Chapter VII: Parents and Children (1)

I

Consideration may first here be given to the cares and benefits a child receives from its mother during the first few years of its infancy. These facts constitute a very strong bond of union between the child and its nurse. Suckling is a physiological tie between the child and the mother, and next to the fact of birth it marks very strongly the individuality of this relation. Group motherhood has therefore never been a very popular idea and has never found a favourable reception amongst sociologists. We saw above, however, that it is very probable that the facts of birth may lack any social significance in the native mind. If it be further possible to imagine in the same tribe suckling performed, according to Dr. Rivers's suggestion,[652] not by the actual mother, but by a group of kindred women, group motherhood would be quite comprehensible in such tribes.

[652] Compare above, p. 6.

In Australia, however, suckling seems to be strictly individual. This might indeed be inferred in the first place from the aboriginal mode of living. Communism in suckling and rearing a small child would involve a complete communism in life; and we know that unless two women are wives of the same man, they are to a great extent isolated in daily life. It is also highly improbable that in the two or three families which are roaming together there would be always a woman at hand who could help the other in these cares.

There are several other reasons which still more strongly support our view. The best argument may be deduced from the statements referring to infanticide. It is practised amongst all Australian natives. One of the chief reasons given for it is that the mother cannot possibly suckle and carry two children at one time, especially as children are not weaned before their third to fifth year. If there were a custom of common suckling and nursing a child, and another woman who would replace the mother in her functions could be easily found, the practice of infanticide could scarcely be attributed to the above-mentioned reasons. Let us adduce a few statements.

_Statements._--Infanticide is carried on among the Lower Darling
natives to prevent the toils and troubles of carrying and caring
for too many children. The mother's brother decides if the child
should be killed or not.[653]

[653] Bonney, _J.A.I._, xiii. p. 125.

Amongst the Encounter Bay natives "no mother will venture to bring
up more than two children, because she considers that the attention
which she would have to devote to them would interfere with what
she regards as the duty to her husband in searching for roots,
etc."[654]

[654] Meyer in Woods, pp. 186, 187.

Amongst the Adelaide tribes "female infants at birth are not
infrequently put to death for the sake of more valuable boys who
are still being suckled."[655]

[655] Wyatt in Woods, p. 162.

As justification of infanticide "women plead that they cannot
suckle and carry two children together."[656] It is clear from this
statement that the impossibility of suckling more than one child at
a time is given as justification for infanticide by the _natives
themselves_; and that it is not only an inference of the observer.

[656] Chas. Wilhelmi, quoted by Br. Smyth, i. p. 51. (Port
Lincoln Tribes.)

Infanticide was practised among the Port Lincoln tribes. "In
extenuation of this horrible practice the women allege that they
cannot suckle and carry two babies at once."[657] This statement
also quite unmistakably points to the fact that children were
suckled and attended by their own mother.

[657] Schürmann in Woods, p. 224.

Bennett writes that among the New South Wales natives women
practice infanticide in order to avoid too much trouble in carrying
their infants about.[658]

[658] _Loc. cit._, i. pp. 123, 124.

Another statement, maintaining still more strongly the view that
only the mother suckled her child, is that of Collins.[659] He says
that he knew two instances in which infants were killed by the
father at their mother's grave, the reason alleged being that as no
one else could be found to suckle the child and to rear it it must
have died a worse death. Collins supposes that this is a general
custom.

[659] Collins, i. pp. 607, 608.

Gason states that among the Dieri nearly thirty per cent. of the
children were destroyed by their mothers at birth to avoid the
cares and trouble of rearing.[660]

[660] In Woods, p. 258.

"The Arunta native does not hesitate to kill a child--always
directly it is born--if there be an older one still in need of
nourishment from the mother; and suckling is continued up to the
age of three years and even older."[661] And again: "The child is
killed ... when the mother is ... unable to rear it owing to there
being a young child whom she is still feeding."[662]

[661] Spencer and Gillen, _Nat. Tr._, p. 264.

[662] _Ibid._, p. 51.

Among the Kabi and Wakka: "The motive for infanticide with these
tribes could not be to save food in times of dearth, for the food
supply was constant and plentiful. It would be mainly, if not
entirely, that mothers might escape the irksomeness of nursing
and caring for infants and of carrying them on their frequent
journeys."[663]

[663] Mathew, p. 166.

Mrs. D. M. Bates writes that when a mother died at childbirth the
infant was put to death.[664] We are not informed what reasons the
natives gave for this practice; but most probably they are the same
as those mentioned by Collins.

[664] _Loc. cit._, p. 50.

All this evidence makes it nearly impossible to suppose that suckling, carrying the baby and caring for it, was the task of a group of women. For then it would not be necessary to kill the infant at the death of its mother, or to kill it when there was another one to be suckled, as the toils could easily be shared by the other women of the group. The assumption we are now able to draw, namely that the mother always suckles and nurses her own child, is of great importance.[665]

[665] It is very important to note that this individual
rearing is, in all probability, deeply connected with the
aboriginal mode of life; viz. their scattered manner of
living in small groups and their roaming habits. Both these
latter seem to be, on the other hand, dependent upon the
economic conditions of the stage of primitive hunting and
fishing, and it may be assumed that all lower races have
passed through, broadly speaking, the same circumstances of
life; it is, therefore, probable that the fact of common
nursing can never have taken place in very low societies. I
do not think, consequently, that Dr. Rivers's hypothesis,
basing group motherhood on communism in suckling and
rearing, can be accepted even in its general form.

