XXV. THE SUBJECTION OF CHILDREN…

XXV. THE SUBJECTION OF CHILDREN

FROM the modes of conduct which affect the life or bodily welfare of a fellow-creature we shall pass to those relating to personal freedom. In its absolute form the right of liberty may be granted to a perfect being, but has no existence on earth. Ever since the conduct of men became subject to moral censure, the right of doing what they pleased was eo ipso denied them; and in resisting wrong men have not only in various ways interfered with the liberty of their fellow-creatures, but have considered such interference to be their right or even their duty. As to the question what conduct is wrong opinions have differed, and so also as to the proper means of interference; but with neither of these questions are we concerned at present. Nor shall I deal with the subject of political liberty, nor with such restrictions as people lay on their own freedom by contract. I shall only consider facts bearing upon that state of subjection to which large classes of individuals are doomed by custom or law, on account of their birth or other circumstances beyond their own control--the subjection of children, wives, and slaves to their parents, husbands, or masters.

Among the lower races every family has its head, who exercises more or less authority over its members. In some instances where the maternal system of descent prevails, a man's children are in the power of the head of {598} their mother's family or of their maternal uncle;[1] but this is by no means the rule even among peoples who reckon kinship through females only. The facts which have been adduced as examples of the so-called "mother-right" in most instances imply, chiefly, that children are named after their mothers, not after their fathers, and that property and rank descend exclusively in the female line;[2] and this is certainly very different from a denial of paternal rights.[3] Among those Australian tribes which have the system of maternal descent the father is distinctly said to be the master of his children.[4] In Melanesia, where the clan of the children is determined by that of the mother, she is, to quote Dr. Codrington, "in no way the head of the family. The house of the family is the father's, the garden is his, the rule and government are his."[5] As regards the Iroquois--among whom, at the death of a man, his property is divided between his brothers, sisters, and mother's brothers, whilst the property of a woman is transmitted to her children and sisters[6]--we are told that the mother superintends the children, but that the word of the father is law and must be obeyed by the whole household.[7] Among the Mpongwe, who reckon kinship through the mother, the father has by law unrestricted power over his children.[8] And in Madagascar, where children generally follow the condition of the mother,[9] the commands of a father or an ancestor are, among all the tribes, "held as most sacredly binding upon his descendants."[10] Whatever might have been the case in earlier times, it is a fact beyond dispute that among the great bulk of existing savages children are in the power of {599} their father, though he may to some extent have to share his authority with the mother.

[Footnote 1: Westermarck, History of Human Marriage, p. 40 sq. Grosse, Die Formen der Familie, p. 183 sq. Post, Afrikanische Jurisprudenz, i. 51 sq. Marsden, History of Sumatra, p. 262 sq.]

[Footnote 2: Westermarck, op. cit. p. 97.]

[Footnote 3: See von Dargun, Mutterrecht und Vaterrecht, p. 3 sqq.]

[Footnote 4: Curr, The Australian Race, i. 60, 61, 69.]

[Footnote 5: Codrington, Melanesians, p. 34.]

[Footnote 6: Westermarck, op. cit. p. 110.]

[Footnote 7: Seaver, Narrative of the Life of Mrs. Mary Jemison, p. 165.]

[Footnote 8: Hübbe-Schleiden, Ethiopien, pp. 151, 153.]

[Footnote 9: Westermarck, op. cit. p. 103.]

[Footnote 10: Sibree, The Great African Island, p. 326.]

The extent of the father's power, however, is subject to great variations. Among some savage peoples, as we have seen, he may destroy his new-born child; among others infanticide is prohibited by custom. Among some he may sell his children,[11] among others such a right is expressly denied him.[12] Frequently he gives away his daughter in marriage without consulting her wishes; but in other cases her own consent is required, or she is allowed to choose her husband herself.[13] Marriage by purchase does not imply that "a girl is sold by her father in the same manner, and with the same authority, with which he would dispose of a cow."[14] It seems that the paternal authority is always in some degree limited by public opinion. Among the Káfirs of the Hindu-Kush, for instance, though the head of the house is described as an autocrat in his own family, the son, backed by public opinion, may, and does, openly quarrel with and threaten his father in cases when the father's actions have been of a particularly gross character.[15]

[Footnote 11: Schadenberg, 'Negritos der Philippinen,' in Zeitschr. f. Ethnologie, xii. 137. Post, Afrikanische Jurisprudenz, i. 51 sq. (Bogos, Fantis, Dahomans). Paulitschke, Ethnographie Nordost-Afrikas, p. 189. Leuschner, in Steinmetz, Rechtsverhältnisse, p. 16 sq. (Bakwiri). Among the Banaka and Bapuku, in the Cameroons, the father may give his daughter in payment for a debt, but not his son (ibid. p. 31).]

[Footnote 12: Kraft, in Steinmetz, Rechtsverhältnisse, p. 285 (Wapokomo). Rautanen, ibid. p. 329 (Ondonga).]

[Footnote 13: Westermarck, op. cit. p. 215 sqq.]

[Footnote 14: Leslie, Among the Zulus and Amatongas, p. 194. Westermarck, op. cit. ch. x.]

[Footnote 15: Robertson, Káfirs of the Hindu-Kush, p. 474.]

The essence of dependence lies in obedience and submission. To judge from what is said about children's behaviour towards their parents, the authority of the father must among some savages be practically very slight.

The South American Charruas "ne défendent rien à leurs enfans, et ceux-ci n'ont aucun respect pour leurs pères."[16] Among the Brazilian Indians, according to von Martius, respect and obedience on the part of children towards their parents are unknown.[17] {600} Among the Tarahumares of Mexico "the children grow up entirely independent, and if angry a boy may even strike his father."[18] We are told that among the Aleuts parents "scarcely ever enjoy so much authority as to compel their own children to shew them the least obedience, or to go a single step in their service";[19] but this does not seem to hold good of all of their tribes.[20] Of the Kamchadales Steller states that the children insult their parents with all sorts of bad talk, stand in no fear of them, obey them in nothing, and are consequently never commanded to do anything, nor punished.[21]

[Footnote 16: Azara, Voyages dans l'Amérique méridionale, ii. 23.]

[Footnote 17: von Martius, in Jour. Roy. Geo. Soc. ii. 199. Cf. Southey, History of Brazil, iii. 387 (Guaycurus).]

[Footnote 18: Lumholtz, Unknown Mexico, p. 275.]

[Footnote 19: Georgi, Russia, iii. 212.]

[Footnote 20: Veniaminof, quoted by Petroff, 'Report on Alaska,' in Tenth Census of the United States, pp. 155, 158.]

[Footnote 21: Steller, Beschreibung von dem Lande Kamtschatka, p. 353. Cf. Georgi, op. cit. iii. 158.]

Other savages, again, are by no means deficient in filial piety.[22]

[Footnote 22: Im Thurn, Among the Indians of Guiana, p. 213. Schwaner, Borneo, i. 162 (Malays of the Barito River in Borneo). Worcester, Philippine Islands, p. 481. Lewin, Hill Tracts of Chittagong, p. 102 (Kukis). Vámbéry, Türkenvolk, p. 268 (Kara-Kirghiz). Macpherson, Memorials of Service in India, p. 67; Hunter, Annals of Rural Bengal, iii. 72 (Kandhs). Granville and Roth, in Jour. Anthr. Inst. xxviii. 109 (Jekris of the Warri District of the Niger Coast Protectorate). Stuhlmann, Mit Emin Pascha ins Herz von Afrika, p. 801 (Latuka).]

Among various Eskimo[23] and North American Indian tribes[24] children are described as very obedient to their parents. Parry says of the Eskimo of Winter Island and Igloolik that disobedience is scarcely ever known, and that "a word or even a look from a parent is enough."[25] The Potawatomis hold the violation of the advice and directions of their parents one of the most atrocious crimes.[26] In Tonga "filial duty is a most important duty and appears to be universally felt."[27] One of the chief duties which the Ainos taught their children was obedience to parents.[28] Among the Central Asiatic Turks a son, whilst young, behaves as if he were his father's slave.[29] Among the {601} Ossetes "the authority of the head of the family, whether grandfather, father, stepfather, uncle, or elder brother, is submitted to unconditionally; the young men never sit in his presence, nor speak with a loud voice, nor contradict him."[30] Among the Barea and Kunáma "a father and a mother are respected to the utmost degree. A son never dares to contradict his parents nor oppose their commands, however unjust they be. The mother particularly is much beloved and tenderly cared for at her old age."[31] Among the Mandingoes children "have a great veneration for their parents," and "would feel extreme reluctance to disobey their father."[32] Of the Bachapins, a Bechuana tribe, it is said that **"filial obedience is strenuously enforced."[33] Among the Kafirs "any one who should fail in respect for his father, or show any neglect of him, would draw on himself the contempt of the whole horde; there have been even instances in which want of filial duty has been punished with infamy and banishment."[34]

[Footnote 23: Hall, Arctic Researches, p. 568. Boas, 'Central Eskimo,' in Ann. Rep. Bur. Ethn. vi. 566. Murdoch, 'Ethnol. Results of the Point Barrow Expedition,' ibid. ix. 417. Turner, 'Ethnology of the Ungava District,' ibid. xi. 191 (Koksoagmyut).]

[Footnote 24: Turner, in Ann. Rep. Bur. Ethn. xi. 269 (Hudson Bay Indians). Heriot, Travels through the Canadas, p. 530. Harmon, Journal of Voyages, p. 347 (Indians on the east side of the Rocky Mountains).]

[Footnote 25: Parry, Journal of a Second Voyage for the Discovery of a North-West Passage, p. 530.]

[Footnote 26: Keating, Expedition to the Source of St. Peter's River, i. 127.]

[Footnote 27: Mariner, Natives of the Tonga Islands, ii. 179.]

[Footnote 28: Batchelor, Ainu and their Folk-Lore, p. 254.]

[Footnote 29: Vámbéry, op. cit. p. 226.]

[Footnote 30: von Haxthausen, Transcaucasia, p. 414 sq.]

[Footnote 31: Munzinger, Ostafrikanische Studien, p. 474.]

[Footnote 32: Caillié, Travels through Central Africa, i. 352 sq.]

[Footnote 33: Burchell, Travels in the Interior of Southern Africa, ii. 557.]

[Footnote 34: Lichtenstein, Travels in Southern Africa, i. 265. Alberti, De Kaffers aan de Zuidkust van Afrika, p. 116 sqq. Shooter, Kafirs of Natal, p. 98.]

The period during which the paternal authority lasts varies. The daughter is in her father's power till she marries, and as a rule no longer;[35] but in some instances his authority over her continues even after her marriage.[36] This, we have reason to believe, is particularly the case when the husband, on marrying, does not take his wife to his own home, but goes himself to live with her in the house or community of her father.[37] A father's authority over his son frequently comes to an end as the young man {602} grows up. Among the Fuegians a son becomes independent of his parents at a very early age, being allowed to leave their wigwam if he pleases.[38] Among the Togiagamutes, an Eskimo tribe, "the youth, as soon as he is able to build a kaiak and to support himself, no longer observes any family ties but goes where his fancy takes him."[39] Of the Australian natives it is said that sons become independent when they have gone through the ceremonies by which they attain to the status of manhood;[40] among the Bangerang tribe of Victoria "after his twelfth year or so the boy was very little subject to the father, though parental affection always endured."[41] Among the Bedouins "the young man, as soon as it is in his power, emancipates himself from the father's authority, still paying him some deference as long as he continues in his tent; but whenever he can become master of a tent himself (to obtain which is his constant endeavour), he listens to no advice, nor obeys any earthly command but that of his own will."[42] That a son is emancipated from the father's power by getting full-grown or by leaving the household is probably the rule among the great majority of the lower races.[43] But here again instances to the contrary are not wanting.[44] In Flores the sons even of rich families are dressed like slaves at public feasts, so long as the father lives, as also at his funeral. This, our authority adds, is apparently the external sign of a strict patria potestas, which remains in force till the funeral; until then the son is the father's slave.[45]

[Footnote 35: See, e.g., Leuschner, in Steinmetz, Rechtsverhältnisse, p. 17 (Bakwiri); Fama Mademba, ibid. p. 65 (natives of the Sansanding States); Nicole, ibid. p. 100 (Diakité); Lang, ibid. p. 224 (Washambala); Kraft, ibid. p. 286 (Wapokomo); Marx, ibid. p. 349 (Amahlubi); Sorge, ibid. p. 404 (Nissan Islanders of the Bismarck Archipelago).]

