The Child and Childhood in Folk-Thought by Alexander F. Chamberlain (book recommendations based on other books .txt) 📕

in the fourth century,—the cognate equivalent of our English mother does not appear. The Gothic term is aithiei, evidently related to atta, “father,” and belonging to the great series of nursery words, of which our own ma, mama, are typical examples. These are either relics of the first articulations of the child and the race, transmitted by hereditary adaptation from generation to generation, or are the coinages of mother and nurse in imitation of the cries of infancy.

These simple words are legion in number and are found over the whole inhabited earth,—in the wigwam of the Redskin, in the tent of the nomad Bedouin, in the homes of cultured Europeans and Americans. Dr. Buschmann studied these “nature-sounds,” as he called them, and found that they are chiefly variations and combinations of the syllables ab, ap, am, an, ad, at, ba, pa, ma, na, da, ta, etc., and that in one language, not absolutely unrelated to another, the same sound will be used to denote the “mother” that in the second signifies “father,” thus evidencing the applicability of these words, in the earliest stages of their existence, to either, or to both, of the parents of the child (166. 85). Pott, while remarking a wonderful resemblance in the names for parents all over the world, seeks to establish the rather doubtful thesis that there is a decided difference in the nature of the words for “father” and those for “mother,” the former being “man-like, stronger,” the latter “woman-like, mild” (517. 57).

Some languages apparently do not possess a single specialized word for “mother.” The Hawaiian, for example, calls “mother and the sisters of the mother” makua wahine, “female parent,” that being the nearest equivalent of our “mother,” while in Tonga, as indeed with us to-day, sometimes the same term is applied to a real mother and to an adopted one (100. 389). In Japan, the paternal aunt and the maternal aunt are called “little mother.” Similar terms and appellations are found in other primitive tongues. A somewhat extended discussion of names for “mother,” and the questions connected with the subject, will be found in Westermarck (166. 85). Here also will be found notices of the names among various peoples for the nearest relatives of the mother and father. Incidentally it is worth noting that Westermarck controverts Professor Vambéry’s opinion that the Turko-Tartar words for “mother,” ana, ene, originally meant “nurse” or “woman” (from the root an, en), holding that exactly the reverse is the fact, “the terms for mother being the primitive words.” He is also inclined to think that the Aryan roots pa, “to protect, to nourish,” and ma, “to fashion,” came from pa, “father,” and ma, “mother,” and not vice versâ. Mr. Bridges, the missionary who has studied so well the Yahgans of Tierra del Fuego, states that “the names imu and dabi—father and mother—have no meaning apart from their application, neither have any of their other very definite and ample list of terms for relatives, except the terms macu [cf. magu, “parturition”] and macipa [cf. cipa, “female”], son and daughter.” This statement is, however, too sweeping perhaps (166. 88).

According to Colonel Mallery, the Ute Indians indicate “mother” by placing the index finger in the mouth (497a. 479). Clark describes the common Indian sign as follows: “Bring partially curved and compressed right hand, and strike with two or three gentle taps right or left breast, and make sign for female; though in conversation the latter is seldom necessary. Deaf mutes make sign for female, and cross hands as in their sign for baby, and move them to front and upwards” (420. 262). Somewhat similar is the sign for “father”: “Bring the compressed right hand, back nearly outwards, in front of right or left breast, tips of fingers few inches from it; move the hand, mostly by wrist action, and gently tap the breast with tips of fingers two or three times, then make sign for male. Some Indians tap right breast for ‘father,’ and left for ‘mother.’ Deaf-mutes make sign for male, and then holding hands fixed as in their sign for baby, but a little higher, move the hands to front and upwards”

(420. 167).

 

Interesting is the following statement of Mr. Codrington, the well-known missionary to the Melanesians:—

“In Mota the word used for ‘mother’ is the same that is used for the division [tribe?] veve, with a plural sign ra veve. And it is not that a man’s kindred are so called after his mother, but that his mother is called his kindred, as if she were the representative of the division to which he belongs; as if he were not the child of a particular woman, but of the whole kindred for whom she brought him into the world.” Moreover, at Mota, in like fashion, “the word for ‘consort,’ ‘husband,’ or ‘wife,’ is in a plural form ra soai, the word used for members of a body, or the component parts of a canoe” (25. 307-8).

 

Mother-Right.

Since the appearance of Bachofen’s famous book on the matriarchate, “mother-right,” that system of society in which the mother is paramount in the family and the line of inheritance passes through her, has received much attention from students of sociology and primitive history.

