A History of Matrimonial Institutions, Vol. 1 of 3

by George Elliott Howard

Students of comparative institutions have generally regarded the family as the unit or germ from which the higher forms of social organism have been evolved. A German scholar declares that among all the races of antiquity "the constitution of the family was the basis and prototype of the constitution of the state."[8] The same theory is clearly set forth and the process of political expansion carefully described by Plato and also by Aristotle,[9] who base it upon their own observation both among "Hellenes and barbarians," and each illustrates it by reference to the Cyclops of Homer.[10] It is not wholly improbable, as will presently appear, that the family in some form must be accepted as the initial society, possibly among all the races of mankind. At a very early ethnical period the family, so far as it implies great authority, perhaps even the despotic power of the house-father over his wife and children, may often have been "patriarchal." To admit this, however, is very different from accepting as the primordial cell of social development the strictly defined patriarchal family of Sir Henry Maine's Ancient Law. In this book, which made its appearance in 1861, we are told that the "effect of the evidence derived from comparative jurisprudence is to establish that view of the primeval condition of the human race which is known as the Patriarchal Theory."[11] The primitive family as thus conceived is substantially the Roman family, not in all respects as it actually appears in the historical period, but as it is thought that it must have been before the process of transformation and decay began. It is a much more extended group than the modern family, embracing under the headship of the eldest valid male parent all agnatic descendants and all persons united to it by adoption, as well as slaves, clients, and other dependents.[12] The power of the house-father is most despotic, though exercised during his entire lifetime over the unmarried daughters and over even the married sons and their wives and children. Thus originally, it is said, the Roman pater familias has power of life and death, vita necisque, over his children. He may sell them into slavery, and sons, even those who hold the highest offices of state, can originally own no property.[13] The patriarch is king and priest of the household. As a sort of "corporation sole," he is likewise its representative and administrator; for the property is regarded as a part of the family, and on the death of the house-father the family devolves upon the universal successor.[14] A characteristic feature of the patriarchal family is agnation, or the system of tracing kinship through males only.[15] Agnatic relationship "is in truth the connection between members of the family, conceived as it was in the most ancient times."[16] Its foundation is "not the marriage of father and mother, but the authority of the father.... In truth, in the primitive view, relationship is exactly limited by patria potestas. Where the potestas begins, kinship begins; and therefore adoptive relatives are among the kindred. Where the potestas ends, kinship ends; so that a son emancipated by his father loses all rights of agnation. And here we have the reason why the descendants of females are outside the limits of archaic kinship." Indeed "it is obvious that the organization of primitive societies would have been confounded, if men had called themselves relatives of their mother's relatives."[17] The basis of the patriarchal family is the patria potestas, but in its "normal shape" it has not been and could not be "generally a durable institution."[18] Yet its former universality may be inferred from certain derivative institutions, such as the perpetual tutelage of women, the guardianship of minors, the relation of master and slave, and especially from agnation which is found "almost everywhere" and is "as it were a mould" retaining the imprint of the paternal powers after they have ceased to exist.[19] Applying this test chiefly, Maine finds evidence of the existence of the potestas among the Hebrews as well as all the peoples of the Aryan stock; and he believes that it would be hard to say "of what races of men it is not allowable to lay down that the society in which they are united was originally organized on the patriarchal model."[20]

The patriarchal family as thus constituted is the "type of an archaic society in all the modifications which it was capable of assuming." From it as in concentric circles have been successively evolved all the higher forms of political organization. Everywhere, as at Rome, "the aggregation of families forms the gens or house. The aggregation of houses makes the tribe. The aggregation of tribes constitutes the commonwealth."[21] The state is therefore the result of the expansion of its primordial cell;[22] and the genealogical organization of society precedes and overlaps the territorial. All these groups, lower and higher, regard themselves as united by the bond of kinship. But, as a matter of fact, the kinship is often assumed; and the heterogeneity of blood is explained as the result of the fiction of adoption by which relationship is artificially extended and strangers are admitted to the sacra. Without this fiction, says Maine, "I do not see how any one of the primitive groups, whatever were their nature, could have absorbed another, or on what terms any two of them could have combined, except those of absolute superiority on one side and absolute subjection on the other." Society could hardly have escaped from its "swaddling clothes."[23] Furthermore, a strong motive for the artificial extension of the family is derived from the worship of ancestors. The earnest desire of the ancients for male issue to perpetuate the family rites has tended to foster adoption, and it probably accounts for the levirate and other similar expedients to provide an heir.[24]

II. CRITICISM OF THE THEORY BY SPENCER AND McLENNAN

The patriarchal family of the Ancient Law, whose leading features have now been presented, reappears with slight modification in the later writings of Sir Henry Maine.[25] It has been widely accepted. Yet it was inevitable that a theory which on its face appears to neglect many of the most remarkable facts everywhere observable in the social life of primitive men[26] should arouse most serious doubt. Nor will it do, with Starcke,[27] to excuse the author on the ground that his conclusions are intended to be true only for the domain of the law-books, of comparative jurisprudence; for obviously his language will not bear that construction.

