The Family and its Members Part 4

From the Tribute, _To My Father_, by HORNELL HART.

"To dwell in the wide house of the world; to stand in true att.i.tude therein; in success to share one's principles with the people; in failure to live them out alone; to be incorruptible by riches or honor; unchangeable by poverty; unmoved by perils or power--these I call the qualities of a great man."--MENCIUS.

"For the man who is such as no longer to delay being among the number of the best is like a priest and minister of the G.o.ds, using the deity that is planted within him, that which makes a man uncontaminated by any pleasure, unharmed by any pain, untouched by any insult, feeling no wrong, a fighter in the n.o.blest fight, who cannot be overpowered by pa.s.sion, one dyed deep with justice, understanding that only what belongs to himself is matter for his activity, yet remembering also that every human being is his kinsman, and that to care for all men is according to mans nature."--MARCUS AURELIUS.

"'Tis not in battles that from youth we train The governor who must be wise and good.

Wisdom doth live with children round her knees; Books, leisure, perfect freedom, and the talk Man holds with week-day man in the hourly walk Of the mind's business; this is the stalk True power doth grow on."--WORDSWORTH.

=Historic Background of Fatherhood.=--The father seems to have had a precarious attachment to the family in earlier forms of life. As Le Tourneau well says, "The animal family is especially maternal; although father birds often share parental duties, many mammals are less developed in duration and strength of affection." Fathers, mothers, and their offspring are not closely grouped in lower life.

The relation of the s.e.xes, even when the human was reached, seems not to have carried with it a sense of the double obligation of parenthood. "Marriage was brittle in the early times," says Sir John Lubbock. The obvious relationship of mother and child, the lack of such irrefutable testimony to parenthood in the case of man, and other elements of primitive experience lending confusion to the situation, made it a process of time and a test of growing intelligence for men to learn that babies take two parents to give them birth.

When the human male did learn that he was a father, as his mate was a mother, it seems to have mentally intoxicated him, and led the way to many social vagaries. The grotesque comedy of the couvade, which proved a tragedy so often for the poor mother compelled by the custom to rise in her weakness and even neglect her new-born baby, in order to do double work and to tempt the appet.i.te of her lord after his make-believe pangs of childbirth, was one sign that primitive consciousness found the new knowledge of double parentage very exciting.

The varieties of phallic worship found in so many ages and among so many peoples show how man plumed himself upon the generative function and how he linked it with the G.o.d-idea. The "religious dedication of women," which gratified at once the l.u.s.t of priests and the demands of ancient theology that the G.o.ds should have the best of everything earthly, is another testimony to the preoccupation of early man with s.e.x in its relation to religion. This idea of the sacrifice of s.e.x-relationship to the G.o.ds pa.s.sed down through the ages until actual celibacy became the ideal of the holy life and the Divine was supposed to be better served by monks and nuns than by fathers and mothers.

In the family relation the experience of fathers, after they knew themselves to be such, has been widely varied and not along any single line of development. To quote Le Tourneau again, "There has been no strict relation between intellectual development and the form of s.e.xual union. Even among monkeys, as in men, we find both polygamy and monogamy; and bees and other forms of lower life show a high degree of social organization and division of labor without the inst.i.tution of the family at all." The relation of the s.e.xes has always been a deep concern of human society even in most primitive forms of social order, but after men knew the connection between the gratification of s.e.x-instinct and the procreative function, they began to reason about and to make more definite the customs that outlined permitted marriage. The varieties of social expression in these ancient customs is witness alike to economic pressure, the effect of climate and immigration, political struggle and the inst.i.tutions of war and of private property.

=Purchase and Capture of Wives.=--Purchase and capture began early to run a race in the supply of wives. Purchase, which kept the twain together in nearness to one or the other side of the family line, was usually best for women; especially when, as often happened, it gave her the protection of her own blood relations. Capture, on the other hand, made woman not only the possession of her husband in a peculiar sense as separating her from all who might, through the working of natural affection, act as her helpers in time of need, but made it possible for the slavery of the wife to the husband to take on more cruel forms. Although, it must be said, even capture gave a few women of superlative charm a chance to take precedence of common wives gained in the usual manner.