[Footnote 36: See, e.g., Beverley, in Steinmetz, Rechtsverhältnisse, p. 206. What is said, ibid. p. 31, concerning the Banaka and Bapuku does not seem to agree with the statement p. 30, that the husband is the head of his household and the possessor of his wives.]

[Footnote 37: Cf. Mazzarella, La condizione giuridica del marito nella famiglia matriarcale, passim; infra, on the Subjection of Wives. The point in question, like the whole subject of the father's authority among the lower races, requires much further investigation.]

[Footnote 38: Bove, Patagonia, Terra del Fuoco, p. 133.]

[Footnote 39: Petroff, loc. cit. p. 135.]

[Footnote 40: Curr, The Australian Race, i. 61.]

[Footnote 41: Idem, Recollections of Squatting in Victoria, p. 248.]

[Footnote 42: Burckhardt, Notes on the Bedouins and Wahábys, p. 201.]

[Footnote 43: For other instances, see Munzinger, Die Sitten und das Recht der Bogos, p. 36; Post, Afrikanische Jurisprudenz, i. 51 (Somals); Leuschner, in Steinmetz, Rechtsverhältnisse, p. 17 (Bakwiri); Nicole, ibid. p. 100 (Diakité); Beverley, ibid. p. 206 (Wagogo); Marx, ibid. p. 349 (Amahlubi); Sorge, ibid. p. 404 (Nissan Islanders).]

[Footnote 44: Sarbah, Fanti Customary Laws, p. 5. Stuhlmann, op. cit. p. 801 (Latuka). Steinmetz, Rechtsverhältnisse, p. 31 (Banaka and Bapuku). Fama Mademba, ibid. p. 65 (natives of the Sansanding States). Kraft, ibid. p. 286 (Wapokomo), Abercromby, Pre- and Proto-historic Finns, i. 181 (Mordvins).]

[Footnote 45: von Martens, quoted by Nieboer, Slavery as an Industrial System, p. 26, n. 2.]

{603} However, the expiration of the paternal power, in the proper sense of the term, does not necessarily imply the loss of all authority over the children. The father, at all events, retains the rights incident to his superior age, and among many uncivilised peoples these are great. Old age commands respect and gives authority.

Among the Fuegians "in each family the word of an old man is accepted as law by the young people; they never dispute his authority."[46] The Patagonians "pay respect to old people, taking great care of them."[47] The Caribs "portent un grand respect aus vieillards."[48] The same is the case among many of the North American Indians.[49] Among the Naudowessies, whilst the advice of a father will seldom meet with any extraordinary attention from the young Indians, "they will tremble before a grandfather, and submit to his injunctions with the utmost alacrity. The words of the ancient part of their community are esteemed by the young as oracles."[50] Among the Eskimo about Behring Strait the old men are listened to with respect;[51] and among the Point Barrow Eskimo "respect for the opinions of elders is so great that the people may be said to be practically under what is called 'simple elder rule.'"[52] Among the Veddahs of Ceylon the oldest man "is regarded with a sort of patriarchal respect when accident or occasion has brought together any others than the members of one family."[53] Among the Jakuts an old man is implicitly obeyed as a father of a family; "a young man ever gives his opinion with the greatest respect and caution; and even when asked, he submits his ideas to the judgment of the old."[54] Regard for the aged is found among the Ainos,[55] Kurilians,[56] Mongols,[57] Ossetes,[58] {604} Kukis,[59] Nicobarese,[60] Negritos of the Philippine Islands,[61] Papuans of New Guinea[62] New Caledonians,[63] Caroline Islanders,[64] Tonga Islanders,[65] and, in a remarkable degree, among the Australian aborigines.[66] "Among the Kurnai," says Mr. Howitt, "age meets with great reverence. . . . It may be stated as a general rule that authority attaches to age. It follows from this that there is no hereditary authority and no hereditary chieftain. The authority which is inherent in age attaches not alone to the man, but also to the woman." And he justly adds that this principle regulating authority seems to be, not peculiar to the Kurnai, but general to the whole Australian race.[67]

[Footnote 46: King and Fitzroy, Voyages of the "Adventure" and "Beagle," ii. 179.]

[Footnote 47: Ibid. ii. 172.]

[Footnote 48: de Poircy-de Rochefort, Histoire des Isles Antilles, p. 461.]

[Footnote 49: Buchanan, North American Indians, p. 7. Prescott, in Schoolcraft, Indian Tribes of the United States, ii. 196.]

[Footnote 50: Carver, Travels through the Interior Parts of North America, p. 243.]

[Footnote 51: Nelson, 'Eskimo about Bering Strait,' in Ann. Rep. Bur. Ethn. xviii. 304.]

[Footnote 52: Murdoch, in Ann. Rep. Bur. Ethn. ix. 427.]

[Footnote 53: Hartshorne, 'Weddas,' in Indian Antiquary, viii. 320. Cf. Deschamps, Carnet d'un voyageur, p. 395.]

[Footnote 54: Sauer, Billings' Expedition to the Northern Parts of Russia, p. 124.]

[Footnote 55: Batchelor, Ainu and their Folk-Lore, p. 254. von Siebold, Ethnol. Studien über die Aino auf der Insel Yesso, p. 25.]

[Footnote 56: Krasheninnikoff, History of Kamschatka, p. 236.]

[Footnote 57: Prejevalsky, Mongolia, i. 71.]

[Footnote 58: von Haxthausen, Transcaucasia, p. 414. Strabo (xi. 4. 8) reports the same of the Albanians of the Eastern Caucasus.]

[Footnote 59: Lewin, Hill Tracts of Chittagong, p. 102.]

[Footnote 60: Kloss, In the Andamans and Nicobars, p. 243.]

[Footnote 61: Schadenberg, in Zeitschr. f. Ethnol. xii. 135. Earl, Papuans, p. 133. Foreman, Philippine Islands, p. 209.]

[Footnote 62: Earl, op. cit. p. 81.]

[Footnote 63: Atkinson, in Folk-Lore, xiv. 248.]

[Footnote 64: Christian, Caroline Islands, p. 72. Angas, Polynesia, p. 382.]

[Footnote 65: Mariner, op. cit. ii. 155.]

[Footnote 66: Roth, North-West-Central Queensland Aborigines, p. 141. Fraser, Aborigines of New South Wales, p. 5. Schuermann, 'Aboriginal Tribes of Port Lincoln,' in Woods, Native Tribes of South Australia, p. 226. Hale U.S. Exploring Expedition. Vol. VI. Ethnography and Philology, p. 113. Mitchell, Expeditions into the Interior of Eastern Australia, ii. 346. Brough Smyth, Aborigines of Victoria, i. 137 sq. See also Steinmetz, Ethnol. Studien zur Entwicklungsgeschichte der Strafe, ii. 26 sqq.]

[Footnote 67: Fison and Howitt, Kamilaroi and Kurnai, p. 211 sq.]

Turning to African peoples: among the Danakil the aged of both sexes, but especially the males, are held in great veneration, and the old men are consulted on every occasion of any importance.[68] "The real religion of the Barea and Kunáma," says Munzinger, "consists in an extraordinary reverence for old age. Among these peoples only the old, the weak, or the blind command respect."[69] The E[(w]e-speaking peoples on the Slave Coast have a proverb, "Respect the elders, they are our fathers."[70] Winterbottom doubts whether the ancient Lacedæmonians paid greater regard to old age than do the natives of Sierra Leone.[71] Mr. Leighton Wilson says of the Mpongwe:--"There is no part of the world where respect and veneration for age is carried to a greater length than among this people. . . . All the younger members of society are early trained to show the utmost deference to age. They must never come into the presence of aged persons or pass by their dwellings without taking off their hats and assuming a crouching gait. When seated in their presence {605} it must always be at a 'respectful distance'--a distance proportioned to the difference in their ages and position in society. If they come near enough to hand an aged man a lighted pipe or a glass of water, the bearer must always fall upon one knee. Aged persons must always be addressed as 'father' (rera) or 'mother' (ngwe). Any disrespectful deportment or reproachful language toward such persons is regarded as a misdemeanour of no ordinary aggravation. A youthful person carefully avoids communicating any disagreeable intelligence to such persons, and almost always addresses them in terms of flattery and adulation."[72] Among the For tribe of Central Africa "great consideration is shown towards women when they are old, as well as towards aged men."[73] Regard for old age is, in fact, a very general trait of the African character.[74]

[Footnote 68: Scaramucci and Giglioli, 'Notizie sui Danakil,' in Archivio per l'antropologia e la etnologia, xiv. 36.]

[Footnote 69: Munzinger, Ostafrikanische Studien, p. 474.]

[Footnote 70: Ellis, E[(w]e-speaking Peoples, p. 268.]

[Footnote 71: Winterbottom, Native Africans in the Neighbourhood of Sierra Leone, i. 211.]

[Footnote 72: Wilson, Western Africa, p. 392 sq.]

[Footnote 73: Felkin, 'Notes on the For Tribe of Central Africa,' in Proceed. Roy. Soc. Edinburgh, xiii. 224 sq.]

[Footnote 74: Monrad, Bidrag til en Skildring af Guinea-Kysten, p. 37 (Negroes of Accra). Granville and Roth, in Jour. Anthr. Inst. xxviii. 109 (Jekris). Kingsley, Travels in West Africa, p. 460 (Calabar tribes). Caillié, op. cit. i. 352 (Mandingoes). Stuhlmann, op. cit. pp. 789, 801 (Latuka). Casati, Ten Years in Equatoria, i. 186. Chanler, Through Jungle and Desert, p. 246 (Embe). New, Life, Wanderings, and Labours in Eastern Africa, p. 101 (Wanika). Johnston, Kilima-njaro Expedition, p. 419 (Masai). Arnot, Garenganze, p. 78, note. Lichtenstein, op. cit. i. 265; Alberti, op. cit. p. 118; Shooter, op. cit. p. 98 (Kafirs). Schinz, Deutsch-Südwest-Afrika, p. 82 (Hottentots).]

Not only old age, but superiority of age, gives a certain amount of power.

The Australian natives have a well-regulated order of precedence and authority. "When the individual reaches the full development of puberty, he or she undergoes a ceremony which entitles him or her on its successful completion to a certain social rank or status in the community. As life progresses, other and higher ranks are progressively attainable for each sex, until the highest and most honourable grade, that enjoyed by an old man, or an old woman, is reached."[75] All North American Indians "hold that superior age gives authority; and every person is taught from childhood to obey his superiors and to rule over his inferiors. The superiors are those of greater age; the inferiors, those who are younger."[76] The same influence of age makes itself felt in the relations between elder {606} and younger brothers and sisters.[77] Navaho myths indicate that "even among twins, the younger must defer to the elder."[78] The eldest brother comes next to the father in authority, and, in case of his death, succeeds him as the head of the family. The Aleuts described by Father Veniaminof maintained that "if one had no father he should respect his oldest brother and serve him as he would a father."[79] Among the Kalmucks "the elder brother is the despot of the younger ones, and is even allowed to punish them."[80] In Madagascar so great respect is paid to seniority "that if two slaves who are brothers are going a journey, any burden must be carried by the younger one, so far at least as his strength will allow."[81] In Tonga custom decrees "that all persons shall be in the service of their older and superior relations, if those relations think proper to employ them"; and every chief shows the greatest regard for his eldest sister.[82] Among the Hottentots "the highest oath a man could take and still takes, was to swear by his eldest sister, and if he should abuse this name, the sister will walk into his flock and take his finest cows and sheep, and no law could prevent her from doing so."[83] Among the Point Barrow Eskimo, again, "seniority gives precedence when there are several women in one hut, and the sway of the elder in the direction of everything connected with her duties seems never disputed."[84]

[Footnote 75: Roth, op. cit. p. 169. Cf. ibid. p. 65 sq.; Eyre, Journals of Expeditions of Discovery into Central Australia, ii. 315.]

[Footnote 76: Powell, 'Sociology,' in American Anthropologist, N. S. i. 700. Cf. Idem, in Ann. Rep. Bur. Ethn. iii. p. lviii.]

[Footnote 77: Nachtigal, Sahara und Sudan, i. 450 (Tedâ). Chavanne, Die Sahara, p. 396 (Arabs of the Sahara). Paulitschke, op. cit. p. 192 (Gallas). von Haxthausen, Transcaucasia, p. 415 (Ossetes). Bach, 'Die Wotjaken,' in Acta Societatis Scientiarum Fennicæ, xii. 489 (Votyaks). Sumner, in Jour. Anthr. Inst. xxxi. 75 (Jakuts). Batchelor, Ainu and their Folk-Lore, p. 254.]

