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

to be popular with the little girls.” He did not see a single girl playing with a doll, and thinks the articles collected may have been made rather for sale than otherwise. Of the boys, Mr. Murdoch says: “As soon as a boy is able to walk, his father makes him a little bow suited to his strength, with blunt arrows, with which he plays with the other boys, shooting at marks—for instance the fetal reindeer brought home from the spring hunt—till he is old enough to shoot small birds and lemmings” (514. 380, 383).

In a recent extensive and elaborately illustrated article, Dr. J. W. Fewkes has described the dolls of the Tusayan Indians (one of the Pueblo tribes). Of the tihus, or carved wooden dolls, the author says (226. 45): “These images are commonly mentioned by American visitors to the Tusayan Pueblos as idols, but there is abundant evidence to show that they are at present used simply as children’s playthings, which are made for that purpose and given to the girls with that thought in mind.” Attention is called to the difficulty of drawing the line between a doll and an idol among primitive peoples, the connection of dolls with religion, psychological evidence of which lingers with us to-day in the persistent folk-etymology which connects doll with idol. The following remarks of Dr. Fewkes are significant: “These figurines [generally images of deities or mythological personages carved in true archaic fashion] are generally made by participants in the Ni-mán-Ka-tci-na, and are presented to the children in July or August at the time of the celebration of the farewell of the Ka-tci’-nas [supernatural intercessors between men and gods]. It is not rare to see the little girls after the presentation carrying the dolls about on their backs wrapped in their blankets in the same manner in which babies are carried by their mothers or sisters. Those dolls which are more elaborately made are generally hung up as ornaments in the rooms, but never, so far as I have investigated the subject, are they worshipped. The readiness with which they are sold for a proper remuneration shows that they are not regarded as objects of reverence.” But, as Dr. Fewkes himself adds, “It by no means follows that they may not be copies of images which have been worshipped, although they now have come to have a strictly secular use.” Among some peoples, perhaps, the dolls, images of deities of the past, or even of the present, may have been used to impart the fundamentals of theology and miracle-story, and the playhouse of the children may have been at times a sort of religious kindergarten of a primitive type. Worthy of note in this connection is the statement of Castren that “the Finns manufacture a kind of dolls, or paras, out of a child’s cap filled with tow and stuck at the end of a rod. The fetich thus made is carried nine times round the church, with the cry ‘synny para’ (Para be born) repeated every time to induce a hal’tia—that is to say, a spirit—to enter into it” (388. 108).

A glance into St. Nicholas, or at the returns to the syllabus on dolls sent out by President Hall, is sufficient to indicate the farreaching associations of the subject, while the doll-congress of St. Petersburg has had its imitators both in Europe and America. A bibliography of doll-poems, doll-descriptions, doll-parties, doll-funerals, and the like would be a welcome addition to the literature of dolls, while a doll-museum of extended scope would be at once entertaining and of great scientific value.

The familiar phrase “to cry for the moon” corresponds to the French “prendre la lune avec ses dents.” In illustration of this proverbial expression, which Rabelais used in the form Je ne suis point clerc pour prendre la lune avec les dents, Loubens tells the amusing story of a servant who, when upbraided by the parents for not giving to a child what it wanted and for which it had been long crying, answered: “You must give it him yourself. A quarter-of-an-hour ago, he saw the moon at the bottom of a bucket of water, and wants me to give it him. That’s all.” (_Prov. et locut. franç_., p. 225.)

To-day children cry for the moon in vain, but ‘twas not ever thus. In payment for the church, which King Olaf wanted to have built,—a task impossible, the saint thought,—the giant demanded “the sun and moon, or St. Olaf himself.” Soon the building was almost completed, and St. Olaf was in great perplexity at the unexpected progress of the work. As he was wandering about “he heard a child cry inside a mountain, and a giant-woman hush it with these words: ‘Hush! hush! to-morrow comes thy father Wind-and-Weather home, bringing both sun and moon, or saintly Olaf’s self.’” Had not the king overheard this, and, by learning the giant’s name, been enabled to crush him, the child could have had his playthings the next day.

In the course of an incarnation-myth of the raven among the Haida Indians of the Queen Charlotte Islands, Mr. Mackenzie tells us (497.

53):—

 

“In time the woman bore a son, a remarkably small child. This child incessantly cried for the moon to play with, thus—_Koong-ah-ah, Koong-ah-ah_ (‘the moon, the moon’). The spirit-chief, in order to quiet the child, after carefully closing all apertures of the house, produced the moon, and gave it to the child to play with.” The result was that the raven (the child) ran off with the moon, and the people in consequence were put to no little inconvenience. But by and by the raven broke the original moon in two, threw half up into the sky, which became the sun, while of the other half he made the moon, and of the little bits, which were left in the breaking, all the stars.

