CHAPTER IIIHUSBAND AND WIFE

CHAPTER IIIHUSBAND AND WIFEIt may be said that marriage in either of its forms makes the woman the property of her husband. We must, of course, carefully define the word "property." This we shall do by analyzing the economic duties of the woman, the sexual rights of the husband, and in general, the limits of marital authority, and the features of the treatment applied by a native to his wife. As the economic aspect will be better described below, in connection with the family life in general (including relations of parents to children), I shall here pass briefly over this point, remarking that the economic function of a wife is most important in the aboriginal life. She has to provide the regular food supply, to undertake the drudgery of camp life, the care of the children and all household implements, especially on marches. There remains the sexual aspect of marital life and the authority of the husband, including the treatment of the wife.Let us turn to the latter question and pass in review some statements illustrating the general character of the marital relations; the limits of the husband's authority and power; the actual use he makes of his authority,i. e.the treatment of the family; and last, but not least, what idea may be deduced from our evidence as to the feelings of the two consorts towards each other. On this subject few reliable statements will be found, and even these will be rather contradictory. And it would be unreasonable to expect anything else. We are asking here not for a report of plain facts, but for a judgmenton more or less complicated and hidden phenomena; this refers especially to the psychical side of the question,i. e.to the problem of conjugal affection. But even the other aspects of the problem—authority and treatment—although they are but a sum of facts, are always given in the form of vague general assertions and in that of qualified judgments.Very few writers trouble at all about the deeper, underlying phenomena. What they see is the way in which a woman is treated by her husband; they often judge this way according to their own moral principles and sensitiveness. They forget that, using the words of Messrs. Spencer and Gillen, "what would cause very serious pain to a civilized woman only results in trifling discomfort to a savage." For all these reasons there will be more scope for corrections in these statements than in the series given above.Statements.—Amongst the Kurnai there were certain limits to the husband's authority: "Although a man might kill his wife under certain circumstances, and his act would be then approved by custom and by public opinion, yet, under other circumstances, he might not do so without incurring blood feud."[156]All the duties of the family were "shared equally" by man and woman.[157]This statement, as to the limits of authority, is in agreement with all we shall find afterwards: nobody and nothing could interfere with the husband if he ill-treated his wife, unless her life was threatened. Then her relatives intervened. What the expression of "sharing the duties" means, is not quite clear. If it refers to economic functions, we shall have a better picture later; but it stands as a contrast to such expressions as "slave" or "drudge," used in connection with the wife's rôle by so many writers. In another place Howitt says: "I have known many instances ... including several cases among the Kurnai, of men carrying their wives about the country when too old or too sick to walk."[158]This would point to a great affection, not only resulting from erotic motives, but from real attachment, such as unites human beings who have lived and suffered much together.Among the Bangerang "community of interests between man and wife is much less than amongst civilized people. The husband gorges himself before he gives the rest of his food to his wife. He is a constant check on her free will and inclinations. She regards him more as her master and enemy than as her mate. But as she is not very sensitive, and educated to her lot, she bears it patiently, and after a year or two she is happy on the whole."[159]Speaking of the Australian aborigines in general, Curr says:[160]"The husband is almost an autocrat. His wife he may ill-treat as he chooses. In rare instances he will exchange her for another, repudiate, or give her away." He may not kill her; her relatives would kill the first of his blood. "Otherwise the husband may treat his wife as he likes." "The husband is the absolute owner of his wife. He may do as he pleases with her, treat her well or brutally, ill-use her at his pleasure; keep her to himself, prostitute her, exchange her for another, or give her away." But he adds, "Yet ... they are, on the whole, fairly happy, merry and contented."Amongst some West Victorian tribes, "notwithstanding this drudgery and the apparent hard usage to which the women are subjected, there is no want of affection amongst the members of a family."[161]The author speaks even of "persistent disrespect and unkindness" of a wife towards her husband;[162]he speaks also of women being "legally separated"[163]from their husbands; and of magic charms worked by husbands for punishment of their wives;[164]all this would point rather to a regulated and less brutal treatment. Here we have the usual concurrence of "hard usage" and affection. Characteristic is the addition of "apparent" to "hard usage." It is, perhaps, the whole style of treatment which appears to be hard to a European observer: the scale is shifted, but undoubtedly the nervous system of the natives is less responsive, too. What Dawson says about separation and husbands recurring to magic to influence their wives, seems to speak still more in favour of the good position of women. But we must remember, that in his whole book, Dawsonuses rather bright colours to picture the native character, and tries never to say anything that could shock a European reader.Bonney asserts that "quarrels between husband and wife are rare, and they show much affection for each other in their own way." Apparent coolness in their relations is required by custom. He gives an example of a couple who "loved each other," and did not even greet after a long absence.[165]According to the statement the treatment of women was fairly good, and there was also no want of mutual affection.Angas writes that among the aborigines, whom he had under observation (Lower Murray tribes), the man walks proudly in front, the woman following him; she is treated like a slave, and during meals receives bones and fragments like a dog.[166]About some of the Lower Murray natives we are told by Eyre, "But little real affection exists between husbands and wives." "Women are often sadly ill-treated by their husbands," "beaten about the head with waddies," "speared in the limbs," etc. Here we have bad treatment based on absolute authority and complete want of affection. Besides, we are told, "each father of a family rules absolutely over his own circle."[167]A statement of Mitchell (quoted by B. Smyth, i. p. 85), suggests that there could not be much affection between husband and wife. "... After a battle they (the women) do not always follow the fugitives from the field, but not infrequently go over, as a matter of course, to the victors, even with young children on their backs."[168]This statement sounds not very trustworthy. We never hear of open battles, in which fugitives would leave the camp unprotected. Besides, even if affection would not bind them to the "fugitives," would fear of the stranger and enemy not act in this direction? Little weight must be, therefore, attached to this evidence.Taplin, about the Narrinyeri, says that sometimes the treatment of women by their husbands is very bad; but this is not always the case. "I have known as well-matched and loving couples amongst the aborigines as I have amongst Europeans."[169]This last comparison shows that the ill-treatment was not a clearly distinctive feature of the aboriginal married life.The Encounter Bay tribe (Narrinyeri) regarded the wives"more as slaves than in any other light."[170]This statement implies lack of affection, absolute authority, and probably bad treatment. Nevertheless, we cannot be content with such a metaphorical and peremptory phrase on such an important subject. It is, therefore, useless, and adduced only as an example of how different and contradictory the statement of even good informants may be.We are told of a case, where a black woman of the Murrumbidgee River tribe, who lived in marital relations with a white bushranger, evinced for him the greatest affection and attachment, and even several times helped him to escape justice with great self-sacrifice. Although she was ill-treated by him in the most brutal and revolting way, nothing could alter her feelings.[171]This example may serve as an illustration of how attached a black woman may be to her husband, even if he ill-treats her.An account of the brutality of a woman's treatment is given by Tench (referring to the Port Jackson blacks). "But, indeed, the women are in all respects treated with savage barbarity; condemned not only to carry the children, but all other burthens, they meet in return for submission only with blows, kicks, and every other mark of brutality."[172]But Tench's statements do not appear to go very deeply below the surface of superficial observations.The same author in another place adduces the wounds and scars of women as examples of "ill-treatment."[173]How much weight is to be attached to such an inference is well known, after the explanation given by Spencer and Gillen.[174]I adduce this statement as one which is obviously unreliable, at the same time being typical of a whole class of statements based upon insufficient and superficial observations.Interesting is what Turnbull says in his old account: "The women appear to attach themselves faithfully to their husbands thus chosen: they are exceedingly jealous of them."[175]C. P. Hodgson,[176]speaking of some New South Wales tribes, says thatginswere slaves of their men and had all the drudgery of camp. The misleading term "slave" is of little use to us.According to Collins, in the Port Jackson tribes the father enjoyed absolute authority over his family.[177]Dr. John Fraser[178]speaks of the bad treatment of the woman by her husband amongst the natives of New South Wales. Further he says: "In spite of the hardness of their mode of life, married couples often live happily and affectionately together...."[179]G. W. Rusden writes:[180]"... a man had power of life and death over his wife." This asserts absolute authority; we know, that as a rule, the man had not the power of death over his wife unless she proved especially guilty.Rob. Dawson relates of the Port Stephens blacks, that they treated their wives very badly—with club and spear.[181]Hodgkinson remarks that the women are better treated in the River MacLeay tribes than among the other tribes he had under observation.[182]This may point to a real difference in the treatment of women among different tribes, or to the fact that the other tribes which Hodgkinson might have observed were nearer the settlements, and therefore more degenerate.As to the Euahlayi, Mrs. Parker remarks only: "In books about blacks, you always read of the subjection of the women, but I have seen henpecked black husbands."[183]This statement, which implies that bad treatment was not universal, is inexact and therefore of little use.We read about the Central Australian tribes of Finke River: "Some married couples agree very well, live frequently quite alone in solitude, and together provide for their wants."[184]The wives are only ill-treated in case they elope."The women are certainly not treated usually with anything which could be called excessive harshness" among the Aruntas.[185]Only in cases of infidelity "the treatment of the woman is marked by brutal and often revolting severity."[186]The same is repeated of the Northern tribes of Central Australia.[187]We are also told that the scars that the majority of women possess are due, not to the barbarity of their husbands, but to the mourning ceremonies, during which the women beat and wound themselves severely. And the authorsconclude: "Taking everything into account, however, the life of one of these savage women, judged from the point of view of her requirements ... is far from being the miserable one that it is so often pictured."[188]For what would be a severe pain to a white woman is for them merely a trifling discomfort.We read in Barron Field, on the authority of two shipwrecked men, who spent some time among the natives of Moreton Bay, that the women are there usually well treated by their husbands.[189]Another analogous statement is given on the Moreton Bay tribes: "The wife is rather the drudge or slave, than the companion of her husband." This (although badly formulated) means bad treatment and lack of affection as well. But we read further on that cruelty is perpetrated usually under the effect of rum; this corroborates our supposition made in connection with Lumholtz's statement. And we learn yet: "but instances also of warm and deep affection are not infrequent."[190]And the author confirms it by an example.Among the Kabi and Wakka: "Husbands were usually affectionate to their wives, but when angered they were often brutal, thrashing them unmercifully with waddies, sometimes breaking their limbs and cracking their skulls. Still the conjugal bond generally held out for a lifetime."[191]Lumholtz says: "The women are the humble servants or rather slaves of the native."[192]The women are ill-treated in the most cruel manner; he gives an example of a wife being awfully maltreated for a trifle.[193]But this happened among "civilized blacks." If she elopes she may be even killed. But sometimes they are examples of loving couples.[194]In another place we read of love and jealousy and of the great affection they are capable of;[195]and an example thereof is given. This statement suggests to us that much of the ill-treatment was due perhaps to the "civilization" of the blacks.An analogous statement in this regard is given by Palmer, concerning the tribes of Upper Flinders and Cloncurry River. The lot of the women is hard and they are often treated with club and spear. There are, nevertheless, happy and mutually regardful couples.