The prevalence of paternal and marital affection accounts for the origin of the family (consisting of parents and children), and for the functions of the man as father and husband. The growing intensity of these sentiments has naturally increased the stability of the family tie; and other factors, of a selfish nature, have contributed towards the same result. From various points of view it is desirable for a man to have children. They are to him objects of pride; when grown-up, they add to his safety and power; they support him when he gets old; they make offerings to his spirit when he is dead. And no less useful is the possession of a wife. When the generative power is no longer restricted to a certain season of the year, she becomes a lasting cause of sensual delight; she is a mother of children; she manages the household; she acts as a carrier, she works in the field.
Every social institution has a tendency to become a matter of moral concern because of the persistence of habit. But the simplest paternal and marital duties have a deeper foundation than the mere force of the habitual. If a man leaves his wife and children without protection and support, the other members of the community will sympathise with them, and feel resentment towards the neglectful husband and father. He will be looked upon as the cause of their sufferings, because he omitted to do what other men in his position would have done. His conduct will be repulsive to everyone who himself possesses those sentiments of which he proves destitute. He will be held guilty of a breach of contract, since by marrying he took upon himself the burden of maintaining his wife and their common offspring. To thoughtful minds his responsibility towards his children is further increased by the fact that he is the author of their being, and for that reason the source of their misery. Finally, the community as a whole will suffer by his negligence.
The parents’ duty of taking care of their offspring lasts until the latter are able to shift for themselves. On the other hand, when the parents, in their turn, get in need of support, their care is to be reciprocated by the children. The practice of killing or abandoning decrepit parents is an exception even in the savage world, and, as we have seen, restricted to extreme cases in which it may be regarded as an act of kindness or of hard necessity. There are always savage peoples among whom aged parents, though suffered to live, are said to be grossly neglected by their children. But, so far as I know, these peoples are not numerous, and can hardly be regarded as representatives of a custom common to any larger ethnic group.
Thus, according to Hearne, “old age is the greatest calamity that can befall a Northern Indian; for when he is past labour, he is neglected, and treated with great disrespect, even by his own children. They not only serve him last at meals, but generally give him the coarsest and worst of the victuals; and such of the skins as they do not chuse to wear, are made up in the clumsiest manner into clothing for their aged parents.”[45] Yet among the same people Richardson witnessed “several unquestionable instances of tenderness and affection shown by children to their parents, and of compliance with their whims, much to their own personal inconvenience.”[46] In his work on the tribes of California Mr. Powers observes:—“filial piety cannot be said to be a distinguishing quality of the Wailakki, or, in fact, of any Indians. No matter how high may be their station, the aged and decrepit are counted a burden. The old man, hero of a hundred battles, sometime ‘lord of the lion heart and eagle eye,’ when his fading eyesight no more can guide the winged arrow as of yore, is ignominiously compelled to accompany his sons into the forest, and bear home on his poor old shoulders the game they have killed.”[47] But concerning the Indians of Upper California Beechey writes, “When any of their relations are indisposed, the greatest attention is paid to their wants, and it was remarked by Padre Arroyo that filial affection is stronger in these tribes than in any civilised nation on the globe with which he was acquainted.”[48] Among the Indians on the east side of the Rocky Mountains, “the aged are commonly treated with much respect, which they consider themselves as entitled to claim”; and they “are not suffered to want any thing which they need, and which it is in the power of their relations to procure for them.”[49] The religious teachers of the Iroquois inculcated the duty of protecting aged parents, as divinely enjoined:—“It is the will of the Great Spirit that you reverence the aged, even though they be as helpless as infants.”[50] The Aleuts described by Veniaminof considered disregard of one’s parents to be the greatest and most dishonourable of crimes; “we should sincerely love them,” they said, “do all we could toward their support, remain with them, and care for them until their death.”[51] The children of the Central Eskimo are very dutiful, obeying the wishes of their parents and taking care of them in their old age;[52] and statements to the same effect are made with reference to other Eskimo tribes.[53] Cranz, who did not generally panegyrise the moral qualities of the Greenlanders, wrote that the bonds of filial and parental love seem stronger in them than amongst other nations, and that “ingratitude in up-grown children towards their old decrepit parents, is scarcely exemplified among them.”[54] Among the Botocudos Prince Wied-Neuwied saw a young man carrying about his blind father, not leaving him alone for a single moment.[55] Among the Fuegians “grown-up children are expected to support their parents when they become aged; the son generally makes his father, if he is past work, a canoe every season, and if the aged man is a widower he lives entirely under the charge of his eldest son.”[56] The Australian natives are much praised for the regard with which they treat their parents and elders. With reference to the Western tribes, Bishop Salvado observes:—“Les fils adultes payent de retour l’affection de leurs parents. S’ils sont vieux, ils réservent pour eux les meilleurs pièces de gibier, ou de tout autre mets, et se chargent de venger leurs offenses.”[57] Among the Kukis of India, “when past work, the father and mother are supported by their children.”[58] Among the Bódo and Dhimáls “it is deemed shameful to leave old parents entirely alone; and the last of the sons, who by his departure does so, is liable to fine as well as disinheritance.”[59] Among the Betsileo of Madagascar “the old are never left destitute or to their own devices…. It is by no means uncommon to see the son carrying the aged parent on his back, when necessity or inclination demands locomotion.”[60] Among the Mandingoes “the aged who are unable to support themselves are always maintained and treated with respect by their children.”[61] That uncivilised races commonly regard it a stringent duty for children to maintain their aged parents and to administer to their wants, is also obvious from statements testifying their filial regard in general terms.[62] On the other hand, the fact that some peoples are said to be deficient in this sentiment, does not imply that they fail to recognise the simple duty of supporting old and helpless parents.
[45] Hearne, Journey to the Northern Ocean, p. 345 sq.
[46] Richardson, Arctic Searching Expedition, ii. 17.
[47] Powers, op. cit. p. 118 sq.
[48] Beechey, Voyage to the Pacific and Behring’s Strait, ii. 402.
[49] Harmon, Voyages and Travels in the Interior of North America, p. 348.
[50] Morgan, League of the Iroquois, p. 171.