The Child and Childhood in Folk-Thought by Alexander F. Chamberlain (read full novel txt) 📖

other lands know the system that makes the man follow in his father’s footsteps, and often ignores the woman altogether, not even counting her in the census of the people, as was formerly the case even in Japan and China, where a girl was not worthy to be counted beside the son. Of ancient Peru, Letourneau says: “Every male inherited his father’s profession; he was not allowed to choose another employment. By right of birth a man was either labourer, miner, artisan, or soldier” (100. 486). Predestination of state and condition in another world is a common theological tenet, predestination of state and condition in this world is a common social theory.

Vast indeed is the lore of birthdays, months and years, seasons and skies—the fictions, myths, and beliefs of the astrologist, the spiritualist, the fortune-teller, and the almanac-maker—which we have inherited from those ancestors of ours, who believed in the kinship of all things, who thought that in some way “beasts and birds, trees and plants, the sea, the mountains, the wind, the sun, the moon, the clouds, and the stars, day and night, the heaven and the earth, were alive and possessed of the passions and the will they felt within themselves” (258. 25). Here belongs a large amount of folk-lore and folk-speech relating to the defective, delinquent, and dependent members of human society, whose misfortunes or misdeeds are assigned to atavistic causes, to demoniacal influences.

 

Parenthood.

Among primitive peoples, the advent of a child, besides entailing upon one or both of the parents ceremonies and superstitious performances whose name and fashion are legion, often makes a great change in the constitution of society. Motherhood and fatherhood are, in more than one part of the globe, primitive titles of nobility and badges of aristocracy. With the birth of a child, the Chinese woman becomes something more than a mere slave and plaything, and in the councils of uncivilized peoples (as with us to-day) the voice of the father of a family carries more weight than that of the childless. With the civilized races to-day, more marriages mean fewer prison-houses, and more empty jails, than in the earlier days, and with the primitive peoples of the present, this social bond was the salvation of the tribe to the same extent and in the same way.

As Westermarck points out, there are “several instances of husband and wife not living together before the birth of a child.” Here belong the temporary marriages of the Creek Indians, the East Greenlanders, the Fuegians, the Essenes, and some other Old World sects and peoples—the birth of a child completes the marriage—“marriage is therefore rooted in family, rather than family in marriage,” in such cases. With the Ainos of the island of Tezo, the Khyens of Farther India, and with one of the aboriginal tribes of China, so Westermarck informs us, “the husband goes to live with his wife at her father’s house, and never takes her away till after the birth of a child,” and with more than one other people the wife remains with her own parents until she becomes a mother (166. 22, 23).

In some parts of the United States we find similar practices among the population of European ancestry. The “boarding-out” of young couples until a child is born to them is by no means uncommon.

 

Adoption.

Adoption is, among some primitive peoples, remarkably extensive. Among the natives of the Andaman Islands “it is said to be of rare occurrence to find any child above six or seven years of age residing with its parents, and this, because it is considered a compliment and also a mark of friendship for a married man, after paying a visit, to ask his hosts to allow him to adopt one of their children” (498. 57).

Of the Hawaiian Islanders, Letourneau remarks (100. 389, 390): “Adoption was rendered extremely easy; a man would give himself a father or sons almost ad infinitum.” In the Marquesas Islands “it was not uncommon to see elderly persons being adopted by children.” Moreover, “animals even were adopted. A chief adopted a dog, to whom, he offered ten pigs and some precious ornaments. The dog was carried about by a kikino, and at every meal he had his stated place beside his adopted father.” Connected with adoption are many curious rites and ceremonies which may be found described in Ploss and other authorities. Dr. Friedrich S. Krauss (280) has recently treated at some length of a special form of adoption symbolized by the cutting of the hair, and particularly known among the southern Slavonians. The cutting off the hair here represents, the author thinks, the unconditional surrendering of one’s body or life to another. The origin of the sacrifice of the hair is to be sought in the fact that primitive peoples have believed that the seat of the soul was in the hair and the blood, which were offered to the spirits or demons in lieu of the whole body. The relation between nurse and child has been treated of by Ploss and Wiedniann (167), the latter with special reference to ancient Egypt and the Mohammedan countries. In ancient Egypt the nurse was reckoned as one of the family, and in the death-steles and reliefs of the Middle Kingdom her name and figure are often found following those of the children and parents of the deceased. The wet-nurse was held in especial honour. The milk-relationship sometimes completely takes the place of blood-relationship. The Koran forbids the marriage of a nurse and a man whom, as a child, she has suckled; the laws of the Hanafi forbid a man to marry a woman from whose breast he has imbibed even a single drop of milk. Among the southern Slavonians: “If of two children who have fed at the breast of the same woman, one is a boy and the woman’s own child, and the other (adopted) a girl, these two must never marry.” If they are both girls, they are like real sisters in love and affection; if both boys, like real brothers. In Dardistan and Armenia also, milk-relationship prevents marriage (167. 263).

