Chapter II

The Pre-Historic Family

If now we ask what, if any, form of the Family preceded the Patriarchal, we find ourselves directed to sources of information, or perhaps one should say rather of conjecture, which are full of difficulty, and which can at best lead only to a tentative construction. The most important of these sources consists in the observation of existing races who are in what is believed to be a very early stage of development. Here, it is thought, we have under our very eyes a people still in a stage which we ourselves have passed through in the infancy of our race; let us study the position and constitution of the Family amongst them, and then we shall be able to realise what it has been amongst all primitive races, ourselves included, when first starting on the upward march. And if it were clear, in the first place, that these people really were in an early stage, and were not "degenerates"; and, in the second place, that all races of men must pass through the same stages of development, and manifest the same social phenomena and institutions, then the argument would carry great weight. But it seems clear, on the contrary, that so far as our present knowledge goes this is far from being the case; that there are certain races of men who seem to be incapable of developing a high state of social life; and that to argue from the customs of the aborigines of Australia to those of our Aryan ancestors may be to rely upon a very misleading analogy. It might well be that their defective organisation of the Family was itself one of the chief causes which made their social development impossible.

To this difficulty of getting a true analogy to work from must be added the difficulty of observing rightly, and of rightly interpreting what is observed. It has been well remarked that the modern novel of "slum life" really tells us very little about the lives of the people it attempts to portray; it only tells of the impression made upon the writer, which may be, and generally is, a very different matter. And if this is the case with people of our own race and nationality, how much more with people of wholly different race and traditions. Students of the subject are wholly dependent for their material upon the reports furnished by men who have travelled or lived amongst the people whose customs are being studied, and these reports are apt to conflict in a most perplexing manner. To take one instance only, the now famous theory of "group-marriage," which has formed a striking feature in the history of the Family¹. The theory was largely based upon the evidence of the English missionary Lorimer Fison concerning a tribe of aborigines in South Australia. He describes this tribe as being divided into two classes; and every man in each of these classes as being by birth the rightful husband of every woman in the other class, while similarly every woman in each class is the rightful wife of every man in the other. This description has been constructed as evidence of a time when the relation between the men and women of the two classes was one of promiscuity, and when therefore there was, strictly speaking, no family at all.

But if now we turn to later writers, we find them citing the Australian aborigine on the other side, i.e. against the theory of group-marriage, and in support of the view that the Family is to be found in the very lowest stages of social life. Grosse, for example quotes another witness of their customs (Curr) as saying that amongst the Australians not only is there no evidence of community of wives, but the husband is absolute and sole proprietor of his wife or wives;² while Professor Howard, in summing up the discussion, considers that "it is by no means established that communal or even group - marriage has ever prevailed amongst the Australian aborigines."³ It seems possible that the real relation between the two groups noticed by Fison is simply that members of one class may not marry amongst themselves, but only amongst members of the other class a very different matter from freedom to marry all members of the other. ⁴ Whatever the facts may be, it is clear that on one side or the other there must have been misunderstanding or misinterpretation, and clear, moreover, that such misinterpretation is very difficult to avoid.

In addition to this observation of backward races of the present day, we have descriptions handed down to us by writers of the past; and in so far as these are descriptions of peoples who have subsequently developed into civilisation, they yield material which is far more relevant to the purpose. When Tacitus tells us of the customs of the Germans, or Cæsar of the customs of the Britons, there is no question of doubtful analogy; they actually are our own institutions in an early stage of development which are being described. On the other hand, the liability to misinterpretation is increased; not only may we doubt a Roman's power of fully comprehending what he sees or hears of a wild people whose very language he may not understand, there is also our own difficulty in interpreting his somewhat meagre generalisations to be taken into account. We cannot cross-question our informant; we cannot ask him whether this or that interpretation of what he tells us is the correct one; and we cannot get from him further details which he thought too insignificant to record, but which might be decisive for our purpose.

