Australian Classes.—Organized upon Sex.—Archaic Character of
the Organization.—Australian Gentes.—The Eight Classes.—Rule of
Marriage.—Descent in the Female Line.—Stupendous Conjugal System.—Two
Male and Two Female Classes in each Gens.—Innovations upon
the Classes.—Gens still Rudimentary.
In treating the subject of the growth of the idea of government,
the organization into gentes on the basis of kin naturally
suggests itself as the archaic frame-work of ancient society;
but there is a still older and more archaic organization,
that into classes on the basis of sex, which first demands attention.
It will not be taken up because of its novelty in human
experience, but for the higher reason that it seems to contain
the germinal principle of the gens. If this inference is warranted
by the facts it will give to this organization into male
and female classes, now found in full vitality among the Australian
aborigines, an ancient prevalence as wide spread, in the
tribes of mankind, as the original organization into gentes.
It will soon be perceived that low down in savagery community
of husbands and wives, within prescribed limits, was
the central principle of the social system. The marital rights
and privileges, (jura conjugialia,44) established in the group,
grew into a stupendous scheme, which became the organic
principle on which society was constituted. From the nature
of the case these rights and privileges rooted themselves so
firmly that emancipation from them was slowly accomplished
through movements which resulted in unconscious reformations.
Accordingly it will be found that the family has advanced from
a lower to a higher form as the range of this conjugal system
was gradually reduced. The family, commencing in the consanguine,
founded upon the intermarriage of brothers and sisters
in a group, passed into the second form, the punaluan, under
a social system akin to the Australian classes, which broke
up the first species of marriage by substituting groups of
brothers who shared their wives in common, and groups of sisters
who shared their husbands in common,—marriage in both
cases being in the group. The organization into classes upon
sex, and the subsequent higher organization into gentes upon
kin, must be regarded as the results of great social movements
worked out unconsciously through natural selection. For
these reasons the Australian system, about to be presented, deserves
attentive consideration, although it carries us into a low
grade of human life. It represents a striking phase of the ancient
social history of our race.
The organization into classes on the basis of sex, and the
inchoate organization into gentes on the basis of kin, now prevail
among that portion of the Australian aborigines who
speak the Kamilaroi language. They inhabit the Darling
River district north of Sydney. Both organizations are also
found in other Australian tribes, and so wide spread as to render
probable their ancient universal prevalence among them.
It is evident from internal considerations that the male and
female classes are older than the gentes: firstly, because the
gentile organization is higher than that into classes; and secondly,
because the former, among the Kamilaroi, are in process
of overthrowing the latter. The class in its male and female
branches is the unit of their social system, which place rightfully
belongs to the gens when in full development. A remarkable
combination of facts is thus presented; namely, a
sexual and a gentile organization, both in existence at the
same time, the former holding the central position, and the
latter inchoate but advancing to completeness through encroachments
upon the former.
This organization upon sex has not been found, as yet, in
any tribes of savages out of Australia, but the slow development
of these islanders in their secluded habitat, and the more
archaic character of the organization upon sex than that into
gentes, suggests the conjecture, that the former may have been
universal in such branches of the human family as afterwards
possessed the gentile organization. Although the class system,
when traced out fully, involves some bewildering complications,
it will reward the attention necessary for its mastery.
As a curious social organization among savages it possesses
but little interest; but as the most primitive form of society
hitherto discovered, and more especially with the contingent
probability that the remote progenitors of our own Aryan
family were once similarly organized, it becomes important,
and may prove instructive.
The Australians rank below the Polynesians, and far below
the American aborigines. They stand below the African
negro and near the bottom of the scale. Their social institutions,
therefore, must approach the primitive type as nearly as
those of any existing people.45
Inasmuch as the gens is made the subject of the next succeeding
chapter, it will be introduced in this without discussion,
and only for the necessary explanation of the classes.
The Kamilaroi are divided into six gentes, standing with
reference to the right of marriage, in two divisions, as follows:
I. 1. Iguana, (Duli). 2. Kangaroo, (Murriira).46 3. Opossum,
(Mute).
II. 4. Emu, (Dinoun). 5. Bandicoot, (Bilba). 6. Black-snake,
(Nurai).
Originally the first three gentes were not allowed to intermarry
with each other, because they were subdivisions of an
original gens; but they were permitted to marry into either of
the other gentes, and vice versâ. This ancient rule is now
modified, among the Kamilaroi, in certain definite particulars,
but not carried to the full extent of permitting marriage into
any gens but that of the individual. Neither males nor females
can marry into their own gens, the prohibition being
absolute. Descent is in the female line, which assigns the
children to the gens of their mother. These are among the
essential characteristics of the gens, wherever this institution is
found in its archaic form. In its external features, therefore, it
is perfect and complete among the Kamilaroi.
But there is a further and older division of the people into
eight classes, four of which are composed exclusively of males,
and four exclusively of females. It is accompanied with a
regulation in respect to marriage and descent which obstructs
the gens, and demonstrates that the latter organization is in
process of development into its true logical form. One only
of the four classes of males can marry into one only of
the four classes of females. In the sequel it will be found
that all the males of one class are, theoretically, the husbands
of all the females of the class into which they are allowed to
marry. Moreover, if the male belongs to one of the first three
gentes the female must belong to one of the opposite three.
Marriage is thus restricted to a portion of the males of one
gens, with a portion of the females of another gens, which is
opposed to the true theory of the gentile institution, for all the
members of each gens should be allowed to marry persons of
the opposite sex in all the gentes except their own.
The classes are the following:
| Male. |
Female. |
| 1. Ippai. |
1. Ippata. |
| 2. Kumbo. |
2. Buta. |
| 3. Murri. |
3. Mata. |
| 4. Kubbi. |
4. Kapota. |
All the Ippais, of whatever gens, are brothers to each other.
Theoretically, they are descended from a supposed common
female ancestor. All the Kumbos are the same; and so are
all the Murris and Kubbis, respectively, and for the same reason.
In like manner, all the Ippatas, of whatever gens, are
sisters to each other, and for the same reason; all the Butas are
the same, and so are all the Matas and Kapotas, respectively.
In the next place, all the Ippais and Ippatas are brothers and
sisters to each other, whether children of the same mother or
collateral consanguinei, and in whatever gens they are found.
The Kumbos and Butas are brothers and sisters; and so are
the Murris and Matas, and the Kubbis and Kapotas respectively.
If an Ippai and Ippata meet, who have never seen each
other before, they address each other as brother and sister.
The Kamilaroi, therefore, are organized into four great primary
groups of brothers and sisters, each group being composed of
a male and a female branch; but intermingled over the areas of
their occupation. Founded upon sex, instead of kin, it is older
than the gentes, and more archaic, it may be repeated, than
any form of society hitherto known.
The classes embody the germ of the gens, but fall short of
its realization. In reality the Ippais and Ippatas form a single
class in two branches, and since they cannot intermarry they
would form the basis of a gens but for the reason that they fall
under two names, each of which is integral for certain purposes,
and for the further reason that their children take different
names from their own. The division into classes is
upon sex instead of kin, and has its primary relation to a rule
of marriage as remarkable as it is original.
Since brothers and sisters are not allowed to intermarry, the
classes stand to each other in a different order with respect to
the right of marriage, or rather, of cohabitation, which better
expresses the relation. Such was the original law, thus:
| Ippai can |
marry |
Kapota, |
and |
no |
other. |
| Kumbo ” |
” |
Mata, |
” |
” |
” |
| Murri ” |
” |
Buta, |
” |
” |
” |
| Kubbi ” |
” |
Ippata, |
” |
” |
” |
This exclusive scheme has been modified in one particular,
as will hereafter be shown: namely, in giving to each class of
males the right of intermarriage with one additional class of
females. In this fact, evidence of the encroachment of the
gens upon the class is furnished, tending to the overthrow of
the latter.
It is thus seen that each male in the selection of a wife, is
limited to one-fourth part of all the Kamilaroi females. This,
however, is not the remarkable part of the system. Theoretically
every Kapota is the wife of every Ippai; every Mata is
the wife of every Kumbo; every Buta is the wife of every
Murri; and every Ippata of every Kubbi. Upon this material
point the information is specific. Mr. Fison, before mentioned,
after observing that Mr. Lance had “had much intercourse
with the natives, having lived among them many years on
frontier cattle-stations on the Darling River, and in the trans-Darling
country,” quotes from his letter as follows: “If a
Kubbi meets a stranger Ippata, they address each other as
Goleer = Spouse.... A Kubbi thus meeting an Ippata, even
though she were of another tribe, would treat her as his wife,
and his right to do so would be recognized by her tribe.”
Every Ippata within the immediate circle of his acquaintance
would consequently be his wife as well.
Here we find, in a direct and definite form, punaluan marriage
in a group of unusual extent; but broken up into lesser
groups, each a miniature representation of the whole, united
for habitation and subsistence. Under the conjugal system
thus brought to light, one-quarter of all the males are united in
marriage with one-quarter of all the females of the Kamilaroi
tribes. This picture of savage life need not revolt the mind,
because to them it was a form of the marriage relation, and
therefore devoid of impropriety. It is but an extended form
of polygyny and polyandry, which, within narrower limits,
have prevailed universally among savage tribes. The evidence
of the fact still exists, in unmistakable form, in their systems
of consanguinity and affinity, which have outlived the customs
and usages in which they originated. It will be noticed that
this scheme of intermarriage is but a step from promiscuity,
because it is tantamount to that with the addition of a method.
Still, as it is made a subject of organic regulation, it is far removed
from general promiscuity. Moreover, it reveals an existing
state of marriage and of the family of which no adequate
conception could have been formed apart from the facts. It
affords the first direct evidence of a state of society which had
previously been deduced, as extremely probable, from systems
of consanguinity and affinity.47
Whilst the children remained in the gens of their mother,
they passed into another class, in the same gens, different from
that of either parent. This will be made apparent by the following
table:
| Male. |
Female. |
|
Male. |
|
Female. |
| Ippai marries |
Kapota. |
Their |
children |
are |
Murri |
and |
Mata. |
| Kumbo ” |
Mata. |
” |
” |
” |
Kubbi |
” |
Kapota. |
| Murri ” |
Buta. |
” |
” |
” |
Ippai |
” |
Ippata. |
| Kubbi ” |
Ippata. |
” |
” |
” |
Kumbo |
” |
Buta. |
If these descents are followed out it will be found that, in
the female line, Kapota is the mother of Mata, and Mata in
turn is the mother of Kapota; so Ippata is the mother of Buta,
and the latter in turn is the mother of Ippata. It is the same
with the male classes; but since descent is in the female line,
the Kamilaroi tribes derive themselves from two supposed
female ancestors, which laid the foundation for two original
gentes. By tracing these descents still further it will be found
that the blood of each class passes through all the classes.
Although each individual bears one of the class names above
given, it will be understood that each has in addition the single
personal name, which is common among savage as well as barbarous
tribes. The more closely this organization upon sex is
scrutinized, the more remarkable it seems as the work of
savages. When once established, and after that transmitted
through a few generations, it would hold society with such
power as to become difficult of displacement. It would require
a similar and higher system, and centuries of time, to accomplish
this result; particularly if the range of the conjugal
system would thereby be abridged.
The gentile organization supervened naturally upon the
classes as a higher organization, by simply enfolding them unchanged.
That it was subsequent in point of time, is shown
by the relations of the two systems, by the inchoate condition
of the gentes, by the impaired condition of the classes through
encroachments by the gens, and by the fact that the class is
still the unit of organization. These conclusions will be made
apparent in the sequel.
From the preceding statements the composition of the gentes
will be understood when placed in their relations to the classes.
The latter are in pairs of brothers and sisters derived from each
other; and the gentes themselves, through the classes, are in
pairs, as follows:
| Gentes. |
|
Male. |
|
Female. |
|
Male. |
|
Female. |
| 1. Iguana. |
All |
are |
Murri |
and |
Mata, |
or |
Kubbi |
and |
Kapota. |
| 2. Emu. |
” |
” |
Kumbo |
” |
Buta, |
” |
Ippai |
” |
Ippata. |
| |
| 3. Kangaroo. |
” |
” |
Murri |
” |
Mata, |
” |
Kubbi |
” |
Kapota. |
| 4. Bandicoot. |
” |
” |
Kumbo |
” |
Buta, |
” |
Ippai |
” |
Ippata. |
| |
| 5. Opossum. |
” |
” |
Murri |
” |
Mata, |
” |
Kubbi |
” |
Kapota. |
| 6. Blacksnake. |
” |
” |
Kumbo |
” |
Buta, |
” |
Ippai |
” |
Ippata. |
The connection of children with a particular gens is proven
by the law of marriage. Thus, Iguana-Mata must marry
Kumbo; her children are Kubbi and Kapota, and necessarily
Iguana in gens, because descent is in the female line. Iguana-Kapota
must marry Ippai; her children are Murri and Mata,
and also Iguana in gens, for the same reason. In like manner
Emu-Buta must marry Murri; her children are Ippai and
Ippata, and of the Emu gens. So Emu-Ippata must marry
Kubbi; her children are Kumbo and Buta, and also of the
Emu gens. In this manner the gens is maintained by keeping
in its membership the children of all its female members. The
same is true in all respects of each of the remaining gentes.
It will be noticed that each gens is made up, theoretically, of
the descendants of two supposed female ancestors, and contains
four of the eight classes. It seems probable that originally
there were but two male, and two female classes, which were
set opposite to each other in respect to the right of marriage;
and that the four afterward subdivided into eight. The
classes as an anterior organization were evidently arranged
within the gentes, and not formed by the subdivision of the
latter.
Moreover, since the Iguana, Kangaroo and Opossum gentes
are found to be counterparts of each other, in the classes they
contain, it follows that they are subdivisions of an original
gens. Precisely the same is true of Emu, Bandicoot and
Blacksnake, in both particulars; thus reducing the six to two
original gentes, with the right in each to marry into the other,
but not into itself. It is confirmed by the fact that the members
of the first three gentes could not originally intermarry; neither
could the members of the last three. The reason which prevented
intermarriage in the gens, when the three were one,
would follow the subdivisions because they were of the same
descent although under different gentile names. Exactly the
same thing is found among the Seneca-Iroquois, as will hereafter
be shown.
Since marriage is restricted to particular classes, when there
were but two gentes, one-half of all the females of one were,
theoretically, the wives of one-half of all the males of the other.
