Part 17

By using violence against their parents, children grossly offend against the duty of filial regard and submissiveness. It is said in the Laws of [Hv]ammurabi, that a man who has struck his father shall lose his hands.[12] According to Exodus, "he that smiteth his father, or his mother, shall be surely put to death."[13] In Corea the man who strikes his father is beheaded.[14] On the other hand, parents are allowed to inflict corporal punishment on their children; but this is not the case everywhere--indeed, among many of the lower races children are never, or hardly ever, subject to such punishment.[15] Among the Australian Dieyerie the children are never beaten, and should any woman violate this law, she is in turn beaten by her husband.[16] The Efatese, says Mr. Macdonald, "are shocked to see Europeans correcting their children; I never saw an Efatese beating a child."[17] The Eskimo {514} visited by Mr. Hall never inflict physical chastisement upon the children; "if a child does wrong--for instance, if it becomes enraged, the mother says nothing to it till it becomes calm. Then she talks to it, and with good effect."[18] Among the Tehuelches of Patagonia "the children are indulged in every way, ride the best horses, and are not corrected for any misbehaviour."[19] Among the Gaika tribe of the Kafirs, again, parents may inflict corporal punishment on their children, but are fined for causing permanent injuries to their persons, such as the loss of an eye or a tooth.[20]

[Footnote 12: _Laws of [Hv]ammurabi_, 195.]

[Footnote 13: _Exodus_, xxi. 15.]

[Footnote 14: Griffis, _Corea_, p. 236.]

[Footnote 15: Curr, _Recollections of Squatting in Victoria_, p. 252 (Bangerang tribe). Angas, _Savage Life and Scenes in Australia_, i. 94 (tribes of the Lower Murray). Calvert, _Aborigines of Western Australia_, p. 30 _sq._ Lumholtz, _Among Cannibals_, p. 192 _sq._ (Northern Queensland aborigines). Kubary, 'Die Palau-Inseln in der Südsee,' in _Journal des Museum Godeffroy_, iv. 56 (Pelew Islanders). Man, _Sonthalia and the Sonthals_, p. 78. von Siebold, _Die Aino auf der Insel Yesso_, p. 11. Murdoch, 'Ethnological Results of the Point Barrow Expedition,' in _Ann. Rep. Bur. Ethn._ ix. 417 (Point Barrow Eskimo). Boas, 'Central Eskimo,' _ibid._ vi. 566. Richardson, in Franklin, _Journey to the Shores of the Polar Sea_, p. 68 (Crees). Lumholtz, _Unknown Mexico_, p. 274 (Tarahumares). Rautanen, in Steinmetz, _Rechtsverhältnisse_, p. 329 (Ondonga). See also Steinmetz, _Ethnologische Studien zur ersten Entwicklung der Strafe_, ii. ch. vi. § 2, especially p. 203; _Idem_, 'Das Verhältnis zwischen Eltern und Kindern bei den Naturvölkern,' in _Zeitschrift für Socialwissenschaft_, i. 610 _sqq._]

[Footnote 16: Gason, 'Manners and Customs of the Dieyerie Tribe,' in Woods, _Native Tribes of South Australia_, p. 258.]

[Footnote 17: Macdonald, _Oceania_, p. 195.]

[Footnote 18: Hall, _Arctic Researches_, p. 568.]

[Footnote 19: Musters, _At Home with the Patagonians_, p. 197.]

[Footnote 20: Brownlee, in Maclean, _Compendium of Kafir Laws and Customs_, p. 118.]

The power which the husband possesses over his wife much more commonly implies the right of inflicting pain on her than of punishing her capitally; but even among savages and barbarians the former right is not universally granted to him. The Pelew Islanders do not allow a husband to beat his wife.[21] Among various Eskimo tribes the women are rarely, if ever, beaten.[22] Among the Central Eskimo the husband "is not allowed to maltreat or punish his wife; if he does, she may leave him at any time, and the wife's mother can always command a divorce."[23] Many, or most, of the North American Indians consider it disgraceful for a husband to beat his wife.[24] Among the Kalmucks a man has no right to raise his hand against a woman.[25] Among the Madis women are never beaten.[26] Among the Ondonga a man is not allowed to chastise his wife.[27] Among the Gaika tribe of the Kafirs "a husband may beat his wife for misconduct; but if he should strike out her eye or a tooth, or otherwise maim her, he is fined at the discretion of the Chief."[28] {515} According to the native code of Malacca, "a man may beat his wife, but not as he would chastise a slave, and not till blood flows"; if he should do so, he is fined.[29] According to Muhammedan law, a husband may chastise an obstinate wife, but he must not cause her great suffering, nor inflict on her a wound.[30] We read in the Laws of Manu:--"A wife, a son, a slave, a pupil, and a younger brother of the full blood, who have committed faults, may be beaten with a rope or a split bamboo, but on the back part of the body only, never on a noble part; he who strikes them otherwise will incur the same guilt as a thief."[31] In Europe the idea expressed by the ancient Roman that "he who beats his wife or children lays hands on that which is most sacred and holy,"[32] was shared neither by the ancient Teutons[33] nor by mediæval legislators. According to the Jydske Lov, a husband was allowed to chastise his wife with a stick or rod, though not with a weapon; but he had to take care not to break any limb of her body.[34] In the Coutumes du Beauvoisis it is said that a man may beat his wife if she belies or curses him, or disobeys his "reasonable" commands, or for some other similar reason, though he must not kill or maim her.[35] Among Russian and South Slavonian[36] peasants public opinion still permits the husband to inflict corporal punishment on his wife. In Russia "the bridegroom, while he is leading his bride to her future home, gives her from time to time light blows from a whip, saying at each stroke: 'Forget the manners of thine own {516} family, and learn those of mine.' As soon as they have entered their bedroom, the husband says to his wife, 'Take off my boots.' The wife immediately obeys her husband's orders, and, taking them off, finds in one of them a whip, symbol of his authority over her person. This authority implies the right of the husband to control the behaviour of his wife, and to correct her every time he thinks fit, not only by words, but also by blows. The opinion which a Russian writer of the sixteenth century . . . expresses as to the propriety of personal chastisement, and even as to its beneficial effects on the health, is still shared by the country people. . . . The customary Court seems to admit the use of such disciplinary proceedings by not interfering in the personal relations of husband and wife. 'Never judge the quarrel of husband and wife,' is a common saying, scrupulously observed by the village tribunals, which refuse to hear any complaint on the part of the aggrieved woman, at least so long as the punishment has not been of such a nature as to endanger life or limb."[37]

[Footnote 21: Kubary, 'Die Palau-Inseln,' in _Jour. des Museum Godeffroy_, iv. 43.]

[Footnote 22: King, in _Jour. Ethn. Soc._ i. 147. _Cf._ Murdoch, _loc. cit._ p. 414.]

[Footnote 23: Boas, in _Ann. Rep. Bur. Ethn._ vi. 579.]

[Footnote 24: Waitz, _Anthropologie der Naturvölker_, iii. 101. _Cf._ Powers, _Tribes of California_, p. 178 (Gallinomero).]

[Footnote 25: Liadov, in _Jour. Anthr. Inst._ i. 405.]

[Footnote 26: Ratzel, _History of Mankind_, iii. 40.]

[Footnote 27: Rautanen, in Steinmetz, _Rechtsverhältnisse_, p. 329.]

[Footnote 28: Brownlee, in Maclean, _op. cit._ p. 117.]

[Footnote 29: Newbold, _British Settlements in the Straits of Malacca_, ii. 311 _sq._]

[Footnote 30: Sachau, _Muhammedanisches Recht_, pp. 10, 44, 849.]

[Footnote 31: _Laws of Manu_, viii. 299 _sq._]

[Footnote 32: Plutarch, _Cato Major_, xx. 3.]

[Footnote 33: Nordström, _Bidrag till den svenska samhällsförfattningens historia_, ii. 61 _sq._ Stemann, _op. cit._ p. 323 _sq._]

[Footnote 34: _Jydske Lov_, ii. 82.]

[Footnote 35: Beaumanoir, _Coutumes du Beauvoisis_, lvii. 6, vol. ii. p. 333: "Il loist bien à l'homme batre se feme, sans mort et sans mehaing, quant ele le meffet; si comme quant ele est en voie de fere folie de son cors, ou quant ele dement son baron ou maudist, ou quant ele ne veut obeir à ses resnables commandemens que prode feme doit fere: en tel cas et en sanllables est il bien mestiers que li maris soit castierres de se feme resnablement. . . . Li maris le doit castier et repenre selonc toutes les manieres qu'il verra que bon sera por li oster de tel visse, exepté mort ou mehaing."]

[Footnote 36: Krauss, _Sitte und Branch der Südslaven_, p. 526.]

[Footnote 37: Kovalewsky, _Modern Customs and Ancient Laws of Russia_, p. 44 _sq._ _Cf._ Meiners, _Vergleichung des ältern und neuern Russlandes_, ii. 167 _sq._; _Idem_, _History of the Female Sex_, i. 160.]

It seems that, wherever slavery exists, the master has a right to inflict corporal punishment on his slave, even though he be forbidden to deprive him of any of his limbs. According to the Chinese Penal Code, the master, or relations of the master of a guilty slave, may chastise such slave in any degree short of occasioning his death, without being liable to any punishment;[38] whereas "all slaves who are guilty of designedly striking their masters, shall, without making any distinction between principals and accessories, be beheaded."[39] Among the Hebrews, if a man by blows destroyed an eye or a tooth, or any other member belonging to his man-servant or maid-servant, he was bound to let the injured person go free, though full retribution was legally ordained for bodily injuries done to free Israelites.[40] In the North American Slave States and {517} in the colonies of all European Powers the master could inflict any number of blows upon his slave, but if he mutilated him he was fined or subjected to a very moderate term of imprisonment.[41]

[Footnote 38: _Ta Tsing Leu Lee_, sec. cccxiv. p. 340.]