[196]Roth says[197]that among the North-West Queensland tribes the man has absolute authority over his wife. In another place we are informed, that "in the case of a man killing hisown gin, he has to deliver one of his own sisters" to be put to death. And "... a wife has always her 'brothers' to look after her interests." Thus, in some extreme cases, the husband's authority seems to be limited by his wife's kindred, who protect her.The women among the Cape York natives are reported to have a very hard life, but occasionally there exists a strong attachment between a married couple.[198]In West Australia the man is said to possess a full and inheritable right over his wife.[199]Grey says that they have very much to suffer, especially from the jealousy of their masters.[200]The authority of the husband appears also in the story, told in Chapter XVII, where the husband inflicts a severe beating on his two wives; nevertheless, he seems to display also a certain affection for them and great care, protecting them as far as possible.[201]We learn from Bishop Salvado that:"La méthode qu'il[the husband]emploie pour la[his wife]corriger est si barbare, qu'il arrive bien souvent que ... il lui traverse une jambe de son Ghici, il lui casse la tête de son Danac et lui prodigue mainte autre tendresse de ce genre,"[202]in cases of jealousy. In general"L'état d'esclavage dans lequel toutes sont retenues est vraiment déplorable. La seule présence de leurs maris les fait trembler, et la mauvais humeur de ceux-ci se décharge souvent sur elles par des coups et des blessures."[203]The barbarous modes of treatment are well known to us; what is more important is the great fear they are said to have of their husbands. But, in another place, the same author speaks of tender and affectionate couples: "I love her and she loves me"[204]as a native said to him. So this statement seems not so contradictory after all with all the others, although it contradicts itself.Among the natives of King George's Sound the women are generally very ill-treated by their husbands. But in spite of that they do not lack affection and often quarrel among themselves, taking the part of their respective husbands.[205]Here we have a great diversity of statements and much contradiction. We read of barbarous ill-treatment andof deep affection; of drudgery and slavery imposed on wives, and of henpecked husbands; of fugitive men having recourse to magic, and of women mercilessly chastised, prostituted, and so on. Some statements contradict themselves. All this shows, in the first place, that our authors were lost in the diversity of facts and could not give an adequate generalization, which should picture for us the characteristic features of this relation (between husband and wife) as they distinguish it from the same relation in other societies. In fact, a good characterization of a given phenomena can be obtained only by comparing it with other phenomena of the same kind found under different conditions. Otherwise the observer will invariably note that aspect of the phenomenon which struck him most strongly, and not the one that is objectively the most characteristic, as is found in the present case. This is the more evident in that we do find a few statements (Howitt on Kurnai, Spencer and Gillen's remark on the Central tribes, J. Mathew), which contain all the apparently contradictory elements found in the other statements, but harmonized with one another. From these few consistent statements it appears that, although the husband had a nearly unlimited authority, and in some cases, when he had special reasons (and undoubtedly deemed himself to be within his rights), he might use his authority for a very brutal and severe chastisement, nevertheless, there was usually a mutual fondness and kindness. Taking this picture as a standard, it is possible to understand and make consistent all the other statements if we assume that they exaggerate some of the traits of the general picture.[206]But we can make still better use of our evidence by asking some definite questions and seeing how far we get a clear answer to them. And we shall see that if, in this way, the whole picture be analytically divided into sections, the evidence will yield a quite unambiguous answer on some important points concerning the relation between man and wife in the Australian aboriginal society.The first inquiry is into the legal aspect of the husband's authority. In accordance with our definition of "legal," we shall try to ascertain to what extent the relationship of man and wife was left to follow its natural course; at what point society interfered; and what form this intervention assumed.After the question of authority has been answered, that of treatment will be dealt with. The legal authority gives us only a knowledge of the limits which society set to the husband's ill-treatment. But even if his freedom went very far, and if he was not compelled from outside to a certain standard of good treatment, he might feel compelled to it by his own affection.Therefore we are led, in the third place, to ask the psychological question concerning mutual feelings betweenhusband and wife. Affection is, of course, the most important, fundamental characteristic of any intimate personal relationship between two people. But it is, at the same time, rather difficult to give any more detailed answer on that point, when it is a question of savages whom no one has intimately studied from this point of view, and of whose psychology we have only a very slight idea. More cannot be expected than to get an answer to the quite general question: Is there anything like affection between the consorts, or is their relation based only on the fear of the woman of her husband? I would also remark that these three points—affection, treatment, and authority—although closely related, may be separately analysed, as each of them is of a different character: affection is a psychological, authority is a social factor; the treatment, being a result of them both, must be investigated separately, as we cannot foretell from either of its components the form it will assume; on the other hand, it is precisely from the treatment that we can best judge of the affection.1. Authority.—It seems beyond doubt that in the aboriginal society the husband exercised almost complete authority over his wife; she was entirely in his hands and he might ill-treat her, provided he did not kill her. Out of our thirty statements, in six cases (Kurnai, Bangerang, Lower Murray tribes, according to Bonney, Geawe-Gal, Port Jackson tribes, North-west Central Queenslanders) the absolute authority of the husband is explicitly affirmed. We read in them either the bare statement that the husband had an absolute power over his family; or, in the better of them, we are more exactly informed that he had only to abstain from inflicting death on his wife. It was the latter's kinsman who would avenge her (Kurnai, Bangerang, North-west Central Queenslanders). It is difficult to ascertain in what form society would interfere with the husband if he transgressed the limits of his legal authority,i. e.killed his wife. Curr informs us that thewoman's relatives would avenge her death. Howitt says that there would ensue a blood feud, which comes nearly to the same. It is very probable that the woman's kin retained some rights of protection.[207]The remaining statements implicitly declare that the husband's authority was very extensive. (Encounter Bay tribes according to Meyer; New South Wales tribes according to Hodgson; Port Stephens tribes according to R. Dawson; Arunta; Herbert River tribes; Queenslanders according to Palmer; Moreton Bay tribes according to J. D. Lang; South-Western tribes according to Salvado; West Australians according to Grey.) It is clear that wherever we read of excessive harshness and bad treatment, wounds, blows inflicted on women, the husband must possess the authority to do it; in other words, he does not find any social barrier preventing him from ill-treatment. Especially as, in these statements, such ill-treatment is mentioned to be the rule and not an exception. In two statements we can gather no information on this point. According to the statement of J. Dawson on the West Victoria tribes, the husband's authority appears strictly limited by the potential intervention of the chief, who could even divorce the woman if she complained. But Curr warns us against Dawson's information concerning the chief and his power.[208]Curr's arguments appear to be very conclusive. Too much weight cannot be attached, therefore, to Dawson's exceptional statement. Discarding it, we see that we have on this point fairly clear information. We may assume that society interfered but seldom with the husband, in fact, only in the extreme case of his killing his wife. Six statements are directly, and the remainder indirectly, in favour of this view, and the only one contradictory is not very trustworthy.But is there nothing in this assumption that would appear to contradict other well-established features ofAustralian social life? Against the husband's authority there could only be the intervention of the Central Tribal Authority or of the woman's kin. But the former was not strong enough to enter into questions concerning the private life of a married couple. The Tribal Government probably had to deal only with grave offences against the welfare of the whole tribe. And we never hear that it interfered with any household questions. The woman's kin, on the other hand, seems to have waived nearly all its rights over the woman (compare also above what had been said about the betrothal). Nevertheless, as mentioned above, it was the woman's kin who eventually intervened. It must also be borne in mind that as marriages were, without exception, patrilocal,[209]the wife was far away from her family, and, therefore, much less likely to be protected by her relatives. And, as we shall see below, when discussing the aboriginal mode of living, the single families live in considerable isolation, so that it would appear rather difficult to assume any intervention from outside in matters of family life. It appears, therefore, that all the circumstances on which family life depends point very clearly to, and are in complete agreement with, our assumption of a very extensive authority of the husband over his wife (or wives), limited only in some extreme cases by the kin of the woman.2. Passing now to the other point: how far does the husband make use of his power? in other words, how does he usuallytreathis wife? Without entering more in detail into the motives that regulate his conduct, it is clear that even if we know his authority, we by no means know how he usually used or misused it. Here our impression when reading the evidence is undoubtedly that the general way in which wives are treated in aboriginal Australia is a very barbarous one. In fact, out of our thirty statements, fourteen speak more or less explicitly of barbarism, slavery, wounds and scars, etc. Only seven assert that the average treatment is a fairlygood one and that bad treatment is only a consequence of certain trespasses, which are considered punishable and consequently punished. The remaining nine statements say that treatment is sometimes good, sometimes bad, or do not say anything about the subject. But in this case it is apparently needful to give a more careful consideration of the quality of the information than of its quantity. In fact, four[210]out of the seven of the authorities who affirm good treatment are very clear and explicit, and their statements are consequently quite consistent with themselves; two of them are, besides, our best authorities. Schultze and Bonney seem also in general to be quite trustworthy. From the other part of our evidence (that which asserts barbarous ill-treatment) only three are fairly reliable (Curr, Salvado, and, to a certain extent, Eyre). But even these are not so consistent with themselves: they affirm, that in spite of the barbarous ill-treatment, the women seem to be rather happy. If they were happy as a rule, it means that this ill-treatment did not appear to them cruel, and that they did not suffer under its atrocity. Consequently that it was only apparently bad (the same expression is used by Dawson,loc. cit.) in the eyes of the observers, and was not bad as measured by the standard of native sensitiveness. The statement of Spencer and Gillen confirms this view explicitly. The statements affirming bad treatment (Curr, Salvado, Eyre, etc.) do not distinguish the important point whether this ill-treatment was a punishment or not; whether it was inflicted only in definite cases where, according to the unwritten tribal law, the wife was guilty of an offence, or whether it was inflicted in fits of bad temper and ungracious mood. This distinction is very important; in the first case the husband would have only, so to say, an executive power of the collective, customary will, and his bad treatment would be only an act of justice; in the second case he would have been a real tyrant and his ill-treatment a mere act of brutality.This remark has also an important connection with the problem of authority discussed above. Howitt's statement, as well as Spencer and Gillen's, points very clearly to the fact that the ill-treatment was only an act of justice (from the aboriginal point of view). Mathew, on the other hand, explicitly says that the ill-treatment was caused by fits of anger. The other statements keep silence on the point. Some of them speak, indeed, of a purely arbitrary harshness without any reason, but this refers to "civilized blacks," especially under the influence of rum and other white man's vices.There is a point that must not be forgotten in dealing with this question. The majority of observations were made on degenerated blacks (such as were in missions, raised on farms, in the service of white men, etc.). These blacks may have had quite different manners and customs from those of the aborigines in their primitive state. And their manners were not changed in the direction of amelioration, but the reverse. This conclusion is corroborated by an interesting passage in Howitt.