[Footnote 78: Matthews, 'Study of Ethics among the Lower Races,' in Journal of American Folk-Lore, xii. 9.]

[Footnote 79: Veniaminof, quoted by Petroff, loc. cit. p. 155.]

[Footnote 80: Bergmann, Nomadische Streifereien unter den Kalmüken, ii. 305.]

[Footnote 81: Sibree, op. cit. p. 182.]

[Footnote 82: Mariner, op. cit. i. 226; ii. 155.]

[Footnote 83: Hahn, The Supreme Being of the Khoi-Khoi, p. 21.]

[Footnote 84: Simpson, quoted by Murdoch, in Ann. Rep. Bur. Ethn. ix. 427.]

It must be added, however, that the reverence for old age may cease when the grey-head gets so old as to be an incumbrance to those around him;[85] and imbecility may put an end to the father's authority over his family.[86] We have previously noticed that parents worn out with age {607} and disease are among some peoples killed or abandoned by their own children.[87]

[Footnote 85: Curr, Squatting in Victoria, pp. 254. 245, 265 sqq.; Eyre, op. cit. ii. 316 (Australian aborigines). Sumner, in Jour. Anthr. Inst. xxxi. 76 (Jakuts). Nansen, Eskimo Life, p. 177 sq. (Greenlanders). Supra, p. 534.]

[Footnote 86: Steinmetz, Rechtsverhältnisse, p. 31 (Banaka and Bapuku).]

[Footnote 87: Supra, p. 386 sq.]

When passing from the savage and barbarous races of men to those next above them in civilisation, we find paternal, or parental, authority and filial reverence at their height. In ancient Mexico "necessitous parents were allowed to dispose of any one of their children, in order to relieve their poverty," whereas a master could not sell a well-behaved slave without his consent.[88] A youth was seldom permitted to choose a wife for himself, but was expected to abide by the selection of his parents;[89] and "children were bred to stand so much in awe of their parents that even when grown up and married they hardly durst speak before them."[90] So, too, in Nicaragua a father might sell his children as slaves in cases of great necessity,[91] and matches were in the larger part of the country arranged by the parents.[92] In ancient Peru disobedient children were publicly chastised by their own parents;[93] and Inca Pachacutec confirmed the law that sons should obey and serve their fathers until they reached the age of twenty-five, and that none should marry without the consent of the parents and of the parents of the girl.[94]

[Footnote 88: Clavigero, History of Mexico, i. 360.]

[Footnote 89: Westermarck, op. cit. p. 226.]

[Footnote 90: Clavigero, op. cit. i. 331.]

[Footnote 91: Squier, Nicaragua, p. 345.]

[Footnote 92: Bancroft, Native Races of the Pacific States, ii. 667.]

[Footnote 93: Herrera, General History of the West Indies, iv. 339.]

[Footnote 94: Garcilasso de la Vega, First Part of the Royal Commentaries of the Yncas, ii. 207.]

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.]

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).]

Among many of the South American Indians the women have been noticed to occupy a respected position in the family or community.[57] Thus, among the Goajiros of Colombia, "in a quarrel or drunken brawl, women often save bloodshed by stepping in and tearing the weapons out of their husband's or brother's hand. Travelling with women is consequently perfectly safe, and in case of danger, if one undertakes to protect a stranger, he may rely upon coming out all right."[58] Among the Tarahumares of Mexico--in spite of their saying that one man is as good as five women--the woman "occupies a comparatively high position in the family, and no bargain is ever concluded until the husband has consulted his wife in the matter."[59] Among the Navahos of New Mexico the women "exert a great deal of influence";[60] they "are very independent of menial duties, and leave their husbands upon the slightest pretext of dislike";[61] "by common consent the house and all the domestic gear belongs entirely to the wife."[62] In {639} his description of North American Indians Mr. Grinnell observes:--"The Indian woman, it is usually thought, is a mere drudge and slave, but, so far as my observations extend, this notion is wholly an erroneous one. It is true that the women were the labourers of the camp; that they did all the hard work, about which there was no excitement . . . . but they were not mere servants. On the contrary, their position was very respectable. They were consulted on many subjects, not only in connection with family affairs, but in more important and general matters. Sometimes women were even admitted to the councils and spoke there, giving their advice. . . . In ordinary family conversation women did not hesitate to interrupt and correct their husbands when the latter made statements with which they did not agree, and the men listened to them with respectful attention, though of course this depended on the standing of the woman, her intelligence, etc."[63] Another competent observer, Ten Kate, strongly protests against the statement that, among the North American Indians, women are treated as beasts of burden, and affirms that their condition, as compared with that of the women of the lower classes in civilised countries, is rather better than worse.[64] Among the Omahas the women had an equal standing in society with the men; both the husband and wife were at the head of the family and the joint owners of the lodge, robes, and so forth, so that the man could not give away anything if his wife was unwilling.[65] Among the Senecas, "usually, the female portion ruled the house, and were doubtless clannish enough about it. The stores were in common; but woe to the luckless husband or lover who was too shiftless to do his share of the providing. No matter how many children, or whatever goods he might have in the house, he might at any time be ordered to pick up his blanket and budge."[66] "From documentary references," says Mr. Mooney, "it is apparent that there existed among the Cherokee a custom analogous to that found among the Iroquois and probably other Eastern tribes, by which the decision of important questions relating to peace and war was left to a vote of the women."[67] Among the Salish, or Flatheads, "although the women are required to do much hard labour, they are {640} by no means treated as slaves, but, on the contrary, have much consideration and authority."[68] Among the Nootkas "wives are consulted in matters of trade, and in fact seem to be nearly on terms of equality with their husbands, except that they are excluded from some public feasts and ceremonies."[69] Among the Indians about Puget Sound, also, women "are always consulted in matters of trade before a bargain is closed," and "acquire great influence in the tribe."[70] The Thlinket woman is not the slave of her husband; she has determinate rights, and her influence is considerable.[71] Among the natives of Cross Cape she even possesses "acknowledged superiority over the other sex."[72] Among the Western Tinneh "the women do only a fair share of the work and have a powerful voice in most affairs."[73] In Kadiak they were held in much respect, and enjoyed great liberties.[74] Among the Kamchadales they had the command of everything, and the husbands were their obedient slaves.[75] Nordenskiöld says of the Chukchi:--"The power of the woman appears to be very great. In making the more important bargains, even about weapons and hunting implements, she is, as a rule, consulted, and her advice is taken. A number of things which form women's tools she can barter away on her own responsibility, or in any other way employ as she pleases."[76] Mr. Bancroft's statement concerning the Western Eskimo, that "the lot of the women is but little better than slavery,"[77] must be understood as chiefly involving the fact that they have much hard work to do. According to Dr. Seemann they "are treated, although not as equals, at least with more consideration than is customary among barbarous nations"; nay, "it not infrequently happens that the woman is the chief authority of the house," and "the man {641} never makes a bargain without consulting his wife, and if she does not approve, it is rejected."[78] Among the Point Barrow Eskimo "the women appear to stand on a footing of perfect equality with the men both in the family and in the community. The wife is the constant and trusted companion of the man in everything except the hunt, and her opinion is sought in every bargain or other important undertaking."[79] In Greenland, also, though the woman is considered much inferior to the man, she is in no way oppressed,[80] and her husband consults with her on important matters.[81]

[Footnote 57: Waitz, Anthropologie der Naturvölker, iii. 472 (Guaycurus), 530 (Morotocos). von den Steinen, Unter den Naturvölkern Zentral-Brasiliens, p. 332 (Bakaïri).]

[Footnote 58: Simons, 'Exploration of the Goajira Peninsula,' in Proceed. Roy. Geo. Soc. N.S. vii. 792. See also Candelier, Rio-Hacha, p. 256.]

[Footnote 59: Lumholtz, Unknown Mexico, i. 265.]

[Footnote 60: Letherman, in Ann. Rep. Smithsonian Inst. 1855, p. 294.]

[Footnote 61: Eaton, in Schoolcraft, Archives, iv. 217.]

[Footnote 62: Stephen, in American Anthropologist, vi. 354.]

[Footnote 63: Grinnell, Story of the Indian, p. 46. Cf. Waitz, op. cit. iii. 101 sq.]

[Footnote 64: Ten Kate, Reizen en ondersoekingen Noord-Amerika, p. 365. Cf. ibid. 9.]

[Footnote 65: Dorsey, 'Omaha Sociology,' in Ann. Rep. Bur. Ethn. iii. 266, 366.]

[Footnote 66: Morgan, Houses and House-Life of the American Aborigines, p. 65 sq. See also Dixon, New America, p. 46.]

[Footnote 67: Mooney, 'Myths of the Cherokee,' in Ann. Rep. Bur. Ethn. xix. 489.]

[Footnote 68: Hale, U.S. Exploring Expedition. Vol. VI. Ethnography and Philology, p. 207.]

[Footnote 69: Bancroft, op. cit. i. 196. Cf. Sproat, Scenes and Studies of Savage Life, pp. 93, 95 (Ahts).]

[Footnote 70: Bancroft, op. cit. i. 218.]

[Footnote 71: Krause, Tlinkit-Indianer, p. 161.]

[Footnote 72: Meares, Voyages to the North-West Coast of America, p. 323.]

[Footnote 73: Dall, Alaska, p. 431.]

[Footnote 74: Holmberg, 'Ethnographische Skizzen über die Völker des russischen Amerika,' in Acta Soc. Scient. Fennicæ, iv. 399.]

[Footnote 75: Steller, Beschreibung von dem Lande Kamtschatka, p. 287.]

[Footnote 76: Nordenskiöld, Vegas färd kring Asien och Europa, ii. 144.]

[Footnote 77: Bancroft, op. cit. i. 65 sq. Mr. Bancroft's authority is probably Armstrong, who says that the women are, to all intents and purposes, the slaves of the men, and do the greater part of the outdoor work, except hunting and fishing; but he adds that they nevertheless enjoy a higher position and more consideration than is usual amongst savages (Armstrong, Personal Narrative of the Discovery of the North-West Passage, p. 195).]

[Footnote 78: Seemann, Narrative of the Voyage of "Herald," ii. 66.]

[Footnote 79: Murdoch, 'Ethnological Results of the Point Barrow Expedition,' in Ann. Rep. Bur. Ethn. ix. 413.]

[Footnote 80: Nansen, First Crossing of Greenland, ii. 312.]

[Footnote 81: Nordenskiöld, Den andra Dicksonska expeditionen till Grönland, p. 509.]

Among the nomadic Tangutans the women's rights in the household seemed to Prejevalsky to be equal to those of the men.[82] Of the Todas of India it is said that their women "hold a position in the family quite unlike what is ordinarily witnessed among Oriental nations. They are treated with respect, and are permitted a remarkable amount of freedom."[83] Among the Kandhs women "are uniformly treated with respect; the mothers of families generally with much honour. Nothing is done either in public or in private affairs without consulting them, and they generally exert upon the councils of their tribes a powerful influence." A wife may quit her husband at any time, except within a year of her marriage, or when she expects offspring, or within a year after the birth of a child, though, when she quits him, he has a right to reclaim immediately from her father the whole sum paid for her.[84] Among the peasants of the North-Western Provinces of India the wife is an influential personage in the household, not a mere drudge. Little is done without her knowledge and advice. If she is badly wronged the tribal council will protect her, and on the whole her position is, perhaps, not worse than that of her sisters in a similar grade of life in other parts of the world.[85] Among the Káttis the men are much under the authority of their wives.[86] Among the Bheels women "have much influence in the society," and married men have always had the credit of allowing their wives to domineer over them.[87] "A Kol or Ho," says Dr. Hayes, "makes a regular companion {642} of his wife. She is consulted in all difficulties, and receives the fullest consideration due to her sex";[88] and Colonel Dalton adds, "As a rule, in no country in the world are wives better treated."[89] The Garos are "kind husbands, and their conduct generally towards the weaker sex is marked by consideration and respect."[90] The Bódo and Dhimáls "use their wives and daughters well, treating them with confidence and kindness."[91] The Santal "treats the female members of his family with respect."[92] Among the Kukis women are generally held in consideration; "their advice is taken, and they have much influence."[93] Mr. Colquhoun observes that among the Indo-Chinese races equality of the sexes prevails, and prevailed long before Buddhism took any hold upon the country.[94]

[Footnote 82: Prejevalsky, Mongolia, ii. 121.]