[Footnote 39: _Ibid._ sec. cccxiv. p. 338.]

[Footnote 40: _Exodus_, xxi. _sqq._]

[Footnote 41: 'Negro Act' of 1740, § 37, in Brevard, _Digest of the Public Statute Law of South Carolina_, ii. 241. Stephen, _Slavery of the British West India Colonies_, i. 36 _sq._ Edwards, _History of the British West Indies_, ii. 192.]

The maltreatment of another person's slave has, even by civilised legislators, been regarded as an injury done to the master rather than to the slave. According to Muhammedan law, the fine imposed on a free person for injuring a slave varies according to the value of the slave.[42] In the Institutes of Justinian it is said that, "if a man were to flog another man's slave in a cruel manner, an action would, in this case, lie against him," but that the master has no right of action against a person who has struck the slave with his fist.[43] In the Negro Act of 1740 it was prescribed that, if a slave was beaten by any person who had not sufficient cause or lawful authority for so doing, and if he or she was maimed or disabled by such beating from performing his or her work, the offender should pay to the owner of the slave "the sum of 15 shillings current money per diem, for every day of his lost time, and also the charge of the cure of such slave."[44] But if the beating of the slave caused no loss of service to his master, the offender was not, as a rule, punished by law. A decision of the Supreme Court of Maryland established expressly the law to be, in that State, that trespass would not lie by a master for an assault and battery on his slave, unless it were attended with a loss of service.[45] If, on the other {518} hand, the offender was a slave and his victim a white man, the injury was regarded in a very different light. We read in an act of Georgia passed in 1770:--"If any slave shall presume to strike any white person, such slave . . . shall . . . for the second offence suffer death: But in case any such slave shall grievously wound, maim, or bruise any white person, though it shall be only the first offence, such slave shall suffer death."[46] And to offer violence, to strike, attempt to strike, struggle with, or resist any white person, was, even by the latest meliorating laws issued in the British Colonies, declared to be a crime in a slave which, if the white person had been wounded or hurt, and in some islands even without that condition, should subject the offender to death, dismemberment, or other severe penalties.[47] We read in one of the codes of ancient Wales:--"If a freeman strike a bondman, let him pay him twelve pence. . . . If a bondman strike any freeman, it is just to cut off his right hand, or his right foot."[48] According to Chinese law, a freeman striking a slave shall "be punished less severely by one degree than in the ordinary cases of the same offence"; whereas "a slave striking a freeman shall, in proportion to the consequences, be punished one degree more severely than is by law provided in similar cases between equals."[49]

[Footnote 42: Lane, _Manners and Customs of the Modern Egyptians_, p. 120.]

[Footnote 43: _Institutiones_, iv. 4. 3.]

[Footnote 44: Brevard, _op. cit._ ii. 231 _sq._]

[Footnote 45: Harris and Johnson, _Reports of Cases argued and determined in the General Court and Court of Appeals of the State of Maryland_, i. 4. Of all the Slave States, so far as I know, Kentucky was the only one where the owner of a slave might bring an action of trespass against anyone who whipped, stroke, or otherwise **abused the slave without the owner's consent, notwithstanding the slave was not so injured that the master lost his services thereby (Morehead and Brown, _Digest of the Statute Laws of Kentucky_, ii. 1481). In Tennessee, according to an act of 1813, a person was punished if he "wantonly and without sufficient cause" beat or abused the slave of another (Caruthers and Nicholson, _Compilation of the Statutes of Tennessee_, p. 678).]

[Footnote 46: Prince, _Digest of the Laws of the State of Georgia_, p. 781.]

[Footnote 47: Stephen, _Slavery of the British West India Colonies_, i. 188. Edwards, _History of the British West Indies_, ii. 202 _sq._]

[Footnote 48: _Gwentian Code_, ii. 5. 31 _sq._ (_Ancient Laws and Institutes of Wales_, p. 339). For ancient Swedish law on this subject, see _Gotlands-Lagen_, i. 19. 37.]

[Footnote 49: _Ta Tsing Leu Lee_, sec. cccxiii. p. 336.]

Very frequently the penalties or fines for bodily injuries are influenced by the class or rank of the parties even when both of them are freemen. Among the Marea, whilst a commoner who wounds another commoner simply pays him compensation for the hurt, a commoner who wounds a nobleman must abandon to him all his property and become his slave.[50] At Zimmé the fines for assaults "vary greatly, according to the rank of the party complaining."[51] {519} Among the Ossetes the limbs of a noble are rated at twice as much as the limbs of an ordinary freeman.[52] The Laws of [Hv]ammurabi contain the following provisions:--"If a man has caused the loss of a gentleman's eye, his eye one shall cause to be lost. If he has shattered a gentleman's limb, one shall shatter his limb. If he has caused a poor man to lose his eye or shattered a poor man's limb, he shall pay one mina of silver. If a man has made the tooth of a man that is his equal to fall out, one shall make his tooth fall out. If he has made the tooth of a poor man to fall out, he shall pay one-third of a mina of silver,"[53] According to the Laws of Manu, if a man of a low caste does hurt to a man of any of the three highest castes, the offending member shall be cut off;[54] and he who intentionally strikes a Brâhmana in anger, even if it were only with a blade of grass, "will be born during twenty-one existences in the wombs of such beings where men are born in punishment of their sins."[55] In early Teutonic and Celtic codes we meet with the principle that the compensation by which a bodily injury is to be atoned for varies according to the rank of the parties concerned.[56]

[Footnote 50: Munzinger, _Ostafrikanische Studien_, p. 244.]

[Footnote 51: Colquhoun, _Amongst the Shans_, p. 132.]

[Footnote 52: von Haxthausen, _Transcaucasia_, p. 409.]

[Footnote 53: _Laws of [Hv]ammurabi_, 196-198, 200 _sq._ _Cf._ _ibid._ 202 _sq._]

[Footnote 54: _Laws of Manu_, viii. 279.]

[Footnote 55: _Ibid._ iv. 166. _Cf._ _ibid._ iv. 167.]

[Footnote 56: Kemble, _Saxons in England_, i. 134. _Ancient Laws of Ireland_, iii. p. cxi. _Dimetian Code_, ii. 17. 17 (_Ancient Laws and Institutes of Wales_, p. 248). _Gwentian Code_, ii. 7. 13 (_ibid._ 342). de Valroger, _Les Celtes_, p. 470. Innes, _Scotland in the Middle Ages_, p. 180.]

We have noticed that men in their estimation of human life, particularly at the earlier stages of culture, discriminate between fellow-tribesmen or compatriots and aliens. A similar distinction is made with reference to other bodily injuries. It reaches its pitch in the sufferings inflicted on vanquished enemies. The treatment to which the Kamchadales subjected their male prisoners of war included "burning, hewing them to pieces, tearing their entrails out when alive, and hanging them by the feet."[57] Some of the Dacotahs, when they had taken a captive, "secured him {520} to a stake and allowed their women to torture him by mutilating him previous to killing him";[58] and of many other North American Indians it is said that they "devote their captives to death, with the most agonising tortures."[59] The wars of the Society Islanders, Ellis observes, were most merciless and destructive; "invention itself was tortured to find out new modes of inflicting suffering."[60] On the other hand, there are not wanting instances of savage warfare being conducted on more humane principles. Dobrizhoffer tells us that "cruelty towards captives and enemies is abhorred by the Abipones, who never torture the dying";[61] and among the Somals no injury is done to enemies who have been severely wounded in the battle.[62] Civilised nations maintain that, in time of war, no greater injuries should be inflicted upon the enemy than are necessary to obtain the end of the war.

[Footnote 57: Krasheninnikoff, _History of Kamschatka_, p. 200.]

[Footnote 58: Dorsey, 'Omaha Sociology,' in _Ann. Rep. Bur. Ethn._ iii. 313.]

[Footnote 59: Adair, _History of the American Indians_, p. 388.]

[Footnote 60: Ellis, _Polynesian Researches_, i. 293. _Cf._ Williams, _Narrative of Missionary Enterprises_, p. 533 (Samoans); Foreman, _Philippine Islands_, p. 185; Ellis, _Tshi-speaking Peoples of the Gold Coast_, p. 172 _sq._]

[Footnote 61: Dobrizhoffer, _Account of the Abipones_, ii. 411.]

[Footnote 62: Paulitschke, _Ethnographie Nordost-Afrikas_, p. 255.]

The right to bodily integrity is influenced by religious differences as well as national. According to Muhammedan law, the compensation for injuries inflicted on a Jew or a Christian is a third, for those inflicted on a Parsee only a fifteenth, of the sum to be paid for similar injuries done to a Moslem.[63] A mediæval Spanish law prescribes that a Christian who beats a Jew shall pay four maravedis, but that a Jew who beats a Christian shall pay ten.[64]

[Footnote 63: Sachau, _op. cit._ p. 764.]

[Footnote 64: 'Fuero de Sepulveda,' art. 37 _sq._, quoted by Du Boys, _Histoire du droit criminel de l'Espagne_, p. 74.]

