[9] Westermarck, op. cit. p. 103.
[10] Sibree, The Great African Island, p. 326.
The extent of the father’s power, however, is subject to great variations. Among some savage peoples, as we have seen, he may destroy his new-born child; among others infanticide is prohibited by custom. Among some he may sell his children,[11] among others such a right is expressly denied him.[12] Frequently he gives away his daughter in marriage without consulting her wishes; but in other cases her own consent is required, or she is allowed to choose her husband herself.[13] Marriage by purchase does not imply that “a girl is sold by her father in the same manner, and with the same authority, with which he would dispose of a cow.”[14] It seems that the paternal authority is always in some degree limited by public opinion. Among the Káfirs of the Hindu-Kush, for instance, though the head of the house is described as an autocrat in his own family, the son, backed by public opinion, may, and does, openly quarrel with and threaten his father in cases when the father’s actions have been of a particularly gross character.[15]
[11] Schadenberg, ‘Negritos der Philippinen,’ in Zeitschr. f. Ethnologie, xii. 137. Post, Afrikanische Jurisprudenz, i. 51 sq. (Bogos, Fantis, Dahomans). Paulitschke, Ethnographie Nordost-Afrikas, p. 189. Leuschner, in Steinmetz, Rechtsverhältnisse, p. 16 sq. (Bakwiri). Among the Banaka and Bapuku, in the Cameroons, the father may give his daughter in payment for a debt, but not his son (ibid. p. 31).
[12] Kraft, in Steinmetz, Rechtsverhältnisse, p. 285 (Wapokomo). Rautanen, ibid. p. 329 (Ondonga).
[13] Westermarck, op. cit. p. 215 sqq.
[14] Leslie, Among the Zulus and Amatongas, p. 194. Westermarck, op. cit. ch. x.
[15] Robertson, Káfirs of the Hindu-Kush, p. 474.
The essence of dependence lies in obedience and submission. To judge from what is said about children’s behaviour towards their parents, the authority of the father must among some savages be practically very slight.
The South American Charruas “ne défendent rien à leurs enfans, et ceux-ci n’ont aucun respect pour leurs pères.”[16] Among the Brazilian Indians, according to von Martius, respect and obedience on the part of children towards their parents are unknown.[17] Among the Tarahumares of Mexico “the children grow up entirely independent, and if angry a boy may even strike his father.”[18] We are told that among the Aleuts parents “scarcely ever enjoy so much authority as to compel their own children to shew them the least obedience, or to go a single step in their service”;[19] but this does not seem to hold good of all of their tribes.[20] Of the Kamchadales Steller states that the children insult their parents with all sorts of bad talk, stand in no fear of them, obey them in nothing, and are consequently never commanded to do anything, nor punished.[21]