HUSBAND AND WIFE
It may be said that marriage in either of its forms makes the woman
the property of her husband. We must, of course, carefully define the
word "property." This we shall do by analyzing the economic duties of
the woman, the sexual rights of the husband, and in general, the limits
of marital authority, and the features of the treatment applied by a
native to his wife. As the economic aspect will be better described
below, in connection with the family life in general (including
relations of parents to children), I shall here pass briefly over this
point, remarking that the economic function of a wife is most important
in the aboriginal life. She has to provide the regular food supply, to
undertake the drudgery of camp life, the care of the children and all
household implements, especially on marches. There remains the sexual
aspect of marital life and the authority of the husband, including the
treatment of the wife.
Let us turn to the latter question and pass in review some statements
illustrating the general character of the marital relations; the limits
of the husband's authority and power; the actual use he makes of his
authority, _i. e._ the treatment of the family; and last, but not
least, what idea may be deduced from our evidence as to the feelings
of the two consorts towards each other. On this subject few reliable
statements will be found, and even these will be rather contradictory.
And it would be unreasonable to expect anything else. We are asking
here not for a report of plain facts, but for a judgment on more or
less complicated and hidden phenomena; this refers especially to the
psychical side of the question, _i. e._ to the problem of conjugal
affection. But even the other aspects of the problem--authority and
treatment--although they are but a sum of facts, are always given in
the form of vague general assertions and in that of qualified judgments.
Very few writers trouble at all about the deeper, underlying phenomena.
What they see is the way in which a woman is treated by her husband;
they often judge this way according to their own moral principles and
sensitiveness. They forget that, using the words of Messrs. Spencer
and Gillen, "what would cause very serious pain to a civilized woman
only results in trifling discomfort to a savage." For all these reasons
there will be more scope for corrections in these statements than in
the series given above.
_Statements._--Amongst the Kurnai there were certain limits to the
husband's authority: "Although a man might kill his wife under
certain circumstances, and his act would be then approved by custom
and by public opinion, yet, under other circumstances, he might not
do so without incurring blood feud."[156] All the duties of the
family were "shared equally" by man and woman.[157] This statement,
as to the limits of authority, is in agreement with all we shall
find afterwards: nobody and nothing could interfere with the
husband if he ill-treated his wife, unless her life was threatened.
Then her relatives intervened. What the expression of "sharing
the duties" means, is not quite clear. If it refers to economic
functions, we shall have a better picture later; but it stands as
a contrast to such expressions as "slave" or "drudge," used in
connection with the wife's rôle by so many writers. In another
place Howitt says: "I have known many instances ... including
several cases among the Kurnai, of men carrying their wives about
the country when too old or too sick to walk."[158] This would
point to a great affection, not only resulting from erotic motives,
but from real attachment, such as unites human beings who have
lived and suffered much together.
[156] Howitt, _Kam. and Kurn._, p. 206.
[157] See below on economic side of family life.
[158] _Nat. Tr._, p. 766.
Among the Bangerang "community of interests between man and wife
is much less than amongst civilized people. The husband gorges
himself before he gives the rest of his food to his wife. He is a
constant check on her free will and inclinations. She regards him
more as her master and enemy than as her mate. But as she is not
very sensitive, and educated to her lot, she bears it patiently,
and after a year or two she is happy on the whole."[159]
[159] Curr, _Recollections_, p. 259.
Speaking of the Australian aborigines in general, Curr says:[160]
"The husband is almost an autocrat. His wife he may ill-treat as
he chooses. In rare instances he will exchange her for another,
repudiate, or give her away." He may not kill her; her relatives
would kill the first of his blood. "Otherwise the husband may treat
his wife as he likes." "The husband is the absolute owner of his
wife. He may do as he pleases with her, treat her well or brutally,
ill-use her at his pleasure; keep her to himself, prostitute her,
exchange her for another, or give her away." But he adds, "Yet ...
they are, on the whole, fairly happy, merry and contented."
[160] _A.R._, i. pp. 60, 110. Curr knew personally only
the Bangerang tribe, and some others in North Victoria
(Glenbourn and Murray tribes), and his general observations
must be taken as framed on this material, as he does
not seem to be sufficiently aware of how many and deep
differences there might be between different tribes.
Amongst some West Victorian tribes, "notwithstanding this drudgery
and the apparent hard usage to which the women are subjected, there
is no want of affection amongst the members of a family."[161]
The author speaks even of "persistent disrespect and unkindness"
of a wife towards her husband;[162] he speaks also of women being
"legally separated"[163] from their husbands; and of magic charms
worked by husbands for punishment of their wives;[164] all this
would point rather to a regulated and less brutal treatment. Here
we have the usual concurrence of "hard usage" and affection.
Characteristic is the addition of "apparent" to "hard usage." It
is, perhaps, the whole style of treatment which appears to be hard
to a European observer: the scale is shifted, but undoubtedly the
nervous system of the natives is less responsive, too. What Dawson
says about separation and husbands recurring to magic to influence
their wives, seems to speak still more in favour of the good
position of women. But we must remember, that in his whole book,
Dawson uses rather bright colours to picture the native character,
and tries never to say anything that could shock a European reader.
