[34] Lichtenstein, Travels in Southern Africa, i. 265. Alberti, De Kaffers aan de Zuidkust van Afrika, p. 116 sqq. Shooter, Kafirs of Natal, p. 98.
The period during which the paternal authority lasts varies. The daughter is in her father’s power till she marries, and as a rule no longer;[35] but in some instances his authority over her continues even after her marriage.[36] This, we have reason to believe, is particularly the case when the husband, on marrying, does not take his wife to his own home, but goes himself to live with her in the house or community of her father.[37] A father’s authority over his son frequently comes to an end as the young man grows up. Among the Fuegians a son becomes independent of his parents at a very early age, being allowed to leave their wigwam if he pleases.[38] Among the Togiagamutes, an Eskimo tribe, “the youth, as soon as he is able to build a kaiak and to support himself, no longer observes any family ties but goes where his fancy takes him.”[39] Of the Australian natives it is said that sons become independent when they have gone through the ceremonies by which they attain to the status of manhood;[40] among the Bangerang tribe of Victoria “after his twelfth year or so the boy was very little subject to the father, though parental affection always endured.”[41] Among the Bedouins “the young man, as soon as it is in his power, emancipates himself from the father’s authority, still paying him some deference as long as he continues in his tent; but whenever he can become master of a tent himself (to obtain which is his constant endeavour), he listens to no advice, nor obeys any earthly command but that of his own will.”[42] That a son is emancipated from the father’s power by getting full-grown or by leaving the household is probably the rule among the great majority of the lower races.[43] But here again instances to the contrary are not wanting.[44] In Flores the sons even of rich families are dressed like slaves at public feasts, so long as the father lives, as also at his funeral. This, our authority adds, is apparently the external sign of a strict patria potestas, which remains in force till the funeral; until then the son is the father’s slave.[45]
[35] See, e.g., Leuschner, in Steinmetz, Rechtsverhältnisse, p. 17 (Bakwiri); Fama Mademba, ibid. p. 65 (natives of the Sansanding States); Nicole, ibid. p. 100 (Diakité); Lang, ibid. p. 224 (Washambala); Kraft, ibid. p. 286 (Wapokomo); Marx, ibid. p. 349 (Amahlubi); Sorge, ibid. p. 404 (Nissan Islanders of the Bismarck Archipelago).
[36] See, e.g., Beverley, in Steinmetz, Rechtsverhältnisse, p. 206. What is said, ibid. p. 31, concerning the Banaka and Bapuku does not seem to agree with the statement p. 30, that the husband is the head of his household and the possessor of his wives.
[37] Cf. Mazzarella, La condizione giuridica del marito nella famiglia matriarcale, passim; infra, on the [Subjection of Wives]. The point in question, like the whole subject of the father’s authority among the lower races, requires much further investigation.
[38] Bove, Patagonia, Terra del Fuoco, p. 133.
[39] Petroff, loc. cit. p. 135.
[40] Curr, The Australian Race, i. 61.
[41] Idem, Recollections of Squatting in Victoria, p. 248.
[42] Burckhardt, Notes on the Bedouins and Wahábys, p. 201.