Chapter 20
Part 20
In China a house-father reigns almost supreme in his family, and, according to ancient Chinese ideas, not even marriage withdraws the son from his power.[95] The law, it is true, prohibits him from killing[96] or selling[97] his children; but it is only in supreme cases that the State interferes between the head of a household and his family belongings, and the sale of children is practically allowed.[98] No person, of whatever age, can act for himself in matrimonial {608} matters during the lifetime or in the neighbourhood of his parents or near senior kinsfolk.[99] The law provides that disobedience to the instructions and commands of parents or paternal grandparents shall be punished with one hundred blows,[100] and that a still greater punishment shall be inflicted on a son accusing his father or mother and on a grandson accusing his paternal grandparent, even though the accusation prove true.[101] Indeed, from earliest youth the Chinese lad is imbued with such respect for his parents that it becomes at last a religious sentiment, and forms, as he gets older, the basis of his only creed--the worship of ancestors.[102] Confucianism itself has been briefly described as "an expansion of the root idea of filial piety."[103] The Master said:--"filial piety is the root of all virtue, and the stem out of which grows all moral teaching. . . . Filial piety is the constant method of Heaven, the righteousness of Earth, and the practical duty of Man. . . . Of all the actions of man there is none greater than filial piety. In filial piety there is nothing greater than the reverential awe of one's father. In the reverential awe shown to one's father there is nothing greater than the making him the correlate of Heaven."[104] But the idea that filial piety is the fundamental duty of man was not originated by Confucius, it had obtained a firm hold of the national mind long before his time.[105] It also prevails in Corea[106] and Japan,[107] where the authority of a house-father is, or, in the case of Japan, until lately has been,[108] as great as in China. "The Japanese maiden, as pure as the purest Christian virgin, will at the command of her father enter the brothel to-morrow, and prostitute herself for life. Not a murmur escapes her lips {609} as she thus filially obeys."[109] In Corea, whilst the first thing inculcated in a child's mind is respect for his father, little respect is felt for the mother; the child soon learns that a mother's authority is next to nothing.[110]
[Footnote 95: de Groot, _Religious System of China_ (vol. ii. book) i. 507.]
[Footnote 96: _Supra_, p. 393.]
[Footnote 97: _Ta Tsing Leu Lee_, sec. cclxxv. p. 292.]
[Footnote 98: Douglas, _Society in China_, p. 78. Staunton, in his translation of _Ta Tsing Leu Lee_, p. 292 n. * Doolittle, _Social Life of the Chinese_, ii. 209.]
[Footnote 99: Medhurst, 'Marriage, Affinity, and Inheritance in China,' in _Trans. Roy. Asiatic Soc. China Branch_, iv. 11.]
[Footnote 100: _Ta Tsing Leu Lee_, sec. cccxxxviii. p. 374.]
[Footnote 101: _Ibid._ sec. cccxxxvii. p. 371 _sq._]
[Footnote 102: Wells Williams, _Middle Kingdom_, i. 646.]
[Footnote 103: Griffis, _Corea_, p. 328 _sq._]
[Footnote 104: _Hsiáo King_, 1, 7, 9 (_Sacred Books of the East_, iii. 446, 473, 476).]
[Footnote 105: Douglas, _Confucianism and Taouism_, p. 118.]
[Footnote 106: Griffis, _Corea_, pp. 236, 259.]
[Footnote 107: Rein, _Japan_, p. 427. Griffis, _Religions of Japan_, p. 122 _sq._]
[Footnote 108: Griffis, _Religions of Japan_, p. 148.]
[Footnote 109: _Idem_, _Mikado's Empire_, p. 555. _Cf._ Rein, _Japan_, p. 427.]
[Footnote 110: Griffis, _Corea_, p. 259.]
It is the general opinion of Assyriologists that in ancient Chaldæa, at least in the early period of its history, the father had absolute authority over all the members of his household.[111] Anything undertaken by them without his consent was held invalid in the eyes of the law,[112] and a disobedient son might be sold as a slave.[113] According to the Laws of [Hv]ammurabi, a man might give his son or daughter as a hostage for debts;[114] but he could not disown his children at discretion. It is said that if he wishes to cut off his son he must declare his intention to the judge, whereupon "the judge shall enquire into his reasons, and if the son has not committed a heavy crime which cuts off from sonship, the father shall not cut off his son from sonship."[115] Professor Hommel believes that the mother's authority over her children was as great as the father's,[116] whereas Meissner concludes that it was less, from the fact that her children are not seldom found to be at law with her in matters of succession.[117] Among the Hebrews a father might sell his child to relieve his own distress, or offer it to a creditor as a pledge.[118] He had not only unlimited power to marry his daughters, but even to sell them as maids into concubinage, though not to a foreign people.[119] He also chose wives for his sons;[120] and there is no indication that the subjection of sons ceased after a certain age.[121] How important were the duties of the child to the {610} parents is shown in the primitive typical relation of Isaac to Abraham, and may be at once learned from the placing of the law on the subject among the Ten Commandments, and from its position there in the immediate proximity to the commands relating to the duties of man towards God.[122] Philo Judæus observes that it occupies this position because parents are something between divine and human nature, partaking of both--of human nature inasmuch as it is plain that they have been born and that they will die, and of divine nature because they have engendered other beings, and have brought what did not exist into existence. What God is to the world, that parents are to their children; they are "the visible gods."[123] In Muhammedan countries parents have practically great authority over their children. Should a father exceed the bounds of moderation or justice in chastising his son, the idea of prosecuting him would hardly occur to anyone, the injured party being prevented by public opinion, if not by habit and feeling, from appealing against his own father.[124] Disobedience to parents is considered by Moslems as one of the greatest of sins, and is put, in point of heinousness, on a par with idolatry, murder, and desertion in an expedition against infidels. "An undutiful child," says Mr. Lane, "is very seldom heard of among the Egyptians or the Arabs in general. . . . Sons scarcely sit or eat or smoke in the presence of the father, unless bidden to do so."[125] In Morocco it is curious to see big, grown-up sons sneak away as soon as they hear their father's steps, or to notice their absolute reticence in his presence. Children's deference for their mothers is less formal, but almost equally great.[126]
[Footnote 111: Oppert, in _Göttingische gelehrte Anzeigen_, 1879, p. 1604 _sqq._ Hommel, _Die semitischen Völker und Sprachen_, i. 416. Meissner, _Beiträge zum altbabylonischen Privatrecht_, p. 14 _sq._]
[Footnote 112: Maspero, _Dawn of Civilization_, p. 134.]
[Footnote 113: Hommel, _op. cit._ i. 416. Meissner, _op. cit._ p. 1.]
[Footnote 114: _Laws of [Hv]ammurabi_, 117.]
[Footnote 115: _Ibid._ 168.]
[Footnote 116: Hommel, _op. cit._ i. 416.]
[Footnote 117: Meissner, _op. cit._ p. 15.]
[Footnote 118: Ewald, _Antiquities of Israel_, p. 190. Wellhausen, _Prolegomena to the History of Israel_, p. 465.]
[Footnote 119: _Exodus_, xxi. 7 _sq._]
[Footnote 120: _Genesis_, xxiv. 4; xxviii. 1 _sq._ _Exodus_, xxxiv. 16. _Deuteronomy_, vii, 3.]
[Footnote 121: _Cf._ Michaelis, _Commentaries on the Laws of Moses_, i. 444.]
[Footnote 122: _Cf._ Ewald, _op. cit._ p. 188; Gans, _Das Erbrecht in weltgeschichtlicher Entwickelung_, i. 134.]
[Footnote 123: Philo Judæus, _Opera_, i. 759 _sqq._]
[Footnote 124: Urquhart, _Spirit of the East_, ii. 440 _sq._]
[Footnote 125: Lane, _Manners and Customs of the Modern Egyptians_, p. 70. _Cf._ Pool, _Studies in Mohammedanism_, p. 171.]
[Footnote 126: _Cf._ Urquhart, _op. cit._ ii. 265 _sq._]
Among the ancient Romans, in relation to the house-father, "all in the household were destitute of legal rights--the wife and the child no less than the bullock or the {611} slave."[127] The father not only had judicial authority over his children--implying the right of inflicting capital punishment on them[128]--but he could sell them at discretion.[129] Even the grown-up son and his children were subject to the house-father's authority,[130] and in marriage without _conventio in manum_ a daughter remained in the power of her father or tutor even after marriage.[131] Filial piety, including reverence not only for the father but for the mother also, was regarded as a most sacred duty.[132] To the ancient Roman the parents were hardly less sacred beings than the gods.[133]
[Footnote 127: Mommsen, _History of Rome_, i. 74.]
[Footnote 128: _Supra_, p. 393.]
[Footnote 129: Dionysius of Halicarnassus, _Antiquitates Romanæ_, ii. 27.]
[Footnote 130: _Institutiones_, i. 9. 3.]
[Footnote 131: Westermarck, _op. cit._ p. 230.]