[161] Dawson, p. 37.
[162] _Ibid._, p. 36.
[163] _Ibid._, pp. 35, 36.
[164] _Ibid._, p. 36.
Bonney asserts that "quarrels between husband and wife are rare,
and they show much affection for each other in their own way."
Apparent coolness in their relations is required by custom. He
gives an example of a couple who "loved each other," and did not
even greet after a long absence.[165] According to the statement
the treatment of women was fairly good, and there was also no want
of mutual affection.
[165] _Loc. cit._, p. 130.
Angas writes that among the aborigines, whom he had under
observation (Lower Murray tribes), the man walks proudly in front,
the woman following him; she is treated like a slave, and during
meals receives bones and fragments like a dog.[166]
[166] _Loc. cit._, i. pp. 82, 83.
About some of the Lower Murray natives we are told by Eyre, "But
little real affection exists between husbands and wives." "Women
are often sadly ill-treated by their husbands," "beaten about the
head with waddies," "speared in the limbs," etc. Here we have
bad treatment based on absolute authority and complete want of
affection. Besides, we are told, "each father of a family rules
absolutely over his own circle."[167]
[167] _Loc. cit._, ii. pp. 321, 322.
A statement of Mitchell (quoted by B. Smyth, i. p. 85), suggests
that there could not be much affection between husband and wife.
"... After a battle they (the women) do not always follow the
fugitives from the field, but not infrequently go over, as a matter
of course, to the victors, even with young children on their
backs."[168] This statement sounds not very trustworthy. We never
hear of open battles, in which fugitives would leave the camp
unprotected. Besides, even if affection would not bind them to
the "fugitives," would fear of the stranger and enemy not act in
this direction? Little weight must be, therefore, attached to this
evidence.
[168] This statement refers, probably, to the Murray and
Darling River tribes, without any exact localization.
Taplin, about the Narrinyeri, says that sometimes the treatment of
women by their husbands is very bad; but this is not always the
case. "I have known as well-matched and loving couples amongst the
aborigines as I have amongst Europeans."[169] This last comparison
shows that the ill-treatment was not a clearly distinctive feature
of the aboriginal married life.
[169] _Loc. cit._, p. 12.
The Encounter Bay tribe (Narrinyeri) regarded the wives "more
as slaves than in any other light."[170] This statement implies
lack of affection, absolute authority, and probably bad treatment.
Nevertheless, we cannot be content with such a metaphorical and
peremptory phrase on such an important subject. It is, therefore,
useless, and adduced only as an example of how different and
contradictory the statement of even good informants may be.
[170] H. E. A. Meyer in Woods, p. 191.
We are told of a case, where a black woman of the Murrumbidgee
River tribe, who lived in marital relations with a white
bushranger, evinced for him the greatest affection and attachment,
and even several times helped him to escape justice with great
self-sacrifice. Although she was ill-treated by him in the most
brutal and revolting way, nothing could alter her feelings.[171]
This example may serve as an illustration of how attached a black
woman may be to her husband, even if he ill-treats her.
[171] Bennett, pp. 248, 249.
An account of the brutality of a woman's treatment is given by
Tench (referring to the Port Jackson blacks). "But, indeed, the
women are in all respects treated with savage barbarity; condemned
not only to carry the children, but all other burthens, they meet
in return for submission only with blows, kicks, and every other
mark of brutality."[172] But Tench's statements do not appear to go
very deeply below the surface of superficial observations.
[172] _Loc. cit._, pp. 199, 200.
The same author in another place adduces the wounds and scars of
women as examples of "ill-treatment."[173] How much weight is to be
attached to such an inference is well known, after the explanation
given by Spencer and Gillen.[174] I adduce this statement as one
which is obviously unreliable, at the same time being typical of a
whole class of statements based upon insufficient and superficial
observations.
[173] _Loc. cit._, p. 181.
[174] Compare their statement below.
Interesting is what Turnbull says in his old account: "The women
appear to attach themselves faithfully to their husbands thus
chosen: they are exceedingly jealous of them."[175]
[175] Turnbull, J., p. 99 (concerning some tribes of New
South Wales, probably of the neighbourhood of Port Jackson).
C. P. Hodgson,[176] speaking of some New South Wales tribes, says
that _gins_ were slaves of their men and had all the drudgery of
camp. The misleading term "slave" is of little use to us.
[176] _Loc. cit._, p. 217; compare p. 208.
According to Collins, in the Port Jackson tribes the father enjoyed
absolute authority over his family.[177]
[177] Collins, i. p. 544.
Dr. John Fraser[178] speaks of the bad treatment of the woman by
her husband amongst the natives of New South Wales. Further he
says: "In spite of the hardness of their mode of life, married
couples often live happily and affectionately together...."[179]
[178] _Abor. N.S.W._, p. 2. This work is not written by a
first-hand observer; I quote his opinion because the writer
seems to have got sometimes good personal information, and
to be an able compiler.
