Читать книгу A History of Matrimonial Institutions (Vol. 1-3) - George Elliott Howard - Страница 10

Table of Contents

Let us now see somewhat more in detail what light is thrown by recent investigation on the controversy between Maine and McLennan. Westermarck has taken great pains to enumerate the uncivilized peoples, chiefly non-Aryan, among whom descent and usually inheritance follow the paternal side;[40] and he finds that the number is "scarcely less" than the number of those among whom the female line is exclusively recognized. But in many of these cases it seems probable that the parental rather than the agnatic system prevails, though the male line may take precedence. In some instances rank or authority descends from father to son, while in other respects the female line predominates. Doubtless more frequently than is usually imagined a mixed system rather than a strictly paternal or a strictly maternal system would be found to exist.[41] As the result of his inquiry, Westermarck rejects the hypothesis that kinship through the mother is a primitive and universal stage, though he does not substitute the agnatic theory in its place. Starcke, on the other hand, after an extended examination of the customs of rude races, especially in America and Australia, suggests that the paternal as a general rule probably preceded the maternal system which arose only with the development of the gentile organization.[42] But Starcke's evidence can scarcely be accepted as convincing.

Similar difficulties are presented by the question of the prevalence of the so-called patriarchal power among non-Aryan races. Many apparent examples of despotic authority can be enumerated;[43] but it is often hard to determine whether, as in the cases of the Arabs and Hebrews, we have to do merely with a high degree of power on the part of the house-father or with a genuine patria potestas of the Roman type. Naturally, as Westermarck suggests, the father's authority among savages "depends exclusively, or chiefly, upon his superior strength;"[44] while anything like a patriarchal "system" can only arise later under the influence of ancestor-worship and more developed social and industrial conditions. Where authority depends solely or mainly upon brute force, it is evident that a very protracted patriarchal despotism over the sons is hard to conceive. Moreover, much error has doubtless arisen through falsely assuming that paternal authority and mother-right are incompatible; whereas they may well coexist, as will presently appear.

For the Indo-Germanic or Aryan peoples the investigations of Zimmer, Schrader, Delbrück, Kohler, and especially the researches of Leist, enable us to speak with a higher degree of confidence, though only for the period covered by positive linguistic and legal evidence. Bachofen, McLennan, and after them many other writers,[45] as will later be shown, have maintained that among all branches of the Aryan stock conclusive proofs exist of a former matriarchate, or, at any rate, of exclusive succession in the female line. But this view is decidedly rejected, if not entirely overthrown, by the philologists, and depends for its support on the presence in later institutions of alleged survivals. The judgment of Delbrück must probably be accepted as decisive for the present state of linguistic, if not of all scientific, inquiry. He declares that "no sure traces of a former maternal family among the Indo-Germanic peoples have been produced."[46] Similar conclusions are reached by Schrader, Max Müller, and Leist.[47] Also, among the institutional writers, Wake declares that "primitively among the peoples belonging to the wide-spread Aryan or Indo-European stock, while relationship was acknowledged through both parents, descent was traced preferably in the male line;"[48] and Bernhöft, constrained through the evidence presented by Schrader and Delbrück, believes that it is now placed "beyond question that the primitive Aryans did not live according to mother-right," but were united in family groups resembling the south Slavonian house communities.[49] On the other hand, Dargun, the foremost defender of the theory of mother-right, thinks that Bernhöft has "capitulated" too easily.[50] In his last monograph, entitled Mutterrecht und Vaterrecht, he maintains essentially the conclusion of his Mutterrecht und Raubehe, that before their separation the Aryan people had developed the system of kinship "through the mother as the only or chief basis of blood-relationship" and had "subordinated their entire family law to this principle."[51] But the later treatise contains a very important modification, or perhaps, more justly speaking, extension, of the author's theory. Setting aside as still an open question the general prevalence of promiscuity or sexual communism at the very dawn of distinctively human life, Dargun conceives that, before any system of kinship, maternal or agnatic, became recognized as a principle of customary family law, there must have existed a family, or rather parent-group (Elterngruppe), in which the father was protector and master of the mother and her children. This parent-group is the "hypothetical primordial cell of the family," brought together by sexual requirements and the need of sustenance and protection. It is "structureless, devoid of any firm bond, since it rests neither upon the principle of relationship nor that of legalized power." Its resemblance to the patriarchal family, though misleading, "is not without significance." For it "forms the necessary stage of an evolution which in analogous manner is also passed through by property. Inductively it is still demonstrable that individualism and atomism, not communism, as is usually assumed, are the starting point of evolution."[52] As a general rule, according to Dargun, the structureless parent-group is superseded by the maternal family, whose basis is mother-right, or the exclusive legal recognition of blood-relationship in the female line. Only in rare cases does the patriarchal agnatic family follow immediately upon the primitive group, without prior development of mother-right;[53] and hence, under exceptional conditions hindering the rise of the maternal system, do we find a form of the family in which, from a very early period, the house-father is the source of authority, practical or legalized.