Amongst the Australian aborigines suckling establishes undoubtedly much stronger bonds between mother and child than amongst civilized races, for it lasts much longer. As we saw and shall see in a few statements, the child is never weaned before its third year, and sometimes suckling lasts much longer. Between a bigger child and its mother this constant dependence upon each other must necessarily create a strong bond of union. The child must be continually with its mother. During infancy it is carried by her in a pouch or bag on the shoulders. Afterwards it accompanies her on all her wanderings and in all her work. A great addition to her work is the continuous care she must display towards it. This will be exemplified in our statements referring to the economic division of labour. To sum up, we may say that natural necessities of nurture and of the earliest cares, combined with the aboriginal mode of living, make the child absolutely dependent on the personal, individual help it receives from its mother, and creates therefore an intimate relation between the two.

This is not so much in evidence as regards the relationship between the father and child. But here it must be remembered that owing to the character of the native mode of living the man lives in close contact and to a great extent in isolation with his wife, and consequently also with his wife's children. Some of our statements show that he shares to a certain extent in the cares and labours connected with carrying children, feeding them, etc.; he seems to have a great affection towards them and never to treat them with severity. So that we may infer that the general character of his feelings is of the same description as that of the mother's, _i. e._ one of parental love and attachment.

II

An attempt will be made to illustrate by a series of statements all these characteristics of domestic life as far as they embrace the relations of parents to children. The chief points of inquiry will be: Is there between parents and children any kind of affection? What is the general character of the treatment of children by parents? Are rudiments of education given by father or mother to their offspring? In what way does the position of the father differ from that of the mother--is there any special trait of severity? In what consists the paternal authority and how does it show itself? Is there any strong difference made between male and female children?

_Statements._--"In infancy the young Kurnai is an object of love
and pride to its father and mother. From observation of various
tribes in far distant parts of Australia, I can assert confidently
that love for their children is a marked feature in the aboriginal
character. I cannot recollect having ever seen a parent beat or
cruelly use a child; and a short road to the good-will of parents
is, as amongst us, by noticing and admiring their children." The
greatest grief is exhibited at the death of a child by all the
relatives in a camp. These observations refer as well to the Kurnai
and the other South-Eastern tribes, as to the Dieri, of whom the
author gives an illustrative story.[666] The boy lives with his
parents and "is very much under the control of his mother."--This
statement is very valuable. It gives us the opinion of perhaps our
best Australian observer on the psychology of parental feelings;
it refers to all the tribes known to Howitt, _i. e._ to a very
extensive area. And it states in plain terms that the feelings of
love and affection for children which form the chief characteristic
of parental relations are to be found with an intensity which is as
strong as that prevailing in our society. In another place the same
author quotes an instance "of a mother watching her sick child and
refusing all food, and when it died she was inconsolable."[667]

[666] Howitt, _Kam. and Kurn._, p. 189.

[667] Howitt, _Nat. Tr._, p. 766.

Curr says that among the Bangerang the father had absolute
authority over his children.[668] In another place he says that
the father had to decide in case of infanticide and in every
more important occasion of the child's life.[669] But we read:
"Parents were much attached to their children and rarely punished
or corrected them." Not only did they not control them (although
occasionally a child was beaten in a fit of anger),[670] but "they
were habitually indulged in every way; and as a consequence, in
case of the boys at least, grew up as self-willed, thorough little
tyrants as can well be imagined."[671]

[668] _Recollections_, p. 278.

[669] Curr, _A.R._, i. p. 76.

[670] A similar statement is given by Spencer and Gillen,
_Nat. Tr._, p. 51.

[671] _Recollections_, p. 252.

In his general book on Australia the same author gives us some more
information on family life. The father makes small weapons as toys
for his sons. The children are seldom chastised and they are very
independent. The real training of the boys begins when they leave
their parents' camp and undergo the series of initiations.[672]
These statements point also unmistakably to feelings of attachment
and love, which are, as we tried to prove above, the very essence
of family ties. The father seems to care as much as the mother for
his children's education, and he is very kind and lenient to them.

[672] _A.R._, i. p. 71.

As a crude and pathetic example of maternal love there is the case
reported by Angas, of a mother carrying for ten years the corpse of
her dead child.[673] Similar cases are reported by Howitt about the
Kurnai.[674]

[673] _Loc. cit._, p. 75.

[674] _Kam. and Kurn._, p. 244.

We find many statements referring to this subject in the
compilation of Br. Smyth. I mention them only shortly, as the
author was never directly acquainted with the aboriginal life, and
we value him only when he quotes some little-known authorities,
or gives actual facts gathered for him by his correspondents. He
speaks of the heavy task of a woman having to carry her babe,
besides all the other work and trouble of a journey.[675] The
father occasionally nurses the baby too and is very fond of
it.[676] The child is suckled for three years; it is carried
in an opossum rug during infancy and attended to solely by its
mother.[677] A description of the way in which an opossum rug is
dried is given.[678] In another passage the same author speaks
again of the general kindness, affection and indulgence of parents
to children, as of a well-known fact. He adds besides that the
parents were very judicious in the treatment of their children.[679]

[675] _Loc. cit._, i. p. 47.

[676] _Ibid._

[677] Mr. John Green (superintendent of a station, see vol.
i. p. vi.), quoted by Br. Smyth, i. p. 78.

