THE FAMILY IN CIVILISED COUNTRIES.
I. _The Family in China._--Filiation in Japan--Traces of ancient
fraternal filiation in China--Fictitious kinship in China--The
patriarchate in China--The Chinese clan--The idea of the family in the
political organisation.
II. _The Family among the Semitic Races._--The primitive clan among
the Arabs--The primitive clan among the Hebrews--Laws of inheritance
among the Hebrews--The uterine sister and the german sister--The
maternal family in Phœnicia.
III. _The Family among the Berbers._--Meaning of the word
“Berber”--Maternal filiation among the ancient Berbers and
Touaregs--Traces of the ancient organisation of the clan among the
Kabyles--The actual patriarchate among the Kabyles--Categories of
heirs.
IV. _The Family in Persia._--No trace of the familial clan and of
exogamy--Incestuous endogamy--Marriage by rent in modern Persia--The
right of primogeniture.
V. _The Family in India._--The family in Vedic India--The patriarchate
in the Code of Manu--The right of primogeniture--Paternity by
suggestion--Traces of the familial clan and of the maternal family in
Tamil India and Ceylon.
VI. _The Greco-Roman Family._--The primitive _gens_--Maternal
filiation in Crete, in primitive Athens--Uterine fraternity and german
fraternity--Paternal filiation in the _Orestes_--The _Patria potestas_
at Rome.
VII. _The Family in Barbarous Europe._--The Celtic clan--Incestuous
endogamy of the Irish--The Slav _mir_--Traces of maternal filiation in
Germany and among the Picts.
I. _The Family in China._
In order to study the family under the latest forms that it has
assumed, we must set aside all strict distinction of race. Doubtless
the white races have ended by excelling the others, and by attaining
a higher degree of moral, social, and intellectual development.
Nevertheless, the ethnic groups, belonging to the races classed
together _en bloc_ as inferior, have emerged from savagery, and formed
large societies, which have been veritable training schools for the men
of their race.
Now, in all the States which have succeeded in attaining some degree
of civilisation, the paternal family is the type that has been finally
adopted. It was thus in Peru, in Mexico, and even in ancient Egypt,
where King Philometor gave the finishing stroke to the maternal family
which had so long flourished in the valley of the Nile. With much more
reason in China, a country very civilised after its own fashion, an
analogous evolution must have been effected. Indeed, in China proper,
there are scarcely any traces of the maternal family left; but they are
still visible in Japan, whose civilisation has been entirely borrowed
from China.
In Japan, as formerly among the Basques, filiation is subordinated to
the transmission of the patrimony whole and inalienated. It is to the
first-born, whether boy or girl, that the inheritance is transmitted,
and he or she is forbidden to abandon it. At the time of marriage
the husband or wife must take the name of the heir or heiress, who
marries and personifies the property. Filiation is therefore sometimes
maternal and sometimes paternal; but the maternal uncle still bears the
name of “second little father”; the paternal aunt is called “little
mother,” the paternal uncle is called “little father,” etc.[1038]
Marriage between groups of brothers and other groups of sisters has
been common enough in primitive societies to enable us to see in this
familial nomenclature the traces of one of those ancient unions at once
monogamic and polygamic.
In China the language itself attests the ancient existence of a
marriage contracted by a group of brothers having their wives in
common, but not marrying their sisters. A Chinaman always calls the
sons of his brother his “sons,” whilst he considers those of his
sister as his nephews;[1039] but the virtual, or rather fictitious
fathers, brothers, and sons, are distinguished from the real fathers,
brothers, and sons, by the epithet “class” added to their appellation.
Thus they say, “class-father, class-son, class-brother”--that is to
say, the man who belongs to the class of the father, to that of the
son, or to that of the brother. It is therefore simply the American
nomenclature perfected.[1040] We have previously seen that in China
proper, not only the paternal family, but the patriarchate, are
rigorously established; that woman is in extreme subjection, and always
disinherited;[1041] but certain impediments to marriage can only relate
to an ancient familial organisation which has now disappeared. In all
the vast Chinese empire there are scarcely more than from one to two
hundred family names, and the Chinese call themselves the “people of a
hundred families.” Now in China all marriage between persons bearing
the same name is prohibited.[1042] In certain villages every one has
the same family name; two or three thousand persons, for example, are
called “sheep,” “ox,” “horse,” etc., all of them appellations agreeing
well with clans having corresponding _totems_.[1043] But however it
may have been in the past, at the present day masculine filiation is
well established in China, and nine degrees of kinship in the direct
line are distinguished, which an old Chinese author has enumerated
as follows:--“All men who come into the world have nine degrees of
kinship--namely, my own generation in the first place, then that of
my father, of my grandfather, and of the father and grandfather of my
grandfather. In a descending line come the generation of my son, that
of my grandson, then that of his son and his grandson. All the members
of one same generation are brothers to each other.”[1044] Let us note
that this filiation, short as it is, is still associated with kinship
by classes.
