Chapter 19
Part 19
[Footnote 14: Hyades and Deniker, _Mission scientifique du Cap Horn_, vii. 243.]
[Footnote 15: Powers, _op. cit._ p. 112.]
[Footnote 16: Bartram, 'Creek and Cherokee Indians,' in _Trans. American Ethn. Soc._ iii. pt. i. 42.]
[Footnote 17: Hilhouse, in _Jour. Roy. Geo. Soc._ ii. 230. _Idem_, _Indian Notices_, p. 14. _Cf._ von Martins, _Beiträge zur Ethnographie Amerika's_, i. 692.]
[Footnote 18: Smeaton, _Loyal Karens of Burma_, p. 144 _sq._]
[Footnote 19: Westermarck, _History of Human Marriage_, p. 73 _sqq._]
[Footnote 20: Palgrave, _Journey through Central and Eastern Arabia_, i. 345.]
[Footnote 21: _Institutes of Vishnu_, lxvii. 31. For other instances of the precedence granted to guests, see Man, in _Jour. Anthr. Inst._ xii. 94, 148 (Andaman Islanders); Buchanan, _North American Indians_, p. 324 (Indians of Pennsylvania); Lyon, _Private Journal_, p. 350 (Eskimo of Igloolik); Seemann, _Voyage of "Herald,"_ ii. 65 (Western Eskimo); Krasheninnikoff, _op. cit._ p. 211 (Kamchadales), Georgi, _op. cit._ iii. 153 _sq._ (Kamchadales), 183 _sq._ (Chukchi). Ling Roth, _Natives of Sarawak_, i. 86 (Sea Dyaks); Mariner, _op. cit._ ii. 154 (Tonga Islanders); New, _op. cit._ p. 102 (Wanika); Hanoteau and Letourneux, _op. cit._ ii. 45 (Kabyles); Wells Williams, _op. cit._ i. 540 (Chinese): Krauss, _op. cit._ p. 649 _sq._ (Southern Slavs).]
Custom may require that hospitality should be shown even to an enemy. Captain Holm tells us of a Greenlander of bad character who, though he had murdered his step-father, was received, and for a long time entertained, when he paid a visit to the nearest kindred of the murdered man; and this, as it seems, was agreeable to old custom.[22] Among the Aeneze Bedouins, says Burckhardt, all means are reckoned lawful to avenge the blood of a slain relative, "provided the homicide be not killed while he is a guest in the tent of a third person, or if he has taken refuge even in the tent of his deadly foe."[23] In Afghanistan "a man's bitterest enemy is safe while he is under his roof."[24] We read in the Hitopadesa:--"On even an enemy arrived at the house becoming hospitality should be bestowed; the tree does not withdraw its sheltering shadow from the wood-cutter. . . . The guest is everyone's superior."[25] The old Norsemen considered it a duty to treat a guest hospitably even though it came out that he had killed the brother of his host.[26] A mediæval {577} knight granted safe conduct through his territories to all who required it, including those who asserted pretensions which, if established, would deprive him of his possessions.[27]
[Footnote 22: Nansen, _First Crossing of Greenland_, ii. 305 _sq._]
[Footnote 23: Burckhardt, _Bedouins and Wahábys_, p. 87. _Cf._ Daumas, _La vie Arabe_, p. 317 (Algerian Arabs).]
[Footnote 24: Elphinstone, _Kingdom of Caubul_, i. 296.]
[Footnote 25: _Hitopadesa_, Mitralâbhâ, 60, 62.]
[Footnote 26: Grimm, _Deutsche Rechtsalterthümer_, p. 400. Weinhold, _Altnordisches Leben_, p. 441. For other instances of hospitality towards enemies, see James, _Expedition to the Rocky Mountains_, i. 322 (Omahas); Bartram, in _Trans. American Ethn. Soc._ iii. pt. i. 42 (Creeks and Cherokees); Lomonaco, 'Sullerazze indigene del Brasile,' in _Archivio per l'antropologia e la etnologia_, xix. 57 (Tupis); Krauss, _op. cit._ p. 650 (Montenegrines).]
[Footnote 27: Mills, _History of Chivalry_, p. 154.]
To protect a guest is looked upon as a most stringent duty under all circumstances. "Le Kabyle qui accorde son _ânaïa_ doit, sous peine d'infamie, y faire honneur, dût-il s'exposer à tous les dangers. . . . La violation de leur _ânaïa_ est la plus grave injure que l'on puisse infliger à des Kabyles. Un homme qui viole, ou, suivant l'expression consacrée, qui brise l'_ânaïa_ de son village ou de sa tribu, est puni de mort et de la confiscation de tous ses biens; sa maison est démolie."[28] Among the Bedouins a breach of the law of _dakheel_ "would be considered a disgrace not only upon the individual but upon his family, and even upon his tribe, which never could be wiped out. No greater insult can be offered to a man, or to his clan, than to say that he has broken the _dakheel_."[29] Among the Aenezes, according to Burckhardt, "a violation of hospitality, by the betraying of a guest, has not occurred within the memory of man."[30] In Egypt, "most Bedawees will suffer almost any injury to themselves or their families rather than allow their guests to be ill-treated while under their protection."[31] Among the Kandhs, "for the safety of a guest life and honour are pledged; he is to be considered before a child"; in order to save his guest a man is even allowed to speak falsely, which is otherwise condemned by them as a heinous sin.[32] Vámbéry tells us of cases in which the Kara-Kirghiz have preferred being harassed with war by the Chinese to surrendering to them such Chinese fugitives as have sought and received their hospitality.[33] Among the Ossetes the host not only considers himself responsible for the safety of his guest, {578} but "revenges the murder or wounding of the latter as he would that of a kinsman."[34] In Albania it is considered infamous to leave an injury inflicted on a guest unavenged.[35] Among the Takue, though a man would accept compensation for the murder of a relative, he would in all cases exact blood-revenge for the murder of his guest.[36] On the other hand, in Sierra Leone a guest "is scarcely accountable for any faults which he may commit, whether through inadvertency or design, the host being considered as responsible for the actions of 'his stranger.'"[37]
[Footnote 28: Hanoteau and Letourneux, _op. cit._ ii. 61 _sq._]
[Footnote 29: Layard, _Discoveries in the Ruins of Nineveh and Babylon_, p. 317.]
[Footnote 30: Burckhardt, _Bedouins and Wahábys_, p. 100. _Cf._ _ibid._ p. 192.]
[Footnote 31: Lane, _Modern Egyptians_, p. 297.]
[Footnote 32: Macpherson, _Memorials of Service in India_, pp. 65, 94.]
[Footnote 33: Vámbéry, _Das Türkenvolk_, p. 268. _Cf._ _ibid._ p. 411 (Turkomans).]
[Footnote 34: von Haxthausen, _Transcaucasia_, p. 412.]
[Footnote 35: Gop[vc]evi['c], _Oberalbanien und seine Liga_, p. 328.]
[Footnote 36: Munzinger, _Ostafrikanische Studien_, p. 208. Among the Barea and Kunáma a man avenges the death of his guest by killing the guest of the murderer (_ibid._ p. 477).]
[Footnote 37: Winterbottom, _Native Africans in the Neighbourhood of Sierra Leone_, i. 214.]
Hospitality is not only regarded as a duty of the first order, but has, in a remarkable degree, been associated with religion. Among the doctrines held up for acceptance by the religious instructors of the Iroquois there was the following precept:--"If a stranger wander about your abode, welcome him to your home, be hospitable towards him, speak to him with kind words, and forget not always to mention the Great Spirit."[38] The natives of Aneiteum, of the New Hebrides, maintained that generous hospitality would receive the highest reward in the Land of the Dead.[39] The Kalmucks believe that want of hospitality will be punished by angry gods.[40] The Kandhs say that the first duty which the gods have imposed upon man is that of hospitality; and "persons guilty of the neglect of established observances are punished by the divine wrath, either during their current lives, or when they afterwards return to animate other bodies," the penalties being death, poverty, disease, the loss of children, or any other form of calamity.[41] In the sacred books of India hospitality is repeatedly spoken of as a most important duty, the discharge of which will be {579} amply rewarded. "The inhospitable man," the Vedic singer tell us, "acquires food in vain. I speak the truth--it verily is his death. . . . He who eats alone is nothing but a sinner."[42] "He who does not feed these five, the gods, his guests, those whom he is bound to maintain, the manes, and himself, lives not, though he breathes."[43] According to the Vishnu Purána, a person who neglects a poor and friendless stranger in want of hospitality, goes to hell.[44] On the other hand, by honouring guests a householder obtains the highest reward.[45] "He who entertains guests for one night obtains earthly happiness, a second night gains the middle air, a third heavenly bliss, a fourth the world of unsurpassable bliss; many nights procure endless worlds. That has been declared in the Veda."[46] It is said in the Mahabharata that "he who gives food freely to a fatigued wayfarer, whom he has never seen before, obtains great virtuous merit."[47] According to Hesiod, Zeus himself is wrath with him who does evil to a suppliant or a guest, and at last, in requital for his deed, lays on him a bitter penalty.[48] Plato says:--"In his relations to strangers, a man should consider that a contract is a most holy thing, and that all concerns and wrongs of strangers are more directly dependent on the protection of God, than wrongs done to citizens. . . . He who is most able is the genius and the god of the stranger, who follows in the train of Zeus, the god of strangers. And for this reason, he who has a spark of caution in him, will do his best to pass through life without sinning against the stranger. And of offences committed, whether against strangers or fellow-country-men, that against suppliants is the greatest."[49] Similar opinions prevailed in ancient Rome. _Jus hospitii_, whilst {580} forming no part of the civil law, belonged to _fas_; the stranger, who enjoyed no legal protection, was, as a guest, protected by custom and religion.[50] The _dii hospitales_ and Jupiter were on guard over him;[51] hence the duties towards a guest were even more stringent than those towards a relative.[52] Cæsar[53] and Tacitus[54] attest that the Teutons considered it impious to injure a guest or to exclude any human being from the shelter of their roof. The God of Israel was a preserver of strangers.[55] In the Talmud hospitality is described as "the most important part of divine worship,"[56] as being equivalent to the duty of honouring father and mother,[57] as even more meritorious than frequenting the synagogue.[58] Muhammedanism likewise regards hospitality as a religious duty.[59] "Whoever," said the Prophet, "believes in God and the day of resurrection, must respect his guest."[60] But the idea that a guest enjoys divine protection prevailed among the Arabs long before the times of Muhammed.[61] The Bedouins say that the guests are "guests of God."[62] The Christian Church, again, regarded hospitality as a duty imposed by Christ.[63]
[Footnote 38: Morgan, _League of the Iroquois_, p. 172.]
