Project Gutenberg's The Child in Human Progress, by George Henry Payne This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States, you'll have to check the laws of the country where you are located before using this ebook. Title: The Child in Human Progress Author: George Henry Payne Release Date: January 9, 2019 [EBook #58656] Language: English Character set encoding: UTF-8 *** START OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE CHILD IN HUMAN PROGRESS *** Produced by Turgut Dincer and the Online Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net (This book was produced from images made available by the HathiTrust Digital Library.) MR. ELBRIDGE T. GERRY FOUNDER OF THE SOCIETY FOR THE PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO CHILDREN The Child in Human Progress By George Henry Payne With a Foreword by A. Jacobi, M.D., LL.D. With 40 Illustrations G. P. Putnam’s Sons New York and London The Knickerbocker Press 1916 Copyright, 1916 BY GEORGE HENRY PAYNE The Knickerbocker Press, New York iv T FOREWORD HIS is a new sort of book, and unique. That is why I look upon the permission to write a brief preface for it as a rare privilege. Writings on children are frequent. When, in 1875, I contributed, for Karl Gerhardt’s immense Handbuch, my Hygiene of the Child, I quoted seven hundred treatises or pamphlets on that subject. There are now at least seven thousand of the kind, and the number of text-books on the diseases of children and infants do no longer lead a pardonable, rarely a laudable, existence. A few monographs on special subjects, or modern publications, as Erich Wulffen’s The Child: His Nature and Degeneration (Berlin, 1913), or the two large anthropological volumes by H. Ploss, The Child in the Customs and Morals of Nations (third edition by B. Renz, 1911), are praiseworthy examples of useful books. But while these are instructive they do not rouse historical interest. Indeed, the history of the child has been grossly neglected. The epoch-making works of Rosenstein, Charles West, Rilliet and Barthez, and Karl Gerhardt contain no history. The work of Puschmann (Neuberger and Pagel) fills twenty pages with the history of the child in a text of three thousand pages relating to the history of medicine. Altogether our country has been disrespectful to its best possessions, viz., the children. There was until a few decades ago not even a professional teaching of the children’s diseases in our medical schools. A regular chair was established in 1860 (New York Medical College),—it lasted for a few years only. The second was in 1898 (Harvard). There were few child’s hospitals or wards in hospitals until a few years ago, even in the largest cities. Society, law, humanitarianism did not mind children. It is only a few months that an official publication in our democratic country carried the title; “Is There a Need of a Child Labour Law?” and our civilization was humbled by medical discussion of the advisability of killing the deformed or unpromising new-born. It seems to take a long time before this republic of ours begins to work out of the ruts of semi-barbarism. And now, at last, there is a book to supply our wants. Laymen have advanced ahead of the medical profession. Christ and the Stoics, the clergy and the public opinion of the Crusades and the Christian sentiments of the Mediæval Church, aye, the great slaughterer and revolutionary reformer, Napoleon, have called the children under their protection and benefactions. A vast amount of study relating to primary populaces and nations in gradual development was required to learn the history of the child. Without the history of the child there cannot be a scientific knowledge of the thousands of years of child life. Nobody has given it until the author of this book afforded us the wealth of his vast studies. This book furnishes what no other work presents to us. I know of none which acquaints us with the position of the child in his social, political, and humanitarian existence in all nations and in all eras. Adults and adult life have long been served by the endeavours of historians, philosophers, and psychologists. We do not believe in completeness of our knowledge unless all that have been perfected. Medical men do not believe in possessing a scientific grasp of any of their subjects without an embryological basis. Statesmen, aye, even politicians, of the better class, insist upon an ample knowledge of the history of their countries, their institutions, and their laws. That is how the last years of our medical and professional life in this country have developed amongst us physicians the taste for history and such books as Fielding Garrison has been able to prepare for us within the last year. When I said the book before us was unique, I meant to say that it is a special monograph of the life through thousands of years of slow physical, domestic, economic, social existence of the child. No historian, no medical practitioner or teacher, surely no existing pediatrist will be without it. A. Jacobi. New York City, December 21, 1915. v vi vi-vii T PREFACE HE introduction of Dr. Jacobi has saved the author from the onerous task, ofttimes a graceless one, of writing extended prefatory remarks. It was in the course of some researches into the origin of the Child Protection movement in this country that I discovered how little attention had been paid to the historical aspect of this important question. This book represents really a process of elimination, behind which were many fascinating byways, alluring blind alleys, and seeming countless beckoning theories. Toward the last, for a person with human instinct writing on a humane subject, it was hard not to tilt. In the main, however, the author believes that he has hewed to the line. The author is indebted for many courtesies to the officials of the New York Public Library, likewise to the Congressional Library at Washington, the British Museum at London, and the Bibliothèque Nationale at Paris. His thanks are due also to Dr. C. C. Williamson, formerly Chief of the Economics Division of the New York Public Library, who took a deep and serious interest in the work; to