Finally, there is the difficulty that an observer of strange peoples is liable to confuse what is abnormal or accidental with what is really characteristic; he is naturally struck by phenomena which are startling and novel to himself, and many easily mistake an aberration for a custom. There are few of the strange "customs" quoted by investigators of this subject which might not be found to occur in the darker regions of any great modern city; but no one would cite them as customary and typical of our social institutions merely because they exist amongst us.

Materials drawn from the observation of primitive races are thus subject to grave difficulties; they may sometimes, however, find corroboration from another source, and that is the survival in the present day, or in trustworthy records, of customs which appear to be relics of them. Thus, for instance, the supporters of the "marriage by capture" theory find a double confirmation of it when they hear of existing tribes amongst whom (it is thought) capture is the normal method of obtaining a wife, and can also point to the fact that marriage customs exist amongst all Aryan peoples, which seem to be explicable as symbolising a forcible capture of the bride.

Such, then, are the main sources upon which we have to draw when we try to read the history of the Family before the time when it was recorded in ancient law. For a complete examination of the successive theories which have been put forward, and of the material out of which they have been constructed, I refer the reader to Professor Howard's History of Matrimonial Institutions, which contains also a very full bibliography. Here it is sufficient for my purpose to note the different views which have succeeded each other, and the conclusions which seem to hold the field at the present moment.

The first important contention against the theory that the Patriarchal Family represents the original form was advanced by the well-known Swiss writer Bachofen, whose book on Mutterrecht appeared in 1861. "The material is drawn mainly from two sources: the fragmentary notices of the rules of kinship and the matrimonial customs of various peoples handed down from various writers, supplemented slightly through similar accounts by modern travellers; and an interpretation of the supposed symbolism or religious myths, particularly those of the Greeks."⁵ Working from this material, Bachofen contends that so far from the original Family being patriarchal in its structure, it was strictly matriarchal. In the beginning was chaos. The first element of order was introduced into this chaos by woman, wearying of the reign of lawlessness and imposing her rule upon men. This she did by means of the mysteries of religion, and thus the Matriarchal Family was instituted in which the women were leaders and rulers. This continued until the woman grew too haughty to wed, when man rebelled and reasserted his superior power, and the Patriarchal Family was instituted. Each of these moments represents, according to Bachofen, a "universal culture-stage," through which all peoples pass in the development of their social life.

Since this theory was first published much has been written, both in confirmation and in criticism of it. The two main points towards which controversy has been directed are (1) whether the organisation of society into families was ever really preceded by a period in which such organisation was entirely absent; and (2) to what extent the position of women in the earlier type of Family was really analogous to that of the man in the Patriarchal Family.

If we take the latter point first, we find that a certain school of writers has been extraordinarily enthusiastic in support of the theory of a Golden Age for women, when there was not only a matriarchate, but even a gynæcocracy; when women, that is, ruled not only in the Family but also amongst the people. Friedrich Engels, for instance, maintains⁶ that even now amongst peoples at a very early stage of development women hold a far higher position than in our present civilisation. But later and more cautious writers find little reason to suppose that there has been any general stage in human development where woman's position has been that of supremacy; while all the actual evidence, as distinct from mere inference, points to the fact that amongst peoples in an early stage of development, the position of women generally approaches very near to slavery.