Post thus defines the system of mother-right:—

“The matriarchate is a system of relationship according to which the child is related only to his mother and to the persons connected with him through the female line, while he is looked upon as not related to his father and the persons connected with him through the male line. According to this system, therefore, the narrowest family circle consists not, as with us to-day, of father, mother, and child, but of mother, mother’s brother, and sister’s child, whilst the father is completely wanting, and the mother’s brother takes the father’s place with the sister’s children. The real father is not the father of his own children, but of his nephews and nieces, whilst the brother of his wife is looked upon as father to his children. The brothers and sisters of the mother form with her a social group, to which belong also the children of the sisters, the children of the daughters of the sisters, etc., but not the children of the brothers, the children of the sisters’ sons, etc. With every husband the relationship ceases” (127. I. 13-14).

The system of mother-right prevails widely over the whole globe; in some places, however, only in fragmentary condition. It is found amongst nearly all the native tribes of America; the peoples of Malaysia, Melanesia, Australia, Micronesia, and Polynesia, the Dravidian tribes of India; in Africa it is found in the eastern Sahara, the Soudan, the east and west coast, and in the centre of the continent, but not to the exclusion, altogether, of father-right, while in the north the intrusion of Europeans and the followers of Islam has tended to suppress it. Traces of its former existence are discovered among certain of the ancient tribes of Asia Minor, the old Egyptians, Arabs, Greeks, Romans, Teutons, the Aryans of India, the Chinese, Japanese, etc.

Mother-right has been recognized by many sociologists as a system of family relationship, perhaps the most widespread, perhaps the most primitive of all. Dr. Brinton says:—

“The foundation of the gentile system, as of any other family life, is … the mutual affection between kindred. In the primitive period this is especially between children of the same mother, not so much because of the doubt of paternity, as because physiologically and obviously, it is the mother in whom is formed, and from whom alone proceeds, the living being” (412. 47).

Professor O. T. Mason, in the course of his interesting address on “Woman’s Share in Primitive Culture,” remarks (112. 10):—

“Such sociologists as Morgan and McLennan affirm that the primitive society had no family organization at all. They hypothecate a condition in which utter promiscuity prevailed. I see no necessity for this. There is some organization among insects. Birds mate and rear a little family. Many animals set up a kind of patriarchal horde. On the other hand, they err greatly who look among savages for such permanent home life as we enjoy. Marriages are in groups, children are the sons and daughters of these groups; divorces are common. The fathers of the children are not known, and if they were, they would have no authority on that account. The mother never changes her name, the children are named after her, or, at least, are not named after the father. The system of gentes prevails, each gens consisting of a hypothetical female ancestress, and all her descendants through females. These primitive men and women, having no other resort, hit upon this device to hold a band of kin together. Here was the first social tie on earth; the beginning of the state. The first empire was a woman and her children, regardless of paternity. This was the beginning of all the social bonds which unite us. Among our own Indians mother-right was nearly universal. Upon the death of a chief whose office was hereditary, he was succeeded, not by his son, but by the son of a sister, or an aunt, or a niece; all his property that was not buried with him fell to the same parties, could not descend to his children, since a child and the father belonged to different gentes.” McLennan has discussed at some length the subject of kinship in ancient Greece (115. 193-246), and maintains that “the system of double kinship, which prevailed in the time of Homer, was preceded by a system of kinship through females only,” referring to the cases of Lycaon, Tlepolemus, Helen, Arnaeus, Glaucus, and Sarpedon, besides the evidence in the Orestes of Euripides, and the Eumenides of Aeschylus. In the last, “the jury are equally divided on the plea [that Orestes was not of kin to his mother, Clytemnestra, whom he had killed, —“Do you call me related by blood to my mother?”], and Orestes gains his cause by the casting vote of Athene.” According to tradition, “in Greece, before the time of Cecrops, children always bore the name of their mothers,” in marked contrast to tha state of affairs in Sparta, where, according to Philo, “the marriage tie was so loose that men lent their wives to one another, and cared little by whom children were begotten, provided they turned out strong and healthy.”

We have preserved for us, by Plutarch and others, some of the opinions of Greek philosophers on the relation of the father and the mother to the child. Plato is represented as calling “mind the conception, idea, model, and father; and matter the mother, nurse, or seat and region capable of births.” Chrysippus is said to have stated: “The foetus is nourished in the womb like a plant; but, being born, is refrigerated and hardened by the air, and its spirit being changed it becomes an animal,” a view which, as McLennan points out, “constitutes the mother the mere nurse of her child, just as a field is of the seed sown in it.”

The view of Apollo, which, in the council of the gods, influenced Athene to decide for Orestes, is this:—

“The bearer of the so-called offspring is not the mother of it, but only the nurse of the newly conceived foetus. It is the male who is the author of its being; while she, as a stranger, for a stranger, preserves the young plant for those for whom the god has not blighted it in the bud. And I will show you a proof of this assertion; one may become a father without a mother. There stands by a witness