CHAPTER XXIII

CHARITY AND GENEROSITY

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

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

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

The parents’ duty of taking care of their offspring is, in the first place, based on the sentiment of parental affection. That the maternal sentiment is universal in mankind is a fact too generally admitted to need demonstration; not so the father’s love of his children. Savage men are commonly supposed to be very indifferent towards their offspring; but a detailed study of facts leads us to a different conclusion. It appears that, among the lower races, the paternal sentiment is hardly less universal than the maternal, although it is probably never so strong and in many cases distinctly feeble. But more often it displays itself with considerable intensity even among the rudest savages. In the often-quoted case of the Patagonian chief who, in a moment of passion, dashed his little son with the utmost violence against the rocks because he let a basket of eggs which the father handed to him fall down, we have only an instance of savage impetuosity. The same father “would, at any other time, have been the most daring, the most enduring, and the most self-devoted” in the support and defence of his child.28 Similarly the Central Australian natives, in fits of sudden passion, when hardly knowing what they do, sometimes treat a child with great severity; but as a rule, to which there are very few exceptions, they are kind and considerate to their children, the men as well as the women carrying them when they get tired on the march, and always seeing that they get a good share of any food.29 All authorities agree that the Australian Black is affectionate to his children.30 “From observation of various tribes in far distant parts of Australia,” says Mr. Howitt, “I can assert confidently that love for their children is a marked feature in the aboriginal character. I cannot recollect having ever seen a parent beat or cruelly use a child; and a short road to the goodwill of the parents is, as amongst us, by noticing and admiring their children. No greater grief could be exhibited, by the fondest parents in the most civilised community at the death of some little child, than that which I have seen exhibited in an Australian native camp, not only by the immediate parents, but by the whole related group.”31 Other representatives of the lowest savagery, as the Veddahs32 and Fuegians,33 are likewise described as tender parents. Though few peoples have acquired a worse reputation for cruelty than the Fijians, even the greatest censurer of their character admits that the exhibition of parental love among them “is sometimes such as to be worthy of admiration”;34 whilst, according to another authority, “it is truly touching to see how parents are attached to their children.”35 The Bangala of the Upper Congo, “swayed one moment by a thirst for blood and indulging in the most horrible orgies, … may yet the next be found approaching their homes looking forward with the liveliest interest to the caresses of their wives and children.”36 Carver asserts that he never saw among any other people greater proofs of parental or filial tenderness than among the North American Naudowessies.37 Among the Point Barrow Eskimo “the affection of parents for their children is extreme”;38 and the same seems to be the case among the Eskimo in general.39 Concerning the Aleuts Veniaminof wrote long ago:—“The children are often well fed and satisfied, while the parents almost perish with hunger. The daintiest morsel, the best dress, is always kept for them.”40 Mr. Hooper, again, found parental love nowhere more strongly exemplified than among the Chukchi; “the natives absolutely doat upon their children.”41 Innumerable facts might indeed be quoted to prove that parental affection is not a late product of civilisation, but a normal feature of the savage mind as it is known to us.42

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

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

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

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

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