[Footnote 39: Inglis, _In the New Hebrides_, p. 31.]
[Footnote 40: Bergmann, _op. cit._ ii. 281 _sq._]
[Footnote 41: Macpherson, 'Religious Opinions and Observances of the Khonds,' in _Jour. Roy. Asiatic Soc._ vii. 196.]
[Footnote 42: _Rig-Veda_, x. 117. 6.]
[Footnote 43: _Laws of Manu_, iii. 72. _Cf._ _Institutes of Vishnu_, lxvii. 45.]
[Footnote 44: _Vish['n]u Purá['n]a_, p. 305.]
[Footnote 45: _Institutes of Vishnu_, lxvii. 28, 32.]
[Footnote 46: _Âpastamba_, ii. 3. 7. 16.]
[Footnote 47: _Mahabharata_, Vana Parva, ii. 61, pt. v. p. 5.]
[Footnote 48: Hesiod, _Opera et dies_, 331 _sq._ (333 _sq._).]
[Footnote 49: Plato, _Leges_, v. 729 _sq._]
[Footnote 50: Servius, _In Virgilii Æneidos_, iii. 55: "Fas omne; et cognationis, et iuris hospitii." von Jhering, _Geist des römischen Rechts_, i. 227. Leist, _Alt-arisches Jus Civile_, i. 103, 358 _sq._]
[Footnote 51: Servius, _In Virgilii Æneidos_, i. 736. Livy, _Historiæ Romanæ_, xxxix. 51. Tacitus, _Annales_, xv. 52. Plautus, _P[oe]nuli_, v. 1. 25.]
[Footnote 52: Gellius, _Noctes Atticæ_, v. 13. 5: "In officiis apud maiores ita observatum est, primum tutelae, deinde hospiti, deinde clienti, tum cognato, postea affini."]
[Footnote 53: Cæsar, _De bello Gallico_, vi. 23.]
[Footnote 54: Tacitus, _Germania_, 21.]
[Footnote 55: _Psalms_, cxlvi. 9.]
[Footnote 56: Deutsch, _Literary Remains_, p. 57.]
[Footnote 57: _Kiddushin_, fol. 39 B, quoted by Hershon, _Treasures of the Talmud_, p. 145.]
[Footnote 58: _Sabbath_, fol. 127 A, quoted by Katz, _Der wahre Talmudjude_, p. 103.]
[Footnote 59: _Koran_, iv. 40 _sqq._]
[Footnote 60: Lane, _Arabian Society in the Middle Ages_, p. 142.]
[Footnote 61: Wellhausen, _Reste arabischen Heidentums_, p. 223 _sq._]
[Footnote 62: Doughty, _Arabia Deserta_, i. 228, 504.]
[Footnote 63: Laurent, _Études sur l'histoire de l'Humanité_, vii. 346.]
That a stranger, who under other circumstances is treated as an inferior being or a foe, liable to be robbed and killed with impunity, should enjoy such extraordinary privileges as a guest, is certainly one of the most curious contrasts which present themselves to a student of the moral ideas of mankind. It may be asked, why should {581} he be received at all? Of course, he stands in need of protection and support, but why should those who do not know him care for that?
One answer is that his helpless condition may excite pity; facts seem to prove that even among savages the altruistic feelings, however narrow, can be stirred by the sight of a suffering and harmless stranger. Another answer is that the host himself may expect to reap benefit from his act. And there can be little doubt that the rules of hospitality are in the main based on egoistic considerations.
It has been justly observed that in uncivilised countries, where there is no public accommodation for travellers, "hospitality is so necessary, and so much required by the mutual convenience of all parties, as to detract greatly from its merit as a moral quality."[64] When the stranger belongs to a community with which a reciprocity of intercourse prevails, it is prudent to give him a hearty reception; he who is the host to-day may be the guest tomorrow. "If the Red Indians are hospitable," says Domenech, "they also look for their hospitality being returned with the same marks of respect and consideration."[65] Moreover, the stranger is a bearer of news and tidings, and as such may be a welcome guest where communication between different places is slow and rare.[66] During my wanderings in the remote forests of Northern Finland I was constantly welcomed with the phrase, "What news?" But the stranger may be supposed to bring with him something which is valued even more highly, namely, good luck or blessings.
[Footnote 64: Winterbottom, _op. cit._ i. 214.]
[Footnote 65: Domenech, _Seven Years' Residence in the Great Deserts of North America_, ii. 319. _Cf._ Dunbar, 'Pawnee Indians.' in _Magazine of American History_, viii. 745; Brett, _Indian Tribes of Guiana_, p. 347; Bernau, _Missionary Labours in British Guiana_, p. 51; von den Steinen, _Unter den Naturvölkern Zentral-Brasiliens_, p. 333 _sq._ (Bakaïri); Georgi, _op. cit._ iii. 154 (Kamchadales); Smeaton, _op. cit._ p. 146 (Karens); Ellis, _Polynesian Researches_, i. 95 (Society Islanders); Pritchard, _Polynesian Reminiscences_, p. 132, and Brenchley, _op. cit._ p. 76 (Samoans); Williams and Calvert, _op. cit._ p. 110, and Anderson, _Notes of Travel in Fiji and New Caledonia_, p. 135 (Fijians); Chavanne, _Die Sahara_, p. 393 (Arabs of the Sahara).]
[Footnote 66: Wright, _Domestic Manners and Sentiments in England during the Middle Ages_, p. 329.]
During the first days of my stay at Demnat, in the Great Atlas, the natives in spite of their hostility towards Europeans, said they were quite pleased with my coming to see them, because I had brought with me rain and an increase of the import of victuals, which just before my arrival had been very scarce. So, too, whilst residing among the Andjra mountaineers in the North of Morocco, I was said to be a person with "propitious ankles," because, since I settled down among them, the village where I stayed was frequently visited by Shereefs--presumed descendants of the Prophet Muhammed--who are always highly valued guests on account of the _baraka_, or holiness, with which they are supposed in a smaller or greater degree to be endowed. The stranger may be a source of good fortune either involuntarily, as a bearer of luck, or through his good wishes; and there is every reason to hope that he will, if treated hospitably, return the kindness of his host with a blessing. According to the old traveller d'Arvieux, strangers, who come to an Arab village are received by the Sheikh with some such words as these:--"You are welcome; praised be God that you are in good health; your arrival draws down the blessing of heaven upon us; the house and all that is in it is yours, you are masters of it."[67] It is said in one of the sacred books of India that through a Brâhmana guest the people obtain rain, and food through rain, hence they know that "the hospitable reception of a guest is a ceremony averting evil."[68] When we read in the Laws of Manu that "the hospitable reception of guests procures wealth, fame, long life, and heavenly bliss,"[69] it is also reasonable to suppose that this supernatural reward is a result of blessings invoked on the host. In the 'Suppliants' of Aeschylus the Chorus sings:--"Let us utter for the Argives blessings in requital of their blessings. And may Zeus of Strangers watch to their fulfilment the rewards that issue from a stranger's tongue, that {583} they reach their perfect goal."[70] We can now understand the eagerness with which guests are sought for. When a guest enters the hut of a Kalmuck, "the host, the hostess, and everybody in the hut, rejoice at the arrival of the stranger as at an unexpected fortune."[71] Among the Arabs of Sinai, "if a stranger be seen from afar coming towards the camp, he is the guest for that night of the first person who descries him, and who, whether a grown man or a child, exclaims, 'There comes my guest.' Such a person has a right to entertain the guest that night. Serious quarrels happen on these occasions; and the Arabs often have recourse to their great oath--'By the divorce (from my wife) I swear that I shall entertain the guest'; upon which all opposition ceases."[72] It is also very usual in the East to eat before the gate of the house where travellers pass, and every stranger of respectable appearance is invariably requested to sit down and partake of the repast.[73] Among the Maoris, "no sooner does a stranger appear in sight, than he is welcomed with the usual cry of 'Come hither! come hither!' from numerous voices, and is immediately invited to eat of such provisions as the place affords."[74]
[Footnote 67: d'Arvieux, _Travels in Arabia the Desart_, p. 131 _sq._]
[Footnote 68: _Vasishtha_, xi. 13.]
[Footnote 69: _Laws of Manu_, iii. 106.]
[Footnote 70: Aeschylus, _Supplices_, 632 _sqq._]
[Footnote 71: Bergmann, _op. cit._ ii. 282.]
[Footnote 72: Burckhardt, _Bedouin and Wahábys_ p. 198.]
[Footnote 73: _Idem_, _Arabic Proverbs_, p. 218. Chasseb[oe]uf de Volney, _Travels through Syria and Egypt_, i. 413.]
[Footnote 74: Yate, _op. cit._ p. 100. _Cf._ Turner, _Nineteen Years in Polynesia_, p. 325 (Samoans); Sproat, _op. cit._ p. 57 (Ahts).]