[Footnote 132: Leist, _Græco-italische Rechtsgeschichte_, p. 11 _sqq._ _Idem_, _Alt-arisches Jus Gentium_, p. 185.]
[Footnote 133: Valerius Maximus, i. 1. 13: "Pari vindicta parentum ac deorum violatio expianda est." Servius, _In Virgilii Georgicon_, ii. 473: "Sacra deorum sancta apud illos sunt, sancti etiam parentes."]
It has been suggested by Sir Henry Maine and others that the _patria potestas_ of the Romans was a survival of the paternal authority which existed among the primitive Aryans.[134] But no clear evidence of the general prevalence of such unlimited authority among other so-called Aryan peoples has been adduced. The ancient jurist observed, "The power which we have over our children is peculiar to Roman citizens; for there are no other nations possessing the same power over their children as we have over ours."[135] That among the Greeks and Teutons the father had the right to expose his children in their infancy, to sell them, in case of urgency, as long as they remained in his power,[136] and to give away his daughters in marriage,[137] does not imply the possession of a sovereignty like that which the Roman house-father exercised over his descendants of all ages. In Greece[138] and among all the Teutonic {612} nations[139] the father's authority over his sons came to an end when the son grew up and left his home. But here again we must distinguish between the legal rights of parents and the duties of children. There are numerous passages in the Greek writings which put filial piety on a par with the duties towards the gods.[140]
[Footnote 134: Maine, _Ancient Law_, p. 138. Fustel de Coulanges, _La cité antique_, p. 96 _sqq._ Hearn, _Aryan Household_, p. 92.]
[Footnote 135: _Institutiones_, i. 9. 2.]
[Footnote 136: Leist, _Græco-italische Rechtsgeschichte_, p. 60 _sq._ Grimm, _Deutsche Rechtsalterthümer_, p. 461 _sq._ Brunner, _Deutsche Rechtsgeschichte_, i. 76. In France the parents' right of selling their children gradually disappeared under the kings of the third race (de Laurière, in Loysel, _Institutes coutumières_, i. 82).]
[Footnote 137: Westermarck, _op. cit._ p. 232 _sqq._]
[Footnote 138: Leist, _Græco-italische Rechtsgeschichte_, p. 62 _sq._ Cauvet, 'De l'organisation de la famille à Athènes,' in _Revue de législation_, xxiv. 138.]
[Footnote 139: Grimm, _Deutsche Rechtsalterthümer_, p. 462. Brunner, _Deutsche Rechtsgeschichte_, i. 75 _sq._]
[Footnote 140: Schmidt, _Ethik der alten Griechen_, ii. 141 _sq._]
Nor is there any evidence that the _patria potestas_ of the Roman type ever prevailed in full in India, great though the father's or parent's authority has been, and still is, among the Hindus.[141] Among the Vedic people the father seems to have been the head of the family only as long as he was able to be its protector and maintainer,[142] decrepit parents being even allowed to die of starvation.[143] According to some sacred books from a later age, the father and the mother have power to give, to sell, and to abandon their son, because "man formed of uterine blood and virile seed proceeds from his mother and his father as an effect from its cause"; however, an only son may not be given or received in adoption, nor is a woman allowed to give or receive a son except with her husband's permission.[144] In other books it is said that "the gift or acceptance of a child and the right to sell or buy a child are not recognised,"[145] and that he who casts off his son--unless the son be guilty of a crime causing loss of caste--shall be fined by the king six hundred _panas_.[146] But whatever be the legal rights of a parent, filial piety is a most stringent duty in the child.[147] A man has three Atigurus, or specially venerable superiors: his father, mother, and spiritual teacher. To them he must always pay obedience. He must do what is agreeable and serviceable to them. He must never do anything without their leave.[148] "By honouring these three all that ought to be done by man is accomplished; {613} that is clearly the highest duty, every other act is a subordinate duty."[149] Similar feelings prevail among the modern Hindus.[150] Sir W. H. Sleeman observes, "There is no part of the world, I believe, where parents are so much reverenced by their sons as they are in India in all classes of society." The duty of daughters is from the day of their marriage transferred entirely to their husbands and their husbands' parents, but between the son and his parents the reciprocity of rights and duties which have bound together the parent and child from infancy follows them to the grave. The sons are often actually tyrannised over by their mothers.[151]
[Footnote 141: Westermarck, _op. cit._ p. 231 _sq._]
[Footnote 142: _Rig-Veda_, i. 70. 5.]
[Footnote 143: Zimmer, _Altindisches Leben_, p. 328.]
[Footnote 144: _Vasishtha_, xv. 1 _sqq._ _Baudhâyana Parisishta_, vii. 5. 2 _sqq._]
[Footnote 145: _Âpastamba_, ii. 6. 13. 11.]
[Footnote 146: _Laws of Manu_, viii. 389. _Cf._ _ibid._ xi. 60.]
[Footnote 147: _Âpastamba_, i. 4. 14. 6. _Laws of Manu_, ii. 225 _sqq._; iv. 162; &c.]
[Footnote 148: _Institutes of Vishnu_, ch. 31.]
[Footnote 149: _Laws of Manu_, ii. 237.]
[Footnote 150: Nelson, _View of the Hind[=u] Law_, p. 56 _sq._ Ghani, 'Social Life and Morality in India,' in _International Journal of Ethics_, vii. 312.]
[Footnote 151: Sleeman, _Rambles and Recollections of an Indian Official_, i. 330 _sqq._]
According to ancient Russian laws, fathers had great power over their children;[152] but it is not probable that a son could be sold as a slave.[153] Baron von Haxthausen, who wrote before the Emancipation in 1861, says that "the patriarchal government, feelings, and organisation are in full activity in the life, manners, and customs of the Great Russians. The same unlimited authority which the father exercises over all his children is possessed by the mother over her daughters."[154] It was a common custom for a father to marry his young sons to full-grown women; and in Poland also, according to Nestor, a father used to select a bride for his son.[155] According to Professor Bogi[vs]i['c], the power of the father is not so great among the Southern Slavs as among the Russians;[156] but a son is not permitted to make a proposal of marriage to a girl against the will of his parents, whilst a daughter, of course, enjoys still less freedom of disposing of her own hand.[157] According to a Slavonian maxim, "a father is like an earthly god to his son."[158]
[Footnote 152: Accurse, quoted by de Laurière, in Loysel, _op. cit._ i. 82.]
[Footnote 153: Macieiowski, _Slavische Rechtsgeschichte_, iv. 404.]
[Footnote 154: von Haxthausen, _Russian Empire_, ii. 229 _sq._]
[Footnote 155: Westermarck, _op. cit._ p. 234. Macieiowski, _op. cit._ ii. 189.]
[Footnote 156: Maine, _Early Law and Custom_, p. 244, note.]
[Footnote 157: Krauss, _Sitte und Brauch der Südslaven_, pp. 314, 320.]
[Footnote 158: Maine, _Early Law and Custom_, p. 243.]
{614} Among this group of peoples, also, we meet with reverence for the elder brother, for persons of a superior age generally, and, especially, for the aged.
Obedience on the part of the younger to the elder brother is strongly inculcated by Confucianism and Taouism.[159] In ancient China the eldest son of the principal wife held so high a position that even his own father had to mourn for him at his death in the selfsame degree in which the son was bound to mourn for his father;[160] and in some provinces of Japan the elder brother or sister did not even go to the funeral of the younger.[161] In Babylonia the elder brother occupied a privileged position in the family in relation to the younger.[162] In one of the Mandæan writings it is said, "Honour your father and your mother and your elder brother as your father."[163] According to the sacred books of the Hindus, "the feet of elder brothers and sisters must be embraced, according to the order of their seniority";[164] "towards a sister of one's father and of one's mother, and towards one's own elder sister, one must behave as towards one's mother," though the mother is more venerable than they.[165]
[Footnote 159: Douglas, _Confucianism and Taouism_, pp. 123, 124, 259. Griffis, _Religions of Japan_, p. 125 _sq._]
[Footnote 160: de Groot, _op. cit._ (vol. ii. book) i. 509.]
[Footnote 161: Griffis, _Religions of Japan_, p. 127.]
[Footnote 162: Hommel, _op. cit._ i. 417 _sq._]
[Footnote 163: Brandt, _Mandäische Schriften_, p. 64.]
[Footnote 164: _Âpastamba_, i. 4. 14. 9. _Cf._ _ibid._ i. 4. 14. 14; _Laws of Manu_, ii. 225.]
[Footnote 165: _Laws of Manu_, ii. 133.]