Aside from his theory of evolution, in his principal thesis, which he fairly sustains by powerful argument, Dargun has rendered to science a distinct service. It is, he insists, highly necessary carefully to distinguish between power and relationship. "Mother-right" does not involve "maternal power" or the matriarchate, though sometimes actually united with it; nor does the headship of the house-father as provider, protector, and master imply agnation, the so-called "father-right." There is no contrast between power and relationship. "Mother-right in the sense of exclusive maternal kinship is compatible with a patriarchate just as exclusive." They may, and often do, coexist. It follows that the presence of the maternal system of kinship does not imply the existence of maternal power; just as it does not imply the non-existence of paternal authority. The distinction between power and kinship is justly declared to be an "indispensable key" for the solution of the greatest difficulties arising in this branch of sociological science, the disregard of which has often vitiated or confused the argument even of the foremost investigators.[54] With the aid of his key Dargun examines the linguistic evidence, which he finds favorable to the existence of mother-right among all the Aryan peoples after the separation, though united with a real supremacy of the house-father;[55] and he protests vigorously against the tendency, even on the part of Leist, to confound old Indic with old Aryan law; for the "Indians of the Vedas are in many respects more advanced than the Germans a thousand or the Slavs two thousand years later."[56] Valuable as the criticism of Dargun undoubtedly is, notably his distinction between power and relationship, it can scarcely be admitted that he has done more than reopen the question of the existence at any time of mother-right among the Aryans. His results are negative. He has not shifted the burden of proof; while his argument tends to confirm the view of the philologists that from the primitive stage the Aryan father was head of the household.[57]

But the patriarchal theory, strictly considered, fares little better than the maternal at the hands of recent investigators. Leist, who has been able with wonderful completeness to reconstruct the juridical life of the early household, though largely on the basis of old Indic sources, declares positively that "the Aryan people has not within itself a single element of patriarchalism."[58] This statement, as Bernhöft observes,[59] is perhaps too sweeping, even when tested by the results of Leist's own researches; but the patriarchal family of Sir Henry Maine does not appear. The evolution of juridical conceptions among the old Aryans, according to Leist, presents two general phases. First is the rita stage, or period of fixed, divinely appointed order, of natural law, corresponding to the Greek cosmos or phusis and the Latin ratum or ratio naturalis. In this "natural history" or pantheistic stage there is at first little idea of law as something to be separately contemplated. Under rita is comprehended the unchangeable order observable in the material world as well as in the physical and social life of man; but the universe and the creative energy, the All and Varuna, are identified or blended in thought.[60] Only slowly are these concepts differentiated and the immutable order of nature becomes looked upon as dhama, or a holy ordinance established by Varuna, who now appears as a protecting and creative spirit.

Dhama thus forms a means of transition to the second juridical phase, that of dharma, or divine law, corresponding to the Greek themis and the Latin fas.[61] In the dharma period, law is regarded as inspired by the gods, whose earthly agent, the priest or hero-king, is intrusted with its application; and in it the rules governing civil and public conduct, according to modern conceptions, are not distinguished from those relating to manners, morality, or religion. When history dawns, our early Aryan ancestors had already entered the dharma phase of evolution; and even now the Hindus have scarcely gained the third phase, prevailing in the civilized West, in which the element of "civil law" is separate from all other ingredients.[62]

Of the family relations of our primitive ancestors in the rita period we know little, except through inference or analogy. The so-called "natural forms" of marriage by purchase and capture were doubtless practiced, but probably not exclusively; and these customs were handed down to the second period, though they were modified to bring them into harmony with the higher ethical and social ideas which had then gained predominance.[63] Whether or not the absolute power of the father and the strict rule of agnation prevailed it would be as difficult to affirm as to deny.[64] In the dharma period the ancient rita conception of marriage as an ordinance of nature, whose real purpose is to provide posterity, is still retained; but it gains a social character.[65] The central principle of the Aryan household is the Hestia-Vesta cult, or the worship of the sacred hearth. To gain the protection of the ancestral gods the hearth-fire must be kept always burning; and the care of the family sacra is the special function of the house-father, who is lord and priest of the family. But the house-mother holds a worthy position in the domestic worship. From the first kindling of the hearth-fire at the nuptials, she appears as co-priestess and helper of her husband in the sacred rites. The whole life-partnership of the wedded pair is shaped and dominated by lofty religious motives. The Aryan housewife is not the chattel of her husband; she is a free woman and shares in his highest sacred functions. The primary purpose of the union is the birth of a legitimate son to perpetuate the paternal line and to foster the ancestral cult.[66] So paramount is this motive that, in case no son is born in wedlock, resort may be had to adoption, or to analogous expedients for the fictitious extension of fatherhood. For among the Aryans, as Maine suggests, the fiction of adoption is of the highest legal importance; and, indeed, very widely among the races of mankind it has served a useful purpose in social progress.[67] Here also the Aryan wife appears as co-priestess with her husband. Each is regarded as having a share in the begetting of the child, and they unite in giving the son in adoption to another household.[68] Accordingly the wife is not the mere chattel of her husband, who owns the children by virtue of his proprietorship in the mother.[69] The house-father appears in the sacred books as lord of the wife, who owes him reverence and obedience; yet she is not reduced to patriarchal slavery. With the husband she exercises joint control over the sons; and these are released entirely from parental authority when they marry and establish new households.[70] The male line takes legal precedence; but the maternal kindred are clearly recognized in a way wholly inconsistent with strict agnation.[71] According to the primitive Indic conception the wife is regarded as incapable of property. Neither the widow nor the daughters could inherit, the estate passing to the sons as in theory a means of providing for the sacra of the deceased house-father. Still the bride possessed her personal belongings—her couch, clothing, and ornaments; and from this germ gradually arose, beginning even in remote antiquity, her existing rights of property and inheritance.[72] In short, the old Aryan household reveals but the elements of agnation and the potestas as they appear in the Roman law.[73]