After their subdivision into six the benefit of marrying out of
the gens, which was the chief advantage of the institution, was
arrested, if not neutralized, by the presence of the classes together
with the restrictions mentioned. It resulted in continuous
in-and-in marriages beyond the immediate degree of
brother and sister. If the gens could have eradicated the
classes this evil would, in a great measure, have been removed.48
The organization into classes seems to have been directed to
the single object of breaking up the intermarriage of brothers
and sisters, which affords a probable explanation of the origin
of the system. But since it did not look beyond this special
abomination it retained a conjugal system nearly as objectionable,
as well as cast it in a permanent form.
It remains to notice an innovation upon the original constitution
of the classes, and in favor of the gens, which reveals a
movement, still pending, in the direction of the true ideal of the
gens. It is shown in two particulars: firstly, in allowing each
triad of gentes to intermarry with each other, to a limited extent;
and secondly, to marry into classes not before permitted.
Thus, Iguana-Murri can now marry Mata in the Kangaroo
gens, his collateral sister, whereas originally he was restricted
to Buta in the opposite three. So Iguana-Kubbi can now marry
Kapota, his collateral sister. Emu-Kumbo can now marry Buta,
and Emu-Ippai can marry Ippata in the Blacksnake gens, contrary
to original limitations. Each class of males in each triad
of gentes seems now to be allowed one additional class of
females in the two remaining gentes of the same triad, from
which they were before excluded. The memoranda sent by
Mr. Fison, however, do not show a change to the full extent
here indicated.49
This innovation would plainly have been a retrograde movement
but that it tended to break down the classes. The line
of progress among the Kamilaroi, so far as any is observable,
was from classes into gentes, followed by a tendency to make
the gens instead of the class the unit of the social organism.
In this movement the overshadowing system of cohabitation
was the resisting element. Social advancement was impossible
without diminishing its extent, which was equally impossible
so long as the classes, with the privileges they conferred, remained
in full vitality. The jura conjugialia, which appertained
to these classes, were the dead weight upon the Kamilaroi,
without emancipation from which they would have remained
for additional thousands of years in the same condition,
substantially, in which they were found.
An organization somewhat similar is indicated by the punalua
of the Hawaiians which will be hereafter explained.
Wherever the middle or lower stratum of savagery is uncovered,
marriages of entire groups under usages defining the
groups, have been discovered either in absolute form, or such
traces as to leave little doubt that such marriages were normal
throughout this period of man’s history. It is immaterial
whether the group, theoretically, was large or small, the necessities
of their condition would set a practical limit to the size
of the group living together under this custom. If then
community of husbands and wives is found to have been a law
of the savage state, and, therefore, the essential condition of
society in savagery, the inference would be conclusive that
our own savage ancestors shared in this common experience of
the human race.
In such usages and customs an explanation of the low condition
of savages is found. If men in savagery had not been
left behind, in isolated portions of the earth, to testify concerning
the early condition of mankind in general, it would have
been impossible to form any definite conception of what it
must have been. An important inference at once arises,
namely, that the institutions of mankind have sprung up in a
progressive connected series, each of which represents the result
of unconscious reformatory movements to extricate society
from existing evils. The wear of ages is upon these institutions,
for the proper understanding of which they must be
studied in this light. It cannot be assumed that the Australian
savages are now at the bottom of the scale, for their arts
and institutions, humble as they are, show the contrary; neither
is there any ground for assuming their degradation from a
higher condition, because the facts of human experience afford
no sound basis for such an hypothesis. Cases of physical and
mental deterioration in tribes and nations may be admitted,
for reasons which are known, but they never interrupted the
general progress of mankind. All the facts of human knowledge
and experience tend to show that the human race, as a
whole, have steadily progressed from a lower to a higher condition.
The arts by which savages maintain their lives are remarkably
persistent. They are never lost until superseded by
others higher in degree. By the practice of these arts, and by
the experience gained through social organizations, mankind
have advanced under a necessary law of development, although
their progress may have been substantially imperceptible for
centuries. It was the same with races as with individuals, although
tribes and nations have perished through the disruption
of their ethnic life.
The Australian classes afford the first, and, so far as the
writer is aware, the only case in which we are able to look
down into the incipient stages of the organization into gentes,
and even through it upon an anterior organization so archaic
as that upon sex. It seems to afford a glimpse at society when
it verged upon the primitive. Among other tribes the gens
seems to have advanced in proportion to the curtailment of the
conjugal system. Mankind rise in the scale and the family
advances through its successive forms, as these rights sink
down before the efforts of society to improve its internal organization.
The Australians might not have effected the overthrow of
the classes in thousands of years if they had remained undiscovered;
while more favored continental tribes had long before
perfected the gens, then advanced it through its successive
phases, and at last laid it aside after entering upon civilization.
Facts illustrating the rise of successive social organizations, such
as that upon sex, and that upon kin are of the highest ethnological
value. A knowledge of what they indicate is eminently
desirable, if the early history of mankind is to be measurably
recovered.
Among the Polynesian tribes the gens was unknown; but
traces of a system analogous to the Australian classes appear in
the Hawaiian custom of punalua. Original ideas, absolutely
independent of previous knowledge and experience, are necessarily
few in number. Were it possible to reduce the sum
of human ideas to underived originals, the small numerical result
would be startling. Development is the method of human
progress.
In the light of these facts some of the excrescences of modern
civilization, such as Mormonism, are seen to be relics of the
old savagism not yet eradicated from the human brain. We
have the same brain, perpetuated by reproduction, which
worked in the skulls of barbarians and savages in by-gone ages;
and it has come down to us ladened and saturated with the
thoughts, aspirations and passions, with which it was busied
through the intermediate periods. It is the same brain grown
older and larger with the experience of the ages. These outcrops
of barbarism are so many revelations of its ancient proclivities.
They are explainable as a species of mental atavism.
Out of a few germs of thought, conceived in the early ages,
have been evolved all the principal institutions of mankind.
Beginning their growth in the period of savagery, fermenting
through the period of barbarism, they have continued their advancement
through the period of civilization. The evolution
of these germs of thought has been guided by a natural logic
which formed an essential attribute of the brain itself. So unerringly
has this principle performed its functions in all conditions
of experience, and in all periods of time, that its results
are uniform, coherent and traceable in their courses. These results
alone will in time yield convincing proofs of the unity of origin
of mankind. The mental history of the human race, which
is revealed in institutions, inventions and discoveries, is presumptively
the history of a single species, perpetuated through
individuals, and developed through experience. Among
the original germs of thought, which have exercised the most
powerful influence upon the human mind, and upon human
destiny, are these which relate to government, to the family,
to language, to religion, and to property. They had a definite
beginning far back in savagery, and a logical progress, but can
have no final consummation, because they are still progressing,
and must ever continue to progress.
The Gentile Organization.—Its Wide Prevalence.—Definition of a
Gens.—Descent in the Female Line the Archaic Rule.—Rights, Privileges
and Obligations of Members of a Gens.—Right of Electing and
Deposing its Sachem and Chiefs.—Obligation not to marry in the Gens.—Mutual
Rights of Inheritance of the Property of deceased Members.—Reciprocal
Obligations of Help, Defense and Redress of Injuries.—Right
of Naming its Members.—Right of Adopting Strangers
into the Gens.—Common Religious Rites, Query.—A Common Burial
Place.—Council of the Gens.—Gentes named after Animals.—Number
of Persons in a Gens.
The experience of mankind, as elsewhere remarked, has developed
but two plans of government, using the word plan in
its scientific sense. Both were definite and systematic organizations
of society. The first and most ancient was a social organization,
founded upon gentes, phratries and tribes. The
second and latest in time was a political organization, founded
upon territory and upon property. Under the first a gentile
society was created, in which the government dealt with persons
through their relations to a gens and tribe. These relations
were purely personal. Under the second a political
society was instituted, in which the government dealt with
persons through their relations to territory, e. g.—the township,
the county, and the state. These relations were purely
territorial. The two plans were fundamentally different. One
belongs to ancient society, and the other to modern.
The gentile organization opens to us one of the oldest and
most widely prevalent institutions of mankind. It furnished
the nearly universal plan of government of ancient society,
Asiatic, European, African, American and Australian. It was
the instrumentality by means of which society was organized
and held together. Commencing in savagery, and continuing
through the three sub-periods of barbarism, it remained until
the establishment of political society, which did not occur until
after civilization had commenced. The Grecian gens, phratry
and tribe, the Roman gens, curia and tribe find their analogues
in the gens, phratry and tribe of the American aborigines. In
like manner, the Irish sept, the Scottish clan, the phrara of the
Albanians, and the Sanskrit ganas, without extending the comparison
further, are the same as the American Indian gens,
which has usually been called a clan. As far as our knowledge
extends, this organization runs through the entire ancient
world upon all the continents, and it was brought down to the
historical period by such tribes as attained to civilization. Nor
is this all. Gentile society wherever found is the same in structural
organization and in principles of action; but changing
from lower to higher forms with the progressive advancement
of the people. These changes give the history of development
of the same original conceptions.
Gens, γένος, and ganas in Latin, Greek and Sanskrit have
alike the primary signification of kin. They contain the same
element as gigno, γίγνομαι, and ganamai, in the same languages,
signifying to beget; thus implying in each an immediate
common descent of the members of a gens. A gens,
therefore, is a body of consanguinei descended from the same
common ancestor, distinguished by a gentile name, and bound
together by affinities of blood. It includes a moiety only of
such descendants. Where descent is in the female line, as it
was universally in the archaic period, the gens is composed
of a supposed female ancestor and her children, together with
the children of her female descendants, through females, in
perpetuity; and where descent is in the male line—into which
it was changed after the appearance of property in masses—of
a supposed male ancestor and his children, together with the
children of his male descendants, through males, in perpetuity.
The family name among ourselves is a survival of the gentile
name, with descent in the male line, and passing in the same
manner. The modern family, as expressed by its name, is an
unorganized gens; with the bond of kin broken, and its members
as widely dispersed as the family name is found.
Among the nations named, the gens indicated a social organization
of a remarkable character, which had prevailed from an
antiquity so remote that its origin was lost in the obscurity of
far distant ages. It was also the unit of organization of a social
and governmental system, the fundamental basis of ancient
society. This organization was not confined to the Latin,
Grecian and Sanskrit speaking tribes, with whom it became
such a conspicuous institution. It has been found in other
branches of the Aryan family of nations, in the Semitic, Uralian
and Turanian families, among the tribes of Africa and
Australia, and of the American aborigines.
An exposition of the elementary constitution of the gens,
with its functions, rights, and privileges, requires our first attention;
after which it will be traced, as widely as possible, among
the tribes and nations of mankind in order to prove, by comparisons,
its fundamental unity. It will then be seen that it
must be regarded as one of the primary institutions of mankind.
The gens has passed through successive stages of development
in its transition from its archaic to its final form with the
progress of mankind. These changes were limited, in the
main, to two: firstly, changing descent from the female line,
which was the archaic rule, as among the Iroquois, to the male
line, which was the final rule, as among the Grecian and Roman
gentes; and, secondly, changing the inheritance of the property
of a deceased member of the gens from his gentiles, who took
it in the archaic period, first to his agnatic kindred, and finally
to his children. These changes, slight as they may seem, indicate
very great changes of condition as well as a large degree
of progressive development.
The gentile organization, originating in the period of savagery,
enduring through the three sub-periods of barbarism,
finally gave way, among the more advanced tribes, when they
attained civilization, the requirements of which it was unable
to meet. Among the Greeks and Romans, political society
supervened upon gentile society, but not until civilization had
commenced. The township (and its equivalent, the city ward),
with its fixed property, and the inhabitants it contained, organized
as a body politic, became the unit and the basis of a new
and radically different system of government. After political
society was instituted, this ancient and time-honored organization,
with the phratry and tribe developed from it, gradually
yielded up their existence. It will be my object, in the course of
this volume, to trace the progress of this organization from its rise
in savagery to its final overthrow in civilization; for it was
under gentile institutions that barbarism was won by some of
the tribes of mankind while in savagery, and that civilization
was won by the descendants of some of the same tribes while
in barbarism. Gentile institutions carried a portion of mankind
from savagery to civilization.
This organization may be successfully studied both in its
living and in its historical forms in a large number of tribes
and races. In such an investigation it is preferable to commence
with the gens in its archaic form, and then to follow it
through its successive modifications among advanced nations,
in order to discover both the changes and the causes which
produced them. I shall commence, therefore, with the gens
as it now exists among the American aborigines, where it is
found in its archaic form, and among whom its theoretical constitution
and practical workings can be investigated more successfully
than in the historical gentes of the Greeks and Romans.
In fact to understand fully the gentes of the latter nations a
knowledge of the functions, and of the rights, privileges and
obligations of the members of the American Indian gens is
imperatively necessary.
In American Ethnography tribe and clan have been used in
the place of gens as an equivalent term, from not perceiving its
universality. In previous works, and following my predecessors,
I have so used them.50 A comparison of the Indian clan
with the gens of the Greeks and Romans reveals at once their
identity in structure and functions. It also extends to the
phratry and tribe. If the identity of these several organizations
can be shown, of which there can be no doubt, there is a
manifest propriety in returning to the Latin and Grecian terminologies
which are full and precise as well as historical. I
have made herein the substitutions required, and propose to
show the parallelism of these several organizations.
The plan of government of the American aborigines commenced
with the gens and ended with the confederacy, the latter
being the highest point to which their governmental institutions
attained. It gave for the organic series: first, the gens,
a body of consanguinei having a common gentile name; second,
the phratry, an assemblage of related gentes united in a
higher association for certain common objects; third, the tribe,
an assemblage of gentes, usually organized in phratries, all the
members of which spoke the same dialect; and fourth, a confederacy
of tribes, the members of which respectively spoke
dialects of the same stock language. It resulted in a gentile
society (societas), as distinguished from a political society or
state (civitas). The difference between the two is wide and
fundamental. There was neither a political society, nor a citizen,
nor a state, nor any civilization in America when it was
discovered. One entire ethnical period intervened between the
highest American Indian tribes and the beginning of civilization,
as that term is properly understood.