Again, in ancient Mexico respect was paid not only by children to their parents but by the young to the old.[166] Among the Yucatans "the young reverenced much the aged."[167] In China persons of the lowest class who have attained to an unusual age have not infrequently been distinguished by the Emperor,[168] and even criminals with grey hairs are treated with regard.[169] "Respect for elders," says Mencius, "is the working of righteousness";[170] and it is said in Thâi Shang that the good man "will respect the old and cherish the young."[171] A Japanese proverb runs, "Regard an old man as thy father."[172] We read in Leviticus, "Thou shalt rise up before the hoary head, and honour the face of the old man, and fear thy God."[173] Veneration {615} for the aged is emphatically inculcated by Islam.[174] In the sacred books of India it is represented as a virtue.[175] Herodotus states that the Egyptians resembled the Lacedæmonians in the reverence the young men paid to their elders.[176] Plato says in his 'Laws' that everybody ought to consider that the elder has the precedence of the younger in honour, both among the gods as also among men who would live in security and happiness; wherefore it is a foolish thing and hateful to the gods to see an elder man assaulted by a younger in the city. Everybody ought to regard a person who is twenty years older than himself, whether male or female, as his father or mother, and to abstain from laying hands on any such person "out of reverence to the gods who preside over birth."[177] Regard for old age lies behind such words as _presbyter_ and the Anglo-Saxon _ealdormonn_; and all travellers among the Southern Slavs have noticed their extraordinary respect for old people.[178]
[Footnote 166: Clavigero, _op. cit._ i. 8l. _Cf._ _ibid._ i. 332.]
[Footnote 167: Landa, _Relacion de las cosas de Yucatan_, p. 178.]
[Footnote 168: Davis, _China_, ii. 97.]
[Footnote 169: Wells Williams, _Middle Empire_, i. 805.]
[Footnote 170: Mencius, vii. 1. 15. 3.]
[Footnote 171: _Thâi Shang_, 3.]
[Footnote 172: Griffis, _Mikado's Empire_, p. 505.]
[Footnote 173: _Leviticus_, xix. 32. _Cf._ _Job_, xxxii. 1; _Proverbs_, xvi. 31, and xx. 29.]
[Footnote 174: Ameer Ali, _Ethics of Islâm_, p. 27 _sq._]
[Footnote 175: _Âpastamba_, i. 5. 15. _Laws of Manu_, ii. 121. _Dhammapada_, 109.]
[Footnote 176: Herodotus, ii. 80.]
[Footnote 177: Plato, _Leges_, ix. 879. _Cf._ _Idem_, _Respublica_, v. 465.]
[Footnote 178: Maine, _Early Law and Custom_, p. 243.]
In Europe the paternal authority of the archaic type which we have just considered has gradually yielded to a system under which the father has been divested of the most essential rights he formerly possessed over his children--a system the inmost drift of which is expressed in the words of the French Encyclopedist, "Le pouvoir paternel est plutôt un devoir qu'un pouvoir."[179] Already in pagan times the Roman _patria potestas_ became a shadow of what it had been. Under the Republic the abuses of paternal authority were checked by the censors, and in later times the Emperors reduced the father's power within comparatively narrow limits. Not only was the life of the child practically as sacred as that of the parent long before Christianity became the religion of Rome,[180] but Alexander Severus ordained that heavy punishments should be inflicted on members of a family by the magistrate only. Diocletian and Maximilian took away the power of selling freeborn children as slaves. The father's privilege of {616} dictating marriage for his sons declined into a conditional veto; and it seems that the daughters also, at length, gained a certain amount of freedom in the choice of a husband.[181]
[Footnote 179: _Encyclopédie méthodique_, Jurisprudence, vii. 77, art. Puissance paternelle.]
[Footnote 180: _Supra_, p. 393 _sq._]
[Footnote 181: Westermarck, _op. cit._ p. 236.]
The new religion was anything but unfavourable to this process of emancipation. The ethical precept of filial piety was changed by Christ. His church was a militant church. He had come not to send peace but a sword, "to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother."[182] Being chiefly addressed to the young, the new teaching naturally caused much disorder in families. Fathers disinherited their converted sons,[183] and children thought that they owed no duty to their parents where such a duty was opposed to the interests of their souls. According to Gregory the Great, we ought to ignore our parents, hating them and flying from them when they are an obstacle to us in the way of the Lord;[184] and this became the accepted theory of the Church.[185] Nay, it was not only in similar cases of conflict that Christianity exercised a weakening influence on family ties which had previously been regarded with religious veneration. In all circumstances the relationship between child and parent was put in the shade by the relationship between man and God. "Call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in Heaven."[186] "If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple."[187] At the same time the fifth commandment, though modified by considerations which would never have occurred to the mind of an orthodox Jew, was left formally intact. Obedience to parents was, in fact, repeatedly enjoined by St. Paul as a Christian duty.[188] It was regarded as a prerequisite {617} for the veneration of God. "If we do not honour and reverence our parents, whom we ought to love next to God, and whom we have almost continually before our eyes, how can we honour or reverence God, the supreme and best of parents, whom we cannot see?"[189]
[Footnote 182: _St. Matthew_, x. 34 _sq._ _St. Luke_, xii. 51 _sqq._]
[Footnote 183: Tertullian, _Apologeticus_, 3 (Migne, _Patrologiæ cursus_, i. 280 _sq._).]
[Footnote 184: St. Gregory the Great, _Homiliæ in Evangelia_, xxxvii. 2 (Migne, _op. cit._ lxxvi. 1275).]
[Footnote 185: Thomas Aquinas, _Summa theologica_, ii.-ii. 101. 4.]
[Footnote 186: _St. Matthew_, xxiii. 9.]
[Footnote 187: _St. Luke_, xiv. 26.]
[Footnote 188: _Ephesians_, vi. 1 _sqq._ _Colossians_, iii. 20.]
[Footnote 189: _Catechism of the Council of Trent_, iii. 5. 1.]
Ancient, deep-rooted ideas die slowly. Whilst among Teutonic peoples the grown-up child is recognised both by custom and law as independent of the parents, and the parental authority over minors is regarded merely in the light of guardianship,[190] the Roman notions of paternal rights and filial duties have to some extent survived in Latin countries, not only through the Middle Ages, but up to the present time. "Above the majesty of the feudal baron," says M. Bernard, "that of the paternal power was held still more sacred and inviolable. However powerful the son might be, he would not have dared to outrage his father, whose authority was in his eyes always confounded with the sovereignty of command."[191] Du Vair remarks, "Nous devons tenir nos pères comme des dieux en terre."[192] Bodin wrote, in the later part of the sixteenth century, that, though the monarch commands his subjects, the master his disciples, the captain his soldiers, there is none to whom nature has given any command except the father, "who is the true image of the great sovereign God, universal father of all things."[193] According to edicts of Henry III., Louis XIII., and Louis XIV., sons could not marry before the age of thirty, nor daughters before the age of twenty-five, without the consent of the father and mother, on pain of being disinherited.[194] And even now in France considerable power is accorded to parents, not only by custom and public sentiment, but by law. A child cannot quit the paternal residence without the permission of the father before the age of twenty-one, except for enrolment {618} in the army.[195] For grave misconduct by his children the father has strong means of correction.[196] A son under twenty-five and a daughter under twenty-one could not until 1907 marry without parental consent;[197] and even when a man had attained his twenty-fifth year and a woman her twenty-first, both were still bound to ask for it, by a formal notification.[198]
[Footnote 190: Starcke, _La famille dans les différentes sociétés_, p. 213 _sqq._]
[Footnote 191: Bernard, quoted in Spencer's _Descriptive Sociology_, France, p. 38.]
[Footnote 192: Du Vair, quoted by de Ribbe, _Les familles et la société en France avant la Révolution_, p. 51.]
[Footnote 193: Bodin, _De republica_, i. 4, p. 31.]
[Footnote 194: Koenigswarter, _Histoire de l'organisation de la famille en France_, p. 231.]
[Footnote 195: _Code Civil_, art. 374.]
[Footnote 196: _Ibid._ art. 375 _sqq._]
[Footnote 197: _Ibid._ art. 148.]
[Footnote 198: _Ibid._ art. 151.]