This conclusion is confirmed by the customs of the Aryan peoples after the separation. Among the Hellenes at the first dawn of history the family appears as a member of the gens, which is held together usually by the ties of blood-relationship. The house-father is lord or monarch of the family. But his authority is tempered in various ways. Originally, as among the primitive Aryans, he may have exercised the power of life and death over his children; but in no case could he "put a child to death without the consent of the collective ancestors," or near kindred.[74] By the Aryans the jus vitae necisque was never looked upon as an arbitrary right of destruction, but merely as a means of domestic discipline.[75] The Greek father might sell his minor sons and unmarried daughters; but "it appears that, even here, merely the labor of the youth and not the person itself was disposed of by sale," and the custom was controlled by the usage of the gens.[76] The wife, as among the Hindus, holds a dignified position in the household. She is her husband's partner in the domestic economy and the sacred rites. Equally with him she is "the cause of the son's existence," and in consequence exercises over him conjointly with the father the powers of sale and life and death.[77] Thus Hellenic custom preserves the essential element of the Aryan paternal authority, which signifies a protecting, not an arbitrary or ruthlessly destructive, power. Among the historic Greeks the agnatic principle finds expression especially in the right of guardianship, which is transmitted in the paternal line. Such is the judgment of Leist, whose masterly account of the development of the Aryan agnatic conception proves that here as elsewhere the Roman and the Greek stood upon common ground.[78] The point of divergence is the lifelong continuance of the Roman potestas; whereas in Hellas the son was emancipated at maturity.[79]

Examination of the customs of the Celts,[80] the Slavonians,[81] and ancient Germans[82] leads to a like result. Accordingly we are forced to admit the accuracy of Gaius's conclusion. Writing in the time of the Antonines, he declares his belief that the patria potestas is peculiarly a Roman institution. Only among the Asiatic Galatæ had he observed a similar authority exercised by the father over his children.[83] Instead of existing "almost everywhere," often preserving as in a mold the imprint of the paternal power which it has outlived and upon which it is thought always to depend, among Aryan peoples agnation is found together with the potestas only in one instance, that of the Roman law; and even in this case it was virtually the first to expire.[84] For, as is well known to the student of Roman jurisprudence, strict agnation, as determining right of succession, disappeared under the influence of the edict and imperial statutes long before the last vestige of the real patria potestas was swept away by the legislation of Justinian.[85]

Furthermore, in addition to the historical difficulty, there is another strong reason for doubting the dependence of agnation upon patria potestas: the inconsistency of the latter in its effects upon kinship. If the descendants of married women are excluded from relationship, solely on the ground that they belong to another potestas, why, for the same reason, should not the children of men, say of brothers sui juris,[86] be likewise mutually excluded? Plainly some more satisfactory explanation of this remarkable discrimination between the sexes must exist. Such an explanation McLennan finds in exogamy, or the custom which forbids marriage between persons of the same group of acknowledged kindred.[87] It seems probable that in early times the patrician family was coextensive with the gens. Agnatio and gentilitas were equivalent expressions.[88] During the historical period, at any rate, gentilitas is traced through the male line; and it is not impossible that originally inter-marriage was forbidden between those bearing the same gentile name.[89] In that case, agnation appears as the natural result of the gentile rule of exogamy, retained, after the weakening of the gens, for the regulation of succession within the family. Exogamy, however, does not necessarily imply the patria potestas, but is found more frequently perhaps with the maternal than with the paternal system of kinship.[90] In fact, for the Romans and kindred Italic tribes, considerable evidence has been collected by various writers pointing, as they believe, to an early transition from the maternal to the cognatic or the agnatic system.[91] While this conclusion may be rejected, it must nevertheless be admitted that criticism of the patriarchal theory has been very successful in its general results. It appears to have established beyond question the complex and highly artificial character of the Roman family.[92] So far from being the type of early social organization, it is seen to be relatively modern and ill fitted to the condition of primitive men.

In the meantime, the patriarchal theory has had to reckon with a totally different view of the genesis and development of social institutions. To this view let us now turn.