[179] _Ibid._, p. 35.
G. W. Rusden writes:[180] "... a man had power of life and death
over his wife." This asserts absolute authority; we know, that as a
rule, the man had not the power of death over his wife unless she
proved especially guilty.
[180] _Loc. cit._, p. 283. The tribes in question are the
Geawe Gal, New South Wales, Hunter River.
Rob. Dawson relates of the Port Stephens blacks, that they treated
their wives very badly--with club and spear.[181]
[181] _Loc. cit._, pp. 66, 67.
Hodgkinson remarks that the women are better treated in the
River MacLeay tribes than among the other tribes he had under
observation.[182] This may point to a real difference in the
treatment of women among different tribes, or to the fact that the
other tribes which Hodgkinson might have observed were nearer the
settlements, and therefore more degenerate.
[182] _Loc. cit._, p. 229.
As to the Euahlayi, Mrs. Parker remarks only: "In books about
blacks, you always read of the subjection of the women, but I have
seen henpecked black husbands."[183] This statement, which implies
that bad treatment was not universal, is inexact and therefore of
little use.
[183] _Loc. cit._, p. 58.
We read about the Central Australian tribes of Finke River: "Some
married couples agree very well, live frequently quite alone in
solitude, and together provide for their wants."[184] The wives are
only ill-treated in case they elope.
[184] L. Schultze, p. 237.
"The women are certainly not treated usually with anything which
could be called excessive harshness" among the Aruntas.[185] Only
in cases of infidelity "the treatment of the woman is marked by
brutal and often revolting severity."[186] The same is repeated of
the Northern tribes of Central Australia.[187] We are also told
that the scars that the majority of women possess are due, not to
the barbarity of their husbands, but to the mourning ceremonies,
during which the women beat and wound themselves severely. And the
authors conclude: "Taking everything into account, however, the
life of one of these savage women, judged from the point of view of
her requirements ... is far from being the miserable one that it is
so often pictured."[188] For what would be a severe pain to a white
woman is for them merely a trifling discomfort.
[185] Spencer & Gillen, _Nat. Tr._, p. 50.
[186] _Ibid._
[187] _Nor. Tr._, pp. 32, 33.
[188] _Nor. Tr._, p. 33.
We read in Barron Field, on the authority of two shipwrecked men,
who spent some time among the natives of Moreton Bay, that the
women are there usually well treated by their husbands.[189]
[189] _Loc. cit._, p. 66.
Another analogous statement is given on the Moreton Bay tribes:
"The wife is rather the drudge or slave, than the companion of her
husband." This (although badly formulated) means bad treatment and
lack of affection as well. But we read further on that cruelty is
perpetrated usually under the effect of rum; this corroborates our
supposition made in connection with Lumholtz's statement. And we
learn yet: "but instances also of warm and deep affection are not
infrequent."[190] And the author confirms it by an example.
[190] J. D. Lang, p. 337.
Among the Kabi and Wakka: "Husbands were usually affectionate to
their wives, but when angered they were often brutal, thrashing
them unmercifully with waddies, sometimes breaking their limbs and
cracking their skulls. Still the conjugal bond generally held out
for a lifetime."[191]
[191] J. Mathew, p. 153.
Lumholtz says: "The women are the humble servants or rather slaves
of the native."[192] The women are ill-treated in the most cruel
manner; he gives an example of a wife being awfully maltreated for
a trifle.[193] But this happened among "civilized blacks." If she
elopes she may be even killed. But sometimes they are examples of
loving couples.[194] In another place we read of love and jealousy
and of the great affection they are capable of;[195] and an example
thereof is given. This statement suggests to us that much of the
ill-treatment was due perhaps to the "civilization" of the blacks.
[192] Lumholtz, p. 100.
[193] _Ibid._, p. 161.
[194] _Ibid._, p. 163.
[195] _Ibid._, p. 213.
An analogous statement in this regard is given by Palmer,
concerning the tribes of Upper Flinders and Cloncurry River. The
lot of the women is hard and they are often treated with club
and spear. There are, nevertheless, happy and mutually regardful
couples.[196]
[196] Palmer, p. 28.
Roth says[197] that among the North-West Queensland tribes the
man has absolute authority over his wife. In another place we are
informed, that "in the case of a man killing his own gin, he has
to deliver one of his own sisters" to be put to death. And "... a
wife has always her 'brothers' to look after her interests." Thus,
in some extreme cases, the husband's authority seems to be limited
by his wife's kindred, who protect her.
[197] Bull. 8, p. 6.
The women among the Cape York natives are reported to have a very
hard life, but occasionally there exists a strong attachment
between a married couple.[198]
[198] Macgillivray, ii. pp. 8, 9.
In West Australia the man is said to possess a full and inheritable
right over his wife.[199] Grey says that they have very much to
suffer, especially from the jealousy of their masters.[200] The
authority of the husband appears also in the story, told in Chapter
XVII, where the husband inflicts a severe beating on his two wives;
nevertheless, he seems to display also a certain affection for them
and great care, protecting them as far as possible.[201]
[199] Grey, ii. p. 230.