Doubtless these accounts, taken alone, would be insufficient, but
united with those which the study of the family among the Australians,
the Redskins, the Tamils, etc., has furnished us with, they warrant us
in believing that the Chinese paternal family is the last term of an
evolution having for its starting-point the familial clan, and having
passed through the maternal family.
Let us add, in conclusion, that the system of fictitious kinships is
reflected throughout the governmental organisation of China. In reality
the political structure of China is only an enlarged copy of the
family. The emperor is the reputed father and even mother of all the
empire. The mandarin who governs a town is the “father” of that town,
and he himself has for “governmental father” the mandarin of a superior
grade, whom he obeys.[1045]
We shall now discover traces of a similar evolution of the family among
the Semites and Berbers.
II. _The Family among Semitic Races._
When we read the word “patriarch” in our current literature, our
thoughts instantly fly to the chief of the ancient Semitic, and
especially the Hebraic family, the little tyrant holding grouped
under his despotic sway his wives, children, and slaves--that is to
say, the patriarchate in all its severity, with the power of life and
death attributed to the patriarch. But this Semitic patriarch has
not existed from the beginning; he is the result of a long anterior
evolution, and, like so many other peoples, the Semites have begun with
the confused kinship of the familial clan. We have previously found,
in studying primitive marriage among the Arabs, an ancient _régime_ of
free polyandry, analogous to that of the Naïrs. At this distant epoch
the woman still bore children for her clan, and this clan was so much
like a large family, that in the present day even, in certain parts of
Arabia, the word used for clan literally signifies “flesh.”[1046] To be
of the same clan, therefore, was to be of the same flesh.
It was in a relatively recent epoch that paternal filiation was
established among the Arabs. In the time of the prophet the
prohibitions of marriage were still on the maternal side,[1047] and
in all ages the collateral kinship with uncles and aunts has been
considered very close in Arabia.[1048]
Among the Hebrews, individual property was instituted in very early
times, for it is alluded to in Genesis.[1049] But various customs show
clearly the ancient existence of communal clans. Thus the inheritance,
especially the paternal inheritance, must remain in the clan. Marriage
in the tribe is obligatory for daughters: “Let them marry to whom they
think best; only to the family of the tribe of their father shall they
marry. So shall not the inheritance of the children of Israel remove
from tribe to tribe; for every one of the children of Israel shall keep
himself to the inheritance of the tribe of his fathers.”[1050]
Moses instituted three classes of heirs: first the children, then the
agnates, and then the members of the clan or gentiles.[1051] The Hebrew
father did not inherit from his son, nor the grandfather from his
grandson, which seems to indicate an ancient epoch, when the children
did not yet belong to the clan of their father.
For a long time among the Hebrews the german sister was distinguished
from the uterine sister; the kinship with this last was considered much
closer. In primitive Judæa a man could marry the first, but not the
second. To the King of Egypt and to Abimelech, who reproached Abraham
for having passed Sarah off as his sister, the patriarch replies: “For
indeed she is my sister; she is the daughter of my father, _but not
the daughter of my mother_, and she became my wife.” In the same way
Tamar could become the wife of Amnon, for she was only his paternal
sister.[1052] The father of Moses and Aaron married his father’s
sister, who was not legally his relation.[1053] Abraham himself could
marry his paternal sister, and his brother Nabor took to wife his
fraternal niece, the daughter of his brother.[1054] But by degrees
paternal kinship was recognised by the same title as maternal kinship,
and Leviticus advances as far as to expressly forbid marriage with
father’s sisters as well as with mother’s sisters,[1055] “whether
they be born at home or abroad.” Doubtless all these indications have
their value; they are, however, only indications, and it is especially
in placing them by the side of similar facts observed amongst other
peoples where the existence of the maternal family and the familial
clan is indisputable, that we are inclined to accord to them the same
significance. In short, it is clear that the Hebrews early adopted
paternal filiation and the patriarchate.
The memory of a distant epoch of confused kinship and of free sexual
unions had, however, remained in Semitic tradition. Sanchoniathon,
indeed, in his _History of Phœnicia_, says that the first men bore the
name of their mother, because then the women yielded themselves without
shame to the first comer.[1056] Among the Berbers familial evolution is
much easier to follow than with the Semites, and its lower phases are
more evident.