The parental authority depends, in the first place, on the natural superiority of parents over their children when young, and on the helplessness of the latter; and for similar reasons the daughter, though grown-up, still remains in her father's power. Parents are, moreover, considered to possess in some measure proprietary rights over their offspring, being their originators and maintainers;[199] and in various cases, it seems, the father is also regarded as their owner because he is the owner of their mother. Filial duties and parental rights to some extent spring from the children's natural feeling of affection for their parents,[200] particularly for their mother,[201] and from the debt of gratitude which they are considered to owe to those who have brought them into existence and taken care of them whilst young.[202] The authority of parents is much enhanced and extended by the sentiment of filial reverence, as distinct from mere affection. From their infancy children are used to look up to their parents, {619} especially the father, as to beings superior to themselves; and this feeling, which by itself has a tendency to persist, is all the more likely to last even when the parents get old, as it is based not only on superior strength and bodily skill, but on superior knowledge, which remains though the physical power be on the wane. Among savages, in particular, filial regard is largely regard for one's elders or the aged. The old men represent the wisdom of the tribe. "Long life and wisdom," say the Iroquois, "are always connected together."[203] Throughout all West Africa the aged are "the knowing ones."[204] In his work on the Algerian natives M. Villot observes:--"Les vieillards, au milieu des sociétés barbares, représentent la tradition qui tient lieu de patrie; la science des coutumes et usages qui remplacent la loi; la connaissance des généalogies qui fixe les degrés de parenté et sert de base à la détermination des titres de propriété. Pour ces causes, aussi bien qu'en raison de leur faiblesse et de leurs cheveux blancs, le respect pour les vieillards est de règle au milieu des indigènes."[205] Among people who possess no literature the old men are the sole authorities on religion, as well as on custom. In Australia the deference shown to them is partly due to the superstitious awe of certain mysterious rites which are known to them alone, and to the knowledge of which young persons are only very gradually admitted.[206] Moreover, old age itself inspires a feeling of mysterious awe. The Moors say that, when getting old, a man becomes a saint, and a woman a _jinnía_, or evil spirit--there is something supernatural in both. Among the East African Embe "it is only by means of the rankest superstition that the old men are able to maintain their supremacy over the hot-blooded youths"; they convince the warriors, by presenting them {620} with some magic emblem, that in the hands of the sages alone rest the fate and fortune of those who fight in a battle. And old women, also, are often believed to possess supernatural power, in which case their influence, in spite of the subservient position of their sex in general, is almost as great as that of a medicine-man.[207] According to the beliefs of the natives of Western Victoria, witches always appear in the form of an old woman.[208] Among the Maoris some of the aged women exercise the greatest influence over their tribes, being supposed to possess the power of witchcraft and sorcery.[209] Among the Abipones, says Charlevoix, "the old women take upon them to be great witches; and it would be no easy matter to convert them."[210] In Arabia, as well as in Morocco, old women are always believed to be skilled in sorcery.[211]
[Footnote 199: _Cf._ _Vasishtha_, xv. 1 _sq._; _Bandháyana Parisishta_, vii. 5. 2 _sq._]
[Footnote 200: For instances of filial affection among savages see Catlin, _North American Indians_, ii. 242; Powers, _Tribes of California_, p. 112 (Mattoal); Selenka, _Sonnige Welten_, p. 34 (Dyaks); Seemann, _Viti_, p. 193; Mathew, 'Australian Aborigines,' in _Jour. & Proceed. Roy. Soc. N.S. Wales_, xxiii. 388.]
[Footnote 201: For instances of great affection for the mother, see Munzinger, _Ostafrikanische Studien_, p. 474 (Barea and Kunáma); Winterbottom, _Native Africans in the Neighbourhood of Sierra Leone_, i. 211; Park, _Travels in the Interior of Africa_, p. 241; New, _op. cit._ p. 101 (Wanika); François, _Nama und Damara, Deutsch-Süd-West-Afrika_, p. 251 (Mountain Damaras); Rowley, _Africa Unveiled_, p. 164; Lane, _Manners and Customs of the Modern Egyptians_, p. 70 _sq._; Urquhart, _op. cit._ ii. 265 _sq._ (Turks); Schmidt, _Ethik der alten Griechen_, ii. 146, 155. It is said in the Talmud that the child loves its mother more than its father, whilst it fears its father more than its mother (Deutsch, _Literary Remains_, p. 55).]
[Footnote 202: _Hsiáo King_, 9 (_Sacred Books of the East_, iii. 479). _Laws of Manu_, ii. 227. Plato, _Leges_, iv. 717.]
[Footnote 203: Loskiel, _History of the Mission of the United Brethren among the Indians in North America_, i. 15.]
[Footnote 204: Kingsley, _West African Studies_, p. 142.]
[Footnote 205: Villot, _M[oe]urs, coutumes et institutions des indigènes de l'Algérie_, p. 47.]
[Footnote 206: Schuermann, 'Aboriginal Tribes of Port Lincoln,' in Woods, _Native Tribes of South Australia_, p. 226. _Cf._ Nelson, 'Eskimo about Bering Strait,' in _Ann. Rep. Bur. Ethn._ xviii. 304.]
[Footnote 207: Chanler, _op. cit._ pp. 247, 252.]
[Footnote 208: Dawson, _Australian Aborigines_, p. 52.]
[Footnote 209: Angas, _Savage Life and Scenes in Australia and New Zealand_, i. 317.]
[Footnote 210: Charlevoix, _History of Paraguay_, i. 406.]
[Footnote 211: Niebuhr, _Travels in Arabia_, ii. 216.]
The beliefs held regarding the dead also influence the treatment of the aged whose lives are drawing to an end. Certain African tribes treat their old people with every kindness in order to secure their goodwill after death.[212] A missionary in East Africa heard a negro say with reference to an old man, "We will do what he says, because he is soon going to die."[213] The Omahas "were afraid to abandon their aged on the prairie when away from their permanent villages lest Wakanda should punish them";[214] and in this case it seems that Wakanda, at least originally meant the ghost of the dead. The Niase is an egoist ever in his respect for the old, because he hopes that they will protect and assist him when they are dead.[215] In China the doctrine that ghosts may interfere at any moment with human business and fate, either favourably or unfavourably, "enforces respect for human life and a charitable {621} treatment of the infirm, the aged, and the sick, especially if they stand on the brink of the grave."[216] The regard for the aged and the worship of the dead are often mentioned together in a way which suggests that there exists an intrinsic connection between them. Of the Dacotahs Prescott observes, "Veneration is very great in some Indians for old age, and they all feel it for the dead."[217] The worship of ancestors is a distinguishing characteristic of the religious system of Southern Guinea; the "profound respect for aged persons, by a very natural operation of the mind, is turned into idolatrous regard for them when dead."[218] "The Barotse chiefly worship the souls of their ancestors. . . . Cognate to this worship of ancestors is the great respect displayed for parents and the old--especially the eldest of a family or tribe."[219] Among the Herero "the tomb of a father is the most important of all holy places, the soul of a father the oracle most often consulted."[220] The Aetas of the Philippine Islands "have a profound respect for old-age and for their dead."[221] The Ossetes "show the greatest love and veneration to their parents, to old age generally, and especially to the memory of their ancestors."[222] In cases like these, however, it is impossible accurately to distinguish between cause and effect. Whilst the worship of the dead is, in the first place, due to the mystery of death, it is evident that the regard in which a person is held during his lifetime also influences the veneration which is bestowed on his disembodied soul.
[Footnote 212: Arnot, _op. cit._ p. 78, note.]
[Footnote 213: Lippert, _Kulturgeschichte der Menschheit_, i. 229.]
[Footnote 214: Dorsey, 'Omaha Sociology,' in _Ann. Rep. Bur. Ethn._ iii. 369. _Cf._ _ibid._ p. 275.]
[Footnote 215: Modigliani, _Viaggio a Nías_, p. 467.]
[Footnote 216: de Groot, _op. cit._ (vol. iv. book) ii. 450.]
[Footnote 217: Prescott, in Schoolcraft, _Indian Tribes of the United States_, ii. 196.]
[Footnote 218: Wilson, _Western Africa_, p. 392 _sq._]
[Footnote 219: Decle, _Three Years in Savage Africa_, p. 74 _sq._]
[Footnote 220: François, _op. cit._ p. 192.]
[Footnote 221: Foreman, _op. cit._ p. 209.]
[Footnote 222: von Haxthausen, _Transcaucasia_, p. 414.]