In the golden age of the gods, the far-off juventus mundi, the parts of the universe were the playthings, the Spielzeug of the divine infants, just as peasants and human infants figure in the folktales as the toys of giants and Brobdingnagians. Indeed, some of the phenomena of nature and their peculiarities are explained by barbarous or semi-barbarous peoples as the result of the games and sports of celestial and spiritual children.

With barbarous or semi-civilized peoples possessing flocks and herds of domesticated animals the child is early made acquainted with their habits and uses. Regarding the Kaffirs of South Africa Theal says that it is the duty of the young boys to attend to the calves in the kraal, and “a good deal of time is passed in training them to run and to obey signals made by whistling. The boys mount them when they are eighteen months or two years old, and race about upon their backs” (543. 220). In many parts of the world the child has played an important role as shepherd and watcher of flocks and herds, and the shepherd-boy has often been called to high places in the state, and has even ascended the thrones of great cities and empires, ecclesiastical as well as political.

 

Dress.

In his little book on the philosophy of clothing Dr. Schurtz has given us an interesting account of the development and variation of external ornamentation and dress among the various races, especially the negro peoples of Africa. The author points out that with not a few primitive tribes only married persons wear clothes, girls and boys, young women and men even, going about in puris naturalibus (530. 13). Everywhere the woman is better clothed than the girl, and in some parts of Africa, as the ring is with us, so are clothes a symbol of marriage. Among the Balanta, for example, in Portuguese Senegambia, when a man marries he gives his wife a dress, and so long as this remains whole, the marriage-union continues in force. On the coast of Sierra Leone, the expression “he gave her a dress,” intimates that the groom has married a young girl (530. 14, 43-49).

Often, with many races the access of puberty leads to the adoption of clothing and to a refinement of dress and personal adornment. A relic of this remains, as Dr. Schurtz points out, in the leaving off of knickerbockers and the adoption of “long dresses,” by the young people in our civilized communities of to-day (530. 13).

With others the clothing of the young is of the most primitive type, and children in very many cases go about absolutely naked.

That the development of the sex-feeling, and entrance upon marriage, have with very many peoples been the chief incitements to dress and personal ornamentation, has been pointed out by Schurtz and others (530.

14).

 

Not alone this, but, sometimes, as among the Bura Negroes of the upper Blue Nile region, the advent of her child brings with it a modification in the dress of the mother. With these people, young girls wear an apron in front, married women one in front and one behind, but women who have already had a child wear two in front, one over the other. A similar remark applies to tattooing and kindred ornamentations of the body and its members. Among the women of the Bajansi on the middle Congo, for example, a certain form of tattoo indicated that the woman had borne a child (530. 78).

Schurtz points out that the kangaroo-skin breast-covering of the Tasmanian women, the shoulder and arm strips worn by the women of the Monbuttu in Africa, the skin mantles of the Marutse, the thick hip-girdle of the Tupende, and other articles of clothing of a like nature, seem to be really survivals of devices for carrying children, and not to have been originally intended as dress per se (530. 110, 111). Thus early does childhood become a social factor.

 

CHAPTER XIV.

 

THE CHILD AS MEMBER AND BUILDER OF SOCIETY.

In great states, children are always trying to remain children, and the parents wanting to make men and women of them. In vile states, the children are always wanting to be men and women, and the parents to keep them children.—_Ruskin_.

Children generally hate to be idle; all the care is then that their busy humour should be constantly employed in something of use to them.—_Locke_.

Look into our childish faces; See you not our willing hearts? Only love us—only lead us; Only let us know you need us, And we all will do our parts.—_Mary Howitt_.

[Greek: Anthropos Phusei zoon politikon] [Man is by nature a political (social) animal].—_Aristotle_.

Never till now did young men, and almost children, take such a command in human affairs.—_Carlyle_.

Predestination and Caste.

“Who can tell for what high cause This darling of the Gods was born?”

 

asks the poet Marvell. But with some peoples the task of answering the question is an easy one; for fate, or its human side, caste, has settled the matter long before the infant comes into the world. The Chinese philosopher, Han Wan-Kung, is cited by Legge as saying: “When Shuh-yu was born, his mother knew, as soon as she looked at him, that he would fall a victim to his love of bribes. When Yang sze-go was born, the mother of Shuh-he-ang knew, as soon as she heard him cry, that he would cause the destruction of all his kindred. When Yueh-tseaou was born, Tzewan considered it was a great calamity, knowing that through him all the ghosts of the Johgaou family would be famished” (487. 89).

In India, we meet with the Bidhata-Purusha, a “deity that predestines all the events of the life of man or woman, and writes on the forehead of the child, on the sixth day of its birth, a brief precis of them” (426. 9). India is par excellence the land of caste, but