Professor Richard Gottheil of Columbia, for many helpful suggestions in connection with the Semitics studies; to Professor Hiram Bingham of Yale, for some helpful notes on the Incas; to Mr. A. S. Freidus, Chief of the Jewish Division of the New York Public Library; to Professor Adolf Deissmann, of the University of Berlin; to Mr. Elbridge T. Gerry, whose library provided a wealth of material; to the late Thomas D. Walsh, Superintendent of the New York S. P. C. C., a humanitarian of the first water; to Mr. Jesse B. Jackson, Mr. W. J. Yerby, Mr. Charles H. Allbrecht, and Mr. E. A. Wakefield, all of the American Consular Service; to Mr. J. William Davis, for supervision of the Bibliography; to Mr. Gabriel Schlesinger, for assistance in reading the proofs; and, above all, to Mr. Robert E. MacAlarney, of Columbia University, to whose sustaining criticism and deep personal interest the author owes more than can be here set down. George Henry Payne. Kingsbridge, New York January, 1916 viii ix CONTENTS CHAPTER I PAGE Maternal Affection the Beginning of Human Altruism—Sympathy and Parental Love the Basis of Other Virtues—The Weakest Sacrificed in all Primitive Society—Neglected Chapters in the History of the Attitude of Society toward Children 1 CHAPTER II Human Marriage—Evolution of the Parental Instinct—Social Conditions among Papuans—Child’s Place in the Tribe 15 CHAPTER III The Killing of Twins—Other Excuses for Infanticide—Restricting the Family—Economic Reasons Acknowledged—Dying of Despair 31 CHAPTER IV The Drowning of Daughters—Early Mongolian Civilization Marked by Ancestor Worship—Severe Character of Confucius —“Beginning” of Infanticide 200 b.c.—Reforms of the Emperor Choentche and the Manchus in the Seventeenth Century—Decrees Reducing the Cost of Wedding Gifts in Order to Stop Parents from Killing Female Children 46 CHAPTER V Death by Neglect and Sacrifice in Japan—The New-Born Taboo—Myth of the Exposure of the Child of the Gods—Growth of the Marriage Custom—The Arrival of the Chinese—Modern Cannibalism—Modern Laws on the Sale of Children 71 CHAPTER VI Mesopotamia the Earliest Civilization Known—Faint Traces of Child-Sacrifice—Laws for Women and Children—Census Figures in Stones—Code of Hammurabi—The Story of Sargon 90 CHAPTER VII Most Ancient Nation was Kind to Children—Economic Pressure Brought No Special Cruelty—Picture of the Proletariat— Abjurations of the Oldest Book in the World—Egyptians as Seen by Diodorus Siculus—Degenerating Effect of Greek Supremacy 106 CHAPTER VIII Children in India—Story of the Mahabharata—Female Child Despised—A Hundred Cows the Price of a Son—Records Left by Historians of Alexander’s Conquest—Attempts by British Government to Check Infanticide—Work of Jonathan Duncan and Col. Alexander Walker 120 CHAPTER IX Semitic Development in Canaan—Sacrifice of the First-Born Persists—Origin of the Idea of Sacrifice—The Custom World- wide among Primitive Peoples—Associated with Cannibalism—The Foundation Sacrifice—Discoveries in Palestine 138 CHAPTER X Hebrew Writers on the Origin of the Religion of Humanity—Child Sacrifice Condemned in the Story of Isaac—Circumcision Substituted—Reversion to Barbaric Habits in Canaan—Triumph of the Prophets 157 CHAPTER XI Ancient Arabians Were Cannibalistic—Daughters too Expensive to Rear—Conditions before the Coming of the Prophet— The Injunctions of Mohammed—His Law as Found in “Al Hidaya” 169 CHAPTER XII Exposure by a Civilized People—Lack of Humanity among the Greeks—Their Mythology an Evidence—Children in Homer 184 CHAPTER XIII Female Children not Desirable among Greeks—Precautions for Saving Exposed Children—Ornaments as a Means of Identification—Adoption under Strange Circumstances 199 CHAPTER XIV First Recognition of Rights of Children—Laws of Romulus and of Numa Pompilius—The Twelve Tables—Attitude of Parents Shown in Terence—Patria Potestas Sparingly Used 209 CHAPTER XV Humanitarian Measures of Augustus—Life in the Imperial City—First Attempts of the State to Check Infanticide—Trajan and the Veleia Loan—Stoic Spirit in Pliny’s Charity 223 CHAPTER XVI Reforms of Hadrian—Punishment of Fathers—Valerius Maximus—Favourite Streets in Rome for Leaving Abandoned Children—Mutilating Children for Profit 236 CHAPTER XVII Progress under the Antonines—Faustina’s Efforts to Save Female Children—Christian Sentiment Grows—Plea of Lactantius —Its Effects—Constantine 245 CHAPTER XVIII Pleas of the Christian Fathers 257 CHAPTER XIX Conditions among the Peoples who Conquered the Roman Empire—Irish Sacrificed First-Born—The Wergeld—The Salic Law—Code of the Visigoths on Exposed Children—Theodoric and Cassiodorus 272 CHAPTER XX Growth of the Humanitarian Movement throughout Europe—In the Dark Ages—Church Takes up the Humanitarian Work in the Seventh Century—Sale of Children Common—Story of Saint Bathilde—Children Sold for Father’s Debts—Datheus the First to Offer Children a Home—Appeal of Pope Innocent III. 287 CHAPTER XXI Cruelty to Children in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Century—Attempt at Regulation—Deforming Children for Mountebank Purposes—Anecdote of Vincent de Paul—His Work and His Success 302 CHAPTER XXII Rise of Factory System—The Child a Charge on the State—Children Actually Slaves under Factory System—Reform of 1833 —Oastler against the Child Slavery—“Juvenile Labour in Factories is a National Blessing” 312 x xi xii xiii xiv CHAPTER XXIII Industrial Conditions in America—Protection for Animals—Founding of the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children —Spread of the Movement throughout the World—Origin in New York City 332 Appendix A—Napoleonic Decree of 1811 341 Appendix B—Certificate of Incorporation of the New York Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children 346 Appendix C—Treatment of Children 349 Index 361 xvi ILLUSTRATIONS FACING PAGE Mr. Elbridge T. Gerry Frontispiece Founder of the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children Native East African Mother and Infant 17 (Courtesy of Museum of Natural History, New York) A Well-Cared for Eskimo Infant 17 (Courtesy of Museum of Natural History, New York) Family Life among Birds. Group of American Egret 20 (Courtesy of Museum of Natural History, New York) A Family of Anthropoid Apes, from a Drawing by Dan Beard 24 (Courtesy of Museum of Natural History, New York) Family of Polar Bears 24 (Courtesy of Museum of Natural History, New York) Primitive Family Life among the Hopi Indians 28 (Courtesy of the Museum of Natural History, New York) A Hindu Child-Mother, whose Cares will Make her Old at Thirty 42 Zulu Girl with Baby. The Practice of Exposure Ended among the Zulus only within the Present Generation 42 Special Repository for Bodies of Neglected Babies, China 56 (Reproduced from “China in Decay”) An Overburdened Chinese Child Carrying more than his Weight in Tea 69 (Copyright by Underwood & Underwood, N. Y.) “Little Mothers”—the One Five, the Other Eight, Years Old—China 69 Tsuchi-Ningio. Clay Figure Substituted for Human Sacrifice—Japan 80 (Reproduced from “Transactions and Proceedings of the Japan Society,” Volume I) Crock Containing Remains of Sacrificed Child. Unearthed at Tell Ta’Annek 80 (Reproduced from “Life in Ancient Egypt”) A Pomeioc Chieftain’s Wife and Child 94 (From the Original Water-Colour Drawing in the British Museum by John White, Governor of Virginia in 1587) Eskimo Mother Carrying Infant in her Hood 94 (From the Original Water-Colour Drawing in the British Museum by John White, Governor of Virginia in 1587) Isis in the Papyrus Swamps, Suckling Horus 106 (Reproduced from “The Gods of the Egyptians, or Studies in Egyptian Mythology”) Group of M’ayptah, the Priest of Ptah, with his Family 110 (Reproduced from “Life in Ancient Egypt”) Letter of Illarion, an Egyptian Labourer, to Alis, His Wife. Papyrus Written at Alexandria, 17 June, 1 b.c. 118 (Reproduced from “Light from the Ancient East”) Florida Women Sacrificing their First-Born Children 122 (From an Old Print) The Incas Offering a Human Sacrifice to their Chief 144 (From “Mœurs des Sauvages Amériquains,” by P. Lafitau, Paris, 1724) American Savages Substituting an Animal for a Human Sacrifice 144 (From “Mœurs des Sauvages Amériquains,” by P. Lafitau, Paris, 1724) Musical Instruments Found in a Child’s Grave, at Tell Ta’Annek 150 (Reproduced from “Denkschriften der Kaiserlichen Akademie der Wissenschaft”) Abraham and Isaac 158 (From a Painting by J. S. Copley, R. A.) A Notable Case of Abandonment—the Finding of Moses 160 (After Painting by Schopin) Blind Boys at Drill in “The Light House,” New York City 200 The Finding of Romulus and Remus 225 (From an Old Print) Antoninus Pius, Consecrator of the World’s First Protective Foundation Benefit for Girls 236 Constantine the Great, Emperor-Protector of the Roman Child 236 The Sacrificing of Living Infants to the God Moloch 238 “Suffer the Little Children to Come unto Me” 258 (After Overbeck) The Holy Family 272 (After Rubens) (Reproduced by Permission of Museum of Art, New York) Evening Recreation Centre for Boys, New York City 282 Meeting of an “Evening Centre,” New York City 282 xvii xviii xix Filling Christmas Baskets for Poor Children—Mothers’ Helping-Hand Club, New York City 297 Saint Vincent de Paul, Founder of the First Permanent Asylum for Children in France 298 A Healthy Pair of Indian Children, Western Canada 318 Infant Toilers in a Silk Mill, Syria 318 (Copyright by Underwood & Underwood, N. Y.) Children of Two Families—As the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children Found them 333 The Same Families—After Attention from the Society 333 Henry Bergh 336 The “Inspiration” of Henry Bergh on which the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children was Organized 336 The Juvenile Court, New York City; Justice Wyatt on the Bench 337 History of the Child xx xxi 1 I CHAPTER I MATERNAL AFFECTION THE BEGINNING OF HUMAN ALTRUISM—SYMPATHY AND PARENTAL LOVE THE BASIS OF OTHER VIRTUES—THE WEAKEST SACRIFICED IN ALL PRIMITIVE SOCIETY—NEGLECTED CHAPTERS IN THE HISTORY OF THE ATTITUDE OF SOCIETY TOWARD CHILDREN. F it were possible to postulate the first definite concept of the first family that crossed the vague and age-consuming frontier between animality and humanity, it would be safe to say that this primitive and almost animal mind would reach for an approximation, on the part of the male, to the maternal affection. In the gathering of food and the making of protective war, many animals are the rivals in instinct and intelligence of primitive man. Continued development in that regard might have produced a race of men “formidable among animals through sheer force of sharp-wittedness,” but not homo sapiens. In the passage from animality to humanity, there was not only mental evolution, but moral, and the developing mind would naturally exercise itself for days and years, and perhaps for long periods around that one emotion—the love of the female for its young—an emotion he was incapable of understanding, but the outward manifestations of which he would be bound to imitate. Whether man was led to an understanding of the maternal affections by the “sensuous aspects of the newly-born progeny” appealing to man himself,1 or through pity and sympathy, as Spencer suggests, or still more through imitation of the maternal delight, he undoubtedly would be led to a higher mental plane as he slowly came to understand that the maternal affection was not self-gratifying in the sense that marked the entire gamut of his own emotions up to that time. Even in recent times tribes have been found so low in the social scale that coition and child-birth have been assumed to have no relation, the latter phenomenon being explained by ascribing to certain trees the power to make women fructile. In a society as low in mentality as this, it would be easy to conceive that the woman’s unselfishness—her lack of the self-gratifying impulse—in protecting, nursing, and rearing a burden superimposed on her with no pleasurable antecedents, would be even more amazing than it would be to the male living in a state sufficiently advanced to understand the reproductive function. In either state of society, there then begins in the human consciousness a disturbance “which is significant of something having another value than that of mere pleasure, and which is pregnant with the promise