of their husbands, as they may easily bewitch the food they prepare for them. For instance, the wife only needs to cut off a little piece of a donkey's ear and put it into the husband's food. What happens? By eating that little piece the husband will, in his relations to his wife, become just like a donkey; he will always listen to what she says, and the wife will become the ruler of the house. I also believe that the men on purpose abstain from teaching the women prayers, so as not to increase their supernatural power.1 In the Arabian Desert men are likewise afraid of their women "with their sly philters and maleficent drinks." In Dahomey "the husband may not chastise or interfere with his wife whilst the fetish is 'upon' her, and even at other times the use of the rod might be dangerous." 3 Women, and especially old ones, are very frequently regarded as experts in magic. Among the ancient Arabs, Babylonians, and Peruvians, as in Europe during the Middle. Ages and later, the witch appeared more frequently than the male sorcerer. So, also, in the Government of Tomsk in Southern Siberia, native sorceresses are much more numerous than wizards; and among the Californian Shastika all, or nearly all, of the

2

6

1 We are told that among the Ainos of Japan women are forbidden to pray, not only in conformity with ancestral custom, but because the men are afraid of the prayers of the women in general, and of their wives in particular. An old man said to Mr. Batchelor :-" The women as well as the men used to be allowed to worship the gods and take part in all religious exercises; but our wise honoured ancestors forbade them to do so, because it was thought they might use their prayers against the men, and more particularly against their husbands. We therefore think with our ancestors that it is wiser to keep them from praying" (Batchelor, Ainu and their Folk-Lore, p. 550 sq. Howard, op. cit. p. 195). Among the Santals the men are careful not to divulge the names of their household gods to their wives, for fear lest the latter should acquire undue influence with the gods, become witches, and

8

eat up the family with impunity when the protection of its gods has been withdrawn" (Risley, Tribes and Castes of Bengal, Ethnographic Glossary, ii. 232).

2 Doughty, Arabia Deserta, ii. 384. 3 Burton, Mission to Gelele, ii. 155. 4 Ploss-Bartels, op. cit. ii. 664, 666 sqq. Mason, op. cit. p. 255 sqq. Landtman, Origin of Priesthood, p. 198 sq. Angas, Savage Life and Scenes in Australia and New Zealand, i. 317 (Maoris). Connolly, 'Social Life in Fanti-land,' in Jour. Anthr. Inst. xxvi. 150.

5 Wellhausen, Heidentums, p. 159.

Reste

arabischen

6 Jastrow, Religion of Babylonia, PP. 267, 342.

7 Garcilasso de la Vega, First Part of the Royal Commentaries of the Yncas, i. 60.

Kostroff, quoted by Landtman, op. cit. p. 199.

2

shamans are women. The curses of women are greatly feared. In Morocco it is considered even a greater calamity to be cursed by a Shereefa, or female descendant of the Prophet, than to be cursed by a Shereef. According to the Talmud, the anger of a wife destroys the house; but, on the other hand, it is also through woman that God's blessings are vouchsafed to it. We read in the Laws of Manu :-" Women must be honoured and adorned by their fathers, brothers, husbands, and brothersin-law, who desire their own welfare. Where women are honoured, there the gods are pleased; but where they are not honoured, no sacred rite yields rewards. Where the female relations live in grief, the family soon wholly perishes; but that family where they are not unhappy ever prospers. The houses on which female relations, not being duly honoured, pronounce a curse, perish completely as if destroyed by magic. Hence men who seek their own welfare should always honour women on holidays and festivals with gifts of ornaments, clothes, and dainty food." A Gaelic proverb says, "A wicked woman will get her wish, though her soul may not see salvation." 5 Closely connected with the belief in the magic power of women, and especially, I think, in the great efficacy of their curses, is the custom according to which a woman may serve as an asylum. In various tribes of Morocco, especially among the Berbers and Jbâla, a person who takes refuge with a woman by touching her is safe from his persecutor. Among the Arabs of the plains this custom is dying out, probably owing to their subjection under the Sultan's government; but amongst certain Asiatic Bedouins, the tribe of Shammar, "a woman can protect any number of persons, or even of tents.""

1 Powers, Tribes of California, p. 246.

2 Sota, fol. 3 B, quoted by Katz, Der wahre Talmudjude, p. 110 sq.

3 Baba Meziah, fol. 59 A, quoted ibid. p. 112. Deutsch, Literary Remains, p. 56.

Laws of Manu, iii. 55 sqq.

5 Carmichael,

ii. 317.