III. _The Family among the Berbers._
During late years the meaning of the word “Berber” has become
considerably widened. We are now inclined to consider as varieties of
the same very old race the men of Cro-Magnon, the ancient inhabitants
of the cave of Mentone, the ancient Vascons, the Cantabrians, Iberians,
Guanchos, Kabyles, Berbers, and Touaregs, etc. All these peoples are
thought to belong to one great human type, which we may call Berber,
and of which numerous representatives still exist. Anterior to all
Asiatic migration, and from the time of the stone age, this race seems
to have occupied the south of Gaul and Spain, the Canary Isles, and
Northern Africa. At the present day the most important epigonic groups
of the Berber race are the Kabyles and the Touaregs of the Sahara.
Several writers of antiquity have told us how the family of the ancient
Berbers was formerly instituted, and we know _de visu_ what it is
among contemporary Berbers. We are therefore able to give a rough
outline of it.
The general characteristics of the Berber family seem to have been a
privileged position accorded to women and maternal filiation, with
tendencies even to the matriarchate. Speaking of the Cantabrians,
Strabo writes: “Among the Cantabrians usage requires that the husband
shall bring a dower to his wife, and the daughters inherit, being
charged with the marriage of their brothers, which constitutes a kind
of gynecocracy.”[1057] The word gynecocracy is surely too strong. We
have here probably an account of a custom which still exists in Japan,
and which existed quite recently in Basque countries, that of leaving
to the first-born, whether boy or girl, the administration of the
inalienable patrimony of the family, and of obliging his or her wedded
partner to take the name and abode of the family. This is what M. le
Play has formerly called the family-stock; but this family-stock may,
and doubtless must, have co-existed primitively with maternal filiation.
This last is still in force among the Touaregs of the Sahara, and I
have previously spoken of the great independence which their women
enjoy, and especially the rich and noble ladies. At Rhât, for example,
by inheritances and by the accumulation of productions, it has come to
pass that nearly the whole of the real property has fallen into the
hands of the women.[1058] We know that in ancient Egypt, where the
Berbers were largely represented, the women also enjoyed a very similar
position. As a consequence of this _régime_, the rights and pretensions
of the Berber ladies have become so inconvenient for the men, that many
of them prefer to marry slaves.[1059] The family among the Touaregs
will surely evolve, as it formerly did in Egypt, and as it has done
with the Kabyles, where the most rigorous patriarchate has at length
replaced the ancient maternal family. In Kabyle, however, traces of the
ancient organisation, anterior to Rome and to Islamism, still exist.
The Kabyle village has, in its tribe, a political personality which
strongly recalls the clan. Many customs, indeed, are evident survivals
of an ancient communal organisation. Thus, with the Kabyles, mutual
assistance between fellow-citizens is a strict duty. Even in a foreign
land the fellow-citizen must be helped, at the risk of all interests
and at the peril of one’s life. Whoever fails in this duty incurs
public contempt; he is even punished with a fine, and made responsible
for the losses suffered by the deserted compatriot. Even the Kabyle of
another tribe must, at need, be succoured, or his tribe may bring a
plaint before the _djemâa_ of the tribe to which the egoist belongs,
and the latter is punished or reprimanded.
In a Kabyle village, when an individual erects a building, he has
a right to the assistance of all the inhabitants. In the same
way the greater part of the field labour is performed by mutual
assistance.[1060] But all this refers to the men; for women there
remains no trace either of the maternal family or of the more or less
serious advantages which it generally confers on wives and mothers. One
custom, however, and one only, still recalls ancient manners; this is
“the right of rebellion,” of which I have spoken elsewhere.
We are acquainted with the date at which the last seal was placed on
the subjection of the Kabyle woman. It was only a hundred and twenty
years ago that the men refused henceforth a legal position to women in
the succession of males.[1061] At present the Kabyle woman, whether
married or not, no longer inherits.[1062]
The Kabyle _Kanouns_ admit six categories of heirs: 1st, the _açeb_
or universal heirs--that is to say, all the male descent, the direct
line through males, and all the collaterals descending through males of
the paternal branch; 2nd, the ascendants through males on the paternal
side--the father, grandfather, and great-grandfather; 3rd, the uterine
brother, heir to a legal portion; 4th, the master and the freed man,
_açeb_ heirs of each other; 5th, the _karouba_--that is to say, the
community having its assembly of major citizens, the _djemâa_, and
being a civil personage;[1063] 6th, the _ensemble_ of the _karoubas_,
constituting the village. However, the collaterals of all degrees may
inherit in default of ascendants and descendants.[1064] In all this
list there is no mention of women.
In fact, whatever property a Kabyle woman may have been able
laboriously to amass, it falls to the male descent, to the ascendants,
or to the husband, or to the collaterals in the paternal line. It is
only in default of this cloud of male heirs that the succession to the
property gained by a Kabyle woman devolves at last on her daughters,
or her mother or grandmother.[1065] From all the preceding facts, and
in spite of gaps in our information, we may, however, suppose that in
the Berber world also the family has evolved in passing through three
degrees, which we have already found amongst various races, and which
are the communal clan, the maternal family, and the patriarchate.
