwo nĩ irĩ na irĩĩri, p. 23-24; Routledge, op. cit., p. 246-247. 16. Leakey, op. cit., Vol. I, p. 131. 17. Ibid., p. 157; Itotia. Mũtiga irĩ na irĩĩri, p. 40-41. 18. Leakey, op. cit., Vol. I, p. 157. 19. D.K. Mugia. Urathi wa Cege wa Kibiru, p. 33, 38-40. 20. Itotia. Mũtiga irĩ na irĩĩri, p. 59. Apparently, people were constantly sharing ideas on how or where to seek fortune. See R. Gatheru. A child of two worlds, p. 9. 21. The dictionary gives the meaning of tha as “tender feelings, feelings of compassion, mercy, pity, sympathy.” 22. Priscilla Njeri Makumi interview. 23. Gathii Mwathi and Antony Kahindi Mbiiru interviews. 24. Gathii Mwathi interview. 25. Madalina Wambui interview. 26. Simon Muteru interview. 27. Gathii Mwathi interview. According to this informant this was possible because the warriors with whom girls associated for purposes of nguĩko and dancing were not necessarily their suitors for marriage. Some of the less handsome men depended on their handsome

)+,

Efk\jXe[i\]\i\eZ\j

age mates to help them court the girls they wished to marry. 28. Ruth Wanjiru Gathi interview. 29. Sung by Gathii Mwathi. 30. Gathii Mwathi interview. 31. Ũthingu is an essential quality of the virtuous person. 32. Gathii Mwathi interview. 33. Arthur Waciira and Gathii Mwathi interviews. 34. Priscilla Njeri Makumi interview. 35. Anthony Kahindi Mbiiru interview. 36. Ibid. 37. Ruth Wanjiru Gathii interview. 38. Meshak Murage and Anthony Kahindi Mbiiru interviews. See Leakey, op. cit., Vol. II, p. 517-518. Leakey does not say from which garden the food was fetched but he says the foodstuffs were the traditional “men’s crops” (bananas, sugarcane, yams) and that the husband was showing symbolically that he was responsible for her provisions when she was confined. 39. This belief is generally held by the informants in this group. 40. Ruth Wanjiru Gathii interview. 41. Simon Muteru interview. 42. Jackson Githaiga interview. 43. Gathii Mwathi interview. 44. Anthony Kahindi Mbiiru interview. 45. Ibid; Gathii Mwathi interview. 46. Anthony Kahindi interview. 47. As is shown in the next chapter that describes the Gĩkũyũ idea of justice. Although people might expect generosity from others, they were not encouraged to depend on it but to be as self-sufficient as possible. 48. An open hand is light in colour, while a closed fist is dark. Mũgiro is derived from the verb gira which means “to impose taboo” or “to bring bad luck.” It refers to the person to whom it is taboo to do something bad, because the deed might result in misfortune. 49. Ruth Wanjiru Gathii and Rahab Waiyigo interviews. Both of these informants played mischief against stingy women. 50. Joseph Maingi Kubai interview. 51. Anthony Kahindi Mbiiru interview. This informant says that if a wealthy person refused to be generous to a poor person, the latter interpreted that as contempt. If the poor man decided to show the rich man contempt, he would express this by harming either the rich man or his property. 52. Meshak Murage interview. 53. Ruth Wanjiru Gathii interview. 54. Gathii Mwathi interview.

)+-

Efk\jXe[i\]\i\eZ\j

:_Xgk\i+ 1.

Harold E. Lambert, Kikuyu social and political institutions, p. 115.

2.

Ibid.

3.

Routledge, op. cit., p. 220.

4.

Cavicchi, op. cit., p.10.

5.

Gathigira, op. cit., p. 67; Kenyatta, op. cit., p. 220.

6.

Cagnolo, op. cit., p.149; Routledge, op. cit., p. 205-6. Ross observed the same suppressed

7.

Lambert, op. cit. p. 117.

temper at the memorable “Harry Thuku Meeting.” See Ross, op. cit., p. 225. 8.

Routledge, op. cit., p. 218, also p. 208-209.

9.

Ibid, p. 218.

10. Routledge, op. cit., p. 23, 219. 11. Leakey, op. cit., Vol. III, p. 1014-1015; Lambert, op. cit., p. 222. 12. Kenyatta, op. cit., p. 222. 13. Routledge, op. cit., p. 216. For full accounts of the Gĩkũyũ system of fines and compensation see Leakey, Vol. III, Chapter 23; H.R. Tate, “Native law of the Southern Kikuyu,” Journal of the African Society, 1910, p. 238-241. 14. 30 goats was the marriage insurance (rũraacio) paid to a girl’s father or guardian by in-laws during the girl’s marriage. 15. L.J. Beecher. The Kikuyu, p. 11. 16. Ibid. 17. Lambert, op. cit., p. 118. 18. Ibid., p. 114-115. 19. L.S.B. Leakey, Mau Mau and the Kikuyu, p. 98. 20. Routledge, op. cit., p. 216. 21. Ibid., p. 218. 22. Lambert, op. cit., p. 117; Cavicchi, op. cit., p. 17. 23. C. Dundas, Africa crossroads, p. 61. 24. Leakey, op. cit., Vol. II, p. 993-994. 25. Lambert, op. cit., p. 101; Thuku, op. cit., p. 26-27. 26. Lambert, op. cit., p. 117. 27. Routledge, op. cit., p. 124-125. 28. The Gĩkũyũ conception of kĩhooto is wide. The Kikuyu-English dictionary renders the word kĩhooto as “that which convinces, an unanswerable argument, a powerful plea; proof, right reason, justice; equity, fairness.” 29. These ideas about justice are strongly held by the Old Age Group. 30. Meshak Murage interview. 31. Practically the whole of the girl’s clan participated in this feast by eating ngoima. 32. Meshak Murage interview. 33. Meshak Murage and Gathii Mwathi interviews. 34. Meshak Murage interview.

)+.

Efk\jXe[i\]\i\eZ\j

35. Nguĩko was some form of sexual practice between initiated young men and girls. For more information on this practice, see Chapter 6. 36. Meshak Murage interview. 37. Arthur Waciira interview. 38. Gathii Mwathi interview. 39. Sung by Meshak Murage. 40. Ibid.; Rahab Waiyigo has witnessed such occasions. 41. This song, as well as the next one, was sung by Meshak Murage. 42. See chapter 2, Honesty. 43. Itotia. Endwo nĩ irĩ na irĩĩri, cf. p. 95-97. 44. Sung by Meshak Murage. 45. Anthony Kahindi Mbiiru interview. 46. Sung by Meshak Murage. 47. Ibid. 48. Ruth Wanjiru Gathii interview. 49. Priscilla Njeri Makumi interview. If a woman was caught stealing produce from people’s gardens, these ornaments were removed by force as payment for what she had stolen. 50. Ndirũ means “misfortune, calamity.” Cagnolo says that the Gĩkũyũ believed God to be good per se and they did not blame him for misfortunes. Rather “with all compliance,” they said, “it is God’s will.” See Cagnolo, op. cit., p. 27. 51. Gĩkũyũ philosophy and laws were preserved in the form of proverbs. Cagnolo describes these as “a true codex for wisdom.” In this connection, Cagnolo observed that the Gĩkũyũ language “is rich enough to express any concrete or abstract idea.” Cagnolo, op. cit., p. 23. 52. Meshak Murage interview. 53. Ibid. 54. Ibid. In Chapter 2 a description is given of how a child was taught to cultivate uprightness or maturity. 55. Arthur Waciira interview. Routledge observes that snuff taking was confined to middle age and old age males. A warrior took a pinch occasionally but he did not carry a snuff container. Offering snuff to anyone was regarded as courteous and a request for a pinch between travellers who met on the way was “never directly refused.” See Routledge, op. cit., p. 24. 56. Anthony Kahindi Mbiiru and Wanjiku Gicinga interviews. 57. Meshak Murage interview. 58. Gathii Mwathi and Arthur Waciira interviews. 59. Gathii Mwathi interview. 60. Ibid. A man, his wife and child were regarded as the potential beginning of a new lineage. 61. In traditional times, the Gĩkũyũ did not bury their dead (unless they were rich) but left them in the forest to be eaten by wild animals. Hyenas were the most numerous of these.

)+/

Efk\jXe[i\]\i\eZ\j

(Editor’s note) 62. Gathii Mwathi interview. Covetous people lacked contentment. They were therefore a potential danger to peace, goodwill and harmony in society. For this reason they were often suspected of witchcraft. 63. Ibid. 64. Anthony Kahindi Mbiiru interview. 65. Gathii Mwathi interview. 66. Informants in the Old Age Group regarded the many deaths of relatively young people, as well as frequent drought and famine, as supernatural baneful effects. 67. This view is contrary to the traditional Gĩkũyũ attitude to punishment. 68. Anthony Kahindi Mbiiru interview. 69. Gathii Mwathi interview. The expression refers to the beer (made from honey) that the age mates might brew later in life since elders had the custom to invite each other to their homes for social drinking. 70. Meshak Murage interview. 71. Anthony Kahindi Mbiiru interview. 72. Sung by Meshak Murage. 73. Leah Maranga interview. 74. Rahab Waiyigo interview. 75. Ibid. Sometimes the parents of the abducted girl arranged for clanswomen to confiscate the headman’s sheep and goats as compensation for the loss of their daughter. :_Xgk\i, 1.

J.R.L. MacDonald. Soldiering and surveying in British East Africa, 1891-1894, p. 109.

2.

Richard Meinertzhagen. Editor’s note: Cf. Robert B. Edgerton. Mau Mau: an African crucible. (New York: Ballantyne Books, 1991) p. 8. “The Kikuyu fought so bravely against British rifles and machine guns in ensuing battles that Meinertzhagen was greatly impressed by their courage.”

