water into the extended palm of the recipient's right hand,' evidently because the water is supposed to cleanse the gift from the baneful energy with which it may be saturated. On the other hand, "without a full knowledge of the rules prescribed by the sacred law for the acceptance of presents, a wise man should not take anything, even though he may pine with hunger. But an ignorant man who accepts gold, land, a horse, a cow, food, a dress, sesamum-grains, or clarified butter, is reduced to ashes like a piece of wood. . . . Hence an ignorant man should be afraid of accepting any presents; for by reason of a very small gift even a fool sinks into hell as a cow into a morass." Moreover, a gift, to be accepted by a Brâhmana, ought to be given voluntarily, not to be asked for. So, too, Hebrew writers are anxious to inculcate the duty of giving alms with an ungrudging eye, as also of not giving anything before witnesses-the latter, perhaps, with a view to preventing the evil influence which is likely to emanate from an envious spectator." An Atlas Berber, who had probably never before had anything to do with a European, spat on the coin which I gave him for rendering me a service, and my native friends told me that he did so for fear lest the coin, owing to some sorcery on my part, should not only itself return to me, but at the same time take with it all the money with which it had been in contact in his bag. Of the Annamites it is said that "for fear of bringing ill-luck into the place the people even decline presents. "15 The duty of hospitality is probably always limited by time, even though, among some peoples, a guest is said to be entertained as long as he pleases to stay. According 1 Âpastamba, ii. 4. 9. 8. Bühler, in Sacred Books of the East, ii. 122, n.8. 2 Laws of Manu, iv. 187, 188, 191. 3 Ibid. iv. 247 sq. 4 Tobit, iv. 7. Kohler, in Jewish Encyclopedia, i. 436. Cf. St. Matthew, vi. I sqq.; Brandt, Mandaische Schrif ten, pp. 28, 64: "If you give alms do not do it before witnesses." The 6 Mandæans were also forbidden to eat food prepared by a stranger or to take a meal in his company (Brandt, Mandäische Religion, p. 94). Ratzel, op. cit. iii. 418. Veniaminof, quoted by Dall, op. cit. p. 397 (Aleuts). Morgan, League of the Iroquois, p. 328. Bartram, in Trans. American Ethn. Soc. iii. pt. i. 42 (Creeks and Cherokee Indians). 5 4 to Teutonic custom, a guest might tarry only up to the third day. The Anglo-Saxon rule was, "Two nights a guest, the third night one of the household," that is, a slave. A German proverb says, "Den ersten Tag ein Gast, den zweiten eine Last, den dritten stinkt er fast." 3 So, also, the Southern Slavs declare that "a guest and a fish smell on the third day.". Burckhardt states that, among the Bedouins, if the stranger intends to prolong his visit after a lapse of three days and four hours from the time of his arrival, it is expected that he should assist his host in domestic matters; should he decline this, "he may remain, but will be censured by all the Arabs of the camp." The Moors say that "the hospitality of the Prophet lasts for three days"; the first night the guest is entertained most lavishly, for then, but only then, he is "the guest of God." The Prophet laid down the following rule: "Whoever believes in God and the day of resurrection, must respect his guest; and the time of being kind to him is one day and one night; and the period of entertaining him is three days; and after that, if he does it longer, he benefits him more; but it is not right for a guest to stay in the house of the host so long as to incommode him." According to Javanese custom, it is a point of honour to supply a stranger with food and accommodation for a day and a night at least. Among the Kalmucks special honour is paid to a stranger for one day only, whereas, if he remains longer, he is treated without ceremonies.8 Growing familiarity with the stranger naturally tends to dispel the superstitious dread which he inspired at first, and this, combined with the feeling that it is unfair of him to live at his host's expense longer than necessity requires, seems to account for the Grimm, Deutsche Rechtsalterthüm- er, p. 400. Leben, p. 447. 2 Quoted in Leges Edwardi Confessoris, 23: "Tuua nicte geste pe birdde nicte agen hine." Cf. Laws of Cnut, ii. 28; Laws of Hlothhere and Eadric, 15; Leges Henrici I. viii. 5. 3 Weinhold, op. cit. p. 447. 4 Krauss, op. cit. p. 658. 5 Burckhardt, Bedouins and Wahábys, p. 101 sq. 6 Lane, Arabian Society, p. 142 sq. 7 Crawfurd, op. cit. i. 53. 8 Bergmann, op. cit. ii. 285. rapid decline of his extraordinary privileges and for the short duration of his title to hospitable treatment. 