If efficacy is ascribed to the blessings even of an ordinary man, the blessings of a stranger are naturally supposed to be still more powerful. For the unknown stranger, like everything unknown and everything strange, arouses a feeling of mysterious awe in superstitious minds. The Ainos say, "Do not treat strangers slightingly, for you never know whom you are entertaining."[75] According to the Hitopadesa, "a guest consists of all the deities."[76] It is significant that in the writings of ancient India, Greece, and Rome, guests are mentioned next after gods as due objects of regard.[77] Thus Aeschylus speaks of a man's {584} "impious conduct to a god, or a stranger, or to his parents dear."[78] According to Homeric notions, "the gods, in the likeness of strangers from far countries, put on all manner of shapes, and wander through the cities, beholding the violence and the righteousness of men."[79] The author of the Epistle to the Hebrews writes, "Be not forgetful to entertain strangers: for thereby some have entertained angels unawares."[80]
[Footnote 75: Batchelor, _Ainu and their Folk-Lore_, p. 259.]
[Footnote 76: _Hitopadesa_, Mitralâbhâ, 65.]
[Footnote 77: _Anugitâ_, 3, 31 (_Sacred Books of the East_, viii. 243, 361). Gellius, _Noctes Atticæ_, v. 13. 5.]
[Footnote 78: Aeschylus, _Eumenides_, 270 _sq._]
[Footnote 79: _Odyssey_, xvii. 485 _sqq._]
[Footnote 80: _Hebrews_, xiii. 2.]
The visiting stranger, however, is regarded not only as a potential benefactor, but as a potential source of evil. He may bring with him disease or ill-luck. He is commonly believed to be versed in magic;[81] and the evil wishes and curses of a stranger are greatly feared, owing partly to his quasi-supernatural character, partly to the close contact in which he comes with the host and his belongings.
[Footnote 81: Frazer, _Golden Bough_, i. 298 _sqq._]
In the Mentawey Islands, in the Malay Archipelago, "if a stranger enters a house where there are children, the father or some other member of the family who happens to be present, takes the ornament with which the children decorate their hair, and hands it to the stranger, who holds it in his hands for a while, and then gives it back"; this is supposed to protect the child from the evil effect which the eye of a stranger might have on it.[82] With reference to the Californian Pomo, Mr. Powers states, "Let a perfect stranger enter a wigwam and offer the lodge-father a string of beads for any object that takes his fancy--merely pointing to it, but uttering no word--and the owner holds himself bound in savage honour to make the exchange, whether it is a fair one or not." When we compare this idea of "savage honour" with certain cases mentioned in the last chapter, we cannot doubt that it is based on superstitious fear; indeed, the next day the former owner of the article "may thrust the stranger through with his spear, or crush his forehead with a pebble from his sling, and the bystanders will look {585} upon it as only the rectification of a bad bargain."[83] Among the African Herero "no curse is regarded as heavier than that which one who has been inhospitably treated would hurl at those who have driven him from the hearth."[84] According to Greek ideas, guests and suppliants had their Erinyes[85] --personifications of their curses; and it would be difficult to attribute any other meaning to "the genius ([Greek: dai/môn]) and the god of the stranger, who follow in the train of Zeus," spoken of by Plato, and to the Roman _dii hospitales_, in their capacity of avengers of injuries done to guests. Aeschylus represents Apollo as saying, "I shall assist him (Orestes), and rescue my own suppliant; for terrible both among men and gods is the wrath of a refugee, when one abandons him with intent."[86] It is no doubt the same idea that the Chorus in the 'Suppliants' expresses, in a modified form, when singing:--"Grievous is the wrath of Zeus Petitionary. . . . I must needs hold in awe the wrath of Zeus Petitionary, for that is the supremest on earth."[87] Âpastamba's Aphorisms contain a sûtra the object of which is to show the absolute necessity of feeding a guest, owing to the fact that, "if offended, he might burn the house with the flames of his anger";[88] for "a guest comes to the house resembling a burning fire,"[89] "a guest rules over the world of Indra."[90] According to the Institutes of Vishnu, "one who has arrived as a guest and is obliged to turn home disappointed in his expectations, takes away from the man to whose house he has come his religious merit, and throws his own guilt upon him";[91] and the {586} same idea is found in many other ancient books of India.[92] That a dissatisfied guest, or a Brâhmana,[93] thus takes with him the spiritual merit of his churlish host, allows of a quite literal interpretation. In Morocco, a Shereef is generally unwilling to let a stranger kiss his hand, for fear lest the stranger should extract from him his _baraka_, or holiness; and the Shereefs of Wazzari are reputed to rob other Shereefs, who visit them, of their holiness, should the latter leave behind any remainder of their meals, even though it be only a bone.
[Footnote 82: Rosenberg, _Der Malayische Archipel_, p. 198.]
[Footnote 83: Powers, _op. cit._ p. 153. The same privilege as "the perfect stranger" possesses among the Pomo, was granted by the tribes of the Niger Delta to the Ibo girl who was destined to be offered as a sacrifice. She "was allowed to claim any piece of cloth or any ornament she set her eyes upon, and the native to whom it belonged was obliged to present it to her" (Comte de Cardi, 'Ju-ju Laws and Customs,' in _Jour. Anthr. Inst._ xxix. 54).]
[Footnote 84: Ratzel, _History of Mankind_, 480.]
[Footnote 85: Plato, _Epistolæ_, viii. 357. Apollonius Rhodius, _Argonautica_, iv. 1042 _sq._]
[Footnote 86: Aeschylus, _Eumenides_, 232 _sqq._]
[Footnote 87: _Idem_, _Supplices_, 349, 489.]
[Footnote 88: _Sacred Books of the East_ ii. 114, n. 3.]
[Footnote 89: _Âpastamba_, ii. 3. 6. 3.]
[Footnote 90: _Laws of Manu_, iv. 182.]
[Footnote 91: _Institutes of Vishnu_, lxvii. 33.]
[Footnote 92: _Vasishtha_, viii. 6. _Laws of Manu_, ii. 100. _Hitopadesa_, Mitralâbhâ, 64.]
[Footnote 93: _Vasishtha_, viii. 6. _Laws of Manu_, iii. 100.]
The efficacy of a wish or a curse depends not only upon the potency which it possesses from the beginning, owing to certain qualities in the person from whom it originates, but also on the vehicle by which it is conducted--just as the strength of an electric shock depends both on the original intensity of the current and on the condition of the conductor. As particularly efficient conductors are regarded blood, bodily contact, food, and drink. In Morocco, the duties of a host are closely connected with the institution of _l-[(]âr_, one of the most sacred customs of that country. If a person desires to compel another to help him, or to forgive him, or, generally, to grant some request, he makes _[(]âr_ on him. He kills a sheep or a goat or only a chicken at the threshold of his house, or at the entrance of his tent; or he grasps with his hands either the person whom he invokes, or that person's child, or the horse which he is riding; or he touches him with his turban or a fold of his dress. In short, he establishes some kind of contact with the other person, to serve as a conductor of his wishes and of his conditional curses. It is universally believed that, if the person so appealed to does not grant the request, his own welfare is at stake, and that the danger is particularly great if an animal has been killed at his door, and he steps over the blood or only catches a glimpse of it. As appears from the expression, "This is _[(]âr_ on you if you do not do this or that," the blood, or {587} the direct bodily contact, is supposed to transfer to the other person a conditional curse:--If you do not help me, then you will die, or your children will die, or some other evil will happen to you. So also the owner of a house or a tent to which a person has fled for refuge must, in his own interest, assist the fugitive, who is in his _[(]âr_; for, by being in his dwelling, the refugee is in close contact with him and his belongings. Again, the restraint which a common meal lays on those who partake of it is conspicuous in the usual practice of sealing a compact of friendship by eating together at the tomb of some saint. The true meaning of this is made perfectly clear by the phrase that "the food will repay" him who breaks the compact. The sacredness of the place adds to the efficacy of the imprecation, but its vehicle, the real punisher, is the eaten food, because it embodies a conditional curse.