[200] _Ibid._, pp. 248, 249.
[201] Compare Grey, ii. chap. xvii. p. 350, especially
pp. 353, 354; point 3, p. 359.
We learn from Bishop Salvado that: "La méthode qu'il [the husband]
emploie pour la [his wife] corriger est si barbare, qu'il arrive
bien souvent que ... il lui traverse une jambe de son Ghici, il
lui casse la tête de son Danac et lui prodigue mainte autre
tendresse de ce genre,"[202] in cases of jealousy. In general
"L'état d'esclavage dans lequel toutes sont retenues est vraiment
déplorable. La seule présence de leurs maris les fait trembler, et
la mauvais humeur de ceux-ci se décharge souvent sur elles par des
coups et des blessures."[203] The barbarous modes of treatment are
well known to us; what is more important is the great fear they are
said to have of their husbands. But, in another place, the same
author speaks of tender and affectionate couples: "I love her and
she loves me"[204] as a native said to him. So this statement seems
not so contradictory after all with all the others, although it
contradicts itself.
[202] _Loc. cit._, p. 279. (Tribes of South-west Australia,
New Nurcia, Melbourne and Swan districts.)
[203] _Ibid._
[204] _Ibid._, p. 278.
Among the natives of King George's Sound the women are generally
very ill-treated by their husbands. But in spite of that they do
not lack affection and often quarrel among themselves, taking the
part of their respective husbands.[205]
[205] Browne, p. 450.
Here we have a great diversity of statements and much contradiction.
We read of barbarous ill-treatment and of deep affection; of drudgery
and slavery imposed on wives, and of henpecked husbands; of fugitive
men having recourse to magic, and of women mercilessly chastised,
prostituted, and so on. Some statements contradict themselves. All this
shows, in the first place, that our authors were lost in the diversity
of facts and could not give an adequate generalization, which should
picture for us the characteristic features of this relation (between
husband and wife) as they distinguish it from the same relation in
other societies. In fact, a good characterization of a given phenomena
can be obtained only by comparing it with other phenomena of the same
kind found under different conditions. Otherwise the observer will
invariably note that aspect of the phenomenon which struck him most
strongly, and not the one that is objectively the most characteristic,
as is found in the present case. This is the more evident in that we do
find a few statements (Howitt on Kurnai, Spencer and Gillen's remark
on the Central tribes, J. Mathew), which contain all the apparently
contradictory elements found in the other statements, but harmonized
with one another. From these few consistent statements it appears that,
although the husband had a nearly unlimited authority, and in some
cases, when he had special reasons (and undoubtedly deemed himself to
be within his rights), he might use his authority for a very brutal and
severe chastisement, nevertheless, there was usually a mutual fondness
and kindness. Taking this picture as a standard, it is possible to
understand and make consistent all the other statements if we assume
that they exaggerate some of the traits of the general picture.[206]
[206] Illustrating this point is a passage in Nieboer's
_Slavery_ (pp. 9 _sqq._) bearing very closely on our
subject. His aim is to discuss whether the position of
the wife in Australia may be characterized as slavery.
He arranges the evidence in two contrasting sets: in
the first he gathers all shadows of the picture, in the
second the bright spots. So he adduces several instances
which show that the girl has no voice in the choice of
her husband; and, on the other hand, he shows that from
a series of other statements it may be inferred that
the girl often marries according to her feelings. (In
our discussion of the modes of obtaining wives, we saw
that when betrothed normally, by engagement in infancy,
neither the girl nor, practically, her husband choose in
the true sense of the word. Whereas marriage by elopement
is brought about by mutual consent. These two forms of
marriage would correspond therefore to Nieboer's two
contradictory series.) Under the second heading, Nieboer
gathers statements as to barbarous treatment and want of
affection on one hand, and of affection and rights of the
woman on the other. Under the third heading the economic
duties and the importance of the woman are discussed, one
set of information exaggerating it, the other reducing
it to small proportions (we shall treat this subject
beneath). Nieboer's computation is very interesting as an
illustration of how one can prove _pro_ and _contra_ from
ethnographical material, even while confining oneself to
a limited area and subject. All the series of statements
collected in this book are further examples of the same
fact. As a result of his discussion, Nieboer dismisses of
course the term "slave" used by many writers to designate
the woman's position in Australia.
But we can make still better use of our evidence by asking some
definite questions and seeing how far we get a clear answer to
them. And we shall see that if, in this way, the whole picture be
analytically divided into sections, the evidence will yield a quite
unambiguous answer on some important points concerning the relation
between man and wife in the Australian aboriginal society.
The first inquiry is into the legal aspect of the husband's authority.
In accordance with our definition of "legal," we shall try to ascertain
to what extent the relationship of man and wife was left to follow its
natural course; at what point society interfered; and what form this
intervention assumed.
After the question of authority has been answered, that of treatment
will be dealt with. The legal authority gives us only a knowledge of
the limits which society set to the husband's ill-treatment. But even
if his freedom went very far, and if he was not compelled from outside
to a certain standard of good treatment, he might feel compelled to it
by his own affection.