[Footnote 83: Marshall, A Phrenologist amongst the Todas, p. 43.]

[Footnote 84: Macpherson, Memorials of Service in India, pp. 69, 132 sq.]

[Footnote 85: Crooke, North-Western Provinces of India, p. 230 sq.]

[Footnote 86: Rowney, Wild Tribes of India, p. 47.]

[Footnote 87: Malcolm, Memoir of Central India, ii. 180. Rowney, op. cit. p. 38.]

[Footnote 88: Hayes, quoted by Dalton, Descriptive Ethnology of Bengal, p. 194. Cf. Bradley-Birt, Chota-Nagpore, p. 100 sq.]

[Footnote 89: Dalton, op. cit. p. 194.]

[Footnote 90: Ibid. p. 68.]

[Footnote 91: Hodgson, Miscellaneous Essays, i. 150.]

[Footnote 92: Hunter, Annals of Rural Bengal, i. 217. Cf. Ymer, v. p. xxiv.]

[Footnote 93: Lewin, Wild Races of South-Eastern India, p. 254.]

[Footnote 94: Colquhoun, Amongst the Shans, p. 234. Cf. Fytche, Burma, ii. 72.]

Among the Nicobarese "the position of women is, and always has been, in no way inferior to that of the other sex. They take their full share in the formation of public opinion, discuss publicly with the men matters of general interest to the village, and their opinions receive due attention before a decision is arrived at. In fact, they are consulted on every matter, and the henpecked husband is of no extraordinary rarity in the Nicobars."[95] Mr. Crawfurd thinks that in the Malay Archipelago "the lot of women may, on the whole, be considered as more fortunate than in any other country of the East"; they associate with the men "in all respects on terms of such equality as surprise us in such a condition of society."[96] In Bali they are on a perfect equality with the men.[97] The Dyak shows great respect for his wife, and always asks her opinion;[98] he regards her "not as a slave, but as a companion."[99] Among the Bataks the married women often have a great influence over their families.[100] In Serang they have in all matters equal rights with the men, and are, consequently, treated well.[101] The women of Sulu "have the reputation of ruling their {643} lords, and possess much weight in the government by the influence they exert over their husbands."[102]

[Footnote 95: Kloss, In the Andamans and Nicobars, p. 242.]

[Footnote 96: Crawfurd, History of the Indian Archipelago, i. 73.]

[Footnote 97: Raffles, History of Java, ii. p. ccxxxi.]

[Footnote 98: Bock, Head-Hunters of Borneo, p. 210 sq.]

[Footnote 99: Selenka, Sonnige Welten, p. 33. Cf. Wilkes, op. cit. v. 363.]

[Footnote 100: Steinmetz, Ethnol. Studien zur ersten Entwicklung der Strafe, ii. 299.]

[Footnote 101: Riedel, De sluik- en kroesharige rassen tusschen Selebes en Papua, p. 97.]

[Footnote 102: Wilkes, op. cit. v. 343.]

In Melanesia the women generally have to work hard, supplying the place of slaves;[103] but at least in various islands their condition is otherwise fairly good. In the Western islands of Torres Straits "the women appear to have had a good deal to say on most questions and were by no means downtrodden or ill-used."[104] In some parts of New Guinea their position is described as one of high esteem.[105] "They have a large voice in domestic affairs, and occasionally lord it over their masters"; and their influence is felt not only in domestic matters, but also in affairs of state.[106] In Erromanga, of the New Hebrides, although the women did all of the hard plantation work, they were on the whole well treated by their husbands.[107] The same is said to be the case in the Solomon Islands;[108] in the eastern part of New Georgia they do not even seem to do much work.[109] In Micronesia the position of woman is decidedly good. In the Marianne Group "the wife is absolute mistress in her house, the husband not daring to dispose of anything without her consent"; nay, the men are said to be actually governed by their wives, "the women assuming those prerogatives which in most other countries are invested in the other sex."[110] In the Pelew Islands the women are in every respect the equals of the men; the oldest man, or Obokul, of a family can do nothing without taking advice with its oldest female members.[111] In the Caroline Group the weaker sex "enjoys a perfect equality in public estimation with the other."[112] Among the Mortlock Islanders the wife is quite independent of her husband.[113] In the Kingsmill Islands very great consideration is awarded to the women: "they seem to have exclusive control over the house," whilst all the hard labour is performed by the {644} men.[114] Among the Line Islanders "no difference is made in the sexes; a woman can vote and speak as well as a man, and in general the women decide the question, unless it is one of war against another island."[115] In many Polynesian islands, also, their position is by no means bad.[116] In Tonga "women have considerable respect shown to them on account of their sex, independent of the rank they might otherwise hold as nobles"; they are not subjected to hard labour or any very menial work,[117] and their status in society is not inferior to that of men.[118] In Samoa they "are held in much consideration, . . . treated with great attention, and not suffered to do anything but what rightfully belongs to them."[119] In the valley of Typee, in the Marquesas Group, the women are allowed every possible indulgence, the religious restrictions of the taboo alone excepted; they are exempt from toil, and "nowhere are they more sensible of their power."[120] Rochon wrote of the Malagasy:--"Man here never commands as a despot; nor does the woman ever obey as a slave. The balance of power inclines even in favour of the women."[121] At the present day, in Madagascar, the woman "is not scorned as essentially inferior to man," but enters into her husband's cares and joys, and shares his life, much in the same way as a wife does amongst ourselves.[122]

[Footnote 103: Nieboer, op. cit. p. 392 sqq. Waitz-Gerland, op. cit. vi. 626.]

[Footnote 104: Haddon, in Reports of the Cambridge Anthropological Expedition to Torres Straits, v. 229.]

[Footnote 105: Ratzel, op. cit. i. 274.]

[Footnote 106: Pitcairn, Two Years among the Savages of New Guinea, p. 6l. Cf. Bink, in Bulletin Soc. d'Anthrop. de Paris, xi. 392; Hagen, Unter den Papua's, pp. 226, 243.]

[Footnote 107: Robertson, Erromanga, p. 397.]

[Footnote 108: Parkinson, Zur Ethnographie der nordwestlichen Salomo Inseln, p. 4.]

[Footnote 109: Somerville, 'Ethnogr. Notes in New Georgia,' in Jour. Anthr. Inst. xxvi. 405 sq.]

[Footnote 110: Moore, Marriage Customs, p. 187. Waitz, op. cit. v. pt. i. p. 107 sq.]

[Footnote 111: Kubary, Die socialen Einrichtungen der Pelauer, p. 38 sq. Cf. Idem, 'Die Palau-Inseln,' in Journal des Museum Godeffroy, iv. 43; Keate, Account of the Pelew Islands, p. 331.]

[Footnote 112: Hale, op. cit. p. 73.]

[Footnote 113: Kubary, 'Die Bewohner der Mortlock Inseln,' in Mittheilungen der Geograph. Gesellsch. in Hamburg, 1878-9, p. 261.]

[Footnote 114: Wilkes, op. cit. v. 91.]

[Footnote 115: Tutuila, in Jour. Polynesian Soc. i. 269.]

[Footnote 116: See Waitz-Gerland, op. cit. vi. 120 sqq.]

[Footnote 117: Mariner, Natives of the Tonga Islands, ii. 97.]

[Footnote 118: Erskine, Cruise among the Islands of the Western Pacific, p. 158.]

[Footnote 119: Wilkes, op. cit. ii. 148. Cf. Waitz-Gerland, op. cit. vi. 121.]

[Footnote 120: Melville, Typee, p. 299.]

[Footnote 121: Rochon, 'Voyage to Madagascar,' in Pinkerton, Collection of Voyages and Travels, xvi 747. Cf. Waitz, op. cit. ii. 438.]

[Footnote 122: Little, Madagascar, p. 63.]

Turning, finally, to the African continent, we find that among the Negro races the woman, though often heavily burdened and more or less subservient to her husband, is by no means without influence.[123] "When we become more closely acquainted with family conditions," Herr Büttner observes, "we notice that there, as elsewhere, husbands are under petticoat government, and those most of all who like to pose before the outer world as masters of their house. The women, including the aunts, have on all occasions, important and unimportant alike, a weighty {645} word to contribute."[124] The Monbuttu women, according to Dr. Schweinfurth, exhibit towards their husbands the highest degree of independence; "the position in the household occupied by the men was illustrated by the reply which would be made if they were solicited to sell anything as a curiosity, 'Oh, ask my wife: it is hers.'"[125] Among the Momvus "the women are on a footing of equality with the men, and go hunting with them, and accompany them to the wars, taking their part in the combat."[126] Among the Madi or Moru tribe of Central Africa "women are treated with respect and politeness by the men, who always show them preference, resigning to their use the best places, and paying them such like courtesies." The women associate with the men on equal terms, being consulted and honoured; and any insult to a woman is revenged, nay is frequently the cause of war.[127] In a Hottentot's house the woman is the supreme ruler, and the husband has nothing at all to say. "While in public the men take the prominent part, at home they have not so much power even as to take a mouthful of sour milk out of the tub, without the wife's permission. If a man ever should try to do it, his nearest female relations will put a fine on him, consisting in cows and sheep, which is to be added to the stock of the wife."[128] Among the peoples of Berber race the women exercise considerable influence over the men. Among the Guanches of the Canary Islands they were much respected.[129] Among the Touareg "la femme est l'égale de l'homme, si même, par certains côtés, elle n'est dans une condition meilleure."[130] Among the Beni Amer a husband undertakes nothing before consulting his wife, on whose goodwill he largely depends.[131] Of the Aulâd Solîmân, an Arab tribe in the Sahara, Dr. Nachtigal observes that it was curious to see how powerless those much feared robbers and cut-throats were in their own houses.[132] Both in the Sahara[133] and in the East[134] the Bedouin women {646} enjoy a considerable degree of freedom, and sometimes actually rule over their husbands.

[Footnote 123: Waitz, op. cit. ii. 117. Ratzel, op. cit. ii. 332. Buchner, Kamerun, p. 32 sq. Möller, Pagels, and Gleerup, op. cit. i. 171 (Lukungu). Steinmetz, Rechtsverhältnisse, p. 29 (Banaka and Bapuku). Lang, ibid. p. 225 (Washambala). Burrows, Land of the Pigmies, p. 62 (Niam-Niam). Chanler, Through Jungle and Desert, p. 485 (Wakamba).]

[Footnote 124: Büttner, quoted by Ratzel, op. cit. ii. 334.]

[Footnote 125: Schweinfurth, Heart of Africa, ii. 91.]

[Footnote 126: Burrows, op. cit. p. 128.]

[Footnote 127: Felkin, 'Notes on the Madi or Moru Tribe,' in Proceed. Roy. Soc. Edinburgh, xii. 329.]

[Footnote 128: Hahn, The Supreme Being of the Khoi-Khoi, p. 19.]

[Footnote 129: Bory de St. Vincent, Essais sur les Isles Fortunées, p. 105. Mantegazza, Rio de la Plata e Tenerife p. 630.]

[Footnote 130: Dyveyrier, Exploration du Sahara, p. 339. Cf. Chavanne, Die Sahara, p. 181; Hourst, Sur le Niger et au pays des Touaregs, p. 209.]

[Footnote 131: Munzinger, Ostafrikanische Studien, p. 325.]

[Footnote 132: Nachtigal, Sahara und Sudan, ii. 93.]

[Footnote 133: Chavanne, op. cit. p. 397.]

[Footnote 134: Wallin, Reseanteckningar från Orienten, iii. 151, 152, 269. Blunt, Bedouin Tribes of the Euphrates, ii. 214, 226, 228.]

All these statements certainly do not imply that the husband has no recognised power over his wife, but they prove that his power is by no means unlimited. It is true that many of our authorities speak rather of liberties that the woman takes herself than of privileges granted her by custom; but, as we have seen before, customary rights are always more or less influenced by habitual practice. It should be added that among many savage peoples the husband has a right to divorce his wife only under certain conditions;[135] and among a very considerable number custom or law permits the wife to separate either for some special cause or, simply, at will.[136] In certain parts of Eastern Central Africa divorce may be effected if the husband neglects to sew his wife's clothes, or if the partners do not please each other.[137] Among the Shans of Burma the woman has a right to turn adrift a husband who takes to drinking or otherwise misconducts himself, and to retain all the goods and money of the partnership.[138] Among the Irulas of the Neilgherries the option of remaining in union, or of separating, rests principally with the woman.[139] Among the Savaras, an aboriginal hill people of the Madras Presidency, "a woman may leave her husband whenever she pleases."[140] This is surely something very different from that absolute dominion which hasty generalisers have attributed to savage husbands in general.

