Now if by '' ancient societies" is meant those only of which records have come down to us, and if the " history of po- litical ideas " is to include only the ideas of such societies, this may be true; but if we are to take account of societies more archaic than these, and to include under political ideas those of other peoples than Aryans and Semites, it cannot be sustained. Proof has been given (§§ 250 — 252) that political co-operation arises from the conflicts of social groups with one another. Though establishment of it may be facilitated where " the commonwealth is a col- lection of persons united by a common descent from the progenitor of an original family;'' yet, in multitudinous cases, it takes place where no connexion of this kind exists Among the persons. The members of an Australian tribe which, under a temporary chief, join in battle against those of another tribe, have not a common descent, but are Allien in blood. If it be said that political functions can in this case scarcely be alleged, then take the case of the Creeks of North America, whose men have various totems implying various ancestries, and whose twenty thousand people living in seventy villages have nevertheless evolved for themselves a government of considerable complexify.
Or still better take the Iroquois, who, similar in their THE FAMILY. 717 formation of tribes out of intermingled clans of different stocks^ were welded by combined action in war into a league of five (afterwards six) nations under a republican goyemment. Indeed this system of kinship puts relations in poUtical antagonism; so that, as we read in Bancroft concerning the Kutchins, '' there can never be inter-tribal war without ranging fathers and sons against each other/' Even apart from the results of mixed clanships, that in- stability which we have seen characterized primitive rela- tions of the sexes, negatives the belief that political co- operation everywhere originates from &mily co-operation: instance the above-named Greeks, of whom, according to Schoolcraft, ''a large portion of the old and middle- aged men, by frequently changing, have had many dif- ferent wives, and their children, scattered around the country, are unknown to them."
Thus finding reason to suspect that Sir Henry Maine's theory of the family is not applicable to all societies, let us proceed to consider it more closely.
§ 318. He implies that in the earliest stages there were definite marital relations. That which he calls ^^the infancy of society'' — "the situation in which mankind disclose them- selves at the dawn of their history''; is a situation in which " ' every one exercises jurisdiction over his wives and his children, and they pay no regard to one another.' " But in foregoing chapters on " The Primitive Relations of the Sexes," on '^ Promiscuity," and on " Polyandry," numerous facts have been given showing that definite coherent marital relations are preceded by indefinite incoherent ones; and also that among the marital relations evolving out of these, there are in many places types of family composed not of a man with wife and children, but of a wife with men and children: such family-forms being found not alone in socie- ties of embryonic and of infantine types, but also in con- siderably advanced societies.
718 THX D^mrrc bklations.
A fortlier assnmption is that desoeot has always and ererywherc been in the male line. That it has from ike earliest recorded times of those peoples with whom Sir Henry Maine deals^ must be admitted; and it may be admitted that male descent occurs also among some rade peoples of other types, as the Kokis of India, the Belachis, the New Zealanders, the Hottentots. It is by no means the rule, however, among the nncivilized. Mr. M'Lenxian, who has pointed out the incongruity between this aasomption and a great mass of evidence, shows that in all parts of the world descent in the female line prevails; and the abundant proofs given by him I might, were it needful, enforce by many others. This system is not limited to groups so little organized that they might be set aside aa pre-in&ntine (were that permissible); nor to groups thst stand on a level with the patriarchal, or so-called infan- tine, societies in point of organization; but it occors in groups, or rather nations, that have evolved complex structures. Ellis says that kinship was through females in the two higher ranks of the Tahitians; and Erskine says the like of the Tongans. It was so, according to Piedrahita, with the Aucient Ghibchas, who had made no insignificant strides in civilization. Among the Lnoqaois, again, '' titles, as well as property, descended in the female line, and were hereditary in the tribe, the son could never succeed to his father's title of sachem, nor inherit even his tomahawk; '^ and these Iroquois had advanced far beyond the infantine stage — were governed by a representatire assembly of fifty sachems, had a separate military organi- zation, a separate ecclesiastical organization, definite laws, cultivated lands individually possessed, permanent fortified villages. So, too, in Africa, succession to rank and property follows the female line among the Coast-negroes, Inland- negroes, Congo people, etc., who have distinct industrial systems, four and five gradations in rank, settled agricultures; considerable commerce, towns in streets. How misleading THB?AMILT. 719 is the limited obfiervation of societies, is shown by MarsdezK^s remark respecting the Snmatrans of the Batta district^ that 'Hhe succession to the chiefships does not go, in the first instance, to the son of the deceased, but to the nephew by a sister; and that the same extraordinary rule, with respect to property in general, prevails also amongst the Malays of that part of the island: *' the rule which he thus charac- terizes as '^extraordinary,'^ being really, among the un- civilized and little civilized, the ordinary rule.