3.

Cagnolo, op. cit., p. 18

4.

Routledge, op. cit.

5.

Ibid., p. 16.

6.

Ibid., p. 13.

7.

Ibid.

8.

Sir Charles Eliot. The East African Protectorate, p. 71-72.

9.

Leakey, op. cit., Vol. III, p. 1049.

10. Ibid. 11. Ibid. 12. Ibid. 13. Ibid. 14. Ibid. 15. Cavicchi, op. cit., p. 21.

)+0

Efk\jXe[i\]\i\eZ\j

16. Routledge, op. cit., p. 205-206; See also Cagnolo, op. cit., p. 213. 17. Ibid. 18. Lugard, op. cit., p. 328; cf. Routledge, p. 330. 19. Ibid., p. 323. 20. von Hőhnel, op. cit., Vol. I, p. 353. 21. Ibid. p. 332. 22. Cagnolo, op. cit., p. 32. 23. Dundas, op. cit., p. 61. 24. Cagnolo, op. cit., p. 89. 25. Ibid., p. 92. 26. Cavicchi, op. cit., p. 21. 27. Sung by Meshak Murage. 28. L. Githui wa Kariithi, op. cit. 29. Leah Maranga interview. 30. The informants say that generally even good qualities cease to be good if they are excessive. 31. Sung by Meshak Murage. 32. Ibid. 33. Sung by Gathii Mwathi. 34. Ibid. 35. Sung by Meshak Murage. 36. Meshak Murage interview. 37. Sung by Meshak Murage. 38. Ibid. 39. Arthur Waciira interview. 40. Anthony Kahindi Mbiiru and Meshak Murage interviews. 41. Sung by Meshak Murage. 42. Ibid. 43. Ibid. 44. Gathii Mwathi and Ruth Wanjiru Gathii interviews. 45. Interviews with Anthony Kahindi Mbiiru, Gathii Mwathi and Ruth Wanjiru Gathii. 46. Routledge, op. cit., p. 142 47. Priscilla Njeru Makumi interview. 48. Cavicchi, op. cit., p. 889. 49. Meshak Murage sang this song, also the following four. 50. Sung by Meshak Murage.. 51. Ibid. Marewa. Here denotes the river (personified). 52. Madalina Wambui interview. 53. Simon Muteru interview. 54. Anthony Kahindi Mbiiru and Meshak Murage interviews. 55. Sung by Gathii Mwathi and Meshak Murage.

), '

Efk\jXe[i\]\i\eZ\j

:_Xgk\i1. Temperamce is a key-concept of Gikũyũ moral thought. 2.

Cagnolo, op. cit., p. 149; Kenyatta op. cit., p. 9.

3.

Routledge, op. cit., p. 23.

4.

Ibid.

5.

Leakey, op. cit., Vol. III, p. 692-693.

6.

Marjorie Perham, ed. The diaries of Lord Lugard, Vol. I, p. 344.

7.

Cagnolo, op. cit., p. 104.

8.

Leakey, op. cit., Vol. I, p. 11.

9.

Cagnolo, op. cit., p. 74, 162, 173.

10. “Barlow papers.” File 1/2/2, University of Nairobi Archives. 11. Leakey, op. cit., Vol. III, p. 1068. 12. Kenyatta, op. cit., p. 159-160. Leakey and Benson describe nguĩko as “simulated sexual intercourse” between young men and girls. The traditional practice involved no direct contact of the genitalia as the girl protected herself with her pubic apron. It was referred to as nguĩko ya nyondo (sex of the breast) to distinguish it from sexual intercourse and also because it involved contact of the chests and therefore of ‘rubbing’ and fondling of the breast (gũthigana). Rules governing nguĩko were strict and newly initiated girls and young men were instructed by older girls. From what Leakey and Githui say, it would seem that in traditional society nguĩko was practised in the girls’ bed (kĩrĩrĩ) inside the mother’s house. This arrangement stopped during the early colonial rule when young men began to hide from colonial chiefs to avoid conscription. Subsequently, the disarmed warriors built themselves huts where the girls began to visit them. See Leakey, op. cit., Vol. II, p. 703, 705, 706, 738, 739-740; Githui, op. cit., p. 7-8; Lambert, op. cit., p. 128. 13. Kenyatta, op. cit., p. 159. 14. Ibid. 15. Ibid. 16. Ibid. 17. Itotia, op. cit. 18. The word nguĩko is derived from the verb guĩka which means to dress, clothe or cover over with a cloak or garment. Another associated word is thigo meaning rubbing of the breasts. From what informants say it seems that the main idea behind nguĩko was the pleasure of fondling breasts and the warmth derived from bodily contact and from the girl’s cloak which served as a blanket. The young people also used this practice to learn about each other. A man who had no self-control was avoided by girls and might find it difficult to get a girl to marry him. Interviews with Arthur Wachiira, Anthony Kahindi, Rahab Waiyigo, Gathii Mwathi and Wanjiku Gicinga. See also Kabetu, op. cit., p. 36-39. 19. Perhaps this was the ideal rather than the practice. Parents were constantly warning their bigger children against sexual intercourse and seem not to have been very particular about nguĩko. See Leakey, op. cit., Vol. II, p. 584-585. 20. Meshak Murage interview.

),(

Efk\jXe[i\]\i\eZ\j

21. Ibid. 22. Ibid. “Call on me early in the morning” refers to the Gĩkũyũ belief in the ‘bird of good fortune’ (nyoni ya mũnyaka). Certain children (and adults) were regarded as harbingers of good fortune. They were believed to be especially good-natured. Parents or neighbours would request children like these to call them or visit them early in the morning so that the adults would speak to them before they spoke to anybody else. Adults somehow wished to share in the nature of these children. An adult conversed with such a child in the hope that the child might say a word he could meditate upon the whole day. Itotia. Endwo nĩ irĩ na irĩĩri, p. 17-19. 23. Leakey says that although the Gĩkũyũ desired children, “their laws and customs were such that no woman was allowed to give birth to as many as she was capable of producing naturally, since much greater importance was attached to having healthy children than to having many children … Kikuyu babies were spaced out to about one in every third year.” Op. cit., Vol. II, p. 511. Wanjiku Gicinga said that her mother conceived while her child was relatively small and she suffered much ridicule. She therefore asked her husband permission to abort. He did not agree and she had to bear the embarrassment. 24. Meshak Murage interview. 25. Ruth Wanjiru Gathii interview 26. Anthony Kahindi Mbiiru interview. 27. Ibid. 28. Ibid., Ruth Wanjiru Gathii interview. 29. Meshak Murage interview. 30. Wanjiku Gichinga interview. For a description of the ceremonies of kũoera mwana (picking up (the menses) for one’s child), see Leakey, op. cit., Vol. II, p. 742-746. 31. Meshak Murage interview. 32. Gathii Mwathi interview. 33. Samueli Gitau interview. 34. Anthony Kahindi Mbiiru interview. 35. Ruth Wanjiru Gathii interview. 36. Ibid. 37. Ibid. 38. Meshak Murage interview. 39. Wanjiku Gicinga interview. 40. Gathii Mwathi interview. 41. Ibid. 42. Jackson Githaiga interview. 43. Patrick Migui interview. 44. Simon Mutero interview. 45. Beth Gathoni Guandaru interview. 46. Karanja Kagecha interview. 47. Leah Maranga interview.

),)

Efk\jXe[i\]\i\eZ\j

48. Patrick Kagwanja interview. 49. Janet Wambui Muchiri interview. 50. Karanja Kagecha interview. Several informants confirmed that there is a general belief among the rural Gĩkũyũ people that oral contraceptives (ndawa) destroy the eggs in the uterus so that a woman who takes pills may become infertile. A girl who led a ‘loose life’ was believed to have taken enough pills to render herself infertile. Some girls therefore deliberately sought to become pregnant in order to clear themselves from the suspicion that they destroyed their eggs with pills. Young men were also anxious to be blessed with children when they got married. To ensure this, some of them insisted on pre-marital sexual union with their girlfriends. Many girls who were anxious to get married readily complied with that condition. Sometimes it was the girl who took the initiative so that her boyfriend might become obliged to marry her. (Sources: Interviews with Ruth Wanjiru Gathii, Arthur Waciira, Madalina Wambui and Wanjiku Gicinga.) 51. Evanson Ndirangu interview. 52. Wanjiku Gicinga interview. 53. Interviews with Ruth Wanjiru Gathii, Rahab Waiyigo, Madalina Wambui and Priscilla Njeri Makumi. The breakdown of the regimental age-grade system when colonial rule was introduced meant that young men were no longer organised for purposes of imposing discipline on the society. In time, other peer groupings either lost meaning or died out. 54. Simon Muteru interview. 55. Priscilla Njeri Makumi represents a section of people who sincerely believed that they did not need to teach their children. This informant said that many old people, including herself, blame themselves for thinking that their children would automatically grow upright since they had learned to read the Bible. 56. Patrick Kagwanja and Evanson Ndirangu interviews. 57. Anthony Kahindi Mbiiru interviews. 58. Priscilla Njeri Makumi interviews. 59. Ibid. 60. Joseph Maingi Kubai interview. This informant is referring to some Christians who are too preoccupied with the next world. Other Christians believe that African customs, such as seeking compensation for pregnancy, are not Christian and therefore should be avoided.

