Part 6

It was pointed out in the last paragraph but one that second cousins once removed (the great-grandchildren of a common house-father) might at one time belong to the same joint undivided family, and subsequently to different families, and that they might wish to continue, after their separation, to consider each other as relatives. Language afforded them no means of indicating their relationship, for there was no word in the original Aryan language for "cousin," much less for "second cousin." And before patronymics had been stereotyped into gentile names, it might seem that the Aryan system of naming at that time afforded no means of binding these relatives together either. But a certain Athenian custom may perhaps be taken, both as evidence of the existence of the desire in question, and as an indication of the means taken for gratifying it. At Athens it was the custom to name a child after its grandfather; and if we assume this practice to have obtained in Aryan times, we have here a ready means for indicating the fact that second cousins are related without the aid of a gentile name; for if I and my first cousin are both named after our common grandfather, then our children (who are second cousins once removed) will have the same patronymic, and therefore will be related, and thence again prohibited to marry. This may be illustrated by an imaginary pedigree, which will also serve to show how—when once patronymics, such as "John's son," became stereotyped into true family or gentile names, such as "Johnson"—all the _gentes_ of a tribe might be descended from a common ancestor. Thus:—

John. | Will, John's son. | +—————————-+————————-+ | | John, Tom, Will's son. Will's son. | | +————-+————+ +————-+———-+ | | | | Will, Harry, Will, Jack, John's son. John's son. Tom's son. Tom's son. | | | | +——+——+ +——+——-+ +—-+—-+ +——-+——+ | | | | | | | | John Frank John Bill Tom Dick Tom Richard Wilson. Wilson. Harrison. Harrison. Wilson. Wilson. Jackson. Jackson.

We may now sum up. The oldest form of family organisation historically traceable amongst the Aryans is that of the joint undivided family. The pro-ethnic Aryans were probably averse to marriages between members of the same joint undivided family. They may also have been averse to marriages between second cousins once removed, even when those second cousins had ceased to dwell in the same joint household. If so, then, as language afforded no term even for "cousins," the memory of the relationship may have been kept up in one of three ways. As the members of a _genos_ at Athens had no common family name, and as they were notoriously related, not by blood, but merely by the possession of a joint-worship, so amongst the Aryans a joint-worship may have served as the mark of kinship (as it does among the Hindoos still). Or the remote kin may have been enabled to claim kindred by means of a patronymic system, which survived at Athens. Or, third, gentile names may have been developed out of patronymics even in pro-ethnic times, in which case marriage would be prohibited, as amongst the Hindoos, between all persons of the same family name.

But there is nothing in this patriarchal organisation of the family and of the tribe which compels us to assume that it was evolved out of some earlier non-patriarchal form of family. The warrant for such an assumption, if to be found, must be sought elsewhere. Let us seek. Analogy will not help us. The patriarchal system may, elsewhere in the world, have been evolved out of the matriarchate; but, as the late Mr. M‘Lennan warned us, we may not assume that marriage has everywhere had the same history. The widest survey of the various forms of human marriage (Westermarck's) that has yet been made warrants no presumption in favour of the priority of the matriarchate. If the matriarchate was a pro-ethnic Aryan institution, it is on Aryan ground that traces of it must be discovered. Such traces are said to be discernible.

There are traces amongst some Aryan peoples of the levirate. The levirate is said to indicate polyandry, and polyandry to presuppose the matriarchate. This is a perfectly legitimate line of argument, but before resorting to polyandry for an explanation of the Aryan levirate, it is worth while to inquire whether there is anything in known Aryan customs capable of supplying an explanation. According to Aryan custom, the estate of a man who leaves no son passes to the next of kin, _i.e._, his brother, or it may be a more distant relative. If the deceased leaves no son, but a daughter, then according to Athenian law, according to the Gortyn Code, and probably also according to Aryan custom, the next of kin (whether brother or not) must not only take the estate, but also marry the heiress, if any (whether wife or daughter of the deceased). According to the Gortyn Code, if the next of kin is married, he must put away his wife; if the heiress is already married, she must leave her husband. Now, if the obligation to raise up seed to the deceased extended only to his brothers, the Tibetan form of polyandry would afford an explanation which, whether correct or not, would, at any rate, account for all the facts. But inasmuch as the obligation is binding on all the near kin, and extends to the daughter as well as the wife of the deceased, it cannot be explained by the hypothesis of the Tibetan form of polyandry or any other form short of incest in every degree possible, not only amongst the members of the same joint undivided family, but also with the women who have married out of that family into some other. In truth, so far from _mutterrecht_ being the source of the Aryan custom, that custom bears on its face the marks of the rudest and most savage application of the agnatic theory. The provisions of the Gortyn Code which require that the next of kin shall marry the heiress, even if the marriage necessitate divorce on both sides, show that the mother was held absolutely incapable of transmitting rights—only a kinsman could do that. A devotion to the principle of agnation so strong as to over-ride the innate Aryan aversion to endogamous marriages, so strong even in the days of civilised Athens as to afford the Orestes of Æschylus with the defence that the mother whom he had killed was not of his blood, cannot be explained as a survival from times when kinship was counted exclusively through the female line. The savage practice must have its roots in some equally crude and savage theory. What the Aryan theory was we can hardly hope to discover, but we may conjecture that it was at least as barbarous as that which leads savages to eat their dead kinsmen, and European peasants to eat corpse-cakes, in the belief that thereby "the virtues and advantages of the departed ... and the living strength of the deceased passed over ... into the kinsman who consumed them, and so were retained within the kindred" (Mr. E. S. Hartland in _Folk Lore_, III. ii. 149). The _Leichen-nudeln_ of the Bavarian peasant, or the beans of the primitive Italian funeral feasts, would, when eaten, qualify the next of kin to wed the heiress and to raise up seed to the dead kinsman.