Again, Sir Henry Maine postulates the existence of govern- ment from the beginning — patriarchal authority over wife, children, slaves, and all who are included in the primitive social group. But those who have read preceding chapters on " TheBegulating System" and " Social Types," will scarcely need reminding that in various parts of the world we find social groups without heads, as the Fuegians, some Austra- lians, most Esquimaux, the Arafuras, the Land Dyaks of the Upper Sarawak river; others with headships that are but occasional, as Tasmanians, some Australians, some Caribs, some XJaupds; and many others with vague and unstable headships, as the Andamanese, Abipones, Snakes, Chippey- wayans, Chinooks, Chippeways, some Kamschatdales, Guiana tribes, Mandans, Coroados, New Guinea people, Tannese. Though it is true that in some of these cases the communities are of the lowest, I see no adequate reason for excluding them from our conception of ''the infancy of society." And even saying nothing of these, we cannot regard as lower than infantine in their stages, those commu- nities which, like the Upper Sarawak Dyaks, the Arafuras, the New Guinea people, carry on their peaceful lives with- out other government than that of public opinion and custom. Moreover, as was pointed out in § 250, what head- ship exists in many simple groups is not patriarchal. Such chieftainship as arose among the Tasmanians in time of war was determined by personal fitness. So, too, according to Edwards, with the Caribs, and according to Swan, with the 720 TUB DOMESTIC RELATIONS.
Creeks. Then^ still farther showing that political aathoritj does not always begin with patriarchal authority, we have the Iroquois^ whose system of kinship negatived the genesis of patriarchs^ and who yet developed a complex repub- lican government; and we have the Pueblos^ who, living in well-organized communities under elected governors and councils, show no signs of patriarchal rule in the past.
Another component of the doctrine is that originaDj, property is held by the family as a corporate body. Accord- ing to Sir Henry Maine, ''one peculiarity invariably dis- tinguishing the infancy of society,*' is that "men are regarded and treated not as individuals but always as members of the particular group.'* The man was noi ''regarded as himself, as a distinct individual. His indi- viduality was swallowed up in his family.*' And this alleged primitive submergence of the individual, affects even the absolute ruler of the group. " Though the patriarch, for we must not yet call him the paterfamilias, had rights thus extensive, it is impossible to doubt that he lay under an equal amplitude of obligations. If he governed the family it was for its behoof. If he was lord of its possessions, he held them as trustee for his children and kindred * * * the family in fact was a corporation; and he was its representative.** Here, after expressing the doubt whether there can exist in the primitive mind ideas so abstract as those of trusteeship and representation, I go on to remark that this hypothesis involves a conception difficult to frame. For while the patriarch is said to hold his possessions " in a representative rather than a proprietary character,** he is said to have unqualified dominion over children, as over slaves, extending to life and death; which implies that though he possesses the greater right of owning subordinate individuals absolutely, he does not possess the smaller right of owning absolutely the property used by them and himself. I may add that besides being difficult to frame, this conception is not easily reconcilable THU FAMILY. 721 with Sir Henry Maine's description of the Patria Potestas of the Romans^ which he says is " our type of the primeval paternal authority/* and of which ho remarks that while, during its decline, the father's power over the son's person became nominal^ his '' rights over the son's property were always exercised without scruple." And I may also name its seeming incongruity with the fact that political rulers who have absolute powers of life and death over their sub- jects^ are usually also regarded as in theory owners of their property: instance at the present time the kings of Dahomey^ Ashanti, Congo, Cayor on the Gold Coast. Passing to the essential question, however, I find myseli here at issue not with Sir Henry Maine only, but with other writers on primitive social states, who hold that all ownership is originally tribal, that family ownership comes afterwards, and individual ownership last. As already in> plied in § 292, the evidence leads me to believe that from the beginning there has been individual ownership of such things as could without difficulty be appropriated. True though it is that in early stages rights of property have not acquired definiteness — certain though it may be that among primitive men the moral sanction which property equitably obtained has among