It often happens, indeed, as we have seen, that parents betroth their children when they are young.[1376] But, if such an engagement is not always binding even for the woman, it is of course all the less so for the man. “The choice among the Kalmucks,” Liadov says, “belongs entirely to the parents. Still, there is no constraint upon this point, and, if the son declares that the selection of his parents displease him, there is no further question about the matter.”[1377]
Moreover, marriage contracts are concluded among certain peoples by the parents of the parties, even when these are full-grown.[1378] Among the Iroquois, according to Mr. Morgan, the mother, when she considered her son of a suitable age for marriage, looked about for a maiden whom she thought likely to accord with him in disposition and temperament, and remonstrance or objection on the part of the children was never attempted.[1379] Among the Basutos, the choice of “the great wife” is generally made by the father.[1380] And, in many of the uncivilized tribes of India, parents are in the habit of betrothing their sons.[1381] In certain cases, the parents merely go through a form of selection, the matter having already been really settled by the parties concerned;[1382] and usually a man who has been induced to marry a woman he does not like, may divorce her and choose another according to his taste. Yet, speaking of the Kisáns, Colonel Dalton says that “there is no instance on record of a youth or maiden objecting to the arrangement made for them.”[1383] The paternal authority among these tribes of India implies, indeed, a family system of higher type than we are accustomed to find among wild races: it approaches the patria potestas of the ancient Aryan nations. Thus, among the Kandhs, in each family the absolute authority rests with the house-father; the sons have no property during the father’s lifetime, and all the male children, with their wives and descendants, continue to share the father’s meal, prepared by the common mother.[1384] The father chooses a full-grown woman as a wife for his young son. “In the superior age of the bride,” says Colonel Macpherson, “is seen a proof of the supremacy of the paternal authority amongst this singular people. The parents obtain the wives of their sons during their boyhood, as very valuable domestic servants, and their selections are avowedly made with a view to utility in this character.”[1385]
Among savages the father’s power depends exclusively, or chiefly, upon his superior strength. At a later stage, in connection with a more highly developed system of ancestor-worship, it becomes more ideal, and, at the same time, more extensive and more absolute. Obedience to the father is regarded as a sacred duty, the transgression of which will be punished as a crime against the gods. Indeed, so prevalent has this strengthened authority of the father been among peoples who have reached a relatively high degree of civilization, that it must be regarded as marking a stage in all human history.
The family system of the savage Indians differs widely, in this respect, from that which was established among the ancient inhabitants of Mexico and Peru. Concerning the Mexicans, Clavigero says that “their children were bred to stand so much in awe of their parents, that, even when grown up and married they hardly durst speak before them.”[1386] The following was an exhortation of a Mexican to his son:—“Honour all persons, particularly thy parents, to whom thou owest obedience, respect, and service. Guard against imitating the example of those wicked sons, who, like brutes that are deprived of reason, neither reverence their parents, listen to their instruction, nor submit to their correction; because whoever follows their steps will have an unhappy end, will die in a desperate or sudden manner, or will be killed and devoured by wild beasts.”[1387] A youth was seldom allowed to choose a wife for himself; he was expected to abide by the selection of his parents. Hence it rarely happened that a marriage took place without the sanction of parents or other kinsfolk, and he who presumed to marry without such sanction had to undergo penance, being looked upon as ungrateful, ill-bred, and apostate.[1388] The belief was, according to Torquemada, that an act of that kind would be punished by some misfortune.[1389] In a province of the Mexican empire, it was even required that a bridegroom should be carried, that he might be supposed to marry against his inclinations.[1390] Touching the Guatemalans, Mr. Bancroft says, “It seems incredible that the young men should have quietly submitted to having their wives picked out for them without being allowed any voice or choice in the matter. Yet we are told that so great was their obedience and submission to their parents that there never was any scandal in these things.”[1391] In the greater part of Nicaragua, matches were arranged by the parents; though there were certain independent towns in which the girls chose their husbands from among the young men, while the latter sat at a feast.[1392] Again, in Peru, Inca Pachacutec confirmed the law that sons should obey and serve their fathers until they reached the age of twenty-five, and that none should marry without the consent of the parents, and of the parents of the girl, a marriage without this consent being invalid and the children illegitimate.[1393]