of another than the merely sensuous or merely intellectual life.”2 The words quoted are Prof. Ladd’s, discussing the philosophy of conduct of civilized man—but here, even in the primitive man, the rule applies—the moral idea is born, legitimately enough, out of the altruistic maternal affection. Not infrequently one comes across such expressions as “when man became civilized,” starting always the baffling inquiry—what civilized man? The mystery of life, as Bergson suggests, may be its solution, for in the acquired tendency of looking on the world as containing one emotion at least that was not purely self-gratifying, man was preparing himself for the virtues that followed in the wake of his own first altruistic concept. The loyalty without which there could be no sociality has, on the one hand, a reasoned basis—the selfish and protecting one that may also explain the gregariousness of animals—but it differs from gregariousness by subordinating to the good of another one’s own pleasure, just as the mother subordinates her wishes to the pleasure and good of the infant. It is, in fact, the developed emotion that the male acquires through imitation and sympathy from the female, for, “when a tendency splits up in the course of its development, each of the special tendencies which thus arise, tries to preserve and develop everything in the primitive tendency that is not incompatible with the work for which it is specialized.”3 Back of this sociological “leap” is Nature’s long preparation. “The stability of animal marriage,” says Wundt,4 “seems in general to be proportional to affection for the young,” and yet the primitive instincts are sometimes so powerful that even among those animals in whom the maternal instinct is strongly developed, they will, even after facing great danger for their young, desert them when the time comes to migrate. This Darwin says is true of swallows, house martins, and swifts.5 But even in the lowest animals the “chief source of altrusim” is the family group as it revolves round the care of the young,6 while with the increase in the representative capacity that differentiates man from the brute, and the prolongation of the period of human infancy, there is born real altruism, the germ of morality, through the “knitting together of permanent relations between mother and infant, and the approximation toward steady relations on the part of the male parent.” How then does it happen that an instinct that has been productive of so much for humanity, an instinct that has given birth to most of those virtues that mark civilized from savage man,7 served apparently so little as a safeguard for the offspring that generated the moral evolution? Studying the cross currents and the ever-present struggle for existence of the various nations that worked out of barbarism to civilization, we see that after all it is by and through the very virtues, tenderness, sympathy, and humanity, that were first aroused by the helpless offspring, that the infant comes in turn to be protected, though the path is frequently a tortuous one. The society that was able to exist in primitive times was always the one that sacrificed the individual,8 and the infant was naturally low in the scale of value. That very sacrifice of the weakest, stratified into a national characteristic, produced in the greatest civilization of ancient times, a narrow and egoistical morality, with little conception of what we call humanity. “No Greek ever attained the sublimity of such a point of view,” says George Henry Lewes.9 In this, the “century of the child,” there is a great conception of humanity, and even of children’s rights. Little attempt, 2 3 4 5 6 however, has been made to trace in consecutive and co-ordinate fashion the development among races and nations of the progress of the human race in its attitude toward children. We who are so much interested in the betterment of the race and who are so much moved by humanitarian considerations that almost the first consideration of the state is to provide for the children, have reached this point of view only after a long struggle against blind ignorance and reckless selfishness. The fact that less than fifty years have passed since we began a definite policy concerning the rights of children shows how rapidly the human race moves. The race may be, let us say, something like 240,000 years old; of that time civilized man—accepting the most generous figures on Egyptian and Mesopotamian civilization—has existed only 10,000 years, or 1/240 of the life of the human species. Humanized man has existed not more than a few hundred years, and it is within only fifty years that the race has been concerned with the protection of the child. How deeply ingrained are the habits of barbarity and darkness, may be seen from the fact that cannibalism broke out in Japan not more than a hundred years ago. Unquestionably, this is the century of the child. Undoubtedly, more serious thought is being given in the present generation to the subject than has ever been given before in the entire history of the world. More has been written about the child in the last fifty years than had been written in the world in all civilized times up to the beginning of this half- century. In order to appreciate this statement one must remember that the best friends of the child—Jesus, the Jewish Prophets, and Mohammed—lived centuries before the human theories that they preached had really a living existence. In this connection, it is germane to state that the theory that philosophy and religion go hand in hand with humanity, is shattered by the fact that Plato, Aristotle, Confucius, and Gautama affected, apparently, not a single jot, the ancient attitude of insufferance toward the undesired children. There has ever been, on the question of his children, a struggle between man and nature. Endowed with the possibilities of a large offspring man has fought the burdens that nature has thrust upon him. On first view, it seems that parental affection never develops to great degree unless the economic conditions are favourable; yet the various artifices and “laws” used by tribes to get rid of children would show that