Herbert Spencer was the first writer to subject Maine's hypothesis to a luminous criticism.[28] First he points out that Maine has not been entirely guiltless of "the lofty contempt" entertained by civilized peoples for their barbarous neighbors, which he himself censures as a serious error. For he "has practically disregarded the great mass of the uncivilized" peoples, and "ignored the vast array of facts they present at variance with his theory." Nor, in favor of a primitive patriarchal state, is it safe to assume that "the implicit obedience of rude men to their parents is doubtless a primary fact." For, "though among lower races, sons, while young, may be subordinate, from lack of ability to resist; yet that they remain subordinate when they become men cannot be assumed as a uniform, and therefore as a primary, fact." This objection is sustained by reference to many savage and barbarous tribes among which parents exercise little or no control over the children. Again, it is by no means established that "the history of political ideas begins, in fact, with the assumption that kinship in blood is the sole possible ground of community in political functions." On the contrary, "political co-operation arises from the conflicts of social groups with one another;"[29] and though it may be facilitated by a feeling of common descent, examples of political combination may be produced in which relationship is not considered. Furthermore, it is hard to conceive how so advanced a conception of government as is implied by the patria potestas could exist in the "infancy of society;" nor has it yet been proved that in the primitive state the individual is entirely lost in the family group, which holds all property in common. Instances of "personal monopoly" of property among low races are not wanting. Finally the assumption that in the primordial state women remained in perpetual tutelage is without foundation; how far it is from the truth will be made clear in future chapters.[30]

But the patriarchal theory has been vigorously attacked in its very strongholds, the laws of the Hebrews and the primitive customs of the Indo-Germanic peoples. The well-known polemic of the late J. F. McLennan is of special interest in this connection.[31] Among none of the Aryan races, the Romans only excepted, does he find the patria potestas or the strict rule of agnation; while among them all, he believes, abundant evidence of original promiscuity and of the maternal system of kinship is disclosed. Even the Hebrew Scriptures, where Maine perceives "the chief lineaments" of the patriarchal society,[32] so far from revealing the patria potestas and agnation, bear witness to "beena"[33] marriage and the recognition of kinship in the female line.[34] Sir Henry Maine in this connection refers incidentally to Sir Robert Filmer in whose Patriarchia the existence of the patria potestas among the ancient Hebrews is alleged. But, as McLennan justly observes, "to those who have studied the controversy between Locke and Filmer[35] it may seem wonderful that the truth of Filmer's main position could be thus lightly assumed by anyone, and especially by any lawyer, who had read Locke's masterly reply to the pleadings of his opponent."[36] The principal conclusions of McLennan are sustained in a striking way, for a sister-branch of the Semitic race, by the researches of Wilken and Robertson Smith into the marriage customs of early Arabia.[37] The ancient Hebrews did not have agnation; yet they "traced descent from the father for the purposes of what we may call rank, or a feeling of caste," and this was the source of paternal power.[38] The house-father exercised a high degree of authority over his wives and children, but he can scarcely be regarded as a patriarch in the strict sense of the term.[39]

III. THE THEORY IN THE LIGHT OF RECENT RESEARCH

Let us now see somewhat more in detail what light is thrown by recent investigation on the controversy between Maine and McLennan. Westermarck has taken great pains to enumerate the uncivilized peoples, chiefly non-Aryan, among whom descent and usually inheritance follow the paternal side;[40] and he finds that the number is "scarcely less" than the number of those among whom the female line is exclusively recognized. But in many of these cases it seems probable that the parental rather than the agnatic system prevails, though the male line may take precedence. In some instances rank or authority descends from father to son, while in other respects the female line predominates. Doubtless more frequently than is usually imagined a mixed system rather than a strictly paternal or a strictly maternal system would be found to exist.[41] As the result of his inquiry, Westermarck rejects the hypothesis that kinship through the mother is a primitive and universal stage, though he does not substitute the agnatic theory in its place. Starcke, on the other hand, after an extended examination of the customs of rude races, especially in America and Australia, suggests that the paternal as a general rule probably preceded the maternal system which arose only with the development of the gentile organization.[42] But Starcke's evidence can scarcely be accepted as convincing.