269 Code of Virginia, cxcviii. 31 sq. Stroud, op. cit. p. 142.
There is yet another point in which the master’s power was restricted in a most unusual way: in many cases he was not allowed to liberate his slave, or formidable obstacles were put in the way of manumission. Thus, in North Carolina a slave could formerly not be enfranchised except for meritorious services;270 but this enactment was altered by the Revised Statutes of 1836–1837, according to which any emancipation granted to any slave “shall be upon the express condition, that he, she or they will leave the State, within ninety days from the granting thereof, and never will return within the State afterwards.”271 The Civil Code of Louisiana required that a slave, to be emancipated, should have attained the age of thirty years and behaved well at least for four years preceding the emancipation, unless, indeed, the slave had saved the life of his master or of one of his children, in which case he might be set free at any age;272 and, according to a statute of 1852, the emancipated slave should be sent out of the United States within twelve months after his emancipation.273 In several other States manumission was likewise hampered by various regulations;274 and throughout the British West Indies there were restraints on manumission prior to the Emancipation Act.275 By an act passed in Saint Christopher in the year 1802, a tax of £1,000 was imposed on the manumission of any slave who was not a native of, or had not resided for two years within, the island, whilst natives or residents might be enfranchised at half that price. But the authors of this act went further still. They considered that a master, though unwilling to pay £500 or £1,000 for the legal enfranchisement of a slave, might, during his own life, make him or her practically free by not exercising his own rights as master. Hence they enacted “that if any proprietor of a slave should, by any contract in writing or otherwise, dispense with the slave’s service, or should be proved before a justice of peace not to have exercised any right of ownership over such slave, and maintained him or her at his own expense, within a month, the slave should be publicly sold at vendue by the provost marshall; and should become the property of the purchaser, and the purchase-money should be paid into the colonial treasury.”276 In St. Vincents one hundred pounds sterling was required to be paid into the treasury for each slave sought to be manumitted,277 whilst in Barbados a person minded to manumit a slave should pay £50 to the churchwarden of the parish in which he resided.278 Very different were the Spanish laws on the subject of manumission. According to a law of 1528 a negro slave who had served a certain length of time was entitled to his liberty upon the payment of a certain sum, not less than twenty marks of gold, the exact amount to be settled by the royal authorities.279 In 1540 a law was issued to the effect that “if any negro, or negress, or any other persons reputed slaves, should publicly demand their liberty, they should be heard, and justice be done to them, and care be taken that they should not on that account be maltreated by their masters.”280 Nay, a slave who wished to change his master and could prevail on any other person to buy him by appraisement, could demand and compel such a transfer,281 and a master who treated his slaves inhumanly could be by the judge deprived of them.282 In most of the British colonies and American Slave States, on the other hand, the slave had no legal right to obtain a change of master when cruel treatment made it necessary for his relief or preservation.283 The exceptions to this rule284 were few and of little practical value.
270 Stroud, op. cit. p. 233.
271 Revised Statutes of North Carolina, cxi. 58, vol. i. 585.
272 Morgan, Civil Code of Louisiana, art. 185 sq., p. 30 sqq.
273 Ibid. Stat. 18th March, 1852, §1, p. 29.
274 Brevard, op. cit. ii. 255 sq. (South Carolina). Prince, op. cit. p. 787 (Georgia). Stroud, op. cit. p. 231 (Alabama). Alden and van Hoesen, Digest of the Laws of Mississippi, p. 761. Haywood and Cobbs, Statute Laws of the State of Tennessee, i. 327 sq.
275 Cobb, op. cit. p. 282.
276 Stephen, op. cit. i. 401 sq.
277 Cobb, op. cit. p. 282 sq.
278 Moore, Public Acts passed by the Legislature of Barbados, p. 224 sq.
279 Helps, Spanish Conquest in America, iv. 373.
280 Recopilacion de leyes de los reinos de las Indias, vii. 5. 8, vol. ii. 321.
281 Barre Saint Venant, quoted by Stephen, op. cit. i. 119 sq.
282 Edwards, History of the British West Indies, iv. 451.
283 Stephen, op. cit. i. 106. Stroud, op. cit. p. 93.
284 Morgan, Civil Code of Louisiana, art. 192, p. 33. Morehead and Brown, Digest of the Statute Laws of Kentucky, ii. 1481. Edwards, op. cit. ii. 192 (Jamaica). Stephen, op. cit. i. 106 (some other British colonies). In the French islands a negro who had been cruelly treated, contrary to royal ordinances, was forfeited to the crown, and acquired, if not freedom, at least deliverance from a tyrannical master (Code Noir, Édit du mois de Mars 1685, art. 42, p. 48 sq.; Édit donné au mois de Mars 1724, art. 38, p. 303 sq.); but the Court which adjudged the offence might also decree the sufferer to be manumitted (Stephen, op. cit. i. 119).