Two influences, one from the custom to allow marriages only within a certain blood bond, and one to allow marriages only outside that family relationship, have worked in the first instance to preserve certain racial traits from extinction, and in the second place to mix the common elements of human nature to the enrichment of the common stock. This balancing regard for the known and allurement of the novel has also worked to give manifold forms of family a.s.sociation, since those customs were superseded.

It would seem that not only were "trial marriages" for individuals an ancient, not at all a modern device, to see how the twain could get along together, but varying trial forms of marriage for racial, tribal, and national groups have made all manner of experiments to see what on the whole would serve best the social need in the family relationship.

That process of wide experimentation at last settled into the ideal and practice of one father-head, at least, even if still allowing more than one wife and mother within its bond. That father-head seems to have found his place only on condition of grant from society of complete authority over wife and children.

=The Patriarchal Family.=--The patriarchal family, which Sir Henry Maine described so well, but which he mistakenly supposed to be the first great type of familial a.s.sociation, placed firmly at the centres of social order the power and responsibility of the man. Doubtless that power and responsibility drew their chief sanction from the idea of man as the real source of being. After man learned that he was as much a parent in being father as woman was a parent in being mother, nothing seemed to have contented him but spiritual supremacy in parenthood. The cla.s.sic picture and interpretation of this phase of family development is contained in the great drama of the Greeks, the trilogy of Agamemnon, Clytemnestra, Electra, Orestes, and the Erinnyes. Here we see how the mother-side of life, once so powerful as representative of tribal unity, was set aside and overborne by the father-side, as Apollo proudly claims all generative power for man and relegates the mother to the position of an underling nurse. It will be remembered, however, that Athena, although, as Apollo said, "having a father only," makes the mothers still invaluable as guardians of the family altar and as those who can bless or blight both the fruitage of the earth and of the marriage bed.

The Greeks, by virtue of their superior self-consciousness when pa.s.sing through radical social changes, and by virtue also of their power of literary portrayal of experience, have set down for us, for all time, the way by which man attained his unlimited power over woman and over the family order.

We need not accept in full measure Dr. Lester Ward's picturesque story of the manner in which women were made subject to men, _i.e._, that female s.e.x-selection so overdid the business of rewarding with favor the strength, the fighting quality, and the cunning which grew to mental power in the male, that when human men and women were reached, woman found a master ready-made by her subhuman sisters. We may, however, find a most suggestive indication of the real reasons for that masculine supremacy in Doctor Ward's testimony to the way in which the female s.e.x, when it had the power of special selection of the kind of mates it wanted, set a fashion in masculine attainment which did work later against her own command of the s.e.x-relation.

Women did not become subject to men because of physical weakness. The savage woman does continuous work heavier and more strength-demanding than that a.s.signed to the savage man. It was not even that the primitive woman had always to carry the child as she worked, and had therefore a double burden, although that greatly helped men in gaining supremacy. It was rather that the larger leisure of primitive man and his consequent development of thought and imagination enabled him to secure religion and statecraft as allies to his physical claims. The intellectual side of the male development was doubtless greatly aided by female selection, and when man was reached he already knew how to outwit other men and most women in the race for power.

=The Three Chief Sources of Influence.=--It has been well said that the "three great sources of influence in barbarous as in civilized countries are religion, military power, and money." All these influences became masculine monopolies ages ago.

The ancient woman was sometimes a priestess and often a healer in her simple fashion and in all ages has acted as nurse in illness and care-taker of the aged and the feeble when these have received care.

She has been mistress of the ceremonials of birth and death and marriage when these have been parts of the family ritual, and courtship has been largely in her charge. All the customs that relate to intimate household experiences have been shared by women as ritual and rule of life.

