Page:The evolution of marriage and of the family ... (IA evolutionofmarri00letorich).pdf/341

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

others, and by attaining a higher degree of moral, social, and intellectual development. Nevertheless, the ethnic groups, belonging to the races classed together en bloc as inferior, have emerged from savagery, and formed large societies, which have been veritable training schools for the men of their race.

Now, in all the States which have succeeded in attaining some degree of civilisation, the paternal family is the type that has been finally adopted. It was thus in Peru, in Mexico, and even in ancient Egypt, where King Philometor gave the finishing stroke to the maternal family which had so long flourished in the valley of the Nile. With much more reason in China, a country very civilised after its own fashion, an analogous evolution must have been effected. Indeed, in China proper, there are scarcely any traces of the maternal family left; but they are still visible in Japan, whose civilisation has been entirely borrowed from China.

In Japan, as formerly among the Basques, filiation is subordinated to the transmission of the patrimony whole and inalienated. It is to the first-born, whether boy or girl, that the inheritance is transmitted, and he or she is forbidden to abandon it. At the time of marriage the husband or wife must take the name of the heir or heiress, who marries and personifies the property. Filiation is therefore sometimes maternal and sometimes paternal; but the maternal uncle still bears the name of "second little father"; the paternal aunt is called "little mother," the paternal uncle is called "little father," etc.[1] Marriage between groups of brothers and other groups of sisters has been common enough in primitive societies to enable us to see in this familial nomenclature the traces of one of those ancient unions at once monogamic and polygamic.

In China the language itself attests the ancient existence of a marriage contracted by a group of brothers having their wives in common, but not marrying their sisters. A Chinaman always calls the sons of his brother his "sons," whilst he considers those of his sister as his nephews;[2] but the virtual, or rather fictitious fathers, brothers, and sons,

  1. Lubbock, Orig. Civil., p. 177.
  2. L. H. Morgan, Systems of Consanguinity, etc., in Smithsonian Contributions, vol. xvii. pp. 416, 417.