[211]This author says that examples of alleged contempt and discourtesy of a man to his wife, ase. g.a man gorging himself with meat and throwing only a bone to his wife, may be partly "the consequence of the 'new rule' under the influence of civilization." They sometimes express customary rules of magic origin and are no sign of contempt at all. And the author adds that when he had the opportunity of observing the blacks for a week in more primitive conditions, "this week passed without a single quarrel or dispute." This all shows that, in case of contradiction, we may suppose that the statements affirming unusual ill-treatment are affected by errors due to bad material, insufficient observation, and false inference, rather than that the statements of kindness are exaggerated.It would be interesting to note what effect the widespread practice of exchange of relatives (see above) hadon the treatment of wives. Naturally it might be supposed that for his own sisters' (or relatives') sake every man would probably be more lenient towards his wife. But as Mr. Thomas justly pointed out, the exchange of females may be conceived also in the light of a certain family giving up its rights to a female, and receiving another one in exchange.[212]It would be, therefore, difficult to say anythinga priorion this influence. A phrase quoted by Curr suggests that the former assumption would be nearer to truth. A black said once to him, speaking about his sister given in exchange for his wife: "If he beats my sister I shall beat my wife." Whether this common-sense idea of justice prevailed in general in the aboriginal mind it would be difficult to decide without further knowledge. But possibly exchange of females was also a cause of the amelioration of the woman's lot.To sum up shortly, we have ten against four statements in favour of indiscriminate ill-treatment of wives. But, if we reduce both these figures by using only reliable ones, we have four against three in favour of good treatment. By closer analysis we find that ill-treatment is—in the primitive state of the aboriginal society—in most cases probably a form of regulated intra-family justice; and that although the methods of treatment in general are very harsh, still they are applied to much more resistant natures and should not be measured by the standard of our ideas and our nerves. For otherwise we should not understand how the feature of happiness, which is reported by nearly all our informants, could be present.3. These considerations directly lead us up to an answer to our last question, viz. whether there is a kind ofmutual affectionor whether there is only the power of the man, and the legal factors, that bind the consorts together. In the first place, it is well to bear in mind that in this respect there must have been a great variety of cases corresponding to the characters of the individuals concerned. We only ask here, therefore, the quite generalquestion whether, as implied in some statements, there was an absolute absence of any kind of personal feeling in all Australian families and the wife considered her husband as her master only and her natural enemy, she being merely his slave. But here we find also that the few statements (Curr, Eyre, Meyer, Mitchell) that imply such an opinion are not very clear and explicit (in this category we include all the statements as to slavery and drudgery which can possibly embrace not only the treatment itself but the underlying feelings); whereas there are ten statements (Howitt, Bonney, Dawson, Lumholtz, J. D. Lang, Salvado, Turnbull, Grey, Mathew, Macgillivray)[213]which affirm that there is real affection between husband and wife. Some of them come from our most reliable writers and are very explicit (Howitt, Bonney, Lumholtz, Salvado). As what has been said of the treatment refers indirectly to this point (for treatment is regulated by personal feelings and not by tribal authority), we may say that the assumption of a complete lack of any feelings of affection or attachment does not seem very plausible. That these feelings would show themselves in another way than in our society seems beyond doubt. But that they would be completely absent and their places taken only by fear and awe—that is not in agreement with our evidence. Even judging on this questiona priori, we could hardly suppose that there would be a complete absence of all factors that tend to create mutual affection between consorts. In the first place we may remember that in many cases the motive of sexual love was not absent from the aboriginal marriages. This was apparently always the case in marriages by elopement, which occurred in all tribes and was, under certain conditions, a legal and recognized form of contracting marriage. In the cases when, following infant betrothal and other circumstances, the husband was much olderthan his wife, the motive of sexual love was probably not reciprocal, but it would operate as a cause for more tender feelings on the part of the males. In the second place, it must be remembered that there are no reasons why the blacks should be completely alien to the feelings of attachment. Husband and wife lived more or less completely separated from the community, forming a more or less isolated unit (see below,on the mode of living). They had many interests in common, and, this being the strongest bond, they had common children to whom they were usually much attached.To sum up this chapter, it may be said that the husband had a well-nigh complete authority over his wife; that he treated her in harmony with the low standard of culture, harshly, but not excessively harshly; that apparently the more tender feelings of love, affection and attachment were not entirely absent from the aboriginal household. But it must be added that, on these two last points, the information is contradictory and insufficient.Mourning and Burial CeremoniesAmong the duties and obligations which determine the relationship of husband and wife, there are some which may be mentioned in this place. I mean the customs and rites connected with mourning. Mourning expresses a whole complex of feelings and ideas, of which two sets are important here, inasmuch as they throw light upon the relationship of the mourner and the mourned. Firstly, mourning always expresses sorrow and grief (real or feigned) for the deceased; secondly, the various mourning ceremonies imply the idea that there was a strong tie between the two persons involved, a tie which persists after death and which must be broken by the magical virtue of rites.[214]Both these interpretations of mourning (sorrowfor the deceased and the necessity of breaking the bond) involve the idea that the relationship between husband and wife was acknowledged by society as an individual and strong personal tie. As the modes of obtaining wives have shown us that to bring about a marriage it was necessary to get the sanction of society; so the long mourning of the widow and the different formalities she has to perform, before she becomes the property of the dead man's heir or is allowed to remarry, show that marriage was not dissolved at once, even by the death of the man. It shows, therefore, that the tie between husband and wife was not a loose one, and not merely established by the fact of possession or cohabitation; and that the appropriation was based not only on legal ideas, but deeply rooted in magico-religious feelings and representations.The idea that mourning is performed in order to express sorrow, apart from its being obvious in the ceremonies themselves, is realized and formulated by the natives. When a very old and decrepit woman dies, or an old man who has lost his memory and is useless in tribal matters, the natives do not perform any elaborate ceremonies. They allege as a reason that they "do not feel enough sorrow for them."[215]Ceremonies involving the motive of sorrow are mentioned in several places by Spencer and Gillen. Among the Arunta, "when a man dies his specialUnawaorUnawassmear their hair, faces and breasts with white pipeclay and remain silent for a certain time until a ceremony calledAralkililimahas been performed."[216]The widow has a special name. In some of the northern tribes she has to keep silence.E. g."Among the Warramunga ... the widows are not allowed to speak for sometimes as long a period as twelve months, during the whole of which time they communicate only by meansof gesture language."[217]Among the Arunta the widow has to live in the woman's camp and suspend, to a large extent, her usual occupations.[218]When she wishes the ban of silence to be removed, she has to perform a ceremony in public, which consists in the main in an offering of vegetable food to the younger brother and sons of the deceased. "The meaning of this ceremony, as symbolized by the gathering of the tubers or grass seed, is that the widow is about to resume the ordinary occupations of a woman's life, which have been to a large extent suspended, while she remained in camp in what we may call deep mourning."[219]Analogous ceremonies of nearly the same duration and involving similar ordeals and privations, are in use in some other tribes: among the Kaitish and Unmatjera the widow has her hair cut off, she has to smear her body over with ashes, during the whole time that mourning lasts,i. e.several months, she has also to keep silence.[220]Amongst all these tribes the women inflict upon themselves the most cruel wounds. "The women seem to work themselves up into a perfect frenzy, and to become quite careless as to the way in which they cut and hack themselves about, with, however, this restriction notable on all such occasions, that however frenzied they apparently become, no vital part is injured, the cutting being confined to such parts as the shoulders, scalp, and legs."[221]The authors give a detailed description of such ordeals undergone by two widows of deceased men in the Warramunga tribe. "The actual widow scores her scalp with a red-hot firestick."[222]Taking mourning customs as a measure of the intensity of sorrow and grief, it may be seen that here these feelings are supposed to be very strong, as the hardship and ordeals are very great. Of course, there is no question of individual feelings. The widow may be in some cases really glad that her husband has died, as well in Australia asin any of our modern societies. What is shown at any rate is, that society supposes and requires such feelings, and that they are duties according to the social moral code; in fact, that sorrow and grief for the deceased are required by the collective ideas and feelings. Whether these feelings are displayed in order to appease the spirit of the deceased, whether there is real sorrow as a basis for these customs, these are questions irrelevant in this place.Probably many different motives contributed to form the mourning rites and duties, as they are now in existence. These duties have in Australia apparently not merely a customary, but also a legal character. For we read in Spencer and Gillen: "a younger brother meeting the wife of a dead elder brother out in the bush, performing the ordinary duties of a woman, such as hunting for 'yams,' within a short time of her husband's death, would be quite justified in spearing her."[223]And, again, it is said in another place, that if a woman would not comply with the severe ordeal which is her duty, "she is liable to be severely chastised or even killed by her brother."[224]Whatever more special explanation might be attempted of all these laws and customs it is certain that they express the fact that the marital bonds are very lasting. The obligations last after the death of the husband, and expiation must be made for the eventual new union. For Spencer and Gillen give a detailed account of all the complex formalities and duties to be performed before the widow can remarry, or rather is given up to the younger brother of the deceased, to whom she belongs by law.[225]After the performance of several ceremonies and a long lapse of time, she may still, if she likes, paint a narrow white band on her forehead, which is regarded as an intimation that she is not anxious to marry at present, as she still mourns, though to a lessdegree than before, for the dead man.[226]"The spirit of the dead man was supposed to have been watching all these proceedings as he lay at the bottom of the grave."[227]Unfortunately the other authors do not give anything approaching Spencer and Gillen's full account of burial and mourning. In particular, if there is any description, the actual and tribal relatives are not differentiated. All that I have adduced here from Spencer and Gillen refers to the actual widow. A short remark of Roth may be quoted: "In the Boulia district when a man dies, his nearer relatives have special mourning performances. These nearer relatives, in the case of an adult male, are considered to be thewifeand his brother and sisters by the same mother, not his father or mother; with an adult woman, only the brothers and sisters by the same mother."[228]Amongst the Dieri, "a widow is not permitted to speak until the whole of the white clay which forms her 'mourning' has come off without assistance" (perhaps some months).[229]There is also a statement about the husband's mourning. Amongst the Victorian tribes, "when a married woman dies and her body is burned, the husband puts her pounded calcined bones into a little opossum skin bag, which he carries in front of his chest until he marries again, or until the bag is worn out."To sum up, it may be said, that as far as Spencer and Gillen's evidence may be taken as typical of what burial and mourning is in Australia, the legal and customary aspects of the marriage bonds is not less strongly expressed in the way in which they are dissolved, than it is in the way in which they are brought about.