Now the idea underlying these customs is certainly not restricted to Morocco. As will be shown in subsequent chapters, blood is very commonly used as a conductor of conditional curses; for instance, one object of the practice of sacrifice is to transfer an imprecation to the god by means of the blood of the victim. Bodily contact is another common means of communicating curses; and this accounts for many remarkable cases of compulsory hospitality and protection which have been noticed in different quarters of the world. In Fiji "the same native who within a few yards of his house would murder a coming or departing guest for sake of a knife or a hatchet, will defend him at the risk of his own life as soon as he has passed his threshold."[94] In the Pelew Islands "an enemy may not be killed in a house, especially not in the presence of the host."[95] If an Ossetian receives into his house a stranger whom he afterwards discovers to be a man to whom he owes blood-revenge, this makes no difference in his hospitality; but when the guest takes his leave, the {588} host accompanies him to the boundary of the village, and on parting from him exclaims, "Henceforth beware!"[96] Among the Kandhs, if a man can make his way by any means into the house of his enemy he cannot be touched, even though his life has been forfeited to his involuntary host by the law of blood-revenge.[97] In none of these cases is an explanation given of the extraordinary privilege granted to the stranger; but it seems highly probable that it has the same origin as the exactly similar custom prevalent among the Moors. In other words, as soon as the stranger has come in touch with a person by entering his house, he is thought to be able to transmit to that person and his family and his property any evil wishes he pleases. So, also, in the East any stranger may place himself under the protection of an Arab by merely touching his tent or his tent-ropes,[98] and after this is done "it would be reckoned a disgraceful meanness, an indelible shame, to satisfy even a just vengeance at the expense of hospitality."[99] "Amongst the Shammar," says Layard, "if a man can seize the end of a string or thread, the other end of which is held by his enemy, he immediately becomes his Dakheel [or _protégé_]. If he touch the canvas of a tent, or can even throw his mace towards it, he is the Dakheel of its owner. If he can spit upon a man or touch any article belonging to him with his teeth, he is Dakhal, unless of course, in case of theft, it be the person who caught him. . . . The Shammar never plunder a caravan within sight of their encampment, for as long as a stranger can see their tents they consider him their Dakheel."[100] But one of the Bedouin tribes described by Lady Anne and Mr. Blunt, whilst ready to rob the stranger who comes to their tents, {589} "count their hospitality as beginning only from the moment of his eating with them."[101] All Bedouins regard the eating of "salt" together as a bond of mutual friendship, and there are tribes who quite in accordance with the Moorish principle, "the food will repay you"--require to renew this bond every twenty-four hours, or after two nights and the day between them, since otherwise, as they say, "the salt is not in their stomachs,"[102] and can therefore no longer punish the person who breaks the contract. The "salt" which gives a claim to protection consists in eating even the smallest portion of food belonging to the protector.[103] The Sultan Saladin did not allow the Crusader Renaud de Chatillon, when brought before him as a prisoner, to quench his thirst in his tent, for, had he drunk water there, the enemy would have been justified in regarding his life as safe.[104] We find a similar custom among the Omaha Indians: "should an enemy appear in the lodge and receive a mouthful of food or water, or put the pipe in his mouth, he cannot be injured by any member of the tribe, as he is bound for the time being by the ties of hospitality, and they are compelled to protect him and send him home in safety."[105] In these and similar cases, where there is no common meal, the guest may nevertheless transmit to his host a curse by the exceedingly close contact established between him and the food or drink or tobacco of the host, according to the principle of _pars pro toto_. This is an idea very familiar to the primitive mind. It lies, for instance, at the bottom of the common belief that a person may bewitch his enemy by getting hold of some of his spittle or some leavings of his food--a belief which has led to the custom of guests carrying away with them all they are unable to eat of the food which is placed before them, {590} out of dread lest the residue of their meal should be eaten by somebody else.[106] The magic wire may conduct imprecations in either direction. In Morocco, if a person gives to another some food or drink, it is considered dangerous, not only for the recipient to receive it without saying, "In the name of God," but also for the giver to give it without uttering the same formula, by way of precaution.[107]
[Footnote 94: Wilkes, _U.S. Exploring Expedition_, iii. 77.]
[Footnote 95: Kubary, 'Die Palau-Inseln in der Südsee,' in _Journal des Museum Godeffroy_, iv. 25.]
[Footnote 96: von Haxthausen, _Transcaucasia_, p. 412.]
[Footnote 97: Macpherson, _Memorials of Service in India_, p. 66.]
[Footnote 98: Robertson Smith, _Kinship and Marriage in Early Arabia_, p. 48. Blunt, _Bedouin Tribes of the Euphrates_, ii. 211.]
[Footnote 99: Chasseb[oe]uf de Volney, _op. cit._ i. 412.]
[Footnote 100: Layard, _op. cit._ p. 317 _sq._ Burckhardt says (_Bedouins and Wahábys_, p. 72) that one of the most common oaths in the domestic life of the Bedouins is "to take hold with one hand of the _wasat_, or middle tent-pole, and to swear 'by the life of this tent and its owners.'"]
[Footnote 101: Blunt, _op. cit._ ii. 211.]
[Footnote 102: Burton, _Pilgrimage to Al-Madinah and Meccah_, ii. 112. Doughty, _op. cit._ i. 228.]
[Footnote 103: Burckhardt, _Bedouins and Wahábys_, p. 187. Quatremère, 'Mémoire sur les asiles chez les Arabes,' in _Mémoires de l'Institut de France, Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres_, xv. pt. ii. 346 _sqq._]
[Footnote 104: Quatremère, _loc. cit._ p. 346.]
[Footnote 105: Dorsey, 'Omaha Sociology,' in _Ann. Rep. Bur. Ethn._ iii. 271.]
[Footnote 106: Shortland, _Traditions and Superstitions of the New Zealanders_, pp. 86, 97. _Cf._ Ellis, _Tour through Hawaii_, p. 347; Harmon, _op. cit._ p. 361 (Indians on the east side of the Rocky Mountains).]
[Footnote 107: Isaac also blessed his son by eating of _his_ food (_Genesis_, xxvii. 4, 19, 24). The subject of hospitality has been incidentally dealt with by Mr. Crawley in his interesting book, _The Mystic Rose_ (p. 239 _sqq._; _cf._, also, p. 124 _sqq._). I must leave the reader to decide how far the theory I am here advocating, which mainly rests upon my researches in Morocco, coincides with his. All through his book Mr. Crawley lays much emphasis on the principle of transference; but, if I understand him rightly, he also regards commensality as involving a supposed "exchange of personality" between the host and the guest, in consequence of which "injury done to B by A is equivalent to injury done by A to himself" (p. 237). To this opinion I cannot subscribe (_cf._ _infra_, on the Origin and Development of the Altruistic Sentiment). So far as I can see, the mutual obligations arising from eating together are fundamentally based on the idea that the common meal serves as a conductor of conditional imprecations.]
The stranger thus being looked upon as a more or less dangerous individual, it is natural that those who are exposed to the danger should do what they can to avert it. With this end in view certain ceremonies are often performed immediately on his arrival. Many such reception ceremonies have been described by Dr. Frazer,[108] but I shall add a few others which seem to serve the object of either transferring to the stranger conditional curses or purifying him from dangerous influences. I am told by a native that among some of the nomadic Arabs of Morocco, as soon as a stranger appears in the village, some water, or, if he be a person of distinction, some milk, is presented to him. Should he refuse to partake of it, he is not allowed to go freely about, but has to stay in the village mosque. On asking for an explanation of this custom, I was told that it is a precaution against the stranger; should he steal or otherwise misbehave himself, the drink would cause his knees to swell so that he could not escape. In other words, he has drunk a conditional curse.[109] The {591} Arabs of a tribe in Nejd "welcome" a guest by pouring on his head a cup of melted butter,[110] the South African Herero greet him with a vessel of milk.[111] Sir S. W. Baker describes a reception custom practised by the Arabs on the Abyssinian frontier, which is exactly similar to one form of _l-[(]âr_ of the Moors:--"The usual welcome upon the arrival of a traveller, who is well received in an Arab camp, is the sacrifice of a fat sheep, that should be slaughtered at the door of his hut or tent, so that the blood flows to the threshold."[112] Reception sacrifices also occur among the Shulis,[113] in Liberia,[114] and in Afghanistan.[115] Among the Indians of North America, again, it is a common rule that a dish of food should be placed before the new-comer immediately on his arrival, that he should taste of it even though he has just arisen from a feast, and that no word should be spoken to him or no question put to him until he has partaken of the food.[116] Among the Omahas "the master of the house is evidently ill at ease, until the food is prepared for eating; he will request his squaws to expedite it, and will even stir the fire himself."[117] Among many peoples it is considered necessary that the host should give food to his guest before he eats himself. This is a rule on which much stress is laid in the literature of ancient India.[118] A Brâhmana never takes food "without having offered it duly to gods and guests."[119] "He who eats before his guest consumes the rood, the prosperity, the issue, the cattle, the merit which his family acquired by sacrifices and charitable works."[120] It is probable that this punishment has something to do {592} with the evil eye of the neglected guest, for the idea of eating the evil wishes of others was evidently quite familiar to the ancient Hindus. It is said in Âpastamba's Aphorisms:--"A guest who is at enmity with his host shall not eat his food, nor shall he eat the food of a host who hates him or accuses him of a crime, or of one who is suspected of a crime. For it is declared in the Veda that he who eats the food of such a person eats his guilt."[121] In Tonga Islands, "at meals strangers or foreigners are always shewn a preference, and females are helped before men of the same rank"--according to our informant, "because they are the weaker sex and require attention."[122] As to the correctness of this explanation, however, I have some doubts; the Moors, also, at their feasts, allow the women to eat first, and one reason they give for this custom is that otherwise the hungry women might injure the men with their evil eyes. In Hawaii the host and his family do not at all partake of the entertainment with which a passing visitor is generally provided on arriving among them;[123] and that their abstinence is due to superstitious fear is all the more probable as, among the same people, it is the custom for the guest invariably to carry away with him all that remains of the entertainment.[124]
[Footnote 108: Frazer, _Golden Bough_, i. 299 _sqq._]
[Footnote 109: _Cf._ the "trial of jealousy" in _Numbers_. v. 11 _sqq._, particularly verse 22: "This water that causeth the curse shall go into thy bowels, to make thy belly to swell, and thy thigh to rot."]
[Footnote 110: Burckhardt, _Bedouins and Wahábys_, p. 102.]
[Footnote 111: Ratzel, _op. cit._ ii. 480.]
[Footnote 112: Baker, _Nile Tributaries of Abyssinia_, p. 94.]
[Footnote 113: _Emin Pasha in Central Africa_, p. 107.]
[Footnote 114: Trumbull, _Threshold Covenant_, p. 9.]
[Footnote 115: Frazer, _Golden Bough_, i. 303.]
[Footnote 116: Lafitau, _op. cit._ ii. 88. James, _Expedition to the Rocky Mountains_, i. 321 _sq._ Morgan, _League of the Iroquois_, p. 328. Sproat, _op. cit._ p. 57 (Ahts).]
[Footnote 117: James, _op. cit._ i. 322.]
[Footnote 118: _Gautama_, v. 25.]
[Footnote 119: _Mahabharata_, Shanti Parva, clxxxix. 2 _sq._, pt. xxviii. _sq._ p. 281.]
[Footnote 120: _Âpastamba_, ii. 3. 7. 3.]