[678] _Ibid._, p. 48. Another description of the mode
of child-carrying is given by Basedow, _Jour. and Proc.
R.S.S.A._ (1907), xxxi.

[679] Br. Smyth, i. p. 51.

"As a general rule, both fathers and mothers are very kind to
their children and very rarely indeed strike them; and I have been
often amused at seeing a rebellious urchin, of perhaps eight or
nine years of age, take up his mimic spears, run a few yards away
and then hurl them with all his force at his mother." "They are
very fond of their children, and will at any time venture their
lives for them."[680] And the author tells of an occurrence in
corroboration.[681] Here, again, we hear of kindness, leniency and
real affection. The instance of a native losing his life in trying
to save his child is very convincing.

[680] J. Moore Davis in Br. Smyth, ii. p. 311. He speaks in
this article indiscriminately of South Australians.

[681] Referring to natives of Victoria.

The children that escape infanticide enjoy great affection from
their parents.[682]

[682] Br. Smyth, ii. p. 290. Note on Australians, by A. Le
Souëf. It refers, probably, to the Victorian blacks.

Of the Lower Darling River tribes it is stated that the children
are not only very leniently treated by their parents, but that
they are not spoilt at all. "One word from the parent generally
is sufficient to check a child when doing wrong, and the greatest
respect is shown to parents by their children."[683] The loss of
a child would be lamented by the whole camp; the mother and near
relatives would especially mourn.[684] A description of the mode
of carrying children by their mother is also given by the same
author.[685] In this statement we may remark that the children are
said not to be spoilt; this does not agree quite with some of our
other statements. But this information agrees with all others in
respect of the affection and lenient treatment the children enjoy.

[683] Bonney, _J.A.I._, xiii. p. 126.

[684] _Ibid._

[685] _Ibid._

According to Mitchell children are carried by the mother in skin
bags on the shoulder. She carries also toys for her children.[686]
As we have said above, the close connection in life between child
and mother must have been of importance in making the tie between
them especially close. The existence of toys, mentioned already in
J. M. Davis' statement, characterizes the tender care bestowed on
the young folk by their parents.

[686] Vol. i. pp. 332, 333.

"The child is brought up with great care.... Should it cry, it is
passed from one person to another and caressed and soothed, and
the father will frequently nurse it for several hours together.
When the child commences to walk, the father gives it a name."[687]
They are long suckled--sometimes up to five or six years of age.
A boy "when weaned, accompanies his father upon short excursions,
upon which occasion the father takes every opportunity to instruct
his son. For instance, if they arrive at a place concerning which
they have any tradition, it is told to the child if old enough to
understand it. Or he shows him how to procure this or that animal,
or other article of food, in the easiest way."[688] We see here
that the tie between father and child is a very close one. The
father nurses the child when it is small, and educates it when it
is bigger. Affection, care and kind treatment are stated here as
everywhere else. And again we read: "If the father dies before a
child is born, the child is put to death by the mother."[689] This
marks again how important is the father's part in bringing up a
child.

[687] Encounter Bay tribes (Narrinyeri), Meyer, _loc.
cit._, pp. 186, 187.

[688] Encounter Bay tribes (Narrinyeri), Meyer, _loc.
cit._, p. 187.

[689] _Ibid._, p. 186.

Wyatt says of the Adelaide tribe that "they display strong
affection towards each other," which is shown especially in a
"great fondness for children."[690]

[690] _Loc. cit._, p. 162.

We read about the Port Lincoln tribes: "Both sexes are very fond of
their children."[691]

[691] Chas. Wilhelmi, p. 181.

Howitt, speaking of infanticide among the Murring tribe, adds:
"Yet they are very fond of their offspring, and very indulgent to
those they keep, rarely striking them, and a mother would give all
the food she had to her children, going hungry herself."[692] In
several statements on infanticide it is said that no difference
was made between boys and girls.[693] Here again we have a strong
assertion of parental love, and of the kind treatment the children
enjoy.

[692] _Nat. Tr._, p. 748; informant: H. Williams.

[693] _Ibid._, pp. 748-750.

Among the Murrumbidgee tribes "it is well known that as their
children become older they [the parents] evince much attachment
towards them."[694] A well-known tragic instance of parental love
is reported about the New South Wales natives by the same author.
"They display an extraordinary degree of affection for their dead
offspring, evidenced by an act that almost exceeds credibility, had
it not so often been witnessed among the tribes in the interior of
the colony. I allude to the fact of deceased children, from the
earliest age to even six or seven years, being placed in a bag
made of kangaroo skin, and slung upon the back of the mother....
They carry them thus for ten or twelve months, sleeping upon the
mass of mortal remains, which serves them for a pillow, apparently
unmindful of the horrid fœtor which emanates from such a putrefying
substance."[695]

[694] Bennett, i. p. 123.

[695] _Ibid._, pp. 125, 126.

G. S. Lang in his account of the Australian blacks speaks of great
leniency of treatment, and quotes several examples.[696]

[696] p. 33. The author knew personally some tribes of New
South Wales and Queensland.

An exceptional statement is given by a member of the United States
expedition. "As far as our observation went, the women appear to
take little care of their children."[697] But we gather from the
whole account that the authors had no good opportunities of making
observations on the natives, if they had any at all. Probably the
natives they saw were in a state of deterioration, hanging round
towns, etc.

[697] Chas. Wilkes (smaller ed.), i. p. 225.