ourselves, is lacking — obvious as we find it that possession is often established by right of the strongest; the facts show us that in the rudest communities there is a private holding of useful movables maintained by each man to the best of his ability. A personal monopoly extends itself to such things as can readily be monopolized — a proprietorship not yet made definite by the growth of social regulations. The Tinneh who *' regarding all property, including wives, as belonging to the strongest," show us in a typical way the primitive form of appropriation^ also show us that this appropriation is completely personal; since they " bum with the deceased all his eflfects," Indeed, even apart from evidence, it seems to me an inadmissible supposition that in " the in&noy of AAA THX DOmSTIC UUATIOKS.
•ocietjr'' the egoistic savage^ atterly withoat idea of jurtioe or senfie of responsilNlity^ conscioQaly held his belongifigs on behalf of thoae depending upon him.
One more element^ indirectly if not directly involv^ed in the doctrine of Sir Henry Maine^ is tliat "iibie infancy of society '^ is characterized by the perpetual tutelage of women. While each male descendant has a capaeitf ''to become himself the head of a new &mily and the root of a new set of parental powers/' ''a woman of connc has no capacity of the kind^ and no title accordingly to lihe liberation which it confers. There is therefore a peculiar contrivance of archaic jarispradence for retaining her in the bondage of the family for life.'' And the implication appears to be that this slavery of women^ derived from the patriarchal state^ and naturally accompanied by in- ability to hold property, has been slowly mitigated, and the right of private possession acquired, as the primitive family has decayed. But when we pass from the pro- genitors of the civilized races to easting uncivilised rao0s, we meet with facts requiring us to qualify this proposi- tion. Though in tribes of primitive men, knowing no law but that of brute force, entire subjection of women is the rule, yet there are exceptions, both in societies lower tiian tiie patriarchal in organization, and in higher societies which bear no traces of a past patriarchal state. We learn from Hodgson that among the Kocch, who are mainly governed by ''juries of elders," "when a woman dies liie family property gOes to her daughters." Mason tells us of tho S[arens, whose chiefs, of little authority, are generally elec- tive and often wanting, that " the father wills his property to his children. * * * Nothing is given to the widow, but she is entitled to the use of the property till her death.'' Writing of the Ehasias, Lieutenant Steel says that ''the house belongs to the woman; and in case of the hnsband dying or being separated from her, it remains her property/' Among the Dyaks, whose law of inheritance is not that of THS FAXILT. 728 primogeniturei and whose chieftainships^ where they exist, are acquired by merit, St. John tells us thai as the wife does an equal share of work with her husband, '' at a diTorce she is entitled to half the weal&h created by their mutual labours ''; and Bajah Brooke writes concerning certain Land Dyaks, that *' the most powerful of the people in the place were two old ladies, who often told me that all the land and inhabitants belonged to them." North America furnishes kindred facts. Of the Aleutian Islanders, Bancroft, in agreement with Bastian, tells us that ^^ rich women are permitted to indulge in two husbands ": ownership of property by females being implied. Among the Nootkas, in case of divorce there is '' a strict division of property " — the wife taking both what she brought and what she has made; and similarly among the Spokanes, "all household goods are considered the wife's property,'' and there is an equitable division of property on dissolution of marriage. Again, of the Iroquois, wl^o, considerably advanced as wo have seen, were shown by their still-surviving system of descent in the female line, never to have passed through tho patriarchal stage, we read that the proprietary rights of husband and wife remained distinct; and further, that in case of separation the children went with the mother. Still more striking is the instance supplied by the peace- able, industrious, freely-governed Pueblos; whose women, otherwise occupying good positions, not only inherit pro- perty, but, in some cases, make exclusive claims to it. Africa, too, whore the condition of women is in most respects low, but where descent in the female line con- tinues, furnishes examples. Shabeeny tells us that in Timbuctoo, a son's share of the father's property is double that of a daughter. Describing the customs of the people above the Yellala falls on the Congo, Tuckey says fowls, eggs, manioc, and fruits, " seem all to belong to the women, the men never disposing of them without first con- sulting their wives^ to whom the beads are ^ven."