[Footnote 121: _Ibid._ ii. 3. 6. 19 _sq._ _Cf._ _Proverbs_, xxiii. 6: "Eat not the bread of him that hath an evil eye."]
[Footnote 122: Mariner, _op. cit._ ii. 154.]
[Footnote 123: Ellis, _Tour through Hawaii_, p. 347.]
[Footnote 124: _Ibid._ p. 347.]
Among the precautions taken against the visiting stranger kind and respectful treatment is of particularly great importance. No traveller among an Arabic-speaking people can fail to notice the contrast between the lavish welcome and the plain leave-taking. The profuse greetings mean that the stranger will be treated as a friend and not as an enemy; and it is particularly desirable to secure his good-will in the beginning, since the first glance of an evil eye is always held to be the most dangerous. We can now realise that the extreme regard shown to a guest, and the preference given to him in every matter, must, in a {593} large measure, be due to fear of his anger, as well as to hope of his blessings. Even the peculiar custom which requires a host to lend his wife to a guest becomes more intelligible when we consider the supposed danger of the stranger's evil eye or his curses, as also the benefits which may be supposed to result from his love.[125] And when the guest leaves, it is wise of the host to accept no reward; for there maybe misfortune in the stranger's gift.
[Footnote 125: Egede informs us (_op. cit._ p. 140) that the native women of Greenland thought themselves fortunate if an Angekokk, or "prophet," honoured them with his caresses; and some husbands even paid him for having intercourse with their wives, since they believed that the child of such a holy man could not but be happier and better than others. Some similar belief may be held in regard to intercourse with a guest, though I can adduce no direct evidence for my supposition. _Cf._ also the _jus primae noctis_ accorded to priests (Westermarck, _History of Human Marriage_, p. 76 _sq._; _cf._ _ibid._ p. 80).]
That hospitality should be free of cost is implied in the very meaning of the word. Wherever the custom of entertaining guests has been preserved pure and genuine, remuneration is neither asked nor expected; indeed, to offer payment would give offence, and to accept it would be disgraceful.[126] Such a custom might no doubt result from absence or scarcity of money, as it cannot be expected that the wandering stranger shall carry with him heavy presents to all his future hosts; and where the intercourse is mutual, the hospitable man may hope one day to be paid back in his own coin. But it seems likely that the custom of not receiving payment from a guest is largely due to that same dread of strangers which underlies many other rules of hospitality. The acceptance of gifts is frequently considered to be connected with some danger. According to rules laid down in the sacred books of India, he who is about to accept gifts, or he who has accepted gifts, must repeatedly recite the four Vedic verses called Taratsamandîs;[127] or all gifts are to be preceded by pouring out {594} water into the extended palm of the recipient's right hand,[128] evidently because the water is supposed to cleanse the gift from the baneful energy with which it may be saturated. On the other hand, "without a full knowledge of the rules prescribed by the sacred law for the acceptance of presents, a wise man should not take anything, even though he may pine with hunger. But an ignorant man who accepts gold, land, a horse, a cow, food, a dress, sesamum-grains, or clarified butter, is reduced to ashes like a piece of wood. . . . Hence an ignorant man should be afraid of accepting any presents; for by reason of a very small gift even a fool sinks into hell as a cow into a morass."[129] Moreover, a gift, to be accepted by a Brâhmana, ought to be given voluntarily, not to be asked for.[130] So, too, Hebrew writers are anxious to inculcate the duty of giving alms with an ungrudging eye, as also of not giving anything before witnesses--the latter, perhaps, with a view to preventing the evil influence which is likely to emanate from an envious spectator.[131] An Atlas Berber, who had probably never before had anything to do with a European, spat on the coin which I gave him for rendering me a service, and my native friends told me that he did so for fear lest the coin, owing to some sorcery on my part, should not only itself return to me, but at the same time take with it all the money with which it had been in contact in his bag. Of the Annamites it is said that "for fear of bringing ill-luck into the place the people even decline presents."[132]
[Footnote 126: Veniaminof, quoted by Dall, _op. cit._ p. 397 (Aleuts). Bartram, in _Trans. American Ethn. Soc._ iii. pt. i. 42. Foreman, _Philippine Islands_, p. 187 (Tagalogs). Hunter, _Annals of Rural Bengal_, i. 216. Bogle, _Narrative of Mission to Tibet_, p. 109 _sq._ Vámbéry, _Das Türkenvolk_, p. 614 (Turks in Asia Minor). Robinson, _Biblical Researches in Palestine_, ii. 18 _sq._; Burton, _Pilgrimage to Al-Madinah & Meccah_, i. 36; Blunt, _op. cit._ ii. 212; Lane, _Modern Egyptians_, p. 297 (Bedouins). Krauss, _Die Südslaven_, p. 648.]
[Footnote 127: _Baudhâyana_, iv. 2. 4.]
[Footnote 128: _Âpastamba_, ii. 4. 9. 8. Bühler, in _Sacred Books of the East_, ii. 122, n. ^8]
[Footnote 129: _Laws of Manu_, iv. 187, 188, 191.]
[Footnote 130: _Ibid._ iv. 247 _sq._]
[Footnote 131: _Tobit_, iv. 7. Kohler, in _Jewish Encyclopedia_, i. 436. _Cf._ _St. Matthew_, vi. 1 _sqq._; Brandt, _Mandäische Schriften_, pp. 28, 64: "If you give alms do not do it before witnesses." The Mandæans were also forbidden to eat food prepared by a stranger or to take a meal in his company (Brandt, _Mandäische Religion_, p. 94).]
[Footnote 132: Ratzel, _op. cit._ iii. 418.]
The duty of hospitality is probably always limited by time, even though, among some peoples, a guest is said to be entertained as long as he pleases to stay.[133] According {595} to Teutonic custom, a guest might tarry only up to the third day.[134] The Anglo-Saxon rule was, "Two nights a guest, the third night one of the household," that is, a slave.[135] A German proverb says, "Den ersten Tag ein Gast, den zweiten eine Last, den dritten stinkt er fast."[136] So, also, the Southern Slavs declare that "a guest and a fish smell on the third day."[137] Burckhardt states that, among the Bedouins, if the stranger intends to prolong his visit after a lapse of three days and four hours from the time of his arrival, it is expected that he should assist his host in domestic matters; should he decline this, "he may remain, but will be censured by all the Arabs of the camp."[138] The Moors say that "the hospitality of the Prophet lasts for three days"; the first night the guest is entertained most lavishly, for then, but only then, he is "the guest of God." The Prophet laid down the following rule: "Whoever believes in God and the day of resurrection, must respect his guest; and the time of being kind to him is one day and one night; and the period of entertaining him is three days; and after that, if he does it longer, he benefits him more; but it is not right for a guest to stay in the house of the host so long as to incommode him."[139] According to Javanese custom, it is a point of honour to supply a stranger with food and accommodation for a day and a night at least.[140] Among the Kalmucks special honour is paid to a stranger for one day only, whereas, if he remains longer, he is treated without ceremonies.[141] Growing familiarity with the stranger naturally tends to dispel the superstitious dread which he inspired at first, and this, combined with the feeling that it is unfair of him to live at his host's expense longer than necessity requires, seems to account for the {596} rapid decline of his extraordinary privileges and for the short duration of his title to hospitable treatment.
[Footnote 133: Veniaminof, quoted by Dall, _op. cit._ p. 397 (Aleuts). Morgan, _League of the Iroquois_, p. 328. Bartram, in _Trans. American Ethn. Soc._ iii. pt. i. 42 (Creeks and Cherokee Indians).]
[Footnote 134: Grimm, _Deutsche Rechtsalterthümer_, p. 400. Weinhold, _Altnordisches Leben_, p. 447.]
[Footnote 135: Quoted in _Leges Edwardi Confessoris_, 23: "Tuua nicte geste þe þirdde nicte agen hine." _Cf._ _Laws of Cnut_, ii. 28; _Laws of Hlothhære and Eadric_, 15; _Leges Henrici I._ viii. 5.]
[Footnote 136: Weinhold, _op. cit._ p. 447.]
[Footnote 137: Krauss, _op. cit._ p. 658.]
[Footnote 138: Burckhardt, _Bedouins and Wahábys_, p. 101 _sq._]
[Footnote 139: Lane, _Arabian Society_, p. 142 _sq._]
[Footnote 140: Crawfurd, _op. cit._ i. 53.]
[Footnote 141: Bergmann, _op. cit._ ii. 285.]
Contrary to what is the case with other duties which men owe to their fellow-creatures, in every progressive society we find hospitality on the wane. In the later days of Greece and Rome it almost dwindled into a survival.[142] In the Middle Ages hospitality was extensively practised by high and low; it was enjoined by the tenets of Chivalry,[143] and the poorer people, also, considered it disgraceful to refuse to share their meals with a needy stranger.[144] However, in the reign of Henry IV., Thomas Occlif complains of the decline of hospitality in England; and in the middle of the Elizabethan age, Archbishop Sandys says that "it is come to pass that hospitality itself is waxen a stranger."[145] The reasons for this decline are not difficult to find. Increasing intercourse between different communities or different countries not only makes hospitality an intolerable burden, but leads to the establishment of inns, and thus hospitality becomes superfluous. It habituates the people to the sight of strangers, and, in consequence, deprives the stranger of that mystery which surrounds the lonely wanderer in an isolated district whose inhabitants have little communication with the outside world. And, finally, increase of intercourse gives rise to laws which make an individual protector needless, by placing the stranger under the protection of the State.
[Footnote 142: Becker-Goll, _Charikles_, ii. 3 _sqq._ _Idem_, _Gallus_, iii. 28 _sqq._]
[Footnote 143: Sainte-Palaye, _Mémoires sur l'ancienne chevalerie_, i. 310.]