We read in the old account of J. Turnbull about the natives of New
South Wales, that all children who escape infanticide are "nursed
with an anxious affection, very creditable to these savages. The
infant no sooner begins to use his limbs than he is instructed in
throwing the spear; a bulrush or other reed being put into his hand
for this purpose."[698]

[698] p. 100.

In his memoirs, Hodgson says that aboriginal children are very
kindly and tenderly treated by their parents.[699]

[699] p. 244 (N. S. Wales).

The following statements, referring to New South Wales blacks, give
a good testimonial to their parental feelings. "An old _mammy_, who
was much about the farm of another of my friends, was a perfect
picture of maternal sorrow," after the death of her son. "If you
spoke of her son, she was dissolved in tears, and answered in
whispers." "The women appear to be always kind to their children,
carrying the young ones on their backs."[700]

[700] Henderson, p. 121.

"They are remarkably fond of their children," says R. Dawson. In
another place the author speaks of a great liberality towards
children, displayed in distributing food. He speaks also of the
adoption of orphans. "When the parents die, the children are
adopted by the unmarried men and women and taken the greatest care
of"; and "children of both sexes who had lost their parents were
uniformly adopted by those who had no families, and sometimes by
those who had."[701]

[701] pp. 239, 268. Port Stephens blacks.

As a matter of illustration I may adduce what Dr. J. Fraser says
on that subject in his compilation on the New South Wales tribes.
The aborigines love their children and treat them very kindly.
The father makes for the boy a toy spear to practise throwing
it and the girl gets a small stick to learn how to dig with it.
The parents teach them to do all these things, and they "take as
much delight in this business as we do in teaching our children
their alphabet. The son is soon able to go out with his father on
hunting expeditions," imbibes all sorts of woodcraft and learns to
know his tauri (hunting district).[702] We may add that the book
of Dr. Fraser, although only a compilation, seems to be a very
reliable one, and he probably had much personal information from
settlers, missionaries, etc.

[702] pp. 4, 5, 60.

We have already seen from the first statement of Howitt that
parental love obtained among the Dieri. Gason affirms that parental
love for children and the love of these for their parents is one
of their greatest virtues.[703] We read also that "the children
are never beaten, and should any woman violate this law she is in
turn beaten by her husband."[704] This statement would astonish
us at first sight, as we usually expect severity from the father.
But when we remember that the mother had probably all the drudgery
and work with the children we can understand that she might easily
lose her temper, and then the father took the children's part. It
is characteristic that the father's authority was directed rather
to protect the children from a probably merited punishment than to
punish and correct them.

[703] _Loc. cit._, p. 258.

[704] _Ibid._

Amongst the Urabunna, where, as we are informed, "individual
marriage does not exist either in name or in practice,"[705] all
children of "men who are at the same level in the generation and
belong to the same class and totem are _regarded_ as the common
children of these men." Still there exists "a closer tie between
a man and the children of the woman who habitually live in camp
with him."[706] This statement is the only one which tries to
deny individual fatherhood and states the existence of group
fatherhood. But as we do not know what sense should be given to
the words "closer tie" and to the phrase "are regarded as the
common children" we must drop this statement as quite meaningless.
We know already that the relations of a father to his child have
several very characteristic features; the father fondles his child;
is especially attached to it; he often carries it on the march
(as these same authors state in another place, see below); he has
certain economic duties towards his family; he lives in the same
wurley with his children. Not a single word is said about any
of these things, and only quite general assertions are made. We
may repeat here, with Mr. Thomas, that if the authors knew more
concrete facts about this question they ought to have communicated
them. If they told us everything they knew about the subject, then
their inferences are false. This statement loses its force for the
reason especially that we know how close the personal tie between
the Dieri parents and their children was, and that it was quite
individual. And the Dieri had the same Pirrauru institution which
induces Messrs. Spencer and Gillen to inform us that there was no
individual fatherhood or marriage, amongst the Urabunna. There is,
therefore, much reason to mistrust this statement.[707]

[705] Spencer and Gillen, _Nat. Tr._, p. 63; repeated _Nor.
Tr._, p. 73.

[706] Spencer and Gillen, _Nat. Tr._, p. 64.

[707] Compare what has been said about the Pirrauru and
Piraungaru above, pp. 108 _sqq._; especially p. 117,
under 7.

Children are treated with extreme leniency among the Central
Australian tribes. "If the children are unruly the mothers try
to quiet them with fair words, or may scold them a little, or
even slap them gently, but never take any extreme means." Mothers
often quarrel and even fight with each other defending their own
offspring. "When a child sickens, the mother takes it in her lap,
and does not leave the spot, the father sitting by."[708] All this
shows a deep parental affection towards the children. And that it
is limited to individual parents is confirmed by the following
phrase: "Orphans fare the worst, and usually the nearest relative
looks after them, but does not assume a parent's position. Such
children receive blows and have to provide for themselves as best
they can."[709] Although I avoid the problem of relationship terms,
as lying outside the narrow limits of the present study, that
deals exclusively with facts of family life, I quote the following
statement of the same author as especially instructive. "_Kata_
signifies father of the class; _Kata iltja_ sexual father." The
affix _iltja_ indicates the individual relationship and the affix
_lirra_ class reference. "Ordinarily they leave out the words
_iltja_ and _lirra_ and do not use them, because they all know,
among themselves, who is personally related, and who is not. They
are only used casually when conversing with strangers, to whom they
wish to explain their family relationship."[710]

[708] L. Schultze, _loc. cit._, p. 238 (Finke River
natives).