This system of slavery, which at least in the British colonies and the Slave States surpassed in cruelty the slavery of any pagan country ancient or modern, was not only recognised by Christian governments, but was supported by the large bulk of the clergy, Catholic285 and Protestant alike. In the beginning of the abolitionist movement the Churches acknowledged slavery to be a great evil, but with the making of this acknowledgment they believed that they had done their share, and denied that there was any obligation on them, or even that they had any right, to proceed against the slave-holders. But things did not stop here. The lamentations of resignation were gradually changed into excuses, and the excuses into justifications.286 The Bible, it was said, contains no prohibition of slavery; on the contrary, slavery is recognised both in the Old and New Testaments. Abraham, the father of the faithful and the friend of God, had slaves; the Hebrews were directed to make slaves of the surrounding nations; St. Paul and St. Peter approved of the relation of master and slave when they gave admonitions to both as to their reciprocal behaviour; the Saviour Himself said nothing in condemnation of slavery, although it existed in great aggravation while He was upon earth. If slavery were sinful, would it have been too much to expect that the Almighty had directed at least one little word against it in the last revelation of His will?287 Nay, God not only permitted slavery, but absolutely provided for its perpetuity;288 it is the very legislation of Heaven itself;289 it is an institution which it is a religious duty to maintain,290 and which cannot be abolished, because “God is pledged to sustain it.”291 According to some, slavery was founded on the judgment of God on a damned race, the descendants of Ham; according to others, it was only in this way that the African could be raised to a participation in the blessings of Christianity and civilisation.292 With the name of “abolitionist” was thus associated the idea of infidelity, and the emancipation movement was branded as an attempt to spread the evils of scepticism through the land.293 According to Governor Macduffie, of South Carolina, no human institution is more manifestly consistent with the will of God than slavery, and every community ought to punish the interference of abolitionists with death, without the benefit of clergy, “regarding the authors of it as enemies of the human race.”294 It is true that religious arguments were also adduced in favour of abolition. To hold men in bondage was said to be utterly inconsistent with the inalienable rights which the Creator had granted mankind, and still more obviously at variance with the dictates of Christian love.295 Many clergymen also joined the abolitionists. But it seems that in the middle of the nineteenth century the Quakers and the United Brethren were the only religious bodies that regarded slave-holding and slave-dealing as ecclesiastical offences.296 The American Churches were justly said to be “the bulwarks of American slavery.”297
285 The attempts to represent the Roman Catholic clergy as ardent abolitionists (Cochin, L’abolition de l’esclavage, ii. 443; de Locqueneuille, L’esclavage, ses promoteurs et ses adversaires, p. 193) are certainly not justified by facts. Among the Catholics of the United States there were some advocates of emancipation, but their number was not large (Goodell, Slavery and Anti-Slavery, 195 sq.; Parker, Collected Works, vi. 127 sq.). Dr. England, the Catholic bishop of Charleston, South Carolina, undertook in public to prove that the Catholic Church had always been the uncompromising friend of slave-holding (Parker, op. cit. v. 57). In Brazil it was common for clergymen not only to possess slaves, but to buy and sell them with as little scruple as other merchandises (da Fonseca, A esravidão, o clero e o abolicionismo, pp. 28, 33). Bishop Bouvier wrote (op. cit. p. 568):—“Servi autem dominis suis obedire, sortem suam patienter tolerare et officia sibi imposita fideliter exsequi debent, quoadusque libertas ipsis concedatur. Meminerint præsentem vitam esse momentaneam, futuram vero æternam.”
286 von Holst, op. cit. ii. 231 sqq.
287 Barnes, The Church and Slavery, p. 15. Birney, Letter to the Churches, p. 3 sq. Bledsoe, Essay on Liberty and Slavery, p. 138 sqq. Gerrit Smith, Letter to Rev. James Smylie, p. 3. Cobb, op. cit. p. 54 sqq. Goodell, Slavery and Anti-Slavery, pp. 154-156, 167, 176, 181, 184, 186, &c. Parker, Collected Works, v. 157.