),*

9@9C@F>I8G?P

Abbot, S. “Full-time farmers and weekend wives: change and stress among rural Kikuyu women.” Ph.D. Thesis, Chapel Hill: University of Carolina, 1974. Anderson, W.B. The church in East Africa, 1840-1974. Dodoma: Central Tanganyika Press, 1977. Baker, R.S.B. Kabongo. Wheatley [UK]: George Ronald, 1955. Barlow, A.R. Kikuyu: 1898-1923: Semi-jubilee book of the Church of Scotland Mission, Kenya Colony. Edinburgh, 1923. Barnett, D.L. and Njama, Karari. Mau Mau from within: autobiography and analysis of Kenya’s peasant revolt. London: Modern Reader Paperbacks, 1966. Barra, G. 1000 Kikuyu proverbs. Nyeri: Consolata Catholic Mission Press, 1939. (East African Publishing House, 1960). Barret, W.E.H. “A-Kikuyu fairy tales (Rogano).” Man, Vol. 13 (1913). Beech, M.W.H. “Suicide amongst the A-Kikuyu of East Africa.” Man, Vol. 13 (1913}. Beecher, L.J. The Kikuyu, Nairobi: Ndiakuu Press, 1944. Bennett, George. Kenya: a political history. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1963. Benson, T.G. ed. English-Kikuyu dictionary. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1975. ––––. Kikuyu-English dictionary. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1964. Blakeslee, H.V. Beyond the Kikuyu curtain. Chicago: Moody Press, 1956. Boyes, John. John Boyes, king of the Wakikuyu, edited by G.W.L. Bulpett. London: Methuen, 1912. (Frank Cass, 1968). Cagnolo, C. The Akikuyu: their customs, traditions, and folklore. Nyeri: The Mission Printing School, 1933. Carothers, J.C. The mind of man in Africa. London: Tom Stacey, 1972. Cavicchi, Edmondo. Problems of change in Kikuyu tribal society. Bologna, Italy: EMI, 1977. (Written in 1953.) Cayzac, J. “Witchcraft in Kikuyu.” Man, Vol. 12 (1912).

),,

9` Y c`f^iX g_p

Childe, Y.G. Social evolution. London: Watts, 1951. Clough, S.N. Basic values of Western civilization. New York: Columbia University Press, 1960. Corfield, F.D. “The origins and growth of Mau Mau: an historical survey.” (Sessional paper no. 5 of 1959/60). Colony and Protectorate of Kenya. Cowan, L.G., O’Connell J., Scanlon, D.G. , eds. Education and nation building in Africa. New York: Praeger, 1965. Crawford, E.M. By the equator’s snowy peak: a record of medical missionary work. London: Church Missionary Society, 1913. Crawford, J.W.W. “The Kikuyu medicine man.” Man, Vol. 9 (1909). Dundas, C. Africa crossroads. London: Macmillan, 1955. Dundas, K.R. “Kikuyu calendar.” Man, Vol. 9 (1909). ––––. “Notes on the origin and history of the Kikuyu and Dorobo tribes.” Man, Vol. 8 (1908). Eliot, Sir Charles. The East African Protectorate. London: Frank Cass, 1905. Emerson, R. and Kilson, M. The political awakening of Africa. Englewood Cliffs: PrenticeHall 1965. Evans-Pritchard, E.E. “Meaning in Zande proverbs.” Man, Vol. 63 (1963). ––––. “Zande proverbs: final selection and comments.” Man, Vol. 64 (1964). Fadiman, J. “Traditional warfare among the Meru of Mount Kenya.” Ph.D. Thesis, University of Wisconsin,1973. Fisher, J.M. “‘Ihe anatomy of Kikuyu domesticity and husbandry.” United Kingdom, Department of Technical Corporation. London, 1952. Forde, D., ed. African worlds: studies in cosmological ideas and social values of African peoples. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1954. Fortes, M. and Dieterlen, G. African systems of thought. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1965. Gakaara Wanjau. Nyimbo cia gukunguira wiathi. Nairobi: Gakaara Publishing House, 1963. Gatheru, Mugo. Child of two worlds. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1964. Gathigira, Stanley Kiama. Miikariire ya Agikuyu. Nairobi: Equatorial Publishers, 1934. ––––. Ng’ano na thimo cia Ugikuyu. Nairobi: The Eagle Press, 1950. Gathii, H.W. “Church discipline: a contemporary problem of the church in Kikuyu.” Makerere University, 1966. Gecaga, B.M. Kariuki na Muthoni: a study of childhood among the Kikuyu. Nairobi: East African Publishing House, 1975. Gecau, R. Kikuyu folk tales. Nairobi: East African Publishing House, 1970. Gichuhi, W. “Morality in statutory and customary law, with emphasis on customary law.” LlB thesis, University of Nairobi, 1975. Githige, K.M. “The religious factor in Mau Mau, with particular reference to Mau Mau oaths.” M.A.Thesis, University of Nairobi, 1978. Gluckman, M. Custom and conflict in Africa. Oxford: Blackwell, 1963.

), -

9` Yc ` f^iXg_p

Good Charles M., Kimani, V., Lawry, J.M. “Gukunura mundu mugo: the initiation of a Kikuyu medicine man.” Anthropos, Vol. 75 (1980). Gregory, J.W. The great Rift Valley. London: Murray, 1896. Groves, C.P. The planting of Christianity in Africa, Vol. IV, 1914-1954. London: Lutterworth Press, 1958. Hastings, Adrian. African Christianity: an essay in interpretation. London: Chapman, 1976. Hobley, C.W. Bantu beliefs and magic, with particular reference to the Kikuyu and Kamba tribes of Kenya colony. London: Witherby, 1922. (2nd edition, 1938.) ––––. Ethnology of the A-Kamba and other East African tribes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1910. ––––. Kenya: from chartered company to crown colony. London: Witherby, 1929. ––––. “Kikuyu medicines.” Man, Vol. 6 (1906). Hőhnel, L. von. Discovery of Lakes Rudolf and Stefanie. 2 vols. London 1894. (London: Frank Cass, 1968.) Huxley, Elspeth. The sorcerer’s apprentice. London: Chatto and Windus, 1948. Huxley, Julian. Africa view. London: Chatto and Windus, 1931. Itote, Waruhiu. Mau Mau general. Nairobi: East African Publishing House, 1967. Itotia, Justin. Endwo ni irĩ na irĩĩri. Nairobi: Colonial Printing Works, 1937. ––––. Thimo cia Ugikuyu itari thimure: cicunjii kia mbere. Nairobi: Colonial Printing Works, 1944. ––––. Mutiga iri na iriiri aromama kuuraga. Nairobi: Colonial Printing Works, 1945. Jackson, F. Early days in East Africa. London, 1930. (Dawsons of Pall Mall, 1961.) Jones. C.N.S. The anatomy of uhuru. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1966. Kabetu, M.N. Kirira kia Ugikuyu. Nairobi: East African Literature Bureau, 1947 (Nairobi: East African Publishing House, 1966.) ––––. Kaguraru na Waithira. London: Thomas Nelson, 1961. Kariuki, Josiah Mwangi. Mau Mau detainee. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1963. Kenya. “Report of the National Committee on Educational Objectives and Policies,” 1976 Kenya. Ministry of Education. “Christian religious education: ‘A’ Level guide,” 1978. Kenya Institute of Education. “School and community report,” 1976. Kenyatta, Jomo. Facing Mount Kenya. London: Secker and Warburg, 1938. ––––. My people of Kikuyu. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1966. Kershaw, G. “The land is the people: a study of Kikuyu social organization in historical perspective.” Ph.D. Thesis, University of Chicago, 1972. Kibicho, Samuel G. “The Kikuyu conception of God: its continuity into the Christian era and the question it raises for the Christian idea of revelation.” Ph.D. Thesis, Graduate School of Vanderbilt University, 1972. Kieran, J.A.P. “The Holy Ghost Fathers in East Africa, 1863-1914.” Ph.D. Thesis, University of London, 1966. Kinoti, Hannah W. “The era of missionary education in Kenya.” Orientation: the journal of religious studies in Kenya. Vol.1, no. 2 (1976).

),.

9` Y c`f^iX g_p

Lambert, Harold E. Kikuyu social and political institutions. London: Oxford University Press, 1956. Leakey, Louis S.B. Mau Mau and the Kikuyu. London: Methuen, 1952. ––––. The southern Kikuyu before 1903. 3 vols. London: Academic Press, 1977. Leys, Norman M. Kenya. London: Hogarth Press, 1924. Lugard, F.D. The rise of our East African empire. 2 vols. Edinburgh, 1893. (London: Frank Cass, 1968.) MacDonald, J.R.L. Soldiering and surveying in British East Africa, 1891-1894. London, 1897. (Dawsons of Pall Mall, 1973.) McVeigh, Malcolm J. God in Africa: concepts of God in African traditional religion and Christianity. Cape Cod: Claude Stark, 1974. Maina wa Kinyatti. “Mau Mau: peak of African political organization in colonial Kenya.” Kenya historical review. Vol. 5, no. 2 (1977). Marett, R.R.. “Rudimentary ethics.” In Encyclopedia of religion and ethics, Hastings, J. ed., London, 1912. Mbiti, John S. Introduction to African religion. London: Heinemann, 1975. ––––. African religions and philosophy. London: Heinemann, 1969. Meinertzhagen, Richard. Kenya diary 1902-6. Edinburgh: Oliver & Boyd, 1957. Middleton, J. I. and Kershaw, G. The Kikuyu and Kamba of Kenya. London: International African Institute, 1965. Mugia, Daniel K. Urathi wa Cege wa Kibiru. Nairobi: Kenya Literature Bureau, 1979. Mungeam, Gordon Hudson. Kenya: select historical documents, 1884-1923. Nairobi: East African Publishing House, 1979. Muriuki, Godfrey. A history of the Kikuyu, 1500-1900. Nairobi, Oxford, etc.: Oxford University Press, 1974. ––––. “The problem of the Gumba and the Athi in Kikuyu history.” Seminar paper, University of Nairobi, Department of History, 1973. Murray, Jeremy M. “The Kikuyu female circumcision controversy, with special reference to the Church Missionary Society’s ‘Sphere of influence.’” Ph.D. Thesis, University of California, 1974. Murray-Brown, J. Kenyatta. London: George Allen and Unwin, 1972. Njururi, Ngumbu. Gĩkũyũ proverbs. London: Macmillan,1969. ––––. Agikuyu folk tales. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1966. Nyamiti, Charles. “Christian and tribal initiation rituals: a comparative study of Masai, Kikuyu and Bemba rites in view of liturgical adaptation.” Ph D. Thesis, Université Catholique de Louvain, 1969. Nyerere, Julius K. Ujamaa: essays in socialism. Dar es Salaam: Oxford University Press, 1968. Ochieng, William and Janmohamed, K. , eds. “Some perspectives on Mau Mau movement.” Kenya historical review, Vol. 5, no. 2 (1977). Ogot, B.A. “Politics, culture and music in central Kenya: a study of Mau Mau hymns, 1951-