But the reason which led to the hypothesis of a matriarchal Family is one of great interest. It is the discovery that amongst certain peoples, possibly amongst all at a certain stage of development, relationship is counted only through the mother, the children taking their name from the mother and not from the father. It is perhaps not unnatural that, with the analogy of the Roman Family before their minds, the earlier students should have assumed overhastily that this system of maternal kinship carried with it a system of maternal supremacy in the Family; that they should further have assumed a female supremacy in the clan is perhaps less excusable. It is true that a few tribes are known, notably the Hurons and Iroquois of North America, amongst whom women appear to guide and rule to a very remarkable degree; but such instances "belong to the rarest curiosities of ethnology" (Grosse, p. 161), and even in these exceptional cases accounts differ very much as to the actual extent of the women's power. Lafitau, as quoted by Grosse, speaks of them as possessing all real authority, as well as the land and its produce, while they are masters of peace and war, guardians of the public treasure, and rulers over their children. On the other hand, Schoolcraft (quoted by Westermarck, p. 500) represents the position in a much milder light: the Iroquois are "the only tribes in America, north and south, so far as we have any accounts, who gave to women a conservative power in their political deliberations. The Iroquois matrons had their representative in the public councils; and they exercised a negative, or what we call a veto power, in the important question of the declaration of war. They had the right also to interpose in bringing about a peace." Moreover, adds Westermarck, they had considerable privileges in the Family.

With a few exceptions like these, the rule appears to be that the man is undisputed master over both wife and children, no matter whether the latter are called by his name or the mother's; and still more certainly is he the ruler in the tribe. In so far as the authority within the Family rests with the father, the Patriarchal Family may be said to co-exist with a system of kinship through the mother, and at the earliest stages of development. But it is, generally speaking, a power based merely upon the superior physical strength of the man, and therefore incapable of organising the Patriarchal Family in its fullest sense. What it does do is to preclude the possibility of a really matriarchal Family, and we are forced, however reluctantly, to abandon the vision of Woman's Golden Age. Amongst the peoples of the earliest type we know the "lower hunters "-her lot is worst of all: "the woman has as yet nothing to set against the natural physical superiority of hunter and warrior; hence she becomes of necessity a slave without rights, the obedient servant of the desires and laziness of her lord and husband" (Grosse). Her emancipation comes but slowly with the development of the race, depending, as some hold, upon the increasing value of her services, and her increasing capacity for economic independence, or, as others maintain, upon the influence of religion and culture. But at the lowest level, her best or only chance of considerate treatment from her husband lies in having powerful relations to whom she can appeal for protection against him.

There seems to be, then, no sufficient ground for the theory that the patriarchial was preceded by a matriarchal Family. So far as we can see, what really preceded it was a less highly organised form of the patriarchal Family, sometimes, but not always, co-existing with a system of relationship through the mothers.

If now we turn to the first of the stages assumed by Bachofen, that of chaos without any organised family life, we find that it has been subjected to criticism quite as destructive. This theory of an original promiscuity amongst primitive peoples involves an entire absence of Family life, the children belonging to the tribe in general, and being protected by all the men indiscriminately;⁷ and when first promulgated it was accepted unreservedly by the sociologists (e.g. by H. Spencer in his Principles of Sociology). For confirmation of it they pointed not only to institutions and customs which they maintained to be inexplicable except as relics of such a state, but also to a number of apparent proofs that even in the present day the lowest peoples live in this condition. But closer investigation of the evidence has shown that "there is absolutely not one single primitive people" whose condition approximates to, or even indicates, such a system, or want of system. "This firmly-welded single Family is in no sense a late attainment of civilisation, but it exists even at the lowest stage of culture, as a rule, without exception."⁸ And with regard to the customs which are thought to be relics of such a time, partly they seem to be capable of other interpretations, and partly there is no doubt that abnormal deviations from morality have been mistaken for normal customs. They have been subjected to detailed criticism by Westermarck, and his conclusion is that "there is not a shred of genuine evidence for the notion that promiscuity ever formed a general stage in the social history of mankind. The hypothesis of promiscuity, instead of belonging, as Professor Giraud-Teulon thinks, to the class of hypotheses which are scientifically permissible, has no real foundation, and is essentially unscientific."⁹