[709] _Ibid._, p. 240.

[710] _Ibid._, p. 237.

We read of the Arunta: "To their children they are, we may say
uniformly, with very rare exceptions, kind and considerate,
carrying them, the men as well as the women taking part in this,
when they get tired on the march, and always seeing that they get
a good share of any food."[711] Here it is stated explicitly that
the cares are shared by father and mother. In another place the
authors, speaking of the burial ceremonies, say that the display
of grief and sorrow is not so much due to real feeling, as to
tribal custom and fear of offending the dead one's spirit. And
they add, "At the same time, he (the native) is certainly capable
of genuine grief and of real affection for his children."[712] The
foregoing statement appears to be very emphatic. Parental love is
apparently quoted as a genuine feeling conspicuous _par excellence_
and therefore to be opposed to any other more or less fictitious
display. The intimate connection between the mother and her child
appears also from some details in the initiation ceremonies.[713]

[711] Spencer and Gillen, _Nat. Tr._, pp. 50, 51.

[712] _Nat. Tr._, p. 511.

[713] _Ibid._, pp. 227, 250.

In the Kabi and Wakka tribes, "the wife was the regular nurse
of the infants, but the husband occasionally took a turn."[714]
"Children were over-indulged."[715]

[714] Mathew, _loc. cit._, p. 153.

[715] _Ibid._, p. 153.

"The mother is always fond of her child, and I have often admired
her patience with it. She constantly carries it with her, at first
in a basket, but later on ... on her shoulder. Thus she carries
it with her till it is several years old. If the child cries she
may perhaps get angry, but she will never allow herself to strike
it. The children are never chastised either by the father or the
mother." But they are nevertheless as a rule "obliging and kind."
"The black children are not ... as bad as one might suppose,
considering their education, in which their wills are never
resisted."[716] "The woman is often obliged to carry her little
child on her shoulders during the whole day, only setting it down
when she has to dig in the ground or climb trees."[717] The mother,
in one instance, was much excited when a white man struck her
naughty child. The same author says that the tie between mother and
child is closer than that between father and child. The children
"are fonder of their mother than of their father." (This seems
quite "natural" to us as we observe it as a rule in our society.)
Sometimes the father cares much for his child too; "he frequently
carries it, takes it in his lap, searches ... its hair, plays with
it, and makes little boomerangs, which he teaches it to throw. He
... prefers boys to girls." "Boys are not permitted to go hunting
with their fathers before they are nine years old."[718]

[716] Lumholtz, on the Herbert River Natives, _loc. cit._,
pp. 192, 193.

[717] _Ibid._, p. 160.

[718] _Ibid._, p. 193.

Amongst the Georgina blacks the child's education is carried on
chiefly by the mother. She teaches the boys respect for the tribal
elders.[719]

[719] Purcell in _R.G.S._, Victorian Branch, xi. pp. 19, 20.

The way of carrying a child among the Queensland blacks is
described by E. Palmer.[720]

[720] _Loc. cit._, p. 280.

Among the North Central Queensland aborigines the mother carries
her child in a koolamon or on a sheet of bark, slung to her side;
later on her shoulders.[721] She is accustomed to lullaby it to
sleep by a sort of droning humming sound.[722] She suckles it until
it reaches the age of three to five years.[723] "A father could do
what he pleased with his children, but neither parent would ever
strike a boy; if beaten the latter was supposed to lose courage."
The mother taught the girls, and could beat them if necessary.[724]
The father taught the boys climbing trees and making arms and
implements.[725]

[721] Roth, _Eth. Stud._, p. 183, § 330. See also figs.
436-438.

[722] _Ibid._

[723] _Ibid._

[724] Roth, _Proc. R.S.Q._, p. 51.

[725] _Ibid._, p. 60.

In North-West Australia (Pilbarra district) children are reared
affectionately and never chastised. They often listen to stories on
native traditions.[726]

[726] Withnell, pp. 8, 9.

Ph. Chauncy, speaking of the West Australian blacks, says that love
between children and parents was very strong, and that it was one
of the principal virtues of the aborigines. He gives an example of
a native who after five years, seeing again his son, a grown-up
lad, displayed a good deal of affection and tenderness.[727]

[727] Br. Smyth, ii. p. 275.

The mode in which women carry their children in West Australia is
described by Moore.[728]

[728] _Loc. cit._, p. 32.

Oldfield says: "Sometimes the love of their offspring (male) is
excessive." As an example he describes an old man "who had a son,
a lad of about nine years of age, of whom he was excessively fond,
always tenderly embracing him and recommending him to the care of
others when he went on any expedition." When he returned from the
chase "he invariably first of all fondly kissed the boy before
proceeding to cook," and all the best parts of the meal "were
bestowed on the child." The child was consequently quite spoilt and
tyrannized over his father, who was quite obedient to him.[729]

[729] _Loc. cit._, pp. 224, 225.