288 Thornton, quoted by Goodell, Slavery and Anti-Slavery, p. 147. Fisk, quoted ibid. p. 147.
289 Bledsoe, op. cit. p. 138.
290 Smylie, quoted by Gerrit Smith, op. cit. p. 3.
291 Quoted by Goodell, Slavery and Anti-Slavery, p. 347.
292 Barnes, op. cit. p. 16.
293 Ibid. p. 18. Newman, Anglo-Saxon Abolition of Negro Slavery, p. 56. Bledsoe, op. cit. p. 223.
294 Newman, op. cit. p. 53. von Holst, op. cit. ii. 118, n. 1.
295 Gurney, Views and Practices of the Society of Friends, p. 390. ‘Anti-Slavery Declaration of 1833,’ quoted by Goodell, Slavery and Anti-Slavery, p. 398. Birney, Second Letter, p. 1.
296 Parker, op. cit. v. 56.
297 von Holst, op. cit. ii. 230.
Nobody would suppose that this attitude towards slavery was due to religious zeal. It was one of those cases, only too frequent in the history of morals, in which religion is called in to lend its sanction to a social institution agreeable to the leaders of religious opinion. Many clergymen and missionaries were themselves slave-holders,298 the chapel funds largely rested on slave property,299 and the ministers naturally desired to be on friendly terms with the more important members of their respective congregations, who were commonly owners of slaves. Adam Smith observes that the resolution of the Quakers in Pennsylvania to set at liberty all their slaves, was due to the fact that the principal produce there was corn, the raising of which cannot afford the expense of slave cultivation; had the slaves “made any considerable part of their property, such a resolution could never have been agreed to.”300
298 Barnes, op. cit. p. 13. Goodell, Slavery and Anti-Slavery, pp. 151, 186 sq.
299 Newman, op. cit. p. 53.
300 Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations, p. 172.
To explain the establishment of colonial slavery, the difficulties in the way of its abolition, and the laws relating to it, it is necessary to consider not only economic conditions and the motive of self-interest, but, as a factor of equal importance, the want of sympathy for, or positive antipathy to, the coloured race. The negro was looked upon almost as an animal, according to some he was a being without a soul.301 Even when free he was a pariah, subject to special laws and regulations. In the Code of Louisiana it is said:—“Free people of colour ought never to insult or strike white people, nor presume to conceive themselves equal to the whites; but, on the contrary, they ought to yield to them on every occasion, and never speak or answer them but with respect, under the penalty of imprisonment, according to the nature of the offence.”302 The Code Noir prohibited white men and women from marrying negroes, “à peine de punition et d’amende arbitraire”;303 and in the Revised Statutes of North Carolina we read:—“If any white man or woman, being free, shall intermarry with an Indian, negro, mustee or mulatto man or woman, or any person of mixed blood to the third generation, bond or free, he shall, by judgment of the county court, forfeit and pay the sum of one hundred dollars to the use of the county.”304 In Mississippi a free negro or mulatto was legally punished with thirty-nine lashes if he exercised the functions of a minister of the Gospel.305 Coloured men in the North were excluded from colleges and high schools, from theological seminaries and from respectable churches, as also from the town hall, the ballot, and the cemetery where white people were interred.306 The Anglo-Saxon aversion to the black race is thus expressed by an English writer:—“We hate slavery, but we hate the negroes still more.”307 Among the Spaniards and Portuguese racial antipathies were not so strong, and their slaves were consequently better treated.308
301 von Holst, op. cit. i. 279. Malloch, ‘How the Church dealt with Slavery,’ in The Month, xxvii. 454.