In like manner the plan of government of the Grecian tribes,
anterior to civilization, involved the same organic series, with
the exception of the last member: first, the gens, a body of
consanguinei bearing a common gentile name; second, the
phratry, an assemblage of gentes, united for social and religious
objects; third, the tribe, an assemblage of gentes of the same
lineage organized in phratries; and fourth, a nation, an assemblage
of tribes who had coalesced in a gentile society upon one
common territory, as the four tribes of the Athenians in Attica,
and the three Dorian tribes at Sparta. Coalescence was a
higher process than confederating. In the latter case the tribes
occupied independent territories.
The Roman plan and series were the same: First, the gens,
a body of consanguinei bearing a common gentile name; second,
the curia, an assemblage of gentes united in a higher association
for the performance of religious and governmental
functions; third, the tribe, an assemblage of gentes organized
in curiae; and fourth, a nation, an assemblage of tribes who had
coalesced in a gentile society. The early Romans styled themselves,
with entire propriety, the Populus Romanus.
Wherever gentile institutions prevailed, and prior to the establishment
of political society, we find peoples or nations in
gentile societies, and nothing beyond. The state did not exist.
Their governments were essentially democratical, because the
principles on which the gens, phratry and tribe were organized
were democratical. This last proposition, though contrary to
received opinions, is historically important. The truth of it
can be tested as the gens, phratry and tribe of the American
aborigines, and the same organizations among the Greeks and
Romans are successively considered. As the gens, the unit of
organization, was essentially democratical, so necessarily was the
phratry composed of gentes, the tribe composed of phratries,
and the gentile society formed by the confederating, or coalescing
of tribes.
The gens, though a very ancient social organization founded
upon kin, does not include all the descendants of a common
ancestor. It was for the reason that when the gens came in,
marriage between single pairs was unknown, and descent
through males could not be traced with certainty. Kindred
were linked together chiefly through the bond of their maternity.
In the ancient gens descent was limited to the female
line. It embraced all such persons as traced their descent from
a supposed common female ancestor, through females, the evidence
of the fact being the possession of a common gentile
name. It would include this ancestor and her children, the
children of her daughters, and the children of her female
descendants, through females, in perpetuity; whilst the children
of her sons, and the children of her male descendants, through
males, would belong to other gentes; namely, those of their
respective mothers. Such was the gens in its archaic form,
when the paternity of children was not certainly ascertainable,
and when their maternity afforded the only certain criterion of
descents.
This state of descents, which can be traced back to the Middle
Status of savagery, as among the Australians, remained
among the American aborigines through the Upper Status of
savagery, and into and through the Lower Status of barbarism,
with occasional exceptions. In the Middle Status of barbarism,
the Indian tribes began to change descent from the female line
to the male, as the syndyasmian family of the period began to
assume monogamian characteristics. In the Upper Status of
barbarism, descent had become changed to the male line among
the Grecian tribes, with the exception of the Lycians, and
among the Italian tribes, with the exception of the Etruscans.
The influence of property and its inheritance in producing the
monogamian family which assured the paternity of children,
and in causing a change of descent from the female line to the
male, will be considered elsewhere. Between the two extremes,
represented by the two rules of descent, three entire ethnical
periods intervene, covering many thousands of years.
With descent in the male line, the gens embraced all persons
who traced their descent from a supposed common male ancestor,
through males only, the evidence of the fact being, as in
the other case, the possession of a common gentile name. It
would include this ancestor and his children, the children of his
sons, and the children of his male descendants, through males,
in perpetuity; whilst the children of his daughters, and the
children of his female descendants, through females, would belong
to other gentes; namely, those of their respective fathers.
Those retained in the gens in one case were those excluded in
the other, and vice versâ. Such was the gens in its final form,
after the paternity of children became ascertainable through the
rise of monogamy. The transition of a gens from one form into
the other was perfectly simple, without involving its overthrow.
All that was needed was an adequate motive, as will
elsewhere be shown. The same gens, with descent changed to
the male line, remained the unit of the social system. It could
not have reached the second form without previously existing
in the first.
As intermarriage in the gens was prohibited, it withdrew its
members from the evils of consanguine marriages, and thus
tended to increase the vigor of the stock. The gens came into
being upon three principal conceptions, namely the bond of
kin, a pure lineage through descent in the female line, and
non-intermarriage in the gens. When the idea of a gens was
developed, it would naturally have taken the form of gentes in
pairs, because the children of the males were excluded, and because
it was equally necessary to organize both classes of descendants.
With two gentes started into being simultaneously
the whole result would have been attained, since the males and
females of one gens would marry the females and males of the
other, and the children, following the gentes of their respective
mothers, would be divided between them. Resting on the
bond of kin as its cohesive principle the gens afforded to each
individual member that personal protection which no other existing
power could give.
After considering the rights, privileges and obligations of its
members it will be necessary to follow the gens in its organic
relations to a phratry, tribe and confederacy, in order to find
the uses to which it was applied, the privileges which it conferred,
and the principles which it fostered. The gentes of the
Iroquois will be taken as the standard exemplification of this
institution in the Ganowánian family. They had carried their
scheme of government from the gens to the confederacy, making
it complete in each of its parts, and an excellent illustration
of the capabilities of the gentile organization in its archaic
form. When discovered the Iroquois were in the Lower Status
of barbarism, and well advanced in the arts of life pertaining to
this condition. They manufactured nets twine and rope from
filaments of bark; wove belts and burden straps, with warp and
woof, from the same materials; they manufactured earthen
vessels and pipes from clay mixed with siliceous materials and
hardened by fire, some of which were ornamented with rude
medallions; they cultivated maize, beans, squashes, and tobacco,
in garden beds, and made unleavened bread from
pounded maize which they boiled in earthern vessels;51 they
tanned skins into leather with which they manufactured kilts
leggings and moccasins; they used the bow and arrow and war-club
as their principal weapons; used flint stone and bone implements,
wore skin garments, and were expert hunters and
fishermen. They constructed long joint-tenement houses large
enough to accommodate five, ten, and twenty families, and
each household practiced communism in living; but they were
unacquainted with the use of stone or adobe-brick in house
architecture, and with the use of the native metals. In mental
capacity and in general advancement they were the representative
branch of the Indian family north of New Mexico. General
F. A. Walker has sketched their military career in two
paragraphs: “The career of the Iroquois was simply terrific.
They were the scourge of God upon the aborigines of the continent.”52
From lapse of time the Iroquois tribes have come to differ
slightly in the number, and in the names of their respective
gentes. The largest number being eight, as follows:
Senecas.—1. Wolf. 2. Bear. 3. Turtle. 4. Beaver. 5.
Deer. 6. Snipe. 7. Heron. 8. Hawk.
Cayugas.—1. Wolf. 2. Bear. 3. Turtle. 4. Beaver. 5.
Deer. 6. Snipe. 7. Eel. 8. Hawk.
Onondagas.—1. Wolf. 2. Bear. 3. Turtle. 4. Beaver. 5.
Deer. 6. Snipe. 7. Eel. 8. Ball.
Oneidas.—1. Wolf. 2. Bear. 3. Turtle.
Mohawks.—1. Wolf. 2. Bear. 3. Turtle.
Tuscaroras.—1. Gray Wolf. 2. Bear. 3. Great Turtle. 4.
Beaver. 5. Yellow Wolf. 6. Snipe. 7. Eel. 8. Little Turtle.
These changes show that certain gentes in some of the tribes
have become extinct through the vicissitudes of time; and that
others have been formed by the segmentation of over-full
gentes.
With a knowledge of the rights, privileges and obligations
of the members of a gens, its capabilities as the unit of a social
and governmental system will be more fully understood, as
well as the manner in which it entered into the higher organizations
of the phratry, tribe, and confederacy.
The gens is individualized by the following rights, privileges,
and obligations conferred and imposed upon its members, and
which made up the jus gentilicium.
| I. | The right of electing its sachem and chiefs. |
| II. | The right of deposing its sachem and chiefs. |
| III. | The obligation not to marry in the gens. |
| IV. | Mutual rights of inheritance of the property of deceased members. |
| V. | Reciprocal obligations of help, defense, and redress of injuries. |
| VI. | The right of bestowing names upon its members. |
| VII. | The right of adopting strangers into the gens. |
| VIII. | Common religious rites, query. |
| IX. | A common burial place. |
| X. | A council of the gens. |
These functions and attributes gave vitality as well as individuality
to the organization, and protected the personal rights
of its members.
I. The right of electing its sachem and chiefs.
Nearly all the American Indian tribes had two grades of
chiefs, who may be distinguished as sachems and common
chiefs. Of these two primary grades all other grades were varieties.
They were elected in each gens from among its members.
A son could not be chosen to succeed his father, where
descent was in the female line, because he belonged to a different
gens, and no gens would have a chief or sachem from any
gens but its own. The office of sachem was hereditary in the
gens, in the sense that it was filled as often as a vacancy occurred;
while the office of chief was non-hereditary, because it
was bestowed in reward of personal merit, and died with the
individual. Moreover, the duties of a sachem were confined to
the affairs of peace. He could not go out to war as a sachem.
On the other hand, the chiefs who were raised to office for personal
bravery, for wisdom in affairs, or for eloquence in council,
were usually the superior class in ability, though not in authority
over the gens. The relation of the sachem was primarily
to the gens, of which he was the official head; while that of the
chief was primarily to the tribe, of the council of which he, as
well as the sachem, were members.
The office of sachem had a natural foundation in the gens,
as an organized body of consanguinei which, as such, needed a
representative head. As an office, however, it is older than
the gentile organization, since it is found among tribes not thus
organized, but among whom it had a similar basis in the punaluan
group, and even in the anterior horde. In the gens the
constituency of the sachem was clearly defined, the basis of the
relation was permanent, and its duties paternal. While the
office was hereditary in the gens it was elective among its male
members. When the Indian system of consanguinity is considered,
it will be found that all the male members of a gens
were either brothers to each other, own or collateral, uncles or
nephews, own or collateral, or collateral grandfathers and grandsons.53
This will explain the succession of the office of sachem
which passed from brother to brother, or from uncle to nephew,
and very rarely from grandfather to grandson. The choice,
which was by free suffrage of both males and females of adult
age, usually fell upon a brother of the deceased sachem, or upon
one of the sons of a sister; an own brother, or the son of an
own sister being most likely to be preferred. As between several
brothers, own and collateral, on the one hand, and the sons
of several sisters, own and collateral, on the other, there was no
priority of right, for the reason that all the male members of
the gens were equally eligible. To make a choice between
them was the function of the elective principle.
Upon the death of a sachem, for example among the Seneca-Iroquois,
a council of his gentiles54 was convened to name
his successor. Two candidates, according to their usages, must
be voted upon, both of them members of the gens. Each person
of adult age was called upon to express his or her preference,
and the one who received the largest number of affirmative
declarations was nominated. It still required the assent of
the seven remaining gentes before the nomination was complete.
If these gentes, who met for the purpose by phratries, refused
to confirm the nomination it was thereby set aside, and the
gens proceeded to make another choice. When the person
nominated by his gens was accepted by the remaining gentes
the election was complete; but it was still necessary that the
new sachem should be raised up, to use their expression, or invested
with his office by a council of the confederacy, before
he could enter upon its duties. It was their method of conferring
the imperium. In this manner the rights and interests
of the several gentes were consulted and preserved; for
the sachem of a gens was ex officio a member of the council
of the tribe, and of the higher council of the confederacy.
The same method of election and of confirmation existed with
respect to the office of chief, and for the same reasons. But a
general council was never convened to raise up chiefs below the
grade of a sachem. They awaited the time when sachems were
invested.
The principle of democracy, which was born of the gentes,
manifested itself in the retention by the gentiles of the right to
elect their sachem and chiefs, in the safeguards thrown around
the office to prevent usurpation, and in the check upon the election
held by the remaining gentes.
The chiefs in each gens were usually proportioned to the
number of its members. Among the Seneca-Iroquois there is
one chief for about every fifty persons. They now number in
New York some three thousand, and have eight sachems and
about sixty chiefs. There are reasons for supposing that the
proportionate number is now greater than in former times.
With respect to the number of gentes in a tribe, the more
numerous the people the greater, usually, the number of gentes.
The number varied in the different tribes, from three
among the Delawares and Munsees to upwards of twenty
among the Ojibwas and Creeks; six, eight, and ten being common
numbers.
II. The right of deposing its sachem and chiefs.
This right, which was not less important than that to elect,
was reserved by the members of the gens. Although the
office was nominally for life, the tenure was practically during
good behavior, in consequence of the power to depose. The
installation of a sachem was symbolized as “putting on the
horns,” and his deposition as “taking off the horns.” Among
widely separated tribes of mankind horns have been made the
emblem of office and of authority, suggested probably, as Tylor
intimates, by the commanding appearance of the males
among ruminant animals bearing horns. Unworthy behavior,
followed by a loss of confidence, furnished a sufficient ground
for deposition. When a sachem or chief had been deposed in
due form by a council of his gens, he ceased thereafter to be
recognized as such, and became thenceforth a private person.
The council of the tribe also had power to depose both sachems
and chiefs, without waiting for the action of the gens, and even
against its wishes. Through the existence and occasional exercise
of this power the supremacy of the gentiles over their
sachem and chiefs was asserted and preserved. It also reveals
the democratic constitution of the gens.
III. The obligation not to marry in the gens.
Although a negative proposition it was fundamental. It was
evidently a primary object of the organization to isolate a
moiety of the descendants of a supposed founder, and prevent
their intermarriage for reasons of kin. When the gens came
into existence brothers were intermarried to each other’s wives
in a group, and sisters to each other’s husbands in a group, to
which the gens interposed no obstacle. But it sought to exclude
brothers and sisters from the marriage relation which was
effected, as there are good reasons for stating, by the prohibition
in question. Had the gens attempted to uproot the entire
conjugal system of the period by its direct action, there is
not the slightest probability that it would have worked its way
into general establishment. The gens, originating probably in
the ingenuity of a small band of savages, must soon have
proved its utility in the production of superior men. Its nearly
universal prevalence in the ancient world is the highest evidence
of the advantages it conferred, and of its adaptability to human
wants in savagery and in barbarism. The Iroquois still adhere
inflexibly to the rule which forbids persons to marry in their
own gens.
IV. Mutual rights of inheritance of the property of deceased
members.