The right to bodily integrity may be forfeited by the commission of a crime. As has been already noticed, physical injuries are frequently resented according to the law of like for like;[65] and in other cases, also, the infliction {521} of corporal suffering--by mutilation, scourging, and so forth--is a common penalty. Amputation or mutilation of the offending member has particularly been in vogue among so-called peoples of culture.[66] It is often **mentioned in the Code of [Hv]ammurabi[67] and in the Laws of Manu.[68] It occurred among the Greeks,[69] Romans,[70] and Teutons.[71] Mediæval codes contain numerous instances of it.[72] The Laws of Alfred prescribe that a male _theow_ who commits a rape upon a female _theow_ shall be emasculated;[73] and in a later age Bracton reserves the same punishment for the deflowerer of a virgin, with the addition that the offender shall also lose his eyes, "on account of his looking at the beauty, for which he coveted possession of the virgin."[74] According to a law of Cnut, an adulteress shall have her nose and ears cut off.[75] Aethelstan enjoined that an illicit coiner should lose his right hand;[76] whereas in later times this punishment was restricted to those who struck anybody in the king's presence or in his court.[77] By the statute law of Scotland the punishment of forgery, or falsifying of writings, was at first the amputation of the hand, afterwards dismembering of it, joined with other pains.[78] In some countries a perjurer lost the offending fingers or his right hand,[79] in others he had his tongue cut {522} off or pierced with a hot iron;[80] and in England, before the Conquest, a man might lose his tongue by bringing a false and scandalous accusation.[81] In the seventeenth century a person in Scotland was sentenced to have his tongue bored because he had libelled the Lord Justice General.[82] In German and Austrian codes we find, even in the eighteenth century, traces of the principle of punishing the offending member;[83] and in France the last survival of it--the amputation of the right hand of a parricide before his execution--disappeared only in 1832.[84] Growing refinement of feeling has made people averse from the use of surgery in the administration of justice; and in most European countries grown-up offenders are no longer liable to corporal punishment of any kind.[85]

[Footnote 65: _Supra_, p. 178. See also _Laws of [Hv]ammurabi_, 196, 197, 200; _Exodus_, xxi. 24 _sq._; _Leviticus_, xxiv. 19 _sq._; _Deuteronomy_, xix. 21; _Koran_, v. 49; Sachau, _op. cit._ p. 762 _sq._ (Muhammedan law); Leist, _Alt-arisches Jus Gentium_, p. 426 _sq._ (Greeks); _Lex Duodecim Tabularum_, viii. 2; Günther, _Idee der Wiedervergeltung_, p. 186 _sqq._ (Teutons).]

[Footnote 66: For its occurrence in modern Persia, see Polak, _Persien_, i. 256, 329 _sq._; in Fez, see Leo Africanus, _History and Description of Africa_, ii. 470. The Koran (v. 42) orders theft to be punished by cutting off the hands of the thief, but this punishment is now seldom practised in Muhammedan countries. Among the lower races I have met only with a few instances of punishing the offending member. In Ashanti intrigue with the female slaves of the royal household is punished by emasculation (Ellis, _Tshi-speaking Peoples of the Gold Coast_, p. 287); and the Kamchadales burn the hands of people who have been frequently caught in theft (Krasheninnikoff, _op. cit._ p. 179).]

[Footnote 67: _Laws of [Hv]ammurabi_, 192, 194, 195, 218, 226, 253.]

[Footnote 68: _Laws of Manu_, viii. 270-272, 279-283, 322, 334, 374; xi. 105.]

[Footnote 69: Günther, _op. cit._ i. 94 _sqq._]

[Footnote 70: _Ibid._ i. 155 _sqq._]

[Footnote 71: _Ibid._ i. 195 _sqq._ Wilda, _op. cit._ p. 510. Grimm, _Deutsche Rechtsalterthümer_, p. 740.]

[Footnote 72: Du Boys, _Histoire du droit criminel des peuples modernes_, ii. 699. _Idem_, _Histoire du droit criminel de l'Espagne_, p. 94. Cibrario, _Economia politica del medio eve_, i. 346 _sq._]

[Footnote 73: _Laws of Alfred_, ii. 25.]

[Footnote 74: Bracton, _De Legibus et Consuetudinibus Angliæ_, fol. 147, vol. ii. 480 _sq._]

[Footnote 75: _Laws of Cnut_, ii. 54.]

[Footnote 76: _Laws of Æthelstan_, 14.]

[Footnote 77: Strutt, _View of the Manners, Customs, &c., of the Inhabitants of England_, iii. 43.]

[Footnote 78: Erskine, _Principles of the Law of Scotland_, p. 571.]

[Footnote 79: Stemann, _op. cit._ p. 645. Charles V.'s _Peinliche Gerichts Ordnung_, art. 107, p. 235. Pollock and Maitland, _History of English Law before the Time of Edward I._ ii. 453. Günther, _op. cit._ ii. 57.]

[Footnote 80: Du Boys, _Histoire du droit criminel des peuples modernes_, ii. 699. _Idem_, _Histoire du droit criminel de l'Espagne_, p. 599 _sq._ Pitcairn, _Criminal Trials in Scotland_, iii. 539.]

[Footnote 81: Pollock and Maitland, _op. cit._ ii. 539.]

[Footnote 82: Rogers, _Social Life in Scotland_, ii. 35.]

[Footnote 83: Günther, _op. cit._ ii. 55-57, 65; iii. 79.]

[Footnote 84: Chauveau and Hélie, _Théorie du Code Pénal_, iii. 394.]

[Footnote 85: See von Liszt, _Le droit criminel des états européens_, _passim_; Wrede, _Die Körperstrafen bei allen Völkern_, _passim_.]

Corporal punishment has generally been, by preference, a punishment for poor and common people or slaves.[86] Blows and abusive language, says Plutarch, seem to be more fitting for slaves than the freeborn.[87] According to the religious law of the Hindus, a Brâhmana shall not suffer corporal punishment for any offence.[88] Among the Hebrews[89] and Muhammedans,[90] among the Romans[91] and in the Middle Ages,[92] the punishment of mutilation could generally be commuted to a fine. For a long period, in {523} Christian Europe, as well as in Pagan Rome during the Empire,[93] the punishment was more savage in proportion as the delinquent was more helpless. "En crimes," says Loysel, "les villains sont plus griévement punis en leurs corps que les nobles. . . . Et où le vilain perdroit la vie, ou un membre de son corps, le noble perdra l'honneur, et réponse en cour."[94] Indeed, whilst the slave incurred the penalty of mutilation for the most trifling offence, the noble might be exempted from corporal punishment of any kind.[95] In a similar manner the social _status_ of a person has influenced his right to bodily integrity with reference to judicial torture. According to the Chinese Penal Code, "it shall not, in any tribunal of government, be permitted to put the question by torture to those who belong to any of the eight privileged classes, in consideration of the respect due to their character."[96] In Rome, under the Republic, torture was exclusively confined to the slaves.[97] In mediæval Christendom it was made use of to an extent and with a cold-blooded ferocity unknown to any heathen nation, and in cases of heresy and treason it was applied to every class of the community.[98] But the tortures inflicted on the nobles and the clergy were lighter than in the case of ordinary laymen, and proof of a more decided character was required to justify their being exposed to torment.[99] "Noble persons and persons of quality," says Dumoulin, "cannot so easily be subjected to torture as persons who are of mean and plebeian rank."[100] Guazzini, an eminent Italian jurisconsult and a recognised expositor of the law of torture in the days of its highest ascendency and ripest maturity, observes that the torment inflicted {524} on a person shall be proportionate to his age, his physical constitution, his mental habits, and his social _status_;[101] and he adds that bishops and others in high civil dignity are exempt from torture even under strong presumptions of guilt.[102]

[Footnote 86: See, for instance, the _Laws of Manu_, viii. 267, 279.]

[Footnote 87: Plutarch, _De educatione puerorum_, 12.]

[Footnote 88: _Baudhâyana_, i. 10. 18. 17. _Institutes of Vishnu_, v. 2.]

[Footnote 89: Günther, _op. cit._ i. 55.]

[Footnote 90: _Ibid._ i. 74 _sq._ Lane, _Manners and Customs of the Modern Egyptians_, p. 120. Sachau, _op. cit._ p. 764. According to Muhammedan law, it is not obligatory for the injured party to accept compensation in lieu of mutilation.]

[Footnote 91: Günther, _op. cit._ i. 124 _sqq._ Mommsen, _Römisches Strafrecht_, p. 981.]

[Footnote 92: Du Boys, _Histoire du droit criminel des peuples modernes_, ii. 557 _sq._ Strutt, _op. cit._ ii. 8.]

[Footnote 93: _Cf._ Mackenzie, _Studies in Roman Law_, p. 414 _sq._]

[Footnote 94: Loysel, _Institutes coutumières_, vi. 2. 31 _sq._, vol. ii. 219 _sq._]

[Footnote 95: Du Boys, _Histoire du droit criminel de l'Espagne_, p. 469.]

[Footnote 96: _Ta Tsing Leu Lee_, sec. cccciv. p. 441.]

[Footnote 97: Mommsen, _Römisches Strafrecht_, p. 405.]

[Footnote 98: Suarez de Paz, _Praxis ecclesiastica et secularis_, v. 1. 3. 12, fol. 154 b. _Cf._ Lecky, _Rise and Influence of the Spirit of Rationalism in Europe_, i. 328.]

[Footnote 99: Lea, _Superstition and Force_, p. 526 _sq._]

[Footnote 100: Dumoulin, quoted by Welling, 'Law of Torture,' in _The American Anthropologist_, v. 210 _sq._]

[Footnote 101: Guazzini, _Tractatus ad defensam inquisitorum_, xxx. 4. 24, vol. ii. 86.]