302 Quoted by Stroud, op. cit. p. 157.
303 Code Noir, Édit donné au mois de Mars 1724, art. 6, p. 286.
304 Revised Statutes of North Carolina, lxxi. 5, vol. i. 386 sq.
305 Alden and van Hoesen, op. cit. p. 771.
306 Parker, op. cit. v. 58. Goodell Slavery and Anti-Slavery, p. 200.
307 Seward, quoted by Newman, Abolition of Negro Slavery, p. 54.
308 Couty, L’esclavage au Brésil, p. 8 sqq.
Thus we notice in the opinions regarding slavery throughout the same distinction as in the judgments on other matters of moral concern. A person is, as a rule, allowed to enslave or to keep as slaves only persons belonging to a different community or a different race from his own, or their descendants. To deprive anybody of his liberty is to inflict an injury on him, and is regarded as wrong whenever the act gives rise to sympathetic resentment, whereas nothing is thought of it where no sympathy is felt for its victim. Thus, whilst slavery grows up only under economic conditions favourable to slave labour, it is always limited by feelings of an altruistic character, and where these feelings are sufficiently broad and powerful it is not tolerated at all. The same factor also influences the condition of the slaves where slavery exists. We have seen that native slaves are better treated than foreign ones and slaves born in the household better than those who have been captured or purchased. The advancement of a nation, again, is frequently attended with greater severity in the treatment of the slaves, because, whilst the simplicity of early ages admits of little distinction between the master and his servants in their employments and manner of living, the introduction of wealth and luxury gradually destroys the equality. Besides, the number of slaves maintained in a wealthy nation makes them formidable both to their owners and to the State, hence it is necessary that they should be strictly watched and kept in the utmost subjection.309
309 Millar, op. cit. p. 256 sqq.
The condition of slaves is in various respects influenced by the selfish considerations of their masters. Stuart Mill observes:—“When, as among the ancients, the slave-market could only be supplied by captives either taken in war, or kidnapped from thinly scattered tribes on the remote confines of the human world, it was generally more profitable to keep up the number by breeding, which necessitates a far better treatment of them, and for this reason, joined with several others, the condition of slaves … was probably much less bad in the ancient world, than in the colonies of modern nations.”310 Among the Bedouins, says Burckhardt, “the slaves are treated with kindness, and seldom beaten, as severity might induce them to run away.”311 Superstition may also help to improve the lot of the slave. In West Africa “the authority which a master exercises over a slave is very much modified by his constitutional dread of witchcraft. If he treats his slave unkindly, or inflicts unmerited punishment upon him, he exposes himself to all the machinations of witchcraft which that slave may be able to command.”312 It is said in the Proverbs, “Accuse not a servant unto his master, lest he curse thee, and thou be found guilty.”313 The same danger threatens the cruel master. We read in the Apostolic Constitutions, “Thy man-servant or thy maid-servant who trust in the same God, thou shalt not command with bitterness of spirit; lest they groan against thee, and wrath be upon thee from God.”314
311 Burckhardt, Bedouins and Wahábys, p. 103.
312 Wilson, Western Africa, p. 271. See also ibid. p. 179; Cruickshank, Eighteen Years on the Gold Coast, ii. 180 sqq.; Du Chaillu, Explorations and Adventures in Equatorial Africa, p. 331; Landtman, Origin of Priesthood, p. 198, n. 2.
313 Proverbs, xxx. 10.
314 Constitutiones Apostolicæ, vii. 13.
END OF VOL. I
Printed by LOWE & BRYDONE (PRINTERS) LTD., London, N.W. 1.
Macmillan logo
First Edition 1908
Second Edition 1917
WHILE the text of the first edition has been left almost unchanged, some notes have been added at the end of it.
E. W.
LONDON,
September, 1916.
The meaning of the term “property,” p. 1.—Savages accused of thievishness, p. 2.—Theft condemned by savages, pp. 2–13.—The condemnation of theft influenced by the value of the goods stolen, pp. 13–15.—The stealing of objects of a certain kind punished with particular severity, p. 14.—The appropriation of a small quantity of food not punished at all, p. 14 sq.—Exceptions to the rule that the punishment of theft is influenced by the worth or nature of the appropriated property, p. 15.—The degree of criminality attached to theft influenced by the place where it is committed, p. 15 sq.—A theft committed by night punished more heavily than one committed by day, p. 16.—Distinction made between ordinary theft and robbery, p. 16 sq.—Distinction made between manifest and non-manifest theft, p. 17.—Successful thieves not disapproved of but rather admired, pp. 17–19.—The moral valuation of theft influenced by the social position of the thief and of the person robbed, p. 19 sq.—Varies according as the victim is a tribesman or fellow-countryman or a stranger, pp. 20–25.—The treatment of ship-wrecked people in Europe, p. 25.—The destruction of property held legitimate in warfare, p. 25 sq.—The seizure of private property in war, p. 26 sq.—Military contributions and requisitions levied upon the inhabitants of the hostile territory, p. 27.—Proprietary incapacities of children, p. 27 sq.—Of women, pp. 28–31.—Of slaves, pp. 31–33.—The theory that nobody but the chief or king has proprietary rights, p. 33.