Therefore we are led, in the third place, to ask the psychological
question concerning mutual feelings between husband and wife.
Affection is, of course, the most important, fundamental characteristic
of any intimate personal relationship between two people. But it is,
at the same time, rather difficult to give any more detailed answer on
that point, when it is a question of savages whom no one has intimately
studied from this point of view, and of whose psychology we have only a
very slight idea. More cannot be expected than to get an answer to the
quite general question: Is there anything like affection between the
consorts, or is their relation based only on the fear of the woman of
her husband? I would also remark that these three points--affection,
treatment, and authority--although closely related, may be separately
analysed, as each of them is of a different character: affection is
a psychological, authority is a social factor; the treatment, being
a result of them both, must be investigated separately, as we cannot
foretell from either of its components the form it will assume; on the
other hand, it is precisely from the treatment that we can best judge
of the affection.
_1. Authority._--It seems beyond doubt that in the aboriginal society
the husband exercised almost complete authority over his wife; she
was entirely in his hands and he might ill-treat her, provided he did
not kill her. Out of our thirty statements, in six cases (Kurnai,
Bangerang, Lower Murray tribes, according to Bonney, Geawe-Gal,
Port Jackson tribes, North-west Central Queenslanders) the absolute
authority of the husband is explicitly affirmed. We read in them
either the bare statement that the husband had an absolute power over
his family; or, in the better of them, we are more exactly informed
that he had only to abstain from inflicting death on his wife. It
was the latter's kinsman who would avenge her (Kurnai, Bangerang,
North-west Central Queenslanders). It is difficult to ascertain in
what form society would interfere with the husband if he transgressed
the limits of his legal authority, _i. e._ killed his wife. Curr
informs us that the woman's relatives would avenge her death. Howitt
says that there would ensue a blood feud, which comes nearly to the
same. It is very probable that the woman's kin retained some rights
of protection.[207] The remaining statements implicitly declare that
the husband's authority was very extensive. (Encounter Bay tribes
according to Meyer; New South Wales tribes according to Hodgson; Port
Stephens tribes according to R. Dawson; Arunta; Herbert River tribes;
Queenslanders according to Palmer; Moreton Bay tribes according to
J. D. Lang; South-Western tribes according to Salvado; West Australians
according to Grey.) It is clear that wherever we read of excessive
harshness and bad treatment, wounds, blows inflicted on women, the
husband must possess the authority to do it; in other words, he
does not find any social barrier preventing him from ill-treatment.
Especially as, in these statements, such ill-treatment is mentioned
to be the rule and not an exception. In two statements we can gather
no information on this point. According to the statement of J. Dawson
on the West Victoria tribes, the husband's authority appears strictly
limited by the potential intervention of the chief, who could even
divorce the woman if she complained. But Curr warns us against Dawson's
information concerning the chief and his power.[208] Curr's arguments
appear to be very conclusive. Too much weight cannot be attached,
therefore, to Dawson's exceptional statement. Discarding it, we see
that we have on this point fairly clear information. We may assume
that society interfered but seldom with the husband, in fact, only in
the extreme case of his killing his wife. Six statements are directly,
and the remainder indirectly, in favour of this view, and the only one
contradictory is not very trustworthy.
[207] Compare N. W. Thomas, p. 19.
[208] Curr, _A.R._, i. p. 53 _sqq._
But is there nothing in this assumption that would appear to contradict
other well-established features of Australian social life? Against
the husband's authority there could only be the intervention of the
Central Tribal Authority or of the woman's kin. But the former was not
strong enough to enter into questions concerning the private life of a
married couple. The Tribal Government probably had to deal only with
grave offences against the welfare of the whole tribe. And we never
hear that it interfered with any household questions. The woman's kin,
on the other hand, seems to have waived nearly all its rights over the
woman (compare also above what had been said about the betrothal).
Nevertheless, as mentioned above, it was the woman's kin who eventually
intervened. It must also be borne in mind that as marriages were,
without exception, patrilocal,[209] the wife was far away from her
family, and, therefore, much less likely to be protected by her
relatives. And, as we shall see below, when discussing the aboriginal
mode of living, the single families live in considerable isolation, so
that it would appear rather difficult to assume any intervention from
outside in matters of family life. It appears, therefore, that all the
circumstances on which family life depends point very clearly to, and
are in complete agreement with, our assumption of a very extensive
authority of the husband over his wife (or wives), limited only in some
extreme cases by the kin of the woman.
[209] See N. W. Thomas, p. 16.
2. Passing now to the other point: how far does the husband make use
of his power? in other words, how does he usually _treat_ his wife?