),/

9` Yc ` f^iXg_p

1956.” Kenya historical review. Vol. 5, no. 2 (1977). Oliver, R.A. The missionary factor in East Africa. London: Longmans, 1965. Orde-Browne, G. St. J. The vanishing tribes of Kenya. London: Steel, Service & Co., 1925. Perham, Marjorie, ed. The diaries of Lord Lugard, Vol. I. London: Western University Press, 1959. Ray, B.C. African religions: symbol, ritual and community. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, 1976. Rosberg, C.G. and Nottingham, John. The myth of Mau Mau: nationalism in Kenya. Nairobi: East African Publishing House, 1966. Ross, W.D.A. Kenya from within. London: Frank Cass, 1927. Routledge, William S. and Katherine P. With a prehistoric people: the Akikuyu of British East Africa. London: Frank Cass, 1910. Scott, H.E. A saint in Kenya: the life of Marion Scott Stevenson. London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1932. Shapiro, H.L., ed. Man, culture, and society: Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1960. Stein, J., ed. Twerekeire ku micii-ini? Nairobi: Jitegemea Publishers,1974. Steward, J.H. Contemporary change in traditional societies. Urbana, IL : University of Illinois Press, 1967. Tate, H.R. “The native law of southern Gĩkũyũ of British East Africa.” Journal of African society, Vol. 9 (1910). Taylor, J.V. The primal vision: Christian presence amid African religion. London: SCM Press, 1963. Thomson, Joseph. Through Masailand. London, 1885. (London: Frank Cass, 1968). ‘Ihuku, Harry. An autobiography. Nairobi: Oxford University Press, 1970. Tignor, R.L. The colonial transformation of Kenya: the Kamba, Kikuyu and Maasai from 1900 to 1939. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1976. University of Nairobi, Department of Sociology. “The problem of pregnancy among unmarried women students in the University,” 1976. Vidler, A.R. The church in an age of revolution. Harmondsworth, U.K.: Penguin Books, 1961. Wamweya, J. Freedom fighter. Nairobi: East African Publishing House, 1971. Wanyoike, Ernest N. An African pastor: the life and work of the Rev. Wanyoike Kamwe, 18881970. Nairobi: East African Publishing House, 1974. Watt, S.M. In the heart of savagedom. London: Marshall, 1912. Welbourn, Frederick B. East African rebels. London: S.C.M. Press, 1961. Westermann, D.I. The African today. London: Oxford University Press, 1934. Willoughby, W.C. The soul of the Bantu: a sympathetic study of the magico-religious practices and beliefs of the Bantu tribes of Africa. London: SCM Press, 1928.

),0

8I:?@M8CD8K
UNIVERSITY OF NAIROBI ARCHIVES: File BAR/l/2/2. Barlow Papers. File LAMB/l/2/9. Lambert Papers. File LAMB/1/6. Lambert Papers. PROFESSOR G. MURIUKI’S PRIVATE COLLECTION: Githui, Leonard wa Kariithi. “Ũhinduri wa mĩtaarire ya Agĩkũyũ.” Unpublished Ms., 1933. Handwritten. KENYA NATIONAL ARCHIVES: File KNA/DC/NYI/3/1. Political Record, Nyeri 1916-2. File KNA/NYI/3/6. Native Affairs, 1921-1923.

)-(

@E;
)- *

@ e [\o

animals, wild, 175, 178, 213, 237, 248 protection against, 83, 177, 178 annoyance, 33, 119, 120, 143 appointments, 93, 154 keeping of, 74, 78, 98 appreciation, 109, 133 apron, pubic, 216, 251 Arab traders, 40 arbitration, arbitrator(s), arbitrate, 30, 126, 133, 138, 139, 158, 167 arrogance, arrogant, 143 arrow(s), 57, 111, 201 arson, 132, 158 askari, 40 assault, 74, 157, 158, 161, 179, 182, 215 athamaki, mũthamaki. See also leader(s) 41, 126, 128, 139, 154, 174 Athi. See Ndorobo attach, attachment, 37, 87, 107, 238, 258 authority, 23, 25, 27, 40-42, 51, 52, 54, 57, 128, 142, 143, 157, 209, 219, 224-226, 232, 239 change in attitude towards, 107, 222, 224-227 supernatural, 224 avarice, 147 baby, 147, 211 birth of a, 108, 113, 131 babysitter, 69, 179 ban, public, 26, 63, 81, 207-209 ban: self-imposed, 207, 211 banning, 133 Barlow, A.R., 18, 38, 51, 54, 206 barter: of food crops. See also trading, 122, 185, 189 bed: demolishing of, 217 beer, 54, 61, 65, 86, 104, 111, 116, 140, 157, 169, 171, 185, 195, 206, 212, 213, 220, 223, 228, 242, 249 beer drinking: ceremonies involving, 206, 211 beer drinking: permission to, 211 beg, begging, 63, 100, 104, 112, 157, 199, 208 behaviour. See also conduct, sexual behaviour courteous, good, 25, 26, 29, 65 bad, illicit, 41, 58, 63, 64, 66, 86, 142, 147, 157, 203 behaviour control. See also agents of control, sanctions, 225 benefits, material, 200. See also riches, wealth

)- +

@ e[\o

benevolence, 76 benevolent person. See muuma andũ bewitching. See also witchcraft, 76, 149, 159 Blakeslee, Virginia, 53, 54 blessings: by old people, 35, 155 blessings: of God, 32, 155, 232 blood: drawing of, 111 blood: shedding of, 92 blood relationship. See also clansmen, clanswomen, kinship, family relationship, 108 boldness. See bravery boundary marks, 32, 48, 133, 134, 137, 180 Boyes, John (King of the Wakikuyu), 40 bravery, 81, 115, 171, 172, 173-177, 179-182, 196 204 bravery: excessive, 182 breakfast: giving of, 104, 186 bribe(s), 77, 93, 166 bride-wealth, 135, 224 British administration See also Colonial Government, 38, 40, 42, 43, 45, 169, 172 building sites, 109 bullying, bully, 70, 176, 179, 198 bury, burial, 36, 248 Cagnolo, C., 18, 39, 41, 54, 58, 100, 126, 172, 174, 175, 205, 206 calamities. See also famine, 40, 55 capital punishment, See also punishment, 42 carcass, 111 cash economy, See also wages, 91, 94, 122 castor oil, 131 cattle, 29, 31, 83, 85, 107, 112, 117, 134, 173, 177-179, 181, 185, 212, 219 caution, 214, 215 Cavicchi, Edmondo, 18, 125, 174,175, 191 celebration(s), 119 ceremonial drinking, 208 ceremony(ies). See also religious ceremonies, rituals, 21-24, 34, 54, 81, 86, 122, 157, 160-163, 191, 195, 206, 207, 212, 242, 252 charity, 76, 77, 102, 111, 123, 199 chastity, 66, 220, 221 cheating, 98, 165 cheerfulness, cheerful, 102, 205 chiefs, 40-42, 239 chiefs: oppression by, 47, 52, 169, 251

)-,

@ e [\o

child labour, 51 children, 21, 23, 25, 31, 33, 71, 80, 84-86, 98, 114, 119, 122, 123, 129, 143, 149, 157, 166-168, 195, 199, 205, 207, 209, 212, 214, 216, 219, 221, 222, 244, 252 as evidence of welfare and blessing, 29, 34-36, 154, 231, 238, 253 as proof of marriage, 134 education and guidance of, 15, 17, 21, 26, 52, 58, 59, 62, 64, 120, 145, 166, 187, 191, 196, 206, 210, 218, 219, 223-229, 236, 251, 253 dishonesty, honesty among, 58, 72-73, 80, 84, 85-87 illegitimate, 157, 230 spacing of, 211, 252 Christan demands/vows: vs. demands/vows in Gĩkũyũ culture, 91-93, 224, 226-229, 244 Church of Scotland Mission, 51, 54 circumcision. See also female circumcision, 22, 62-64, 83, 119, 175, 191, 196 civilization, western, 38, 39, 49-51, 53, 54, 91, 100, 221 civilize, 18, 54, 55, 221 clan(s), 21, 22, 24, 26, 32, 33, 36, 42, 46, 48, 49, 134, 135, 164, 173, 214, 247 clan forefathers/spirits, 32, 134 clansmen, clanswomen. See also blood relationship, kinship, family relationship, 22, 26, 99, 106, 107, 122, 127, 131, 141, 142, 157, 158, 214, 249 cleansing: after a misdeed, 54, 160, 162 code of behaviour. See moral code Colonial Government, 41, 45, 86, 170 combat, physical, 173, 176, 177-179, 182, 192 communal work, 109, 142, 242 community life, 130, 147 compassion, compassionate, 82, 88, 102, 103, 106, 202 compensation, 22, 44, 75, 83, 84, 120, 125-127, 132, 141, 157, 163, 166, 197, 210, 229, 247, 249, 253 compromise, 138, 229 compulsory labour, 52, 53 conduct: modes of. See moral code conduct, exemplary, 144 confession, confess, 126, 147, 160, 162, 163, 211 confidence. See also self-confidence, 60, 69, 138, 196, 198, 199, 202, 203, 207, 223 conscience, 49, 74, 75, 138 consequence(s), 39, 43, 53, 68, 71, 74, 94, 114, 137, 155, 156, 197, 226, 229 Consolata Mission, 53 contemptuousness, contempt, 44, 89, 118, 122, 169, 190, 246 contentment, content, 36, 50, 75, 145, 146, 150, 249 cooperation, cooperate, 42, 59, 88 cordial, cordially, 103, 105, 110, 124, 165, 196, 197, 213