[Footnote 135: Westermarck. op. cit. p. 523 sq.]

[Footnote 136: Ibid. p. 526 sqq.]

[Footnote 137: Macdonald, Africana, i. 140.]

[Footnote 138: Colquhoun, Amongst the Shans, p. 295.]

[Footnote 139: Harkness, Description of a Singular Aboriginal Race inhabiting the Neilgherry Hills, p. 92.]

[Footnote 140: Fawcett, in Jour. Anthrop. Soc. Bombay, i. 28.]

It is often said that a people's civilisation may be measured by the position held by its women. But at least so far as the earlier stages of culture are concerned, this opinion is not supported by facts. Among several of the lowest races, including peoples like the Veddahs, Andaman Islanders, and Bushmans, the female sex is {647} treated with far greater consideration than among many of the higher savages and barbarians. Travellers have not seldom noticed that of two neighbouring tribes the less cultured one sets in this respect an example to the other. "Among the Bushmans," says Dr. Fritsch, "the female sex makes life-companions, among the A-bantu beasts of burden."[141] Lewis and Clarke affirm that the status of woman in a savage tribe has no necessary relation even to its moral qualities in general. "The Indians," they say, "whose treatment of the females is mildest, and who pay most deference to their opinions, are by no means the most distinguished for their virtues. . . . On the other hand, the tribes among whom the women are very much debased, possess the loftiest sense of honour, the greatest liberality, and all the good qualities of which their situation demands the exercise."[142] That the condition of woman, or her relative independence, is no safe gauge of the general culture of a nation, also appears from a comparison between many of the lower races and the peoples of archaic civilisation.

[Footnote 141: Fritsch, Die Eingeborenen Süd-Afrika's, p. 444.]

[Footnote 142: Lewis and Clarke, op. cit. p. 441.]

In China the condition of woman has always been inferior to that of man, and no generous sentiment tending to the amelioration of her social position has ever come from the Chinese sages.[143] Her children must pay her respect, but she in her turn owes to her husband the subjection of a child;[144] a wife is an infinitely less important personage than a mother in the Chinese social scale.[145] The husband has certainly not absolute power over his wife: he may not kill her, nor sell her without her consent,[146] nor even divorce her, except for certain causes specified by law.[147] But these causes are very elastic; {648} it is said that "when a woman has any quality that is not good, it is but just and reasonable to turn her out of doors."[148] And in a book containing the cream of all the moral writings of the Chinese, and intended chiefly for children, we read:--"Brothers are like hands and feet. A wife is like one's clothes. When clothes are worn out, we can substitute those that are new. When hands and feet are cut off, it is difficult to obtain substitutes for them."[149] A woman, on the other hand, cannot obtain legal separation on any account.[150] Confucius says that "man is the representative of Heaven, and is supreme over all things. Woman yields obedience to the instructions of man, and helps to carry out his principles. On this account she can determine nothing of herself, and is subject to the rule of the three obediences. When young, she must obey her father and elder brother; when married, she must obey her husband; when her husband is dead, she must obey her son."[151] In Japan, also, a woman was formerly, in the eye of the law, a chattel rather than a person. "Having all her life under her father's roof reverenced her superiors, she is expected to bring reverence to her new domicile, but not love. She must always obey but never be jealous. She must not be angry, no matter whom her husband may introduce into his household. She must wait upon him at his meals and must walk behind him, but not with him. When she dies her children go to her funeral, but not her husband."[152] In Japan a man might repudiate his wife for the same reasons as in China,[153] and till the year 1873 a wife could not obtain separation according to law.[154] However, though the Japanese wife is "the first servant of the household," training and public opinion require that she should be treated with respect, if the marriage be blessed {649} with children.[155] She is addressed as "the honourable lady of the house," and her position is said to be higher than in any other Oriental country.[156]

[Footnote 143: Legge, Religions of China, pp. 107, 108, 111.]

[Footnote 144: de Groot, Religious System of China, (vol. ii. Book) i. 550.]

[Footnote 145: Giles, Strange Stories from a Chinese Studio, i. 315, n. 3.]

[Footnote 146: Doolittle, Social Life of the Chinese, ii. 209.]

[Footnote 147: Medhurst, 'Marriage, Affinity, and Inheritance in China,' in Trans. Roy. As. Soc. China Branch, iv. 25 sq. Gray, China, i. 219. Müller, Reise der Fregatte Novara, Ethnographie, p. 164.]

[Footnote 148: Navarette, 'Account of the Empire of China,' in Awnsham and Churchill, Collection of Voyages and Travels, i. 73.]

[Footnote 149: Indo-Chinese Gleaner, i. 164.]

[Footnote 150: Gray, op. cit. i. 219.]

[Footnote 151: Legge, Chinese Classics, i. 103 sq.]

[Footnote 152: Griffis, Religions of Japan, p. 124 sq.]

[Footnote 153: Westermarck, op. cit. p. 525.]

[Footnote 154: Rein, Japan, p. 424 sq.]

[Footnote 155: Ibid. p. 425.]

[Footnote 156: Norman, The Real Japan, p. 184. Griffis, Religions of Japan, p. 318.]

From various quarters of the ancient world we hear of the rule that the husband shall command and the wife obey. The Lord said to the woman, "Thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee."[157] How great the husband's power was among the Hebrews we do not know exactly. He could divorce his wife if she did not please him because he had "found some uncleanness in her,"[158] whereas a wife could not legally separate from her husband.[159] In later times her condition evidently improved.[160] From the old Jewish point of view it is surely surprising to find Sirach putting the companionship of a wife not only above that of a friend, but even above children.[161] In the Talmud a husband is admonished to love his wife like himself and to honour her more than himself,[162] though he should take care not to be ruled by her;[163] and the wife also is authorised to demand a divorce under certain circumstances, namely, if the husband refuses to perform his conjugal duty, if he continues to lead a disorderly life after marriage, if he proves impotent during ten years, if he suffers from an insupportable disease, or if he leaves the country for ever.[164]

[Footnote 157: **Genesis, iii. 16.]

[Footnote 158: Deuteronomy, xxiv. 1.]

[Footnote 159: Josephus, Antiquitates Romanæ, xv. 7, 10. Keil, Manual of Biblical Archæology, ii. 175.]

[Footnote 160: Cf. Klugmann, Die Frau im Talmud, p. 63 sq.]

[Footnote 161: Ecclesiasticus, xl. 19, 23. Cf. Montefiore, Hibbert Lectures on the Religion of the Ancient Hebrews, p. 491.]

[Footnote 162: Deutsch, Literary Remains, p. 56.]

[Footnote 163: Beza, fol. 32 B, quoted by Katz, Der wahre Talmudjude, p. 114.]

[Footnote 164: Glasson, Le mariage civil et le divorce, p. 149 sq.]

In the Zoroastrian Yasts a holy woman is defined as one who is "rich in good thoughts, good words, and good deeds, well-principled, and obedient to her husband," whereas the fiendish woman is "ill-principled and disobedient to her husband."[165] According to Brahmanic law, a woman must in childhood be subject to her father, in youth {650} to her husband, when her lord is dead to her sons; "a woman must never be independent."[166] Not even in her own house is she allowed to do anything independently.[167] Him to whom her father may give her, or her brother with the father's permission, she shall obey as long as he lives.[168] She must never do anything that might displease him;[169] even though he be destitute of virtue, or unfaithful to her, "a husband must be constantly worshipped as a god by a faithful wife."[170] A wife who shows disrespect to a husband who is addicted to some evil passion, is a drunkard, or diseased, shall be deserted for three months, and be deprived of her ornaments and furniture.[171] If a wife obeys her husband, she will for that reason alone be exalted in heaven;[172] but by violating her duty towards him, she is disgraced in this world, and after death she enters the womb of a jackal, and is punished with disease for her sin.[173] There is no indication that a woman can obtain legal separation on any account, though she may with impunity "show aversion" towards a mad or outcast husband, a eunuch, one destitute of manly strength, or one afflicted with such diseases as punish crimes.[174] Again, if she is sold or repudiated by her husband, she can never become the legitimate wife of another who may have bought or received her after she was repudiated.[175] But the husband is not allowed to divorce her indiscriminately. A wife who drinks spirituous liquor, is of bad conduct, rebellious, quarrelsome, diseased, mischievous, or wasteful, may at any time be superseded by another wife; a barren one may be superseded in the eighth year; one whose children all die, in the tenth; one who bears daughters only, in the eleventh; whereas a sick wife who is kind to her husband and virtuous in her conduct, may be superseded only with her own consent, and must never be {651} disgraced.[176] The rule, "Let mutual fidelity continue until death," may be considered the summary of the highest law for husband and wife;[177] women must be honoured and adorned by husbands who desire their own welfare.[178] Various passages in the Mahabharata and Ramayana indicate that women in India were subjected to less social restraints in former days than they are at present according to the rules of Brahmanism, and even enjoyed considerable liberty;[179] and the Vedic singers know no more tender relation than that between the husband and his willing, loving wife, who is praised as "his home, the darling abode and bliss in his house."[180] Yet it is noteworthy that goddesses play a very insignificant part in the Veda.[181] In this respect the Pantheon of the Vedic people essentially differs from that of the ancient Egyptians,[182] a difference which may be due to the remarkably high position which woman seems to have occupied in Egypt.[183]

[Footnote 165: Yasts, xxii. 18, 36. Cf. Dînâ-î Maînôg-î Khirad, xxxix. 38 sq.]

[Footnote 166: Laws of Manu, v. 148. Cf. ibid. ix. 2 sq.]

[Footnote 167: Ibid. v. 147.]

[Footnote 168: Ibid. v. 151.]

[Footnote 169: Ibid. v. 156.]

[Footnote 170: Ibid. v. 154.]

[Footnote 171: Ibid. ix. 78.]

[Footnote 172: Ibid. v. 155. Cf. ibid. ix. 29.]

[Footnote 173: Ibid. v. 164; ix. 30.]

[Footnote 174: Ibid. ix. 79.]

[Footnote 175: Ibid. ix. 46. See also the note in Bühler's translation, Sacred Books of the East, xxv. 335.]

[Footnote 176: Laws of Manu, ix. 80 sqq.]

[Footnote 177: Ibid. ix. 101.]

[Footnote 178: Ibid. iii. 55 sqq.]

[Footnote 179: Zimmer, Altindisches Leben, p. 316 sqq. Monier Williams, Indian Wisdom, p. 437 sq.]

[Footnote 180: Kaegi, Rigveda, p. 15.]

[Footnote 181: Macdonell, Vedic Mythology, p. 124 sq.]

[Footnote 182: Maspero, Dawn of Civilisation, p. 101 sq.]

[Footnote 183: Ibid. p. 52. Maspero, Life in Ancient Egypt and Assyria, p. 11. Amélineau L'évolution des idées morales dans l'Égypte Ancienne, p. 68 sqq. Flinders Petrie, Religion and Conscience in Ancient Egypt, p. 131 sq. Brugsch, Aegyptologie, p. 61 sq.]

In Greece, also, a wife appears to have been a more influential and independent personage in ancient times, in Homeric society, than she became afterwards.[184] In the historic age her position was simply that of the domestic drudge; her virtues were reduced to the maintenance of good order in her household and obedience to her husband; her greatest ornament was silence.[185] Aristotle, always a faithful exponent of the most enlightened opinion of his age, gives the following description of what he considers to be the ideal relation of a woman to her husband:--"A good and perfect wife ought to be mistress {652} of everything within the house. . . . But the well-ordered wife will justly consider the behaviour of her husband as a model of her own life, and a law to herself, invested with a divine sanction by means of the marriage tie and the community of life. . . . The wife ought to show herself even more obedient to the rein than if she had entered the house as a purchased slave. For she has been bought at a high price, for the sake of sharing life and bearing children, than which no higher or holier tie can possibly exist."[186] So also, according to Plutarch, the husband ought to rule his wife, but by sympathy and goodwill, as the soul governs the body, not as a master does a chattel.[187] The law invalidated whatever a husband did by the counsel, or at the request, of his wife, whereas the wife, on her part, could transact no business of importance in her own favour, nor by will dispose of more than the value of a bushel of barley.[188] Yet whatever may have been the exact compass of the husband's power in Greece, it was not unlimited. At Athens a woman could demand divorce if she was ill-treated by her husband, in which case she merely had to announce her wishes before the archon.[189]

[Footnote 184: Hermann-Blümner, Lehrbuch der griechischen Privatalterthümer, p. 64 sqq. Mahaffy, Social Life in Greece, p. 53.]