Acquisition of property by occupation, pp. 35–39.—By keeping possession of a thing, pp. 39–41.—By labour, pp. 41–43.—By a transfer of property by its owner, p. 43.—By inheritance, pp. 44–49.—By the fact that ownership in a thing directly follows from ownership in another thing, p. 49 sq.—By the custom which prescribes community of goods, p. 50.—The origin of proprietary rights and of the various modes of acquisition, pp. 51–57.—Explanation of the incapacity of children, wives, and slaves to acquire property, p. 57.—Why the moral judgments vary with regard to different acts of theft, pp. 57–59.—Theft supposed to be avenged by supernatural powers, pp. 59–69.—The removing of landmarks regarded as sacrilegious, p. 60 sq.—Cursing as a method of punishing thieves or compelling them to restore what they have stolen, p. 62 sq.—Cursing as a means of preventing theft, pp. 63–67.—Spirits or gods invoked in curses referring to theft, p. 66 sq.—Why gods take notice of offences against property, pp. 67–69.—The belief that thieves will be punished after death, p. 69.—The opposition against the established principles of ownership, pp. 69–71.
Definition of lying, p. 72.—Of good faith, ibid.—The regard for truth and good faith among uncivilised races, pp. 72–88.—Foreigners visiting a savage tribe apt to underrate its veracity, pp. 86–88.—The regard for truth varies according as the person concerned is a foreigner or a tribesman, p. 87 sq.—The regard for truth and good faith among the Chinese, p. 88 sq.—Among the Japanese, Burmese, and Siamese, p. 89.—Among the Hindus, pp. 89–92.—In Buddhism, p. 92.—Among the ancient Persians, p. 93 sq.—Among Muhammedan peoples, p. 94.—In ancient Greece, pp. 94–96.—In ancient Rome, p. 96.—Among the ancient Scandinavians, p. 96 sq.—Among the ancient Irish, p. 97.—Among the ancient Hebrews, pp. 97–99.—In Christianity, pp. 99–101.—In the code of Chivalry, p. 101 sq.—In the Middle Ages and later, p. 102 sq.—In modern Europe, pp. 103–106.—The views of philosophers, ibid.—Deceit in the relations between different states, in peace and war, pp. 106–108.
Explanation of the moral ideas concerning truthfulness and good faith, pp. 109–131.—When detected a deception implies a conflict between two irreconcilable ideas, which causes pain, p. 109.—Men like to know the truth, p. 109 sq.—The importance of knowing the truth, p. 110.—Deception humiliating, ibid.—A lie or breach of faith held more condemnable in proportion to the magnitude of the harm caused by it, ibid.—The importance of truthfulness and fidelity even in apparently trifling cases, p. 110 sq.—Deceit held permissible or obligatory when promoting the true interest of the person subject to it, p. 111.—The moral valuation of an act of falsehood influenced by its motive, p. 111 sq.—The opinion that no motive can justify an act of falsehood, p. 112.—Why falsehood is held permissible, or praiseworthy, or obligatory, when directed against a stranger, ibid.—Deceit condemned as cowardly, p. 113.—A clever lie admired or approved of, p. 114.—The duties of sincerity and good faith to some extent founded on prudential considerations, pp. 114–124.—Lying attended with supernatural danger, ibid.—A mystic efficacy ascribed to the untrue word, pp. 116–118.—The efficacy of oaths and the methods of charging them with supernatural energy, pp. 118–122.—Oaths containing appeals to supernatural beings, pp. 120–122.—By being frequently appealed to in oaths a god may come to be looked upon as a guardian of veracity and good faith, p. 123.—The influence of oath-taking upon veracity, p. 123 sq.—The influence of education upon the regard for truth, p. 124.—The influence of habit upon the regard for truth, p. 125.—Natural to speak the truth, p. 125 sq.—Intercourse with strangers destructive to savage veracity, pp. 126–129.—Social incoherence apt to lead to deceitful habits, p. 129.—Social differentiation a cause of deception, p. 129 sq.—Oppression an inducement to falsehood, p. 130 sq.—The duty of informing other persons of the truth, p. 131.—The regard for knowledge, pp. 131–136.