Before leaving the subject of the levirate we may note that the joint undivided family survived in historic times at Athens and in Sparta, and that in both places brothers lived on the joint-estate as well after the death as during the life of their father. In Sparta, if one only of the brothers had a son, that son was naturally heir to the joint-estate, and was considered the son of all. Amongst the Hindoos, too, Vasishtha says (xvii. 10), "If amongst many brothers who are begotten by one father, one have a son, they all have offspring through that son" (_cf._ Vishnu, xv. 42).[130] Now, a casual observer, ignorant of the nature and constitution of the joint undivided family, might thus easily draw the mistaken inference that the wife of one brother was common to them all; and this may be the origin of Cæsar's statement with regard to the polyandry of the ancient Britons, and of Polybius' with regard to the Spartans. Or, again, it is possible that the joint undivided family may in these instances have given rise to this form of polyandry. It is thus not safe to infer that where polyandry is, the matriarchate must previously have been.

There remains the argument from totems. Unfortunately their very existence in Europe is questioned, and this is not the place to discuss the question. It is safer not to meddle in European totems at present. Their appearance in Greek mythology, however, may fittingly here be made the subject of a brief allusion. The value, to the anthropologist, of ancient Roman customs and beliefs is that they show us the Italians at a much lower stage of civilisation than that in which the Vedas show us the Hindoos or the Homeric poems the Greeks. They show us an Aryan people having no mythology, and they warrant the inference that myths were unknown to the pro-ethnic Aryans. The Greek myths about the amours of Zeus in animal form cannot go back, therefore, to Aryan times. They may be the peculiar invention of the early Greeks, or it may be that the families which claimed to be descended from animals were pre-Hellenic, and that, when they joined the immigrating Greeks, they learnt the worship of Zeus, and were aided in their conversion by identifying Zeus with their animal ancestor.

Against the instances of polyandry and the survivals of totemism, which may or may not show that the matriarchate was known to Aryan peoples, we may fairly set the evidence of comparative philology. The original Aryan language possessed terms for grandfather, father, son, and grandson; and these are just the direct ascendants and descendants who could compose a joint undivided family. There was a word for the paternal uncle, whom the children brought up in such a family would know; there is none for the maternal uncle, with whom they would not dwell. There were special designations for husband's father, husband's mother, husband's brother, husband's sister, and even for husband's brothers' wives—just the words which would be required if the wife left her own family to dwell in that of her husband. There were none for wife's father, mother, &c., which would be required if the husband became a member of his wife's family. And this—which is inconsistent with the matriarchal system—is in accord with the evidence afforded by wedding customs, viz., that the wife left father and mother, and was brought, by the _domum deductio_, to her husband's home.

Still, it would be as unjustifiable to say that the matriarchate could never have established itself on Aryan ground, as it is to say that the agnatic family must have been developed out of the system of "maternal rights" and "female descent." The list of prohibited degrees varies among early Aryan peoples from the minimum possible for a civilised people (as at Athens) to the maximum possible even for savages (as amongst the Hindoos). There may have been a similar variation in the organisation of the family. Nor can we say with confidence that the pro-ethnic Aryans were more uniform than their descendants. The different languages evolved out of the common Aryan tongue existed as dialects from the beginning, and in the beginning there may have been differences in social organisation. But whereas we can certainly trace the joint undivided family and the principle of agnation as far back as modern science enables us to trace the Aryans at all, the evidence for the existence of the matriarchate at any time amongst any Aryan people is inferior both in amount and in value.