[Footnote 185: Dickinson, Greek View of Life, p. 161. Döllinger, The Gentile and the Jew, ii. 234. 'State of Female Society in Greece,' in Quarterly Review, xxii. 172 sqq.]

[Footnote 186: Aristotle, [OE]conomica, i. 7. Cf. Idem, De animalibus historia, ix. 1. 2 sqq.]

[Footnote 187: Plutarch, Conjugalia præcepta, 33.]

[Footnote 188: Isaeus, Oratio de Aristarchi hereditate, 10, p. 259. Döllinger, op. cit. ii. 234.]

[Footnote 189: Glasson, Le mariage civil et le divorce, p. 152 sq. Meier and Schömann, Der attische Process, p. 512.]

In Rome, in ancient times, the power which the father possessed over his daughter was generally, if not always,[190] by marriage transferred to the husband.[191] When marrying a woman passed in manum viri, as a wife she was filiæ loco, that is, in law she was her husband's daughter.[192] And since the Roman house-father originally had the jus vitæ necisque over his children, the husband naturally had the same power over his wife. But from her being destitute of all legal rights we must not conclude that she was {653} treated with indignity. On the contrary, she generally had a respected and influential position in the family;[193] and though the husband could repudiate her at will, it was said that for five hundred and twenty years a condita urbe there was no such thing as a divorce in Rome.[194] As Mr. Bryce points out, we cannot doubt that the wide power which the law gave to the husband "was in point of fact restrained within narrow limits, not only by affection, but also by the vigilant public opinion of a comparatively small community."[195] Gradually, however, marriage with manus fell into disuse, and was, under the Empire, generally superseded by marriage without manus, a form of wedlock which conferred on the husband hardly any authority at all over his wife. Instead of passing into his power, she remained in the power of her father; and since the tendency of the later law, as we have seen, was to reduce the old patria potestas to a nullity, she became practically independent.[196]

[Footnote 190: Rossbach, Römische Ehe, p. 64. Maine, Ancient Law, p. 155.]

[Footnote 191: Or, properly speaking, to the husband's father, if he was still alive (Rossbach, op. cit. p. 11).]

[Footnote 192: Leist, Alt-arische Juris Civile, i. 175. Maine, op. cit. p. 155.]

[Footnote 193: Rossbach, op. cit. pp. 36, 117.]

[Footnote 194: Valerius Maximus, ii. 1 (De matrimoniorum ritu), Aulus Gellius, Noctes Atticæ, iv. 3. 1.]

[Footnote 195: Bryce, Studies in History and Jurisprudence, ii. 389.]

[Footnote 196: Rossbach, op. cit. pp. 30, 42. Maine, op. cit. p. 155 sq. Friedlaender, Darstellungen aus der Sittengeschichte Roms, i. 252 sqq.]

This remarkable liberty granted to married women, however, was only a passing incident in the history of the family in Europe. From the very first Christianity tended to narrow it. Already the latest Roman law, so far as it is touched by the Constitutions of the Christian Emperors, bears some marks of a reaction against the liberal doctrines of the great Antonine jurisconsults, who assumed the equality of the sexes as a principle of their code of equity.[197] And this tendency was in a formidable degree supported by Teutonic custom and law. Among the Teutons a husband's authority over his wife was the same as a father's over his unmarried daughter.[198] This power, which under certain circumstances gave the husband a right to kill, sell, or repudiate his wife,[199] undoubtedly {654} contained much more than the Church could approve of, and so far she has helped to ameliorate the condition of married women in Teutonic countries. But at the same time the Church is largely responsible for those heavy disabilities with regard to personal liberty, as well as with regard to property, from which they have suffered up to recent times. The systems, says Sir Henry Maine, "which are least indulgent to married women are invariably those which have followed the Canon Law exclusively, or those which, from the lateness of their contact with European civilisation, have never had their archaisms weeded out."[200]

[Footnote 197: Maine, op. cit. pp. 156, 154.]

[Footnote 198: Brunner, Deutsche Rechtsgeschichte, i. 75. Stemann, Den danske Retshistorie indtil Christian V.'s Lov, p. 323.]

[Footnote 199: Grimm, Deutsche Rechtsalterthümer, p. 450 sq. Brunner, op. cit. i. 75. Schröder, Lehrbuch der deutschen Rechtsgeschichte, p. 303.]

[Footnote 200: Maine, op. cit. p. 159.]

Christianity enjoins a husband to love his wife as his own body,[201] to do honour unto her as unto the weaker vessel.[202] However, "man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man. Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man. For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head."[203] The husband is the head of the wife, as Christ is the head of the church; hence, "as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing."[204] It is difficult to exaggerate the influence exercised by a doctrine, so agreeable to the selfishness of men, and so readily lending itself to be used as a sacred weapon against almost any attempt to extend the rights of married women, as was this dictum of St. Paul's. In an essay on the position of women among the early Christians Principal Donaldson writes, "In the first three centuries I have not been able to see that Christianity had any favourable effect on the position of women, but, on the contrary, that it tended to lower their character and contract the range of their activity."[205] And in more modern times Christian orthodoxy has constantly been opposed to the doctrine which once sprang up in pagan {655} Rome and is nowadays supported by a steadily growing number of enlightened men and women, that marriage should be a contract on the footing of perfect equality between husband and wife.

[Footnote 201: Ephesians, v. 28.]

[Footnote 202: 1 Peter, iii. 7.]

[Footnote 203: 1 Corinthians, xi. 8 sqq. Cf. Timothy, ii. 11 sqq.]

[Footnote 204: Ephesians, v. 23 sq.]

[Footnote 205: Donaldson, 'Position of Women among the Early Christians,' in Contemporary Review, lvi. 433.]

* * * * *

The position of married women among the various peoples on earth depends on such a variety of circumstances that it would be impossible to enumerate them all. We shall here consider only the most important.

A few words must first be said about the hypothesis that the social status of women is connected with the system of tracing descent. Dr. Steinmetz has tried to show that the husband's authority over his wife is, broadly speaking, greater among those peoples who reckon kinship through the father than among those who reckon kinship through the mother only.[206] The cases examined by Dr. Steinmetz, however, are too few to allow of any general conclusions, and the statements concerning the husband's rights are commonly so indefinite and so incomplete that I think the evidence would be difficult to produce, even if the investigation were based on a larger number of facts. Besides, the paternal and maternal systems of descent are often so interwoven with each other among one and the same people, that it may equally well be referred to the one class as to the other[207]--a difficulty which Dr. Steinmetz must surely have felt in his attempt to treat the subject statistically. There is, moreover, the weak point of the statistical method generally, the question of selecting ethnographical units, which I have discussed in another place.[208] How, for instance, are we to deal with the various tribes of Australia? They can certainly not, all in a lump, be counted as one single unit; among some of them the maternal system prevails, among others the paternal. But then, shall we reckon each tribe as one {656} unit by itself, or, if not, into how many groups shall we divide them? When I compare with each other peoples of the same race, at the same stage of culture, living in the same neighbourhood, under similar conditions of life, but differing from one another in their method of reckoning kinship, I do not find that the prevalence of the one or the other line of descent conspicuously affects the husband's authority. Nothing of the kind has been noticed in Australia, nor, so far as I know, in India, where the paternal system among many of the aboriginal tribes is combined with great, or even extraordinary, rights on the part of the wife. Among the West African Negroes the position of women is, to all appearance, no less honourable in tribes like the Ibos, among whom inheritance runs through males, than in tribes which admit inheritance through females only;[209] and of the Fulah, among whom succession goes from father to son,[210] Mr. Winwood Reade observes that their women are "the most tyrannical wives in Africa," knowing "how to make their husbands kneel before their charms, and how to place their little feet upon them."[211] But we have reason to believe that when the man, on marrying, quits his home and goes to live with his wife in the house or community of her father, his authority over his wife is commonly more or less impaired by the presence of her father or kinsfolk.[212] In Sumatra, in the mode of marriage called ambel anak, he lives with his father-in-law in a state between that of a son and that of a debtor.[213] But it should be noticed that neither his living with the family of his wife, nor even his dependence on her father, necessarily implies a total absence of marital power. Among the Californian Yokuts, though the husband takes up his abode in his {657} wife's or father-in-law's house, he is expressly stated to have the power of life and death over her.[214] So, also, in the Western islands of Torres Straits, though a man after marriage usually left his own people and went to live with those of his wife, he had complete control over her. "In spite of the wife having asked her husband to marry her, he could kill her should she cause trouble in the house, and that without any penal consequence to himself. The payment of a husband to his wife's father gave him all rights over her, and at the same time annulled those of her father or her family."[215]

[Footnote 206: Steinmetz, Ethnologische Studien zur ersten Entwicklung der Strafe, ii. ch. 7.]

[Footnote 207: Cf. Westermarck, op. cit. p. 99 sqq.]

[Footnote 208: Idem, 'Méthode pour la recherche des institutions préhistoriques à propos d'un ouvrage du professeur Kohler,' in Revue Internationale de Sociologie, v. 451.]

[Footnote 209: Ratzel, op. cit. iii. 124.]

[Footnote 210: Waitz, op. cit. ii, 469.]

[Footnote 211: Reade, Savage Africa, p. 452.]

[Footnote 212: See Mazzarella, La condizione giuridica del marito nella famiglia matriarcale, passim; Grosse, Die Formen der Familie, p. 76; Wilkes, U.S. Exploring Expedition, iv. 447 (Spokane Indians). It seems, however, that Dr. Mazzarella in several cases infers the husband's complete subjection to his father-in-law from statements in which such a subjection is not really implied.]

[Footnote 213: Marsden, History of Sumatra, p. 262.]

[Footnote 214: Powers, Tribes of California, p. 382.]

[Footnote 215: Haddon, Head-Hunters, p. 160 sq.]

In the first place, wives' subjection to their husbands is due to the men's instinctive desire to exert power and to the natural inferiority of women in such qualities of body and mind as are essential for personal independence. Generally speaking, the men are their superiors in strength and courage. They are therefore not only the protectors of their wives, but also their masters.

In the sexual impulse itself there are elements which lead to domination on the part of the man and to submission on the part of the woman. In courtship, animal and human alike, the male plays the more active, the female the more passive part. During the season of love the males even of the most timid animal species engage in desperate combats with each other for the possession of the female, and there can be no doubt that our primeval human ancestors had, in the same way, to fight for their wives; even now this kind of courtship is far from being unknown among savages.[216] Moreover, the male pursues and tries to capture the female, and she, after some resistance, finally surrenders herself to him. The sexual impulse of the male is thus connected with a desire to win the female, and the sexual impulse of the female with a desire to be pursued and won by the male. In the female sex there is consequently an instinctive appreciation of manly strength and courage; this is found in most {658} women, and especially in the women of savage races, who, like the females of the lower Vertebrates, commonly give the preference to "the most vigorous, defiant, and mettlesome male."[217] And woman enjoys the display of manly force even when it turns against herself. It is said that among the Slavs of the lower class the wives feel hurt if they are not beaten by their husbands; that the peasant women in some parts of Hungary do not think they are loved by their husbands until they have received the first box on the ear; that among the Italian Camorrists a wife who is not beaten by her husband regards him as a fool.[218] Dr. Havelock Ellis believes that the majority of women would probably be prepared to echo the remark made by a woman in front of Rubens's 'Rape of the Sabines,' "I think the Sabine women enjoyed being carried off like that."[219] The same judicious student of the psychology of sex observes:--"While in men it is possible to trace a tendency to inflict pain, or the simulacrum of pain, on the women they love, it is still easier to trace in women a delight in experiencing physical pain when inflicted by a lover, and an eagerness to accept subjection to his will. Such a tendency is certainly normal. To abandon herself to her lover, to be able to rely on his physical strength and mental resourcefulness, to be swept out of herself and beyond the control of her own will, to drift idly in delicious submission to another and stronger will--this is one of the commonest aspirations in a young woman's intimate love-dreams."[220]

[Footnote 216: Westermarck, op. cit. p. 159 sqq.]

[Footnote 217: Westermarck, op. cit. p. 255 sq.]

[Footnote 218: Havelock Ellis, Studies in the Psychology of Sex, 'Analysis of the Sexual Impulse,' &c. p. 66 sq.]

[Footnote 219: Ibid. p. 75.]

[Footnote 220: Ibid. p. 74.]