Men, however, took over the simple elements of religious feeling and social requirement in which women bore so great a part and made of them religious cults and theologies, and they then became a masculine monopoly. Men also took over the simple healing of gifted women and made it first the prerogative of the "medicine man" and at last of the medical profession, from which women were barred until very lately.

The social customs which women once had power to enforce in so many ways became the "law," made and executed solely by men. Art, science, literature, grew to great proportions as man acquired the opportunity and the skill to concentrate his intelligence upon specialties of effort; and from all the walks of educational preparation and of professional achievement women were debarred. Hence, in the family order, in which the first and obvious place of women had been relatively high, man took the position of mastery by right of religious priesthood, by right of legal supremacy, and by right of monopoly of the money power.

Back of all this lay the a.s.sumption of the superior relation of the father to the spiritual life of the child.

Man gained his larger leisure first by the use of women as slaves when individual women became the property of individual men, and later by conquest over other men through which process he secured more slaves, and finally by the military systems that in various forms gave some men a chance to work at what they liked and from which they could gain advantage in the growing complexity of increasing social organization.

Man's larger leisure, which gave him money power or its equivalent in earlier forms of exchange, could not have been secured by him had not woman been socially and by religious sanction set to the constant task of the family service and the more peaceful occupations of primitive agriculture.

=Ancient Military Training of Youth.=--Doubtless man's military prestige and power gave him the greatest advantage over woman and was the source, more than anything else, of her subjection in the family order. This came about not only because military success gave the women of conquered tribes into the absolute power of the conquerors, and broke for such the social bond of remaining mother-right, but because of the special training of boys and young men which the military systems of all ages have initiated. "The ancient fraternities," and the manner of education which separated those who would be "braves" from the family life in early youth, the strong bond of a common purpose made appealing to youthful imagination by mystic ceremonials and burnt into the consciousness by painful "initiations,"

all combined to teach men how to work together for common ends and in a way unknown to the training and opportunity of women.[4] This it was which gave a consistency and a power to man's collective life which woman could not gain in the past, and exclusion from which enabled man to become her legal and economic master even within the home.

The economic power which man acquired through specialization of labor, made possible for him by social excuse from exhausting personal service within the family; the political power, made possible for him by military achievement, from which women for the most part were strictly barred by the "Trade Unionism" of war preparation; the intellectual power, made a s.e.x-monopoly in education and professional use and opportunity; and the religious sanction of priesthood and theology, which fastened all these to law and government, secured the complete subjection of mothers to fathers and gave woman in the family the status of her infant children.

=Ancestor-worship.=--This triple influence of money, military power, and religion, gave the definite basis for ancestor-worship, which has been so widespread and so influential in the setting of social customs. Ancestor-worship, with its separate family ceremonials, for which the wife must learn her husband's family ritual, led to child-marriage, and that in turn to the slavery of the wife not only to the husband but to the older women of his family. Child-marriage led also to many tragedies of racial decay before it was seen to be inimical to strength and power of achievement. When child-marriage was not a part of marriage customs, however, and a suitable age was demanded, for s.e.x-unions, ancestor-worship made the position of the father secure. He alone could pa.s.s on the name and inheritance, the family worship and the dutiful service of his forefathers, to the children yet to be. The Greek poem before referred to shows in the pathetic attempt of Electra, the loyal daughter of the slain Agamemnon, to offer the required sacrifices at her father's grave, and her joy that the return of the son could make such sacrifices valid for peace of the dead and the service of the living yet to be born, shows vividly how religion made firm and binding the father's place in the family.

So deeply did this religious sanction of ancestor-worship affect the social "mores" that, as is shown so clearly in Spartan history, no man could shirk his duty of marriage and of parenthood without social opprobrium. The well-known anecdote related by Plutarch of the youth who, educated rigorously to show respect to the aged fathers, is praised for flouting a grey-haired bachelor and refusing to rise and give him a seat in the open square because, as the youth scornfully says, "No children of yours will ever make sacrifice for his ancestors," pictures vividly the sense of responsibility to the family life once almost universal.