724 THE DOHSSTIC BSIATI0N8.
Tkus there are many things at variance with the theory which sets out by assuming that ^' the infancy of society " is exhibited in the patriarchal gi-onp. As was implied in the chapters on the *' Primitive Relations of the Sexes,'' on **' Promiscuity," on '* Polyandry," the earliest societies were without domestic organization as they were without political organization. Instead of a paternally-governed cluster, at once family and rudimentary State, there was at first on aggregate of males and females without settled arrange- mentSj and having no relations save those established by force and changed when the stronger willed.
§ 319. And here we come in face of the fact before obliquely glanced at, that Sir Henry Maine's hypothesis takes account of no stages in human progress earlier than the pastoral or agricultural. The groups he describes as severally formed of the patriarch, his wife, descendants, slaves, flocks, and herds, are groups implying that animals of several kinds have been domesticated But before the domestication of animals was achieved, there passed long s>tages stretching back through pre-historic times. To under- stand the patriarchal group, wo must inquire how it grew out of the less-organized groups which preceded it.
The answer is not difficult to find if we ask what kind 3»f life the domestication of herbivorous animals entailed. Where pasture is abundant and covers large areas, the keeping of flocks and herds does not necessitate separation into very small clusters: instance the Comanches, who, with their hunting, join the keeping of cattle, which the members of the tribe combine to guard. But where pasture is not 4ibundant, or is distributed in patches, cattle cannot be kept together in grea,t numbers; and their owners consequently kave to part. Naturally, the division of the owners will be into such clusters as are already vaguely marked off in the original aggregate: individual men with such women as they have taken possession of, such animals as they hare ac- THB TAMIIiT. 725 THB TAMIIiT. 725 quired by force or otherwise^ and all their other belongings, will wander hither and thither in search of food for their sheep and oxen. As already pointed out^ we have^ in pre- pastoral stages^ as among the Boshmen^ cases whero scarcity of wild food necessitates parting into very small groups; and clearly when^ instead of game and vermin to be caught, cattle have to be fed^ the distribution of pasturage, here in larger there in smaller oases^ will determine the numbers of animals, and consequently of human beings, which can keep together. In the separation of Abraham and Lot we have a traditional illustration.
Thus recognizing the natural origin of the wandering family group, let us ask what are likely to become its traits. We have seen that the regulating system of a society is evolved in the course of conflicts with environing societies. Between pastoral hordes which have become separate, and in course of time alien, there must arise, as between other groups, antagonisms: caused sometimes by appropriation of strayed cattle, sometimes by encroachments upon grazing areas monopolized. But now mark a difference. In a tribe of archaic type, such ascendancy as war from time to time gives to a man who is superior in strength, will, or cunning, commonly fails to become a permanent headship (§ 250); since his power is regarded with jealousy by men who are in other respects his equals. It is otheinvise in the pastoitil horde. The tendency which war between groups has to evolve a head in each group, here finds a member pre^ pared for the place. Already there is the father, who at the outset was by right of the strong hand, leader, owner, master, of wife, children, and all he carried with him. In the preceding stage his actions were to some extent under check by other men of the tribe; now they are not. Hia sons could early become hunters and carry on their lives independently; now they cannot.