parental affection kept struggling with the inclinations of men. In other words, if we find, as we do, female children sacrificed in one place because they are useless, and all first- born children sacrificed in another place because the gods must be propitiated, it is evident that parental affection (as represented by the women) was strong enough to force the male sovereigns to invent plausible excuses and taboos in order to have the women give up their offspring. Considering all that is being done, said, and written on the subject of the child and the relation of the state and citizen toward the child, it would seem safe to assume that there would be some interest in the attitude of our predecessors toward children. From the regulation of Romulus, as set forth by Dionysius Halicarnassus, to the story of Mary Ellen, as set forth by a settlement worker on the East Side of New York City, is a far cry, but the progress from the first to the second is steady. The Roman General, Agathocles, who made as a part of the terms of peace with the Carthaginians an agreement on the part of that branch of the Semitic race that they would cease to sacrifice children, was a legitimate sociological progenitor of the representative of the arm of the law that stops a drunken father from beating his child and creates a Children’s Court where the child gets gentleness with justice, not contamination and corruption. MARY ELLEN AND THE SCISSORS WITH WHICH SHE WAS BEATEN “Every historian ought to be a jurist; every jurist ought to be a historian,” says Ortolan, and the historian of child progress feels not only the truth of that statement but the added necessity of meeting the various economic theories that have dealt with the care of the child, from those of Lycurgus to the latter-day essay of Malthus. The law of primogeniture and the varying laws of inheritance have occasionally led to the study of children as children, but generally the main interest in them of historian and jurist has been as a channel for the transmission of property. Theories about population and the fascinating pursuit of unravelling tangled economic laws, have obscured the fact that the attitude of a state toward children has been, with few variations, an index to its social progress. The same thing has been said of women, but while the Greeks treated women well, yet with the exception of the single dema10 of Thebes, infanticide was common in all the Greek States. The Chinese are kind to their women and yet there is no country today where infanticide is more common. The oldest civilization in the world, the Babylonian, was not one in which women were ill-treated, yet all the indications are that infanticide was practised in the shape of human sacrifice. The Rajputs of India pleaded for their privilege of destroying infant children when theirs had been the highest civilization in the world. In other words, disinterested affection for the infant is not necessarily coincident with civilization, or the kind treatment of women a sure sign that the lives of children are safe. Various writers, including Walt Whitman, Nietzsche, and Edward Carpenter, have taken the attitude that our much vaunted civilization does not really represent progress, and one vivacious author11 has even undertaken to show in a 7 8 9 10 clever and lively way that there is no such thing as progress, pointing to Greek civilization, in which children were killed at will and public men were confessed degenerates, as the ideal from which we of modern times have fallen away. What is undoubtedly true is that civilization does not always indicate social progress, and what is truer is that civilization does not necessarily indicate the humanization of the people. Chremes, the very character in Terence12 who says “Nothing human is alien to me,” is the one who reproves his wife for not having gotten rid of their child. The advance over Homer as shown by Virgil is that of a great gentleness, a great humaneness,—a difference in their times,—and yet Cicero, who represents the stoical and gentler sentiments of the Virgilian times toward the helpless and powerless victims of force as did no man up to his day, speaks tolerantly of the inhuman practices of his time. But there is a growth of humaneness from Homer to Virgil, there is advance from Plato to Cicero, humanely speaking of course; there was greater advance in the teachings of Christ, and there was further advance in the course of the long-drawn-out struggle between the nominal acceptance of those teachings and their incorporation into the daily philosophy. So, too, progress in the care of the rights of infancy and childhood has been made very little by very little. It is the fact that, until 1874, there was no organized movement to defend the “rights” of children that led the author to investigate the conditions that had existed previous to that time. The first Child’s Protective Movement began in New York in the year mentioned, and the rapidity with which this spread throughout the world indicated that some general law, or as Brinton says, psychological process was at work. Today there are protecting societies in every country where there are Caucasian peoples. To go to the sources of the Child Protection Movement, it was necessary to understand the industrial conditions which arose in the nineteenth century, the eighteenth century, and the latter part of the seventeenth, when the boast was made that children were at last being made useful. Back of the misuse of children in factories is the interesting story of the rise of modern industrialism with the early attempts of the guilds to protect children, not so much out of any development of the human feelings as from the guild’s desire to protect the male labourer from unfair competition. The Decree of Napoleon in 1811,13 declaring that the unprotected infant was a charge on the state, marked another advance in humanitarianism; back of this advance was the long and interesting story of the endeavours of the religious orders and the charitably disposed persons of the Middle Ages to save the lives of children, the most conspicuous benefactor of childhood being the noble St. Vincent