This feeling, bred by ancestor-worship, has persisted long after the church in its various forms has superseded the ancient family worship.

We find it as late as in Colonial times in Protestant New England, where the bachelor was fined and subjected to humiliating community supervision and the spinster, almost unknown above twenty years of age, if persisting in her single life was treated as an exception to be held in social tutelage.

=The Double Standard of Morals.=--The triple bond of money, military power, and economic supremacy, which made men masters in the family life, made them also able to free themselves from exclusive devotion to one wife, whether under the law of polygamy or professed monogamy; as it has been possible for men to divorce their wives for slight causes, while wives often received the death penalty for even supposed infidelity. It has also inst.i.tuted and maintained for ages a double standard of morals by which the same act mutually shared by men and women has been for men a slight peccadillo and for women a deadly sin.

Chast.i.ty has been made almost the sole virtue of women, invasion of which even by resisted force has destroyed her "honor," and voluntary rejection of which has made her a creature of social ostracism. Man, on the other hand, has been forgiven all manner of slips from the straight and narrow way of marital fidelity, provided he could achieve something of importance in the world of thought or action.

This double standard of morals has reacted upon the family not only in preventing women from establishing social conditions suitable for their own best development and that of their children but has thrown over the home the dark shadow of commercialized prost.i.tution with its cloud of evil thought, physical degeneracy and defrauded childhood.

=Basic Needs for Equality of Human Rights.=--When women as mothers have no power of guardianship of their own children; when they as persons have no power of self-defense against cruelty and outrage of their own fathers or husbands; when as members of society they have no contract-power but must suffer all manner of injustice unless highly fortunate in their male representative; when as citizens of a so-called democratic state they have no voice in either law or its enforcement, then they are indeed a subject cla.s.s. Any subject cla.s.s dependent upon privilege or special favor for all the order and circ.u.mstance of life is clearly not a fit part of modern democratic society. It is, therefore, of tremendous social importance to the family, as truly as to all other inherited inst.i.tutions, that women are now rapidly emerging from that subject condition of perpetual minority under the law to the individual responsibility and self-protective power of the legal adult. This pa.s.sage "from status to contract" was too long delayed (the position of women after the affirmation of liberty and equality for men in modern forms of government being so illogical as to cause much disturbance in the body politic), but it has, after all, been rapid in its final steps. To-day the ideal of equal rights between the s.e.xes and in relationship of men and women to society-at-large is fully accepted by a majority of the enlightened. What is before us is the slow and in some respects difficult task of working out that ideal in social adjustments. While at work on this task it behooves us to go over the past experience more carefully than many have yet done, to note what the patriarchal family gave to society and through society to wife and children as well as what of their just due it took from or refused to give to wife and children.

=Special Protection of Women Needed in Ancient Times.=--It seems not too much to say that in the time and place where men in general first attained power of property rights, of military supremacy, and of religious priesthood, most women needed some special protection from particular men. In such period and condition the s.e.x-relationship itself had not attained its present spiritual quality. There was apparently required the sense of ownership on the part of one man to safeguard those women most generally desired from exploitation by all men. Some legal order in the oppression of women by society had to precede, apparently, the abolition of oppression of women itself; just as to-day the effort is to "humanize war" before we can become wise and strong enough to abolish it. No social device that the imagination can conceive could be so well fitted to protect motherhood, in an age before justice could give power of self-protection, as was that of the patriarchal family. The religious aspect of ancestor-worship, the political aspect of the building up of great families from which the state could derive its power and the economic necessity of having the industrial system develop more highly all vocations, combined in the patriarchal system to make the family the main expression of social order and the chief heir of social privilege. It seems apparent, therefore, that a socially delegated power of absolute control by the father was highly useful in the period when the state was growing, and the school was separating itself from the hearth-stone, and the economic system was changing from barter to the complicated exchange of the present time, and religion itself was merging its ideals from the innumerable private ceremonials of n.o.ble families into the worship of one chief, emperor, or despot who must receive the homage of all, and so on to the incarnation of divine power in one King and Lord of Heaven.