Without entering more in detail into the motives that regulate his
conduct, it is clear that even if we know his authority, we by no
means know how he usually used or misused it. Here our impression when
reading the evidence is undoubtedly that the general way in which wives
are treated in aboriginal Australia is a very barbarous one. In fact,
out of our thirty statements, fourteen speak more or less explicitly of
barbarism, slavery, wounds and scars, etc. Only seven assert that the
average treatment is a fairly good one and that bad treatment is only
a consequence of certain trespasses, which are considered punishable
and consequently punished. The remaining nine statements say that
treatment is sometimes good, sometimes bad, or do not say anything
about the subject. But in this case it is apparently needful to give a
more careful consideration of the quality of the information than of
its quantity. In fact, four[210] out of the seven of the authorities
who affirm good treatment are very clear and explicit, and their
statements are consequently quite consistent with themselves; two of
them are, besides, our best authorities. Schultze and Bonney seem also
in general to be quite trustworthy. From the other part of our evidence
(that which asserts barbarous ill-treatment) only three are fairly
reliable (Curr, Salvado, and, to a certain extent, Eyre). But even
these are not so consistent with themselves: they affirm, that in spite
of the barbarous ill-treatment, the women seem to be rather happy. If
they were happy as a rule, it means that this ill-treatment did not
appear to them cruel, and that they did not suffer under its atrocity.
Consequently that it was only apparently bad (the same expression is
used by Dawson, _loc. cit._) in the eyes of the observers, and was not
bad as measured by the standard of native sensitiveness. The statement
of Spencer and Gillen confirms this view explicitly. The statements
affirming bad treatment (Curr, Salvado, Eyre, etc.) do not distinguish
the important point whether this ill-treatment was a punishment or
not; whether it was inflicted only in definite cases where, according
to the unwritten tribal law, the wife was guilty of an offence, or
whether it was inflicted in fits of bad temper and ungracious mood.
This distinction is very important; in the first case the husband would
have only, so to say, an executive power of the collective, customary
will, and his bad treatment would be only an act of justice; in the
second case he would have been a real tyrant and his ill-treatment a
mere act of brutality. This remark has also an important connection
with the problem of authority discussed above. Howitt's statement, as
well as Spencer and Gillen's, points very clearly to the fact that
the ill-treatment was only an act of justice (from the aboriginal
point of view). Mathew, on the other hand, explicitly says that the
ill-treatment was caused by fits of anger. The other statements keep
silence on the point. Some of them speak, indeed, of a purely arbitrary
harshness without any reason, but this refers to "civilized blacks,"
especially under the influence of rum and other white man's vices.
[210] Spencer and Gillen, Howitt, F. Bonney, and L. Schultze.
There is a point that must not be forgotten in dealing with this
question. The majority of observations were made on degenerated blacks
(such as were in missions, raised on farms, in the service of white
men, etc.). These blacks may have had quite different manners and
customs from those of the aborigines in their primitive state. And
their manners were not changed in the direction of amelioration, but
the reverse. This conclusion is corroborated by an interesting passage
in Howitt.[211] This author says that examples of alleged contempt and
discourtesy of a man to his wife, as _e. g._ a man gorging himself
with meat and throwing only a bone to his wife, may be partly "the
consequence of the 'new rule' under the influence of civilization."
They sometimes express customary rules of magic origin and are no
sign of contempt at all. And the author adds that when he had the
opportunity of observing the blacks for a week in more primitive
conditions, "this week passed without a single quarrel or dispute."
This all shows that, in case of contradiction, we may suppose that the
statements affirming unusual ill-treatment are affected by errors due
to bad material, insufficient observation, and false inference, rather
than that the statements of kindness are exaggerated.
[211] _Nat. Tr._, p. 777.
It would be interesting to note what effect the widespread practice
of exchange of relatives (see above) had on the treatment of
wives. Naturally it might be supposed that for his own sisters' (or
relatives') sake every man would probably be more lenient towards his
wife. But as Mr. Thomas justly pointed out, the exchange of females may
be conceived also in the light of a certain family giving up its rights
to a female, and receiving another one in exchange.[212] It would be,
therefore, difficult to say anything _a priori_ on this influence. A
phrase quoted by Curr suggests that the former assumption would be
nearer to truth. A black said once to him, speaking about his sister
given in exchange for his wife: "If he beats my sister I shall beat my
wife." Whether this common-sense idea of justice prevailed in general
in the aboriginal mind it would be difficult to decide without further
knowledge. But possibly exchange of females was also a cause of the
amelioration of the woman's lot.
[212] _Loc. cit._, p. 20.
To sum up shortly, we have ten against four statements in favour of
indiscriminate ill-treatment of wives. But, if we reduce both these
figures by using only reliable ones, we have four against three in
favour of good treatment. By closer analysis we find that ill-treatment
is--in the primitive state of the aboriginal society--in most cases
probably a form of regulated intra-family justice; and that although
the methods of treatment in general are very harsh, still they are
applied to much more resistant natures and should not be measured by
the standard of our ideas and our nerves. For otherwise we should not
understand how the feature of happiness, which is reported by nearly
all our informants, could be present.