)- -

@ e[\o

Council of Elders. See also elders, 23, 24, 26, 27, 42, 48, 125-127, 138, 141, 167 counsel, counselling, 32, 74, 76, 77, 81, 102, 106, 108, 113, 126, 134, 199, 225, 226, 228, 229 counsellor(s), 126, 165 courage, courageous, See also njamba, 10, 11, 32, 72, 81, 115, 144, 152, 171, 175, 176, 178, 180-182, 188, 189-191, 194-204, 215, 231, 249 court(s), 41, 42, 45, 48, 49, 138, 139, 141, 148, 167-169, 174 court fees, 126 Court’s Ordinance (1897), 41 courtesy, courteous, 17, 25, 26, 54, 61, 145, 248 covetousness, covetous. See also jeaslousy, 60, 68, 92, 145-147, 150, 159, 249 coward(s), cowardice, cowardly, 26, 81, 152, 173, 177, 182, 188, 190, 192, 197, 202 cow(s), 87, 95, 130, 147, 148, 152, 181, 229 cow(s): as gifts, 106, 173 crafty. See cunning crime(s). See offence(s) criminal(s). See also malefactors, offenders, wrongdoers, 140, 147, 178 criminal(s), habitual, 26, 136, 161, criminal(s), habitual: killing of, 163, 164 criticism, 30, 51 of parents, 143 crop husbandry, 218 crown lands, 43, 45 Crown Lands ordinance - 1902, 43 - 1915, 43 cultivate, cultivation, 44, 45, 48, 107, 117, 163, 174, 187, 188, 207, 218 cultivation: assistance in. See also Mutual help, 24, 87, 88, 133, 151 cultivation rights, 22, 46, 47-49, 245 cunning, 110, 144, 180 curse(s), 32, 76, 94, 243 curse: invoking of, 65, 115, 150, 160, 226 curse: of a dying person, 104, 113 customary law, 41, 46-48, 79, 103, 138, 209 damage, 44, 132 to reputation, 210, 213 dances(s), dancing. See also kibaata dances, 61, 66, 81, 86, 134, 143, 186, 206, 207, 209, 210, 215-217, 227, 242 danger, 72, 101, 178, 211, 249 exposure to, 178,179, 182 day of judgement, 55. See also final judgement, second coming, supernatural judgement

)-.

@ e [\o

death, 33, 36, 65, 76, 92, 110, 113, 126-128, 140, 146, 149, 154, 159, 160, 162, 164, 178, 179, 182, 190, 202 immanent: saving people from, 106, 107 untimely: as punishment, 160, 249 death-bed pronouncements, 161 debate(r), 125, 138, 139, 174 deception, 58, 133, 150 defeat, 28, 72, 128, 129, 137, 141, 159, 184 in litigation, 137-141, 180 defence, 22, 24, 43, 1001, 172, 175, 177, 179, 207 defendant, 126 defilement, defiling, 100, 160, 211 deliberation(s), 29, 125, 126, 134, 164, 173, 180 demand(s), 27, 37, 38, 43, 50, 79, 91, 93, 100, 135, 136, 142, 151, 157, 162, 167, 169, 195, 197 desperate, desperation, 36, 74, 200 despondent, despondency, 184, 202, 220, 230 destitution, destitute, 36, 109, 118,119, 184, 196, 200 determination, 31, 40, 175, 176, 183, 200 dignity, 139, 170, 174, 175 diligence, diligent, 17, 30, 32, 35, 36, 52, 60, 64, 80, 86-88, 90, 98, 101, 114, 115, 145, 149, 152, 175, 176, 182, 183, 186, 187-192, 197-201, 203, 212, 217-219, 231 disagreement(s), 95, 133 disapproval, 99, 127, 229 discipline, 15, 26, 32, 69, 70, 81, 120, 196, 206, 207, 216, 225, 226, 237, 253 discontentment, discontent, 146, 147, 150 disdain, disdainful, 79, 168-170, 220 dishonesty, 58, 89, 138 disinheritance, disinherit, 127, 128 disobedience, 58, 64, 83, 143, 157, 159, 165, 225 dispute(s). See also tension, 26, 42, 45, 48, 49, 72, 75, 79, 125, 129, 133, 136, 137-139, 160, 164, 165, 173, 179-182, 203 open. See also tension, state of, 137, 141 disregard, 11, 30, 44, 65, 83, 91, 111, 129, 156, 160, 166, 169, 222, 226, 227-229 distortion, 150 District Commissioner, 39, 42, 240 divination, diviners, 28, 33, 80, 107, 211 divorce. See also wife; ‘throw away’, 135 dowry. See bride-wealth drunkenness, drunkards, drunkenness, 208, 213 increase in, 220 duel, 173

)- /

@ e[\o

duty, 23, 39, 49, 59, 64, 70, 84, 86, 87, 90, 99, 101, 151, 156, 160, 195, 203, 205, 225 dying, 100, 104, 113, 149, 220, 222 ears, piercing of, 62, 149, 196 eat, eating, 84, 90, 97, 99, 100, 103-105, 119, 121, 122, 132, 150, 158, 186, 191, 192, 201, 212, 213, 214, 247 education, 15, 16, 21, 38, 39, 42, 54, 58, 91, 123, 200, 216, 227, 235 as inculcating maturity, 60 educational disparity: between parents and children, 226 elders. See also Council of elders, 23, 24, 26, 27, 30, 31, 57, 61, 63, 65, 72, 79, 84, 95, 96, 104, 125, 128, 133, 134, 139, 141, 149, 150, 153, 158, 165, 173, 179, 180, 185, 206, 212, 214, 215, 224, 229, 232, 242, 249 as intercessors in prayer, 29 loss of authority of, 15, 16, 25, 41-43 eldership, 23 elections, local, 85 Eliot, Sir Charles, 44, 45, 172 eloquence, 174 embarrass, embarrassment, 71, 72, 74, 83, 119, 120, 144, 154, 195, 197, 210, 223, 242, 252 embezzle, 75 Emergency, State of (1952-1960), 86, 97 emulate, 93, 201, 202, 228 encouragement, moral, 81, 235 endurance. See also perseverance, steadfastness, 62, 175, 183, 191, 192, 196 envious, envy See also covetousness, 30, 68, 102, 147, 149, 159 equilibrium (in society), 30, 42 equilibrium (in society), restoring of, 39, 126, 128 equity, 30, 127, 136, 139, 144, 165, 247 esteem, 82, 98, 173, 212 European farmers, 40, 174 evidence, 27, 28, 29-31, 38, 51, 66, 100-102, 126, 130, 131, 133-142, 151, 174, 175, 180, 184, 186, 187, 190, 192, 202, 237 evidence, convicting, 160 evidence, factual, 133 examinations, 73, 175 excellent, excellence, excel. See also njamba, 105, 128, 176, 187, 192, 201 exhaustion, 36, 184, 192, 194 expectation: fulfilment of, 59, 60, 70, 77-80, 85, 145 expedition(s), 26, 42, 81, 82, 89, 183, 184, 187, 193, 194 expedition, Count Teleki’s, 174 expedition(s), punitive, 40, 171, 239

)-0

@ e [\o

exploitation, exploit, 11, 41, 49, 79, 81, 94, 96, 101, 150, 197 extort, extortion, 60, 67, 79, 145, 147, 168, 237 facts, 17, 71, 126, 136, 151, 181, 182 distortion of, 71, 136 fairness, 30, 128, 165, 247 falsehood, 58, 129, 133 family relationships. See also blood relationship, clansmen, clanswomen, kinship, 141 famine, 24, 28, 40, 44, 80, 90, 107, 109, 132, 149, 150, 153, 159, 187, 189, 214, 249 father-in-law. See in-laws favouritism, favourite, 72, 82, 86, 87, 165 feasts, 195, 201, 207 of meat, 126, 131, 132, 158, 200, 201, 214, 247 female circumcision, 216, 258 fidelity, 81, 98, 197 fidelity, sexual, 61, 66, 68 final judgement (Christian doctrine), 169. See also day of judgement, second coming, supernatural judgement financial aid, 69 financial matters, 72, 73 financial gain/prosperity, 49, 52, 97 fine(s): as punishment, 27, 120, 127, 207, 247 firewood, 25, 90, 106, 143, 171, 192, 193 firmness, 196, 197, 225 flatter, 110, 144 fondling (rubbing breasts) See nguĩko food, 34, 51, 63, 78, 80-82, 87-89, 93, 97, 99, 100, 103-109, 113, 117, 119, 121, 122, 131, 132, 143, 145, 147, 153, 157, 169, 171, 174, 185, 187-189, 191, 195, 199, 211, 213, 214, 217, 238, 244, 246 foolishness, fools, foolish, 33, 123, 124, 126, 140, 170, 178, 179, 182, 198, 203, 202, 204, 205, 214, 243 forbearance, forbear, 144, 145, 176, 197, 218 force of might, force of right, 128, 129, 135, 136, 139, 169, 179 forced labour. See compulsory labour forefathers. See ancestors forgive, forgiveness, 94, 129, 136, 156, 159, 161-163, 166-168 Fort Hall. See Murang’a freedom, 31, 206, 207 of choice, 128 of speech, 125, 128 friendship, 59, 67, 78, 117, 241, 242

).'