Definition of “honour,” p. 137.—The feeling of self-regarding pride in animals, p. 137 sq.—In savages, pp. 138–140.—The moral disapproval of insults, pp. 140–142.—The condemnation of an insult influenced by the status of, or the relations between, the parties concerned, p. 142 sq.—Pride disapproved of and humility praised as a virtue or enjoined as a duty, p. 144 sq.—Humility an object of censure, p. 145 sq.—Deviation from what is usual arouses a suspicion of arrogance, p. 146.—Politeness a duty rather than a virtue, ibid.—Many savages conspicuous for their civility, p. 146 sq.—Politeness a characteristic of all the great nations of the East, p. 147 sq.—The courtesies of Chivalry, p. 148.—The demands of politeness refer to all sorts of social intercourse and vary indefinitely in detail, p. 148 sq.—Salutations, pp. 149–151.—The rule of politeness most exacting in relation to superiors, p. 151 sq.—Politeness shown by men to women, p. 152.—Politeness shown to strangers, ibid.
The regard for other persons’ happiness in general, p. 153 sq.—The moral ideas concerning conduct which affects other persons’ welfare influenced by the relationship between the parties, pp. 154–166.—The feeling of gratitude said to be lacking in many uncivilised races, pp. 155–157.—Criticism of statements to this effect, pp. 157–161.—Savages described as grateful for benefits bestowed on them, pp. 161–165.—Gratitude represented as an object of praise or its absence as an object of disapproval, p. 165 sq.—Why ungratefulness is disapproved of, p. 166.—The patriotic sentiment defined, p. 167.—Though hardly to be found among the lower savages, it seems to be far from unknown among uncultured peoples of a higher type, p. 167 sq.—Many of the elements out of which patriotism proper has grown clearly distinguishable among savages, even the lowest, pp. 168–172.—National conceit, pp. 170–174.—The relation between the national feeling and the religious feeling, p. 174 sq.—The patriotism of ancient Greece and Rome, p. 175 sq.—The moral valuation of patriotism, p. 176.—Duties to mankind at large, pp. 176–179.—The ideal of patriotism rejected by Greek and Roman philosophers, p. 177 sq.—By Christianity, p. 178 sq.—The lack of patriotism and national feeling during the Middle Ages, pp. 179–181.—The development of the national feeling in England, p. 181 sq.—In France, p. 182.—The cosmopolitanism of the eighteenth century, p. 182 sq.—European patriotism after the French revolution, p. 183 sq.—The theory cf nationalism, p. 184.—The cosmopolitan spirit, p. 184 sq.
Maternal affection, pp. 186–189.—Prof. Espinas’s theory, p. 186 sq.—Prof. Bain’s theory, p. 187 sq.—Mr. Spencer’s theory, p. 188.—Distinction between maternal love and the mere love of the helpless, p. 188 sq.—The paternal instinct, p. 189 sq.—Conjugal attachment, pp. 190–192.—The duration of conjugal attachment, p. 192 sq.—The duration of parental affection, p. 193.—Filial affection, p. 194.—Man originally, as it seems, not a gregarious animal, p. 195 sq.—How he became gregarious, p. 196 sq.—The gregarious instinct, p. 197.—Social affection, p. 197 sq.—The evolution of social aggregates influenced by economic conditions, pp. 198–201.—The social aggregates of savages who know neither cattle-rearing nor agriculture, pp. 198–200.—Of pastoral peoples, p. 201.—Of peoples subsisting on agriculture, ibid.—Social units based on marriage or a common descent, p. 201 sq.—The social force in kinship, pp. 202–204.—Mr. Hartland’s theory, pp. 204–206.—The blood-covenant, pp. 206–209.—The social influence of a common cult among savages, pp. 209–213.—The “four generations” of the Chinese, p. 213.—Traces of a clan organisation in China, p. 213 sq.—The joint family among so-called Aryan peoples, pp. 214–216.—Village communities, clans, phratries, and tribes among these peoples, pp. 216–220.—The prevalence of the paternal system of descent among the peoples of archaic culture, p. 220.—Associations of tribes among uncivilised races, p. 220 sq.—Civilisation only thrives in states, p. 221 sq.—The origin of states p. 222.—The influence of the State upon the smaller units of which it is composed, p. 222 sq.—The State and the notion of a common descent, pp. 223–225.—The archaic State not only a political but a religious community, p. 225 sq.—The national importance of a common religion, p. 226.—The influence of social development upon the altruistic sentiment, p. 226 sq.—The altruistic sentiment has not necessarily reference only to individuals belonging to the same social unit, p. 227 sq.—The expansion of altruism in mankind, p. 228.