3 2 Contrary to what is the case with other duties which men owe to their fellow-creatures, in every progressive society we find hospitality on the wane. In the later days of Greece and Rome it almost dwindled into a survival.1 In the Middle Ages hospitality was extensively practised by high and low; it was enjoined by the tenets of Chivalry, and the poorer people, also, considered it disgraceful to refuse to share their meals with a needy stranger. However, in the reign of Henry IV., Thomas Occlif complains of the decline of hospitality in England; and in the middle of the Elizabethan age, Archbishop Sandys says that "it is come to pass that hospitality itself is waxen a stranger. 4 The reasons for this decline are not difficult to find. Increasing intercourse between different communities or different countries not only makes hospitality an intolerable burden, but leads to the establishment of inns, and thus hospitality becomes superfluous. It habituates the people to the sight of strangers, and, in consequence, deprives the stranger of that mystery which surrounds the lonely wanderer in an isolated district whose inhabitants have little communication with the outside world. And, finally, increase of intercourse gives rise to laws which make an individual protector needless, by placing the stranger under the protection of the State. 1 Becker-Göll, Charikles, ii. 3 sqq. Idem, Gallus, iii. 28 sqq. 2 Sainte-Palaye, Mémoires l'ancienne chevalerie, i. 310. sur 3 Wright, Domestic Manners and Sentiments in England during the Middle Ages, p. 329 sqq. 4 Sandys, Sermons, p. 401. CHAPTER XXV THE SUBJECTION OF CHILDREN FROM the modes of conduct which affect the life or bodily welfare of a fellow-creature we shall pass to those relating to personal freedom. In its absolute form the right of liberty may be granted to a perfect being, but has no existence on earth. Ever since the conduct of men became subject to moral censure, the right of doing what they pleased was eo ipso denied them; and in resisting wrong men have not only in various ways interfered with the liberty of their fellow-creatures, but have considered such interference to be their right or even their duty. As to the question what conduct is wrong opinions have differed, and so also as to the proper means of interference ; but with neither of these questions are we concerned at present. Nor shall I deal with the subject of political liberty, nor with such restrictions as people lay on their own freedom by contract. I shall only consider facts bearing upon that state of subjection to which large classes of individuals are doomed by custom or law, on account of their birth or other circumstances beyond their own control-the subjection of children, wives, and slaves to their parents, husbands, or masters. Among the lower races every family has its head, who exercises more or less authority over its members. In some instances where the maternal system of descent prevails, a man's children are in the power of the head of 3 their mother's family or of their maternal uncle;1 but this is by no means the rule even among peoples who reckon kinship through females only. The facts which have been adduced as examples of the so-called “motherright" in most instances imply, chiefly, that children are named after their mothers, not after their fathers, and that property and rank descend exclusively in the female line; and this is certainly very different from a denial of paternal rights. Among those Australian tribes which have the system of maternal descent, the father is distinctly said to be the master of his children. In Melanesia, where the clan of the children is determined by that of the mother, she is, to quote Dr. Codrington, " in no way the head of the family. The house of the family is the father's, the garden is his, the rule and government are his." 5 As regards the Iroquois-among whom, at the death of a man, his property is divided between his brothers, sisters, and mother's brothers, whilst the property of a woman is transmitted to her children and sisters we are told that the mother superintends the children, but that the word of the father is law and must be obeyed by the whole household. Among the Mpongwe, who reckon kinship through the mother, the father has by law unrestricted power over his children. And in Madagascar, where children generally follow the condition of the mother," the commands of a father or an ancestor are, among all the tribes, "held as "held as most sacredly binding upon his descendants." 10 Whatever might have been the case in earlier times, it is a fact beyond dispute that among the great bulk of existing savages children are in the power of 6 5 Codrington, Melanesians, p. 346 Westermarck, op. cit. p. 110. 7 Seaver, Narrative of the Life of Mrs. Mary Jemison, p. 165. 8 Hübbe-Schleiden, Ethiopien, pp. 151, 153. 9 Westermarck, op. cit. p. 103. 10 Sibree, The Great African Island, p. 326. |