3. These considerations directly lead us up to an answer to our last
question, viz. whether there is a kind of _mutual affection_ or whether
there is only the power of the man, and the legal factors, that bind
the consorts together. In the first place, it is well to bear in mind
that in this respect there must have been a great variety of cases
corresponding to the characters of the individuals concerned. We only
ask here, therefore, the quite general question whether, as implied in
some statements, there was an absolute absence of any kind of personal
feeling in all Australian families and the wife considered her husband
as her master only and her natural enemy, she being merely his slave.
But here we find also that the few statements (Curr, Eyre, Meyer,
Mitchell) that imply such an opinion are not very clear and explicit
(in this category we include all the statements as to slavery and
drudgery which can possibly embrace not only the treatment itself but
the underlying feelings); whereas there are ten statements (Howitt,
Bonney, Dawson, Lumholtz, J. D. Lang, Salvado, Turnbull, Grey, Mathew,
Macgillivray)[213] which affirm that there is real affection between
husband and wife. Some of them come from our most reliable writers and
are very explicit (Howitt, Bonney, Lumholtz, Salvado). As what has been
said of the treatment refers indirectly to this point (for treatment
is regulated by personal feelings and not by tribal authority), we may
say that the assumption of a complete lack of any feelings of affection
or attachment does not seem very plausible. That these feelings would
show themselves in another way than in our society seems beyond doubt.
But that they would be completely absent and their places taken only
by fear and awe--that is not in agreement with our evidence. Even
judging on this question _a priori_, we could hardly suppose that
there would be a complete absence of all factors that tend to create
mutual affection between consorts. In the first place we may remember
that in many cases the motive of sexual love was not absent from the
aboriginal marriages. This was apparently always the case in marriages
by elopement, which occurred in all tribes and was, under certain
conditions, a legal and recognized form of contracting marriage. In
the cases when, following infant betrothal and other circumstances,
the husband was much older than his wife, the motive of sexual love
was probably not reciprocal, but it would operate as a cause for more
tender feelings on the part of the males. In the second place, it
must be remembered that there are no reasons why the blacks should be
completely alien to the feelings of attachment. Husband and wife lived
more or less completely separated from the community, forming a more
or less isolated unit (see below, on the mode of living). They had
many interests in common, and, this being the strongest bond, they had
common children to whom they were usually much attached.
[213] For examples of conjugal affection see also an
article written by a "bushman" and one of the members of
Leichhard's Expedition. _Science of Man_, 1904, p. 47.
To sum up this chapter, it may be said that the husband had a well-nigh
complete authority over his wife; that he treated her in harmony with
the low standard of culture, harshly, but not excessively harshly; that
apparently the more tender feelings of love, affection and attachment
were not entirely absent from the aboriginal household. But it must be
added that, on these two last points, the information is contradictory
and insufficient.
MOURNING AND BURIAL CEREMONIES
Among the duties and obligations which determine the relationship
of husband and wife, there are some which may be mentioned in this
place. I mean the customs and rites connected with mourning. Mourning
expresses a whole complex of feelings and ideas, of which two sets are
important here, inasmuch as they throw light upon the relationship
of the mourner and the mourned. Firstly, mourning always expresses
sorrow and grief (real or feigned) for the deceased; secondly, the
various mourning ceremonies imply the idea that there was a strong tie
between the two persons involved, a tie which persists after death
and which must be broken by the magical virtue of rites.[214] Both
these interpretations of mourning (sorrow for the deceased and the
necessity of breaking the bond) involve the idea that the relationship
between husband and wife was acknowledged by society as an individual
and strong personal tie. As the modes of obtaining wives have shown us
that to bring about a marriage it was necessary to get the sanction
of society; so the long mourning of the widow and the different
formalities she has to perform, before she becomes the property of the
dead man's heir or is allowed to remarry, show that marriage was not
dissolved at once, even by the death of the man. It shows, therefore,
that the tie between husband and wife was not a loose one, and not
merely established by the fact of possession or cohabitation; and that
the appropriation was based not only on legal ideas, but deeply rooted
in magico-religious feelings and representations.
[214] Compare Levy Bruhl, p. 389.
The idea that mourning is performed in order to express sorrow, apart
from its being obvious in the ceremonies themselves, is realized and
formulated by the natives. When a very old and decrepit woman dies, or
an old man who has lost his memory and is useless in tribal matters,
the natives do not perform any elaborate ceremonies. They allege as a
reason that they "do not feel enough sorrow for them."[215]
[215] Spencer and Gillen, on the Central and North Central
tribes (more especially the Kaitish and Unmatjera), _Nor.
Tr._, p. 506.