IV. _The Family in Persia._
This evolution seems therefore very common; it is a general fact, but
we are not yet warranted in calling it a law. Thus, as far as our
information goes, which it is true is not very complete, no trace of it
is to be found among the ancient Persians, with whom we will now begin
our interrogation of the Aryan races, from the point of view of their
familial organisation. If the familial clan with confused kinship has
ever existed in ancient Persia, it can only have been at an extremely
remote epoch; there is no trace of it in the _Avesta_. And more than
this, the most ancient accounts show us the patriarchal family, in the
Hebraic sense of the word, instituted among the Mazdeans: a legitimate
wife, purchased from her parents, and by the side of her a greater or
less number of concubines; and lastly, dominating all the rest, the
father of the family, having the right of life or death over the wives
and children.[1066]
Not only does the clan not exist, but exogamy is replaced by the
most incestuous of endogamies. Thus Strabo relates that, following
a very ancient custom, the Magi might have commerce with their own
mothers.[1067] According to Ctesias, marriage between mother and son
was a common thing in Persia, and this not from sudden passion, but
by deliberate proposal, “by false judgment.”[1068] Lucian, on his
part, says expressly that marriage between brother and sister among
the Persians was perfectly legal. Indeed, in various passages of the
_Avesta_, consanguineous unions are recommended and praised.[1069]
In the eyes of the Mazdeans, whose sacred code expressly forbade all
alliance with infidels, endogamy, even when excessive, was evidently
moral; and they encouraged it to such a degree as to approve of the
kind of incest which is regarded as the most criminal by nearly all
other peoples. Neither is there any trace of the matriarchate in
ancient Persia, unless we choose to see a vestige of it in the legend
according to which, in the time of the mythic monarchies, the eldest
daughter of the king had the right to choose her husband herself.
For this purpose all the young nobles of the country were assembled
together at a festival, and the princess signified her preference by
throwing an orange to the man who pleased her best.[1070] I mention
this tradition that I may omit nothing, but it evidently constitutes a
most insignificant proof. Modern Persia, being Mahometan, has regulated
marriage and the family in accordance with the Koran. We find, however,
by the side of the perpetual marriage which only death or divorce can
dissolve, a form of conjugal union less solemn and more ephemeral, and
which is not generally recognised by law in countries even slightly
civilised. I speak of marriages for a term, or rather the hiring of a
wife for a time and for a fixed price. Unions of this kind are legal in
Persia. They are agreed on before the judge, and at the expiration of
the contract, or rather the lease, the interested parties may renew the
engagement if they think well. In a contrary case, the woman can only
contract another union of the same kind after a delay of forty days. If
before the expiration of the conjugal lease the man desires to break
it, he can do so, but only on condition of placing in the hands of the
woman the total sum stipulated in the contract.[1071] The offspring
of these temporary unions, or of any sort of union, are all equal
before the Persian law, which merely subjects them to the right of
primogeniture. At the death of the father, the eldest son, though born
of a slave mother, takes two-thirds of the succession. The remaining
third of the property is divided amongst the other children, but in
such a way that the share of the boys is half as large again as that
of the girls.[1072] This right of primogeniture and these advantages
granted to boys exclude all idea of maternal filiation in the customs
of modern Persia, and we have seen that there was no trace of it in
ancient Persia; this race therefore seems not to have passed through
the phase of the maternal family, nor perhaps through that of the clan.