[Footnote 102: _Ibid._ xxx. 17, vol. ii. 102 _sq._]

The moral notions regarding the infliction of bodily injuries require little comment. They are based on the principle of sympathetic resentment, modified by the ascription of particular rights to some and particular duties to others, on account of the relation in which the parties stand to each other; and they follow the same rules as the ideas concerning homicide, to the exclusion, of course, of all such considerations as result from fear of the slain man's ghost or from the religious horror of taking life. One point, however, calls for special attention. The forcible interference with another person's body not only causes physical pain but commonly entails disgrace upon the sufferer. This largely accounts for the fact that a person's right to bodily integrity varies so much according to his social standing.[103] Even among the lower races we meet with the notions that an act of bodily violence involves a gross insult, and that corporal punishment disgraces the criminal more than any other form of penalty. According to the Malay Code, "the persons who may be put to death without the previous knowledge of the king or nobles, are an adulterer, a person guilty of treason, a thief who cannot otherwise be apprehended, and a person who offers another a grievous affront, such as a blow over the face."[104] Among the Maoris a blow with the fist would lead to a combat with arms.[105] The Thlinkets consider corporal punishment to {525} be the greatest indignity to which a freeman can be subjected, hence they never inflict it.[106] And civilised nations who are ready to punish certain criminals with death, hold whipping to be a punishment too infamous to be employed.

[Footnote 103: _Cf._ _Dimetian Code_, ii. 17. 17 (_Ancient Laws and Institutes of Wales_, p. 248): "The Law says that the limbs of all persons are of equal worth; if a limb of the king be broken, that it is of the same worth as the limb of the villain: yet, nevertheless, the worth of saraad [or fine for insult] to the king, or to a breyr, is more than the saraad of a villain, if a limb belonging to him be cut." See also _Gwentian Code_, ii. 7. 12 _sq._ (_ibid._ p. 342).]

[Footnote 104: Crawfurd, _History of the Indian Archipelago_, iii. 105 _sq._]

[Footnote 105: Shortland, _Traditions and Superstitions of the New Zealanders_, p. 227.]

[Footnote 106: Holmberg, 'Ethnograph. Skizzen über die Völker des russischen Amerika,' in _Acta Societatis Scientiarum Fennicæ_, iv. 321.]

CHAPTER XXIII

CHARITY AND GENEROSITY

IN previous chapters we have examined the regard for the life and physical well-being of others as displayed in moral ideas concerning homicide and the infliction of bodily harm. We shall now consider the same subject from another point of view, namely, the valuation of such conduct as positively promotes the existence and material comfort of a fellow-creature.

There is one duty so universal and obvious that it is seldom mentioned: the mother's duty to rear her children, provided that they are suffered to live. Another duty--equally primitive, I believe, in the human race--is incumbent on the married man: the protection and support of his family. We hear of this duty from all quarters of the savage world.

Among the North American Indians it was considered disgraceful for a man to have more wives than he was able to maintain.[1] Mr. Powers says that among the Patwin, a Californian tribe which he believes to rank among the lowest in the world, "the sentiment that the men are bound to support the women--that is to furnish the supplies--is stronger even than among us."[2] Among the Iroquois it was the office of the husband "to make a mat, to repair the cabin of his wife, or to construct a new one." The product of his hunting expeditions, {527} during the first year of marriage, belonged of right to his wife, and afterwards he shared it equally with her, whether she remained in the village, or accompanied him to the chase.[3] Among the Botocudos, whose girls are married very young, remaining in the house of the father till the age of puberty, the husband is even then obliged to maintain his wife, though living apart from her.[4] Among the Lengua Indians of the Paraguayan Chaco the child of a woman whose husband deserts her is generally killed at birth, the mother feeling that it is the man's part of married life to provide meat for his offspring.[5] Azara states that, among the Charruas, "du moment où un homme se marie, il forme une famille à part, et travaille pour la nourrir."[6] Of the Fuegians it is said that, "as soon as a youth is able to maintain a wife, by his exertions in fishing or bird-catching, he obtains the consent of her relations."[7] The wretched Rock Veddahs in Ceylon "acknowledge the marital obligation and the duty of supporting their own families."[8] Among the Maldivians, "although a man is allowed four wives at one time, it is only on condition of his being able to support them."[9] The Nairs, we are told, consider it a husband's duty to provide his wife with food, clothing, and ornaments;[10] and almost the same is said by Dr. Schwaner with reference to the tribes of the Barito district, in the south east part of Borneo.[11] Among the cannibals of New Britain the chiefs have to see that the families of the warriors are properly maintained.[12] Concerning the Tonga Islanders Mariner states that "a married woman is one who cohabits with a man, and lives under his roof and protection."[13] Among the Maoris "the mission of woman was to increase and multiply, that of man to defend his home."[14] With reference to the Kurnai in South Australia, Mr. Howitt states that "the man has to provide for his family with the assistance of his wife. His share is to hunt for their support, and to fight for their protection."[15] In Lado, in Africa, the bridegroom has to assure his father-in-law three times that he will {528} protect his wife, calling the people present to witness.[16] Among the Touareg a man who deserts his wife is blamed, as he has taken upon himself the obligation of maintaining her.[17]

[Footnote 1: Waitz, _Anthropologie der Naturvölker_, iii. 109. Carver, _Travels through the Interior Parts of North America_, p. 367.]

[Footnote 2: Powers, _Tribes of California_, p. 222.]

[Footnote 3: Heriot, _Travels through the Canadas_, p. 338.]

[Footnote 4: von Tschudi, _Reisen durch Südamerika_, ii. 283.]

[Footnote 5: Hawtrey, in _Jour. Anthr. Inst._ xxxi. 295.]

[Footnote 6: Azara, _Voyages dans l'Amérique méridionale_, ii. 22.]

[Footnote 7: King and Fitzroy, _Voyages of the "Adventure" and "Beagle,"_ ii. 182.]

[Footnote 8: Tennent, _Ceylon_, ii. 441.]

[Footnote 9: Rosset, 'Maldive Islands,' in _Jour. Anthr. Inst._ xvi. 168 _sq._]

[Footnote 10: Stewart, 'Notes on Northern Cachar,' in _Jour. Asiatic Soc. Bengal_, xxiv. 614.]

[Footnote 11: Schwaner, _Borneo_, i. 199.]

[Footnote 12: Angas, _Polynesia_, p. 373.]

[Footnote 13: Mariner, _Natives of the Tonga Islands_, ii. 167.]

[Footnote 14: Johnston, _Maoria_, p. 28 _sq._]

[Footnote 15: Fison and Howitt, _Kamilaroi and Kurnai_, p. 206.]

[Footnote 16: Wilson and Felkin, _Uganda_, ii. 90.]

[Footnote 17: Chavanne, _Die Sahara_, p. 209. _Cf._ Hanoteau and Letourneux, _La Kabylie_, ii. 167.]

Among many of the lower races a man is not even permitted to marry until he has given some proof of his ability to support and protect his family.[18] Indeed, so closely is the idea that a man is bound to maintain his family connected with that of marriage and fatherhood, that sometimes even repudiated wives with their children are, at least to a certain extent, supported by their former husbands.[19] And upon the death of a husband, the obligation of maintaining his wife and her children devolves on his heirs, the wide-spread custom of a man marrying the widow of his deceased brother being not only a privilege, but, among several peoples, even a duty.[20]

[Footnote 18: Westermarck, _History of Human Marriage_, p. 18.]

[Footnote 19: _Ibid._ p. 19.]

[Footnote 20: _Ibid._ p. 511 _sq._]

Turning to peoples who have reached a higher stage of culture:--Abû Shugâ[(] says that, among Muhammedans, parents are obliged to support their families, "if the children are both poor and under age, or both poor and lastingly infirm, or both poor and insane."[21] But that this duty chiefly devolves on the father is evident from the fact that the mother is even entitled to claim wages for nursing them.[22] Buddhistic law goes so far as to prescribe that the parents shall provide their son with a beautiful wife, and give him a share of the wealth belonging to the family.[23] It has been observed that in the Confucian books there is no mention of any real duties incumbent upon the father towards his children;[24] nor does the Decalogue contain anything on the subject; nor any law of ancient Greece or Rome.[25] But, as has been justly {529} argued, if legal prescriptions are wanting, that is because they are thought to be superfluous, nature itself having sufficiently prepared men for the performance of their duties towards their offspring.[26] So, also, it is regarded as a matter of course that the husband shall support his wife, however great power he may possess over her. Among the Romans _manus_ implied not only the wife's subordination to the husband, but also the husband's obligation to protect the wife.[27]

[Footnote 21: Sachau, _Muhammedanisches Recht_, p. 18.]

[Footnote 22: _Ibid._ p. 99 _sq._]

[Footnote 23: Hardy, _Manual of Budhism_, p. 495.]

[Footnote 24: Faber, _Digest of the Doctrines of Confucius_, p. 82.]

[Footnote 25: Leist, _Græco-italische Rechtsgeschichte_, p. 13.]

[Footnote 26: _Ibid._, p. 13. Schmidt, _Ethik der alten Griechen_, ii. 141. Adam Smith, _Theory of Moral Sentiments_, p. 199 _sq._]

[Footnote 27: Rossbach, _Untersuchungen über die römische Ehe_, p. 32. _Cf._ _Laws of Manu_, ix. 74, 75, 95.]