@ e[\o

gain, material, 75, 198, 202 generosity, generous 10, 11, 16, 46, 60, 64, 67, 76-78, 80, 87, 98, 99-103, 106-123, 144, 145, 154, 165, 176, 190, 198, 231, 245, 246 genial. See cordial gentleness, 110, 144, 196, 197 Gichugu, 37 gift(s): given in courtship, 134, 135 gift of food See itega gift: propitiatory. See also ram of propitiation, 158 Gĩkũyũ as the ‘house of the digging stick’, 28, 187, 218 changes in way of life of, 11, 17, 38, 93, 225 encounter with western culture, 38, 53, 200, 220, 227 loss of land. See land alienation migration, 37, 51, 188 mobility, 37, 226 Gĩkũyũ agriculture, 28, 174 Gĩkũyũ culture, 37, 38, 53, 54, 93 Gĩkũyũ morality. See also sexual morality, 30, 32, 38, 43, 48, 53-55, 61, 91, 92, 224, 225-227, 230-232 Gĩkũyũ religion, 27-33, 54, 55, 232 Gĩkũyũ religion: influence of missionaries on, 15, 53-55 Gĩkũyũ reserve Githui, Leonard, 17, 178 giving: as a spontaneous act, 103 goat: ‘of companionship’, 153 goat(s), 28, 65, 72, 79, 87, 96, 107, 111, 114, 119-122, 127, 131, 132, 134, 157, 158, 160, 174, 185, 189, 192, 197, 201, 212, 215, 247, 249 God as creator and upholder of life, 27-30 as dispenser of justice, 27, 28, 30, 31, 54, 55, 57, 113, 149, 154-156, 159, 160, 209, 210, 224, 232 as forgiving wrongs, 94 as giver of good gifts, 28, 32, 60, 75, 79, 146, 166, 196, 202, 210 conversion to, 54 disregard of, 227 goodwill, 67, 90, 102, 110, 113-115, 125, 130, 132, 144, 151, 152, 161, 219, 249 gossips, gossiping, 26, 69, 76, 142, 157, 208, 226 gratitude, 26, 35, 79, 80, 82, 113, 116, 117, 121, 133, 153 greed, greedy, 48, 58, 67, 68, 75, 84, 92, 96-98, 145, 150, 180, 205, 212-214, 222 grievance(s), 17, 31, 45, 135, 158, 205

). (

@ e [\o

guest(s), 100, 103-105, 108, 111, 112, 140, 197, 213 status of, 99 guilt(y), 72, 126, 136, 140, 141, 155, 160, 163, 167, 168, 197 Gumba, 37, 238 handing over ceremony. See ituĩka hardships. See also suffering, 191, 195 harmony, 29, 30, 33, 34, 69, 70, 76, 77, 98, 130, 132, 152, 219, 249 headman, 73, 169, 249 help, non-material, See also cultivation: assistance in, mutual help, 83, 101, 102, 106, 108, 109-111, 117, 123, 178 home life: loss of, 51, 52, 97, 222, 226 homeless, 87 honesty, 11, 16, 30, 57-61, 66, 67-73, 75-82, 84-86, 90, 91, 94, 96, 98, 138, 141, 145, 164, 242, 243 honey, 84, 107, 108, 131, 143, 158, 162, 249 hospitality, 22, 27, 66, 69, 78, 88, 99, 100, 102, 103-106, 111-113, 115, 117, 121, 122, 153, 158, 197, 245 house of the digging stick’. See under Gĩkũyũ human relationships, 47, 94, 96, 98, 218 humiliation, 157, 199 humility, 26, 65, 196 hunger, hungry, 36, 105, 107, 113, 122, 184, 186, 190, 192 hypocrisy, 133, 145. 229 identification, 130 of animals, 133 idler(s). See also indolence, laziness, loiterers, 132, 184, 188, 189 ill effects. See also misfortune, 141 immorality, immoral, 15, 83, 160, 223 impatience, 138, 186 Imperial British East Africa Company, 40 improve, improvement, 102, 174, 183, 189, 195, 199, 200, 202, 245 incompetent, 101, 228 indecent, 27, 212, 215, 228 indisputable, 129 individualism, 39, 122, 123 indolence. See also idlers, laziness, loiterers, 89, 90, 189 inducement, 53, 153, 200, 216 industrious, 61, 75, 86, 88, 174, 182, 183, 185, 244 initiation(s). See also rites of passage, 22, 23, 63, 80-82, 86, 92, 108, 143, 154, 163, 195, 206,

).)

@ e[\o

208-210, 216, 227, 242 initiative, 30, 43, 48, 87, 90, 101, 102, 146, 183, 189, 190, 197, 245, 253 injustice, 31. 49, 52, 147, 149, 160, 168-170, 181 in-law(s), 25, 66, 69, 72, 108, 135, 212, 245, 247 innocence, innocent, 75, 126, 136, 140, 141, 168 insult(s), 66, 69, 110, 138, 139, 176, 181, 182, 199, 204 integrity, 17, 22, 23, 24, 30, 32, 33, 42, 59-61, 67, 68, 86, 139, 160, 209, 210, 231 intelligence, intelligent, 57, 58, 62, 81, 138, 139, 174 intemperance, intemperate, 206, 208, 212, 214, 224 interpretation, 136, 164 investigation(s), 30, 71, 141, 197 irĩ and irĩĩri ( wealth, honour, prosperity, good fortune), 34-36, 237 irresponsible, irresponsibility, 15, 157 itega, 80, 108, 116, 122, 123 Itotia, J., 28, 35, 59, 60, 102, 145 ituĩka (handing over ceremony), 23 jealousy. See also covetousness, envy, 75, 150 joint ventures, 59, 245 judgement, See also final judgement, supernatural judgement, second coming, 72, 126, 127, 136, 137, 139, 141, 159, 169, 229, 232 judicial procedure, 125 justice. See also kihooto, 24, 27, 29-32, 42, 45,72, 76, 78, 79, 111, 112, 118, 124, 125-127, 129139, 141, 144-146, 151-153, 155, 156, 159-161, 164- 166, 168-170, 174, 178, 180-182, 198, 203, 231, 232, 237, 246, 247 justice: concept of, 125, 128, 129 justice: obstruction of, 138, 181, justice: triumph of, 129 justice: undermining of, 132 justice: upholding of, 30 Karuri, 40 Kenya Colony, 45 Kenya Land Commission (1934), 45, 46 Kenyatta, Jomo, 17, 27-29, 31, 38, 47, 48, 58, 60, 101, 206 Kiambu, 13, 24, 37, 39, 49, 149, 174, 240 kibaata dances. See also dances, 23 kĩhooto, 76, 78, 84, 111, 112, 118, 128-130, 132-139, 142-144, 151, 153, 155, 157, 160, 161, 163, 164, 168, 176, 177, 179-183, 203, 247 killing(s), 40, 120, 133, 147, 149, 159, 179 ritual, 159

).*

@ e [\o

kindness, 32, 67, 103, 111, 115, 123 kinship. See also blood relationship, family relationship, clansmen, clanswomen, 21, 25, 59, 222 kinsmen, 127, 232 labour policy, 49, 51 Lambert, Harold E., 30, 39, 42, 49, 125-128, 174, 242 land: as a gift of God to the Gĩkũyũ, 31 land alienation, 31, 40, 43, 44, 46, 47-49, 51, 240 land dispute(s), 26, 48, 49, 133, 165, land ownership, 45, 48, 130, 180, land tenure, traditional, 46-48 land tillage, 32, 87, 114, 121, 187, 189, 191, 199, 200, 218, 219, law-abiding, 165 lawsuit (s), 72, 86, 137, 141 laziness, lazy. See also idlers, indolence, loiterers, 27, 52, 86, 88-90, 99, 101, 112, 152, 184, 188-190, 192, 245 leaders, leadership. See also athamaki, 16, 23, 40, 43, 70, 71, 77, 85, 93, 128, 139, 169, 174, 196, 202 Leakey, Louis S.B., 17, 18, 21, 27, 28, 34, 37, 41, 48, 58-60, 101, 127, 128, 172, 173, 206, liberality, 100, 102, 112, 123 life: safeguarding of, 28, 106, 113, listen: ability to, 139 litigation, litigate, litigant, 30, 31, 42, 49, 72, 126, 136-138, 141, 168, 174, 176, 179-182, 203 livelihood, 28, 37, 146, 174 livestock, 34, 41, 173, 177, 178, 185, 189, 198, 218 loss of, 40, 113, 159, 160, local community, 23, 51, 64, 161, 169, 175 as agents of control, 226, 232 loiterers. See also idlers, indolence, laziness, 69, 89 long life: as blessing of God, 154, 160, loyal, loyalty, 86 Lugard, F.D., 44, 174, 205 lying, 60, 73, 150 lynch law, 128 Maasai, 24, 28, 29, 34, 37, 40, 81, 82, 159, 171-173, 175, 177, 183, 184, 188, 192, 194, 200, 201, 206, 219 MacDonald, J.R.L., 171 magistrate(s), 137, 136, 168 malefactor(s). See also criminal(s), offenders, wrongdoers, 149, 153, 159, 178

