Among the precautions taken against the visiting stranger kind and respectful treatment is of particularly great importance. No traveller among an Arabic-speaking people can fail to notice the contrast between the lavish welcome and the plain leave-taking. The profuse greetings mean that the stranger will be treated as a friend and not as an enemy; and it is particularly desirable to secure his good-will in the beginning, since the first glance of an evil eye is always held to be the most dangerous. We can now realise that the extreme regard shown to a guest, and the preference given to him in every matter, must, in a large measure, be due to fear of his anger, as well as to hope of his blessings. Even the peculiar custom which requires a host to lend his wife to a guest becomes more intelligible when we consider the supposed danger of the stranger’s evil eye or his curses, as also the benefits which may be supposed to result from his love.125 And when the guest leaves, it is wise of the host to accept no reward; for there maybe misfortune in the stranger’s gift.

That hospitality should be free of cost is implied in the very meaning of the word. Wherever the custom of entertaining guests has been preserved pure and genuine, remuneration is neither asked nor expected; indeed, to offer payment would give offence, and to accept it would be disgraceful.126 Such a custom might no doubt result from absence or scarcity of money, as it cannot be expected that the wandering stranger shall carry with him heavy presents to all his future hosts; and where the intercourse is mutual, the hospitable man may hope one day to be paid back in his own coin. But it seems likely that the custom of not receiving payment from a guest is largely due to that same dread of strangers which underlies many other rules of hospitality. The acceptance of gifts is frequently considered to be connected with some danger. According to rules laid down in the sacred books of India, he who is about to accept gifts, or he who has accepted gifts, must repeatedly recite the four Vedic verses called Taratsamandîs;127 or all gifts are to be preceded by pouring out water into the extended palm of the recipient’s right hand,128 evidently because the water is supposed to cleanse the gift from the baneful energy with which it may be saturated. On the other hand, “without a full knowledge of the rules prescribed by the sacred law for the acceptance of presents, a wise man should not take anything, even though he may pine with hunger. But an ignorant man who accepts gold, land, a horse, a cow, food, a dress, sesamum-grains, or clarified butter, is reduced to ashes like a piece of wood…. Hence an ignorant man should be afraid of accepting any presents; for by reason of a very small gift even a fool sinks into hell as a cow into a morass.”129 Moreover, a gift, to be accepted by a Brâhmana, ought to be given voluntarily, not to be asked for.130 So, too, Hebrew writers are anxious to inculcate the duty of giving alms with an ungrudging eye, as also of not giving anything before witnesses—the latter, perhaps, with a view to preventing the evil influence which is likely to emanate from an envious spectator.131 An Atlas Berber, who had probably never before had anything to do with a European, spat on the coin which I gave him for rendering me a service, and my native friends told me that he did so for fear lest the coin, owing to some sorcery on my part, should not only itself return to me, but at the same time take with it all the money with which it had been in contact in his bag. Of the Annamites it is said that “for fear of bringing ill-luck into the place the people even decline presents.”132

The duty of hospitality is probably always limited by time, even though, among some peoples, a guest is said to be entertained as long as he pleases to stay.133 According to Teutonic custom, a guest might tarry only up to the third day.134 The Anglo-Saxon rule was, “Two nights a guest, the third night one of the household,” that is, a slave.135 A German proverb says, “Den ersten Tag ein Gast, den zweiten eine Last, den dritten stinkt er fast.”136 So, also, the Southern Slavs declare that “a guest and a fish smell on the third day.”137 Burckhardt states that, among the Bedouins, if the stranger intends to prolong his visit after a lapse of three days and four hours from the time of his arrival, it is expected that he should assist his host in domestic matters; should he decline this, “he may remain, but will be censured by all the Arabs of the camp.”138 The Moors say that “the hospitality of the Prophet lasts for three days”; the first night the guest is entertained most lavishly, for then, but only then, he is “the guest of God.” The Prophet laid down the following rule: “Whoever believes in God and the day of resurrection, must respect his guest; and the time of being kind to him is one day and one night; and the period of entertaining him is three days; and after that, if he does it longer, he benefits him more; but it is not right for a guest to stay in the house of the host so long as to incommode him.”139 According to Javanese custom, it is a point of honour to supply a stranger with food and accommodation for a day and a night at least.140 Among the Kalmucks special honour is paid to a stranger for one day only, whereas, if he remains longer, he is treated without ceremonies.141 Growing familiarity with the stranger naturally tends to dispel the superstitious dread which he inspired at first, and this, combined with the feeling that it is unfair of him to live at his host’s expense longer than necessity requires, seems to account for the rapid decline of his extraordinary privileges and for the short duration of his title to hospitable treatment.

Contrary to what is the case with other duties which men owe to their fellow-creatures, in every progressive society we find hospitality on the wane. In the later days of Greece and Rome it almost dwindled into a survival.142 In the Middle Ages hospitality was extensively practised by high and low; it was enjoined by the tenets of Chivalry,143 and the poorer people, also, considered it disgraceful to refuse to share their meals with a needy stranger.144 However, in the reign of Henry IV., Thomas Occlif complains of the decline of hospitality in England; and in the middle of the Elizabethan age, Archbishop Sandys says that “it is come to pass that hospitality itself is waxen a stranger.”145 The reasons for this decline are not difficult to find. Increasing intercourse between different communities or different countries not only makes hospitality an intolerable burden, but leads to the establishment of inns, and thus hospitality becomes superfluous. It habituates the people to the sight of strangers, and, in consequence, deprives the stranger of that mystery which surrounds the lonely wanderer in an isolated district whose inhabitants have little communication with the outside world. And, finally, increase of intercourse gives rise to laws which make an individual protector needless, by placing the stranger under the protection of the State.

CHAPTER XXV

THE SUBJECTION OF CHILDREN

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 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 sisters6—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 their father, though he may to some extent have to share his authority with the mother.

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

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 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

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

Among various Eskimo23 and North American Indian tribes24 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 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