But although a certain degree of submissiveness comes within the normal limits of female love, though "a woman may desire to be forced, to be roughly forced, to be ravished away beyond her own will." she all the time only desires to be forced towards those things which are essentially agreeable to her.[221] If the man's domination is carried beyond those limits, it is no longer enjoyed by the {659} woman, but is felt as a burden, and may call forth resistance. In extreme cases of oppression, at any rate, the community at large would sympathise with her, and the public resentment against the oppressor would gradually result in customs or laws limiting the husband's rights. Yet perfect impartiality is hardly to be expected from the community. The men are the leaders of public opinion, and they have a tendency to favour their own sex. On the other hand, the offended woman may count upon the support of her fellow-sisters, and thus the women combined may influence tribal habits and, ultimately, the rules of custom. Among the Papuans of Port Moresby, for instance, "it is a rare occurrence for a man to beat his wife, and he does not like to be reminded of the fact if hasty temper has led him into this mistake. The other women generally make a song about it, and sing it whenever he appears; and as no one is so sensitive of ridicule as a New Guinean savage, he will endure a great deal, even from a shrew wife, before he attempts to lift his hand."[222] Among the West African Fulah, if a man repudiates his wife, the women of the village attack him en masse; "like the members of a priesthood, they hate but protect each other."[223] We have, moreover, to consider that the children's affection and regard for their mother gives her a power which is no less real because it is not definitely expressed in custom or law. In Oriental countries, for example, the mother is always an important personage in the family. Children are afraid of their father but love their mother, and when grown-up would certainly be ready to protect her against a cruel husband.[224]

[Footnote 221: Ibid. p. 85.]

[Footnote 222: Nisbet, A Colonial Tramp, ii. 181 sq.]

[Footnote 223: Reade, Savage Africa, p. 452. See also Möller, Pagels, and Gleerup, op. cit. i. 171 (Lukungu); Munzinger, Ostafrikanische Studien, p. 324 (Beni Amer).]

[Footnote 224: Cf. Burton, Sindh Revisited, i. 293; Urquhart, Spirit of the East, ii. 265 sq.; Doughty, Arabia Deserta, i. 239; Westermarck, 'Position of Woman in Early Civilisation,' in Sociological Papers, [1.] p. 160.]

It has often been said that the position of women and the degree of their dependence among a certain people are largely influenced by economic conditions. Thus Mr. {660} Hale maintains that the condition of women is "a question of physical comfort, and mainly of the abundance or lack of food. . . . When men in their full strength suffer from lack of the necessaries of existence, and are themselves slaves to the rigours of the elements, their better feelings are benumbed or perverted, like those of shipwrecked people famishing on a raft. Under such circumstances the weaker members of the community--women, children, the old, the sick--are naturally the chief sufferers."[225] With reference to the North American Indians the observation has been made that, where the women can aid in procuring subsistence for the tribe, they are treated with more equality, and their importance is proportioned to the share which they take in that labour; whereas in places where subsistence is chiefly procured by the exertions of the men, the women are considered and treated as burdens. Thus, the position of women is exceptionally good in tribes living upon fish and roots, which the women procure with the same expertness as the men, whereas it is among tribes living by the chase, or by other means in which women can be of little service, that we find the sex most oppressed.[226] Dr. Grosse, again, emphasises the low status of women not only among hunters, but among pastoral tribes as well. "The women," he says, "not being permitted to take part in the rearing of cattle, and not being able to take part in war, possess nothing which could command respect with the rude shepherd and robber."[227] Among the lower agricultural tribes, on the other hand, Dr. Grosse adds, the position of the female sex is often higher. The cultivation of the ground mostly devolves on the woman, and among peoples who chiefly subsist by agriculture it is not an occupation which is looked down upon, as it is among nomadic tribes. This gives the woman a {661} certain standing, owing to her importance as a food-provider.[228]

[Footnote 225: Hale, 'Language as a Test of Mental Capacity,' in Jour. Anthr. Inst. xxi. 427.]

[Footnote 226: Lewis and Clarke, Travels to the Source of the Missouri River, p. 441. Waitz, op. cit. iii. 343. Bancroft, Native Races of the Pacific States, i. 242 sq.]

[Footnote 227: Grosse, op. cit. pp. 48, 49, 74, 75, 109 sqq.]

[Footnote 228: Ibid. p. 182.]

In these generalisations there is no doubt a great deal of truth; but they do not hold good universally or without modifications. Among several peoples who subsist chiefly by the chase or the rearing of cattle, the position of women is exceedingly good. To mention only one instance out of many, Professor Vámbéry observes that among the nomadic Kara-Kirghiz the female sex is treated with greater respect than among those Turks who lead a stationary life and practise agriculture.[229] Indeed, the general theory that women are more oppressed in proportion as they are less useful, is open to doubt. Commonly they are said to be oppressed by their savage husbands just by being compelled to work too hard; and that work does not necessarily give authority is obvious from the institution of slavery. But at the same time the notion, prevalent in early civilisation, that the one sex must not in any way interfere with the pursuits of the other sex, may certainly, especially when applied to an occupation of such importance as agriculture, increase the influence of those who are engaged in it. Considering further that the cultivated soil is not infrequently regarded as the property of the women who till it,[230] it is probable that, in certain cases at least, the agricultural habits of a people have had a favourable effect upon the general condition of the female sex, and at the same time on the wife's position in the family.

[Footnote 229: Vámbéry, Das Türkenvolk, p. 268.]

[Footnote 230: Grosse, op. cit. p. 159 sq.]

The status of wives is in various respects connected with the ideas held about the female sex in general. Woman is commonly looked upon as a slight, dainty, and relatively feeble creature, destitute of all nobler qualities.[231] Especially among nations more advanced in culture she is regarded as intellectually and morally vastly inferior to man. In Greece, in the historic age, the latter recognised {662} in her no other end than to minister to his pleasure or to become the mother of his children. There was also a general notion that she was naturally more vicious, more addicted to envy, discontent, evil-speaking, and wantonness, than the man.[232] Plato classes women together with children and servants,[233] and states generally that in all the pursuits of mankind the female sex is inferior to the male.[234] Euripides puts into the mouth of his Medea the remark that "women are impotent for good, but clever contrivers of all evil."[235] According to the Vedic singer, again, "woman's mind is hard to direct aright, and her judgment is small."[236] To the Buddhist, women are of all the snares which the tempter has spread for men the most dangerous; in women are embodied all the powers of infatuation which bind the mind of the world.[237] The Chinese have a saying to the effect that the best girls are not equal to the worst boys.[238] Islam pronounces the general depravity of women to be much greater than that of men.[239] According to Muhammedan tradition, the Prophet said:--"I have not left any calamity more hurtful to man than woman. . . . O assembly of women, give alms, although it be of your gold and silver ornaments; for verily ye are mostly of Hell on the Day of Resurrection."[240] The Hebrews represented woman as the source of evil and death on earth:--"Of the woman came the beginning of sin, and through her we all die."[241] This notion passed into Christianity. Says St. Paul, "Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression."[242] Tertullian maintains that a woman should go about in humble garb, mourning and repentant, in order to expiate that which she derives from Eve, the ignominy {663} of the first sin, and the odium attaching to her as the cause of human perdition. "Do you not know," he exclaims, "that you are each an Eve? The sentence of God on this sex of yours lives in this age; the guilt must of necessity live too. You are the devil's gateway; you are the unsealer of that [forbidden] tree; you are the first deserter of the divine law; you are she who persuaded him whom the devil was not valiant enough to attack. You destroyed so easily God's image, man. On account of your desert--that is, death--even the Son of God had to die."[243] At the Council of Mâcon, towards the end of the sixth century, a bishop even raised the question whether woman really was a human being. He answered the question in the negative; but the majority of the assembly considered it to be proved by Scripture that woman, in spite of all her defects, yet was a member of the human race.[244] However, some of the Fathers of the Church were careful to emphasise that womanhood only belongs to this earthly existence, and that on the day of resurrection all women will appear in the shape of sexless beings.[245]

[Footnote 231: Crawley, The Mystic Rose, p. 204 sq.]

[Footnote 232: Dickinson, op. cit. p. 159. Döllinger, op. cit. ii. 234.]

[Footnote 233: Plato, Respublica, iv. 431.]

[Footnote 234: Ibid. v. 455.]

[Footnote 235: Euripides, Medea, 406 sqq.]

[Footnote 236: Rig-Veda, viii. 33. 17.]

[Footnote 237: Oldenburg, Buddha, p. 165. Cf. Kern, Manual of Indian Buddhism, p. 69.]

[Footnote 238: Smith, Proverbs of the Chinese, p. 265.]

[Footnote 239: Lane, Arabian Society, p. 219. Cf. Doughty, Arabia Deserta, i. 238.]

[Footnote 240: Lane-Poole, Speeches of Mohammad, pp. 161, 163.]

[Footnote 241: Ecclesiasticus, xxv. 24.]

[Footnote 242: 1 Timothy, ii. 14.]

[Footnote 243: Tertullian, De cultu f[oe]minarum, i. 1 (Migne, Patrologiæ cursus, i. 1305). See also Laurent, Études sur l'histoire de l'humanité, iv. 113.]

[Footnote 244: Gregory of Tours, Historia Francorum, viii. 20.]

[Footnote 245: St. Hilar., Commentarius in Matthæum, xxiii. 4 (Migne, op. cit. ix. 1045 sq.). St. Basil, Homilia in Psalmum cxiv. 5 (Migne, op. cit. Ser. Graeca, xxix. 488).]

Progress in civilisation has exercised an unfavourable influence on the position of woman by widening the gulf between the sexes, as the higher culture was almost exclusively the prerogative of the men. Moreover, religion, and especially the great religions in the world, have contributed to the degradation of the female sex by regarding woman as unclean. During menstruation, or when with child, or at child-birth, she is considered to be polluted, to be charged with mysterious baneful energy, which is a danger to all around her.[246] The cause of this notion seems to lie in the {664} superstitious dread of those marvellous processes which then take place, and it reaches its height where there is appearance of blood.[247] On such occasions woman is shunned not only by men, but in an even higher degree by gods, for the obvious reason that contact with the unclean woman would injure or destroy their holiness. Indeed, the danger is considered so great, that many religions regard women as defiled not only temporarily, but permanently, and on that ground exclude them from religious worship.

[Footnote 246: Ploss-Bartels, Das Weib, i. 420 sqq.; ii. 10 sqq., 402 sqq. Frazer, Golden Bough, i. 325 sqq.; iii. 222 sqq. Crawley, op. cit. p. 165 sqq.; Mathew, Eaglehawk and Crow, p. 144 (Australian aborigines), de Rochas, Nouvelle Calédonie, p. 283. Mooney, 'Myths of the Cherokee,' in Ann. Rep. Bur. Ethn. xix. 469. Sumner, in Jour. Anthr. Inst. xxxi. 96 (Jakuts). Georgi, Russia, iii. 25 sq. (Samoyedes), 245, sq. (Shamanists of Siberia generally); &c.]

[Footnote 247: Professor Durkheim maintains ('La prohibition de l'inceste et ses origines,' in L'année sociologique, i. especially p. 48 sqq.) that the origin of the occult powers attributed to the feminine organism is to be found in primitive ideas concerning blood, any kind of blood, not only menstrual, being the object of similar feelings among savages and barbarians. Mr. Crawley justly remarks (op. cit. p. 212) that there is no flux of blood during pregnancy, when woman is regularly taboo; that her hair, nail-parings, and occupations can hardly be avoided from a fear of her blood; and that there is also the female side of the question to be taken into account.]

In the Society Islands a woman was forbidden to touch whatever was presented as an offering to the gods, so as not to pollute it.[248] In Melanesia women are generally excluded from religious rites.[249] Among the Shamanists of Siberia women "are interdicted the worship of the deities, and dare not pass round the common hearth of their habitations, because fire is sacred to the gods."[250] The women of the Voguls are generally prohibited from approaching idols or holy places.[251] A Votyak woman may not be present at the sacrifices made to the lud, or evil spirit.[252] Among the Lapps a woman was not allowed to touch a noaid's, or wizard's, drum; nor, as a rule, to take part in sacrificial rites; nor even to look in the direction of a place where sacrifices were offered.[253] Among the Ainos of Japan, "though a woman may prepare a divine offering, she may not offer it. . . . Accordingly, women are never allowed to pray, or to take any part in any religious {665} exercise."[254] In China women are not allowed to go and worship in the temples.[255]

[Footnote 248: Ellis, Polynesian Researches, i. 129. Cf. Wegener, Geschichte der christlichen Kirche auf dem Gesellschafts-Archipel, p. 181.]