Note a second difference. Separation from other men brings into greater clearness the fact that the children are 726 THs DOHaane mAnovs.
aot only the wife's ohildren, but lik obildren; ftud fiiitli0r» since among its neighboars his groap is natamlly distn- gnished by his name> the children spoken of as members of his group are otherwise spoken of as his children. The estab- lishment of male descent is thus facilitated. Simnltaoeoasly there is apt to come acknowledged supremacy of the eldest son: the first to give eflBcient aid to the father, the first to reach manhood, the first likely to m«rry and have children, he is usually the one on whom the powers of the father devolve as he declines and dies. Thus the average tendency through successive generations will be for the eldest male to become head of the increasing group; alike as family ruler and political ruler — the patriaroh.
At the same time industrial co-operation is fostered. Savages of the lowest types get roots and berries, shell- fish, vermin, small animals, etc., without joint action. Among those who, having reached the advanced hunting stage^ capture large animals, a considerable combination is implied, though of an irregular kind. But on rising to the stage in which flocks and herds have to be daily pastured and guarded, and their products daily utilised, combined actions of many kinds are necessitated; and under the patriarchal rule these become regularized by apportionment of duties. This co-ordination of functions and consequent mutual dependence of parts, conduces to consolidation of the group as an organic whole. Gradually it becomes im- practicable for any member to carry on his life by himself: deprived not only of the family aid and protection, but of the food and clothing yielded by the domesticated animals. So that the industrial arrangements conspire with the governmental arrangements to produce a well«compacted aggregate, internally coherent and externally marked oil definitely from other aggregates.
This process is furthered by disappearance of the leas- developed. Other things equal, those groups which aro most subordinate to their leaders will succeed best in battlo* OAmt thiBgB wpal, those whioh^ Mibimliing to comxaaoNb kmger^ Im^e groym into larger groups will ihiiB benefit And other things eqnal^ adTontages will be gained bj those in whiehi nndw dictation of the patriarch, the industrial co-operation has been rendered efficient. So that bj snrriyal of the fittest among pastoral gproups straggling for ezistenoe with one another, those which obedience to their heads and mntual dependence of parts have made the strongest, will be those to spread; and in coarse of time the patriarchal type will thus become well marked. Not, indeed, that entire disappearance of le8s-o]^rani2sed groaps mast result; since regions favoarable to the process described, facilitate the snrviyal of smaller hordes, pursuing lives more predatory and less pastoral. So that there xoBHf simultaneously grow up larger clusters which develop into pastoral tribes, and smaller clusters which subsist mainly by robbing them.
Mark next how, under these circumstances, there arise certain arrangements respecting ownership. The division presnpposed by individualization of property, cannot be carried far without appliances which savage life does not furnish. Measures of time, measures ot quantity, measures of value, are required. When from the primitive appro- priation of things found, caught, or made, we pass to the acquisition of things by barter and by service, we see that approximate equality of value between the exchanged things is implied; and in the absence of recognized equivalence, which must be exceptional, there will be great resistance to barter. Among savages, therefore, property extends but little beyond the things a man can procure for himself. Kindred obstacles occur in the pastoral group. How can the value of the.labour contributed by each to the common weal be measured? To-day the cowherd can feed his cattle close at hand; to«moirrow he must drive them far and get back late. Here the shepherd tends his flock in rich pasture; and in a region next visited the sheep disperse in 728 THI D0KE8TIC BILAIIONS.