"Order" is not only, as we were once told, "Heaven's first law," but social order, human experience declares, comes before the recognition of equality of personal rights within that order. The great lady of the Middle Ages who begged of her King a "new Lord" within a month after the death of her husband because her "lands were being taken and her estate defrauded by hostile lords who surrounded her castle," and only a husband for herself, a new father for her children and a new owner for the inherited property could protect from this robbery, realized the social advantages of the patriarchal system in appropriate social conditions.

To-day, when so much of the community protection surrounds the family and so much in education, law, and social custom aids the wife and mother toward independent action, we are naturally horrified at the thought of life and death power of the husband and father and shocked at recital of the humiliations and privations of women's subject condition in the past. We have to remember, however, that social history seems to indicate that no system of human a.s.sociation has grown up and persisted without great need for some, at least, of its dominant features. The protection of wife and child, which rested for so long upon man's conception of "property" to be defended from outside attack, was a chief necessity in the rougher and coa.r.s.er ages of the world.

The main hindrance to social progress, however, is the tendency of forms of inst.i.tutional life and methods of social relationship to persist after the need for them has ceased. This hindrance has been shown perhaps most harmfully in the retention of the patriarchal power of the father after his abdication from the throne was called for by ethical and humane considerations. A form of family relationship entrenched in inst.i.tutions of age-long prestige and supported by the triple influence of money, military power, and religion, lived on after its work in securing social order had been accomplished and long after its usefulness was entirely ended. After the father-headship ceased to express the highest ideals of either s.e.x-relationship or parental devotion, its retention produced social evils and personal wrongs which made a conscious and determined movement for "Woman's Rights" necessary, and still makes necessary close and definite attention to the equalizing of opportunities.

=The Social Value of the Patriarchal Family.=--It is well, however, to consider not only the negative but the affirmative side of the social inheritance of the patriarchal family, in which has grown up and developed the ideal of monogamic marriage. What did the father gain, intellectually and ethically, from that patriarchal order, and what did he give, not only in protection of wife and children but toward their moral development in social life?

The effect of unlimited power over another is generally worse for the one who wields than for the one who is subjected to that power, and the faults of men have their deepest origin in the family order that gave all its members into his complete control. Man's faults of dogmatism, of selfish domination, of sacrifice of personal life to further desired political or economic ends, have roots in the patriarchal family. Man's careless misuse of his own moral ideals for purposes of ambition was certainly fostered by this sense of ownership of women and children with legal power to use them for pleasure or profit.

Something else, however, came to man in and through the patriarchal system. Society, that gave him liberty to rule the family, rigidly required of him that such rule should be in the social interest, as that interest was then understood.

It was obviously for the interest of society that women should be chaste, in order not only that a man might know his own children but that the family line and inheritance should be preserved from insecurity. A man's infidelity to the marriage vow might seem to do no perceptible harm if practised outside the family circle, but woe to him if he trespa.s.sed upon the family ownership of another man.