In the Status of savagery, and in the Lower Status of barbarism,
the amount of property was small. It consisted in the
former condition of personal effects, to which, in the latter,
were added possessory rights in joint-tenement houses and in
gardens. The most valuable personal articles were buried with
the body of the deceased owner. Nevertheless, the question
of inheritance was certain to arise, to increase in importance
with the increase of property in variety and amount, and to
result in some settled rule of inheritance. Accordingly we find
the principle established low down in barbarism, and even back
of that in savagery, that the property should remain in the
gens, and be distributed among the gentiles of the deceased
owner. It was customary law in the Grecian and Latin gentes
in the Upper Status of barbarism, and remained as written law
far into civilization, that the property of a deceased person
should remain in the gens. But after the time of Solon among
the Athenians it was limited to cases of intestacy.
The question, who should take the property, has given rise
to three great and successive rules of inheritance. First, that
it should be distributed among the gentiles of the deceased
owner. This was the rule in the Lower Status of barbarism,
and so far as is known in the Status of savagery. Second,
that the property should be distributed among the agnatic kindred
of the deceased owner, to the exclusion of the remaining
gentiles. The germ of this rule makes its appearance in the
Lower Status of barbarism, and it probably became completely
established in the Middle Status. Third, that the property
should be inherited by the children of the deceased owner, to
the exclusion of the remaining agnates. This became the rule
in the Upper Status of barbarism.
Theoretically, the Iroquois were under the first rule; but,
practically, the effects of a deceased person were appropriated
by his nearest relations within the gens. In the case of a male
his own brothers and sisters and maternal uncles divided his
effects among themselves. This practical limitation of the inheritance
to the nearest gentile kin discloses the germ of agnatic
inheritance. In the case of a female her property was inherited
by her children and her sisters, to the exclusion of her brothers.
In every case the property remained in the gens. The children
of the deceased males took nothing from their father because
they belonged to a different gens. It was for the same reason
that the husband took nothing from the wife, or the wife from
her husband. These mutual rights of inheritance strengthened
the autonomy of the gens.
V. Reciprocal obligations of help, defense, and redress of
injuries.
In civilized society the state assumes the protection of persons
and of property. Accustomed to look to this source for
the maintenance of personal rights, there has been a corresponding
abatement of the strength of the bond of kin. But
under gentile society the individual depended for security upon
his gens. It took the place afterwards held by the state, and
possessed the requisite numbers to render its guardianship effective.
Within its membership the bond of kin was a powerful
element for mutual support. To wrong a person was to
wrong his gens; and to support a person was to stand behind
him with the entire array of his gentile kindred.
In their trials and difficulties the members of the gens assisted
each other. Two or three illustrations may be given from the
Indian tribes at large. Speaking of the Mayas of Yucatan,
Herrera remarks, that “when any satisfaction was to be made
for damages, if he who was adjudged to pay was like to be reduced
to poverty, the kindred contributed.”55 By the term kindred,
as here used, we are justified in understanding the gens.
And of the Florida Indians: “When a brother or son dies the
people of the house will rather starve than seek anything to eat
during three months, but the kindred and relations send it all
in.”56 Persons who removed from one village to another could
not transfer their possessory right to cultivated lands or to a section
of a joint-tenement house to a stranger; but must leave
them to his gentile kindred. Herrera refers to this usage among
the Indian tribes of Nicaragua; “He that removed from one
town to another could not sell what he had, but must leave it to
his nearest relation.”57 So much of their property was held in
joint ownership that their plan of life would not admit of its
alienation to a person of another gens. Practically, the right
to such property was possessory, and when abandoned it reverted
to the gens. Garcilasso de la Vega remarks of the tribes of the
Peruvian Andes, that “when the commonalty, or ordinary
sort, married, the communities of the people were obliged to
build and provide them houses.”58 For communities, as here
used, we are justified in understanding the gens. Herrera
speaking of the same tribes observes that “this variety of
tongues proceed from the nations being divided into races,
tribes, or clans.”59 Here the gentiles were required to assist
newly married pairs in the construction of their houses.
The ancient practice of blood revenge, which has prevailed
so widely in the tribes of mankind, had its birthplace in the
gens. It rested with this body to avenge the murder of one of
its members. Tribunals for the trial of criminals and laws prescribing
their punishment, came late into existence in gentile
society; but they made their appearance before the institution
of political society. On the other hand, the crime of murder is
as old as human society, and its punishment by the revenge of
kinsmen is as old as the crime itself. Among the Iroquois and
other Indian tribes generally, the obligation to avenge the
murder of a kinsman was universally recognized.60
It was, however, the duty of the gens of the slayer, and of
the slain, to attempt an adjustment of the crime before proceeding
to extremities. A council of the members of each gens
was held separately, and propositions were made in behalf of
the murderer for a condonation of the act, usually in the nature
of expressions of regret and of presents of considerable value.
If there were justifying or extenuating circumstances it generally
resulted in a composition; but if the gentile kindred of the
slain person were implacable, one or more avengers were appointed
by his gens from among its members, whose duty it
was to pursue the criminal until discovered, and then to slay
him wherever he might be found. If they accomplished the
deed it was no ground of complaint by any member of the
gens of the victim. Life having answered for life the demands
of justice were appeased.
The same sentiment of fraternity manifested itself in other
ways in relieving a fellow gentilis in distress, and in protecting
him from injuries.
VI. The right of bestowing names upon its members.
Among savage and barbarous tribes there is no name for the
family. The personal names of individuals of the same family
do not indicate any family connection between them. The
family name is no older than civilization.61 Indian personal
names, however, usually indicate the gens of the individual to
persons of other gentes in the same tribe. As a rule each gens
had names for persons that were its special property, and, as
such, could not be used by other gentes of the same tribe. A
gentile name conferred of itself gentile rights. These names
either proclaimed by their signification the gens to which they
belonged, or were known as such by common reputation.62
After the birth of a child a name was selected by its mother
from those not in use belonging to the gens, with the concurrence
of her nearest relatives, which was then bestowed upon
the infant. But the child was not fully christened until its
birth and name, together with the name and gens of its mother
and the name of its father, had been announced at the next ensuing
council of the tribe. Upon the death of a person his
name could not be used again in the life-time of his oldest
surviving son without the consent of the latter.63
Two classes of names were in use, one adapted to childhood,
and the other to adult life, which were exchanged at the proper
period in the same formal manner; one being taken away, to
use their expression, and the other bestowed in its place. O-wi′-go,
a canoe floating down the stream, and Ah-wou′-ne-ont,
hanging flower, are names for girls among the Seneca-Iroquois;
and Gä-ne-o-di′-yo, handsome lake, and Do-ne-ho-gä′-weh,
door-keeper, are names of adult males. At the age of sixteen
or eighteen, the first name was taken away, usually by a chief
of the gens, and one of the second class bestowed in its place.
At the next council of the tribe the change of names was
publicly announced, after which the person, if a male, assumed
the duties of manhood. In some Indian tribes the youth was
required to go out upon the war-path and earn his second name
by some act of personal bravery. After a severe illness it was
not uncommon for the person, from superstitious considerations,
to solicit and obtain a second change of name. It was
sometimes done again in extreme old age. When a person
was elected a sachem or a chief his name was taken away, and
a new one conferred at the time of his installation. The individual
had no control over the question of a change. It is the
prerogative of the female relatives and of the chiefs; but an
adult person might change his name provided he could induce
a chief to announce it in council. A person having the control
of a particular name, as the eldest son of that of his deceased
father, might lend it to a friend in another gens; but after the
death of the person thus bearing it the name reverted to the
gens to which it belonged.
Among the Shawnees and Delawares the mother has now
the right to name her child into any gens she pleases; and the
name given transfers the child to the gens to which the name
belongs. But this is a wide departure from archaic usages,
and exceptional in practice. It tends to corrupt and confound
the gentile lineage. The names now in use among the Iroquois
and among other Indian tribes are, in the main, ancient names
handed down in the gentes from time immemorial.
The precautions taken with respect to the use of names belonging
to the gens sufficiently prove the importance attached
to them, and the gentile rights they confer.
Although this question of personal names branches out in
many directions it is foreign to my purpose to do more than
illustrate such general usages as reveal the relations of the
members of a gens. In familiar intercourse and in formal salutation
the American Indians address each other by the term of
relationship the person spoken to sustains to the speaker.
When related they salute by kin; when not related “my
friend” is substituted. It would be esteemed an act of rudeness
to address an Indian by his personal name, or to inquire
his name directly from himself.
Our Saxon ancestors had single personal names down to the
Norman conquest, with none to designate the family. This indicates
the late appearance of the monogamian family among
them; and it raises a presumption of the existence in an earlier
period of a Saxon gens.
VII. The right of adopting strangers into the gens.
Another distinctive right of the gens was that of admitting
new members by adoption. Captives taken in war were either
put to death, or adopted into some gens. Women and children
taken prisoners usually experienced clemency in this form.
Adoption not only conferred gentile rights, but also the nationality
of the tribe. The person adopting a captive placed him
or her in the relation of a brother or sister; if a mother adopted,
in that of a son or daughter; and ever afterwards treated
the person in all respects as though born in that relation.
Slavery, which in the Upper Status of barbarism became the
fate of the captive, was unknown among tribes in the Lower
Status in the aboriginal period. The gauntlet also had some
connection with adoption, since the person who succeeded,
through hardihood or favoritism, in running through the lines
in safety was entitled to this reward. Captives when adopted
were often assigned in the family the places of deceased persons
slain in battle, in order to fill up the broken ranks of relatives.
A declining gens might replenish its numbers, through adoption,
although such instances are rare. At one time the Hawk
gens of the Senecas were reduced to a small number of persons,
and its extinction became imminent. To save the gens a number
of persons from the Wolf gens by mutual consent were
transferred in a body by adoption to that of the Hawk. The
right to adopt seems to be left to the discretion of each gens.
Among the Iroquois the ceremony of adoption was performed
at a public council of the tribe, which turned it practically
into a religious rite.64
VIII. Religious rites in the gens. Query.
Among the Grecian and Latin tribes these rites held a conspicuous
position. The highest polytheistic form of religion
which had then appeared seems to have sprung from the gentes
in which religious rites were constantly maintained. Some
of them, from the sanctity they were supposed to possess, were
nationalized. In some cities the office of high priest of certain
divinities was hereditary in a particular gens.65 The gens became
the natural centre of religious growth and the birthplace of
religious ceremonies.
But the Indian tribes, although they had a polytheistic system,
not much unlike that from which the Grecian and Roman
must have sprung, had not attained that religious development
which was so strongly impressed upon the gentes of the latter
tribes. It can scarcely be said any Indian gens had special
religious rites; and yet their religious worship had a more or
less direct connection with the gentes. It was here that religious
ideas would naturally germinate and that forms of worship
would be instituted. But they would expand from the
gens over the tribe, rather than remain special to the gens.
Accordingly we find among the Iroquois six annual religious
festivals, (Maple, Planting, Berry, Green-Corn, Harvest, and
New Years Festivals)66 which were common to all the gentes
united in a tribe, and which were observed at stated seasons
of the year.
Each gens furnished a number of “Keepers of the Faith,”
both male and female, who together were charged with the
celebration of these festivals.67 The number advanced to this
office by each was regarded as evidence of the fidelity of the
gens to religion. They designated the days for holding the
festivals, made the necessary arrangements for their celebration,
and conducted the ceremonies in conjunction with the sachems
and chiefs of the tribe, who were, ex officio, “Keepers of the
Faith.” With no official head, and none of the marks of a
priesthood, their functions were equal. The female “Keepers
of the Faith” were more especially charged with the preparation
of the feast, which was provided at all councils at the close
of each day for all persons in attendance. It was a dinner in
common. The religious rites appertaining to these festivals,
which have been described in a previous work,68 need not be
considered further than to remark, that their worship was
one of thanksgiving, with invocations to the Great Spirit, and
to the Lesser Spirits to continue to them the blessings of life.
With the progress of mankind out of the Lower into the
Middle, and more especially out of the latter into the Upper
Status of barbarism, the gens became more the centre of religious
influence and the source of religious development. We
have only the grosser part of the Aztec religious system; but
in addition to national gods, there seem to have been other
gods, belonging to smaller divisions of the people than the
phratries. The existence of an Aztec ritual and priesthood
would lead us to expect among them a closer connection of religious
rites with the gentes than is found among the Iroquois;
but their religious beliefs and observances are under the same
cloud of obscurity as their social organization.
IX. A common burial place.
An ancient but not exclusive mode of burial was by scaffolding
the body until the flesh had wasted, after which the bones
were collected and preserved in bark barrels in a house constructed
for their reception. Those belonging to the same
gens were usually placed in the same house. The Rev. Dr.
Cyrus Byington found these practices among the Choctas in
1827; and Adair mentions usages among the Cherokees substantially
the same. “I saw three of them,” he remarks, “in
one of their towns pretty near each other; * * * Each
house contained the bones of one tribe separately, with the
hieroglyphical figures of each family [gens] on each of the odd-shaped
arks. They reckoned it irreligious to mix the bones of
a relative with those of a stranger, as bone of bone and flesh
of flesh should always be joined together.”69 The Iroquois in
ancient times used scaffolds and preserved the bones of deceased
relatives in bark barrels, often keeping them in the
house they occupied. They also buried in the ground. In the
latter case those of the same gens were not always buried locally
together unless they had a common cemetery for the village.
The late Rev. Ashur Wright, so long a missionary
among the Senecas, and a noble specimen of the American
missionary, wrote to the author as follows; “I find no trace of
the influence of clanship in the burial places of the dead. I
believe that they buried promiscuously. However, they say
that formerly the members of the different clans more frequently
resided together than they do at the present time. As
one family they were more under the influence of family feeling,
and had less of individual interest. Hence, it might occasionally
happen that a large proportion of the dead in some
particular burying place might be of the same clan.” Mr.
Wright is undoubtedly correct that in a particular cemetery
members of all the gentes established in a village would be
buried; but they might keep those of the same gens locally
together. An illustration in point is now found at the Tuscarora
reservation near Lewiston, where the tribe has one common
cemetery, and where individuals of the same gens are
buried in a row by themselves. One row is composed of the
graves of the deceased members of the Beaver gens, two rows
of the members of the Bear gens, one row of the Gray Wolf,
one of the Great Turtle, and so on to the number of eight
rows. Husband and wife are separated from each other and
buried in different rows; fathers and their children the same;
but mothers and their children and brothers and sisters are
found in the same row. It shows the power of gentile feeling,
and the quickness with which ancient usages are reverted to
under favorable conditions; for the Tuscaroras are now christianized
without surrendering the practice. An Onondaga Indian
informed the writer that the same mode of burial by
gentes now prevailed at the Onondaga and Oneida cemeteries.