"Elles aiment d'ailleurs éperdument leurs fils et aussi celles de
leurs filles qui ont échappé à la mort. S'il arrive que quelqu'un
de leurs enfants s'éveille en sursaut ou se fasse du mal, ses
gémissements sont couverts par ceux de la mère, qui ne se donne
aucun repos jusqu'à ce qu'elle ait trouvé le moyen de guérison,
quelque fatigue qu'il doive lui en couter. Elles nourrissent avec
soin leurs petits enfants et les veulent toujours propres et bien
tenus, autant que leur permet leur position. Elles les allaitent
pendant plus de quatre ans; aussi n'est-il pas rare de voir de
petits garçons jouer et faire des armes avec leurs petits _ghicis_,
et puis courir se restaurer au sein de leur mère, qui souvent
allaite ainsi deux enfants à la fois. J'ai vu des enfants de six ans
prendre encore le sein, et les mères non seulement s'y prêter, mais
les caresser et se priver des meilleurs morceaux pour les leur
donner."[730] I quote this statement _in extenso_, as it includes a
good deal of what we know in general of this subject. We see that a
mother might suckle two children at a time, but if it were too
difficult for her, the child is killed. Salvado speaks also of
adoption by another woman as an alternative (comp. above, Dawson's
and Shultze's statements); but adoption seems rather to be an
exceptional escape from infanticide.[731] In another place, the same
author speaks of a "véritable tendresse maternelle" showing itself
towards a child recently dead. Often did he observe that a mother
who had just lost a child would rise in the night and go for miles
through the woods, calling her child by its name, speaking to it,
and giving many tokens of her tender feelings.[732] This instance
gives us a good insight into a class of feelings that the general,
popular mind would hardly ascribe to savages.[733] Salvado says
that they make a great difference between a boy and girl, in the
joy which they display at a child's birth. Not only the mothers
(as we saw above), but also the fathers show great fondness for
their children. Salvado blames the "déférence des pères pour les
enfants." Whatever a child might do, it is never chastised. If a
small boy wishes to obtain something from his parents, he cries,
bites and beats them, until he succeeds in his purpose. The only
punishment ever inflicted on their children is "une fâcherie plus
ou moins remarquée par eux, et cela encore après leur avoir accordé
tout ce qu'ils demandent." The father prepares for his son small
arms and teaches him how to use them. He displays the greatest
tenderness towards him and is extremely fond of him.[734] And
the author gives as the reason why the aborigines would not send
their children to white men for education, the parental attachment
to their offspring.[735] The father disposes of his daughters in
marriage.[736]

[730] Salvado about the natives of Swan District, West
Australia, pp. 275, 276.

[731] _Ibid._, p. 275.

[732] _Ibid._, p. 250.

[733] _Ibid._, p. 274.

[734] _Ibid._, p. 276.

[735] _Ibid._, pp. 276, 277.

[736] _Ibid._, p. 278.

Among the natives of King George Sound the mothers display a great
love for their children, often crying after the death of one of
them.[737]

[737] Browne, _loc. cit._, p. 450.

About the same tribes it is recorded: "Of their children they
appear to be fond, and rarely chastise them; but their treatment of
the women is not always gentle."[738] Here the difference between
the usual good treatment that children uniformly enjoy from their
parents, and the unsettled character of marital treatment is
clearly expressed.

[738] Scott Nind, _loc. cit._, p. 37.

Our best information on many points comes rather from anecdotes and
reports of real occurrences than from bare statements. Some stories
illustrate very well the present question. So, for instance, the
following, which proves beyond any doubt that paternal affection
among the Australian aborigines might amount to a passion.[739]
Old Davie was a native of great personal strength and skill,
strong will, and great courage. He was not especially clever, but
was apparently kind to children and to his wives. His inoffensive
exterior, however, hid a truly demoniac character; he was quite
egotistical, "he had never had any strong liking for anything
else," but had only one peculiar passion: "his special craving was
for murder." He had ever so many lives on his conscience. When he
grew old, he became the father of a rather nice boy. He got deeply
and passionately attached to his son, called the Jumbuk-man. "To
watch the gradual expansion of Jumbuk-man's faculties; to see him
balance himself with his feet astride and throw his spear at his
sister's back; to observe him tomahawk the sleeping dogs, maltreat
any birds or insects he could lay hands on, bite his mother; to
hear him lisp foul words, and give himself up to the charming ways
of savage infancy, became henceforth the chief delight of his
father." Here we see a neat, condensed picture of what might be
called educational training under the father's eyes. After a few
years of life the boy died; the death of the boy was a terrible
blow "to Old Davie. He had been his special delight ... and (he)
bore his loss in a very unstoical way. He sat on the ground,
streams of tears welling from his eyes." The end of the story (Old
Davie's murder of a young woman in revenge for "sorcery" done by
her tribe) does not touch our subject.

[739] Told by Curr, _Recollections_, ch. xxviii. "Old
Davie."

As an interesting and good illustration of parental authority may
be adduced the story of how a Bangerang girl was made to join her
promised husband. She was, apparently, quite unwilling to do it;
consequently her father tried to persuade her. After his patience
had been exhausted he tried to compel her; having at last resource
to his club. This and the unanimous and rather strong persuasions
of both parents made her follow the prescribed course.[740] This
story shows that the father had not a great amount of authority
over his daughter. He had to persuade her for several hours and she
brought him by her stubbornness to a fit of anger, which finally
settled the matter.

[740] Curr, _Recollections_, pp. 141-145.

Another story clearly exemplifying paternal affection, is told by
Grey.[741] For some small trespass Capt. Grey got hold of a young
boy, the son of an influential native. The father tried to liberate
him. "The natives are always ardently attached to their children,
and this the boy's father now evinced in the strongest manner. He
tried by persuasion, begging and even threats to induce the white
man to give him back his child. He fairly wept upon his child's
neck." When this had no result, and the boy was imprisoned, he made
all possible efforts to plead for him. The paternal love is clearly
conspicuous in the whole tale.

