on a person shall be proportionate to his age, his physical constitution, his mental habits, and his social status ; 1 and he adds that bishops and others in high civil dignity are exempt from torture even under strong presumptions of guilt.2

The moral notions regarding the infliction of bodily injuries require little comment. They are based on the principle of sympathetic resentment, modified by the ascription of particular rights to some and particular duties to others, on account of the relation in which the parties stand to each other; and they follow the same rules as the ideas concerning homicide, to the exclusion, of course, of all such considerations as result from fear of the slain man's ghost or from the religious horror of taking life. One point, however, calls for special attention. The forcible interference with another person's body not only causes physical pain but commonly entails disgrace upon the sufferer. This largely accounts for the fact that a person's right to bodily integrity varies so much according to his social standing. Even among the lower races we meet with the notions that an act of bodily violence involves a gross insult, and that corporal punishment disgraces the criminal more than any other form of penalty. According to the Malay Code, "the persons who may be put to death without the previous knowledge of the king or nobles, are an adulterer, a person guilty of treason, a thief who cannot otherwise be apprehended, and a person who offers another a grievous affront, such as a blow over the face." Among the Maoris a blow with the fist would lead to a combat with arms. The Thlinkets consider corporal punishment to

3

1 Guazzini, Tractatus ad defensam inquisitorum, xxx. 4. 24, vol. ii. 86. 2 Ibid. xxx. 17, vol. ii. 102 sq.

3 Cf. Dimetian Code, ii. 17. 17 (Ancient Laws and Institutes of Wales, p. 248): "The Law says that the limbs of all persons are of equal worth; if a limb of the king be broken, that it is of the same worth as the limb of the villain yet, nevertheless, the worth of

saraad [or fine for insult] to the king, or to a breyr, is more than the saraad of a villain, if a limb belonging to him be cut." See also Gwentian Code, ii. 7. 12 sq. (ibid. p. 342).

Crawfurd, History of the Indian Archipelago, iii. 105 sq.

5 Shortland, Traditions and Superstitions of the New Zealanders, p. 227.

be the greatest indignity to which a freeman can be subjected, hence they never inflict it. And civilised nations who are ready to punish certain criminals with death, hold whipping to be a punishment too infamous to be employed.

1 Holmberg, 'Ethnograph. Skizzen über die Völker des russischen

Amerika,' in Acta Societatis Scientiarum Fennica, iv. 321.

CHAPTER XXIII

CHARITY AND GENEROSITY

IN previous chapters we have examined the regard for the life and physical well-being of others as displayed in moral ideas concerning homicide and the infliction of bodily harm. We shall now consider the same subject from another point of view, namely, the valuation of such conduct as positively promotes the existence and material comfort of a fellow-creature.

There is one duty so universal and obvious that it is seldom mentioned: the mother's duty to rear her children, provided that they are suffered to live. Another duty-equally primitive, I believe, in the human race-is incumbent on the married man: the protection and support of his family. We hear of this duty from all quarters of the savage world.

Among the North American Indians it was considered disgraceful for a man to have more wives than he was able to maintain.1 Mr. Powers says that among the Patwin, a Californian tribe which he believes to rank among the lowest in the world, "the sentiment that the men are bound to support the women-that is to furnish the supplies-is stronger even than among us.' Among the Iroquois it was the office of the husband to make a mat, to repair the cabin of his wife, or to construct a new one." The product of his hunting expeditions,

1 Waitz, Anthropologie der Naturvölker, iii. 109. Carver, Travels through the Interior Parts of North America,

p. 367.

2 Powers, Tribes of California, p.

222.

during the first year of marriage, belonged of right to his wife, and afterwards he shared it equally with her, whether she remained in the village, or accompanied him to the chase. Among the Botocudos, whose girls are married very young, remaining in the house of the father till the age of puberty, the husband is even then obliged to maintain his wife, though living apart from her. Among the Lengua Indians of the Paraguayan Chaco the child of a woman whose husband deserts her is generally killed at birth, the mother feeling that it is the man's part of married life to provide meat for his offspring. Azara states that, among the Charruas, " du moment où un homme se marie, il forme une famille à part, et travaille pour la nourrir." Of the Fuegians it is said that, "as soon as a youth is able to maintain a wife, by his exertions in fishing or bird-catching, he obtains the consent of her relations." 5 The wretched Rock Veddahs in Ceylon "acknowledge the marital obligation and the duty. of supporting their own families." Among the Maldivians, "although a man is allowed four wives at one time, it is only on condition of his being able to support them."7 The Nairs, we are told, consider it a husband's duty to provide his wife with food, clothing, and ornaments; and almost the same is said by Dr. Schwaner with reference to the tribes of the Barito district, in the south-east part of Borneo. Among the cannibals of New Britain the chiefs have to see that the families of the warriors are properly maintained.10 Concerning the Tonga Islanders Mariner states that "a married woman is one who cohabits with a man, and lives under his roof and protection." Among the Maoris "the mission of woman was to increase and multiply, that of man to defend his home." 12 With reference to the Kurnai in South Australia, Mr. Howitt states that "the man has to provide for his family with the assistance of his wife. His share is to hunt for their support, and to fight for their protection." 13 In Lado, in Africa, the bridegroom has to assure his father-in-law three times that he will

8

protect his wife, calling the people present to witness.1 Among the Touareg a man who deserts his wife is blamed, as he has taken upon himself the obligation of maintaining her.2

Among many of the lower races a man is not even permitted to marry until he has given some proof of his ability to support and protect his family. Indeed, so closely is the idea that a man is bound to maintain his family connected with that of marriage and fatherhood, that sometimes even repudiated wives with their children are, at least to a certain extent, supported by their former husbands.1 And upon the death of a husband, the obligation of maintaining his wife and her children devolves on his heirs, the wide-spread custom of a man marrying the widow of his deceased brother being not only a privilege, but, among several peoples, even a duty."

Turning to peoples who have reached a higher stage of culture :-Abu Shugâ' says that, among Muhammedans, parents are obliged to support their families, "if the children are both poor and under age, or both poor and lastingly infirm, or both poor and insane." But that this duty chiefly devolves on the father is evident from the fact that the mother is even entitled to claim wages for nursing them. Buddhistic law goes so far as to prescribe that the parents shall provide their son with a beautiful wife, and give him a share of the wealth belonging to the family. It has been observed that in the Confucian books there is no mention of any real duties incumbent upon the father towards his children; nor does the Decalogue contain anything on the subject; nor any law of ancient Greece or Rome. 10 But, as has been justly