V. _The Family in India._
In India, on the contrary, certain customs and traditions appear to be
true survivals, relating to an ancient organisation of exogamic clans
with maternal filiation. But of these old customs the sacred books
retain no trace. In Vedic India the family is already patriarchal,
since the husband is called _pati_, which signifies master; but this
Vedic family is of a most restricted kind. It is composed, essentially
and simply, at first of the husband and wife, who become the father
and the mother; then of the son and of the daughter, who are mutually
brother and sister. The grandparents belong to the anterior family; the
uncles and aunts are part of the collateral families.[1073] The Code
of Manu is already less exclusive, for it admits, as we shall see, a
fictitious filiation; but it is still patriarchal, and, according to
Manu, the daughters occupy an entirely subordinate position. It is
a son and a chain of male descendants that it is important to have;
religion even makes it an obligation; for the ancestors of any man
who has not a son to perform in their honour the sacrifice to the
manes, or the _Srâddha_, are excluded from the celestial abode. It
is necessary to have a son to “pay the debt of the ancestors.” “By a
son, a man gains heaven; by the son of a son, he obtains immortality;
by the son of this grandson, he rises to dwell in the sun.”[1074] The
Code of Manu already proclaims the right of primogeniture. It is by
means of the eldest son that a man pays the debt of the ancestors; it
is therefore he who ought to have everything; his obedient brothers
will live under his guardianship, as they have lived under that of the
father,[1075] on condition, however, that if the sons are of different
mothers, the mothers of the younger ones are not of superior rank to
that of the mother of the eldest son.[1076] The son of a brahmanee,
for example, would not yield precedence to the son of a _kchâtriya_:
caste is always of the first consideration. But the quality of son
may be acquired otherwise than by community of blood. Thus a husband
may, as we have seen, have his sterile wife fertilised by his younger
brother. The child thus conceived is reputed to be son of the husband;
nevertheless, in the succession, he is given the share of an uncle
only, and not the double share to which he would have had a right if he
had been the real son[1077] by flesh and blood. If a man has the great
misfortune to have only daughters, he can obviate this by charging
his daughter to bear him a son. For this purpose, it suffices for him
to say mentally to himself: “Let the male child that she gives birth
to become mine, and fulfil in my honour the funeral ceremony.”[1078]
The son thus engendered by mental incest and by suggestion, as we
should say to-day, is perfectly authentic. He is not a grandson, but
a real and true son, and he inherits all the fortune of his maternal
grandfather, with the light charge on it of offering two funeral
cakes--one to his own father, his father according to the flesh,
the other to his maternal grandfather, or father according to the
spirit.[1079] The law of Manu does not totally disinherit daughters,
but it cuts down their share considerably. Under pain of degradation,
brothers must give their sisters, but only to their german sisters,
the fourth of their share, to enable them to marry.[1080] Another
verse[1081] accords to the daughter the inheritance of the maternal
property, composed of what has been given to the mother at her
marriage. But to be capable of inheriting, this daughter must still
be celibate. In the contrary case, she merely receives a present. In
short, the whole Brahmanic code is based, in what concerns the family,
on masculine filiation and the patriarchate. Nevertheless, customs that
are kept up by the side of it, and doubtless in spite of it, prove that
in certain parts of India there must formerly have existed exogamic
clans and a system of maternal filiation.
But it is important to remark that these survivals are, or were, met
with especially in Tamil districts, in Malabar or Ceylon, which were
in great measure colonised by Tamils. In certain small kingdoms of
Malabar, as late as the seventeenth century, the right of succession
was transmitted through the mother; a princess could also, if she
pleased, marry an inferior.[1082] Custom still designated as brothers
to each other the children either of two brothers or two sisters,
but the children of the brother and of the sister were only german
cousins.[1083] Certain families never made any partition, thus
preserving the custom of the ancient familial clan.[1084] Wherever
feminine filiation prevailed, it was the sister’s son who succeeded
the defunct Rajah.[1085] So also in the eastern part of Ceylon, the
property was transmitted to the sister’s son, to the exclusion of the
sons.[1086] To conclude, I will mention the custom, also very widely
spread in India, of not marrying a woman of the same name.
We must beware of exaggerating the value of these partial facts; they
permit us, however, to infer that in certain parts of India, and
especially among the Tamils, the family has at first been maternal, and
has slowly evolved from the primitive clan.
VI. _The Greco-Roman Family._
The chief object of this book being to study the evolution of the
family and of marriage, I need not describe in detail the Greco-Roman
family, which has, besides, served as a theme for so many writers. It
certainly appears, contrary to the opinion of the Romans themselves,
to have emerged tardily enough from the primitive clan or _gens_. This
Roman _gens_ was composed, really or fictitiously, of consanguine
individuals, living under an elected chief, and having the same name.
The union of several _gentes_ formed the _curia_ or the _phratry_.
Grouped together, the phratries or curiæ constituted _tribus_.
And lastly, the assembly of the tribus formed the nation: Rome or
Athens.[1087] It is therefore the clan, or _gens_, and not the family,
which has been at Rome, and at Athens the _cellule_, according to the
fashionable expression, of ancient society.