The parents' duty of taking care of their offspring is, in the first place, based on the sentiment of parental affection. That the maternal sentiment is universal in mankind is a fact too generally admitted to need demonstration; not so the father's love of his children. Savage men are commonly supposed to be very indifferent towards their offspring; but a detailed study of facts leads us to a different conclusion. It appears that, among the lower races, the paternal sentiment is hardly less universal than the maternal, although it is probably never so strong and in many cases distinctly feeble. But more often it displays itself with considerable intensity even among the rudest savages. In the often-quoted case of the Patagonian chief who, in a moment of passion, dashed his little son with the utmost violence against the rocks because he let a basket of eggs which the father handed to him fall down, we have only an instance of savage impetuosity. The same father "would, at any other time, have been the most daring, the most enduring, and the most self-devoted" in the support and defence of his child.[28] Similarly the Central Australian natives, in fits of sudden passion, when hardly knowing what they do, sometimes treat a child with great severity; but as a rule, to which there are very few exceptions, they are kind and considerate to their children, the men as well as the women carrying them when they get tired on the march, {530} and always seeing that they get a good share of any food.[29] All authorities agree that the Australian Black is affectionate to his children.[30] "From observation of various tribes in far distant parts of Australia," says Mr. Howitt, "I can assert confidently that love for their children is a marked feature in the aboriginal character. I cannot recollect having ever seen a parent beat or cruelly use a child; and a short road to the goodwill of the parents is, as amongst us, by noticing and admiring their children. No greater grief could be exhibited, by the fondest parents in the most civilised community at the death of some little child, than that which I have seen exhibited in an Australian native camp, not only by the immediate parents, but by the whole related group."[31] Other representatives of the lowest savagery, as the Veddahs[32] and Fuegians,[33] are likewise described as tender parents. Though few peoples have acquired a worse reputation for cruelty than the Fijians, even the greatest censurer of their character admits that the exhibition of parental love among them "is sometimes such as to be worthy of admiration";[34] whilst, according to another authority, "it is truly touching to see how parents are attached to their children."[35] The Bangala of the Upper Congo, "swayed one moment by a thirst for blood and indulging in the most horrible orgies, . . . may yet the next be found approaching their homes looking forward with {531} the liveliest interest to the caresses of their wives and children."[36] Carver asserts that he never saw among any other people greater proofs of parental or filial tenderness than among the North American Naudowessies.[37] Among the Point Barrow Eskimo "the affection of parents for their children is extreme";[38] and the same seems to be the case among the Eskimo in general.[39] Concerning the Aleuts Veniaminof wrote long ago:--"The children are often well fed and satisfied, while the parents almost perish with hunger. The daintiest morsel, the best dress, is always kept for them."[40] Mr. Hooper, again, found parental love nowhere more strongly exemplified than among the Chukchi; "the natives absolutely doat upon their children."[41] Innumerable facts might indeed be quoted to prove that parental affection is not a late product of civilisation, but a normal feature of the savage mind as it is known to us.[42]

[Footnote 28: King and Fitzroy, _op. cit._ ii. 155. _Cf._ _ibid._ ii. 154; Musters, _At Home with the Patagonians_, p. 196 _sq._]

[Footnote 29: Spencer and Gillen, _Native Tribes of Central Australia_, p. 50 _sq._]

[Footnote 30: Curr, _The Australian Race_, i. 402; iii. 155. _Idem_, _Recollections of Squatting in Victoria_, p. 252. Angas, _Savage Life and Scenes in Australia_, i. 94. Brough Smyth, _Aborigines of Victoria_, i. 51; ii. 311. Ridley, _Aborigines of Australia_, p. 23. Eyre, _Journals of Expeditions of Discovery into Central Australia_, ii. 214 _sq._ Sturt, _Expedition into Central Australia_, ii. 137. Calvert, _Aborigines of Western Australia_, p. 30 _sq._ Taplin, 'Narrinyeri,' in Woods, _Native Tribes of South Australia_, p. 15. Gason, 'Manners and Customs of the Dieyerie Tribe,' _ibid._ p. 258. Hill and Thornton, _Aborigines of New South Wales_, pp. 2, 4. Fraser, _Aborigines of New South Wales_, pp. 2, 44. Lumholtz, _Among Cannibals_, p. 193.]

[Footnote 31: Fison and Howitt, _op. cit._ p. 189. _Cf._ _ibid._ p. 259.]

[Footnote 32: Bailey, 'Wild Tribes of the Veddahs of Ceylon,' in _Trans. Ethn. Soc._ N.S. ii. 291. Deschamps, _Carnet d'un voyageur au pays des Veddas_, p. 380.]

[Footnote 33: King and Fitzroy, _op. cit._ i. 76; ii. 186. Weddell, _Voyage towards the South Pole_, p. 156. Pertuiset, _Le Trésor des Incas à la Terre de Feu_, p. 217.]

[Footnote 34: Williams and Calvert, _Fiji and the Fijians_, p. 116.]

[Footnote 35: Seemann, _Viti_, p. 193. _Cf._ _ibid._ p. 194.]

[Footnote 36: Ward, _Five Years with the Congo Cannibals_, p. 141. _Cf._ _ibid._ p. 139.]

[Footnote 37: Carver, _op. cit._ p. 240 _sq._ _Cf._ _ibid._ p. 378 _sq._]

[Footnote 38: Murdoch, 'Ethnological Results of the Point Barrow Expedition,' in _Ann. Rep. Bur. Ethn._ ix. 417.]

[Footnote 39: Hall, _Arctic Researches_, p. 568. Parry, _Second Voyage for the Discovery of a North-West Passage_, p. 529. Boas, 'Central Eskimo,' in _Ann. Rep. Bur. Ethn._ vi. 566. Turner, 'Ethnology of the Ungava District,' _ibid._ xi. 191. Seemann, _Voyage of "Herald,"_ ii. 65. Cranz, _History of Greenland_, i. 174.]

[Footnote 40: Veniaminof, quoted by Dall, _Alaska_, p. 397. _Cf._ _ibid._ p. 393; Petroff, 'Report on Alaska,' in _Tenth Census of the United States_, p. 158.]

[Footnote 41: Hooper, _Ten Months among the Tents of the Tuski_, p. 201.]

[Footnote 42: Dobrizhoffer, _Account of the Abipones_, ii. 214 _sq._ Wied-Neuwied, _Reise nach Brasilien_, ii. 40 (Botocudos). Wallace, _Travels on the Amazon_, p. 518 _sq._ (Amazon Indians; but on the Brazilian Indians generally, _cf._ von Martius, in _Jour. Roy. Geo. Soc._ ii. 198, and _Idem_, _Beiträge zur Ethnographie Amerika's_, i. 125). Im Thurn, _Among the Indians of Guiana_, pp. 213, 219. MacCauley, 'Seminole Indians of Florida,' in _Ann. Rep. Bur. Ethn._ v. 491. Dunbar, 'Pawnee Indians,' in **_Magazine of American History_, viii. 745. Catlin, _North American Indians_, ii. 242. Ten Kate, _Reizen en onderzoekingen in Noord-Amerika_, p. 364 _sq._ Sproat, _Scenes and Studies of Savage Life_, p. 160 (Ahts). Franklin, _Journey to the Shores of the Polar Sea_, p. 68 (Crees). Elliott, 'Report on the Seal Islands,' in _Tenth Census of the United States_, p. 238. Krasheninnikoff, _History of Kamschatka_, p. 232 (Koriaks). Georgi, _Russia_, i. 25 (Laplanders); iii. 13 (Tunguses), 158 (Kamchadales). Castrén, _Nordiska resor och forskningar_, ii. 121 (Ostyaks). Prejevalsky, _Mongolia_, i. 71. Scott Robertson, _Káfirs of the Hindu-Kush_, p. 189. Blunt, _Bedouin Tribes of the Euphrates_, ii. 214. Dalton, _Desiriptive Ethnology of Bengal_, p. 68 (Garos). Marshall, _A Phrenologist amongst the Todas_, p. 200; Shortt, 'Hill Tribes of the Neilgherries,' in _Trans. Ethn. Soc._ N.S. vii. 254 (Todas). Kloss, _In the Andamans and Nicobars_, p. 228 (Nicobarese). Man, _Sonthalia and the Sonthals_, p. 78. Wallace, _Malay Archipelago_, p. 450 (Malays). Schwaner, _op. cit._ i. 162 (Malays of the Barito River Basin in Borneo). Low, _Sarawak_, p. 148 (Malays). Bock, _Head-Hunters of Borneo_, p. 210 (Dyaks). Ling Roth, _Natives of Sarawak and British North Borneo_, i. 68 (Land Dyaks). Forbes, _A Naturalist's Wanderings in the Eastern Archipelago_, p. 321 (natives of Timor-laut). Forbes, _Insulinde_, p. 182 (natives of Ritobel) Seligmann, in _Reports of the Cambridge Anthropological Expedition to Torres Straits_, v. 199; Haddon, _ibid._ v. 229, 274 (Western Islands). Romilly, _From my Verandah in New Guinea_, p. 51. Chalmers, _Pioneering in New Guinea_, p. 163. Christian, _Caroline Islands_, p. 72 (Ponapeans). Kubary, 'Die Bewohner der Mortlock Inseln,' in _Mittheilungen der Geogr. Gesellsch. in Hamburg_, 1878-9, p. 261. Macdonald, _Oceana_, p. 195 (Efatese). Turner, _Samoa_, p. 317 (natives of Tana), von Kotzebue, _Voyage of Discovery_, iii. 165 (Natives of Radack). Mariner, _op. cit._ ii. 179 (Tongans). Dieffenbach, _Travels in New Zealand_, ii. 26, 107; Crozet, _Voyage to Tasmania_, p. 66 (Maoris). Dove, 'Aborigines of Tasmania,' in _Tasmanian Journal of Natural Science_, i. 252. Reade, _Savage Africa_, p. 245 (Equatorial Africans). Casati, _Ten Years in Equatoria_, i. 186 (Central African Negroes). Caillié, _Travels through Central Africa_, i. 352 (Mandingoes). Holub, _Seven Years in South Africa_, ii. 296 (Marutse). Livingstone, _Missionary Travels_, p. 126 (Bechuanas). Johnston, _Uganda Protectorate_, ii. 539 (Pigmies). Sparrman, _Voyage to the Cape of Good Hope_, i. 219 (Hottentots). Shaw, 'Betsileo Country and People,' in _Antananarivo Annual and Madagascar Magazine_, iii. 82. See also _supra_, p. 405; Steinmetz, 'Verhältnis zwischen Eltern und Kindern bei den Naturvölkern,' in _Zeitschrift für Socialwissenschaft_, i. 610 _sqq._; _Idem_, _Ethnologische Studien zur ersten Entwicklung der Strafe_, ii. ch. vi. §2.]