XII. CONCLUSION.

After writing a hundred pages as though one knew something, it is a relief to confess one's ignorance. So I shall do myself the pleasure of concluding with a list of Romane Questions which are too hard for me. Why _they kept the temple of the goddesse Horta open alwaies_ I own to me is a mystery yet. I cannot even conjecture _what is the reason that Quintus Metellus forbad to observe auspices after the moneth Sextilis_, nor why _they thought Aruspices ought to have their lanterns and lampes alwaies open_, nor why _obsserve they the vultures most of any other fowles in taking of presages_. White, as a mourning colour, which is prescribed in _R. Q._ 26, may be paralleled in the customs of Gambreion, in Asia Minor, and in Argos, but the explanation is beyond me. The origin of the proverb _Sardi venales_, and of the interesting custom associated with it (_R. Q._ 53), can scarcely be said to be explained either by Festus (p. 322) or by Cicero (VII. _Fam._, 24). Nor do I know why boys were named on the ninth, whereas girls were named on the eighth day of birth. And _why_ did the Romans of old time invariably, when they went out to supper, take with them _their young sonnes_, _even when they were but in their very infancie and childhood_?

ROMANE QVESTIONS,

THAT IS TO SAY,

AN ENQUIRIE INTO THE

CAUSES OF MANIE FASHIONS AND CUSTOMES OF ROME.

_A Treatise fit for them who are conversant in the reading_ of Romane histories and antiquities, giving a light _to many places otherwise obscure and hard_ to be understood.

ROMANE QVESTIONS.

1.

_What is the reason that new wedded wives are bidden to touch fire and water?_

Is it because that among the elements and principles, whereof are composed naturall bodies, the one of these twaine, to wit, fire is the male, and water the female, of which, that infuseth the beginning of motion, and this affoordeth the propertie of the subject and matter?

2. Or rather, for that, as the fire purgeth, and water washeth; so a wife ought to continue pure, chaste and cleane all her life.

3. Or is it in this regard, that as fire without humidity, yeeldeth no nourishment, but is dry; and moisture without heat is idle, fruitlesse and barren; even so the male is feeble, and the female likewise, when they be apart and severed a sunder: but the conjunction of two maried folke yeeldeth unto both, their cohabitation and perfection of living together.

4. Or last of all, because man and wife ought not to forsake and abandon one another, but to take part of all fortunes; though they had no other good in the world common betweene them, but fire and water onely.

2.

_How is it, that they use to light at weddings five torches, and neither more nor lesse, which they call Wax-lights._

1. WHETHER is it as _Varro_ saith, because the Prætours or generals of armies use three, and the Aediles two: therefore it is not meet that they should have more than the Prætours and Aediles together: considering that new maried folke goe unto the Aediles to light their fire?

2. Or, because having use of many numbers, the odde number seemed unto them as in all other respects better, and more perfect than the even: so it was fitter and more agreeable for mariage: for the even number implieth a kinde of discord and division, in respect of the equall parts in it, meet for siding, quarrell, and contention: whereas the odde number cannot be divided so just and equally, but there will remaine somewhat still in common for to be parted. Now among al odde numbers, it seemeth that Cinque is most nuptial, & best beseeming mariage; for that Trey is the first odde number, & Deuz the first even; of which twaine, five is compounded, as of the male and the female.

3. Or is it rather, because light is a signe of being and of life: and a woman may beare at the most five children at one burden; and so they used to cary five tapers or waxe candels?

4. Or lastly, for that they thought, that those who were maried had need of five gods and goddesses: namely, _Jupiter_[131] genial, _Juno_ genial, _Venus_, _Suade_, and above all _Diana_; whom (last named) women in their labour and travell of childe-birth, are wont to call upon for helpe.

3.

_What is the cause that there being many Temples of_ Diana _in_ Rome, _into that onely which standeth in the Patrician street, men enter not_.

1. IS it not because of a tale which is told in this maner: In old time a certeine woman being come thither for to adore and worship this goddesse, chaunced there to bee abused and suffer violence in her honor: and he who forced her, was torne in pieces by hounds: upon which accident, ever after, a certeine superstitious feare possessed mens heads, that they would not presume to goe into the said temple.

4.

_Wherefore is it, that in other temples of_ Diana _men are woont ordinarily to set up and fasten Harts hornes; onely in that which is upon mount_ Aventine; _the hornes of oxen and other beefes are to be seen_.