de Paul. It was he who gave to the golden glories of France’s golden age a touch of humanity that would otherwise have been lacking in the epoch ruled over by Mazarin and later the Great Louis. Leading up to the efforts of St. Vincent de Paul was that complex and interesting chapter of the mixing of the old German laws with the Roman laws, as the barbarians found them. That the semi-barbarous tribes that descended on Rome were better qualified to take up the humane side of the Christian work than was the decadent Roman, we can assume from the statement of Tacitus, that among the Germans children were treated more kindly than they were by the then ruling lords of the earth. Satire there may have been, as Guizot and Voltaire suggest, in much that Tacitus wrote about the superior morality of the Germans, but later history demonstrated their ethical superiority over the nation that was then on the verge of moral decay. In any case, as the Christian religion spread among the tribes that had enfiladed Rome, there are evidences of more humane consideration for children until we find Bishop Datheus as early as 787 a. d. founding an asylum for children in a spirit strangely in advance of his time, though the bitter protests of the Christian fathers in the second century against the slaughter and misuse of children put the mark of infamy on the persecutors of children for all time. The Roman laws, as the barbarians found them, were the result of a slow growth of a thousand years from the time when the founder attempted to check the slaughter of young children by what must have been, in those primitive times, more or less drastic legislation. That the teachings of Christ and the teachings of the Stoics led to the same result does not detract from the credit due to Christianity for first putting on its proper basis, as we see things now, the standing of the child in the matter of its rights. Back of the Roman developments is the Greek attitude toward children, disappointing, if we look for the perfection that we find in art and in philosophy, doubly disappointing when we find that both Plato and Aristotle saw the child only as a possibility—only as something of which we must await developments—only as a human ovum. When we come to trace the attitude of other races, of other civilizations, toward children, we find much the same story: out of barbarism, civilization; out of civilization, humanity, though it has been usually the great Semitic religions— Judaism, Christianity, and Mohammedanism—that have awakened the humane instinct the world over. The humane teachings of the Stoics were not unlike those of the great religious teachers, but, lacking the intense driving power of religious fervour, it is doubtful if they could have accomplished the revolutions that these three religions did. That all the great nations, the historical divisions of the races, or those that passed out of barbarism into civilization, carried with them some trace of early cannibalistic days or child-murder days, seems a safe conclusion; and while occasional followers and interpreters of the Malthusian philosophy have at times attempted to defend indirectly these practices as part of the checks and balances by which over-population is defeated, the fact remains that the development of the parental instinct, the greatest of civilizing forces, has slowly, but surely, tended to put an end to these 11 12 13 14 “checking” and “balancing” practices. 15 I CHAPTER II HUMAN MARRIAGE—EVOLUTION OF THE PARENTAL INSTINCT—SOCIAL CONDITIONS AMONG PAPUANS— CHILD’S PLACE IN THE TRIBE. T is now believed by many scientists that the cradle of the human race was the Indo-Malaysian intertropical lands. The discovery of the remains of the Pithecanthropus erectus in 1892 by Dr. Eugene Dubois in the pliocene beds of East Java, established as a strong probability what was up to that time regarded as a mere speculation. Keane14 and Sir John Evans15 now assert that man originated in the East in this vicinity and migrated thence to Europe. In this semi-glacial period, man, having taken on much of his human character and being now an erect animal (although in physical and mental respects he still resembled his nearest kin), had little difficulty in migrating. During the immensely long old Stone Age to which Peroché assigns a period of some three hundred thousand years since the beginning of the Ghellian epoch, the pleistocene precursors underwent very few or slight specializations or developments, a fact due mainly to the moderate and unchanging character of the climate during this long period. Progress in the arts, however, there was, to such an extent that in some things the period has not been equalled. Of this character are the exquisitely wrought flints of the Silurian period, which cannot be reproduced now. Primitive man as he existed in the Stone Age had very little in common with the “primitive men” of today. There are savages today who represent, in a way, a degree of savagery and a remoteness from civilization that in some respects takes them farther down the social ladder than any of the Aryan race of the Stone Age. “No pure primitive race exists in any part of the world today.”16 Contact with more advanced races has invariably produced, sometimes a good and sometimes an evil effect. Races are what climate, soil, diet, pursuits, and inherited character make them,17 and the Aryan savages of the Stone Age had a different set of these conditions to face from the Negro savages of today. A WELL-CARED FOR ESKIMO INFANT (COURTESY OF MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY, NEW YORK) NATIVE EAST AFRICAN MOTHER AND INFANT (COURTESY OF THE MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY, NEW YORK) It is not surprising to find today a race that in many respects represents the Stone Age period of civilization, displaying, together with the most barbarous customs, a wide knowledge of the arts, indicating that there had been contact with some higher race or its representatives. Tribes grade into one another in the matter of culture so that it is hard to classify them.18 A struggle for existence may leave its mark on an advanced tribe so