{532} When dealing with the origin of the altruistic sentiment we shall find reason to believe that paternal affection not only prevails among existing men, savage and civilised, but that it belonged to the human race from the very beginning, and that the same was the case with the germ of marital affection, inducing the male to remain with the female till after the birth or the offspring, and to defend and support her during the periods of pregnancy and motherhood. It is true that among several savage peoples conjugal love is said to be unknown; but what is meant by this is, I think, typically expressed in Major Ellis's statement referring to some Gold Coast natives, that among them "love, as understood by the people of Europe, has no existence."[43] The love of a savage is certainly very different from the love of a civilised man; nevertheless we may discover in it traces of the same ingredients. Even rude savages, such as the Bushmans, Fuegians, Andaman Islanders, and Australian aborigines, seem often to be lovingly attached to their wives.[44]

[Footnote 43: Ellis, _Tshi-speaking Peoples of the Gold Coast_, p. 285. I have dealt with this subject in my _History of Human Marriage_, p. 356 _sqq._]

[Footnote 44: _Ibid._ p. 358 _sq._]

{533} The prevalence of paternal and marital affection accounts for the origin of the family (consisting of parents and children), and for the functions of the man as father and husband. The growing intensity of these sentiments has naturally increased the stability of the family tie; and other factors, of a selfish nature, have contributed towards the same result. From various points of view it is desirable for a man to have children. They are to him objects of pride; when grown-up, they add to his safety and power; they support him when he gets old; they make offerings to his spirit when he is dead. And no less useful is the possession of a wife. When the generative power is no longer restricted to a certain season of the year, she becomes a lasting cause of sensual delight; she is a mother of children; she manages the household; she acts as a carrier, she works in the field.

Every social institution has a tendency to become a matter of moral concern because of the persistence of habit. But the simplest paternal and marital duties have a deeper foundation than the mere force of the habitual. If a man leaves his wife and children without protection and support, the other members of the community will sympathise with them, and feel resentment towards the neglectful husband and father. He will be looked upon as the cause of their sufferings, because he omitted to do what other men in his position would have done. His conduct will be repulsive to everyone who himself possesses those sentiments of which he proves destitute. He will be held guilty of a breach of contract, since by marrying he took upon himself the burden of maintaining his wife and their common offspring. To thoughtful minds his responsibility towards his children is further increased by the fact that he is the author of their being, and for that reason the source of their misery. Finally, the community as a whole will suffer by his negligence.

The parents' duty of taking care of their offspring lasts until the latter are able to shift for themselves. On the other hand, when the parents, in their turn, get in need of {534} support, their care is to be reciprocated by the children. The practice of killing or abandoning decrepit parents is an exception even in the savage world, and, as we have seen, restricted to extreme cases in which it may be regarded as an act of kindness or of hard necessity. There are always savage peoples among whom aged parents, though suffered to live, are said to be grossly neglected by their children. But, so far as I know, these peoples are not numerous, and can hardly be regarded as representatives of a custom common to any larger ethnic group.

Thus, according to Hearne, "old age is the greatest calamity that can befall a Northern Indian; for when he is past labour, he is neglected, and treated with great disrespect, even by his own children. They not only serve him last at meals, but generally give him the coarsest and worst of the victuals; and such of the skins as they do not chuse to wear, are made up in the clumsiest manner into clothing for their aged parents."[45] Yet among the same people Richardson witnessed "several unquestionable instances of tenderness and affection shown by children to their parents, and of compliance with their whims, much to their own personal inconvenience."[46] In his work on the tribes of California Mr. Powers observes:--"filial piety cannot be said to be a distinguishing quality of the Wailakki, or, in fact, of any Indians. No matter how high may be their station, the aged and decrepit are counted a burden. The old man, hero of a hundred battles, sometime 'lord of the lion heart and eagle eye,' when his fading eyesight no more can guide the winged arrow as of yore, is ignominiously compelled to accompany his sons into the forest, and bear home on his poor old shoulders the game they have killed."[47] But concerning the Indians of Upper California Beechey writes, "When any of their relations are indisposed, the greatest attention is paid to their wants, and it was remarked by Padre Arroyo that filial affection is stronger in these tribes than in any civilised nation on the globe with which he was acquainted."[48] Among the Indians on the east side of the Rocky Mountains, "the aged are commonly treated with much respect, which they consider themselves as entitled to claim"; and they "are not suffered to want any thing which they need, and which {535} it is in the power of their relations to procure for them."[49] The religious teachers of the Iroquois inculcated the duty of protecting aged parents, as divinely enjoined:--"It is the will of the Great Spirit that you reverence the aged, even though they be as helpless as infants."[50] The Aleuts described by Veniaminof considered disregard of one's parents to be the greatest and most dishonourable of crimes; "we should sincerely love them," they said, "do all we could toward their support, remain with them, and care for them until their death."[51] The children of the Central Eskimo are very dutiful, obeying the wishes of their parents and taking care of them in their old age;[52] and statements to the same effect are made with reference to other Eskimo tribes.[53] Cranz, who did not generally panegyrise the moral qualities of the Greenlanders, wrote that the bonds of filial and parental love seem stronger in them than amongst other nations, and that "ingratitude in up-grown children towards their old decrepit parents, is scarcely exemplified among them."[54] Among the Botocudos Prince Wied-Neuwied saw a young man carrying about his blind father, not leaving him alone for a single moment.[55] Among the Fuegians "grown-up children are expected to support their parents when they become aged; the son generally makes his father, if he is past work, a canoe every season, and if the aged man is a widower he lives entirely under the charge of his eldest son."[56] The Australian natives are much praised for the regard with which they treat their parents and elders. With reference to the Western tribes, Bishop Salvado observes:--"Les fils adultes payent de retour l'affection de leurs parents. S'ils sont vieux, ils réservent pour eux les meilleurs pièces de gibier, ou de tout autre mets, et se chargent de venger leurs offenses."[57] Among the Kukis of India, "when past work, the father and mother are supported by their children."[58] Among the Bódo and Dhimáls "it is {536} deemed shameful to leave old parents entirely alone; and the last of the sons, who by his departure does so, is liable to fine as well as disinheritance."[59] Among the Betsileo of Madagascar "the old are never left destitute or to their own devices. . . . It is by no means uncommon to see the son carrying the aged parent on his back, when necessity or inclination demands locomotion."[60] Among the Mandingoes "the aged who are unable to support themselves are always maintained and treated with respect by their children."[61] That uncivilised races commonly regard it a stringent duty for children to maintain their aged parents and to administer to their wants, is also obvious from statements testifying their filial regard in general terms.[62] On the other hand, the fact that some peoples are said to be deficient in this sentiment, does not imply that they fail to recognise the simple duty of supporting old and helpless parents.

[Footnote 45: Hearne, _Journey to the Northern Ocean_, p. 345 _sq._]

[Footnote 46: Richardson, _Arctic Searching Expedition_, ii. 17.]

[Footnote 47: Powers, _op. cit._ p. 118 _sq._]

[Footnote 48: Beechey, _Voyage to the Pacific and Behring's Strait_, ii. 402.]

[Footnote 49: Harmon, _Voyages and Travels in the Interior of North America_, p. 348.]

[Footnote 50: Morgan, _League of the Iroquois_, p. 171.]

[Footnote 51: Veniaminof, quoted by Petroff, _loc. cit._ p. 155.]

[Footnote 52: Boas, 'Central Eskimo,' in _Ann. Rep. Bur. Ethn._ vi. 566.]

[Footnote 53: Murdoch, 'Point Barrow Expedition,' in _Ann. Rep. Bur. Ethn._ ix. 417. Turner, 'Ungava District,' _ibid._ xi. 191.]

[Footnote 54: Cranz, _op. cit._ i. 174, 150. _Cf._ Egede, _Description of Greenland_, p. 147; Holm, 'Ethnologisk Skizze af Angmagsalikerne,' in _Meddelelser om Grönland_, x. 93.]

[Footnote 55: Wied-Neuwied, _op. cit._ ii. 40.]

[Footnote 56: Bridges, 'Manners and Customs of the Firelanders,' in _A Voice for South America_, xiii. 206.]

[Footnote 57: Salvado, _Mémoires historiques sur l'Australie_, p. 277. _Cf._ Curr, _The Australian Race_, iii. 155; Gason, 'Dieyerie Tribe,' in Woods, _Native Tribes of South Australia_, p. 258; Mathew, 'Australian Aborigines,' in _Jour. & Proceed. Roy. Soc. N. S. Wales_, xxiii. 388.]

[Footnote 58: Lewin, _Wild Races of South-Eastern India_, p. 256.]

[Footnote 59: Hodgson, _Miscellaneous Essays_, i. 123.]

[Footnote 60: Shaw, in _Antananarivo Annual_, iii. 82.]

[Footnote 61: Caillié, _op. cit._ i. 352.]

[Footnote 62: See _infra_, on the Subjection of Children.]