While this usage, perhaps, cannot be declared general among
the Indian tribes, there was undoubtedly in ancient times a
tendency to, and preference for this mode of burial.
Among the Iroquois, and what is true of them is generally
true of other Indian tribes in the same status of advancement,
all the members of the gens are mourners at the funeral of a
deceased gentilis. The addresses at the funeral, the preparation
of the grave, and the burial of the body were performed
by members of other gentes.
The Village Indians of Mexico and Central America practiced
a slovenly cremation, as well as scaffolding, and burying
in the ground. The former was confined to chiefs and prominent
men.
X. A council of the gens.
The council was the great feature of ancient society, Asiatic,
European and American, from the institution of the gens
in savagery to civilization. It was the instrument of government
as well as the supreme authority over the gens, the tribe,
and the confederacy. Ordinary affairs were adjusted by the
chiefs; but those of general interest were submitted to the determination
of a council. As the council sprang from the gentile
organization the two institutions have come down together
through the ages. The Council of Chiefs represents the ancient
method of evolving the wisdom of mankind and applying
it to human affairs. Its history, gentile, tribal, and confederate,
would express the growth of the idea of government in its
whole development, until political society supervened into
which the council, changed into a senate, was transmitted.
The simplest and lowest form of the council was that of the
gens. It was a democratic assembly because every adult male
and female member had a voice upon all questions brought
before it. It elected and deposed its sachem and chiefs, it
elected Keepers of the Faith, it condoned or avenged the murder
of a gentilis, and it adopted persons into the gens. It was
the germ of the higher council of the tribe, and of that still
higher of the confederacy, each of which was composed exclusively
of chiefs as representatives of the gentes.
Such were the rights, privileges and obligations of the members
of an Iroquois gens; and such were those of the members
of the gentes of the Indian tribes generally, as far as the investigation
has been carried. When the gentes of the Grecian
and Latin tribes are considered, the same rights privileges and
obligations will be found to exist, with the exception of the I,
II, and VI; and with respect to these their ancient existence is
probable though the proof is not perhaps attainable.
All the members of an Iroquois gens were personally free,
and they were bound to defend each other’s freedom; they were
equal in privileges and in personal rights, the sachem and chiefs
claiming no superiority; and they were a brotherhood bound
together by the ties of kin. Liberty, equality, and fraternity,
though never formulated, were cardinal principles of the gens.
These facts are material, because the gens was the unit of a
social and governmental system, the foundation upon which
Indian society was organized. A structure composed of such
units would of necessity bear the impress of their character, for
as the unit so the compound. It serves to explain that sense
of independence and personal dignity universally an attribute
of Indian character.
Thus substantial and important in the social system was the
gens as it anciently existed among the American aborigines, and
as it still exists in full vitality in many Indian tribes. It was the
basis of the phratry, of the tribe, and of the confederacy of
tribes. Its functions might have been presented more elaborately
in several particulars; but sufficient has been given to show
its permanent and durable character.
At the epoch of European discovery the American Indian
tribes generally were organized in gentes, with descent in the
female line. In some tribes, as among the Dakotas, the gentes
had fallen out; in others, as among the Ojibwas, the Omahas,
and the Mayas of Yucatan, descent had been changed from the
female to the male line. Throughout aboriginal America the
gens took its name from some animal, or inanimate object, and
never from a person. In this early condition of society, the
individuality of persons was lost in the gens. It is at least
presumable that the gentes of the Grecian and Latin tribes were
so named at some anterior period; but when they first came
under historical notice, they were named after persons. In
some of the tribes, as the Moqui Village Indians of New Mexico,
the members of the gens claimed their descent from the animal
whose name they bore—their remote ancestors having been
transformed by the Great Spirit from the animal into the human
form. The Crane gens of the Ojibwas have a similar legend.
In some tribes the members of a gens will not eat the animal
whose name they bear, in which they are doubtless influenced
by this consideration.
With respect to the number of persons in a gens it varied
with the number of the gentes, and with the prosperity or
decadence of the tribe. Three thousand Senecas divided
equally among eight gentes would give an average of three
hundred and seventy-five persons to a gens. Fifteen thousand
Ojibwas divided equally among twenty-three gentes would give
six hundred and fifty persons to a gens. The Cherokees would
average more than a thousand to a gens. In the present condition
of the principal Indian tribes the number of persons in
each gens would range from one hundred to a thousand.
One of the oldest and most widely prevalent institutions of
mankind, the gentes have been closely identified with human
progress upon which they have exercised a powerful influence.
They have been found in tribes in the Status of savagery, in the
Lower, in the Middle, and in the Upper Status of barbarism on
different continents, and in full vitality in the Grecian and Latin
tribes after civilization had commenced. Every family of mankind,
except the Polynesian, seems to have come under the
gentile organization, and to have been indebted to it for preservation,
and for the means of progress. It finds its only parallel
in length of duration in systems of consanguinity, which,
springing up at a still earlier period, have remained to the present
time, although the marriage usages in which they originated
have long since disappeared.
From its early institution, and from its maintenance through
such immense stretches of time, the peculiar adaptation of the
gentile organization to mankind, while in a savage and in a
barbarous state, must be regarded as abundantly demonstrated.
Definition of a Phratry.—Kindred Gentes Reunited in a Higher Organization.—Phratry
of the Iroquois Tribes.—Its Composition.—Its
Uses and Functions.—Social and Religious.—Illustrations.—The Analogue
of the Grecian Phratry; but in its Archaic Form.—Phratries
of the Choctas.—Of the Chickasas.—Of the Mohegans.—Of the Thlin-keets.—Their
Probable Universality in the Tribes of the American
Aborigines.
The phratry (φρατρία) is a brotherhood, as the term imports,
and a natural growth from the organization into gentes.
It is an organic union or association of two or more gentes of
the same tribe for certain common objects. These gentes were
usually such as had been formed by the segmentation of an
original gens.
Among the Grecian tribes, where the phratric organization
was nearly as constant as the gens, it became a very conspicuous
institution. Each of the four tribes of the Athenians was
organized in three phratries, each composed of thirty gentes,
making a total of twelve phratries and three hundred and sixty
gentes. Such precise numerical uniformity in the composition
of each phratry and tribe could not have resulted from the subdivision
of gentes through natural processes. It must have
been produced, as Mr. Grote suggests, by legislative procurement
in the interests of a symmetrical organization. All the
gentes of a tribe, as a rule, were of common descent and bore
a common tribal name, consequently it would not require
severe constraint to unite the specified number in each phratry,
and to form the specified number of phratries in each
tribe. But the phratric organization had a natural foundation
in the immediate kinship of certain gentes as subdivisions of an
original gens, which undoubtedly was the basis on which the
Grecian phratry was originally formed. The incorporation of
alien gentes, and transfers by consent or constraint, would explain
the numerical adjustment of the gentes and phratries in
the Athenian tribes.
The Roman curia was the analogue of the Grecian phratry.
It is constantly mentioned by Dionysius as a phratry.70 There
were ten gentes in each curia, and ten curiae in each of the
three Roman tribes, making thirty curiae and three hundred
gentes of the Romans. The functions of the Roman curia are
much better known than those of the Grecian phratry, and
were higher in degree because the curia entered directly into the
functions of government. The assembly of the gentes (comitia
curiata) voted by curiae, each having one collective vote. This
assembly was the sovereign power of the Roman People down
to the time of Servius Tullius.
Among the functions of the Grecian phratry was the observance
of special religious rites, the condonation or revenge of
the murder of a phrator, and the purification of a murderer
after he had escaped the penalty of his crime preparatory to
his restoration to society.71 At a later period among the Athenians—for
the phratry at Athens survived the institution of
political society under Cleisthenes—it looked after the registration
of citizens, thus becoming the guardian of descents and
of the evidence of citizenship. The wife upon her marriage
was enrolled in the phratry of her husband, and the children
of the marriage were enrolled in the gens and phratry of their
father. It was also the duty of this organization to prosecute
the murderer of a phrator in the courts of justice. These are
among its known objects and functions in the earlier and later
periods. Were all the particulars fully ascertained, the phratry
would probably manifest itself in connection with the common
tables, the public games, the funerals of distinguished men, the
earliest army organization, and the proceedings of councils, as
well as in the observance of religious rites and in the guardianship
of social privileges.
The phratry existed in a large number of the tribes of the
American aborigines, where it is seen to arise by natural
growth, and to stand as the second member of the organic
series, as among the Grecian and Latin tribes. It did not
possess original governmental functions, as the gens, tribe and
confederacy possessed them; but it was endowed with certain
useful powers in the social system, from the necessity for some
organization larger than a gens and smaller than a tribe, and
especially when the tribe was large. The same institution in
essential features and in character, it presents the organization
in its archaic form and with its archaic functions. A knowledge
of the Indian phratry is necessary to an intelligent understanding
of the Grecian and the Roman.
The eight gentes of the Seneca-Iroquois tribe were reintegrated
in two phratries as follows:
First Phratry.
Gentes.—1. Bear. 2. Wolf. 3. Beaver. 4. Turtle.
Second Phratry.
Gentes.—5. Deer. 6. Snipe. 7. Heron. 8. Hawk.
Each phratry (De-ă-non-dă′-a-yoh) is a brotherhood as this
term also imports. The gentes in the same phratry are brother
gentes to each other, and cousin gentes to those of the other
phratry. They are equal in grade, character and privileges. It
is a common practice of the Senecas to call the gentes of their
own phratry brother gentes, and those of the other phratry
their cousin gentes, when they mention them in their relation
to the phratries. Originally marriage was not allowed between
the members of the same phratry; but the members of either
could marry into any gens of the other. This prohibition tends
to show that the gentes of each phratry were subdivisions of
an original gens, and therefore the prohibition against marrying
into a person’s own gens had followed to its subdivisions. This
restriction, however, was long since removed, except with
respect to the gens of the individual. A tradition of the Senecas
affirms that the Bear and the Deer were the original gentes,
of which the others were subdivisions. It is thus seen that the
phratry had a natural foundation in the kinship of the gentes
of which it was composed. After their subdivision from
increase of numbers there was a natural tendency to their
reunion in a higher organization for objects common to them
all. The same gentes are not constant in a phratry indefinitely,
as will appear when the composition of the phratries in the
remaining Iroquois tribes is considered. Transfers of particular
gentes from one phratry to the other must have occurred when
the equilibrium in their respective numbers was disturbed. It
is important to know the simple manner in which this organization
springs up, and the facility with which it is managed, as
a part of the social system of ancient society. With the increase
of numbers in a gens, followed by local separation of its
members, segmentation occurred, and the seceding portion
adopted a new gentile name. But a tradition of their former
unity would remain, and become the basis of their reorganization
in a phratry.
In like manner the Cayuga-Iroquois have eight gentes in
two phratries; but these gentes are not divided equally between
them. They are the following:
First Phratry.
Gentes.—1. Bear. 2. Wolf. 3. Turtle. 4. Snipe. 5. Eel.
Second Phratry.
Gentes.—6. Deer. 7. Beaver. 8. Hawk.
Seven of these gentes are the same as those of the Senecas;
but the Heron gens has disappeared, and the Eel takes its
place, but transferred to the opposite phratry. The Beaver and
the Turtle gentes also have exchanged phratries. The Cayugas
style the gentes of the same phratry brother gentes to each
other, and those of the opposite phratry their cousin gentes.
The Onondaga-Iroquois have the same number of gentes,
but two of them differ in name from those of the Senecas.
They are organized in two phratries as follows:
First Phratry.
Gentes.—1. Wolf. 2. Turtle. 3. Snipe. 4. Beaver. 5. Ball.
Second Phratry.
Gentes.—6. Deer. 7. Eel. 8. Bear.
Here again the composition of the phratries is different from
that of the Senecas. Three of the gentes in the first phratry
are the same in each; but the Bear gens has been transferred
to the opposite phratry and is now found with the Deer. The
division of gentes is also unequal, as among the Cayugas. The
gentes in the same phratry are called brother gentes to each
other, and those in the other their cousin gentes. While the
Onondagas have no Hawk, the Senecas have no Eel gens; but
the members of the two fraternize when they meet, claiming
that there is a connection between them.
The Mohawks and Oneidas have but three gentes, the Bear,
the Wolf, and the Turtle, and no phratries. When the confederacy
was formed, seven of the eight Seneca gentes existed in
the several tribes as is shown by the establishment of sachemships
in them; but the Mohawks and Oneidas then had only
the three named. It shows that they had then lost an entire
phratry, and one gens of that remaining, if it is assumed that
the original tribes were once composed of the same gentes.
When a tribe organized in gentes and phratries subdivides, it
might occur on the line of the phratric organization. Although
the members of a tribe are intermingled throughout by
marriage, each gens in a phratry is composed of females with
their children and descendants, through females, who formed
the body of the phratry. They would incline at least to remain
locally together, and thus might become detached in a
body. The male members of the gens married to women of
other gentes and remaining with their wives would not affect
the gens since the children of the males do not belong to its
connection. If the minute history of the Indian tribes is ever
recovered it must be sought through the gentes and phratries,
which can be followed from tribe to tribe. In such an investigation
it will deserve attention whether tribes ever disintegrated
by phratries. It is at least improbable.
The Tuscarora-Iroquois became detached from the main
stock at some unknown period in the past, and inhabited the
Neuse river region in North Carolina at the time of their discovery.
About A. D. 1712 they were forced out of this area,
whereupon they removed to the country of the Iroquois and
were admitted into the confederacy as a sixth member. They
have eight gentes organized in two phratries, as follows:
First Phratry.
Gentes.—1. Bear. 2. Beaver. 3. Great Turtle. 4. Eel.
Second Phratry.
Gentes.—5. Gray Wolf. 6. Yellow Wolf. 7. Little Turtle.
8. Snipe.
They have six gentes in common with the Cayugas and Onondagas,
five in common with the Senecas, and three in common
with the Mohawks and Oneidas. The Deer gens, which
they once possessed, became extinct in modern times. It will
be noticed, also, that the Wolf gens is now divided into two,
the Gray and the Yellow, and the Turtle into two, the Great
and Little. Three of the gentes in the first phratry are the
same with three in the first phratry of the Senecas and Cayugas,
with the exception that the Wolf gens is double. As
several hundred years elapsed between the separation of the
Tuscaroras from their congeners and their return, it affords
some evidence of permanence in the existence of a gens. The
gentes in the same phratry are called brother gentes to each
other, and those in the other phratry their cousin gentes, as
among the other tribes.