At the dawn of history, these clans were already agnatic; they had
adopted paternal filiation, and each of them claimed a common masculine
ancestor; but the right of the _gens_ to the heritage, and in certain
cases the possession of an _ager publicus_, still proved the antique
community of property; and a number of indications and traditions
bore witness in favour of the existence of a prehistoric phase of the
maternal family, preceding agnation. Bachofen goes much further, and
not without a show of reason. He insists, for example, that kinship in
the Latin clan may at first have been confused. He alleges, on this
point, that in the time of Numa the word _parricide_ signified, not
the murder of a father, but that of a free man of some sort; that in
the family tribunal the cognates of the wife figured, and that the
cognates wore mourning for each other; that the cognates of the wife,
and those of the husband of a wife, had over her the _jus osculi_, or
the right of embracing her, etc.; lastly, that the Etruscan Servius,
the founder of plebeian liberty, was conceived, says the legend, during
a great annual festival, when the people reverted to primitive sexual
disorder.[1088]
The Greek γένος resembled the Roman _gens_. Its members had a common
sepulture, common property, the mutual obligation of the _vendetta_,
and an archon.[1089]
In the protohistoric clans of Greece maternal filiation was first
of all established. The Cretans said motherland (μητρίς), and not
fatherland (πατρίς). In primitive Athens the women had the right of
voting, and their children bore their name--privileges which were taken
from them, says the legend, to appease the wrath of Neptune, after an
inundation.[1090] Tradition also relates that at Athens, until the time
of Cecrops, children bore the name of their mother.[1091]
Among the Lycians, says Herodotus, the matriarchate endured a long
time, and the children followed the status of their mother. Uterine
brothers were carefully distinguished from german brothers for a long
period in Greece; the former are called ὁμογάστριοι in Homer, and the
latter ὄπατροι; and uterine fraternity was regarded as much more close.
Lycaon, pleading with Achilles, says, in order to appease him, that he
is not the uterine brother of Hector.[1092] At Athens and Sparta a man
could marry his father’s sister, but not his mother’s sister.[1093] In
Etruria the funeral inscriptions in the Latin language make much more
frequent mention of the maternal than the paternal descent. Sometimes
they mention only the name of a child and that of his mother (Lars
Caius, son of Caulia, etc.); sometimes they indicate the father’s name
by simple initials, whilst that of the mother is written in full.[1094]
As in so many other countries, the paternal family succeeded the
maternal family in the ancient world, but not without difficulty. To
begin with, the fact of marriage did not suffice alone to establish
paternal filiation; the declaration of the father was necessary,
as well in Greece as in Rome. In his _Oresteia_, Æschylus puts in
opposition before Minerva the old maternal right and the new paternal
right. The chorus of the Eumenides, representing the people, defends
the ancient customs; Apollo pleads for the innovators, and ends by
declaring, in a fit of patriarchal delirium, that the child is not
of the blood of the mother. “It is not the mother who begets _what
is called her child_; she is only the nurse of the germ poured into
her womb; he who begets is the father. The woman receives the germ
merely as guardian, and when it pleases the gods, she preserves
it.” The Orestes of Euripides takes up the same theory when he says
to Tyndarus--“My father has begotten me, and thy daughter has given
birth to me, as the earth receives the seed that another confides to
it; without a father, there could be no child.” These patriarchal
theories naturally consecrated the slavery of woman. The laws of Solon
still recognised the right of women to inherit, in default of paternal
relations of the male sex, to the fourth degree, but in the time of
Isæus the law refused to the mother any place among the heirs of her
son.[1095]
In fact, throughout the historic period the Greco-Roman world is
patriarchal. In Greece and at Rome woman is despised, subjected, and
possessed like a thing; while the power of the father of the family is
enormous. It is especially so at Rome, where, nevertheless, the family
is not yet strictly consanguineous, for it includes the wife, children,
and slaves, and where agnation has for its basis the _patria potestas_.
“All those are agnates who are under the same paternal power, or who
have been, or who could be, if their ancestor had lived long enough to
exercise his empire.... Wherever the paternal power begins, there also
begins kinship. Adoptive children are relations.... A son emancipated
by his father loses his rights of agnation.”[1096] At the commencement
of Roman history, we see, therefore, clans, or _gentes_, composed of
families, of whom some are patrician--that is, able to indicate their
agnatic lineage--and the others plebeian. The “justæ nuptiæ” are for
the former; the latter unite without ceremony, _more ferarum_. The
family is possessed by the _pater familias_; he is the king and priest
of it, and becomes one of its gods when his shade goes to dwell among
the manes. In this last case, the family simply changes masters;
“the nearest agnate _takes the family_,” says the law of the Twelve
Tables. Something very similar existed in Greece, for we have seen
that at Athens the right of marrying their sisters, left to brothers
who were heirs, was not even exhausted by a first marriage.[1097]
The institution of individual, or rather familial property, that of
masculine filiation, and of patriarchal monogamy, dismembered the
_gens_, which at length became merely nominal. The law of the Twelve
Tables, however, still decides that the succession shall be vacant if,
at the death of the father, the nearest agnate refuses to “take the
family,” and in default of an agnate the _gentiles_ shall take the
succession. The nominal _gens_ persisted for a long time in the ancient
world; thus every Roman patrician had three names--that of his _gens_,
that of his family, and his personal name.[1098] At Athens, in the time
of Solon, the _gens_ still inherited when a man died without children.