[741] _Loc. cit._, ii. pp. 350-361 (refers to natives of
King George's Sound).

Our forty-one statements agree fairly well on many points, but especially on the principal question, namely on the existence of very close personal and individual bonds of union between parents and children.[742] As so much stress has been laid on the emotional element in these bonds, it may be shown now how far the evidence confirms the views expressed above.[743] Speaking in concrete terms, the evidence affirms beyond any doubt the existence of strong feelings of affection and attachment between parents and children. Thirty-five of our forty-one statements explicitly affirm the existence of such feelings. In many places this is expressed in a very clear and emphatic manner. We read that the children are the "pride and love" of their parents; that affection for their children is a "marked feature" of the aboriginal character (Howitt). Deep affection is quoted as their chief virtue (Gason); and as the most sincere and strongest feeling (Spencer and Gillen); and so forth. Instances might easily be multiplied. The only negative instance is the completely unreliable statement of Wilkes. This exceptional agreement of all authors and the uniform emphasis that they lay upon their statements is in itself a very strong proof not only that this assertion is true, but that these facts strongly impressed themselves upon the observers.[744] On this point our best authorities entirely agree with the remaining observers. Such an agreement on the point of a general judgment, which is necessarily an induction from a considerable number of observations, can only mean that the latter were not liable to misinterpretation; that they plainly expressed their deeper psychological meaning. These observations seem at first sight very difficult to be made correctly, for they are of a rather subtle character, referring to impalpable psychological facts. And yet all authors interpreted them correctly, of which fact such an agreement is the best proof. The expression of the feelings in question amongst savages must obviously differ very little from our ways of showing feelings. The complete agreement of the statements points, therefore, to the unmistakable clearness and strength in which the native feelings show themselves, in all the details of family life as well as in some more important facts.[745]

[742] An exception may be seen in the statement of Spencer
and Gillen on the Urabunna, as far as it seems to point
to a group relationship, but there are reasons for not
attaching too much importance to this statement. We dealt
also above (p. 117) with the question whether there is
group relationship between parents and children in the
tribes where the Pirrauru custom prevails, and it was found
that the assumption of its existence must be absolutely
discarded, and that everywhere there is individual
relationship between parents and children.

[743] pp. 191 _sqq._

[744] Compare above, pp. 193, 194.

[745] Compare the passages above, pp. 195, 196.

But even if unwilling to trust to the emphasis of our informants' general affirmations and to the agreement between them, we find many concrete details and examples, mentioned by the authors, which convince us that the conclusions they have drawn from observation were correct. Howitt says that to secure the good-will of the parents the most direct way is to admire their children; a fact which is characteristic of parental infatuation in our own society. When the children are ill the parents watch over and look after them most carefully (Schultze, Salvado, Meyer, Howitt); they make toys for their children (Mitchell, Curr, Fraser); and they look very carefully after their food (Spencer and Gillen, Dawson). On the death of a child the parents display great sorrow (Browne, Henderson, Curr in the story of old Davie).[746] And the horrid custom of carrying a dead babe on their wanderings is also a token of deep affection (Angas, Bennett, Howitt). After long absence the parents display great joy and tenderness (Chauncy). And although adoption is reported in some tribes (R. Dawson, Schultze, Salvado), nevertheless there is not always the same degree of love and affection towards adopted children as towards the offspring. And the former are often illtreated (Schultze). Such examples could easily be multiplied. And they show in how many quite unmistakable facts the main features of the parental feelings for children found their expression. These feelings as a rule consisted of love, pride, affection and attachment.

[746] Compare also the examples referred to in foregoing
footnote.

All this seems to hold good for the father, as well as for the mother. In the majority of statements both the parents are mentioned indiscriminately. Some of them say expressly that they refer to the father also (Meyer, Wilhelmi, Moore Davis, Br. Smyth, Fraser, Gason, Mathew, Spencer and Gillen, Mrs. Parker, Salvado). Nevertheless we must assume that owing to the closer tie in daily life the relationship between mother and child was a yet more intimate one (Lumholtz, Salvado). There seems to have been but little difference made between male and female children. We read in a few places (Schürmann, Spencer and Gillen) that boys were more welcome than girls, and that infanticide was more frequently carried out amongst the latter. But this is contradicted elsewhere,[747] where we read that in several tribes no difference in infanticide was made between boys and girls.

[747] Howitt, _Nat. Tr._, pp. 748-750.

Parallel with great affection towards the children ran considerable leniency of treatment. In about eighteen of our statements (_i. e._ in all of those in which there is anything said about treatment besides affection) we read that the natives treat their children with kindness, absolute leniency and indulgence, never chastise them, and give them their own way in everything. It is well to notice that these two things--real love on the one hand and leniency of treatment on the other--must be treated as two independent phenomena. Affection may be perfectly well combined with severity and rigour; and a want of punishment need not be necessarily based upon love; it may result just as well from carelessness. But this latter does not seem to be the case; we know that the parents are not careless about their children; that on the contrary they take the greatest trouble about them and look carefully after all the necessities of their life. Here the leniency of treatment seems to be exclusively due to excessive fondness for their children and the resulting weakness shown towards them. In other societies the reason of the same phenomenon is often (especially in the case of male children) the wish not to frighten the boy and not to make him a coward, in which belief magical elements may also play a rôle. (Compare Steinmetz, article in _Z.f.S._ i.) A suggestion of such a reason is contained in only one of our statements (Roth in _Trans. R.S.Q._) In general it may be said that the way in which the aborigines treat their children is a symptom of their great parental love.[748] Only in two places (Spencer and Gillen, Lumholtz) is it said that in fits of anger and impatience the natives chastise their children, and even this seems to be quite exceptional. Very interesting is Gason's statement, according to which it seems that the father was even more lenient than the mother; and this seems quite natural, for the mother had much more opportunity to get angry with the child.