From the differences in the composition of the phratries in
the several tribes it seems probable that the phratries are modified
in their gentes at intervals of time to meet changes of condition.
Some gentes prosper and increase in numbers, while
others through calamities decline, and others become extinct;
so that transfers of gentes from one phratry to another were
found necessary to preserve some degree of equality in the
number of phrators in each. The phratric organization has existed
among the Iroquois from time immemorial. It is probably
older than the confederacy which was established more
than four centuries ago. The amount of difference in their
composition, as to the gentes they contain, represents the vicissitudes
through which each tribe has passed in the interval.
In any view of the matter it is small, tending to illustrate the
permanence of the phratry as well as the gens.
The Iroquois tribes had a total of thirty-eight gentes, and in
four of the tribes a total of eight phratries.
In its objects and uses the Iroquois phratry falls below the
Grecian, as would be supposed, although our knowledge of the
functions of the latter is limited; and below what is known of
the uses of the phratry among the Roman tribes. In comparing
the latter with the former we pass backward through
two ethnical periods, and into a very different condition of society.
The difference is in the degree of progress, and not in
kind; for we have the same institution in each race, derived
from the same or a similar germ, and preserved by each
through immense periods of time as a part of a social system.
Gentile society remained of necessity among the Grecian and
Roman tribes until political society supervened; and it remained
among the Iroquois tribes because they were still two
ethnical periods below civilization. Every fact, therefore, in
relation to the functions and uses of the Indian phratry is important,
because it tends to illustrate the archaic character of
an institution which became so influential in a more developed
condition of society.
The phratry, among the Iroquois, was partly for social and
partly for religious objects. Its functions and uses can be best
shown by practical illustrations. We begin with the lowest,
with games, which were of common occurrence at tribal and
confederate councils. In the ball game, for example, among
the Senecas, they play by phratries, one against the other;
and they bet against each other upon the result of the game.
Each phratry puts forward its best players, usually from six to
ten on a side, and the members of each phratry assemble together
but upon opposite sides of the field in which the game
is played. Before it commences, articles of personal property
are hazarded upon the result by members of the opposite phratries.
These are deposited with keepers to abide the event.
The game is played with spirit and enthusiasm, and is an exciting
spectacle. The members of each phratry, from their opposite
stations, watch the game with eagerness, and cheer
their respective players at every successful turn of the game.72
In many ways the phratric organization manifested itself.
At a council of the tribe the sachems and chiefs in each phratry
usually seated themselves on opposite sides of an imaginary
council-fire, and the speakers addressed the two opposite bodies
as the representatives of the phratries. Formalities, such as
these, have a a peculiar charm for the Red Man in the transaction
of business.
Again; when a murder had been committed it was usual for
the gens of the murdered person to meet in council; and,
after ascertaining the facts, to take measures for avenging the
deed. The gens of the criminal also held a council, and
endeavored to effect an adjustment or condonation of the
crime with the gens of the murdered person. But it often
happened that the gens of the criminal called upon the other
gentes of their phratry, when the slayer and the slain belonged
to opposite phratries, to unite with them to obtain a condonation
of the crime. In such a case the phratry held a council, and
then addressed itself to the other phratry to which it sent a
delegation with a belt of white wampum asking for a council of
the phratry, and for an adjustment of the crime. They offered
reparation to the family and gens of the murdered person in
expressions of regret and in presents of value. Negotiations
were continued between the two councils until an affirmative or
a negative conclusion was reached. The influence of a phratry
composed of several gentes would be greater than that of a
single gens; and by calling into action the opposite phratry the
probability of a condonation would be increased, especially if
there were extenuating circumstances. We may thus see how
naturally the Grecian phratry, prior to civilization, assumed the
principal though not exclusive management of cases of murder,
and also of the purification of the murderer if he escaped
punishment; and, after the institution of political society, with
what propriety the phratry assumed the duty of prosecuting
the murderer in the courts of justice.
At the funerals of persons of recognized importance in the
tribe, the phratric organization manifested itself in a conspicuous
manner. The phrators of the decedent in a body were the
mourners, and the members of the opposite phratry conducted
the ceremonies. In the case of a sachem it was usual for the
opposite phratry to send, immediately after the funeral, the
official wampum belt of the deceased ruler to the central council
fire at Onondaga, as a notification of his demise. This was
retained until the installation of his successor, when it was
bestowed upon him as the insignia of his office. At the funeral
of Handsome Lake (Gä-ne-o-di′-yo), one of the eight Seneca
sachems (which occurred some years ago), there was an assemblage
of sachems and chiefs to the number of twenty-seven, and
a large concourse of members of both phratries. The customary
address to the dead body, and the other addresses before the
removal of the body, were made by members of the opposite
phratry. After the addresses were concluded, the body was
borne to the grave by persons selected from the last named
phratry, followed, first, by the sachems and chiefs, then by the
family and gens of the decedent, next by his remaining phrators,
and last by the members of the opposite phratry. After the
body had been deposited in the grave the sachems and chiefs
formed in a circle around it for the purpose of filling it with
earth. Each in turn, commencing with the senior in years, cast
in three shovelfuls, a typical number in their religious system;
of which the first had relation to the Great Spirit, the second to
the Sun, and the third to Mother Earth. When the grave was
filled the senior sachem, by a figure of speech, deposited “the
horns” of the departed sachem, emblematical of his office, upon
the top of the grave over his head, there to remain until his
successor was installed. In that subsequent ceremony, “the
horns” were said to be taken from the grave of the deceased
ruler, and placed upon the head of his successor.73 The social
and religious functions of the phratry, and its naturalness in the
organic system of ancient society, are rendered apparent by this
single usage.
The phratry was also directly concerned in the election of
sachems and chiefs of the several gentes, upon which they had
a negative as well as a confirmative vote. After the gens of a
deceased sachem had elected his successor, or had elected a
chief of the second grade, it was necessary, as elsewhere stated,
that their choice should be accepted and confirmed by each
phratry. It was expected that the gentes of the same phratry
would confirm the choice almost as a matter of course; but
the opposite phratry also must acquiesce, and from this source
opposition sometimes appeared. A council of each phratry
was held and pronounced upon the question of acceptance or
rejection. If the nomination made was accepted by both it
became complete; but if either refused it was thereby set aside,
and a new election was made by the gens. When the choice
made by the gens had been accepted by the phratries, it was
still necessary, as before stated, that the new sachem, or the
new chief, should be invested by the council of the confederacy,
which alone had power to invest, with office.
The Senecas have now lost their Medicine Lodges which fell
out in modern times; but they formerly existed and formed a
prominent part of their religious system. To hold a Medicine
Lodge was to observe their highest religious rites, and to practice
their highest religious mysteries. They had two such organizations,
one in each phratry, which shows still further the
natural connection of the phratry with religious observances.
Very little is now known concerning these lodges or their ceremonies.
Each was a brotherhood, into which new members
were admitted by a formal initiation.
The phratry was without governmental functions in the strict
sense of the phrase, these being confined to the gens, tribe and
confederacy; but it entered into their social affairs with large
administrative powers, and would have concerned itself more
and more with their religious affairs as the condition of the
people advanced. Unlike the Grecian phratry and the Roman
curia it had no official head. There was no chief of the phratry
as such, and no religious functionaries belonging to it as
distinguished from the gens and tribe. The phratric institution
among the Iroquois was in its rudimentary archaic form;
but it grew into life by natural and inevitable development,
and remained permanent because it met necessary wants.
Every institution of mankind which attained permanence will
be found linked with a perpetual want. With the gens, tribe
and confederacy in existence the presence of the phratry was
substantially assured. It required time, however, and further
experience to manifest all the uses to which it might be made
subservient.
Among the Village Indians of Mexico and Central America
the phratry must have existed, reasoning upon general principles;
and have been a more fully developed and influential organization
than among the Iroquois. Unfortunately, mere
glimpses at such an institution are all that can be found in the
teeming narratives of the Spanish writers within the first century
after the Spanish conquest. The four “lineages” of the
Tlascalans who occupied the four quarters of the pueblo of
Tlascala, were, in all probability, so many phratries. They
were sufficiently numerous for four tribes; but as they occupied
the same pueblo and spoke the same dialect the phratric organization
was apparently a necessity. Each lineage, or phratry
so to call it, had a distinct military organization, a peculiar
costume and banner, and its head war-chief (Teuctli), who was
its general military commander. They went forth to battle by
phratries. The organization of a military force by phratries
and by tribes was not unknown to the Homeric Greeks.
Thus; Nestor advises Agamemnon to “separate the troops by
phratries and by tribes, so that phratry may support phratry
and tribe tribe.”74 Under gentile institutions of the most advanced
type the principle of kin became, to a considerable extent,
the basis of the army organization. The Aztecs, in like
manner, occupied the pueblo of Mexico in four distinct divisions,
the people of each of which were more nearly related to
each other than to the people of the other divisions. They
were separate lineages, like the Tlascalan, and it seems highly
probable were four phratries, separately organized as such.
They were distinguished from each other by costumes and
standards, and went out to war as separate divisions. Their
geographical areas were called the four quarters of Mexico.
This subject will be referred to again.
With respect to the prevalence of this organization, among
the Indian tribes in the Lower Status of barbarism, the subject
has been but slightly investigated. It is probable that it was
general in the principal tribes, from the natural manner in
which it springs up as a necessary member of the organic
series, and from the uses, other than governmental, to which it
was adapted.
In some of the tribes the phratries stand out prominently
upon the face of their organization. Thus, the Chocta gentes
are united in two phratries which must be mentioned first in
order to show the relation of the gentes to each other. The
first phratry is called “Divided People,” and contains four gentes.
The second is called “Beloved People,” and also contains
four gentes. This separation of the people into two divisions
by gentes created two phratries. Some knowledge of the
functions of these phratries is of course desirable; but without
it, the fact of their existence is established by the divisions
themselves. The evolution of a confederacy from a pair of
gentes, for less than two are never found in any tribe, may be
deduced, theoretically, from the known facts of Indian experience.
Thus, the gens increases in the number of its members
and divides into two; these again subdivide, and in time reunite
in two or more phratries. These phratries form a tribe, and its
members speak the same dialect. In course of time this tribe
falls into several by the process of segmentation, which in turn
reunite in a confederacy. Such a confederacy is a growth,
through the tribe and phratry, from a pair of gentes.
The Chickasas are organized in two phratries, of which one
contains four, and the other eight gentes, as follows:
I. Panther Phratry.
Gentes.—1. Wild Cat. 2. Bird. 3. Fish. 4. Deer.
II. Spanish Phratry.
Gentes.—5. Raccoon. 6. Spanish. 7. Royal. 8. Hush-ko′-ni.
9. Squirrel. 10. Alligator, 11. Wolf. 12. Blackbird.
The particulars with respect to the Chocta and Chickasa
phratries I am unable to present. Some fourteen years ago
these organizations were given to me by Rev. Doctor Cyrus
Byington and Rev. Charles C. Copeland, but without discussing
their uses and functions.
A very complete illustration of the manner in which phratries
are formed by natural growth, through the subdivision of gentes,
is presented by the organization of the Mohegan tribe. It
had three original gentes, the Wolf, the Turtle, and the Turkey.
Each of these subdivided, and the subdivisions became independent
gentes; but they retained the names of the original
gentes as their respective phratric names. In other words the
subdivisions of each gens reorganized in a phratry. It proves
conclusively the natural process by which, in course of time, a
gens breaks up into several, and these remain united in a phratric
organization, which is expressed by assuming a phratric
name. They are as follows:
I. Wolf Phratry.
Gentes.—1. Wolf. 2. Bear. 3. Dog. 4. Opossum.
II. Turtle Phratry.
Gentes.—5. Little Turtle. 6. Mud Turtle. 7. Great Turtle.
8. Yellow Eel.
III. Turkey Phratry.
Gentes.—9. Turkey. 10. Crane. 11. Chicken.
It is thus seen that the original Wolf gens divided into four
gentes, the Turtle into four, and the Turkey into three. Each
new gens took a new name, the original retaining its own,
which became, by seniority, that of the phratry. It is rare
among the American Indian tribes to find such plain evidence
of the segmentation of gentes in their external organization,
followed by the formation into phratries of their respective subdivisions.
It shows also that the phratry is founded upon the
kinship of the gentes. As a rule the name of the original gens
out of which others had formed is not known; but in each of
these cases it remains as the name of the phratry. Since the
latter, like the Grecian, was a social and religious rather than a
governmental organization, it is externally less conspicuous than
a gens or tribe which were essential to the government of society.
The name of but one of the twelve Athenian phratries
has come down to us in history. Those of the Iroquois had
no name but that of a brotherhood.
The Delawares and Munsees have the same three gentes, the
Wolf, the Turtle, and the Turkey. Among the Delawares
there are twelve embryo gentes in each tribe, but they seem to
be lineages within the gentes and had not taken gentile names.
It was a movement, however, in that direction.
The phratry also appears among the Thlinkeets of the Northwest
coast, upon the surface of their organization into gentes.
They have two phratries, as follows:
I. Wolf Phratry.
Gentes.—1. Bear. 2. Eagle. 3. Dolphin. 4. Shark. 5. Alca.
II. Raven Phratry.
Gentes.—6. Frog. 7. Goose. 8. Sea-lion. 9. Owl. 10. Salmon.
Intermarriage in the phratry is prohibited, which shows, of
itself, that the gentes of each phratry were derived from an
original gens.75 The members of any gens in the Wolf phratry
could marry into any gens of the opposite phratry, and vice
versâ.
From the foregoing facts the existence of the phratry is established
in several linguistic stocks of the American aborigines.
Its presence in the tribes named raises a presumption of its
general prevalence in the Ganowánian family. Among the
Village Indians, where the numbers in a gens and tribe were
greater, it would necessarily have been more important and consequently
more fully developed. As an institution it was still
in its archaic form, but it possessed the essential elements of the
Grecian and the Roman. It can now be asserted that the full
organic series of ancient society exists in full vitality upon the
American continent; namely, the gens, the phratry, the tribe,
and the confederacy of tribes. With further proofs yet to be
adduced, the universality of the gentile organization upon all
the continents will be established.
If future investigation is directed specially to the functions
of the phratric organization among the tribes of the American
aborigines, the knowledge gained will explain many peculiarities
of Indian life and manners not well understood, and throw
additional light upon their usages and customs, and upon their
plan of life and government.