).+

@ e[\o

malice, malicious, 30, 60, 75, 78, 80, 81, 115, 129, 137, 145, 147, 149, 150, 158-160 man’s hut (thingira), 83, 148, 149, 216 marriage, 22, 23, 36, 38, 47, 48, 55, 61, 66, 92, 93, 107, 122, 128, 134, 135, 151, 153, 155, 157, 158, 161, 163, 169, 194, 208, 210, 214, 216-219, 222, 229, 245, 247 masculinity, 176 matatu driver, 73 maturity, mature, 60, 61-64, 68-70, 76, 77, 94, 98, 136, 144, 145, 162, 164, 170, 198, 210, 217 Mau Mau, 31, 37, 86, 160, 237 meanness. See also stinginess, 112, 118, 120 meat: division of, 77, 214 mediation, mediate, 165, 197, 198 mediation: by elders, 179 medicine man, 58, 60, 75, 211 meekness. See also humility, 198 Meinertzhagen, Richard, 171, 249 men, 22, 23, 38, 41, 51, 60, 66, 68, 80, 84, 88-90, 100, 101, 107, 120, 135, 142, 143, 148, 151, 167, 170, 173, 176, 194, 198, 202, 217, 241, 245, old, 96, 139, 199, 212, young, 26, 43, 50, 51, 68, 69, 81, 83, 86-88, 96, 103, 133, 134, 158, 184, 187, 205, 206, 208, 209, 211, 216, 221, 223, 227, 229, 248, 251, 253 menses, 62, 211, 217 ceremony connected with, 252 mental health, 145 mischief, 40, 63, 113, 119, 120, 132, 147, 166, 211, 216, 226, 246 misfortune. See also ill effects, 49, 67, 75, 91, 102, 113, 149, 156, 160, 166, 183, 246, 248 moderation, 111, 207, 212, 231 in drinking, 204, 212 in eating, 214 in giving, 124 in speech, 72 modern, modernity, modern way of life, 39, 55, 92, 97, 121, 122, 164, 168, 221, 222, 224-227, 229, 232 modest, modesty. See also shame, thoni, 25, 60, 64-66, 212, 243 money, 41, 50, 53, 69, 73, 74, 77, 85, 92, 94-98, 121-123, 140, 147, 148, 153, 168, 197, 228, curse of, 94, public, 96 money economy. See cash economy monogamy, monogamist, 93, 229, 244 moral code, 29, 32, 55, 65, 85, 91, 130, 226, 232 moral constraints, 222 moral misconduct, 55

).,

@ e [\o

moral obligations, 226 moral rectitude. See also uprightness, 152, 154 moral standards, 15, 39, 98, compromise in, 224, 229, 230, 232 moral teaching: lack of, 224, 227 morality, sexual. See sexual behaviour mother-in-law. See in-laws Murang’a, 24, 37, 40 murder, murderer(s), 22, 28, 30, 42, 58, 68, 95, 120, 127, 128, 132, 140, 141, 146, 158, 159, 161 Muriuki, Godfrey, 101, 235, 236 mutual agreement, 47, 127 mutual confidence, 69 mutual defence, 101 mutual help. See also cultivation, assistance in; help, non-material, reciprocation: of a favour, 52, 101, 245 mutual indebtedness, 122 mutual respect. See also respect, 59, 69, 108 mutual trust, 69, 79, 153 muuma andũ, 76, 77, 111, 154 names, Christian, 93 naughtiness, naughty. See also mischief, 58, 133 Native Councils, 41, 42, 180 Native tribunals, 41, 42, 49 natural justice, 30 Ndia, 37 Ndorobo, 34, 37, 48, 236, 238 neutralizing: a wrong committed, 168 Ngai. See God Nguĩko. See also sexual intercourse, relations, 54, 61, 68, 206, 207-210, 216, 217, 223, 227, 245, 248, 251 ngurario, 134, 135, 163 njamba. See also excellence, 81, 115, 175-177, 179, 187, 188, 198, 201, 202 Nottingham, John, 44, 239 Nyeri, 24, 37, 40, 48 nyumba, 21, 22, 26, 81, 135 oathing, oaths, 65, 74, 75, 141, 160, 168, 211, 224, 226, 227, 244 oathing: as an appeal to supernatural judgement, 42, 75, 160 obedience, obedient, 35, 58, 59, 64, 198, 225, 226 obligation(s), 22, 58, 59, 79, 80, 82, 83, 93, 99, 108, 109, 113, 115, 226,

).-

@ e[\o

offence(s), offend, offender. See also crime, criminal, malefactors, wrongdoers, 30, 35, 74, 75, 97, 110, 118, 120, 127, 132, 133, 140, 156, 160-163, 167, 197, 206, 217, 226 oil, body, 63, 79, 133 old age, 139, 154, 155, 212, 222, 248 ornament(s), 66, 100, 132, 153, 248 ostracise, ostracism, 133, 158, 162, 225, 226 outcast: from society, 127, 207 ownership: joy of, 147 of people, land, property, 45, 47, 131, 180 ownership, personal, 48, 130, 131 ownership: proof of, 133, 199 right of, 48 opposite sex: respect for, 204 optimism, 189, 203 pain, 62-64, 92, 175, 176, 191, 196 parasitic existence, 190 parasitic tendencies, 100 parental authority, 222, 224-226, parent(s), 15, 26, 28, 32, 35, 54, 57, 58, 64, 69, 72-74, 81, 83, 85, 86, 92, 97, 98, 131, 134, 135, 143, 157, 162, 166, 167-169, 187, 196, 200, 203, 206, 209, 210, 215-217, 219- 222, 226-229, 231, 232, 249, 251, 252 respect for, 28, 33, 71 patience, patient(ly), 30, 97, 123, 138, 140, 146, 176, 180, 181, 191, 195, 197, 218 payment: of a good deed, 116 peace, 24, 29, 30, 33, 37, 40, 75, 77, 93, 98, 110, 123, 128, 130, 132, 139, 144, 151, 152, 155, 161, 165, 166, 205, 218, 249 peace of mind, 75, 150 peaceful, 47, 130, 180, 189, 199, 203, 205 peacemaker, 130, 139 peelings: of food consumed, 131 peers, peer groups, 25, 98, 120, 179, 224, 226, 227, 231, 253 perjury, 30, 132 Perlo, Filippo, 53 perseverance. See also endurance, steadfastness, 182 philanthropic, philanthropy, 47, 101, 111 plaintiff, 126, 127, 168 pledge(s). See also vows, 65, 91-93, 160, 178 poison, poisoning, 100, 148, 150, 159 polygamy, polygamous, 54, 86, 105, 147, 165, 195, 199, 229 poverty, 45, 46, 86, 99, 177, 183, 184, 190, 194, 195, 199, 200, 217, 245

)..

@ e [\o

praise, 26, 67, 115, 116, 146, 191 prayer(s), 23, 29, 31, 159, 194 for rain, 29, 60 pregnancy(ies), 15, 75, 210, 211, 217, 221-223, 229, 253 outside marriage: compensation for, 157, 210, 220, 221, 253 presumptuous, 144, 198 privilege(s), 23, 130, 157, 201, 212, 216 probity, 144, 164, 165, 168 prodigal, prodigality, 100, 111, 112, 123, 231 prohibition(s), 28, 58, 91, 127, 207, 216, 225 promiscuity, 15, 206, 223 promise(s), 72, 78, 79, 91-93, 96, 98, 107, 133, 157, 161, 166, 167 proof. See also evidence, factual, 133, 134 property, 26, 30, 34, 40, 47, 58, 59, 61, 75, 76, 84, 98, 100, 118, 119, 127. 129-132, 140, 146, 151, 154, 158, 159, 169, 179, 180, 184, 186, 190, 191, 199, 200, 203, 217, 219, 231, 246 division of, 77, 180 protection of, 78, 84, 117, 130, 175, 177, 178, 203 respect for, 67, 157 right to, 178, 203 prosper, prosperity, prosperous, See also welfare, 29-36, 48-50, 52, 69, 102, 113, 128, 130, 132, 145, 146, 166, 183, 217 prostitute, 66, 170 Protectorate (Kenya Colony), 44, 50 puberty, 206 punish, punishment. See also capital punishment, 23, 25-28, 30, 32, 33, 40-42, 55, 75, 91, 92, 101, 114, 120, 129, 131, 132, 136, 142, 143, 152, 154, 156-162, 165, 167-169, 173, 196, 206, 207, 211, 219, 224, 227, 229, 232, 242, 249 as encouragement for good behaviour, 29, 30, 55, 120, 152, 155-157 as means of ridding society of habitual criminals, 56, 163 corporal, 226 fear of, 74, 127 reformative, 156 quarrelling, quarrels, 69, 86, 144, 158, 165, 198, 203, 213 raiding, raids, 26, 29, 40, 81, 117, 119, 172, 173, 176-178, 184, 188, 189, 192, 198, 200, 206, 219 ram, as compensation, 84 as punishment or sign of repentance, 120, 157. 158 fatted: as gift to future in-laws, 131, 134, 135, 163, 214

