Page:The evolution of marriage and of the family ... (IA evolutionofmarri00letorich).pdf/342

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This page needs to be proofread.

are distinguished from the real fathers, brothers, and sons, by the epithet "class" added to their appellation. Thus they say, "class-father, class-son, class-brother"—that is to say, the man who belongs to the class of the father, to that of the son, or to that of the brother. It is therefore simply the American nomenclature perfected.[1] We have previously seen that in China proper, not only the paternal family, but the patriarchate, are rigorously established; that woman is in extreme subjection, and always disinherited;[2] but certain impediments to marriage can only relate to an ancient familial organisation which has now disappeared. In all the vast Chinese empire there are scarcely more than from one to two hundred family names, and the Chinese call themselves the "people of a hundred families." Now in China all marriage between persons bearing the same name is prohibited.[3] In certain villages every one has the same family name; two or three thousand persons, for example, are called "sheep," "ox," "horse," etc., all of them appellations agreeing well with clans having corresponding totems.[4] But however it may have been in the past, at the present day masculine filiation is well established in China, and nine degrees of kinship in the direct line are distinguished, which an old Chinese author has enumerated as follows:—"All men who come into the world have nine degrees of kinship—namely, my own generation in the first place, then that of my father, of my grandfather, and of the father and grandfather of my grandfather. In a descending line come the generation of my son, that of my grandson, then that of his son and his grandson. All the members of one same generation are brothers to each other."[5] Let us note that this filiation, short as it is, is still associated with kinship by classes.

Doubtless these accounts, taken alone, would be insufficient, but united with those which the study of the family

  1. Morgan, loc. cit., p. 422.
  2. G. Eugène Simon, La Famille Chinoise, in Nouvelle Revue, 1883.
  3. Davis, The Chinese, vol. i. p. 282.—Pauthier, Chine moderne, p. 238.
  4. A. Giraud-Teulon, Orig. du Mariage, p. 363.
  5. L. Morgan, loc. cit., pp. 416, 425.