FAMILIAR (through the Fr. familier, from Lat. familiaris, of or belonging to the familia, family), an adjective, properly meaning belonging to the family or household, but in this sense the word is rare. The more usual meanings are: friendly, intimate, well known; and from its application to the easy relations of intimate friends the term may be used in an invidious sense of “free and easy” conduct on the part of any one not justified by any close relationship, friendship or intimacy. “Familiar” is, however, also used as a substantive, especially of the spirit or demon which attended on a wizard or magician, and was summoned to execute his master’s wishes. The idea underlies the notion of the Christian guardian angel and of the Roman genius natalis (see [Demonology]; [Witchcraft]). In the Roman Church the term is applied to persons attached to the household of the pope or of bishops. These must actually do some domestic service. They are supported by their patron, and enjoy privileges which in the case of the papal familiars are considerable. “Familiars of the Holy Office” were lay officers of the Inquisition, whose functions were chiefly those of police, in making arrests, &c., of persons charged.
FAMILISTS, a term of English origin (later adopted in other languages) to denote the members of the Familia Caritatis (Hus der Lieften; Huis der Liefde; Haus der Liebe; “Family of Love”), founded by Hendrik Niclaes (born on the 9th or 10th of January 1501 or 1502, probably at Münster; died after 1570, not later than 1581, probably in 1580). His calling was that of a merchant, in which he and his son Franz prospered, becoming ultimately wealthy. Not till 1540 did he appear in the character of one divinely endowed with “the spirit of the true love of Jesus Christ.” For twenty years (1540-1560) Emden was the headquarters at once of his merchandise and of his propaganda; but he travelled in both interests to various countries, visiting England in 1552 or 1553. To this period belong most of his writings. His primary work was Den Spegel der Gherechticheit dorch den Geist der Liefden unde den vergodeden Mensch H.N. uth de hemmelische Warheit betüget. It appeared in an English form with the author’s revision, as An Introduction to the holy Understanding of the Glasse of Righteousness (1575?; reprinted in 1649). None of his works bear his name in full; his initials were mystically interpreted as standing for Homo Novus. His “glass of righteousness” is the spirit of Christ as interpreted by him. The remarkable fact was brought out by G. Arnold (and more fully by F. Nippold in 1862) that the printer of Niclaes’s works was Christopher Plantin, of Antwerp, a specially privileged printer of Roman Catholic theology and liturgy, yet secretly a steadfast adherent of Niclaes. It is true that Niclaes claimed to hold an impartial attitude towards all existing religious parties, and his mysticism, derived from David Joris, was undogmatic. Yet he admitted his followers by the rite of adult baptism, and set up a hierarchy among them on the Roman model (see his Evangelium Regni, in English A Joyfull Message of the Kingdom, 1574?; reprinted, 1652). His pantheism had an antinomian drift; for himself and his officials he claimed impeccability; but, whatever truth there may be in the charge that among his followers were those who interpreted “love” as licence, no such charge can be sustained against the morals of Niclaes and the other leaders of the sect. His chief apostle in England was Christopher Vitel, a native of Delft, an “illuminate elder,” living at Colchester and Southwark, who ultimately recanted. The society spread in the eastern counties, in spite of repressive measures; it revived under the Commonwealth, and lingered into the early years of the 18th century; the leading idea of its “service of love” was a reliance on sympathy and tenderness for the moral and spiritual edification of its members. Thus, in an age of strife and polemics, it seemed to afford a refuge for quiet, gentle spirits, and meditative temperaments.
See F. Nippold, “H. Niclaes u. das Haus der Liebe,” in Zeitschrift für die histor. Theol. (1862); article “H. Niclaes” in A.J. van der Aa, Biog. Woordenboek der Nederlanden (1868); article “H. Nicholas,” by C. Fell Smith, in Dict. Nat. Biog. (1894); article “Familisten,” by Loofs, in Herzog-Hauck’s Realencyklopädie (1898).
(A. Go.*)
FAMILY, a word of which the etymology but partially illustrates the meaning. The Roman familia, derived from the Oscan famel (servus), originally signified the servile property, the thralls, of a master. Next, the term denoted other domestic property, in things as well as in persons. Thus, in the fifth of the laws of the Twelve Tables, the rules are laid down: SI · INTESTATO · MORITUR · CUI · SUUS · HERES · NEC · SIT · ADGNATUS · PROXIMUS · AMILIAM · ABETO, and SI · AGNATUS · NEC · ESCIT · GENTILIS · FAMILIAM · NANCITOR; that is, if a man die intestate, leaving no natural heir who had been under his potestas, the nearest agnate, or relative tracing his connexion with the deceased exclusively through males, is to inherit the familia, or family fortune of every sort. Failing an agnate, a member of the gens of the dead man is to inherit. In a third sense, familia was applied to all the persons who could prove themselves to be descended from the same ancestor, and thus the word almost corresponded to our own use of it in the widest meaning, as when we say that a person is “of a good family” (Ulpian, Dig. 50, 16, 195 fin.).