At a higher stage of civilisation reverence for parents reaches its pitch, and the duty of maintaining them in their old age is taken for a matter of course. Among the present Hindus "it would certainly be regarded as a most disgraceful thing were a man who could do anything for the support of an aged father or mother to allow the burden of their maintenance to fall on strangers";[63] and it is common for unmarried soldiers to stint themselves almost to starvation point, that they may send home money to their parents.[64] The priesthood of modern Buddhism teach that children shall "respect their parents, and perform all kinds of offices for them, even though they should have servants whom they could command to do all that they require."[65] At ancient Athens, before a man could become a magistrate, evidence was to be produced that he had treated his parents properly; and a person who refused his parents food and dwelling lost his right of speaking in the national assembly.[66] According to {537} the Icelandic Grágás, a man should maintain in the first place his mother, in the second his father, in the third his own children.[67] The Talmud enjoins the duty of maintaining parents;[68] and so does Muhammedan law, "if the parents are both poor and lastingly infirm, or both poor and insane."[69]

[Footnote 63: Wilkins, _Modern Hinduism_, p. 418.]

[Footnote 64: Monier Williams, _Indian Wisdom_, p. 440, n. 1.]

[Footnote 65: Hardy, _op. cit._ p. 494. _Cf._ _ibid._ p. 495.]

[Footnote 66: Schmidt, _Ethik der alten Griechen_, ii. 144.]

[Footnote 67: _Grágás_, Omaga-balkr, 1, vol. i. 232.]

[Footnote 68: Katz, _Der wahre Talmudjude_, p. 119.]

[Footnote 69: Sachau, _op. cit._ p. 17 _sq._]

Christianity, as will be shown, in one essential point changed the notions of antiquity regarding children's duties towards their parents: it made these duties subordinate to men's duties towards God. "Verily I say unto you, There is no man that hath left house, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my sake, and the gospel's, but he shall receive an hundredfold now in this time, houses, and brethren, and sisters, and mothers, and children, and lands, with persecutions; and in the world to come eternal life."[70] There are numerous legends and lives of saints in which the desertion of the nearest relations is recorded as one of the leading features of their sanctity, and as one of their chief titles to honour.[71] Some Catholic writers were of opinion that a man might lawfully abandon his parents, even though they could not be supported without him, and enter religion, committing the care of them to God. But Thomas Aquinas says that this would be tempting God, adding however that he who has already professed religion "ought not, on any plea of supporting his parents, to quit the cloister in which he is buried with Christ, and entangle himself again in worldly business."[72] Yet our duties towards our parents come next to our duties towards God. We ought to aid them when in want, and to supplicate God in their behalf that they may lead prosperous and happy lives.[73]

[Footnote 70: _St. Mark_, x. 29 _sq._]

[Footnote 71: _Cf._ Farrer, _Paganism and Christianity_, p. 196.]

[Footnote 72: Thomas Aquinas, _Summa Theologica_, ii.-ii. 101. 4.]

[Footnote 73: _Catechism of the Council of Trent_, iii. 5. 10 _sq._]

The duty of supporting aged parents has its root in {538} the sentiments of affection, gratitude, and regard, and, to some extent, in superstitious fear. However feeble they be, the parents have in their hands a powerful weapon--the curse; or, when they are dead, their ghosts may avenge their wrongs on their neglectful children. All these circumstances will be discussed in the chapter dealing with the subjection of children.

We have further to consider the duty of assisting brothers and sisters and more distant relatives. Among the Aleuts, says Veniaminof, a brother "must always aid his brother in war as well as in the chase, and each protect the other; but if anybody, disregarding this natural law, should go to live apart, caring only for himself, such a one should be discarded by his relatives in case of attack by enemies or animals, or in time of storms; and such dishonourable conduct would lead to general contempt."[74] Among the Point Barrow Eskimo "the older children take very good care of the smaller ones";[75] and of the Sia Indians (Pueblos) we are told that "a marked trait is their loving kindness and care for younger brothers and sisters."[76] Dr. Schweinfurth writes:--"Notwithstanding . . . that certain instances may be alleged which seem to demonstrate that the character of the Dinka is unfeeling, these cases never refer to such as are bound by the ties of kindred. Parents do not desert their children, nor are brothers faithless to brothers, but are ever prompt to render whatever aid is possible."[77] I presume that these examples of fraternal relations may, on the whole, be regarded as expressive of universal facts. According to Confucius, the love which brother should bear to brother is second only to that which is due from children to parents.[78]

[Footnote 74: Veniaminof, quoted by Petroff, _loc. cit._ p. 155.]

[Footnote 75: Murdoch, in _Ann. Rep. Bur. Ethn._ ix. 417.]

[Footnote 76: Stevenson, 'Sia,' in _Ann. Rep. Bur. Ethn._ xi. 22.]

[Footnote 77: Schweinfurth, _Heart of Africa_, i. 169.]

[Footnote 78: Douglas, _Confucianism and Taouism_, p. 123.]

The duty of assisting more distant relatives is much more variable. It may be said that, as a general rule, among {539} savages and barbarians--with the exception, perhaps, of those who live in small family-groups--as also among the peoples of archaic culture, this duty is more prominent and extends further than amongst ourselves. The blood-tie has much greater strength, related families keep more closely together for mutual protection and aid. The Angmagsaliks of Eastern Greenland, says Lieutenant Holm, consider that the tie of blood imposes mutual assistance as a duty under all circumstances.[79] The Omahas maintain that "generosity cannot be exercised toward kindred, who have a natural right to our assistance."[80] Among the natives of Madagascar "the claims of relationship are distinctly recognised by custom and law. If one branch of a family becomes poor, the members of the same family support him; if he be sold into slavery for debt, they often unite in furnishing the price of his redemption. . . . The laws facilitate and encourage, and sometimes even enforce, such acts of kindness."[81] In his description of the Australian Bangerang, Mr. Curr observes, "Though their ways were different from ours, it always seemed to me that the bonds of friendship between blood relations were stronger, as a rule, with savages than amongst ourselves."[82] Among the Philippine Islanders "families are very united, and claims for help and protection are admitted, however distant the relationship may be."[83] Of the Burmans it is said, "No people can be more careful in preserving and acknowledging the bonds of family relationship to the remotest degrees, and not merely as a matter of form, but as involving the duty of mutual assistance."[84] Among the ancient Hindus, Persians, Greeks, and Romans, persons belonging to the four generations of near relatives--the Sapindas, Syngeneis, Anchisteis, or Propinqui--were expected to assist {540} each other whenever it was needed.[85] The Scandinavians considered him to be a bad man who did not help his kindred against strangers, even though there was enmity between the relatives.[86]

[Footnote 79: Holm, in _Meddelelser om Grönland_, x. 87.]

[Footnote 80: Dorsey, 'Omaha Sociology,' in _Ann. Rep. Bur. Ethn._ iii. 274.]

[Footnote 81: Ellis, _History of Madagascar_, i. 138. _Cf._ Sibree, _The Great African Island_, p. 256 _sq._]

[Footnote 82: Curr, _Recollections of Squatting in Victoria_, p. 274.]

[Footnote 83: Foreman, _Philippine Islands_, p. 186.]

[Footnote 84: Forbes, _British Burma_, p. 59.]

[Footnote 85: Leist, _Alt-arisches Jus Civile_, i. 47 _sqq._, 231 _sqq._]

[Footnote 86: Rosenberg, _Nordboernes Aandsliv_, i. 488.]

But the duty of helping the needy and protecting those in danger goes beyond the limits of the family and the _kin_. Uncivilised peoples are, as a rule, described as kind towards members of their own community or tribe. Between themselves charity is enjoined as a duty, and generosity is praised as a virtue. Indeed, their customs regarding mutual aid are often much more stringent than our own. And this applies even to the lowest savages.[87]

[Footnote 87: The prevalence of mutual aid in uncivilised communities has been duly emphasised by Prince Kropotkin, _Mutual Aid_, p. 76 _sqq._]

"La disposition à la générosité," says M. Hyades, "est un trait charactéristique des Fuégiens. Ils aiment à partager ce qu'ils ont avec tous ceux qui les entourent."[88] Captain Weddell likewise speaks of "the philanthropic principle which these people exhibit towards one another."[89] Burchell tells us that the Bushmans, between themselves, "exercise the virtues of hospitality and generosity, often in an extraordinary degree."[90] The Veddahs of Ceylon are friendly towards each other, and ready to help a person in distress.[91] The Andamanese display much mutual affection in their social relations, and frequently make presents of the best that they possess. "Every care and consideration," says Mr. Man, "are paid by all classes to the very young, the weak, the aged, and the helpless, and these, being made special objects of interest and attention, invariably fare better in regard to the comforts and necessaries of daily life than any of the otherwise more fortunate members of the community."[92] The Australian natives are almost universally praised for their friendly behaviour towards persons {541} belonging to their own people.[93] Presents given to one of a group are speedily divided as far as possible among the rest, and when a black man has employment at a station he generally gives away most of his earnings to his comrades in the camp.[94] "Between the males of a tribe," says Mr. Curr, "there always exists a strong feeling of brotherhood, so that, come weal come woe, a man can always calculate on the aid, in danger, of every member of his tribe."[95] Regarding the Central Australian natives, Messrs. Spencer and Gillen observe that their treatment of one another "is marked on the whole by considerable kindness, that is, of course, in the case of members of friendly groups, with every now and then the perpetration of acts of cruelty."[96] Collins says that the aborigines about Botany Bay and Port Jackson "applauded acts of kindness and generosity, for of both these they were capable."[97]

[Footnote 88: Hyades and Deniker, _Mission scientifique du Cap Horn_, vii. 243.]

[Footnote 89: Weddell, _op. cit._ p. 168. According to other authorities, the Fuegians, though free from malevolence and cruelty, are not distinguished for active benevolence (Bridges, in _A Voice for South America_, xiii. 208, 213. Bove, _Patagonia_, pp. 133, 137. Lovisato, 'Appunti etnografici sulla Terra del Fuoco,' in _Cosmos di Guida Cora_, viii. 145, 151. _Cf._ also Hyades and Deniker, _op. cit._ vii. 238, 240, 243 _sq._).]