that while it may in general retain prominent barbaric or primitive characteristics, it will, in every other regard but these, seem an advanced tribe. The Nigritans, for instance,19 have learned from their neighbours, the Abyssinians and the Arabs, the use of iron; yet they have not arrived at the Stone and Bronze ages in culture, and show in their social relations and domestic habits none of the characteristics of the more advanced tribes. So in the treatment of children. Wherever the treatment of the child is at variance with the other customs or conditions of the race, it will almost invariably be discovered that the change is due to economic reasons or to contact with a stronger race. That it is this contact with higher races that has helped undeveloped races to advance, is the opinion of Sir H. H. Johnson.20 “In some respects I think the tendency of the Negro for several centuries past has been an actual retrograde one. As we come to read the unwritten history of Africa by researches into languages, manners, customs, traditions, we seem to see a backward rather than a forward movement going on for some thousand years past—a return towards the savage and even the brute. I can believe it possible that, had Africa been more isolated from contact with the rest of the world, and cut off from the immigration of the Arab and the European, the purely Negroid races, left to themselves, so far from advancing towards a higher type of humanity, might have actually reverted by degrees to a type no longer human.” On the other hand, G. Stanley Hall says that our intercourse with the African races “had been a curse and not a blessing. Our own Indians are men of the Stone Age whom Bishop Whipple thought originally the noblest men on earth. Look at them now!”21 Up to a short time ago men of authority asserted that marriage had sprung up from a “state of promiscuity,” the believers in this theory forgetting that even “among animals the most akin to man, this state of promiscuity is rather exceptional.” Most of the people cited as following this practice have been shown to have individual marriage to the exclusion of other forms. Undoubtedly in many cases what are called group marriages have been mistaken for promiscuity. Almost equally low in the social scale is polyandry, where one woman may have several husbands. Whatever the origin of marriage, the fact is, however, that the idea of marriage comes after the idea of the child—as in the animal world, the family is established for the purpose of taking care of the children that have been brought into the 16 17 18 19 world.22 In Mahabharata, the Indian poem, we are told that marriage was founded by Swetaketu, son of the Rishi Uddalaka; according to the Chinese annals, the Emperor Fou-hi established the custom; the Egyptians ascribed its introduction to Menes, and the Greeks to Kekrops. Nowhere is it assumed as a condition of the race of all time. Its origin, growth, and development are really the origin, growth, and development of the idea of protecting human offspring. A convincing scientific explanation of marriage, however, has been set forth by Westermarck.23 Among the great sub- kingdom of the Invertebrata not even the female parent exhibits any anxiety about the offspring. The heat of the sun hatches the eggs of the highest order, the insects, and in most cases the mother does not even see her young.24 Parental care is rare among the lowest vertebrata. Among fishes the young are generally hatched without the assistance of the parents. There are exceptions to this among the Teleostei, where the male assumes the usual maternal functions of constructing a nest and jealously guarding the ova deposited there by the female. The male of certain species of the Arius, carries the ova in his pharynx. Nearly all of the reptiles, having placed their eggs in a convenient sunny spot, pay no more attention to them. With few exceptions, the relations of the sexes of the lower vertebrata can be described as fickle; they meet in the pairing time, part again, and have little more to do with one another. “The Chelonia form,” says Westermarck, “with regard to their domestic habits, transition to the birds, as they do also from a zoölogical and particularly from an embryological point of view.” He then goes on to show that parental affection in the latter class, not only on the side of the mother but on that of the father, has come to high development. Members of the two sexes aid each other in nest-building, the females bringing the materials and the males doing the work. Other duties which come with the mating season are shared by both, the mother being concerned with incubation and the father aiding her by taking her position when she leaves the nest for intervals, providing her with food which he gathers, and protecting her from dangers. When the breeding season is over and the young have come, a new set of duties is evolved. Young birds are not left alone by their parents, absences being necessitated only by searches for food for all members of the nest. When dangers threaten the nest both father and mother defend it bravely. FAMILY LIFE AMONG BIRDS. GROUP OF AMERICAN EGRET (COURTESY OF MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY, NEW YORK) All efforts are made to have the young shift for themselves as soon as they have grown strong enough to make it feasible. Independence and self-dependence come only after they are in all ways capable of meeting their needs. On the other hand, there are some species whose young, from the beginning of their ultra-oval existence, require and receive no care from the parents. The duck is one of a species which leaves all parental care to the female. In general it may be said that both parents share the parental duties, the chief duties, such as hatching and rearing of the young, falling to the mother, while the father gathers food and keeps off enemies.25 The relations of the two sexes are, therefore, very intimate, and association lasts even after the breeding season has passed. And only the birds of the Gallinaceous family are an exception to the rule of making such association permanent once it has been started, death