Similar ideas formerly prevailed, and to some extent are still found, among the civilized nations of the Old World. The Chinese have a maxim that, as the Emperor should have a father’s love for his people, so a father should have a sovereign’s power over his family.[1394] From earliest youth the Chinese lad is imbued with such respect for his parents that it becomes at last a religious sentiment, and forms, as he gets older, the basis of his only creed—the worship of ancestors.[1395] Disobedience to parents is looked upon as a sin to be punished with death, whether the offender be an infant or a full-grown son or daughter. And in everything referring to the marriage of the children parents are omnipotent. “From all antiquity in China,” Navarette says, “no son ever did, or hereafter will, marry without the consent of his parents.”[1396] Indeed, according to Mr. Medhurst, it is a universally acknowledged principle in China that no person, of whatever age, can act for himself in matrimonial matters during the lifetime or in the neighbourhood of his parents or near senior kinsfolk. The power of these guardians is so great that they may contract a marriage for a junior who is absent from home, and he is bound to abide by such engagement even though already affianced elsewhere without their privity or consent.[1397] The consequence of this system is that, in many cases, the betrothed couple scarcely know each other before marriage, the wedding being the first occasion on which the man catches a glimpse of his wife’s face.[1398] In some parts of the Empire children are affianced in infancy.[1399]
In Japan, according to Professor Rein, a house-father enjoyed the same extensive rights as the Roman paterfamilias—an unlimited power over the person and property of his children.[1400] Filial piety is considered the highest duty of man, and not even death or the marriage relation weakens, to any great extent, the hold of a father on a child. “With affection on the one hand, and cunning on the other,” says Mr. Griffis, “an unscrupulous father may do what he will.... The Japanese maiden, as pure as the purest Christian virgin, will, at the command of her father, enter the brothel to-morrow, and prostitute herself for life. Not a murmur escapes her lips as she thus filially obeys.”[1401] Marriages are almost invariably arranged by the parents or nearest kinsfolk of the parties, or by the parties themselves with the aid of an agent or middleman known as the “nakōdo,” it being considered highly improper for them to arrange it on their own account. Among the lower classes, such direct unions are not unfrequent; but they are held in contempt, and are known as “yagō,” i.e., “meeting on a moor,”—a term of disrespect showing the low opinion entertained of them. The middleman’s duty consists in acquainting each of the parties with the nature, habits, good and bad qualities, and bodily infirmities of the other, and in doing his utmost to bring the affair to a successful conclusion. It seldom happens that the parties immediately interested communicate directly with the middleman; if they have parents or guardians, it is done by these, and, if not, by the nearest relation. The middleman has to arrange for a meeting between the parties, which meeting is known as the “mi ai,” literally “see meeting” and, if either party is dissatisfied with the other after this introduction, the matter proceeds no further. But, formerly, says Mr. Küchler, “this ante-nuptial meeting was dispensed with in the case of people of very exalted rank, who consequently never saw each other until the bride removed her veil on the marriage day.”[1402]
Among the ancient Arabs[1403] and Hebrews, fathers exercised very great rights over their families. According to the old law of Jahveism, a father might sell his child to relieve his own distress, or offer it to a creditor as a pledge.[1404] Death was the penalty for a child who struck a parent, or even cursed one;[1405] though the father himself could not inflict this penalty on his children, but had to appeal to the whole community.[1406] How important were the duties of the child to the parents, is shown in the primitive typical relation of Isaac to Abraham, and may, as Ewald remarks, be at once learned from the placing of the law on the subject among the Ten Commandments, and from its position there in immediate proximity to the commands relating to the duties of man towards God.[1407] According to Michaelis, there is nowhere the slightest trace of its having been the will of Moses that paternal authority and the subjection of sons should cease after a certain age.[1408] A Hebrew father not only disposed of his daughter’s hand, but chose wives for his sons,—the selection, however, being sometimes made by the mother.[1409]
Judging from the marked severity of filial duties among the Egyptians, some of which are distinctly alluded to in the inscription of Thebes, we may conclude that, in Egypt, much more was expected from a son than in any European nation of the present day.[1410] And in the ‘Precepts of Ptah-Hotep,’ which have been called “the most ancient book in the world,” we read that the father ought to command, the son to obey:—“The son who accepts the word of his father will attain old age on that account. God wishes us to obey; disobedience is abhorrent to Him.”[1411]
Among the Romans, the house-father had, in the earlier time, the jus vitae necisque—the power of life and death—over his children. He could imprison, sell, or kill his children under an express law of the Twelve Tables;[1412] and Plutarch says Brutus condemned his sons to death, without judicial forms, not as consul, but as father.[1413] “All in the household,” Mommsen remarks, “were destitute of legal rights—the wife and the child no less than the bullock or the slave.”[1414] Even the full-grown son and his children were subject to the house-father’s will,[1415] and in marriage without conventio in manum a daughter remained in the power of her father or tutor after marriage. The consent of the paterfamilias was indispensable to the marriage of children, sons and daughters alike;[1416] and so strict was this rule originally, that down to the reign of Marcus Aurelius the children of a mente captus could not contract a legal marriage while in the power of their father, the latter being incapable of giving his consent.[1417] The religious character of this unlimited paternal authority has been pointed out by M. Fustel de Coulanges. “In primitive antiquity,” he says, “the father is not only the strong man, the protector who has power to command obedience; he is the priest, he is heir to the hearth, the continuator of the ancestors, the parent stock of the descendants, the depositary of the mysterious rites of worship, and of the sacred formulas of prayer. The whole religion resides in him.”[1418]