)./

@ e[\o

of propitiation, 66. See also gift: propitiatory, sacrificial lamb to conclude a divorce, 135 reason: ability to, 174 use of: in litigation, 198, 203 reason, convincing, 176 reasonableness, 76, 128, 164 reciprocation: of a favour. See also mutual help, 101 reconciliation, 158, 161, 167, 179 reliability, 57, 64, 68, 84, 86, 90, 144 religious ceremonies, rituals, 23, 48, 54, 161 repentance, 157, 158, 162, 168 reputation, 22, 34, 35, 67, 68, 71, 73, 112, 115, 116, 120, 140, 162, 173, 198, 200-202, 206, 210, 213, 215, 226 respect. See also mutual respect, 15, 26, 33, 52, 59, 64-68, 70, 71, 74, 81-83, 99, 116, 128, 131, 133, 139, 144, 151, 153, 164, 166, 197, 201, 211, 219, 222, 224, 225, 244 being worthy of, 71, 84 responsibility, 21-23, 26, 43, 61, 64, 70, 74, 83-85, 95, 113, 127, 145, 162, 166, 170, 196, 202, 209, 211, 215, 235 restoration, 129, 161 retainers, 41, 169 retaliation, 125, 126, 161, 167 retribution, 152, 159, 166 revenge, 126, 159 reward, 32, 129, 150, 152-155, 161, 165, 166, 181, 183, 200, 232 rich people: lack of generosity of, 123 riches, 185, 219. See also wealth ridicule, 74, 118, 132, 207, 216, 217, 226, 252 public, 71 rites of passage. See also initiation, 21, 64, 98, 145, 191 rogue, 66, 164 role models: lack of, 93 Rosberg, C.J., 44 Ross, W.D.A., 44, 50 Routledge, Katherine, 28, 38, 57, 58, 60, 99, 126, 128, 172, 174, 190, 205 rũgongo, 24 rũraacio. See also bride-wealth, 107, 134, 135, 247 sacrificial lamb. See also ram of propitiation, 60, 163 sanctions. See also agents of control, behaviour control, 16, 30, 33, 38, 43, 48, 59, 121, 132, 133, 225, 226, 229, 231, 232 sanctions, traditional: vs. absence of in Christianity, 91

).0

@ e [\o

sanctity of marriage, 66 second coming: of Christ. See also day of judgement, 91 self-confidence. See also confidence, 67 self-control, 68, 205, 206, 212, 213, 251 self-esteem, 71, 83, 199 self-help projects, 70, 109, 114 self-pity: discouragement of, 202 self-sufficiency, self-sufficient, 32, 50, 59, 86, 100, 112, 114, 122, 124, 130, 171, 199 selfishness, 76, 158 serenity, 148 service(s), 35, 36, 58, 60, 69, 70, 76, 79, 80, 82, 90, 97, 149, 173, 185, 208, 213 quick: as a sign of hospitality, 104 sexual behaviour/morality. See also Gĩkũyũ morality, 15, 61, 163, 205, 206, 208, 209, 214-216, 222-224, 226, 229, 251, 253 sexual fidelity. See fidelity, sexual sexual intercourse/relations. See also nguĩko, 68, 80, 97, 206-212, 214, 216, 226, 228 shame. See also modesty, thoni, 25, 83, 96 shaving: of heads, 63 single-mindedness, 218 smuggling, 97 snuff. See also tobacco, 119, 156, 201, 208, 248 songs, 31, 87, 142, 151, 173, 177, 184, 191 spending, 73 lavishly, 140 sponsor(s): for circumcision, initiation, 83, 227 spying, 140 stages of cutting: as a means of inculcating maturity, 62 staff: as symbol of virtue, old age, 154, 155 steadfastness, steadfast. See also endurance, perseverance, 144, 196, 217-219 steal, stealing. See also theft, thieves, 28, 58, 60, 63, 67, 68, 73-75, 78, 83-86, 92, 95-97, 107, 127, 131, 132, 140, 197, 219, 248 stinginess, stingy. See also meanness, 26, 27, 64, 76, 103-105, 111-114, 117-124, 158, 231, 242, 246 stoic, stoical, 175, 191 stranger(s), 58, 99, 106 strength, 34, 35, 59, 166, 179, 182, 186, 207, 220, 221 stress, 145, 196 stubborn, 168, 172 suffering. See also hardships, 149, 163, 169, 195 sugar, 121, 123, 219 sugarcane, 64, 83, 120, 131, 133, 169, 187, 195, 246

)/'

@ e[\o

suicide, 146, 147 few cases of, 60 suitor(s), 65, 66, 135, 245 supernatural forces/powers, 32, 33, 47, 75, 154-156, 160, 224, 227, 232 supernatural judgement, 75, 91, 92, 126, 160, 161, 166 surveillance, superhuman, 156 suspect(s), 72, 140, 141, 160, 197 suspicion, 30, 140, 141, 253 sweet potatoes, 106, 187 sympathy, 81, 101, 102, 106, 109, 110, 113, 131, 165, 190, 219 taboo(s), 53, 118, 209, 212, 224, 225, 227, 228, 232, 246 tax, taxation, 41, 50-52, 75, 242 tea, 105, 121, 221 temper, 126, 128, 139, 176 temperance, temperate, 16, 70, 145, 205-207, 212, 214, 217-220, 222, 224-227, 229-231 tenant(s), 46, 101 tenants-at-will, 45, 100 tension, 93, 137, 141, 142 theft. See also steal, 23. 30, 113, 115, 119, 127, 131, 132, 140, 158, 161, 168 thief, thieves, 26, 58, 67, 76, 83, 114, 128, 131, 132, 148, 158, 159, 176, 178, 179, 203 thoni. See also shame, modesty, 24, 25, 64, 65, 243 title, 139, 208 of honour. See also njamba, 176, 201 tobacco: See also snuff, 156, 157, 194 torture, 42, 165 touch, touching, avoiding (i.e. stealing), 67, 73, 84 trade, trading. See also barter, 40, 50, 87, 89, 188, 189, 199, 207 tradition, 23, 41, 43, 47, 49, 91, 131, 155, 160, 161 traditional morality. See Gĩkũyũ morality trial by ordeal, 30, 31, 126, 147 trust, 65, 71, 73, 82, 84, 95, 96, 98, 115, 207 trust, mutual. See mutual trust trustworthy, trustworthiness. See also reliability, 60, 64, 66, 67, 70, 71, 76, 78-80, 84, 86, 87, 90, 91, 94, 98, 130, 136, 145, 153, 166 truth, 58, 74, 129, 130, 133, 136-138, 149, 181, 221 truth: concealing of, 129 truthful, truthfulness, 57, 60, 64, 71, 72, 74, 77, 133, 137, 150, 151, 231 United Missionary Conference (Nairobi, 1901), 54 unreasonableness, unreasonable, 64, 122, 142, 158

)/(

@ e [\o

upright, uprightness, 30, 36, 55, 60, 61, 63-65, 67, 68, 76, 77, 82, 98, 102, 110, 111, 129, 130, 144-146, 150-155, 165, 166, 215, 220, 242, 253 victory songs, 173, 177 vigilance, 156 virgin(s), 209 virtue(s), virtuous, 17, 35, 100, 145, 152, 154, 155, 169, 197, 203, 231, 245 vitality, 29, 186, 225, 230 vow(s) See also pledges, 91-94, 224, 226-229, 244 wages. See also cash economy, 50, 53, 121, 165 war tactics, 171, 172 warrior(s), 22-27, 37, 40, 43, 52, 58, 65, 81, 82, 103, 111, 120, 158, 162, 171, 173, 175, 177, 186-189, 192, 198, 199, 201, 205-211, 219, 224, 232, 245, 248, 251 wealth. See also benefits, material; riches, 31, 34, 36, 41, 97, 98, 101, 113, 118, 145, 150, 173, 177, 185, 190, 199, 203, 217, 231, 232, 236, 242 weapons, 178, 200 well being. 29, 32, 98, 123, 145, 152, 183, 190, 214 welfare. See also prosperity, 21, 22, 35, 52, 54, 86, 90, 111, 113, 114, 123, 146, 151, 157, 161, 176, 195, 212, 214 welfare, personal, 60, 145, 152, 189-191, 199, 203, 226, 238 wife: ‘throw away’. See also divorce, 135 willpower, 182, 221 wisdom, 23, 29, 32, 61, 76, 81, 89, 123, 124, 128, 136, 138, 144, 196, 198, 218, 248 witchcraft. See also bewitching, 23, 26, 42, 115, 132, 149, 150, 159, 168, 249 witness, witnesses, 135 wife: beating of, 165 women, militant, 176 woman’s hut: demolishing of, 135 work: honour of, 203 wrongdoer(s). See also criminals, malefactors, offenders, 32, 155, 156, 167 youthfulness: enjoying, 208

)/)

89FLKK?<8LK?FI

Hannah Wangeci Kinoti was born in the middle of the Second World War, the last of the six children of Ruben and Ruth Gathii. Her parents were among the first converts to Christianity in central Kenya. She imbibed from them Gĩkũyũ cultural and moral values; at the same time she learned the Christian faith from them and from their Scottish Presbyterian Church. At Kahuhia Primary School and Alliance Girls High School she learned western culture from her teachers, most of whom were European mission)/,

8 Yflkk_\ X lk_fi

aries. At Makerere University College (then a constituent college of the University of East Africa) she read English and Religious Studies, learning African religion under the distinguished scholar, Professor John Mbiti. For her doctoral thesis she decided to do research into Gĩkũyũ traditional morality, which is the subject of this book. Hannah Kinoti’s research and teaching interests took her to many foreign institutions, such as Regent College, Vancouver, Canada and the Department of Social Medicine, Harvard Medical School, Boston, USA. She wrote and spoke widely on ethics and religion, always concerned about the spiritual, moral and social well being of the African people. She herself was, as a friend once observed, an authentic African Christian woman. She was an Associate Professor in the Department of Philosophy and Religious Studies, University of Nairobi when she died suddenly in 2001. Hannah and her husband, Professor George Kinoti, had five children.

)/-