[Footnote 144: Wright, _Domestic Manners and Sentiments in England during the Middle Ages_, p. 329 _sqq._]
[Footnote 145: Sandys, _Sermons_, p. 401.]
CHAPTER XXV
THE SUBJECTION OF CHILDREN
FROM the modes of conduct which affect the life or bodily welfare of a fellow-creature we shall pass to those relating to personal freedom. In its absolute form the right of liberty may be granted to a perfect being, but has no existence on earth. Ever since the conduct of men became subject to moral censure, the right of doing what they pleased was _eo ipso_ denied them; and in resisting wrong men have not only in various ways interfered with the liberty of their fellow-creatures, but have considered such interference to be their right or even their duty. As to the question what conduct is wrong opinions have differed, and so also as to the proper means of interference; but with neither of these questions are we concerned at present. Nor shall I deal with the subject of political liberty, nor with such restrictions as people lay on their own freedom by contract. I shall only consider facts bearing upon that state of subjection to which large classes of individuals are doomed by custom or law, on account of their birth or other circumstances beyond their own control--the subjection of children, wives, and slaves to their parents, husbands, or masters.
Among the lower races every family has its head, who exercises more or less authority over its members. In some instances where the maternal system of descent prevails, a man's children are in the power of the head of {598} their mother's family or of their maternal uncle;[1] but this is by no means the rule even among peoples who reckon kinship through females only. The facts which have been adduced as examples of the so-called "mother-right" in most instances imply, chiefly, that children are named after their mothers, not after their fathers, and that property and rank descend exclusively in the female line;[2] and this is certainly very different from a denial of paternal rights.[3] Among those Australian tribes which have the system of maternal descent the father is distinctly said to be the master of his children.[4] In Melanesia, where the clan of the children is determined by that of the mother, she is, to quote Dr. Codrington, "in no way the head of the family. The house of the family is the father's, the garden is his, the rule and government are his."[5] As regards the Iroquois--among whom, at the death of a man, his property is divided between his brothers, sisters, and mother's brothers, whilst the property of a woman is transmitted to her children and sisters[6]--we are told that the mother superintends the children, but that the word of the father is law and must be obeyed by the whole household.[7] Among the Mpongwe, who reckon kinship through the mother, the father has by law unrestricted power over his children.[8] And in Madagascar, where children generally follow the condition of the mother,[9] the commands of a father or an ancestor are, among all the tribes, "held as most sacredly binding upon his descendants."[10] Whatever might have been the case in earlier times, it is a fact beyond dispute that among the great bulk of existing savages children are in the power of {599} their father, though he may to some extent have to share his authority with the mother.
[Footnote 1: Westermarck, _History of Human Marriage_, p. 40 _sq._ Grosse, _Die Formen der Familie_, p. 183 _sq._ Post, _Afrikanische Jurisprudenz_, i. 51 _sq._ Marsden, _History of Sumatra_, p. 262 _sq._]
[Footnote 2: Westermarck, _op. cit._ p. 97.]
[Footnote 3: See von Dargun, _Mutterrecht und Vaterrecht_, p. 3 _sqq._]
[Footnote 4: Curr, _The Australian Race_, i. 60, 61, 69.]
[Footnote 5: Codrington, _Melanesians_, p. 34.]
[Footnote 6: Westermarck, _op. cit._ p. 110.]
[Footnote 7: Seaver, _Narrative of the Life of Mrs. Mary Jemison_, p. 165.]
[Footnote 8: Hübbe-Schleiden, _Ethiopien_, pp. 151, 153.]
[Footnote 9: Westermarck, _op. cit._ p. 103.]
[Footnote 10: Sibree, _The Great African Island_, p. 326.]
The extent of the father's power, however, is subject to great variations. Among some savage peoples, as we have seen, he may destroy his new-born child; among others infanticide is prohibited by custom. Among some he may sell his children,[11] among others such a right is expressly denied him.[12] Frequently he gives away his daughter in marriage without consulting her wishes; but in other cases her own consent is required, or she is allowed to choose her husband herself.[13] Marriage by purchase does not imply that "a girl is sold by her father in the same manner, and with the same authority, with which he would dispose of a cow."[14] It seems that the paternal authority is always in some degree limited by public opinion. Among the Káfirs of the Hindu-Kush, for instance, though the head of the house is described as an autocrat in his own family, the son, backed by public opinion, may, and does, openly quarrel with and threaten his father in cases when the father's actions have been of a particularly gross character.[15]
[Footnote 11: Schadenberg, 'Negritos der Philippinen,' in _Zeitschr. f. Ethnologie_, xii. 137. Post, _Afrikanische Jurisprudenz_, i. 51 _sq._ (Bogos, Fantis, Dahomans). Paulitschke, _Ethnographie Nordost-Afrikas_, p. 189. Leuschner, in Steinmetz, _Rechtsverhältnisse_, p. 16 _sq._ (Bakwiri). Among the Banaka and Bapuku, in the Cameroons, the father may give his daughter in payment for a debt, but not his son (_ibid._ p. 31).]
[Footnote 12: Kraft, in Steinmetz, _Rechtsverhältnisse_, p. 285 (Wapokomo). Rautanen, _ibid._ p. 329 (Ondonga).]
[Footnote 13: Westermarck, _op. cit._ p. 215 _sqq._]
[Footnote 14: Leslie, _Among the Zulus and Amatongas_, p. 194. Westermarck, _op. cit._ ch. x.]
[Footnote 15: Robertson, _Káfirs of the Hindu-Kush_, p. 474.]
The essence of dependence lies in obedience and submission. To judge from what is said about children's behaviour towards their parents, the authority of the father must among some savages be practically very slight.
The South American Charruas "ne défendent rien à leurs enfans, et ceux-ci n'ont aucun respect pour leurs pères."[16] Among the Brazilian Indians, according to von Martius, respect and obedience on the part of children towards their parents are unknown.[17] {600} Among the Tarahumares of Mexico "the children grow up entirely independent, and if angry a boy may even strike his father."[18] We are told that among the Aleuts parents "scarcely ever enjoy so much authority as to compel their own children to shew them the least obedience, or to go a single step in their service";[19] but this does not seem to hold good of all of their tribes.[20] Of the Kamchadales Steller states that the children insult their parents with all sorts of bad talk, stand in no fear of them, obey them in nothing, and are consequently never commanded to do anything, nor punished.[21]
[Footnote 16: Azara, _Voyages dans l'Amérique méridionale_, ii. 23.]
[Footnote 17: von Martius, in _Jour. Roy. Geo. Soc._ ii. 199. _Cf._ Southey, _History of Brazil_, iii. 387 (Guaycurus).]
[Footnote 18: Lumholtz, _Unknown Mexico_, p. 275.]
[Footnote 19: Georgi, _Russia_, iii. 212.]
[Footnote 20: Veniaminof, quoted by Petroff, 'Report on Alaska,' in _Tenth Census of the United States_, pp. 155, 158.]
[Footnote 21: Steller, _Beschreibung von dem Lande Kamtschatka_, p. 353. _Cf._ Georgi, _op. cit._ iii. 158.]
Other savages, again, are by no means deficient in filial piety.[22]
[Footnote 22: Im Thurn, _Among the Indians of Guiana_, p. 213. Schwaner, _Borneo_, i. 162 (Malays of the Barito River in Borneo). Worcester, _Philippine Islands_, p. 481. Lewin, _Hill Tracts of Chittagong_, p. 102 (Kukis). Vámbéry, _Türkenvolk_, p. 268 (Kara-Kirghiz). Macpherson, _Memorials of Service in India_, p. 67; Hunter, _Annals of Rural Bengal_, iii. 72 (Kandhs). Granville and Roth, in _Jour. Anthr. Inst._ xxviii. 109 (Jekris of the Warri District of the Niger Coast Protectorate). Stuhlmann, _Mit Emin Pascha ins Herz von Afrika_, p. 801 (Latuka).]
Among various Eskimo[23] and North American Indian tribes[24] children are described as very obedient to their parents. Parry says of the Eskimo of Winter Island and Igloolik that disobedience is scarcely ever known, and that "a word or even a look from a parent is enough."[25] The Potawatomis hold the violation of the advice and directions of their parents one of the most atrocious crimes.[26] In Tonga "filial duty is a most important duty and appears to be universally felt."[27] One of the chief duties which the Ainos taught their children was obedience to parents.[28] Among the Central Asiatic Turks a son, whilst young, behaves as if he were his father's slave.[29] Among the {601} Ossetes "the authority of the head of the family, whether grandfather, father, stepfather, uncle, or elder brother, is submitted to unconditionally; the young men never sit in his presence, nor speak with a loud voice, nor contradict him."[30] Among the Barea and Kunáma "a father and a mother are respected to the utmost degree. A son never dares to contradict his parents nor oppose their commands, however unjust they be. The mother particularly is much beloved and tenderly cared for at her old age."[31] Among the Mandingoes children "have a great veneration for their parents," and "would feel extreme reluctance to disobey their father."[32] Of the Bachapins, a Bechuana tribe, it is said that **"filial obedience is strenuously enforced."[33] Among the Kafirs "any one who should fail in respect for his father, or show any neglect of him, would draw on himself the contempt of the whole horde; there have been even instances in which want of filial duty has been punished with infamy and banishment."[34]
[Footnote 23: Hall, _Arctic Researches_, p. 568. Boas, 'Central Eskimo,' in _Ann. Rep. Bur. Ethn._ vi. 566. Murdoch, 'Ethnol. Results of the Point Barrow Expedition,' _ibid._ ix. 417. Turner, 'Ethnology of the Ungava District,' _ibid._ xi. 191 (Koksoagmyut).]