There are thus obvious reasons for the connection between filial submissiveness and religious beliefs; but the chief cause of this connection seems to be the extreme importance frequently attached to the curses and blessings of parents. Among the Nandi in Central Africa, "if a {622} son refuses to obey his father in any serious matter, the father solemnly strikes the son with his fur mantle. This is equivalent to a most serious curse, and is supposed to be fatal to the son unless he obtains forgiveness, which he can only do by sacrificing a goat before his father."[223] Among the Mpongwe "there is nothing which a young person so much deprecates as the curse of an aged person, and especially that of a revered father."[224] The Barea and Kunáma are convinced that any undertaking which has not the blessing of the old people will fail, that every curse uttered by them must be destructive.[225] Among the Bogos nobody takes an employment or gives it up, nobody engages in a business or contracts a marriage, before he has received the blessing of his father or his master.[226] Among the Herero, "when a chief feels his dissolution approaching, he calls his sons to the bedside, and gives them his benediction."[227] The Moors have a proverb that "if the saints curse you the parents will cure you, but if the parents curse you the saints will not cure you." The ancient Hebrews believed that parents, and especially a father, could by their blessings or curses determine the fate of their children;[228] indeed, we have reason to assume that the reward which in the fifth commandment is held out to respectful children was originally a result of parental blessings. We still meet with the original idea in Ecclesiasticus, where it is said: "Honour thy father and mother both in word and deed, that a blessing may come upon thee from them. For the blessing of the father establisheth the houses of children; but the curse of the mother rooteth out foundations."[229] The same notion that the parents' blessings beget prosperity, and that their curses bring ruin, prevailed in ancient Greece. Plato says {623} in his 'Laws':--"Neither God, nor a man who has understanding, will ever advise any one to neglect his parents. . . . If a man has a father or mother, or their fathers or mothers treasured up in his house stricken in years, let him consider that no statue can be more potent to grant his requests than they are, who are sitting at his hearth, if only he knows how to show true service to them. . . . Oedipus, as tradition says, when dishonoured by his sons, invoked on them curses which every one declares to have been heard and ratified by the gods, and Amyntor in his wrath invoked curses on his son Phoenix, and Theseus upon Hippolytus, and innumerable others have also called down wrath upon their children, whence it is clear that the gods listen to the imprecations of parents; for the curses of parents are, as they ought to be, mighty against their children as no others are. And shall we suppose that the prayers of a father or mother who is specially dishonoured by his or her children, are heard by the gods in accordance with nature; and that if a parent is honoured by them, and in the gladness of his heart earnestly entreats the gods in his prayers to do them good, he is not equally heard, and that they do not minister to his request? . . . Therefore, if a man makes a right use of his father and grandfather and other aged relations, he will have images which above all others will win him the favour of the gods."[230] Originally the efficacy of parents' curses and blessings were ascribed to a magic power immanent in the spoken word itself, and their Erinyes, who were no less terrible than the Erinyes of neglected guests,[231] were only personifications of their curses.[232] But in this, as in other similar cases already noticed, the fulfilment of the curse or the blessing came afterwards to be looked upon as an act of divine justice. According to Plato, "Nemesis, the messenger of justice," watches over unbecoming words uttered {624} to a parent;[233] and Hesiod says that if anybody reproaches an aged father or mother "Zeus himself is wroth, and at last, in requital for wrong deeds, lays on him a bitter penalty."[234] It also seems to be beyond all doubt that the _divi parentum_ of the Romans, like their _dii hospitales_, were nothing but personified curses. For it is said, "If a son beat his parent and he cry out, the son shall be devoted to the parental gods for destruction."[235] In aristocratic families in Russia children used to stand in mortal fear of their fathers' curses;[236] and the country people still believe that a marriage without the parents' approval will call down the wrath of Heaven on the heads of the young couple.[237] Some of the Southern Slavs maintain that if a son does not fulfil the last will of his father, the soul of the father will curse him from the grave.[238] The Servians say, "Without reverence for old men, there is no salvation."[239]
[Footnote 223: Johnston, _Uganda Protectorate_, ii. 879.]
[Footnote 224: Wilson, _Western Africa_, p. 393.]
[Footnote 225: Munzinger, _Ostafrikanische Studien_, p. 475.]
[Footnote 226: _Idem_, _Sitten der Bogos_, p. 90 _sq._]
[Footnote 227: Andersson, _Lake Ngami_, p. 228.]
[Footnote 228: _Genesis_, ix. 25 _sqq._; xxvii. 4, 19, 23, 25, 27 _sqq._; xlviii. 9, 14 _sqq._; xlix. 4, 7 _sqq._ _Judges_, xvii. 2. _Cf._ Cheyne, 'Blessings and Cursings,' in _Encyclopædia Biblica_, i. 592; Nowack, 'Blessing and Cursing,' in _Jewish Encyclopedia_, iii. 244.]
[Footnote 229: _Ecclesiasticus_, iii. 8 _sq._ _Cf._ _ibid._ iii. 16.]
[Footnote 230: Plato, _Leges_, xi. 930 _sq._ _Cf._ _ibid._ iv. 717.]
[Footnote 231: Aeschylus, _Eumenides_, 545 _sqq._]
[Footnote 232: See _Iliad_, xxi. 412 _sq._; Sophocles, _[OE]dipus Coloneus_, 1299, 1434; von Lasaulx, _Der Fluch bei Griechen und Römern_, p. 8; Müller, _Dissertations on the Eumenides_, p. 155 _sqq._; Rohde, 'Paralipomena,' in _Rheinisches Museum für Philologie_, 1895, p. 7.]
[Footnote 233: Plato, _Leges_, iv. 717.]
[Footnote 234: Hesiod, _Opera et dies_, 331 _sqq._ (329 _sqq._).]
[Footnote 235: Servius Tullius, in Bruns, _Fontes Juris Romani antiqui_, p. 14, and Festus, _De verborum significatione_, ver. _Plorare_: "Si parentem puer verberit, ast olle plorassit, puer divis parentum sacer esto." _Cf._ Leist, _Alt-arisches Jus Civile_, i. 184.]
[Footnote 236: I am indebted to Prince Kropotkin for this statement.]
[Footnote 237: Kovalewsky, _Modern Customs and Ancient Laws of Russia_, p. 37.]
[Footnote 238: Krauss, _op. cit._ p. 119.]
[Footnote 239: Maine, _Early Law and Custom_, p. 243.]
In various instances the rewards or punishments attached to the behaviour of children seem to spring from the belief in parental blessings and curses, although the cause is not expressly mentioned. According to ancient Hindu ideas, a father, mother, and spiritual teacher are equal to the three Vedas, equal to the three gods, Brahman, Vishnu, and Siva.[240] A man who shows no regard for them derives no benefit from any religious observance; whereas, "by honouring his mother, he gains the present world; by honouring his father, the world of gods; and by paying strict obedience to his spiritual teacher, the world of Brahman."[241] As in Greece a person who had assaulted his parent was regarded as polluted by a curse,[242] so according {625} to the sacred law of India, those who quarrel with their father, and those who have forsaken their father, mother, or spiritual teacher, defile a company and must not be entertained at a Srâddha offering.[243] Those who have struck any of these persons cannot be readmitted until they have been purified with water taken from a sacred lake or river.[244] The stain of disobedience towards mother and father is purged away with barley-corns, like food which has been licked at by dogs or pigs, or defiled by crows and impure men.[245] In the Dhammapada it is said that to him who always greets and constantly reveres the aged four things will increase, namely, life, beauty, happiness, and power.[246] The Coreans believe that "the richest rewards on earth and brightest heaven hereafter await the filial child," whereas "curses and disgrace in this life and the hottest hell in the world hereafter are the penalties of the disobedient or neglectful child."[247] It seems to have been a notion of the ancient Egyptians that a son who accepted the word of his father would attain old age on that account.[248] The following is an exhortation which an Aztec gave to his son:--"Guard against imitating the example of those wicked sons who, like brutes that are deprived of reason, neither reverence their parents, listen to their instruction, nor submit to their correction; because whoever follows their steps will have an unhappy end, will die in a desperate or sudden manner, or will be killed and devoured by wild beasts."[249] And if an Aztec married without the sanction of his parents, the belief was that he would be punished with some misfortune.[250] The Aleuts were of opinion that those who were attentive to feeble old men, expecting in exchange their good advice only, would be long-lived and fortunate in the chase and in war, and would not be neglected when growing old {626} themselves.[251] In the Tonga Islands "disrespect to one's superior relations is little short of sacrilege to the gods," and to pay respect to chiefs is "a superior sacred duty, the non-fulfilment of which it is supposed the gods would punish almost as severely as disrespect to themselves."[252] In the same islands great efficacy is ascribed to curses which are uttered by a superior.[253]
[Footnote 240: _Institutes of Vishnu_, xxxi. 7. _Laws of Manu_, ii. 230.]
[Footnote 241: _Institutes of Vishnu_, xxxi. 9 _sq._ _Cf._ _Laws of Manu_, ii. 233 _sq._]
[Footnote 242: Plato, _Leges_, ix. 881.]
[Footnote 243: _Institutes of Vishnu_, lxxxii. 28 _sqq._]
[Footnote 244: _Vasishtha_, xv. 19 _sq._]
[Footnote 245: _Baudháyana_, iii. 6. 5. _Institutes of Vishnu_, xlviii. 20.]
[Footnote 246: _Dhammapada_, 109.]
[Footnote 247: Griffis, _Corea_, p. 236.]
[Footnote 248: _Precepts of Ptah-Hotep_, 39.]
[Footnote 249: Clavigero, _op. cit._ i. 332. Torquemada, _Monarchia Indiana_, ii. 493.]
[Footnote 250: Torquemada, _op. cit._ ii. 415.]
[Footnote 251: Veniaminof, quoted by Petroff, _loc. cit._ p. 155.]
[Footnote 252: Mariner, _op. cit._ ii. 237, 155.]
[Footnote 253: _Ibid._ ii. 238.]