[Footnote 90: Burchell, _Travels in the Interior of Southern Africa_, ii. 54.]

[Footnote 91: Sarasin, _Ergebnisse naturwissenschaftlicher Forschungen auf Ceylon_, iii. 545, 550. Schmidt, _Ceylon_, p. 276.]

[Footnote 92: Man, in _Jour. Anthr. Inst._ xii. 93 _sq._ _Cf._ Portman, _ibid._ xxv. 368.]

[Footnote 93: Curr, _The Australian Race_, i. 49. Hodgson, _Reminiscences of Australia_, p. 88. Oldfield, 'Aborigines of Australia,' in _Trans. Ethn. Soc._ N.S. iii. 226. Eyre, _op. cit._ ii. 385 _sq._ Brough Smyth, _op. cit._ ii. 279. Lumholtz, _Among Cannibals_, p. 176. Mathew, in _Jour. & Proceed. Roy. Soc. N.S. Wales_, xxiii. 387 _sq._ Breton, _Excursions in New South Wales_, p. 218. Fison and Howitt, _op. cit._ p. 259. Wyatt, 'Manners and Superstitions of the Adelaide and Encounter Bay Aboriginal Tribes,' in Woods, _Native Tribes of South Australia_, p. 162. Schuermann, 'Aboriginal Tribes of Port Lincoln,' _ibid._ pp. 243, 244, 247.]

[Footnote 94: Schuermann, _loc. cit._ p. 244. Ridley, _Kámilarói_, p. 158. Fison and Howitt, _op. cit._ p. 256. Lumholtz, _Among Cannibals_, pp. 199, 343. Stirling, _Report of the Horn Expedition to Central Australia. Part IV. Anthropology_, p. 36.]

[Footnote 95: Curr, _The Australian Race_, i. 62.]

[Footnote 96: Spencer and Gillen, _Native Tribes of Central Australia_, p. 50.]

[Footnote 97: Collins, _English Colony in New South Wales_, i. 549.]

Passing to savages and barbarians who have reached a somewhat higher level of culture:--We are told by Mr. Catlin, with reference to the North American Indians, that, "to their friends, there are no people on earth that are more kind."[98] According to Adair, "they are very kind and liberal to every one of their own tribe, even to the last morsel of food they enjoy"; Nature's school "teaches them the plain easy rule, 'do to others, as you would be done by.'"[99] Harmon praises the generosity of the Indians:--"They are more ready, in proportion to their means, to assist a neighbour who may be in want, than the inhabitants, generally, of civilised countries. An Indian rarely kills an animal, without sending a part of it to a neighbour if he has one near him."[100] The Naudowessies "supply the deficiency of their friends with any superfluity of their own," and "in dangers they readily give assistance to those of their band {542} who stand in need of it, without any expectation of return."[101] Among the Iroquois "kindness to the orphan, hospitality to all, and a common brotherhood, were among the doctrines held up for acceptance by their religious instructors"; an Iroquois "would surrender his dinner to feed the hungry, vacate his bed to refresh the weary, and give up his apparel to clothe the naked."[102] Among the Omahas grades of merit or bravery were of two sorts: to the first class belonged such as had given to the poor on many occasions, and had invited guests to many feasts. To the second class belonged those who, besides having done these things many times, had killed several of the foe, and had brought home many horses. When a person sees a poor man or woman, they said, he should make presents to the unfortunate being; thus he can gain the goodwill of Wakanda as well as that of his own people.[103] The Ahts of Vancouver Island succour any one in need of help, without looking for any ulterior benefit.[104] The Aleuts were instructed to be kind to others and to refrain from selfishness; it was the custom for the successful hunter or fisher, particularly in times of scarcity, to share his prize with all, not only taking no larger share, but often less than the others.[105] Among the Eskimo about Behring Strait, whenever a successful trader accumulates property and food, and is known to work solely for his own welfare, he becomes an object of enmity and hatred among his fellow-villagers, which ends in one of two ways--the villagers may compel him to make a feast and distribute his goods, or they may kill him and divide his property among themselves.[106] According to the Greenland creed, all those who had striven and suffered for the benefit of their fellow-men should find a happy existence after death in the abodes of the supreme being, Tornarsuk.[107] "The Greenlander," says Dr. Nansen, "is the most compassionate of creatures with regard to his neighbour. His first social law is to help others."[108] Captain Hall holds an equally favourable opinion of those Eskimo with whom he came in contact. "As between themselves," he says, "there can be no people exceeding them in this virtue kindness of heart. Take, for instance, times of great scarcity of food. If one family happens to have any provisions on {543} hand, these are shared with all their neighbours. If one man is successful in capturing a seal, though his family may need it all to save them from the pangs of hunger, yet the whole of his people about, including the poor, the widow, the fatherless, are at once invited to a seal-feast."[109] They believe that all Innuits who have been good, "that is, who have been kind to the poor and hungry," will after death go to Koodleparmiung, or heaven, whereas those who have been bad, "that is, unkind to one another," will go to Adleparmeun, or hell.[110] Many of the South American peoples are praised for their kind disposition of mind;[111] the Guiana Indians seemed to a Christian missionary to be "generous to a fault."[112] The Caribs had all their interests in common, lived in great harmony, and loved each other heartily.[113]

[Footnote 98: Catlin, _North American Indians_, ii. 241.]

[Footnote 99: Adair, _History of the American Indians_, pp. 431, 429.]

[Footnote 100: Harmon, _op. cit._ p. 349.]

[Footnote 101: Carver, _op. cit._ p. 247.]

[Footnote 102: Morgan, _League of the Iroquois_, pp. 172, 329.]

[Footnote 103: Dorsey, 'Omaha Sociology,' in _Ann. Rep. Bur. Ethn._ iii. 333, 274. _Cf._ _Idem_, 'Siouan Sociology,' _ibid._ xv. 232 (Kansas).]

[Footnote 104: Sproat, _op. cit._ p. 166.]

[Footnote 105: Veniaminof, quoted by Petroff, _loc. cit._ p. 155, and Dall, _Alaska_, p. 392.]

[Footnote 106: Nelson, 'Eskimo about Bering Strait,' in _Ann. Rep. Bur. Ethn._ xviii. 305.]

[Footnote 107: Rink, _Greenland_, p. 141.]

[Footnote 108: Nansen, _First Crossing of Greenland_, ii. 304. _Cf._ _ibid._ ii. 334; Nansen, _Eskimo Life_, pp. 116, 177; Egede, _op. cit._ pp. 123, 126 _sq._]

[Footnote 109: Hall, _Arctic Researches_, p. 567.]

[Footnote 110: _Ibid._ p. 571 _sq._]

[Footnote 111: von Martius, _Beiträge zur Ethnographie Amerika's_, i. 217, 641 (Guarayos, Macusis). Musters, _op. cit._ p. 195 (Patagonians).]

[Footnote 112: Brett, _Indian Tribes of Guiana_, p. 276.]

[Footnote 113: de Poircy-Rochefort, _Histoire naturelle et morale des Iles Antilles_, p. 460.]

Among the Tonga Islanders the sentiment of humanity, or a fellow-feeling for one another, is universally approved. They "are not only not selfish, but admire liberality, and are practically liberal." When any one is about to eat, he always shares what he has with those about him without any hesitation, and not to do so would be considered exceedingly vile and selfish. So, also, "if one chief sees something in the possession of another, which he has a strong desire to have, he has only to ask him for it, and in all probability it is readily and liberally given."[114] Not even the Fijians, who took great pains to instil into the minds of their youth a contempt for compassionate impulses and an admiration for relentless cruelty,[115] were destitute of humanity and friendly feelings.[116] In Aneiteum, of the New Hebrides, the people believed that the sin which would be visited with the severest punishment in the land of the dead was stinginess or niggardliness in giving away food, and that the virtue which received the highest reward was a generous hospitality and a giving liberally at feasts.[117] In Tana, another island belonging to the same group, "one man has only to ask anything from his neighbours, and he gets it."[118] Of the New Caledonians Mr. Atkinson states that, among themselves, they are "of a generosity that seems to arise mainly from aversion to refuse any request."[119] The Dyaks are described as hospitable, {544} kindly, and humane, "to a degree which well might shame ourselves";[120] whilst the practice of head-hunting is carried on by every tribe at the expense of its neighbour, the members of each community have strong feelings of sympathy for each other.[121] Among the Sea Dyaks, says Grassland, "if any are sick or unable to work, the rest help; and there seems to me a much stronger bond of union amongst them than I have ever seen among the labouring classes in England."[122]

[Footnote 114: Mariner, _op. cit._ ii. 153, 154, 165.]

[Footnote 115: Erskine, _Cruise among the Islands of the Western Pacific_, p. 247.]

[Footnote 116: _Ibid._ pp. 247, 273. Williams and Calvert, _op. cit._ pp. 93, 115 _sq._ Seemann, _Viti_, p. 192.]

[Footnote 117: Inglis, _In the New Hebrides_, p. 31.]

[Footnote 118: Campbell, _A Year in the New Hebrides_, p. 169.]

[Footnote 119: Atkinson, in _Folk-Lore_, xiv. 248.]

[Footnote 120: Boyle, _Adventures among the Dyaks of Borneo_, p. 215.]

[Footnote 121: Bock, _Head-Hunters of Borneo_, p. 210 _sq._ Brooke, _Ten Years in Saráwak_, i. 57.]

[Footnote 122: Crossland, quoted by Ling Roth, _Natives of Sarawak_, i. 85.]