It may be said that marriage in either of its forms makes the woman the property of her husband. We must, of course, carefully define the word "property." This we shall do by analyzing the economic duties of the woman, the sexual rights of the husband, and in general, the limits of marital authority, and the features of the treatment applied by a native to his wife. As the economic aspect will be better described below, in connection with the family life in general (including relations of parents to children), I shall here pass briefly over this point, remarking that the economic function of a wife is most important in the aboriginal life. She has to provide the regular food supply, to undertake the drudgery of camp life, the care of the children and all household implements, especially on marches. There remains the sexual aspect of marital life and the authority of the husband, including the treatment of the wife.

Let us turn to the latter question and pass in review some statements illustrating the general character of the marital relations; the limits of the husband's authority and power; the actual use he makes of his authority,i. e.the treatment of the family; and last, but not least, what idea may be deduced from our evidence as to the feelings of the two consorts towards each other. On this subject few reliable statements will be found, and even these will be rather contradictory. And it would be unreasonable to expect anything else. We are asking here not for a report of plain facts, but for a judgmenton more or less complicated and hidden phenomena; this refers especially to the psychical side of the question,i. e.to the problem of conjugal affection. But even the other aspects of the problem—authority and treatment—although they are but a sum of facts, are always given in the form of vague general assertions and in that of qualified judgments.

Very few writers trouble at all about the deeper, underlying phenomena. What they see is the way in which a woman is treated by her husband; they often judge this way according to their own moral principles and sensitiveness. They forget that, using the words of Messrs. Spencer and Gillen, "what would cause very serious pain to a civilized woman only results in trifling discomfort to a savage." For all these reasons there will be more scope for corrections in these statements than in the series given above.