Carmina Gadelica,

For some instances of this custom see Andree, 'Die Asyle,' in Globus, xxxviii. 302; Bachofen, Das Mutterrecht, p. 420 (Basques).

7 Layard, Discoveries in the Ruins of Nineveh and Babylon, p. 318.

Among the Circassians "a stranger who intrusts himself to the patronage of a woman, or is able to touch with his mouth the breast of a wife, is spared and protected as a relation of the blood, though he were the enemy, nay even the murderer of a similar relative" The inhabitants of Barèges in Bigorre have, up to recent times, preserved the old custom of pardoning a criminal who has sought refuge with a woman.2

Yet another factor remains to be mentioned as a cause of the subjection in which married women are held by many peoples of culture. We have noticed that in archaic civilisation the father's power over his children is extreme, that the State whilst weakening or destroying the clan-tie strengthened the family-tie, and that the father was invested with some part of the power which formerly belonged to the clan. This process must also have affected the status of married women. The husband's power over his wife is closely connected with the father's power over his daughter; for, by giving her in marriage, he generally transfers to the husband the authority which he himself previously possessed over her as a paternal right.

3

In modern civilisation, on the other hand, we find, hand in hand with the decrease of the father's power, a decrease of the husband's authority over his wife. But the causes of the gradual emancipation of married women are manifold. Life has become more complicated; the occupations of women have become much more extensive; their influence has expanded correspondingly, from the home and household to public life. Their widened interests have interfered with that submissiveness which is an original characteristic of their sex. Their greater education has made them more respected, and has increased their independence. Finally, the decline of the influence exercised by antiquated religious ideas is removing what has probably been the most persistent cause of the wife's subjection to her husband's rule.

1 Pallas, Travels through the Southern Provinces of the Russian Empire, i. 404.

sq.

2 Fischer, Bergreisen, i. 60.

3 Supra, ch. xxv. especially p. 627

CHAPTER XXVII

SLAVERY

SLAVERY is essentially an industrial institution, which implies compulsory labour beyond the limits of family relations. The master has a right to avail himself of the working power of his slave, without previous agreement on the part of the latter. This I take to be the essence of slavery; but connected with such a right there are others which hardly admit of a strict definition, or which belong to the master in some cases though not in all. He is entitled to claim obedience and to enforce this claim with more or less severity, but his authority is not necessarily absolute, and the restrictions imposed on it are not everywhere the same. According to a common definition of slavery, the slave is the property of his master,' but this definition is hardly accurate. It is true that even in the case of inanimate property the notion of ownership does. not involve that the owner of a thing is always entitled to do with it whatever he likes; a person may own a thing and yet be prohibited by law from destroying it. But it seems that the owner's right over his property, even when not absolute, is at all events exclusive, that is, that nobody but the owner has a right to the disposal of it. Now the master's right of disposing of his slave is not necessarily

1 Nieboer, Slavery as an Industrial System, p. 4 $99. Dr. Nieboer himself defines slavery as "the fact, that

one man is the property or possession of another beyond the limits of the family proper" (ibid. p. 29).

exclusive; custom or law may grant the latter a certain amount of liberty, and in such a case his condition differs essentially from that of a piece of property. The chief characteristic of slavery is the compulsory nature of the slave's relation to his master. Voluntary slavery, as when a person sells himself as a slave, is only an imitation of slavery true and proper; the person who gives up his liberty confers upon another, by contract, either for a limited period or for ever, the same rights over himself as a master possesses over his slave. If slavery proper could be based upon a contract between the parties concerned, I fail to see how to distinguish between a servant and a slave.

Dr. Nieboer has recently with much minuteness examined the distribution of slavery and its causes among savage races. It appears from his work that slavery is unknown in Australia, and in Oceania restricted to certain islands. In the Malay Archipelago, on the other hand, it prevails very extensively. Among the aboriginal tribes of India and the Indo-Chinese Peninsula it is fairly common, whereas no certain traces of it are found among the lower races of Central Asia and Siberia, with the exception of the Kamchadales. In North America it

exists along the Pacific Coast from Behring Strait to the northern boundary of California, but beyond this district it seems to be unknown. In Central and South America there are at any rate several scattered cases of it, and if our knowledge of the South American Indians were less fragmentary, many other instances might perhaps be added. In savage Africa there are only one or two districts where no certain cases of slavery are encountered, whilst large agglomerations of slave-keeping tribes occur on the Coast of Guinea and in the district formed by Lower Guinea and the territories bordering the Congo.'

Slaves are kept only where there is employment for them, and where the circumstances are otherwise favourable to the growth of slavery. Its existence or non-existence

1 Nieboer, op. cit. p. 47 sqq.