The long duration of Greco-Roman society enables us to follow the
whole evolution of the family in it. It would be going beyond the
facts to affirm the existence of a still confused consanguinity in
the ancient _gens_; but it seems very probable that this _gens_ first
adopted the maternal and then the paternal family, which last became
somewhat modified, in the sense of the extension of feminine rights.
This extension was slow, and it was not till the time of Justinian that
equal shares were given to sons and daughters in succession, or even
that widows were entrusted with the care of their children.
VII. _The Family in Barbarous Europe._
Organisation into clans more or less consanguineous, then into
phratries and tribes, seems natural in many primitive societies; and
outside the Greco-Roman world the barbarous populations of Europe had
all adopted it. In these clans, has kinship begun by being confused?
Has exogamy prevailed? On these particular points precise information
is wanting; doubtless evolution cannot everywhere have been uniform.
One thing is, however, certain, namely, that the Celtic populations
have preserved the institution of the clan much longer than any
others. In Wales and Ireland the clan was still the social unit; it
was responsible for the crimes of its members, paid the fines and
received the compensations. In Ireland, and surely elsewhere, there
was an _ager publicus_ allotted amongst the members of the clans.
Individualism prevailed in the end, as it did everywhere. A certain
portion of the common soil, reserved in usufruct for the chiefs, was at
last seized by them as individual property; but all the members of a
clan were reputed as of kin, and at a man’s death his land was allotted
by the chief amongst the other families of the clan or _sept_.[1099]
These clans, however, were anything but exogamous, if we may believe
Strabo, who affirms that the ancient Irish, like the Mazdeans,
married, without distinction, their mothers and sisters.[1100] Irish
marriage had in no way the strictness of the Roman marriage; temporary
unions were freely allowed, and customs having the force of law
safeguarded the rights of the wife.[1101] Other European barbarians,
on the contrary, were exogamous, and prohibited under pain of severe
punishment, as whipping or drowning, marriage between members of the
same clan.[1102] The _mir_ of the southern Slavs may be considered as
a survival of these ancient barbarous clans, sometimes endogamous,
sometimes exogamous.
In becoming subdivided into families, have these little primitive
clans adopted maternal filiation? This is possible; but when they came
in contact with the Roman world the greater number had already the
paternal family. Let us notice, however, that the Irish law, far from
subjecting the mother, accorded her a position equal to that of the
father.[1103] Let us also recall the following passage of Tacitus[1104]
_à propos_ of the Germans: “The son of a sister is as dear to his uncle
as to his father; some even think that the first of these ties is the
most sacred and close; and in taking hostages they prefer nephews, as
inspiring a stronger attachment, and interesting the family on more
sides.” We may add to this that in Germany the mother could be the
guardian of her children;[1105] that the Salic law, _non emendata_,
admitted to the succession, in default of children, the father and
mother, the brothers and sisters, and then the sister of the mother
in preference to that of the father. Let us remember, also, that in
Slav communities women have a right to vote, and may be elected to the
government of the community;[1106] but this is still a long way off the
matriarchate, or even uterine filiation. The Saxon law (tit. vii.), the
Burgundian law (tit. xlv.), and the German law (tit. lvii. and xcii.)
only admit women to the succession in default of male ascendants; the
law of the Angles prefers paternal agnates, even to the fifth degree,
before women.
To sum up, there are only two precise testimonies that may be quoted
in favour of the ancient existence of maternal filiation among the
barbarians of Europe--that of Strabo, relating to the Iberians; and the
case of the Picts, amongst whom the lists of kings show that fathers
and sons had different names, and that brothers succeeded instead of
sons.[1107] From this absence, or rather rarity, of proofs in favour of
the ancient existence of the maternal family among the barbarians of
Europe, must we conclude that it has never existed? Not at all; we can
only say that this ancient filiation is possible, and even probable,
but as yet insufficiently established.
What cannot be disputed is, that always and everywhere peoples who are
in process of civilisation have adopted the paternal family, according
even excessive powers to the father of the family. What is probable
is, that in the majority of cases paternal filiation has succeeded to
maternal filiation and to more or less confused familial forms. Is
this paternal or even patriarchal family the final term of familial
evolution? Has evolution, never as yet arrested in its course, said its
last word in regard to marriage and the family?
FOOTNOTES:
[1038] Lubbock, _Orig. Civil._, p. 177.
[1039] L. H. Morgan, _Systems of Consanguinity_, etc., in _Smithsonian
Contributions_, vol. xvii. pp. 416, 417.
[1040] Morgan, _loc. cit._, p. 422.