There might be more than one wife acknowledged as secondary in status or a mere concubine slave to help in domestic duties while giving pleasure to the head of the family, but there was early a social demand for one chief wife whose offspring should inherit the family power. Although even in this fixed demand there were loopholes of "legal fiction of adoption" by which some favorite child not of the actual line of inheritance might be given the place of honor and control. Again, if the father under the patriarchal system was the recognized economic master he was also legally held to the financial support of wife and child. In the collective family life his obligation extended far through the line of kinship and of alliance by marriage, and to-day in many Oriental countries the father may be bound to poverty as the responsible support of a large company of dependent pensioners. It must also be remembered that if the ancient father, as head of the family, held the permission of society to discipline wife and child even to severity of corporal punishment he was also charged with the task of insuring their obedience to whatever social laws were in force and was himself legally liable to punishment if he did not keep his family law-abiding. That moral responsibility for the behavior of his family, early outlined in detail, was increasingly eased by the growth of personal relationship of women and youth to society. That was shown in the laws that defined the extent of punishment allowed the father-head. Although he might be secure in his legal right and duty to bestow on wife or apprentice "moderate castigation," an old Welsh law limited him to "three blows only with a broomstick on any part of the person except the head;" and another ancient law allowed the use only of "a stick no longer than the husband's arm and no thicker than his middle finger" in the case of the wife; while Blackstone's well-remembered restriction was to "a stick no bigger than his thumb."

The moral responsibility of the father for his children, carrying with it as it did the liability of prison or even death for the misbehavior of sons, was governed by various statutes which show in the Middle Ages a growth toward freeing children from parental control and placing upon them when "of age" a definite and personal legal bond and penalty.

For example, we read that the Anglo-Saxon law held many children at the age of ten responsible for some acts which were forbidden, but that most youth were legally minors until the age of fifteen. Until the early period of the eighteenth century it was still possible for a parent to legally sell his children, "a girl up to fourteen, a boy under seven." And after that period a wayward or troublesome son or daughter, or any of the offspring, when the parents could be proved financially incapable of their care, could be sent to convent or monastery.

The ability to bear arms seems to have been the criterion for legal coming of age. The Romans, with their heavy weapons, held the son in tutelage until the age of fifteen. The Germans, with their use of light darts, gave their sons power of self-control at the age of twelve. In the heyday of feudalism "a knight's son became of age when he could swing his father's sword" and "a yeoman's son when he could swing his father's battle-axe," and by that process the fathers were released from liability to punishment for their sons' misdemeanors.

On the other hand, after the tenth century, no child under ten could be punished for his father's crimes unless it could be shown that he was a party to them, and the custom of carrying family autonomy so far as to wipe out innocent and guilty alike, when a treason or crime of any sort angered the powers in command, was practically ended.

When the beginnings of the modern industrial order appeared and burghers shared with knights and yeomen the social responsibility, "a burgher's son acquired freedom and legal responsibility when he could count and measure broadcloth." The wife gained a growing and perilous freedom from laws which increased her direct relationship to the state. She attained the power of being punished even by the death penalty for broken laws far earlier than she attained the slightest influence in the pa.s.sage or enforcement of those laws. It was generally thought, however, until very recently, that if a wife "did not behave" it was the husband's fault and right that he should suffer the consequences.

=The Responsibility of the Ancient Father Commensurate With His Power.=--Again, it must be remembered that if the ancient father was by virtue of his military training and activities separated from the domestic interests which he so often and with full social permission sacrificed to war and preparation for war, he was at the same time under perpetual conscription by the community of which he was a part to serve as protector of his own family and the families of those of the same social group. The social pressure upon the father-head of the family was therefore severe and unremitting, since he was in so many ways responsible for, as truly as master of, his household. It was no light task to be a worthy head of a patriarchal family in all the ages when growing law was superseding custom and advancing civilization was increasing the complexity of social life. This task when well achieved gave to man a serious sense of his duty as well as a firm conviction of his power.

We see the fruits of that ethical training in family responsibility in many of man's n.o.blest traits; preeminently in his recognition of the duty of protection of the weak and young, and in his devotion to his own, against the world if need be.

The vast outreach of man's intelligence toward the organization of the state, of the industrial order, of the church, of the formal educative process, of the means of transportation, of the systems of finance, of the development and application of scientific knowledge, and even of the arts and of literature, all reveal the effect of his early schooling in the representative responsibility of fatherhood to society.