[Footnote 24: Turner, in _Ann. Rep. Bur. Ethn._ xi. 269 (Hudson Bay Indians). Heriot, _Travels through the Canadas_, p. 530. Harmon, _Journal of Voyages_, p. 347 (Indians on the east side of the Rocky Mountains).]
[Footnote 25: Parry, _Journal of a Second Voyage for the Discovery of a North-West Passage_, p. 530.]
[Footnote 26: Keating, _Expedition to the Source of St. Peter's River_, i. 127.]
[Footnote 27: Mariner, _Natives of the Tonga Islands_, ii. 179.]
[Footnote 28: Batchelor, _Ainu and their Folk-Lore_, p. 254.]
[Footnote 29: Vámbéry, _op. cit._ p. 226.]
[Footnote 30: von Haxthausen, _Transcaucasia_, p. 414 _sq._]
[Footnote 31: Munzinger, _Ostafrikanische Studien_, p. 474.]
[Footnote 32: Caillié, _Travels through Central Africa_, i. 352 _sq._]
[Footnote 33: Burchell, _Travels in the Interior of Southern Africa_, ii. 557.]
[Footnote 34: Lichtenstein, _Travels in Southern Africa_, i. 265. Alberti, _De Kaffers aan de Zuidkust van Afrika_, p. 116 _sqq._ Shooter, _Kafirs of Natal_, p. 98.]
The period during which the paternal authority lasts varies. The daughter is in her father's power till she marries, and as a rule no longer;[35] but in some instances his authority over her continues even after her marriage.[36] This, we have reason to believe, is particularly the case when the husband, on marrying, does not take his wife to his own home, but goes himself to live with her in the house or community of her father.[37] A father's authority over his son frequently comes to an end as the young man {602} grows up. Among the Fuegians a son becomes independent of his parents at a very early age, being allowed to leave their wigwam if he pleases.[38] Among the Togiagamutes, an Eskimo tribe, "the youth, as soon as he is able to build a kaiak and to support himself, no longer observes any family ties but goes where his fancy takes him."[39] Of the Australian natives it is said that sons become independent when they have gone through the ceremonies by which they attain to the _status_ of manhood;[40] among the Bangerang tribe of Victoria "after his twelfth year or so the boy was very little subject to the father, though parental affection always endured."[41] Among the Bedouins "the young man, as soon as it is in his power, emancipates himself from the father's authority, still paying him some deference as long as he continues in his tent; but whenever he can become master of a tent himself (to obtain which is his constant endeavour), he listens to no advice, nor obeys any earthly command but that of his own will."[42] That a son is emancipated from the father's power by getting full-grown or by leaving the household is probably the rule among the great majority of the lower races.[43] But here again instances to the contrary are not wanting.[44] In Flores the sons even of rich families are dressed like slaves at public feasts, so long as the father lives, as also at his funeral. This, our authority adds, is apparently the external sign of a strict _patria potestas_, which remains in force till the funeral; until then the son is the father's slave.[45]
[Footnote 35: See, _e.g._, Leuschner, in Steinmetz, _Rechtsverhältnisse_, p. 17 (Bakwiri); Fama Mademba, _ibid._ p. 65 (natives of the Sansanding States); Nicole, _ibid._ p. 100 (Diakité); Lang, _ibid._ p. 224 (Washambala); Kraft, _ibid._ p. 286 (Wapokomo); Marx, _ibid._ p. 349 (Amahlubi); Sorge, _ibid._ p. 404 (Nissan Islanders of the Bismarck Archipelago).]
[Footnote 36: See, _e.g._, Beverley, in Steinmetz, _Rechtsverhältnisse_, p. 206. What is said, _ibid._ p. 31, concerning the Banaka and Bapuku does not seem to agree with the statement p. 30, that the husband is the head of his household and the possessor of his wives.]
[Footnote 37: _Cf._ Mazzarella, _La condizione giuridica del marito nella famiglia matriarcale_, _passim_; _infra_, on the Subjection of Wives. The point in question, like the whole subject of the father's authority among the lower races, requires much further investigation.]
[Footnote 38: Bove, _Patagonia, Terra del Fuoco_, p. 133.]
[Footnote 39: Petroff, _loc. cit._ p. 135.]
[Footnote 40: Curr, _The Australian Race_, i. 61.]
[Footnote 41: _Idem_, _Recollections of Squatting in Victoria_, p. 248.]
[Footnote 42: Burckhardt, _Notes on the Bedouins and Wahábys_, p. 201.]
[Footnote 43: For other instances, see Munzinger, _Die Sitten und das Recht der Bogos_, p. 36; Post, _Afrikanische Jurisprudenz_, i. 51 (Somals); Leuschner, in Steinmetz, _Rechtsverhältnisse_, p. 17 (Bakwiri); Nicole, _ibid._ p. 100 (Diakité); Beverley, _ibid._ p. 206 (Wagogo); Marx, _ibid._ p. 349 (Amahlubi); Sorge, _ibid._ p. 404 (Nissan Islanders).]
[Footnote 44: Sarbah, _Fanti Customary Laws_, p. 5. Stuhlmann, _op. cit._ p. 801 (Latuka). Steinmetz, _Rechtsverhältnisse_, p. 31 (Banaka and Bapuku). Fama Mademba, _ibid._ p. 65 (natives of the Sansanding States). Kraft, _ibid._ p. 286 (Wapokomo), Abercromby, _Pre- and Proto-historic Finns_, i. 181 (Mordvins).]
[Footnote 45: von Martens, quoted by Nieboer, _Slavery as an Industrial System_, p. 26, n. 2.]
{603} However, the expiration of the paternal power, in the proper sense of the term, does not necessarily imply the loss of all authority over the children. The father, at all events, retains the rights incident to his superior age, and among many uncivilised peoples these are great. Old age commands respect and gives authority.
Among the Fuegians "in each family the word of an old man is accepted as law by the young people; they never dispute his authority."[46] The Patagonians "pay respect to old people, taking great care of them."[47] The Caribs "portent un grand respect aus vieillards."[48] The same is the case among many of the North American Indians.[49] Among the Naudowessies, whilst the advice of a father will seldom meet with any extraordinary attention from the young Indians, "they will tremble before a grandfather, and submit to his injunctions with the utmost alacrity. The words of the ancient part of their community are esteemed by the young as oracles."[50] Among the Eskimo about Behring Strait the old men are listened to with respect;[51] and among the Point Barrow Eskimo "respect for the opinions of elders is so great that the people may be said to be practically under what is called 'simple elder rule.'"[52] Among the Veddahs of Ceylon the oldest man "is regarded with a sort of patriarchal respect when accident or occasion has brought together any others than the members of one family."[53] Among the Jakuts an old man is implicitly obeyed as a father of a family; "a young man ever gives his opinion with the greatest respect and caution; and even when asked, he submits his ideas to the judgment of the old."[54] Regard for the aged is found among the Ainos,[55] Kurilians,[56] Mongols,[57] Ossetes,[58] {604} Kukis,[59] Nicobarese,[60] Negritos of the Philippine Islands,[61] Papuans of New Guinea[62] New Caledonians,[63] Caroline Islanders,[64] Tonga Islanders,[65] and, in a remarkable degree, among the Australian aborigines.[66] "Among the Kurnai," says Mr. Howitt, "age meets with great reverence. . . . It may be stated as a general rule that authority attaches to age. It follows from this that there is no hereditary authority and no hereditary chieftain. The authority which is inherent in age attaches not alone to the man, but also to the woman." And he justly adds that this principle regulating authority seems to be, not peculiar to the Kurnai, but general to the whole Australian race.[67]
[Footnote 46: King and Fitzroy, _Voyages of the "Adventure" and "Beagle,"_ ii. 179.]
[Footnote 47: _Ibid._ ii. 172.]
[Footnote 48: de Poircy-de Rochefort, _Histoire des Isles Antilles_, p. 461.]
[Footnote 49: Buchanan, _North American Indians_, p. 7. Prescott, in Schoolcraft, _Indian Tribes of the United States_, ii. 196.]
[Footnote 50: Carver, _Travels through the Interior Parts of North America_, p. 243.]
[Footnote 51: Nelson, 'Eskimo about Bering Strait,' in _Ann. Rep. Bur. Ethn._ xviii. 304.]
[Footnote 52: Murdoch, in _Ann. Rep. Bur. Ethn._ ix. 427.]
[Footnote 53: Hartshorne, 'Weddas,' in _Indian Antiquary_, viii. 320. _Cf._ Deschamps, _Carnet d'un voyageur_, p. 395.]
[Footnote 54: Sauer, _Billings' Expedition to the Northern Parts of Russia_, p. 124.]
[Footnote 55: Batchelor, _Ainu and their Folk-Lore_, p. 254. von Siebold, _Ethnol. Studien über die Aino auf der Insel Yesso_, p. 25.]
[Footnote 56: Krasheninnikoff, _History of Kamschatka_, p. 236.]
[Footnote 57: Prejevalsky, _Mongolia_, i. 71.]
[Footnote 58: von Haxthausen, _Transcaucasia_, p. 414. Strabo (xi. 4. 8) reports the same of the Albanians of the Eastern Caucasus.]
[Footnote 59: Lewin, _Hill Tracts of Chittagong_, p. 102.]
[Footnote 60: Kloss, _In the Andamans and Nicobars_, p. 243.]
[Footnote 61: Schadenberg, in _Zeitschr. f. Ethnol._ xii. 135. Earl, _Papuans_, p. 133. Foreman, _Philippine Islands_, p. 209.]
[Footnote 62: Earl, _op. cit._ p. 81.]
[Footnote 63: Atkinson, in _Folk-Lore_, xiv. 248.]
[Footnote 64: Christian, _Caroline Islands_, p. 72. Angas, _Polynesia_, p. 382.]
[Footnote 65: Mariner, _op. cit._ ii. 155.]