[Footnote 249: Codrington, Melanesians, p. 127.]

[Footnote 250: Georgi, op. cit. iii. 245. Cf. ibid. iii. 25.]

[Footnote 251: Abercromby, Pre- and Proto-historic Finns, i. 181.]

[Footnote 252: Wichmann, Tietoja Votjaakkien Mytologiiasta, p. 17. See also ibid. p. 27.]

[Footnote 253: von Düben, Lappland och Lapparne, p. 276. Friis, Lappisk Mythologi, p. 147.]

[Footnote 254: Howard, op. cit. p. 195.]

[Footnote 255: Indo-Chinese Gleaner, iii. 156.]

In ancient Nicaragua women were held unworthy to perform any duty in connection with the temples, and were immolated outside the temple ground of the large sanctuaries, and even their flesh was unclean food for the high priest, who accordingly ate only the flesh of males.[256] In Mexico, although some women were employed in the immediate service of the temples, they were entirely excluded from the office of sacrificing, and the higher dignities of the priesthood.[257]

[Footnote 256: Bancroft, op. cit. iii. 494.]

[Footnote 257: Clavigero, History of Mexico, i. 274 sq.]

According to the sacred books of India, "women are considered to have no business with the sacred texts";[258] and, being destitute of the knowledge of Vedic texts, they "are as impure as falsehood itself, that is a fixed rule."[259] Although, according to a Vedic ordinance mentioned in the Laws of Manu, husband and wife ought to perform religious rites together,[260] they have, among the present Hindus, no religious life in common; the women are not allowed to repeat the Veda, or to go through the morning and evening Sandhy[=a] services.[261] If a woman, a dog, or a Sûdra, touch a consecrated image, its godship is destroyed; the ceremonies of deification must therefore be performed afresh, whilst a clay image, if thus defiled, must be thrown away. If women should worship before a consecrated image, they must keep at a respectful distance from the idol.[262]

[Footnote 258: Baudhâyana, i. 5. 11. 7.]

[Footnote 259: Laws of Manu, ix. 18. Cf. ibid. ii. 66; iii. 121.]

[Footnote 260: Ibid. ix. 96.]

[Footnote 261: Monier Williams, Br[=a]hmanism and Hind[=u]ism, p. 398.]

[Footnote 262: Ward, View of the History, &c., of the Hindoos, ii. 13, 36.]

Islam is chiefly a religion for men. Though Muhammed did not forbid women to attend public prayers in a mosque, he pronounced it better for them to pray in private, as the presence of females might inspire in the men a different kind of devotion from that which is requisite in a place dedicated to the worship of God.[263] Women are absolutely excluded from many Muhammedan places of worship, and are frowned upon if they venture to appear in others, at any rate while men are there.[264]

[Footnote 263: Lane, Manners and Customs of the Modern Egyptians, p. 94.]

[Footnote 264: Pool, Studies in Mohammedanism, p. 39 sq.]

In Christian Europe, as ascetic ideas advanced, the women sat or stood in the church apart from the men, and entered by a separate door.[265] They were excluded from sacred functions. {666} In the early Church, it is true, there were "deaconesses" and clerical "widows," but their offices were merely to perform some inferior services of the church;[266] and even these very modest posts were open only to virgins or widows of a considerable age.[267] Whilst a layman could in case of necessity administer baptism, a woman could never, as it seems, perform such an act.[268] Nor was a woman allowed to preach publicly in the church, either by the Apostle's rules or those of succeeding ages;[269] and it was a serious complaint against certain heretics that they allowed such a practice. "The heretic women," Tertullian exclaims, "how wanton are they! they who dare to teach, to dispute, to practise exorcisms, to promise cures, perchance, also, to baptise!"[270] A Council held at Auxerre at the end of the sixth century forbade women to receive the Eucharist into their naked hands;[271] and in various Canons women were enjoined not to come near to the altar while mass was celebrating.[272] To such an extent was this opposition against women carried that the Church of the Middle Ages did not hesitate to provide itself with eunuchs in order to supply cathedral choirs with the soprano tones inhering by nature in women alone.[273]

[Footnote 265: Donaldson, in Contemporary Review, lvi. 438.]

[Footnote 266: Zscharnack, Der Dienst der Frau in den ersten Jahrhunderten der christlichen Kirche, p. 99 sqq. Robinson, Ministry of Deaconesses, passim.]

[Footnote 267: Ibid. pp. 113, 114, 125.]

[Footnote 268: Bingham, Works, iv. 45. Zscharnack, op. cit. p. 93.]

[Footnote 269: Bingham, op. cit. v. 107 sqq. Zscharnack, op. cit. p. 73 sqq.]

[Footnote 270: Tertullian, De præscriptionibus adversus hæreticos, 41 (Migne, op. cit. ii. 56). Cf. Tertullian, De baptismo, 17 (Migne, op. cit. i. 1219).]

[Footnote 271: Concilium Autisiodorense, A.D. 578, can. 36 (Labbe-Mansi, Sacrorum Conciliorum collectio, ix. 915).]

[Footnote 272: Canones Concilii Laodiceni, 44 (Labbe-Mansi, op. cit. ii. 581, 589). 'Epitome canonum, quam Hadrianus I. Carolo Magno obtulit, A.D. DCCLXXIII.,' in Labbe-Mansi, op. cit. xii. 868. Canons enacted under King Edgar, 44 (Ancient Laws and Institutes of England, p. 399).]

[Footnote 273: Cf. Gage, Woman, Church and State, p. 57.]

But the notion that woman is either temporarily or permanently unclean, that she is a mysterious being charged with supernatural energy, is not only a cause of her degradation; it also gives her a secret power over her husband, which may be very considerable. During my stay among the country people of Morocco, Arabs and Berbers alike, I was often struck by the superstitious fear with which the women imbued the men. They are supposed to be much better versed in magic, and have also splendid opportunities to practise it to the detriment {667} of their husbands, as they may easily bewitch the food they prepare for them. For instance, the wife only needs to cut off a little piece of a donkey's ear and put it into the husband's food. What happens? By eating that little piece the husband will, in his relations to his wife, become just like a donkey; he will always listen to what she says, and the wife will become the ruler of the house. I also believe that the men on purpose abstain from teaching the women prayers, so as not to increase their supernatural power.[274] In the Arabian Desert men are likewise afraid of their women "with their sly philters and maleficent drinks."[275] In Dahomey "the husband may not chastise or interfere with his wife whilst the fetish is 'upon' her, and even at other times the use of the rod might be dangerous."[276] Women, and especially old ones, are very frequently regarded as experts in magic. [277] Among the ancient Arabs,[278] Babylonians,[279] and Peruvians,[280] as in Europe during the Middle Ages and later, the witch appeared more frequently than the male sorcerer. So, also, in the Government of Tomsk in Southern Siberia, native sorceresses are much more numerous than wizards;[281] and among the Californian Shastika all, or nearly all, of the {668} shamans are women.[282] The curses of women are greatly feared. In Morocco it is considered even a greater calamity to be cursed by a Shereefa, or female descendant of the Prophet, than to be cursed by a Shereef. According to the Talmud, the anger of a wife destroys the house;[283] but, on the other hand, it is also through woman that God's blessings are vouchsafed to it.[284] We read in the Laws of Manu:--"Women must be honoured and adorned by their fathers, brothers, husbands, and brothers-in-law, who desire their own welfare. Where women are honoured, there the gods are pleased; but where they are not honoured, no sacred rite yields rewards. Where the female relations live in grief, the family soon wholly perishes; but that family where they are not unhappy ever prospers. The houses on which female relations, not being duly honoured, pronounce a curse, perish completely as if destroyed by magic. Hence men who seek their own welfare should always honour women on holidays and festivals with gifts of ornaments, clothes, and dainty food."[285] A Gaelic proverb says, "A wicked woman will get her wish, though her soul may not see salvation."[286] Closely connected with the belief in the magic power of women, and especially, I think, in the great efficacy of their curses, is the custom according to which a woman may serve as an asylum.[287] In various tribes of Morocco, especially among the Berbers and Jbâla, a person who takes refuge with a woman by touching her is safe from his persecutor. Among the Arabs of the plains this custom is dying out, probably owing to their subjection under the Sultan's government; but amongst certain Asiatic Bedouins, the tribe of Shammar, "a woman can protect any number of persons, or even of tents."[288] {669} Among the Circassians "a stranger who intrusts himself to the patronage of a woman, or is able to touch with his mouth the breast of a wife, is spared and protected as a relation of the blood, though he were the enemy, nay even the murderer of a similar relative."[289] The inhabitants of Bareges in Bigorre have, up to recent times, preserved the old custom of pardoning a criminal who has sought refuge with a woman.[290]

[Footnote 274: We are told that among the Ainos of Japan women are forbidden to pray, not only in conformity with ancestral custom, but because the men are afraid of the prayers of the women in general, and of their wives in particular. An old man said to Mr. Batchelor:--"The women as well as the men used to be allowed to worship the gods and take part in all religious exercises; but our wise honoured ancestors forbade them to do so, because it was thought they might use their prayers against the men, and more particularly against their husbands. We therefore think that it is wiser to keep them from praying" (Batchelor, Ainu and their Folk-Lore, p. 550 sq. Howard, op. cit. p. 195). Among the Santals the men are careful not to divulge the names of their household gods to their wives, for fear lest the latter should acquire undue influence with the gods, become witches, and "eat up the family with impunity when the protection of its gods has been withdrawn" (Risley, Tribes and Castes of Bengal, Ethnographic Glossary, ii. 232).]

[Footnote 275: Doughty, Arabia Deserta, ii. 384.]

[Footnote 276: Burton, Mission to Gelele, ii. 155.]

[Footnote 277: Ploss-Bartels, op. cit. ii. 664, 666 sqq. Mason, op. cit. p. 255 sqq. Landtman, Origin of Priesthood, p. 198 sq. Angas, Savage Life and Scenes in Australia and New Zealand, i. 317 (Maoris). Connolly, 'Social Life in Fanti-land,' in _Jour. Anthr. Inst._ xxvi. 150.]

[Footnote 278: Wellhausen, Reste arabischen Heidentums, p. 159.]

[Footnote 279: Jastrow, Religion of Babylonia, pp. 267, 342.]

[Footnote 280: Garcilasso de la Vega, First Part of the Royal Commentaries of the Yncas, i. 60.]

[Footnote 281: Kostroff, quoted by Landtman, op. cit. p. 199.]

[Footnote 282: Powers, Tribes of California, p. 246.]

[Footnote 283: Sota, fol. 3 B, quoted by Katz, Der wahre Talmudjude, p. 110 sq.]

[Footnote 284: Baba Meziah, fol. 59 A, quoted ibid. p. 112. Deutsch, Literary Remains, p. 56.]

[Footnote 285: Laws of Manu, iii. 55 sqq.]

[Footnote 286: Carmichael, Carmina Gadelica, ii. 317.]

[Footnote 287: For some instances of this custom see Andree, 'Die Asyle,' in Globus, xxxviii. 302; Bachofen, Das Mutterrecht, p. 420 (Basques).]

[Footnote 288: Layard, Discoveries in the Ruins of Nineveh and Babylon, p. 318.]

[Footnote 289: Pallas, Travels through the Southern Provinces of the Russian Empire, i. 404.]

[Footnote 290: Fischer, Bergreisen, i. 60.]

Yet another factor remains to be mentioned as a cause of the subjection in which married women are held by many peoples of culture. We have noticed that in archaic civilisation the father's power over his children is extreme, that the State whilst weakening or destroying the clan-tie strengthened the family-tie, and that the father was invested with some part of the power which formerly belonged to the clan.[291] This process must also have affected the status of married women. The husband's power over his wife is closely connected with the father's power over his daughter; for, by giving her in marriage, he generally transfers to the husband the authority which he himself previously possessed over her as a paternal right.

[Footnote 291: Supra, ch. xxv. especially p. 627 sq.]

In modern civilisation, on the other hand, we find, hand in hand with the decrease of the father's power, a decrease of the husband's authority over his wife. But the causes of the gradual emancipation of married women are manifold. Life has become more complicated; the occupations of women have become much more extensive; their influence has expanded correspondingly, from the home and household to public life. Their widened interests have interfered with that submissiveness which is an original characteristic of their sex. Their greater education has made them more respected, and has increased their independence. Finally, the decline of the influence exercised by antiquated religious ideas is removing what has probably been the most persistent cause of the wife's subjection to her husband's rule.