Statements.—Amongst the Kurnai there were certain limits to the husband's authority: "Although a man might kill his wife under certain circumstances, and his act would be then approved by custom and by public opinion, yet, under other circumstances, he might not do so without incurring blood feud."[156]All the duties of the family were "shared equally" by man and woman.[157]This statement, as to the limits of authority, is in agreement with all we shall find afterwards: nobody and nothing could interfere with the husband if he ill-treated his wife, unless her life was threatened. Then her relatives intervened. What the expression of "sharing the duties" means, is not quite clear. If it refers to economic functions, we shall have a better picture later; but it stands as a contrast to such expressions as "slave" or "drudge," used in connection with the wife's rôle by so many writers. In another place Howitt says: "I have known many instances ... including several cases among the Kurnai, of men carrying their wives about the country when too old or too sick to walk."[158]This would point to a great affection, not only resulting from erotic motives, but from real attachment, such as unites human beings who have lived and suffered much together.Among the Bangerang "community of interests between man and wife is much less than amongst civilized people. The husband gorges himself before he gives the rest of his food to his wife. He is a constant check on her free will and inclinations. She regards him more as her master and enemy than as her mate. But as she is not very sensitive, and educated to her lot, she bears it patiently, and after a year or two she is happy on the whole."[159]Speaking of the Australian aborigines in general, Curr says:[160]"The husband is almost an autocrat. His wife he may ill-treat as he chooses. In rare instances he will exchange her for another, repudiate, or give her away." He may not kill her; her relatives would kill the first of his blood. "Otherwise the husband may treat his wife as he likes." "The husband is the absolute owner of his wife. He may do as he pleases with her, treat her well or brutally, ill-use her at his pleasure; keep her to himself, prostitute her, exchange her for another, or give her away." But he adds, "Yet ... they are, on the whole, fairly happy, merry and contented."Amongst some West Victorian tribes, "notwithstanding this drudgery and the apparent hard usage to which the women are subjected, there is no want of affection amongst the members of a family."[161]The author speaks even of "persistent disrespect and unkindness" of a wife towards her husband;[162]he speaks also of women being "legally separated"[163]from their husbands; and of magic charms worked by husbands for punishment of their wives;[164]all this would point rather to a regulated and less brutal treatment. Here we have the usual concurrence of "hard usage" and affection. Characteristic is the addition of "apparent" to "hard usage." It is, perhaps, the whole style of treatment which appears to be hard to a European observer: the scale is shifted, but undoubtedly the nervous system of the natives is less responsive, too. What Dawson says about separation and husbands recurring to magic to influence their wives, seems to speak still more in favour of the good position of women. But we must remember, that in his whole book, Dawsonuses rather bright colours to picture the native character, and tries never to say anything that could shock a European reader.Bonney asserts that "quarrels between husband and wife are rare, and they show much affection for each other in their own way." Apparent coolness in their relations is required by custom. He gives an example of a couple who "loved each other," and did not even greet after a long absence.[165]According to the statement the treatment of women was fairly good, and there was also no want of mutual affection.Angas writes that among the aborigines, whom he had under observation (Lower Murray tribes), the man walks proudly in front, the woman following him; she is treated like a slave, and during meals receives bones and fragments like a dog.[166]About some of the Lower Murray natives we are told by Eyre, "But little real affection exists between husbands and wives." "Women are often sadly ill-treated by their husbands," "beaten about the head with waddies," "speared in the limbs," etc. Here we have bad treatment based on absolute authority and complete want of affection. Besides, we are told, "each father of a family rules absolutely over his own circle."[167]A statement of Mitchell (quoted by B. Smyth, i. p. 85), suggests that there could not be much affection between husband and wife. "... After a battle they (the women) do not always follow the fugitives from the field, but not infrequently go over, as a matter of course, to the victors, even with young children on their backs."[168]This statement sounds not very trustworthy. We never hear of open battles, in which fugitives would leave the camp unprotected. Besides, even if affection would not bind them to the "fugitives," would fear of the stranger and enemy not act in this direction? Little weight must be, therefore, attached to this evidence.Taplin, about the Narrinyeri, says that sometimes the treatment of women by their husbands is very bad; but this is not always the case. "I have known as well-matched and loving couples amongst the aborigines as I have amongst Europeans."[169]This last comparison shows that the ill-treatment was not a clearly distinctive feature of the aboriginal married life.The Encounter Bay tribe (Narrinyeri) regarded the wives"more as slaves than in any other light."[170]This statement implies lack of affection, absolute authority, and probably bad treatment. Nevertheless, we cannot be content with such a metaphorical and peremptory phrase on such an important subject. It is, therefore, useless, and adduced only as an example of how different and contradictory the statement of even good informants may be.We are told of a case, where a black woman of the Murrumbidgee River tribe, who lived in marital relations with a white bushranger, evinced for him the greatest affection and attachment, and even several times helped him to escape justice with great self-sacrifice. Although she was ill-treated by him in the most brutal and revolting way, nothing could alter her feelings.[171]This example may serve as an illustration of how attached a black woman may be to her husband, even if he ill-treats her.An account of the brutality of a woman's treatment is given by Tench (referring to the Port Jackson blacks). "But, indeed, the women are in all respects treated with savage barbarity; condemned not only to carry the children, but all other burthens, they meet in return for submission only with blows, kicks, and every other mark of brutality."[172]But Tench's statements do not appear to go very deeply below the surface of superficial observations.The same author in another place adduces the wounds and scars of women as examples of "ill-treatment."[173]How much weight is to be attached to such an inference is well known, after the explanation given by Spencer and Gillen.[174]I adduce this statement as one which is obviously unreliable, at the same time being typical of a whole class of statements based upon insufficient and superficial observations.Interesting is what Turnbull says in his old account: "The women appear to attach themselves faithfully to their husbands thus chosen: they are exceedingly jealous of them."[175]C. P. Hodgson,[176]speaking of some New South Wales tribes, says thatginswere slaves of their men and had all the drudgery of camp. The misleading term "slave" is of little use to us.According to Collins, in the Port Jackson tribes the father enjoyed absolute authority over his family.[177]Dr. John Fraser[178]speaks of the bad treatment of the woman by her husband amongst the natives of New South Wales. Further he says: "In spite of the hardness of their mode of life, married couples often live happily and affectionately together...."[179]G. W. Rusden writes:[180]"... a man had power of life and death over his wife." This asserts absolute authority; we know, that as a rule, the man had not the power of death over his wife unless she proved especially guilty.Rob. Dawson relates of the Port Stephens blacks, that they treated their wives very badly—with club and spear.[181]Hodgkinson remarks that the women are better treated in the River MacLeay tribes than among the other tribes he had under observation.[182]This may point to a real difference in the treatment of women among different tribes, or to the fact that the other tribes which Hodgkinson might have observed were nearer the settlements, and therefore more degenerate.As to the Euahlayi, Mrs. Parker remarks only: "In books about blacks, you always read of the subjection of the women, but I have seen henpecked black husbands."[183]This statement, which implies that bad treatment was not universal, is inexact and therefore of little use.We read about the Central Australian tribes of Finke River: "Some married couples agree very well, live frequently quite alone in solitude, and together provide for their wants."[184]The wives are only ill-treated in case they elope."The women are certainly not treated usually with anything which could be called excessive harshness" among the Aruntas.[185]Only in cases of infidelity "the treatment of the woman is marked by brutal and often revolting severity."[186]The same is repeated of the Northern tribes of Central Australia.[187]We are also told that the scars that the majority of women possess are due, not to the barbarity of their husbands, but to the mourning ceremonies, during which the women beat and wound themselves severely. And the authorsconclude: "Taking everything into account, however, the life of one of these savage women, judged from the point of view of her requirements ... is far from being the miserable one that it is so often pictured."[188]For what would be a severe pain to a white woman is for them merely a trifling discomfort.We read in Barron Field, on the authority of two shipwrecked men, who spent some time among the natives of Moreton Bay, that the women are there usually well treated by their husbands.[189]Another analogous statement is given on the Moreton Bay tribes: "The wife is rather the drudge or slave, than the companion of her husband." This (although badly formulated) means bad treatment and lack of affection as well. But we read further on that cruelty is perpetrated usually under the effect of rum; this corroborates our supposition made in connection with Lumholtz's statement. And we learn yet: "but instances also of warm and deep affection are not infrequent."[190]And the author confirms it by an example.Among the Kabi and Wakka: "Husbands were usually affectionate to their wives, but when angered they were often brutal, thrashing them unmercifully with waddies, sometimes breaking their limbs and cracking their skulls. Still the conjugal bond generally held out for a lifetime."[191]Lumholtz says: "The women are the humble servants or rather slaves of the native."[192]The women are ill-treated in the most cruel manner; he gives an example of a wife being awfully maltreated for a trifle.[193]But this happened among "civilized blacks." If she elopes she may be even killed. But sometimes they are examples of loving couples.[194]In another place we read of love and jealousy and of the great affection they are capable of;[195]and an example thereof is given. This statement suggests to us that much of the ill-treatment was due perhaps to the "civilization" of the blacks.An analogous statement in this regard is given by Palmer, concerning the tribes of Upper Flinders and Cloncurry River. The lot of the women is hard and they are often treated with club and spear. There are, nevertheless, happy and mutually regardful couples.[196]Roth says[197]that among the North-West Queensland tribes the man has absolute authority over his wife. In another place we are informed, that "in the case of a man killing hisown gin, he has to deliver one of his own sisters" to be put to death. And "... a wife has always her 'brothers' to look after her interests." Thus, in some extreme cases, the husband's authority seems to be limited by his wife's kindred, who protect her.The women among the Cape York natives are reported to have a very hard life, but occasionally there exists a strong attachment between a married couple.[198]In West Australia the man is said to possess a full and inheritable right over his wife.[199]Grey says that they have very much to suffer, especially from the jealousy of their masters.[200]The authority of the husband appears also in the story, told in Chapter XVII, where the husband inflicts a severe beating on his two wives; nevertheless, he seems to display also a certain affection for them and great care, protecting them as far as possible.[201]We learn from Bishop Salvado that:"La méthode qu'il[the husband]emploie pour la[his wife]corriger est si barbare, qu'il arrive bien souvent que ... il lui traverse une jambe de son Ghici, il lui casse la tête de son Danac et lui prodigue mainte autre tendresse de ce genre,"[202]in cases of jealousy. In general"L'état d'esclavage dans lequel toutes sont retenues est vraiment déplorable. La seule présence de leurs maris les fait trembler, et la mauvais humeur de ceux-ci se décharge souvent sur elles par des coups et des blessures."[203]The barbarous modes of treatment are well known to us; what is more important is the great fear they are said to have of their husbands. But, in another place, the same author speaks of tender and affectionate couples: "I love her and she loves me"[204]as a native said to him. So this statement seems not so contradictory after all with all the others, although it contradicts itself.Among the natives of King George's Sound the women are generally very ill-treated by their husbands. But in spite of that they do not lack affection and often quarrel among themselves, taking the part of their respective husbands.[205]

Statements.—Amongst the Kurnai there were certain limits to the husband's authority: "Although a man might kill his wife under certain circumstances, and his act would be then approved by custom and by public opinion, yet, under other circumstances, he might not do so without incurring blood feud."[156]All the duties of the family were "shared equally" by man and woman.[157]This statement, as to the limits of authority, is in agreement with all we shall find afterwards: nobody and nothing could interfere with the husband if he ill-treated his wife, unless her life was threatened. Then her relatives intervened. What the expression of "sharing the duties" means, is not quite clear. If it refers to economic functions, we shall have a better picture later; but it stands as a contrast to such expressions as "slave" or "drudge," used in connection with the wife's rôle by so many writers. In another place Howitt says: "I have known many instances ... including several cases among the Kurnai, of men carrying their wives about the country when too old or too sick to walk."[158]This would point to a great affection, not only resulting from erotic motives, but from real attachment, such as unites human beings who have lived and suffered much together.

Among the Bangerang "community of interests between man and wife is much less than amongst civilized people. The husband gorges himself before he gives the rest of his food to his wife. He is a constant check on her free will and inclinations. She regards him more as her master and enemy than as her mate. But as she is not very sensitive, and educated to her lot, she bears it patiently, and after a year or two she is happy on the whole."[159]

Speaking of the Australian aborigines in general, Curr says:[160]"The husband is almost an autocrat. His wife he may ill-treat as he chooses. In rare instances he will exchange her for another, repudiate, or give her away." He may not kill her; her relatives would kill the first of his blood. "Otherwise the husband may treat his wife as he likes." "The husband is the absolute owner of his wife. He may do as he pleases with her, treat her well or brutally, ill-use her at his pleasure; keep her to himself, prostitute her, exchange her for another, or give her away." But he adds, "Yet ... they are, on the whole, fairly happy, merry and contented."

Amongst some West Victorian tribes, "notwithstanding this drudgery and the apparent hard usage to which the women are subjected, there is no want of affection amongst the members of a family."[161]The author speaks even of "persistent disrespect and unkindness" of a wife towards her husband;[162]he speaks also of women being "legally separated"[163]from their husbands; and of magic charms worked by husbands for punishment of their wives;[164]all this would point rather to a regulated and less brutal treatment. Here we have the usual concurrence of "hard usage" and affection. Characteristic is the addition of "apparent" to "hard usage." It is, perhaps, the whole style of treatment which appears to be hard to a European observer: the scale is shifted, but undoubtedly the nervous system of the natives is less responsive, too. What Dawson says about separation and husbands recurring to magic to influence their wives, seems to speak still more in favour of the good position of women. But we must remember, that in his whole book, Dawsonuses rather bright colours to picture the native character, and tries never to say anything that could shock a European reader.

