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 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

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 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

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.

CHAPTER XXVI

THE SUBJECTION OF WIVES

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 mere brute.”5 Many other statements to a similar effect are met with in ethnographical literature.6

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 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

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 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 behaviour.”26 There are even peoples among whom the husband’s authority hardly exists, although he has had to pay for his wife.27

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 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

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 with a spear alone, that they may be disengaged to fight or hunt, if occasion require.”41

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 Aḥsen 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, 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