alone ending it. Real marriage is to be found only among birds.26 For mammals the same cannot be said, for though the mother generally gives much attention to the young, the father does not always have as much concern. He even, in some cases, is the enemy of his own offspring. Yet even in the cases of mammals there are durable associations between the sexes. Very often these last only during the rutting season, but among whales, seals, hippopotami, the Cervus campestris,27 gazelles,28 the Neotragus Hemprichii and other small antelopes, reindeer, the Hydromus coypus, squirrels, moles, the ichneumon, and certain carnivorous animals, among the latter cats, martens, the yaguarundi of South America, and the Canis Brasiliensis and perhaps the wolf, there are durable matings. Association between the sexes is common among all of these animals for periods after the young have been born. And in all cases the male is the family’s protector. What is an exception among the lower mammals is, however, a rule among the Quadrumana. According to the natives of Madagascar some species of Prosimii are nursed by both male and female in common. Among the Arctopitheci the female is always assisted by the male in taking care of the young. Coming to the man-like apes, we are told by Lieutenant de Crespigny that “in the northern part of Borneo they live in families—the male, female, and young one. On one occasion,” he says, “I found a family in which were two young ones, one of them much larger than the other, and I took this as a proof that the family tie had existed for at least two seasons. They build commodious nests in the trees which form their feeding-ground, and, so far as I could observe, the nests, which are well lined with dry leaves, are occupied only by the female and young, the male passing the night in the fork of the same or another tree in the vicinity. The nests are very numerous all over the forest, for they are not occupied above a few nights, the mias (or orang-utan) leading a roving life.” Dr. Savage says that the gorillas live in bands and that but one male is seen in every band. M. du Chaillu says that the male gorilla is always accompanied by the female. It is among the Negritians of Africa that we find today the at-hand evidence of the attitude of man toward his progeny in 20 21 22 23 the first stages of culture, or perhaps the last stages of savagery. It must be remembered that in Africa, however, habits of other races will be found grafted on the negro stock, thereby causing them to appear sometimes unusually gentle or again unusually advanced. In Africa the Semitic and the Hamitic grafts on negro stock provide many varieties of mankind, just as in Oceania, the Mongol (Malay) and the Caucasian (Indonesian) grafts on the negro stock have produced many varieties there. As an example of the methods of the lowest of savage tribes, there is, however, no better example than the Papuans of New Guinea of whom the ethnologist, Keane, says: “They stand in some respects on the lowest rung of the social ladder.” As an example of the low state of culture in which part of them exist it is said that those near Astrolabe Bay on the north-west coast of New Guinea had no knowledge of the metals, all their implements being of stone, wood, or bones; neither had they knowledge of fire, the grandfathers of the present generation being able to recall the time when they had no fire at all, but ate their food raw. In the study of these people we are studying contemporaries of our own neolithic ancestors. According to their most popular myth, a crocodile named Nugu was responsible for the frequent disappearance of children until the tribe made an agreement to supply him with pig’s fat instead. Here we have the beginning of the theory of sacrifice. A FAMILY OF ANTHROPOID APES. FROM A DRAWING BY DAN BEARD. (COURTESY OF THE MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY, NEW YORK) FAMILY OF POLAR BEARS (COURTESY OF MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY. NEW YORK CITY) “In their treatment of children they are often violent and cruel,” says Alfred Russell Wallace,29 and an example of their idea of kindness may be gathered from the following description of the “ornamentation” of a young Papuan: “The faces of both men and women are frequently ornamented all over with cicatrices either circular or chevron- shaped. The operation is a painful and costly one, as the professional tattooer has to be highly paid for his trouble, and not every child’s friends can afford the fee demanded. The instrument used is the claw of the flying-fox. The unfortunate patient is not allowed to sleep for two or three nights before the operation is performed, and then, when he is ready to drop from weariness, the tattooer begins his work, and completes it at one sitting. I never saw the actual process, but a child was brought for my inspection whose face had just been finished off. It was in a painful state of nervous irritation, and the face swelled to an enormous size.”30 Of the condition of these people no one is better able to speak than Lieutenant Governor J. H. P. Murray,31 who describes tribes where the savages have only weapons of wood, know nothing of the bow and arrow, and are noted for their immorality. “It is very often the case that the best of the young girls are sold by their parents as courtesans, the native name being Jelibo. I came across men married, and possessing, in addition, these women. Young fellows, not having reached puberty, had clubbed together in parties of three and four, and bought young girls from the parents to make courtesans. At feasts, these girls are used for the purpose of enriching themselves and their owners.”32 As to the attitude of the children, we gain some idea of the aboriginal point of view by this statement: “There are some villages in which children absolutely swarm, but there are few large families; practically every one is married, but there are many couples who have no children, or only one or two. In many parts of the territory it is considered a disgrace for a woman to have a child until she has been married at least two years; infanticide and abortion, though...