Bonney asserts that "quarrels between husband and wife are rare, and they show much affection for each other in their own way." Apparent coolness in their relations is required by custom. He gives an example of a couple who "loved each other," and did not even greet after a long absence.[165]According to the statement the treatment of women was fairly good, and there was also no want of mutual affection.

Angas writes that among the aborigines, whom he had under observation (Lower Murray tribes), the man walks proudly in front, the woman following him; she is treated like a slave, and during meals receives bones and fragments like a dog.[166]

About some of the Lower Murray natives we are told by Eyre, "But little real affection exists between husbands and wives." "Women are often sadly ill-treated by their husbands," "beaten about the head with waddies," "speared in the limbs," etc. Here we have bad treatment based on absolute authority and complete want of affection. Besides, we are told, "each father of a family rules absolutely over his own circle."[167]

A statement of Mitchell (quoted by B. Smyth, i. p. 85), suggests that there could not be much affection between husband and wife. "... After a battle they (the women) do not always follow the fugitives from the field, but not infrequently go over, as a matter of course, to the victors, even with young children on their backs."[168]This statement sounds not very trustworthy. We never hear of open battles, in which fugitives would leave the camp unprotected. Besides, even if affection would not bind them to the "fugitives," would fear of the stranger and enemy not act in this direction? Little weight must be, therefore, attached to this evidence.

Taplin, about the Narrinyeri, says that sometimes the treatment of women by their husbands is very bad; but this is not always the case. "I have known as well-matched and loving couples amongst the aborigines as I have amongst Europeans."[169]This last comparison shows that the ill-treatment was not a clearly distinctive feature of the aboriginal married life.

The Encounter Bay tribe (Narrinyeri) regarded the wives"more as slaves than in any other light."[170]This statement implies lack of affection, absolute authority, and probably bad treatment. Nevertheless, we cannot be content with such a metaphorical and peremptory phrase on such an important subject. It is, therefore, useless, and adduced only as an example of how different and contradictory the statement of even good informants may be.

We are told of a case, where a black woman of the Murrumbidgee River tribe, who lived in marital relations with a white bushranger, evinced for him the greatest affection and attachment, and even several times helped him to escape justice with great self-sacrifice. Although she was ill-treated by him in the most brutal and revolting way, nothing could alter her feelings.[171]This example may serve as an illustration of how attached a black woman may be to her husband, even if he ill-treats her.

An account of the brutality of a woman's treatment is given by Tench (referring to the Port Jackson blacks). "But, indeed, the women are in all respects treated with savage barbarity; condemned not only to carry the children, but all other burthens, they meet in return for submission only with blows, kicks, and every other mark of brutality."[172]But Tench's statements do not appear to go very deeply below the surface of superficial observations.

The same author in another place adduces the wounds and scars of women as examples of "ill-treatment."[173]How much weight is to be attached to such an inference is well known, after the explanation given by Spencer and Gillen.[174]I adduce this statement as one which is obviously unreliable, at the same time being typical of a whole class of statements based upon insufficient and superficial observations.

Interesting is what Turnbull says in his old account: "The women appear to attach themselves faithfully to their husbands thus chosen: they are exceedingly jealous of them."[175]

C. P. Hodgson,[176]speaking of some New South Wales tribes, says thatginswere slaves of their men and had all the drudgery of camp. The misleading term "slave" is of little use to us.

According to Collins, in the Port Jackson tribes the father enjoyed absolute authority over his family.[177]

Dr. John Fraser[178]speaks of the bad treatment of the woman by her husband amongst the natives of New South Wales. Further he says: "In spite of the hardness of their mode of life, married couples often live happily and affectionately together...."[179]

G. W. Rusden writes:[180]"... a man had power of life and death over his wife." This asserts absolute authority; we know, that as a rule, the man had not the power of death over his wife unless she proved especially guilty.

Rob. Dawson relates of the Port Stephens blacks, that they treated their wives very badly—with club and spear.[181]

Hodgkinson remarks that the women are better treated in the River MacLeay tribes than among the other tribes he had under observation.[182]This may point to a real difference in the treatment of women among different tribes, or to the fact that the other tribes which Hodgkinson might have observed were nearer the settlements, and therefore more degenerate.

As to the Euahlayi, Mrs. Parker remarks only: "In books about blacks, you always read of the subjection of the women, but I have seen henpecked black husbands."[183]This statement, which implies that bad treatment was not universal, is inexact and therefore of little use.

We read about the Central Australian tribes of Finke River: "Some married couples agree very well, live frequently quite alone in solitude, and together provide for their wants."[184]The wives are only ill-treated in case they elope.

"The women are certainly not treated usually with anything which could be called excessive harshness" among the Aruntas.[185]Only in cases of infidelity "the treatment of the woman is marked by brutal and often revolting severity."[186]The same is repeated of the Northern tribes of Central Australia.[187]We are also told that the scars that the majority of women possess are due, not to the barbarity of their husbands, but to the mourning ceremonies, during which the women beat and wound themselves severely. And the authorsconclude: "Taking everything into account, however, the life of one of these savage women, judged from the point of view of her requirements ... is far from being the miserable one that it is so often pictured."[188]For what would be a severe pain to a white woman is for them merely a trifling discomfort.

We read in Barron Field, on the authority of two shipwrecked men, who spent some time among the natives of Moreton Bay, that the women are there usually well treated by their husbands.[189]

Another analogous statement is given on the Moreton Bay tribes: "The wife is rather the drudge or slave, than the companion of her husband." This (although badly formulated) means bad treatment and lack of affection as well. But we read further on that cruelty is perpetrated usually under the effect of rum; this corroborates our supposition made in connection with Lumholtz's statement. And we learn yet: "but instances also of warm and deep affection are not infrequent."[190]And the author confirms it by an example.

Among the Kabi and Wakka: "Husbands were usually affectionate to their wives, but when angered they were often brutal, thrashing them unmercifully with waddies, sometimes breaking their limbs and cracking their skulls. Still the conjugal bond generally held out for a lifetime."[191]

Lumholtz says: "The women are the humble servants or rather slaves of the native."[192]The women are ill-treated in the most cruel manner; he gives an example of a wife being awfully maltreated for a trifle.[193]But this happened among "civilized blacks." If she elopes she may be even killed. But sometimes they are examples of loving couples.[194]In another place we read of love and jealousy and of the great affection they are capable of;[195]and an example thereof is given. This statement suggests to us that much of the ill-treatment was due perhaps to the "civilization" of the blacks.

An analogous statement in this regard is given by Palmer, concerning the tribes of Upper Flinders and Cloncurry River. The lot of the women is hard and they are often treated with club and spear. There are, nevertheless, happy and mutually regardful couples.[196]

Roth says[197]that among the North-West Queensland tribes the man has absolute authority over his wife. In another place we are informed, that "in the case of a man killing hisown gin, he has to deliver one of his own sisters" to be put to death. And "... a wife has always her 'brothers' to look after her interests." Thus, in some extreme cases, the husband's authority seems to be limited by his wife's kindred, who protect her.

The women among the Cape York natives are reported to have a very hard life, but occasionally there exists a strong attachment between a married couple.[198]

In West Australia the man is said to possess a full and inheritable right over his wife.[199]Grey says that they have very much to suffer, especially from the jealousy of their masters.[200]The authority of the husband appears also in the story, told in Chapter XVII, where the husband inflicts a severe beating on his two wives; nevertheless, he seems to display also a certain affection for them and great care, protecting them as far as possible.[201]

We learn from Bishop Salvado that:"La méthode qu'il[the husband]emploie pour la[his wife]corriger est si barbare, qu'il arrive bien souvent que ... il lui traverse une jambe de son Ghici, il lui casse la tête de son Danac et lui prodigue mainte autre tendresse de ce genre,"[202]in cases of jealousy. In general"L'état d'esclavage dans lequel toutes sont retenues est vraiment déplorable. La seule présence de leurs maris les fait trembler, et la mauvais humeur de ceux-ci se décharge souvent sur elles par des coups et des blessures."[203]The barbarous modes of treatment are well known to us; what is more important is the great fear they are said to have of their husbands. But, in another place, the same author speaks of tender and affectionate couples: "I love her and she loves me"[204]as a native said to him. So this statement seems not so contradictory after all with all the others, although it contradicts itself.