Why are the blessings and curses of parents supposed to possess such an extraordinary power? One reason is no doubt the mystery of old age and the nearness of death. As appears from several of the cases already referred to, it is not parents only but old people generally that are held capable of giving due effect to their good and evil wishes, and this capacity is believed to increase when life is drawing to its close. The Herero "know really no blessing save that conferred by the father on his death-bed."[254] According to old Teutonic ideas, the curse of a dying person was the strongest of all curses.[255] A similar notion prevailed among the ancient Arabs;[256] and among the Hebrews the father's mystic privilege of determining the weal or woe of his children was particularly obvious when his days were manifestly numbered.[257] But, at the same time, parental benedictions and imprecations possess a potency of their own owing to the parents' superior position in the family and the respect in which they are naturally held. The influence which such a superiority has upon the efficacy of curses is well brought out by various facts. According to the Greek notion, the Erinyes avenged wrongs done by younger members of a family to elder ones, even brothers and sisters, but not _vice versâ_.[258] The Arabs of Morocco say that the curse of a husband is as potent as that of a father. The Tonga Islanders believe {627} that curses have no effect "if the party who curses is considerably lower in rank than the party cursed."[259] Moreover, where the father was invested with sacerdotal functions--as was the case among the ancient nations of culture--his blessings and curses would for that reason also be efficacious in an exceptional degree.[260]
[Footnote 254: Ratzel, _History of Mankind_, ii. 468.]
[Footnote 255: Grimm, _Teutonic Mythology_, iv. 1690.]
[Footnote 256: Wellhausen, _Reste arabischen Heidentums_, pp. 139, 191.]
[Footnote 257: Cheyne, in _Encyclopædia Biblica_, i. 592.]
[Footnote 258: _Iliad_, xv. 204: "Thou knowest how the Erinyes do always follow to aid the elder-born." _Cf._ Müller, _Dissertations on the Eumenides_, p. 155 _sq._]
[Footnote 259: Mariner, _op. cit._ ii. 238.]
[Footnote 260: _Cf._ Nowack, in _Jewish Encyclopedia_, iii. 243 _sq._]
However, the facts which we have hitherto considered are hardly sufficient to account for the extraordinary development of the paternal authority in the archaic State. Great though it be, the influence which magic and religious beliefs exercise upon the paternal authority is, as we have just seen, largely of a reactive character. A father's blessings would not be so eagerly sought for, nor would his curses be so greatly feared, if he were a less important personage in the family. So, too, as Sir Henry Maine aptly remarks, the father's power is older than the practice of worshipping him. "Why should the dead father be worshipped more than any other member of the household unless he was the most prominent--it may be said, the most awful--figure in it during his life?"[261] We must assume that there exists some connection between the organisation of the family and the political constitution of the society. At the lower stages of civilisation--though hardly at the very lowest--we frequently find that the clan has attained such an overwhelming importance that only a very limited amount of authority could be claimed by the head of each separate family. But, as will be shown in a following chapter, this was changed when clans and tribes were united into a State. The new State tended to weaken and destroy the clan-system, whereas at the same time the family-tie grew in strength. In early society there seems to be an antagonism between the family and the clan. Where the clan-bond is very strong it encroaches upon the family feeling, and where it is loosened the family gains. Hence Dr. Grosse is probably right in his {628} assumption that the father became a patriarch, in the true sense of the word, only as the inheritor of the authority which formerly belonged to the clan.[262]
[Footnote 261: Maine, _Early Law and Custom_, p. 76.]
[Footnote 262: Grosse, _Die Formen der Familie_, p. 219.]
But whilst in its early days the State strengthened the family by weakening the clan, its later development had a different tendency. When national life grew more intense, when members of separate families drew nearer to one another in pursuit of a common goal, the family again lost in importance. It has been observed that in England and America, where political life is most highly developed, children's respect for their parents is at a particularly low ebb.[263] Other factors also, inherent in progressive civilisation, contributed to the downfall of the paternal power--the extinction of ancestor-worship, the decay of certain superstitious beliefs, the declining influence of religion, and last, but not least, the spread of a keener mutual sympathy throughout the State, which could not tolerate that the liberty of children should be sacrificed to the despotic rule of their fathers.
[Footnote 263: Monier Williams, _Indian Wisdom_, p. 440, n. 1.]
CHAPTER XXVI
THE SUBJECTION OF WIVES
AMONG the lower races, as a rule, a woman is always more or less in a state of dependence. When she is emancipated by marriage from the power of her father, she generally passes into the power of her husband. But the authority which the latter possesses over his wife varies extremely among different peoples.
Frequently the wife is said to be the property or slave of her husband. In Fiji "the women are kept in great subjection. . . . Like other property, wives may be sold at pleasure, and the usual price is a musket."[1] "The Carib woman is always in bondage to her male relations. To her father, brother, or husband she is ever a slave, and seldom has any power in the disposal of herself."[2] Many North American Indians are said to treat their wives much as they treat their dogs.[3] Among the Shoshones "the man is the sole proprietor of his wives and daughters, and can barter them away, or dispose of them in any manner he may think proper."[4] Among the East African Wanika a woman "is a toy, a tool, a slave in the very worst sense; indeed she is treated as though she were a {630} mere brute."[5] Many other statements to a similar effect are met with in ethnographical literature.[6]
[Footnote 1: Wilkes, _U.S. Exploring Expedition_, iii. 332.]
[Footnote 2: Brett, _Indian Tribes of Guiana_, p. 353.]
[Footnote 3: Harmon, _Journal of Voyages in the Interior of North America_, p. 344.]
[Footnote 4: Lewis and Clarke, _Travels to the Source of the Missouri River_, p. 307.]
[Footnote 5: New, _Life, Wanderings, and Labourings in Eastern Africa_, p. 119.]
[Footnote 6: Gibbs, 'Tribes of Western Washington and Northwestern Oregon,' in _Contributions to N. American Ethnology_, i. 198. von Martius, _Beiträge zur Ethnographie Amerika's_, i. 104 (Brazilian Indians). Reade, _Savage Africa_, p. 548 (Negroes of Equatorial Africa). Proyart, 'History of Loango,' in Pinkerton, _Collection of Voyages and Travels_, xvi. 570 (Negroes of Loango). Andersson, _Notes on Travel in South Africa_, p. 236 (Ovambo). Castrén, _Nordiska resor och forskningar_, i. 310; ii. 56 (Ostyaks). In all these cases women are said to be mere articles of commerce, or slaves, or kept in a state of dependence bordering on slavery. In other instances women are said to be oppressed by their husbands, or treated as inferior beings (Waitz [-Gerland], _Anthropologie der Naturvölker_, iii. 100 [North American Indians]; vi. 626 [Melanesians]. Bancroft, _Native Races of the Pacific States_, i. 121 [Hare and Sheep Indians]. Powers, _Tribes of California_, p. 133 [Yuki]. Tuckey, _Expedition to Explore the River Zaire_, p. 371 [Negroes]. Ling Roth, _Aborigines of Tasmania_, p. 54).]
Yet it seems that even in cases where the husband's power over his wife is described as absolute, custom has not left her entirely destitute of rights. Of the Australian aborigines in general it is said that "the husband is the absolute owner of his wife (or wives)";[7] of the natives of Central Australia, that "each father of a family rules absolutely over his own circle";[8] of certain tribes in West Australia, that the state of slavery in which the women are kept is truly deplorable, and that the mere presence of their husbands makes them tremble.[9] But we have reason to believe that there is some exaggeration in these statements, and they certainly do not hold good of the whole Australian race. We have noticed above that custom does not really allow the Australian husband full liberty to kill his wife.[10] For punishing or divorcing her he must sometimes have the consent of the tribe.[11] There are even cases in which a wife whose husband has been unfaithful to her may complain of his conduct to the elders of the tribe, and he may have to suffer for it.[12] In North-West-Central Queensland the women are on one special occasion {631} allowed themselves to inflict punishments upon the men: at a certain stage of the initiation ceremony "each woman can exercise her right of punishing any man who may have ill-treated, abused, or 'hammered' her, and for whom she may have waited months or perhaps years to chastise."[13] Of the natives of Central Australia Messrs. Spencer and Gillen say that "the women are certainly not treated usually with anything which could be called excessive harshness";[14] and we hear from various authorities that in several Australian tribes married people are often much attached to each other, and continue to be so even when they grow old.[15] Among the aborigines of New South Wales, for instance, "the husbands are as a general rule fond of their wives, and the wives loyal and affectionate to their husbands."[16] Nay, white men who have lived among the blacks assure us that there are henpecked husbands even in the Australian desert.[17]
[Footnote 7: Curr, _The Australian Race_, i. 109.]
[Footnote 8: Eyre, _Expeditions of Discovery into Central Australia_, ii. 317.]
[Footnote 9: Salvado, _Mémoires historiques sur l'Australie_, p. 279. For other similar statements referring to the Australian aborigines, see Nieboer, _Slavery as an Industrial System_, p. 11.]
[Footnote 10: _Supra_, p. 418.]
[Footnote 11: Nieboer, _op. cit._ p. 17.]
[Footnote 12: _Ibid._ p. 18.]
[Footnote 13: Roth, _Ethnol. Studies among the North-West-Central Queensland Aborigines_, pp. 141, 176.]
[Footnote 14: Spencer and Gillen, _Native Tribes of Central Australia_, p. 50.]