MAY it not be, that this is respective to the remembrance of an ancient occurrent that sometime befell? For reported it is that long since in the Sabines countrey, one _Antion Coratius_ had a cow, which grew to be exceeding faire and woonderfull bigge withall above any other: and a certeine wizard or soothsaier came unto him and said: How predestined it was that the citie which sacrificed that cow unto _Diana_ in the mount _Aventine_, should become most puissant and rule all _Italy_: This _Coratius_ therefore came to _Rome_ of a deliberate purpose to sacrifice the said cow accordingly: but a certaine houshold servant that he had, gave notice secretly unto king _Servius Tullius_ of this prediction delivered by the abovesaid soothsaier: whereupon _Servius_ acquainted the priest of _Diana_, _Cornelius_, with the matter: and therefore when _Antion_ _Coratius_ presented himselfe for to performe his sacrifice, _Cornelius_ advertised him, first to goe downe into the river, there to wash; for that the custome and maner of those that sacrificed was so to doe: now whiles _Antion_ was gone to wash himselfe in the river, _Servius_ steps into his place, prevented his returne, sacrificed the cow unto the goddesse, and nailed up the hornes when he had so done, within her temple. _Juba_ thus relateth this historie, and _Varro_ likewise, saving that _Varro_ expressely setteth not downe the name of _Antion_, neither doth he write that it was _Cornelius_ the priest, but the sexton onely of the church that thus beguiled the Sabine.

5.

_Why are they who have beene falsly reported dead in a strange countrey, although they returne home alive, not received nor suffred to enter directly at the dores, but forced to climbe up to the tiles of the house, and so to get downe from the roufe into the house?_

_Varro_ rendreth a reason heereof, which I take to be altogether fabulous: for hee writeth, that during the Silician warre, there was a great battell fought upon the sea, and immediately upon it, there ranne a rumour of many that they were dead in this fight; who notwithstanding, they returned home safe, died all within a little while after: howbeit, one there was among the rest, who when he would have entred into his owne house, found the dore of the owne accord fast shut up against him; and for all the forcible meanes that was made to open the same, yet it would not prevaile: whereupon this man taking up his lodging without, just before his dore, as he slept in the night, had a vision which advertised and taught him how he should from the roofe of the house let himselfe downe by a rope, and so get in: now when he had so done, he became fortunate ever after, all the rest of his life; and hee lived to be a very aged man: and heereof arose the foresaid custome, which alwaies afterwards was kept and observed.

But haply this fashion may seeme in some sort to have beene derived from the Greeks: for in _Greece_ they thought not those pure and cleane who had beene caried foorth for dead to be enterred; or whose sepulchre and funerals were solemnized or prepared: neither were such allowed to frequent the company of others, nor suffred to come neere unto their sacrifices. And there goeth a report of a certaine man named _Aristinus_, one of those who had beene possessed with this superstition, how he sent unto the oracle of _Apollo_ at _Delphos_, for to make supplication and praier unto the god, for to bee delivered out of this perplexed anxietie that troubled him by occasion of the said custome or law then in force: and that the prophetesse _Pythia_ returned this answer:

_Looke whatsoever women doe in childbed newly laid, Unto their babes, which they brought foorth, the verie same I say See that be done to thee againe: and after that be sure, Unto the blessed gods with hands to sacrifice, most pure._

Which oracle thus delivered, _Aristinus_ having well pondered and considered, committed himselfe as an infant new borne unto women for to be washed, to be wrapped in swadling clothes, and to be suckled with the brest-head: after which, all such others, whom we call _Hysteropotmous_, that is to say, those whose graves were made, as if they had beene dead, did the semblable. Howbeit, some doe say, that before _Aristinus_ was borne, these ceremonies were observed about those _Histropotmi_, and that this was a right auncient custome kept in the semblable case: and therefore no marvell it is, that the Romans also thought, that such as were supposed to have beene once buried, and raunged with the dead in another world, ought not to enter in at the same porch, out of which they goe, when they purpose to sacrifice unto the gods, or at which they reenter when they returne from sacrifice: but would have them from above to descend through the tiles of the roufe into the close house, with the aire open over their heads: for all their purifications ordinarily they performed without the house abroad in the aire.

6.

_Why doe women kisse the lips of their kinsfolks?_

IS it as most men thinke, for that women being forbidden to drinke wine, the manner was brought up: That whensoever they met their kinsfolke, they should kisse their lips, to the end they might not be unknowen, but convicted if they had drunke wine? or rather for another reason, which _Aristotle_ the philosopher hath alledged? for as touching that occasion, which is so famous and commonly voiced in every mans mouth, yea, and reported of divers and sundrie places; it was no doubt the hardy attempt executed by the dames of _Troie_, and that upon the coasts of _Italy_; for when the men upon their arrivall were landed; the women in the meanewhile set fire upon their ships, for very desire that they had to see an end once, one way or other of their long voiage, & to be delivered frõ their tedious travel at sea: but fearing the fury of their men, when they should returne, they went forth to meet their kinsfolke and friends upon the way, and welcomed them with amiable embracing & sweet kisses of their lips: by which means having appeased their angrie mood, and recovered their favours, they continued ever after, the custome of kind greeting and loving salutation in this manner.

Or was not this a priviledge granted unto women for their greater honour and credit; namely, to be knowen and seen for to have many of their race and kinred, and those of good worth and reputation?