[1041] G. Eugène Simon, _La Famille Chinoise_, in _Nouvelle Revue_,
1883.
[1042] Davis, _The Chinese_, vol. i. p. 282.--Pauthier, _Chine
moderne_, p. 238.
[1043] A. Giraud-Teulon, _Orig. du Mariage_, p. 363.
[1044] L. Morgan, _loc. cit._, pp. 416, 425.
[1045] _Lettres édifiantes_, t. xv. p. 164.
[1046] R. Smith, _Kinship_, etc., p. 148.
[1047] R. Smith, _Kinship_, etc., pp. 147, 151.
[1048] _Id._, _ibid._, p. 159.
[1049] Genesis, xxiii. 13.
[1050] Numbers, xxxvi. 4-8.
[1051] Numbers, xxxii. 8-11.
[1052] 2 Samuel, xiii. 16.
[1053] Exodus, vi. 20.
[1054] Genesis, xi. 26-29.
[1055] Leviticus, xviii. 9.
[1056] Eusebius of Cæsarea, _Preparation of Gospel_, i.
[1057] Strabo, iii. 18.
[1058] Duveyrier, _Touâreg du Nord_, p. 339.
[1059] _Id._, _ibid._
[1060] Hanoteau et Letourneux, _Kabylie_, t. ii. p. 59.
[1061] _Id._, _ibid._, t. ii. p. 283.
[1062] _Id._, _ibid._, p. 286.
[1063] E. Sabatier, _Essai sur l’origine des Berbères sédentaires_, in
_Revue d’Anthropologie_, 1882.
[1064] Hanoteau et Letourneux, _Kabylie_, t. ii. pp. 287, 288.
[1065] _Id._, _ibid._, t. ii. p. 297.
[1066] Dareste, _Sur l’ancien droit des Perses_, in _Bull.
de l’Académie des Sciences Morales et Politiques_, 23rd Oct.
1886.--Strabo, xv. 17.
[1067] Strabo, xv. 20.
[1068] _Sancti Joannis Chrysostomi_, Op. i. 384, and x. 573.
[1069] A. Hovelacque, _Avesta_, p. 465.
[1070] L. Dubeux, _La Perse_, p. 262.
[1071] L. Dubeux, _La Perse_, p. 468.
[1072] Chardin, _Hist. Univ. des Voyages_, t. xxxi. pp. 230, 236.--L.
Dubeux, _loc. cit._, p. 468.
[1073] E. Burnouf, _Essai sur le Véda_, p. 190.
[1074] _Code of Manu_, ix. 137.
[1075] _Ibid._, 105, 106.
[1076] _Ibid._, 125.
[1077] _Ibid._, 120, 121.
[1078] _Ibid._, 127.
[1079] _Ibid._, 132.
[1080] _Code of Manu_, ix. 118.
[1081] _Ibid._, 131.
[1082] _Lettres édifiantes_, t. xiv. p. 387.
[1083] _Ibid._, p. 320.
[1084] _Ibid._, t. xiv. p. 396.
[1085] McLennan, _loc. cit._, p. 189.
[1086] O. Sachot, _l’Île de Ceylan_, p. 27.
[1087] L. Morgan, _Ancient Societies_, pp. 35, 67.
[1088] Giraud-Teulon, _loc. cit._, p. 411.
[1089] Grote, _Hist. of Greece_, vol. iii. p. 95.
[1090] A. Giraud-Teulon, _loc. cit._, p. 289.
[1091] Varro, quoted by St. Augustine, _City of God_, vol. xviii. p. 9.
[1092] McLennan, _loc. cit._, p. 244.
[1093] _Id._, _ibid._ pp. 177, 275.
[1094] Ott. Müller and Bachofen (quoted by A. Giraud-Teulon, pp. 283,
284).
[1095] Morgan, _Ancient Societies_, p. 548.--McLennan, _Primitive
Marriage_, p. 255.
[1096] H. Maine, _Ancient Law_, pp. 141, 142.
[1097] Isæus, _Heritage of Menecles_.
[1098] A. Giraud-Teulon, _loc. cit._, p. 372.
[1099] H. Maine, _Early Institutions_, pp. 113, 116, 124.
[1100] Strabo, iv. 4.
[1101] H. Maine, _loc. cit._, p. 76.
[1102] Bell, _Journal of a Residence in Circassia_, vol. i. p. 347.
[1103] H. Maine, _loc. cit._
[1104] _De moribus Germanorum_, xx.
[1105] Laboulaye, _Recherches sur la condition civile et politique des
femmes_, etc., pp. 166, 167.
[1106] A. Giraud-Teulon, _loc. cit._, pp. 41, 42.
[1107] McLennan, _Primitive Marriage_, p. 101.