[Footnote 15: Westermarck, _History of Human Marriage_, p. 359. Stirling, _Report of the Horn Expedition to Central Australia_, Anthropology, p. 36.]
[Footnote 16: Hill and Thornton, _Aborigines of New South Wales_, p. 7.]
[Footnote 17: Calvert, _Aborigines of Western Australia_, p. 31.]
Other instances may be added to show that the so-called absolute authority of husbands over their wives is not to be taken too literally. Of the Guiana Indians Sir E. F. Im Thurn observes:--"The woman is held to be as completely the property of the man as his dog. He may even sell her if he chooses."[18] But in another place the same authority admits not only that the women in a quiet way may have a considerable influence with the men, but that, "even if the men were--though this is in fact quite contrary to their nature--inclined to treat them cruelly, public opinion would prevent this."[19] Of the Plains Indians of the United States Colonel Dodge writes:--"The husband owns his wife entirely. He may abuse her, beat her, even kill her without question. She is more absolutely a slave than any negro before the war of rebellion." But {632} on the following page we are told that custom gives to every married woman of the tribes "the absolute right to leave her husband and become the wife of any other man, the sole condition being that the new husband must have the means to pay for her."[20] Among the Chippewyans the women are said to be "as much in the power of the men as any other articles of their property," although, at the same time, "they are always consulted, and possess a very considerable influence in the traffic with Europeans, and other important concerns."[21] Among the Mongols a woman is "entirely dependent on her husband"; yet "in the household the rights of the wife are nearly equal to those of the husband."[22] Dr. Paulitschke tells us that among the Somals, Danakil, and Gallas, a wife has no rights whatever in relation to her husband, being merely a piece of property; but subsequently we learn that she is his equal, and "a mistress of her own will."[23] We must certainly not, like Mr. Spencer, conclude that where women are exchangeable for oxen or other beasts they are "of course" regarded as equally without personal rights.[24] The bride-price is a compensation for the loss sustained in the giving up of the girl, and a remuneration for the expenses incurred in her maintenance till the time of her marriage;[25] it does not _eo ipso_ confer on the husband absolute rights over her. With reference to certain tribes in South-Eastern Africa, the Rev. James Macdonald observes:--"A man obtains a wife by giving her father a certain number of cattle. This, though often called such, is not purchase in the usual sense of the word. The woman does not become a chattel. She cannot be resold or ill-treated beyond well-defined legal limits. She retains certain rights to property and an interest in the cattle paid for her. They are a guarantee for the husband's good {633} behaviour."[26] There are even peoples among whom the husband's authority hardly exists, although he has had to pay for his wife.[27]
[Footnote 18: Im Thurn, _Indians of Guiana_, p. 223.]
[Footnote 19: _Ibid._ p. 215.]
[Footnote 20: Dodge, _Our Wild Indians_, p. 205 _sq._]
[Footnote 21: Mackenzie, _Voyages to the Frozen and Pacific Oceans_, p. cxxii. _sq._ Schoolcraft, _Archives of Aboriginal Knowledge_, v. 176.]
[Footnote 22: Prejevalsky, _Mongolia_, i. 69 _sqq._]
[Footnote 23: Paulitschke, _Ethnographie Nordost-Afrikas_, pp. 189, 190, 244.]
[Footnote 24: Spencer, _Principles of Sociology_, i. 750.]
[Footnote 25: Westermarck, _History of Human Marriage_, p. 402.]
[Footnote 26: Macdonald, _Light in Africa_, p. 159.]
[Footnote 27: _E.g._, the Navahos and Pelew Islanders (Westermarck, _op. cit._ pp. 392, 393, 398 _sq._ For the position of wives among these peoples, see _infra_, pp. 638, 643).]
Among many peoples the hardest drudgeries of life are said to be imposed on the women. Among the Kutchin "the women are literally beasts of burden to their lords and masters. All the heavy work is performed by them."[28] The Californian Karok, while on a journey, lays by far the greatest burdens on his wife, whom he regards as a drudge.[29] Among the Kenistenos the life of the women is an uninterrupted succession of toil and pain, hence "they are sometimes known to destroy their female children, to save them from the miseries which they themselves have suffered."[30] "The condition of the women among the Chaymas," says von Humboldt, "like that in all semi-barbarous nations, is a state of privation and suffering. The hardest labour is their share."[31] Among the Australian aborigines "wives have to undergo all the drudgery of the camp and the march, have the poorest food and the hardest work."[32] In Eastern Central Africa "the women hold an inferior position. They are viewed as beasts of burden, which do all the harder work."[33] Among the Kakhyens "the men are averse to labour, but the lot of all women, irrespective of rank, is one of drudgery";[34] and so forth.[35] But it seems that {634} these and similar statements, however correct they be, hardly express the whole truth. In early society each sex has its own pursuits. The man is responsible for the protection of the family, and, ultimately, for its support. His occupations are such as require strength and agility--fighting, hunting, fishing, the construction of implements for the chase and war, and, frequently, the cutting of trees and the building of lodges.[36] The woman may accompany him as a helpmate on his expeditions, sometimes even participating in the battle,[37] and when they travel she generally carries the baggage. But her principal occupations are universally of a domestic kind: she procures wood and water, prepares the food, dresses skins, makes clothes, takes care of the children. She, moreover, supplies the household with vegetable food, gathers roots, berries, acorns, and so forth, and among agricultural peoples very frequently cultivates the soil. Whilst cattle-rearing, having developed out of the chase, is largely a masculine pursuit,[38] agriculture, having developed out of collecting seeds and plants, originally devolves on the women.[39]
[Footnote 28: Hardisty, 'Loucheux Indians,' in _Smithsonian Report_, 1866, p. 312.]
[Footnote 29: Powers, _op. cit._ p. 23 _sq._]
[Footnote 30: Schoolcraft, _Archives of Aboriginal Knowledge_, v. 167.]
[Footnote 31: von Humboldt, _Personal Narrative of Travels_, iii. 238.]
[Footnote 32: Curr, _The Australian Race_, i. 110.]
[Footnote 33: Macdonald, _Africana_, i. 35.]
[Footnote 34: Anderson, _Mandalay to Momien_, p. 137.]
[Footnote 35: For other instances, see Mackenzie, _Voyages to the Frozen and Pacific Oceans_, p. 147 (Rocky Mountain Indians); Parker, in Schoolcraft, _Archives_, v. 684 (Comanches); Im Thurn, _op. cit._ p. 215 (Guiana Indians); Keane, 'Botocudos,' in _Jour. Anthr. Inst._ xiii. 206; Weddell, _Voyage towards the South Pole_, p. 156, Darwin, _Journal of Researches_, p. 216, and Bove, _Patagonia_, p. 131 (Fuegians); Nieboer, _op. cit._ p. 13 _sqq._ (Australian aborigines); Williams and Calvert, _Fiji_, p. 145; Forster, _Voyage round the World_, ii. 324 (natives of Tana, of the New Hebrides); Zimmermann, _Inseln des indischen und stillen Meeres_, ii. 17 (New Caledonians), 105 (New Irelanders); Lewin, _Wild Races of South-Eastern India_, pp. 192 (Toungtha), 254 _sq._ (Kukis); Rowney, _Wild Tribes of India_, p. 214 (most of the wild tribes of India); Reade, _op. cit._ pp. 51, 259, 545 (various African peoples); Waitz, _Anthropologie der Naturvölker_, ii. 117 (Negroes); Valdau, 'Om Ba-Kwileh folket,' in _Ymer_, v. 167, 169.]
[Footnote 36: See Spencer, _Principles of Sociology_, i. 750 _sqq._]
[Footnote 37: For women taking part in battles, see Schoolcraft, _Indian Tribes of the United States_, i. 236 (Comanches); Powers, _op. cit._ pp. 246 (Shastika Indians of California), 253 (Modok Indians of California); Waitz [-Gerland], _op. cit._ iii. 375 (Caribs), vi. 121 (Maoris); Wilkes, _op. cit._ v. 93 (Kingsmill Islanders); Kotzebue, _Voyage of Discovery into the South Sea_, iii. 171 (natives of Radack).]