In Mingrelia as soon as a child is given to a woman to nurse, she, her husband, children, and grandchildren are bound to it by ties more dear even than those of blood-relationship; she would yield up her life for the child, and the latter, when grown up, is reciprocally dutiful. It is a curious fact that even grown-up people can contract this sort of relationship. “Thus peasant-women are very anxious to have grown-up princesses become then foster-children—the latter simply bite gently the breasts of their foster-mothers, and forthwith a close relationship subsists between them.” It is said also that girls obtain protectors in like manner by having youths bite at their breasts, which (lately) they cover with a veil (167. 263). Adoption by the letting or transfusion of blood is also found in various parts of the world and has farreaching ramifications; as Trumbull, Robertson Smith, and Daniels have pointed out. The last calls attention to the Biblical declaration (Proverbs, xxviii. 24): “There is a friend which sticketh closer than a brother,” underlying which seems to be this mystic tie of blood (214. 16).

The mourning for the death of children is discussed in another part of this work. It may be mentioned here, however, that the death of a child often entails other, sometimes more serious, consequences. Among the Dyaks of Borneo, “when a father has lost his child, he kills the first man he meets as he goes out of his house; this is to him an act of duty”

(100. 238).

 

Hereditary Bights.

The hereditary rights of children to share in the property of their parents have been made the subject of an interesting study by Clement Deneus (215), a lawyer of Ghent, who has treated in detail of the limitation of the patria potestas in respect to disposition of the patrimony, and the reservation to the children of a portion of the property of their parents—an almost inviolable right, of which they can be deprived only in consequence of the gravest offences. This reservation the author considers “a principle universally recognized among civilized nations,” and an institution which marks a progress in the history of law and of civilization (215. 49), while testamentary freedom is unjust and inexpedient. The author discusses the subject from the points of view of history, statute and natural law, social economy, etc., devoting special attention to pointing out the defects of the system of the school of Le Play,—primogeniture, which still obtains in England, in several parts of Germany, in certain localities of the Pyrenees, and in the Basque provinces.

In the countries of modern Europe, the testamentary power of the father is limited as follows: Austria (Code of 1812): One-half of parents’ property reserved for children. The law of 1889 makes exception in the case of rural patrimonies of moderate size with dwelling attached, where the father has the right to designate his heir. Denmark (Code of 1845): Father can dispose of but one-fourth of the property; nobles, however, are allowed to bestow upon one of their children the half of their fortune. Germany: No uniform civil legislation exists as yet for the whole empire. In the majority of the smaller states, in a part of Bavaria, Rügen, eastern Pomerania, Schleswig-Holstein, the Corpus Juris Civilis of Justinian is in force, while the Napoleonic code obtains in Rhenish Prussia, Hesse, and Bavaria, in Baden, Berg, Alsace-Lorraine. In Prussia, the reserve is one-third, if there are less than three children; one-half, if there are three or four. In Saxony, if there are five or more children, the reserve is one-half; if there are four or less, one-third. Greece: The Justinian novels are followed. Holland: The Napoleonic code is in force. Italy (Code of 1866): The reserve is one-half. Norway (Code of 1637, modified in 1800, 1811, 1825): The father is allowed free disposal of one-half of the patrimony, but for religious charities (_fondationspieuses_) only. Portugal: The legitimate is two-thirds. Roumania (Code of 1865): The same provision as in the Napoleonic code. Russia (Code of 1835): The father can dispose at pleasure of the personal property and property acquired, but the property itself must be divided equally. In Esthonia, this provision also applies to personal property acquired by inheritance. Spain (Code of 1889): The father can dispose of one-third of the patrimony to a stranger; to a child he can will two-thirds. He can also, in the case of farming, industry, or commerce, leave his entire property to one of his children, except that the legatee has to pecuniarily indemnify his brothers and sisters. Sweden (Code of 1734): In the towns, the father can dispose of but one-sixth of the patrimony; in the country, the patrimonial property must go to the children. The rest is at the will of the father, except that he must provide for the sustenance of his children. Switzerland: At Geneva, the Napoleonic code is in force; in the Canton of Uri, the younger son is sometimes specially favoured; in Zürich, the father can dispose of one-sixth in favour of strangers, or one-fifth in favour of a child; in Bâle, he is allowed no disposal; in the cantons of Neuchâtel and Vaud, the reserve is one-half, in Bern and Schaffhausen, two-thirds, and in Eriburg and Soleure, three-fourths. Turkey: The father can dispose of two-thirds by will, or of the whole by gift (215. 39-41).

In Prance, article 913 of the civil code forbids the father to dispose, by gift while living, or by will, of more than one-half of the property, if he leaves at his death but one legitimate child; more than one-third, if he leaves two children; more than one-fourth, if he leave three or more children. In