As far back, then, as we can penetrate into the early history of the human race we find the Family already existing, and we find the father as the protector and master of the Family. This is not equivalent to saying that it has been so from the first; the real beginnings of human life seem to be impenetrably shrouded from sight. But Westermarck suggests still another way of approaching the subject, and that is through the customs of those members of the animal world which are most nearly akin to the human race. From the gregariousness of many animals it has been customary to argue to an analogous gregariousness of the human race, and to maintain that it is only at a later stage that the Family develops within the tribe; but Westermarck points out that this gregariousness exists only very partially amongst just those animals which are nearest in other respects to man. The orang-utan, the gorilla, and the chimpanzee, all live in pairs with their young; assembling in numbers at times, more especially when food is plentiful, but for the most part wandering in solitary families. "Is it not, then, most probable that our fruit-eating human or half-human ancestors, living on the same kind of food, and requiring about the same quantities of it as the man-like apes, were not more gregarious than they? It is likely, too, that subsequently, when man became partly carnivorous, he continued, as a rule, this solitary kind of life, or that gregariousness became his habit only in part. ' An animal of a predatory kind,' says Mr. Spencer, 'which has prey that can be caught and killed without help, profits by living alone; especially if its prey is much scattered, and is secured by stealthy approach, or by lying in ambush. Gregariousness would here be a positive disadvantage. Hence the tendency of large carnivores, and also of small carnivores that have feeble and widely-distributed prey, to lead solitary lives.' It is, indeed, very remarkable that even now there are savage peoples who live rather in separate families than in tribes, and that most of these peoples belong to the very rudest races in the world."¹⁰

It is, of course, a far cry from this primitive, selfgoverning family group, based upon the elementary passions of possession, jealousy, and parental affection, to the highly organised group of to-day, bound together by mutual contract, supported and limited by its existence within the more powerful institution of the State, recognised as a matter of public as well as private interest, and with an age-long history behind it of modifications and confirmations. Though itself the first and most permanent of all human institutions, it was inevitable that the growth of other institutions should greatly affect and modify it; and of these the most potent in their influence have been Religion, the State, and the organised accumulation of wealth and private property. It has been greatly affected, again, by the varying economic conditions under which people have lived, and by their relations as conquerors or conquered to other peoples. One of the earliest ways which man devised of expressing his superior wealth or strength was to appropriate, by means of purchase or conquest, more wives than his neighbours. But throughout all changes one husband and one wife has been the constant type, all other forms mere aberrations, and the process of development has been always towards a more deliberately conscious and therefore higher form of monogamy.¹¹ And throughout all changes, again, the characteristic feature has persisted that father, mother, and children have formed one group, of which the father has been the head in the sense not only of being the master, but also of being responsible for its protection and maintenance.

One of the arguments which has been brought forward in support of an extreme form of Communism and State Socialism is, that the Family has been merely the temporary product of a particular stage of economic development, and that with the sweeping away of capitalism and private property the Family also will disappear. Then the children will be cared for by society as a whole, and men and women will be free to enter into or abandon married life as their fancy may dictate.¹² If such a time should ever come, it will be in no sense a gradual development from the past, there is no justification for it in the history of the human race, and it will be as catastrophic in the moral world as an earthquake is in the physical. There seem few limits indeed to the deviations to which humanity is liable in its upward progress; but it would seem as if the one essential characteristic, which no force of circumstances has ever been able to destroy, or even to subdue for more than a short time and amongst degenerate specimens, is the peculiar and unique feeling of parent for child. It may show itself in many ways, it may be kind or cruel, wise or foolish, it may involve infinite self-sacrifice or infinite tyranny, it may be called instinct, or possession, or love, or responsibility, but always it has maintained itself against all other claims, and in so maintaining itself has created the Family. Parents, indeed, have sacrificed their children to their gods or to the State, but always it has been recognised as a gift, and a gift of the highest order, which they alone had the right to make. And if it should ever come to pass that men and women will be content to abandon their children to the community merely for the sake of their own greater ease, it will mean such a breaking up of the whole moral nature of the race that not the Family alone, but the State itself will be shattered in its foundations.

Notes