Among the natives of King George's Sound the women are generally very ill-treated by their husbands. But in spite of that they do not lack affection and often quarrel among themselves, taking the part of their respective husbands.[205]

Here we have a great diversity of statements and much contradiction. We read of barbarous ill-treatment andof deep affection; of drudgery and slavery imposed on wives, and of henpecked husbands; of fugitive men having recourse to magic, and of women mercilessly chastised, prostituted, and so on. Some statements contradict themselves. All this shows, in the first place, that our authors were lost in the diversity of facts and could not give an adequate generalization, which should picture for us the characteristic features of this relation (between husband and wife) as they distinguish it from the same relation in other societies. In fact, a good characterization of a given phenomena can be obtained only by comparing it with other phenomena of the same kind found under different conditions. Otherwise the observer will invariably note that aspect of the phenomenon which struck him most strongly, and not the one that is objectively the most characteristic, as is found in the present case. This is the more evident in that we do find a few statements (Howitt on Kurnai, Spencer and Gillen's remark on the Central tribes, J. Mathew), which contain all the apparently contradictory elements found in the other statements, but harmonized with one another. From these few consistent statements it appears that, although the husband had a nearly unlimited authority, and in some cases, when he had special reasons (and undoubtedly deemed himself to be within his rights), he might use his authority for a very brutal and severe chastisement, nevertheless, there was usually a mutual fondness and kindness. Taking this picture as a standard, it is possible to understand and make consistent all the other statements if we assume that they exaggerate some of the traits of the general picture.[206]

But we can make still better use of our evidence by asking some definite questions and seeing how far we get a clear answer to them. And we shall see that if, in this way, the whole picture be analytically divided into sections, the evidence will yield a quite unambiguous answer on some important points concerning the relation between man and wife in the Australian aboriginal society.

The first inquiry is into the legal aspect of the husband's authority. In accordance with our definition of "legal," we shall try to ascertain to what extent the relationship of man and wife was left to follow its natural course; at what point society interfered; and what form this intervention assumed.

After the question of authority has been answered, that of treatment will be dealt with. The legal authority gives us only a knowledge of the limits which society set to the husband's ill-treatment. But even if his freedom went very far, and if he was not compelled from outside to a certain standard of good treatment, he might feel compelled to it by his own affection.

Therefore we are led, in the third place, to ask the psychological question concerning mutual feelings betweenhusband and wife. Affection is, of course, the most important, fundamental characteristic of any intimate personal relationship between two people. But it is, at the same time, rather difficult to give any more detailed answer on that point, when it is a question of savages whom no one has intimately studied from this point of view, and of whose psychology we have only a very slight idea. More cannot be expected than to get an answer to the quite general question: Is there anything like affection between the consorts, or is their relation based only on the fear of the woman of her husband? I would also remark that these three points—affection, treatment, and authority—although closely related, may be separately analysed, as each of them is of a different character: affection is a psychological, authority is a social factor; the treatment, being a result of them both, must be investigated separately, as we cannot foretell from either of its components the form it will assume; on the other hand, it is precisely from the treatment that we can best judge of the affection.

1. Authority.—It seems beyond doubt that in the aboriginal society the husband exercised almost complete authority over his wife; she was entirely in his hands and he might ill-treat her, provided he did not kill her. Out of our thirty statements, in six cases (Kurnai, Bangerang, Lower Murray tribes, according to Bonney, Geawe-Gal, Port Jackson tribes, North-west Central Queenslanders) the absolute authority of the husband is explicitly affirmed. We read in them either the bare statement that the husband had an absolute power over his family; or, in the better of them, we are more exactly informed that he had only to abstain from inflicting death on his wife. It was the latter's kinsman who would avenge her (Kurnai, Bangerang, North-west Central Queenslanders). It is difficult to ascertain in what form society would interfere with the husband if he transgressed the limits of his legal authority,i. e.killed his wife. Curr informs us that thewoman's relatives would avenge her death. Howitt says that there would ensue a blood feud, which comes nearly to the same. It is very probable that the woman's kin retained some rights of protection.[207]The remaining statements implicitly declare that the husband's authority was very extensive. (Encounter Bay tribes according to Meyer; New South Wales tribes according to Hodgson; Port Stephens tribes according to R. Dawson; Arunta; Herbert River tribes; Queenslanders according to Palmer; Moreton Bay tribes according to J. D. Lang; South-Western tribes according to Salvado; West Australians according to Grey.) It is clear that wherever we read of excessive harshness and bad treatment, wounds, blows inflicted on women, the husband must possess the authority to do it; in other words, he does not find any social barrier preventing him from ill-treatment. Especially as, in these statements, such ill-treatment is mentioned to be the rule and not an exception. In two statements we can gather no information on this point. According to the statement of J. Dawson on the West Victoria tribes, the husband's authority appears strictly limited by the potential intervention of the chief, who could even divorce the woman if she complained. But Curr warns us against Dawson's information concerning the chief and his power.[208]Curr's arguments appear to be very conclusive. Too much weight cannot be attached, therefore, to Dawson's exceptional statement. Discarding it, we see that we have on this point fairly clear information. We may assume that society interfered but seldom with the husband, in fact, only in the extreme case of his killing his wife. Six statements are directly, and the remainder indirectly, in favour of this view, and the only one contradictory is not very trustworthy.

But is there nothing in this assumption that would appear to contradict other well-established features ofAustralian social life? Against the husband's authority there could only be the intervention of the Central Tribal Authority or of the woman's kin. But the former was not strong enough to enter into questions concerning the private life of a married couple. The Tribal Government probably had to deal only with grave offences against the welfare of the whole tribe. And we never hear that it interfered with any household questions. The woman's kin, on the other hand, seems to have waived nearly all its rights over the woman (compare also above what had been said about the betrothal). Nevertheless, as mentioned above, it was the woman's kin who eventually intervened. It must also be borne in mind that as marriages were, without exception, patrilocal,[209]the wife was far away from her family, and, therefore, much less likely to be protected by her relatives. And, as we shall see below, when discussing the aboriginal mode of living, the single families live in considerable isolation, so that it would appear rather difficult to assume any intervention from outside in matters of family life. It appears, therefore, that all the circumstances on which family life depends point very clearly to, and are in complete agreement with, our assumption of a very extensive authority of the husband over his wife (or wives), limited only in some extreme cases by the kin of the woman.

2. Passing now to the other point: how far does the husband make use of his power? in other words, how does he usuallytreathis wife? Without entering more in detail into the motives that regulate his conduct, it is clear that even if we know his authority, we by no means know how he usually used or misused it. Here our impression when reading the evidence is undoubtedly that the general way in which wives are treated in aboriginal Australia is a very barbarous one. In fact, out of our thirty statements, fourteen speak more or less explicitly of barbarism, slavery, wounds and scars, etc. Only seven assert that the average treatment is a fairlygood one and that bad treatment is only a consequence of certain trespasses, which are considered punishable and consequently punished. The remaining nine statements say that treatment is sometimes good, sometimes bad, or do not say anything about the subject. But in this case it is apparently needful to give a more careful consideration of the quality of the information than of its quantity. In fact, four[210]out of the seven of the authorities who affirm good treatment are very clear and explicit, and their statements are consequently quite consistent with themselves; two of them are, besides, our best authorities. Schultze and Bonney seem also in general to be quite trustworthy. From the other part of our evidence (that which asserts barbarous ill-treatment) only three are fairly reliable (Curr, Salvado, and, to a certain extent, Eyre). But even these are not so consistent with themselves: they affirm, that in spite of the barbarous ill-treatment, the women seem to be rather happy. If they were happy as a rule, it means that this ill-treatment did not appear to them cruel, and that they did not suffer under its atrocity. Consequently that it was only apparently bad (the same expression is used by Dawson,loc. cit.) in the eyes of the observers, and was not bad as measured by the standard of native sensitiveness. The statement of Spencer and Gillen confirms this view explicitly. The statements affirming bad treatment (Curr, Salvado, Eyre, etc.) do not distinguish the important point whether this ill-treatment was a punishment or not; whether it was inflicted only in definite cases where, according to the unwritten tribal law, the wife was guilty of an offence, or whether it was inflicted in fits of bad temper and ungracious mood. This distinction is very important; in the first case the husband would have only, so to say, an executive power of the collective, customary will, and his bad treatment would be only an act of justice; in the second case he would have been a real tyrant and his ill-treatment a mere act of brutality.This remark has also an important connection with the problem of authority discussed above. Howitt's statement, as well as Spencer and Gillen's, points very clearly to the fact that the ill-treatment was only an act of justice (from the aboriginal point of view). Mathew, on the other hand, explicitly says that the ill-treatment was caused by fits of anger. The other statements keep silence on the point. Some of them speak, indeed, of a purely arbitrary harshness without any reason, but this refers to "civilized blacks," especially under the influence of rum and other white man's vices.

There is a point that must not be forgotten in dealing with this question. The majority of observations were made on degenerated blacks (such as were in missions, raised on farms, in the service of white men, etc.). These blacks may have had quite different manners and customs from those of the aborigines in their primitive state. And their manners were not changed in the direction of amelioration, but the reverse. This conclusion is corroborated by an interesting passage in Howitt.[211]This author says that examples of alleged contempt and discourtesy of a man to his wife, ase. g.a man gorging himself with meat and throwing only a bone to his wife, may be partly "the consequence of the 'new rule' under the influence of civilization." They sometimes express customary rules of magic origin and are no sign of contempt at all. And the author adds that when he had the opportunity of observing the blacks for a week in more primitive conditions, "this week passed without a single quarrel or dispute." This all shows that, in case of contradiction, we may suppose that the statements affirming unusual ill-treatment are affected by errors due to bad material, insufficient observation, and false inference, rather than that the statements of kindness are exaggerated.

It would be interesting to note what effect the widespread practice of exchange of relatives (see above) hadon the treatment of wives. Naturally it might be supposed that for his own sisters' (or relatives') sake every man would probably be more lenient towards his wife. But as Mr. Thomas justly pointed out, the exchange of females may be conceived also in the light of a certain family giving up its rights to a female, and receiving another one in exchange.[212]It would be, therefore, difficult to say anythinga priorion this influence. A phrase quoted by Curr suggests that the former assumption would be nearer to truth. A black said once to him, speaking about his sister given in exchange for his wife: "If he beats my sister I shall beat my wife." Whether this common-sense idea of justice prevailed in general in the aboriginal mind it would be difficult to decide without further knowledge. But possibly exchange of females was also a cause of the amelioration of the woman's lot.