The Tribe as an Organization.—Composed of Gentes Speaking the
same Dialect.—Separation in area led to Divergence of Speech, and
Segmentation.—The Tribe a Natural Growth.—Illustrations.—Attributes
of a Tribe.—A Territory and Name.—An Exclusive Dialect.—The
Right to Invest and Depose its Sachems and Chiefs.—A Religious
Faith and Worship.—A Council of Chiefs.—A Head-Chief of Tribe in
some Instances.—Three Successive Forms of Gentile Government:
First, a Government of One Power; Second, of Two Powers; Third,
of Three Powers.
It is difficult to describe an Indian tribe by the affirmative
elements of its composition. Nevertheless it is clearly marked,
and the ultimate organization of the great body of the American
aborigines. The large number of independent tribes into
which they had fallen by the natural process of segmentation,
is the striking characteristic of their condition. Each tribe was
individualized by a name, by a separate dialect, by a supreme
government, and by the possession of a territory which it occupied
and defended as its own. The tribes were as numerous
as the dialects, for separation did not become complete until
dialectical variation had commenced. Indian tribes, therefore,
are natural growths through the separation of the same people
in the area of their occupation, followed by divergence of
speech, segmentation, and independence.
We have seen that the phratry was not so much a governmental
as a social organization, while the gens, tribe, and
confederacy, were necessary and logical stages of progress in the
growth of the idea of government. A confederacy could not
exist, under gentile society, without tribes as a basis; nor could
tribes exist without gentes, though they might without
phratries. In this chapter I will endeavor to point out the
manner in which these numerous tribes were formed, and,
presumptively out of one original people; the causes which
produced their perpetual segmentation; and the principal attributes
which distinguished an Indian tribe as an organization.
The exclusive possession of a dialect and of a territory has
led to the application of the term nation to many Indian tribes,
notwithstanding the fewness of the people in each. Tribe and
nation, however, are not strict equivalents. A nation does not
arise, under gentile institutions, until the tribes united under the
same government have coalesced into one people, as the four
Athenian tribes coalesced in Attica, three Dorian tribes at
Sparta, and three Latin and Sabine tribes at Rome. Federation
requires independent tribes in separate territorial areas; but
coalescence unites them by a higher process in the same area,
although the tendency to local separation by gentes and by
tribes would continue. The confederacy is the nearest analogue
of the nation, but not strictly equivalent. Where the gentile
organization exists, the organic series gives all the terms which
are needed for a correct description.
An Indian tribe is composed of several gentes, developed
from two or more, all the members of which are intermingled
by marriage, and all of whom speak the same dialect. To a
stranger the tribe is visible, and not the gens. The instances
are extremely rare, among the American aborigines, in
which the tribe embraced peoples speaking different dialects.
When such cases are found, it resulted from the union of a
weaker with a stronger tribe speaking a closely related dialect,
as the union of the Missouris with the Otoes after the overthrow
of the former. The fact that the great body of the aborigines
were found in independent tribes illustrates the slow and difficult
growth of the idea of government under gentile institutions.
A small portion only had attained to the ultimate stage known
among them, that of a confederacy of tribes speaking dialects
of the same stock language. A coalescence of tribes into a
nation had not occurred in any case in any part of America.
A constant tendency to disintegration, which has proved
such a hinderance to progress among savage and barbarous
tribes, existed in the elements of the gentile organization. It
was aggravated by a further tendency to divergence of speech,
which was inseparable from their social state and the large
areas of their occupation. A verbal language, although
remarkably persistent in its vocables, and still more persistent in
its grammatical forms, is incapable of permanence. Separation
of the people in area was followed in time by variation in
speech; and this, in turn, led to separation in interests and
ultimate independence. It was not the work of a brief period,
but of centuries of time, aggregating finally into thousands of
years. The great number of dialects and stock languages in
North and South America, which presumptively were derived,
the Eskimo excepted, from one original language, require for
their formation the time measured by three ethnical periods.
New tribes as well as new gentes were constantly forming by
natural growth; and the process was sensibly accelerated by
the great expanse of the American continent. The method
was simple. In the first place there would occur a gradual
outflow of people from some overstocked geographical centre,
which possessed superior advantages in the means of subsistence.
Continued from year to year, a considerable population
would thus be developed at a distance from the original seat of
the tribe. In course of time the emigrants would become
distinct in interests, strangers in feeling, and last of all, divergent
in speech. Separation and independence would follow,
although their territories were contiguous. A new tribe was
thus created. This is a concise statement of the manner in
which the tribes of the American aborigines were formed, but
the statement must be taken as general. Repeating itself from
age to age in newly acquired as well as in old areas, it must be
regarded as a natural as well as inevitable result of the gentile
organization, united with the necessities of their condition.
When increased numbers pressed upon the means of subsistence,
the surplus removed to a new seat where they established
themselves with facility, because the government was perfect in
every gens, and in any number of gentes united in a band.
Among the Village Indians the same thing repeated itself in a
slightly different manner. When a village became overcrowded
with numbers, a colony went up or down on the same stream
and commenced a new village. Repeated at intervals of time
several such villages would appear, each independent of the
other and a self-governing body; but united in a league or
confederacy for mutual protection. Dialectical variation would
finally spring up, and thus complete their growth into tribes.
The manner in which tribes are evolved from each other can
be shown directly by examples. The fact of separation is derived
in part from tradition, in part from the possession by each
of a number of the same gentes, and deduced in part from the
relations of their dialects. Tribes formed by the subdivisions
of an original tribe would possess a number of gentes in common,
and speak dialects of the same language. After several
centuries of separation they would still have a number of the
same gentes. Thus, the Hurons, now Wyandotes, have six
gentes of the same name with six of the gentes of the Seneca-Iroquois,
after at least four hundred years of separation. The
Potawattamies have eight gentes of the same name with eight
among the Ojibwas, while the former have six, and the latter
fourteen, which are different; showing that new gentes have
been formed in each tribe by segmentation since their separation.
A still older offshoot from the Ojibwas, or from the common
parent tribe of both, the Miamis, have but three gentes in
common with the former, namely, the Wolf, the Loon, and the
Eagle. The minute social history of the tribes of the Ganowánian
family is locked up in the life and growth of the gentes.
If investigation is ever turned strongly in this direction, the
gentes themselves would become reliable guides, both in respect
to the order of separation from each other of the tribes of the
same stock, and possibly of the great stocks of the aborigines.
The following illustrations are drawn from tribes in the
Lower Status of barbarism. When discovered, the eight Missouri
tribes occupied the banks of the Missouri river for more than a
thousand miles; together with the banks of its tributaries, the
Kansas and the Platte; and also the smaller rivers of Iowa.
They also occupied the west bank of the Mississippi down to the
Arkansas. Their dialects show that the people were in three
tribes before the last subdivisions; namely, first, the Punkas and
Omahas, second, the Iowas, Otoes and Missouris, and third,
the Kaws, Osages and Quappas. These three were undoubtedly
subdivisions of a single original tribe, because their several
dialects are still much nearer to each other than to any other
dialect of the Dakotian stock language to which they belong.
There is, therefore, a linguistic necessity for their derivation from
an original tribe. A gradual spread from a central point on
this river along its banks, both above and below, would lead to
a separation in interests with the increase of distance between
their settlements, followed by divergence of speech, and finally
by independence. A people thus extending themselves along a
river in a prairie country might separate, first into three tribes,
and afterwards into eight, and the organization of each subdivision
remain complete. Division was neither a shock, nor an
appreciated calamity; but a separation into parts by natural expansion
over a larger area, followed by a complete segmentation.
The uppermost tribe on the Missouri were the Punkas
at the mouth of the Niobrara river, and the lowermost the
Quappas at the mouth of the Arkansas on the Mississippi, with
an interval of near fifteen hundred miles between them. The
intermediate region, confined to the narrow belt of forest upon
the Missouri, was held by the remaining six tribes. They were
strictly River Tribes.
Another illustration may be found in the tribes of Lake Superior.
The Ojibwas, Otawas76 and Potawattamies are subdivisions
of an original tribe; the Ojibwas representing the stem,
because they remained at the original seat at the great fisheries
upon the outlet of the lake. Moreover, they are styled “Elder
Brother” by the remaining two; while the Otawas were
styled “Next Older Brother,” and the Potawattamies “Younger
Brother.” The last tribe separated first, and the Otawas last,
as is shown by the relative amount of dialectical variation, that
of the former being greatest. At the time of their discovery,
A. D. 1641, the Ojibwas were seated at the Rapids on the outlet
of Lake Superior, from which point they had spread along
the southern shore of the lake to the site of Ontonagon, along
its northeastern shore, and down the St. Mary River well toward
Lake Huron. Their position possessed remarkable advantages
for a fish and game subsistence, which, as they did not
cultivate maize and plants, was their main reliance.77 It was
second to none in North America, with the single exception of
the Valley of the Columbia. With such advantages they were
certain to develop a large Indian population, and to send out
successive bands of emigrants to become independent tribes.
The Potawattamies occupied a region on the confines of Upper
Michigan and Wisconsin, from which the Dakotas in 1641,
were in the act of expelling them. At the same time the
Otawas, whose earlier residence is supposed to have been on
the Otawa river of Canada, had drawn westward and were
then seated upon the Georgian Bay, the Manitouline Islands
and at Mackinaw, from which points they were spreading
southward over Lower Michigan. Originally one people, and
possessing the same gentes, they had succeeded in appropriating
a large area. Separation in place, and distance between
their settlements, had long before their discovery resulted in
the formation of dialects, and in tribal independence. The
three tribes, whose territories were contiguous, had formed an
alliance for mutual protection, known among Americans as
“the Otawa Confederacy.” It was a league, offensive and defensive,
and not, probably, a close confederacy like that of the
Iroquois.
Prior to these secessions another affiliated tribe, the Miamis,
had broken off from the Ojibwa stock, or the common parent
tribe, and migrated to central Illinois and western Indiana.
Following in the track of this migration were the Illinois, another
and later offshoot from the same stem, who afterwards
subdivided into the Peorias, Kaskaskias, Weaws, and Piankeshaws.
Their dialects, with that of the Miamis, find their
nearest affinity with the Ojibwa, and next with the Cree.78 The
outflow of all these tribes from the central seat at the great
fisheries of Lake Superior is a significant fact, because it illustrates
the manner in which tribes are formed in connection
with natural centres of subsistence. The New England, Delaware,
Maryland, Virginia and Carolina Algonkins were, in all
probability, derived from the same source. Several centuries
would be required for the formation of the dialects first named,
and for the production of the amount of variation they now
exhibit.
The foregoing examples represent the natural process by
which tribes are evolved from each other, or from a parent tribe
established in an advantageous position. Each emigrating band
was in the nature of a military colony, if it may be so strongly
characterized, seeking to acquire and hold a new area; preserving
at first, and as long as possible, a connection with the
mother tribe. By these successive movements they sought to
expand their joint possessions, and afterward to resist the intrusion
of alien people within their limits. It is a noticeable
fact that Indian tribes speaking dialects of the same stock language
have usually been found in territorial continuity, however
extended their common area. The same has, in the main,
been true of all the tribes of mankind linguistically united. It
is because the people, spreading from some geographical centre,
and maintaining an arduous struggle for subsistence, and for
the possession of their new territories, have preserved their connection
with the mother land as a means of succor in times of
danger, and as a place of refuge in calamity.
It required special advantages in the means of subsistence to
render any area an initial point of migration through the
gradual development of a surplus population. These natural
centres were few in number in North America. There are but
three. First among them is the Valley of the Columbia, the most
extraordinary region on the face of the earth in the variety and
amount of subsistence it afforded, prior to the cultivation of
maize and plants;79 second, the peninsula between Lakes Superior,
Huron and Michigan, the seat of the Ojibwas, and the
nursery land of many Indian tribes; and third, the lake region
in Minnesota, the nursery ground of the present Dakota
tribes. These are the only regions in North America that can
be called natural centres of subsistence, and natural sources of
surplus numbers. There are reasons for believing that Minnesota
was a part of the Algonkin area before it was occupied
by the Dakotas. When the cultivation of maize and plants
came in, it tended to localize the people and support them in
smaller areas, as well as to increase their numbers; but it failed
to transfer the control of the continent to the most advanced
tribes of Village Indians, who subsisted almost entirely by cultivation.
Horticulture spread among the principal tribes in the
Lower Status of barbarism and greatly improved their condition.
They held, with the non-horticultural tribes, the great
areas of North America when it was discovered, and from their
ranks the continent was being replenished with inhabitants.80
The multiplication of tribes and dialects has been the fruitful
source of the incessant warfare of the aborigines upon each
other. As a rule the most persistent warfare has been waged
between tribes speaking different stock languages; as, for example,
between the Iroquois and Algonkin tribes, and between
the Dakota tribes and the same. On the contrary the Algonkin
and Dakota tribes severally have, in general, lived at peace
among themselves. Had it been otherwise they would not
have been found in the occupation of continuous areas. The
worst exception were the Iroquois, who pursued a war of extermination
against their kindred tribes, the Eries, the Neutral
Nation, the Hurons and the Susquehannocks. Tribes speaking
dialects of the same stock language are able to communicate
orally and thus compose their differences. They also learned,
in virtue of their common descent, to depend upon each other
as natural allies.
Numbers within a given area were limited by the amount of
subsistence it afforded. When fish and game were the main
reliance for food, it required an immense area to maintain a
small tribe. After farinaceous food was superadded to fish and
game, the area occupied by a tribe was still a large one in proportion
to the number of the people. New York, with its
forty-seven thousand square miles, never contained at any time
more than twenty-five thousand Indians, including with the
Iroquois the Algonkins on the east side of the Hudson and
upon Long Island, and the Eries and Neutral Nation in the
western section of the state. A personal government founded
upon gentes was incapable of developing sufficient central
power to follow and control the increasing numbers of the
people, unless they remained within a reasonable distance from
each other.