Ceremonies involving the motive of sorrow are mentioned in several
places by Spencer and Gillen. Among the Arunta, "when a man dies his
special _Unawa_ or _Unawas_ smear their hair, faces and breasts with
white pipeclay and remain silent for a certain time until a ceremony
called _Aralkililima_ has been performed."[216] The widow has a special
name. In some of the northern tribes she has to keep silence. _E. g._
"Among the Warramunga ... the widows are not allowed to speak for
sometimes as long a period as twelve months, during the whole of which
time they communicate only by means of gesture language."[217] Among
the Arunta the widow has to live in the woman's camp and suspend, to a
large extent, her usual occupations.[218] When she wishes the ban of
silence to be removed, she has to perform a ceremony in public, which
consists in the main in an offering of vegetable food to the younger
brother and sons of the deceased. "The meaning of this ceremony, as
symbolized by the gathering of the tubers or grass seed, is that the
widow is about to resume the ordinary occupations of a woman's life,
which have been to a large extent suspended, while she remained in camp
in what we may call deep mourning."[219] Analogous ceremonies of nearly
the same duration and involving similar ordeals and privations, are in
use in some other tribes: among the Kaitish and Unmatjera the widow has
her hair cut off, she has to smear her body over with ashes, during the
whole time that mourning lasts, _i. e._ several months, she has also
to keep silence.[220] Amongst all these tribes the women inflict upon
themselves the most cruel wounds. "The women seem to work themselves
up into a perfect frenzy, and to become quite careless as to the way
in which they cut and hack themselves about, with, however, this
restriction notable on all such occasions, that however frenzied they
apparently become, no vital part is injured, the cutting being confined
to such parts as the shoulders, scalp, and legs."[221] The authors
give a detailed description of such ordeals undergone by two widows
of deceased men in the Warramunga tribe. "The actual widow scores her
scalp with a red-hot firestick."[222]
[216] _Nat. Tr._, p. 500.
[217] _Nat. Tr._, p. 500. Compare also _Nor. Tr._, p. 525.
[218] _Nat. Tr._, pp. 501, 502.
[219] _Ibid._, p. 502.
[220] _Nor. Tr._, p. 507.
[221] _Nat. Tr._, p. 510.
[222] _Nor. Tr._, pp. 521 _sqq._
Taking mourning customs as a measure of the intensity of sorrow and
grief, it may be seen that here these feelings are supposed to be
very strong, as the hardship and ordeals are very great. Of course,
there is no question of individual feelings. The widow may be in some
cases really glad that her husband has died, as well in Australia as
in any of our modern societies. What is shown at any rate is, that
society supposes and requires such feelings, and that they are duties
according to the social moral code; in fact, that sorrow and grief for
the deceased are required by the collective ideas and feelings. Whether
these feelings are displayed in order to appease the spirit of the
deceased, whether there is real sorrow as a basis for these customs,
these are questions irrelevant in this place.
Probably many different motives contributed to form the mourning
rites and duties, as they are now in existence. These duties have
in Australia apparently not merely a customary, but also a legal
character. For we read in Spencer and Gillen: "a younger brother
meeting the wife of a dead elder brother out in the bush, performing
the ordinary duties of a woman, such as hunting for 'yams,' within a
short time of her husband's death, would be quite justified in spearing
her."[223] And, again, it is said in another place, that if a woman
would not comply with the severe ordeal which is her duty, "she is
liable to be severely chastised or even killed by her brother."[224]
[223] _Nat. Tr._, p. 502.
[224] _Nor. Tr._, p. 522.
Whatever more special explanation might be attempted of all these
laws and customs it is certain that they express the fact that the
marital bonds are very lasting. The obligations last after the death
of the husband, and expiation must be made for the eventual new union.
For Spencer and Gillen give a detailed account of all the complex
formalities and duties to be performed before the widow can remarry, or
rather is given up to the younger brother of the deceased, to whom she
belongs by law.[225] After the performance of several ceremonies and a
long lapse of time, she may still, if she likes, paint a narrow white
band on her forehead, which is regarded as an intimation that she is
not anxious to marry at present, as she still mourns, though to a less
degree than before, for the dead man.[226] "The spirit of the dead man
was supposed to have been watching all these proceedings as he lay at
the bottom of the grave."[227]
[225] Levirate; see above, p. 63.
[226] _Nat. Tr._, p. 507.
[227] _Ibid._
Unfortunately the other authors do not give anything approaching
Spencer and Gillen's full account of burial and mourning. In
particular, if there is any description, the actual and tribal
relatives are not differentiated. All that I have adduced here from
Spencer and Gillen refers to the actual widow. A short remark of Roth
may be quoted: "In the Boulia district when a man dies, his nearer
relatives have special mourning performances. These nearer relatives,
in the case of an adult male, are considered to be the _wife_ and his
brother and sisters by the same mother, not his father or mother; with
an adult woman, only the brothers and sisters by the same mother."[228]
Amongst the Dieri, "a widow is not permitted to speak until the whole
of the white clay which forms her 'mourning' has come off without
assistance" (perhaps some months).[229] There is also a statement
about the husband's mourning. Amongst the Victorian tribes, "when a
married woman dies and her body is burned, the husband puts her pounded
calcined bones into a little opossum skin bag, which he carries in
front of his chest until he marries again, or until the bag is worn
out."
[228] Roth, p. 164.
[229] Howitt, p. 724.
To sum up, it may be said, that as far as Spencer and Gillen's evidence
may be taken as typical of what burial and mourning is in Australia,
the legal and customary aspects of the marriage bonds is not less
strongly expressed in the way in which they are dissolved, than it is
in the way in which they are brought about.