To sum up shortly, we have ten against four statements in favour of indiscriminate ill-treatment of wives. But, if we reduce both these figures by using only reliable ones, we have four against three in favour of good treatment. By closer analysis we find that ill-treatment is—in the primitive state of the aboriginal society—in most cases probably a form of regulated intra-family justice; and that although the methods of treatment in general are very harsh, still they are applied to much more resistant natures and should not be measured by the standard of our ideas and our nerves. For otherwise we should not understand how the feature of happiness, which is reported by nearly all our informants, could be present.

3. These considerations directly lead us up to an answer to our last question, viz. whether there is a kind ofmutual affectionor whether there is only the power of the man, and the legal factors, that bind the consorts together. In the first place, it is well to bear in mind that in this respect there must have been a great variety of cases corresponding to the characters of the individuals concerned. We only ask here, therefore, the quite generalquestion whether, as implied in some statements, there was an absolute absence of any kind of personal feeling in all Australian families and the wife considered her husband as her master only and her natural enemy, she being merely his slave. But here we find also that the few statements (Curr, Eyre, Meyer, Mitchell) that imply such an opinion are not very clear and explicit (in this category we include all the statements as to slavery and drudgery which can possibly embrace not only the treatment itself but the underlying feelings); whereas there are ten statements (Howitt, Bonney, Dawson, Lumholtz, J. D. Lang, Salvado, Turnbull, Grey, Mathew, Macgillivray)[213]which affirm that there is real affection between husband and wife. Some of them come from our most reliable writers and are very explicit (Howitt, Bonney, Lumholtz, Salvado). As what has been said of the treatment refers indirectly to this point (for treatment is regulated by personal feelings and not by tribal authority), we may say that the assumption of a complete lack of any feelings of affection or attachment does not seem very plausible. That these feelings would show themselves in another way than in our society seems beyond doubt. But that they would be completely absent and their places taken only by fear and awe—that is not in agreement with our evidence. Even judging on this questiona priori, we could hardly suppose that there would be a complete absence of all factors that tend to create mutual affection between consorts. In the first place we may remember that in many cases the motive of sexual love was not absent from the aboriginal marriages. This was apparently always the case in marriages by elopement, which occurred in all tribes and was, under certain conditions, a legal and recognized form of contracting marriage. In the cases when, following infant betrothal and other circumstances, the husband was much olderthan his wife, the motive of sexual love was probably not reciprocal, but it would operate as a cause for more tender feelings on the part of the males. In the second place, it must be remembered that there are no reasons why the blacks should be completely alien to the feelings of attachment. Husband and wife lived more or less completely separated from the community, forming a more or less isolated unit (see below,on the mode of living). They had many interests in common, and, this being the strongest bond, they had common children to whom they were usually much attached.

To sum up this chapter, it may be said that the husband had a well-nigh complete authority over his wife; that he treated her in harmony with the low standard of culture, harshly, but not excessively harshly; that apparently the more tender feelings of love, affection and attachment were not entirely absent from the aboriginal household. But it must be added that, on these two last points, the information is contradictory and insufficient.

Among the duties and obligations which determine the relationship of husband and wife, there are some which may be mentioned in this place. I mean the customs and rites connected with mourning. Mourning expresses a whole complex of feelings and ideas, of which two sets are important here, inasmuch as they throw light upon the relationship of the mourner and the mourned. Firstly, mourning always expresses sorrow and grief (real or feigned) for the deceased; secondly, the various mourning ceremonies imply the idea that there was a strong tie between the two persons involved, a tie which persists after death and which must be broken by the magical virtue of rites.[214]Both these interpretations of mourning (sorrowfor the deceased and the necessity of breaking the bond) involve the idea that the relationship between husband and wife was acknowledged by society as an individual and strong personal tie. As the modes of obtaining wives have shown us that to bring about a marriage it was necessary to get the sanction of society; so the long mourning of the widow and the different formalities she has to perform, before she becomes the property of the dead man's heir or is allowed to remarry, show that marriage was not dissolved at once, even by the death of the man. It shows, therefore, that the tie between husband and wife was not a loose one, and not merely established by the fact of possession or cohabitation; and that the appropriation was based not only on legal ideas, but deeply rooted in magico-religious feelings and representations.

The idea that mourning is performed in order to express sorrow, apart from its being obvious in the ceremonies themselves, is realized and formulated by the natives. When a very old and decrepit woman dies, or an old man who has lost his memory and is useless in tribal matters, the natives do not perform any elaborate ceremonies. They allege as a reason that they "do not feel enough sorrow for them."[215]

Ceremonies involving the motive of sorrow are mentioned in several places by Spencer and Gillen. Among the Arunta, "when a man dies his specialUnawaorUnawassmear their hair, faces and breasts with white pipeclay and remain silent for a certain time until a ceremony calledAralkililimahas been performed."[216]The widow has a special name. In some of the northern tribes she has to keep silence.E. g."Among the Warramunga ... the widows are not allowed to speak for sometimes as long a period as twelve months, during the whole of which time they communicate only by meansof gesture language."[217]Among the Arunta the widow has to live in the woman's camp and suspend, to a large extent, her usual occupations.[218]When she wishes the ban of silence to be removed, she has to perform a ceremony in public, which consists in the main in an offering of vegetable food to the younger brother and sons of the deceased. "The meaning of this ceremony, as symbolized by the gathering of the tubers or grass seed, is that the widow is about to resume the ordinary occupations of a woman's life, which have been to a large extent suspended, while she remained in camp in what we may call deep mourning."[219]Analogous ceremonies of nearly the same duration and involving similar ordeals and privations, are in use in some other tribes: among the Kaitish and Unmatjera the widow has her hair cut off, she has to smear her body over with ashes, during the whole time that mourning lasts,i. e.several months, she has also to keep silence.[220]Amongst all these tribes the women inflict upon themselves the most cruel wounds. "The women seem to work themselves up into a perfect frenzy, and to become quite careless as to the way in which they cut and hack themselves about, with, however, this restriction notable on all such occasions, that however frenzied they apparently become, no vital part is injured, the cutting being confined to such parts as the shoulders, scalp, and legs."[221]The authors give a detailed description of such ordeals undergone by two widows of deceased men in the Warramunga tribe. "The actual widow scores her scalp with a red-hot firestick."[222]

Taking mourning customs as a measure of the intensity of sorrow and grief, it may be seen that here these feelings are supposed to be very strong, as the hardship and ordeals are very great. Of course, there is no question of individual feelings. The widow may be in some cases really glad that her husband has died, as well in Australia asin any of our modern societies. What is shown at any rate is, that society supposes and requires such feelings, and that they are duties according to the social moral code; in fact, that sorrow and grief for the deceased are required by the collective ideas and feelings. Whether these feelings are displayed in order to appease the spirit of the deceased, whether there is real sorrow as a basis for these customs, these are questions irrelevant in this place.

Probably many different motives contributed to form the mourning rites and duties, as they are now in existence. These duties have in Australia apparently not merely a customary, but also a legal character. For we read in Spencer and Gillen: "a younger brother meeting the wife of a dead elder brother out in the bush, performing the ordinary duties of a woman, such as hunting for 'yams,' within a short time of her husband's death, would be quite justified in spearing her."[223]And, again, it is said in another place, that if a woman would not comply with the severe ordeal which is her duty, "she is liable to be severely chastised or even killed by her brother."[224]

Whatever more special explanation might be attempted of all these laws and customs it is certain that they express the fact that the marital bonds are very lasting. The obligations last after the death of the husband, and expiation must be made for the eventual new union. For Spencer and Gillen give a detailed account of all the complex formalities and duties to be performed before the widow can remarry, or rather is given up to the younger brother of the deceased, to whom she belongs by law.[225]After the performance of several ceremonies and a long lapse of time, she may still, if she likes, paint a narrow white band on her forehead, which is regarded as an intimation that she is not anxious to marry at present, as she still mourns, though to a lessdegree than before, for the dead man.[226]"The spirit of the dead man was supposed to have been watching all these proceedings as he lay at the bottom of the grave."[227]

Unfortunately the other authors do not give anything approaching Spencer and Gillen's full account of burial and mourning. In particular, if there is any description, the actual and tribal relatives are not differentiated. All that I have adduced here from Spencer and Gillen refers to the actual widow. A short remark of Roth may be quoted: "In the Boulia district when a man dies, his nearer relatives have special mourning performances. These nearer relatives, in the case of an adult male, are considered to be thewifeand his brother and sisters by the same mother, not his father or mother; with an adult woman, only the brothers and sisters by the same mother."[228]Amongst the Dieri, "a widow is not permitted to speak until the whole of the white clay which forms her 'mourning' has come off without assistance" (perhaps some months).[229]There is also a statement about the husband's mourning. Amongst the Victorian tribes, "when a married woman dies and her body is burned, the husband puts her pounded calcined bones into a little opossum skin bag, which he carries in front of his chest until he marries again, or until the bag is worn out."

To sum up, it may be said, that as far as Spencer and Gillen's evidence may be taken as typical of what burial and mourning is in Australia, the legal and customary aspects of the marriage bonds is not less strongly expressed in the way in which they are dissolved, than it is in the way in which they are brought about.

Back to IndexNext