[748] Compare also the general reason given by Steinmetz
for the prevalence of this indulgence among savage peoples.
_Zeitschr. für Sozialwissenschaft_, Band i. pp. 254-285.

It is characteristic that even those authors who write in strong terms of the bad treatment which the husband shows towards his wife (compare the statements above) say nothing of the kind as to the treatment of the children by their fathers. On the contrary, we read in several places of the tyranny of the young boy, under which often his mother and sisters and sometimes even his father had to suffer (Curr in several places, especially in the story of Old Davie; J. Moore Davies, Oldfield, Salvado). But two other writers (Lumholtz and Bonney) inform us that in spite of the entire lack of severity the children are not naughty at all, as might have been expected.

It may be safely concluded that the evidence gives a quite true picture of the parental feelings. The latter may be considered as elements which essentially characterize the relation of parents to children. And it may be said that in Australia the parents are most devoted and loving to their children. The importance of this conclusion in regard to our ideas of parental kinship in Australia has been argued sufficiently above.[749]

[749] See pp. 191 _sqq._

The facts stated in this conclusion seem to have an important bearing upon the relation between husband and wife. This point is completely ignored by the first-hand observers, who never troubled to inquire deeper into the mutual dependence of such most important sociological facts, viz. of the relationship between parents and children on the one hand and between husband and wife on the other. There are no statements on this point, and consequently one is obliged to draw the inference for oneself. But the bearing of the parental relationship upon the conjugal relations is so obvious and the mutual dependence of marriage and family so clear, that the following inference seems not at all hypothetical and arbitrary. If both parents are strongly attached to their children, if their feelings are so outspoken, these must constitute a strong binding tie between them. It is hardly possible to think that a man could be merely a brutal master and tyrant to his wife if they both had the same feelings for the same object. But it is still less possible to admit that a man and a woman would on the first occasion, or even without any reason, part and form new unions if they were both attached so strongly to the same person--an attachment which, as in so many examples, sometimes amounted to a real passion.

Turning to the other question, to be answered from our evidence--the question of paternal authority or _potestas_--let us first fix the meaning of the word. To the word authority (_potestas_) a legal sense can be given. Then it expresses the sum of the rights that legally are allotted to the father over his children. So in Rome _potestas_ meant the absolute power of life, death and liberty that the father legally possessed over the persons of his children.[750] Every legal relation presupposes a possibility of interference or enforcement on the part of some social authority, and it assumes a set of fixed norms sanctioned in some way by society. Now we do not possess any knowledge of any such possibility in the case of the parental relationship, or of any norms that are laid down in any form by the Australian aboriginal society for the said relationship. The terms _authority_ or _potestas_, therefore, cannot be used in their strict sense or indeed in any sense at all if we imply a _legal meaning_ to them. We are more justified in applying them to the Australian natives, if we use them as an expression of the mere fact that the father could do anything he liked with his children, that he had an absolute power over them. But even here we should be careful in ascribing the exclusive power to the father. In the only cases where the question of a decision as to the child's lot arises, _i. e._ in the cases of infanticide and giving the girl away in marriage, there are contradictory instances ascribing the power of decision to some one else. So, for instance, in the Mukjarawaint tribe the father was not allowed to decide whether his child was to be killed or not at birth; it was the grandparents' affair. Curr affirms, on the other hand, that infanticide depended exclusively upon the father. In some tribes it was not the father's privilege to give his daughter in marriage. Nevertheless, as was shown above in Chapter II, as a rule it was the father who disposed of his daughter.

[750] Compare also the discussions above, pp. 185 _sqq._

Although our information on these points is scanty, these few hints seem to prove that there were some infringements of the father's liberty from outside. How far they were _legal_ is difficult to ascertain. At any rate we see that the father's authority was rather limited by legal factors than enhanced. But even if this be an exceptional instance, and if as a rule nobody could interfere with the father in whatever he was pleased to do with his children--a supposition which seems fairly to agree with the general authority of the husband and the isolation of families--it must still be remembered that the father as a matter of fact never made use of his unrestricted authority. In the first place, as will be plainly shown below, the father's contact with and exclusive influence over his children ceased at the moment they reached puberty. Our question is therefore limited to the period before reaching puberty (in the boys perhaps even sooner, from about seven to ten years; see below), and _eo ipso_ loses a great deal of its contents. A small child living with its parents alone in the wilderness is naturally entirely in their hands and at their mercy. But it would be a fallacy to lay any stress on that point. As our statements show, the child is protected against any ill-treatment, or even against any severity from either of its parents, by their own feelings much better than it could be by any legal measures. And the fact remains that the father's _potestas_ or authority (or whatever any kind of coercive power may be called) is by no means a characteristic feature of his relation to his children, for according to aboriginal custom and psychology, any element of that kind is absolutely absent from their family life.