[Footnote 38: Grosse, _Die Formen der Familie_, p. 92 _sqq._]
[Footnote 39: _Ibid._ p. 159. Hildebrand, _Recht und Sitte auf den verschiedenen wirthschaftlichen Kulturstufen_, p. 44 _sqq._ Dargun, 'Ursprung und Entwicklungsgeschichte des Eigenthums,' in _Zeitschr. f. vergl. Rechtswiss._ v. 39, 110. Bücher, _Die Entstehung der Volkswirthschaft_, p. 36 _sqq._ Schurtz, _Das afrikanische Gewerbe_, p. 7. Ling Roth, 'Origin of Agriculture,' in _Jour. Anthr. Inst._ xvi. 119 _sq._ Mason, _Woman's Share in Primitive Culture_, pp. 15 _sqq._, 146 _sqq._, 277 _sq._ Havelock Ellis, _Man and Woman_, p. 5. von den Steinen, _Unter den Naturvölkern Zentral-Brasiliens_, p. 214. von Schuetz-Holzhausen, _Der Amazonas_, p. 67 (Peruvian Indians). Waitz, _op. cit._ iii. 376 (Caribs). Prescott, in Schoolcraft, _Indian Tribes of the United States_, i. 235 (Dacotahs). Colden, _ibid._ iii. 191; Seaver, _Narrative of the Life of Mrs. Mary Jemison_, p. 168 (Iroquois). 'Die Baluga-Negritos der Provinz Pampanga (Luzon),' in **_Globus_, xli. 238. Zöller, _Kamerun_, iii. 58 (Banaka and Bapuku). Möller, Pagels, and Gleerup, _Tre år i Kongo_, i. 129, 137 (Kuilu Negroes), 270 (Bakongo). Valdau, in _Ymer_, v. 165 (Bakwileh). Burrows, 'Natives of the Upper Welle District,' in _Jour. Anthr. Inst._ xxviii. 41 (Niam-Niam). New, _op. cit._ pp. 114 (Wanika), 359 (Wataveta). Stuhlmann, _Mit Emin Pascha ins Herz von Afrika_, p. 182 (Waganda). Pogge, _Im Reiche des Muata Jamwo_, p. 243 (Kalunda of Mussumba). Decle, _Three Years in Savage Africa_, pp. 78, 79, 85 (Barotse), 160 (Matabele). von Weber, _Vier Jahre in Afrika_, ii. 195 (Zulus). There are, however, exceptions to the rule. Among the Creeks and Cherokee Indians not a third part as many women as men are seen at work in their plantations (Bartram, in _Trans. American Ethn. Soc._ iii. pt i. 31). Among the Wakamba both sexes work in the fields, all heavy work, such as clearing and breaking new ground, being done by men (Decle, _op. cit._ p. 493). Among various peoples, indeed, such agricultural work as requires considerable strength devolves on the male sex (Hildebrand, _op. cit._ p. 44 _sqq._ Havelock Ellis, _Man and Woman_, p. 5). In the Malay Archipelago the men are chiefly engaged in the field-work (Ratzel, _History of Mankind_, i. 441). In the Kingsmill Islands (Wilkes, _op. cit._ v. 91), Tonga (Cook, _Voyage to the Pacific Ocean_, i. 390 _sqq._), and the Caroline Group (Cantova, quoted _ibid._ i. 392, note) the soil is cultivated by the men. Among the Gallas, "whilst the women tend the sheep and oxen in the field, and manage the hives of bees, the men plough, sow, and reap" (Harris, _Highlands of Aethiopia_, iii. 47).]
{635} The various occupations of life are thus divided between the sexes according to rules; and, though the formation of these rules no doubt has been more or less influenced by the egoism of the stronger sex, the essential principle from which they spring lies deeper. They are on the whole in conformity with the indications which nature herself has given. Take, for instance, the apparently cruel custom of using the women as beasts of burden. To the superficial observer, as M. Pinart remarks--with special reference to the Panama Indians,--it may indeed seem strange that the woman should be charged with a heavy load, while the man walking before her carries nothing but his weapons. But a little reflection will make it plain that the man has good reason for keeping himself free and mobile. The little caravan is surrounded with dangers: when traversing a savannah or a forest a hostile Indian may appear at any moment, or a tiger or a snake may lie in wait for the travellers. Hence the man must be on the alert, and ready in an instant to catch his arms to defend himself and his family against the aggressor.[40] Dobrizhoffer writes, "The luggage being all committed to the women, the Abipones travel armed {636} with a spear alone, that they may be disengaged to fight or hunt, if occasion require."[41]
[Footnote 40: Pinart, quoted by Nieboer, _op. cit._ p. 21.]
[Footnote 41: Dobrizhoffer, _Account of the Abipones_, ii. 118. _Cf._ Wied-Neuwied _Reise nach Brasilien_, ii. 17, 37 (Botocudos); Giddings, _Principles of Sociology_, p. 266 _sq._]
Moreover, whatever may have been the original reason for allotting a certain occupation to the one sex to the exclusion of the other, any such restriction has subsequently been much emphasised by custom, and in many cases by superstition as well.[42] In Africa it is a common belief that the cattle get ill if women have anything to do with them.[43] Hence among most Negro races milking is only permitted to men.[44] In South-Eastern Africa "a woman must not enter the cattle fold."[45] The Bechuanas never allow women to touch their cattle, hence the men have to plough themselves.[46] In North America Indian custom and superstition ordain that the wife must carefully keep away from all that belongs to her husband's sphere of action.[47] On the other hand, among the Dacotahs "the men do not often interfere with the work of the women; neither will they help them if they can avoid it, for fear of being laughed at and called a woman."[48] In Abyssinia "it is infamy for a man to go to market to buy anything. He cannot carry water or bake bread; but he must wash the clothes belonging to both sexes, and, in this function, the women cannot help him."[49] Among the Beni A[h.]sen tribe in Morocco the women of the village where I was staying were quite horrified when one of my native servants set out to fetch water; they would on no account allow him to do what they said was a woman's business. The Greenlander regards it as scandalous for a man to interfere with any occupation which belongs to the women. When he has brought his booty to land, he troubles himself no further about it; "for it would be a stigma on his character, {637} if he so much as drew a seal out of the water."[50] Among the Bakongo a man would be much ridiculed by the women themselves, if he wanted to help them in their work in the field.[51] Sometimes agriculture is supposed to be dependent for success on a magic quality in woman, intimately connected with child-bearing.[52] Some Orinoco Indians said to Father Gumilla:--"When the women plant maize the stalk produces two or three ears; when they set the manioc the plant produces two or three baskets of root; and thus everything is multiplied. Why? Because women know how to produce children, and know how to plant the corn so as to ensure its germinating. Then, let them plant it; we do not know so much as they do."[53]
[Footnote 42: See Crawley, _Mystic Rose_, p. 49 _sq._]
[Footnote 43: Schurtz, _Das afrikanische Gewerbe_, p. 10.]
[Footnote 44: Ratzel, _op. cit._ ii. 419.]
[Footnote 45: Macdonald, _Life in Africa_, p. 221.]
[Footnote 46: Holub, 'Central South African Tribes,' in _Jour. Anthr. Inst._ x. 11.]
[Footnote 47: Waitz, _op. cit._ iii. 100.]
[Footnote 48: Prescott, in Schoolcraft, _Indian Tribes of the United States_, iii. 235.]
[Footnote 49: Bruce, _Travels to Discover the Source of the Nile_ iv. 474.]
[Footnote 50: Nansen, _First Crossing of Greenland_, ii. 313. Cranz, _History of Greenland_, i. 138, 154.]
[Footnote 51: Möller, Pagels, and Gleerup, _op. cit._ i. 270.]
[Footnote 52: See Payne, _History of the New World_, ii. 8.]
[Footnote 53: Gumilla, _El Orinoco ilustrado_, ii. 274 _sq._]
It is obvious that this strict division of labour is apt to mislead the travelling stranger. He sees the women hard at work, and the men idly looking on; and it escapes him that the latter will have to be busy in their turn, within their own sphere of action. What is largely due to the force of custom is taken to be sheer tyranny on the part of the men; and the wife is pronounced to be an abject slave of her husband, destitute of all rights. And yet the strong differentiation of work, however burdensome it may be to the wife, is itself a source of rights, giving her authority within the circle which is exclusively her own. Among the Banaka and Bapuku the wife, though said to be her husband's property and slave, is nevertheless an autocrat in her own house, strong enough to bid defiance to her lord and master.[54] Among the North American Indians, Schoolcraft observes, "the lodge itself, with all its arrangements, is the precinct of the rule and government of the wife. . . . The husband has no voice in this matter."[55] Many other statements to a similar effect will be quoted below.
[Footnote 54: Steinmetz, _Rechtsverhältnisse_, p. 29 _sq._]
[Footnote 55: Schoolcraft, _Indian in his Wigwam_, p. 73.]
{638} We have reason, then, to believe that the authority which savage husbands possess over their wives is not always quite so great as it is said to be. And we must distinctly reject as erroneous the broad statement that the lower races in general hold their women in a state of almost complete subjection.[56] Among many of them the married woman, though in the power of her husband, is known to enjoy a remarkable degree of independence, to be treated by him with consideration, and to exercise no small influence upon him. In several cases she is stated to be his equal, and in a few his superior.
[Footnote 56: Thus Meiners says (_History of the Female Sex_, i. 2), "Among savage nations, the entrance into the married state is for the female the commencement of the most cruel and abject slavery; for which reason many women dread matrimony more than death." In a recent work on the primitive family an Italian writer regards it as perhaps the most fundamental fact in the family institution that the woman is always and everywhere "sottoposta al più gravoso _mundium_ maritale" (Amadori-Virgilj, _L'istituto famigliare nelle società primordiali_, p. 138).]