1. Leaving for awhile the Roman terms, to which it will be necessary to return, we may provisionally define Family, in the modern sense, as the small community formed by the union of one man with one woman, and by the Old theory. increase of children born to them. These in modern times, and in most European countries, constitute the household, and it has been almost universally supposed that little natural associations of this sort are the germ-cell of early society. The Bible presents the growth of the Jewish nation from the one household of Abraham. His patriarchal family differed from the modern family in being polygamous, but, as female chastity was one of the conditions of the patriarchal family, and as descent through males was therefore recognized as certain, the plurality of wives makes no real difference to the argument. In the same way the earliest formal records of Indian, Greek and Roman society present the family as firmly established, and generally regarded as the most primitive of human associations. Thus, Aristotle derives the first household (οἰκία πρώτη) from the combination of man’s possession of property—in the slave or in domesticated animals—with man’s relation to woman, and he quotes Hesiod: οἶκον μὲν πρώτιστα γυναῖκά τε βοῦν τ᾽ ἀροτῆρα (Politics, i. 2. 5). The village, again, with him is a colony or offshoot of the household, and monarchical government in states is derived from the monarchy of the eldest male member of the family. Now, though certain ancient terms, introduced by Aristotle in the chapters to which we refer, might have led him to imagine a very different origin of society, his theory is, on the face of it, natural and plausible, and it has been almost universally accepted. The beginning of society, it has been said a thousand times, is the family, a natural association of kindred by blood, composed of father, mother and their descendants. In this family, the father is absolute master of his wife, his children and the goods of the little community; at his death his eldest son succeeds him; and in course of time this association of kindred, by natural increase and by adoption, develops into the clan, gens, or γένος. As generations multiply, the more distant relations split off into other clans, and these clans, which have not lost the sense of primitive kinship, unite once more into tribes. The tribes again, as civilization advances, acknowledge themselves to be subjects of a king, in whose veins the blood of the original family runs purest. This, or something like this, is the common theory of the growth of society.
2. It was between 1866 and 1880 that the common opinion began to be seriously opposed. John Ferguson McLennan, in his Primitive Marriage and his essays on The Worship of Plants and Animals (see his Studies in Ancient History, Modern criticism second series), drew attention to the wide prevalence of the custom of inheriting the kinship name through mothers, not fathers; and to the law of “Exogamy” (q.v.). The former usage he attributed to archaic uncertainty as to fatherhood; the natural result of absolute sexual promiscuity, or of Polyandry (q.v.). Either practice is inconsistent, prima facie, with the primitive existence of the Family, whether polygamous or monogamous, whether patriarchal or modern. The custom of Exogamy, again,—here taken to mean the unwritten law which makes it incest, and a capital offence, to marry within the real or supposed kin denoted by the common name of the kinship,—pointed to an archaic condition of family affairs all unlike our Table of prohibited degrees. This law of Exogamy was found, among many savage races, associated with Totems, that is plants, animals and other natural objects which give names to the various kinships, and are themselves, in various degrees, reverenced by members of the kinships. (See [Totem and Totemism].) Traces of such kinships, and of Totemism, also of alleged promiscuity in ancient times, were detected by McLennan in the legends, folk-lore and institutions of Greece, Rome and India. Later, Prof. Robertson Smith found similar survivals, or possible survivals, among the Semitic races (Kinship in Early Arabia). Others have followed the same trail among the Celts (S. Reinach, Cultes, mythes et religions, 1904).
If arguments founded on these alleged survivals be valid, it may be that the most civilized races have passed through the stages of Exogamy, Totemism and reckoning descent in the female line. McLennan explained Exogamy as a result of scarcity of women, due to female infanticide. Women being scarce, the men of a group would steal them from other groups, and it would become shameful, and finally a deadly sin, for a man to marry within his own group-name, or name of kinship, say Wolf or Raven. Meanwhile, owing to scarcity of women, one woman would be the mate of many husbands (polyandry); hence, paternity being undetermined, descent would be reckoned through mothers.