[Footnote 66: Roth, _North-West-Central Queensland Aborigines_, p. 141. Fraser, _Aborigines of New South Wales_, p. 5. Schuermann, 'Aboriginal Tribes of Port Lincoln,' in Woods, _Native Tribes of South Australia_, p. 226. Hale _U.S. Exploring Expedition. Vol. VI. Ethnography and Philology_, p. 113. Mitchell, _Expeditions into the Interior of Eastern Australia_, ii. 346. Brough Smyth, _Aborigines of Victoria_, i. 137 _sq._ See also Steinmetz, _Ethnol. Studien zur Entwicklungsgeschichte der Strafe_, ii. 26 _sqq._]
[Footnote 67: Fison and Howitt, _Kamilaroi and Kurnai_, p. 211 _sq._]
Turning to African peoples: among the Danakil the aged of both sexes, but especially the males, are held in great veneration, and the old men are consulted on every occasion of any importance.[68] "The real religion of the Barea and Kunáma," says Munzinger, "consists in an extraordinary reverence for old age. Among these peoples only the old, the weak, or the blind command respect."[69] The E[(w]e-speaking peoples on the Slave Coast have a proverb, "Respect the elders, they are our fathers."[70] Winterbottom doubts whether the ancient Lacedæmonians paid greater regard to old age than do the natives of Sierra Leone.[71] Mr. Leighton Wilson says of the Mpongwe:--"There is no part of the world where respect and veneration for age is carried to a greater length than among this people. . . . All the younger members of society are early trained to show the utmost deference to age. They must never come into the presence of aged persons or pass by their dwellings without taking off their hats and assuming a crouching gait. When seated in their presence {605} it must always be at a 'respectful distance'--a distance proportioned to the difference in their ages and position in society. If they come near enough to hand an aged man a lighted pipe or a glass of water, the bearer must always fall upon one knee. Aged persons must always be addressed as 'father' (_rera_) or 'mother' (_ngwe_). Any disrespectful deportment or reproachful language toward such persons is regarded as a misdemeanour of no ordinary aggravation. A youthful person carefully avoids communicating any disagreeable intelligence to such persons, and almost always addresses them in terms of flattery and adulation."[72] Among the For tribe of Central Africa "great consideration is shown towards women when they are old, as well as towards aged men."[73] Regard for old age is, in fact, a very general trait of the African character.[74]
[Footnote 68: Scaramucci and Giglioli, 'Notizie sui _Danakil_,' in _Archivio per l'antropologia e la etnologia_, xiv. 36.]
[Footnote 69: Munzinger, _Ostafrikanische Studien_, p. 474.]
[Footnote 70: Ellis, _E[(w]e-speaking Peoples_, p. 268.]
[Footnote 71: Winterbottom, _Native Africans in the Neighbourhood of Sierra Leone_, i. 211.]
[Footnote 72: Wilson, _Western Africa_, p. 392 _sq._]
[Footnote 73: Felkin, 'Notes on the For Tribe of Central Africa,' in _Proceed. Roy. Soc. Edinburgh_, xiii. 224 _sq._]
[Footnote 74: Monrad, _Bidrag til en Skildring af Guinea-Kysten_, p. 37 (Negroes of Accra). Granville and Roth, in _Jour. Anthr. Inst._ xxviii. 109 (Jekris). Kingsley, _Travels in West Africa_, p. 460 (Calabar tribes). Caillié, _op. cit._ i. 352 (Mandingoes). Stuhlmann, _op. cit._ pp. 789, 801 (Latuka). Casati, _Ten Years in Equatoria_, i. 186. Chanler, _Through Jungle and Desert_, p. 246 (Embe). New, _Life, Wanderings, and Labours in Eastern Africa_, p. 101 (Wanika). Johnston, _Kilima-njaro Expedition_, p. 419 (Masai). Arnot, _Garenganze_, p. 78, note. Lichtenstein, _op. cit._ i. 265; Alberti, _op. cit._ p. 118; Shooter, _op. cit._ p. 98 (Kafirs). Schinz, _Deutsch-Südwest-Afrika_, p. 82 (Hottentots).]
Not only old age, but superiority of age, gives a certain amount of power.
The Australian natives have a well-regulated order of precedence and authority. "When the individual reaches the full development of puberty, he or she undergoes a ceremony which entitles him or her on its successful completion to a certain social rank or _status_ in the community. As life progresses, other and higher ranks are progressively attainable for each sex, until the highest and most honourable grade, that enjoyed by an old man, or an old woman, is reached."[75] All North American Indians "hold that superior age gives authority; and every person is taught from childhood to obey his superiors and to rule over his inferiors. The superiors are those of greater age; the inferiors, those who are younger."[76] The same influence of age makes itself felt in the relations between elder {606} and younger brothers and sisters.[77] Navaho myths indicate that "even among twins, the younger must defer to the elder."[78] The eldest brother comes next to the father in authority, and, in case of his death, succeeds him as the head of the family. The Aleuts described by Father Veniaminof maintained that "if one had no father he should respect his oldest brother and serve him as he would a father."[79] Among the Kalmucks "the elder brother is the despot of the younger ones, and is even allowed to punish them."[80] In Madagascar so great respect is paid to seniority "that if two slaves who are brothers are going a journey, any burden must be carried by the younger one, so far at least as his strength will allow."[81] In Tonga custom decrees "that all persons shall be in the service of their older and superior relations, if those relations think proper to employ them"; and every chief shows the greatest regard for his eldest sister.[82] Among the Hottentots "the highest oath a man could take and still takes, was to swear by his eldest sister, and if he should abuse this name, the sister will walk into his flock and take his finest cows and sheep, and no law could prevent her from doing so."[83] Among the Point Barrow Eskimo, again, "seniority gives precedence when there are several women in one hut, and the sway of the elder in the direction of everything connected with her duties seems never disputed."[84]
[Footnote 75: Roth, _op. cit._ p. 169. _Cf._ _ibid._ p. 65 _sq._; Eyre, _Journals of Expeditions of Discovery into Central Australia_, ii. 315.]
[Footnote 76: Powell, 'Sociology,' in _American Anthropologist_, N. S. i. 700. _Cf._ _Idem_, in _Ann. Rep. Bur. Ethn._ iii. p. lviii.]
[Footnote 77: Nachtigal, _Sahara und Sudan_, i. 450 (Tedâ). Chavanne, _Die Sahara_, p. 396 (Arabs of the Sahara). Paulitschke, _op. cit._ p. 192 (Gallas). von Haxthausen, _Transcaucasia_, p. 415 (Ossetes). Bach, 'Die Wotjaken,' in _Acta Societatis Scientiarum Fennicæ_, xii. 489 (Votyaks). Sumner, in _Jour. Anthr. Inst._ xxxi. 75 (Jakuts). Batchelor, _Ainu and their Folk-Lore_, p. 254.]
[Footnote 78: Matthews, 'Study of Ethics among the Lower Races,' in _Journal of American Folk-Lore_, xii. 9.]
[Footnote 79: Veniaminof, quoted by Petroff, _loc. cit._ p. 155.]
[Footnote 80: Bergmann, _Nomadische Streifereien unter den Kalmüken_, ii. 305.]
[Footnote 81: Sibree, _op. cit._ p. 182.]
[Footnote 82: Mariner, _op. cit._ i. 226; ii. 155.]
[Footnote 83: Hahn, _The Supreme Being of the Khoi-Khoi_, p. 21.]
[Footnote 84: Simpson, quoted by Murdoch, in _Ann. Rep. Bur. Ethn._ ix. 427.]
It must be added, however, that the reverence for old age may cease when the grey-head gets so old as to be an incumbrance to those around him;[85] and imbecility may put an end to the father's authority over his family.[86] We have previously noticed that parents worn out with age {607} and disease are among some peoples killed or abandoned by their own children.[87]
[Footnote 85: Curr, _Squatting in Victoria_, pp. 254. 245, 265 _sqq._; Eyre, _op. cit._ ii. 316 (Australian aborigines). Sumner, in _Jour. Anthr. Inst._ xxxi. 76 (Jakuts). Nansen, _Eskimo Life_, p. 177 _sq._ (Greenlanders). _Supra_, p. 534.]
[Footnote 86: Steinmetz, _Rechtsverhältnisse_, p. 31 (Banaka and Bapuku).]
[Footnote 87: _Supra_, p. 386 _sq._]
When passing from the savage and barbarous races of men to those next above them in civilisation, we find paternal, or parental, authority and filial reverence at their height. In ancient Mexico "necessitous parents were allowed to dispose of any one of their children, in order to relieve their poverty," whereas a master could not sell a well-behaved slave without his consent.[88] A youth was seldom permitted to choose a wife for himself, but was expected to abide by the selection of his parents;[89] and "children were bred to stand so much in awe of their parents that even when grown up and married they hardly durst speak before them."[90] So, too, in Nicaragua a father might sell his children as slaves in cases of great necessity,[91] and matches were in the larger part of the country arranged by the parents.[92] In ancient Peru disobedient children were publicly chastised by their own parents;[93] and Inca Pachacutec confirmed the law that sons should obey and serve their fathers until they reached the age of twenty-five, and that none should marry without the consent of the parents and of the parents of the girl.[94]
[Footnote 88: Clavigero, _History of Mexico_, i. 360.]
[Footnote 89: Westermarck, _op. cit._ p. 226.]
[Footnote 90: Clavigero, _op. cit._ i. 331.]
[Footnote 91: Squier, _Nicaragua_, p. 345.]
[Footnote 92: Bancroft, _Native Races of the Pacific States_, ii. 667.]
[Footnote 93: Herrera, _General History of the West Indies_, iv. 339.]
[Footnote 94: Garcilasso de la Vega, _First Part of the Royal Commentaries of the Yncas_, ii. 207.]