Among the Village Indians of New Mexico, Mexico, and
Central America an increase of numbers in a small area did not
arrest the process of disintegration. Each pueblo was usually
an independent self-governing community. Where several
pueblos were seated near each other on the same stream, the
people were usually of common descent, and either under a
tribal or confederate government. There are some seven
stock languages in New Mexico alone, each spoken in several
dialects. At the time of Coronado’s expedition, 1540-1542, the
villages found were numerous but small. There were seven
each of Cibola, Tucayan, Quivira, and Hemez, and twelve of
Tiguex;81 and other groups indicating a linguistic connection of
their members. Whether or not each group was confederated
we are not informed. The seven Moqui Pueblos (the Tucayan
Villages of Coronado’s expedition), are said to be confederated
at the present time, and probably were at the time of their
discovery.
The process of subdivision, illustrated by the foregoing
examples, has been operating among the American aborigines
for thousands of years, until upwards of forty stock languages,
as near as is known, have been developed in North America
alone; each spoken in a number of dialects, by an equal
number of independent tribes. Their experience, probably,
was but a repetition of that of the tribes of Asia, Europe and
Africa, when they were in corresponding conditions.
From the preceding observations, it is apparent that an
American Indian tribe is a very simple as well as humble
organization. It required but a few hundreds, and, at most, a
few thousand people to form a tribe, and place it in a respectable
position in the Ganowánian family.
It remains to present the functions and attributes of an
Indian tribe, which may be discussed under the following propositions:
| I. | The possession of a territory and a name. |
| II. | The exclusive possession of a dialect. |
| III. | The right to invest sachems and chiefs elected by the gentes. |
| IV. | The right to depose these sachems and chiefs. |
| V. | The possession of a religious faith and worship. |
| VI. | A supreme government consisting of a council of chiefs. |
| VII. | A head-chief of the tribe in some instances. |
It will be sufficient to make a brief reference to each of these
several attributes of a tribe.
I. The possession of a territory and a name.
Their territory consisted of the area of their actual settlements,
and so much of the surrounding region as the tribe
ranged over in hunting and fishing, and were able to defend
against the encroachments of other tribes. Without this area
was a wide margin of neutral grounds, separating them from
their nearest frontegers if they spoke a different language, and
claimed by neither; but less wide, and less clearly marked,
when they spoke dialects of the same language. The country
thus imperfectly defined, whether large or small, was the
domain of the tribe, recognized as such by other tribes, and
defended as such by themselves.
In due time the tribe became individualized by a name,
which, from their usual character, must have been in many
cases accidental rather than deliberate. Thus, the Senecas
styled themselves the “Great Hill People” (Nun-da′-wä-o-no),
the Tuscaroras, “Shirt-wearing People” (Dus-ga′-o-weh-o-no′),
the Sissetons, “Village of the Marsh” (Sis-se′-to-wän), the
Ogalallas, “Camp Movers” (O-ga-lal′-lä), the Omahas, “Upstream
People” (O-mä′-hä), the Iowas, “Dusty Noses” (Pa-ho′-cha),
the Minnitarees, “People from Afar” (E-năt′-zä), the
Cherokees, “Great People” (Tsä-lo′-kee), the Shawnees,
“Southerners” (Sä-wan-wä-kee′), the Mohegans, “Sea-side
People” (Mo-he-kun-e-uk), the Slave Lake Indians, “People
of the Lowlands” (A-cha′-o-tin-ne). Among the Village
Indians of Mexico, the Sochimilcos styled themselves “Nation
of the Seeds of Flowers,” the Chalcans, “People of Mouths,”
the Tepanecans, “People of the Bridge,” the Tezcucans or
Culhuas, “A Crooked People,” and the Tlascalans, “Men of
Bread.”82 When European colonization began in the northern
part of America, the names of Indian tribes were obtained, not
usually from the tribe direct, but from other tribes who had
bestowed names upon them different from their own. As a
consequence, a number of tribes are now known in history
under names not recognized by themselves.
II. The exclusive possession of a dialect.
Tribe and dialect are substantially co-extensive, but there
are exceptions growing out of special circumstances. Thus,
the twelve Dakota bands are now properly tribes, because they
are distinct in interests and in organization; but they were
forced into premature separation by the advance of Americans
upon their original area which forced them upon the plains.
They had remained in such intimate connection previously that
but one new dialect had commenced forming, the Tecton, on the
Missouri; the Isauntie on the Mississippi being the original
speech. A few years ago the Cherokees numbered twenty-six
thousand, the largest number of Indians ever found within the
limits of the United States speaking the same dialect. But in
the mountain districts of Georgia a slight divergence of speech
had occurred, though not sufficient to be distinguished as a
dialect. There are a few other similar cases, but they do not
break the general rule during the aboriginal period which made
tribe and dialect co-extensive. The Ojibwas, who are still in
the main non-horticultural, now number about fifteen thousand,
and speak the same dialect; and the Dakota tribes collectively
about twenty-five thousand who speak two very
closely related dialects, as stated. These several tribes are exceptionally
large. The tribes within the United States and
British America would yield, on an average, less than two thousand
persons to a tribe.
III. The right of investing sachems and chiefs elected by
the gentes.
Among the Iroquois the person elected could not become a
chief until his investiture by a council of chiefs. As the chiefs
of the gentes composed the council of the tribe, with power
over common interests, there was a manifest propriety in reserving
to the tribal council the function of investing persons
with office. But after the confederacy was formed, the power
of “raising up” sachems and chiefs was transferred from the
council of the tribe to the council of the confederacy. With
respect to the tribes generally, the accessible information is insufficient
to explain their usages in relation to the mode of investiture.
It is one of the numerous subjects requiring further
investigation before the social system of the Indian tribes can
be fully explained. The office of sachem and chief was universally
elective among the tribes north of Mexico; with sufficient
evidence, as to other parts of the continent, to leave no
doubt of the universality of the rule.
Among the Delawares each gens had one sachem, (Sä-ke′-mä),
whose office was hereditary in the gens, besides two common
chiefs, and two war-chiefs—making fifteen in three gentes—who
composed the council of the tribe. Among the Ojibwas,
the members of some one gens usually predominated at each
settlement. Each gens had a sachem, whose office was hereditary
in the gens, and several common chiefs. Where a large
number of persons of the same gens lived in one locality they
would be found similarly organized. There was no prescribed
limit to the number of chiefs. A body of usages, which have
never been collected, undoubtedly existed in the several Indian
tribes respecting the election and investiture of sachems and
chiefs. A knowledge of them would be valuable. An explanation
of the Iroquois method of “raising up” sachems and
chiefs will be given in the next chapter.
IV. The right to depose these sachems and chiefs.
This right rested primarily with the gens to which the sachem
and chief belonged. But the council of the tribe possessed
the same power, and could proceed independently of the gens,
and even in opposition to its wishes. In the Status of savagery,
and in the Lower and also in the Middle Status of barbarism,
office was bestowed for life, or during good behavior.
Mankind had not learned to limit an elective office for a term
of years. The right to depose, therefore, became the more
essential for the maintenance of the principle of self-government.
This right was a perpetual assertion of the sovereignty
of the gens and also of the tribe; a sovereignty feebly understood,
but nevertheless a reality.
V. The possession of a religious faith and worship.
After the fashion of barbarians the American Indians were a
religious people. The tribes generally held religious festivals
at particular seasons of the year, which were observed with
forms of worship, dances and games. The Medicine Lodge, in
many tribes, was the centre of these observances. It was customary
to announce the holding of a Medicine Lodge weeks
and months in advance to awaken a general interest in its ceremonies.
The religious system of the aborigines is another
of the subjects which has been but partially investigated. It is
rich in materials for the future student. The experience of
these tribes in developing their religious beliefs and mode of
worship is a part of the experience of mankind; and the facts
will hold an important place in the science of comparative religion.
Their system was more or less vague and indefinite, and loaded
with crude superstitions. Element worship can be traced
among the principal tribes, with a tendency to polytheism in
the advanced tribes. The Iroquois, for example, recognized
a Great, and an Evil Spirit, and a multitude of inferior spiritual
beings, the immortality of the soul, and a future state.
Their conception of the Great Spirit assigned to him a human
form; which was equally true of the Evil Spirit, of He′-no, the
Spirit of Thunder, of Gă′-oh, the Spirit of the Winds, and of the
Three Sisters, the Spirit of Maize, the Spirit of the Bean, and
the Spirit of the Squash. The latter were styled, collectively,
“Our Life,” and also “Our Supporters.” Beside these were the
spirits of the several kinds of trees and plants, and of the running
streams. The existence and attributes of these numerous
spiritual beings were but feebly imagined. Among the tribes in
the Lower Status of barbarism idolatry was unknown.83 The
Aztecs had personal gods, with idols to represent them, and a
temple worship. If the particulars of their religious system were
accurately known, its growth out of the common beliefs of the
Indian tribes would probably be made apparent.
Dancing was a form of worship among the American aborigines,
and formed a part of the ceremonies at all religious festivals.
In no part of the earth, among barbarians, has the
dance received a more studied development. Every tribe has
from ten to thirty set dances; each of which has its own name,
songs, musical instruments, steps, plan and costume for persons.
Some of them, as the war-dance, were common to all the tribes.
Particular dances are special property, belonging either to a gens,
or to a society organized for its maintenance, into which new
members were from time to time initiated. The dances of the
Dakotas, the Crees, the Ojibwas, the Iroquois, and of the Pueblo
Indians of New Mexico, are the same in general character, in
step, plan, and music; and the same is true of the dances of the
Aztecs so far as they are accurately known. It is one system
throughout the Indian tribes, and bears a direct relation to
their system of faith and worship.
VI. A supreme government through a council of chiefs.
The council had a natural foundation in the gentes of whose
chiefs it was composed. It met a necessary want, and was
certain to remain as long as gentile society endured. As the
gens was represented by its chiefs, so the tribe was represented
by a council composed of the chiefs of the gentes. It was a
permanent feature of the social system, holding the ultimate
authority over the tribe. Called together under circumstances
known to all, held in the midst of the people, and open to their
orators, it was certain to act under popular influence. Although
oligarchical in form, the government was a representative
democracy; the representative being elected for life, but
subject to deposition. The brotherhood of the members of
each gens, and the elective principle with respect to office, were
the germ and the basis of the democratic principle. Imperfectly
developed, as other great principles were in this early stage of
advancement, democracy can boast a very ancient pedigree in
the tribes of mankind.
It devolved upon the council to guard and protect the common
interests of the tribe. Upon the intelligence and courage
of the people, and upon the wisdom and foresight of the council,
the prosperity and the existence of the tribe depended.
Questions and exigencies were arising, through their incessant
warfare with other tribes, which required the exercise of all these
qualities to meet and manage. It was unavoidable, therefore,
that the popular element should be commanding in its influence.
As a general rule the council was open to any private
individual who desired to address it on a public question. Even
the women were allowed to express their wishes and opinions
through an orator of their own selection. But the decision was
made by the council. Unanimity was a fundamental law of its
action among the Iroquois; but whether this usage was general
I am unable to state.
Military operations were usually left to the action of the
voluntary principle. Theoretically, each tribe was at war with
every other tribe with which it had not formed a treaty of
peace. Any person was at liberty to organize a war-party and
conduct an expedition wherever he pleased. He announced
his project by giving a war-dance and inviting volunteers.
This method furnished a practical test of the popularity of the
undertaking. If he succeeded in forming a company, which
would consist of such persons as joined him in the dance, they
departed immediately, while enthusiasm was at its height.
When a tribe was menaced with an attack, war-parties were
formed to meet it in much the same manner. Where forces
thus raised were united in one body, each was under its own
war-captain, and their joint movements were determined by a
council of these captains. If there was among them a war-chief
of established reputation he would naturally become their
leader. These statements relate to tribes in the Lower Status
of barbarism. The Aztecs and Tlascalans went out by phratries,
each subdivision under its own captain, and distinguished
by costumes and banners.
Indian tribes, and even confederacies, were weak organizations
for military operations. That of the Iroquois, and that
of the Aztecs, were the most remarkable for aggressive purposes.
Among the tribes in the Lower Status of barbarism,
including the Iroquois, the most destructive work was performed
by inconsiderable war-parties, which were constantly
forming and making expeditions into distant regions. Their
supply of food consisted of parched corn reduced to flour,
carried in a pouch attached to the belt of each warrior, with
such fish and game as the route supplied. The going out of
these war-parties, and their public reception on their return,
were among the prominent events in Indian life. The sanction
of the council for these expeditions was not sought, neither
was it necessary.
The council of the tribe had power to declare war and make
peace, to send and receive embassies, and to make alliances.
It exercised all the powers needful in a government so simple
and limited in its affairs. Intercourse between independent
tribes was conducted by delegations of wise-men and chiefs.
When such a delegation was expected by any tribe, a council
was convened for its reception, and for the transaction of its
business.
VII. A head-chief of the tribe in some instances.
In some Indian tribes one of the sachems was recognized as
its head-chief; and as superior in rank to his associates. A
need existed, to some extent, for an official head of the tribe to
represent it when the council was not in session; but the duties
and powers of the office were slight. Although the council
was supreme in authority it was rarely in session, and questions
might arise demanding the provisional action of some one
authorized to represent the tribe, subject to the ratification of
his acts by the council. This was the only basis, so far as the
writer is aware, for the office of head-chief. It existed in a
number of tribes, but in a form of authority so feeble as to fall
below the conception of an executive magistrate. In the language
of some of the early writers they have been designated
as kings, which is simply a caricature. The Indian tribes had
not advanced far enough in a knowledge of government to develop
the idea of a chief executive magistrate. The Iroquois
tribe recognized no head-chief, and the confederacy no executive
officer. The elective tenure of the office of chief, and the
liability of the person to deposition, settle the character of the
office.
A council of Indian chiefs is of little importance by itself;
but as the germ of the modern parliament, congress, and legislature,
it has an important bearing in the history of mankind.
The growth of the idea of government commenced with
the organization into gentes in savagery. It reveals three
great stages of progressive development between its commencement
and the institution of political society after civilization
had been attained. The first stage was the government
of a tribe by a council of chiefs elected by the gentes. It may
be called a government of one power; namely, the council. It
prevailed generally among tribes in the Lower Status of barbarism.
The second stage was a government co-ordinated between
a council of chiefs, and a general military commander;
one representing the civil, and the other the military functions.
This second form began to manifest itself in the Lower Status
of barbarism, after confederacies were formed, and it became
definite in the Middle Status. The office of general, or principal
military commander, was the germ of that of a chief executive
magistrate, the king, the emperor, and the president.
It may be called a government of two powers, namely, the
council of chiefs, and the general. The third stage was the
government of a people or nation by a council of chiefs, an
assembly of the people, and a general military commander. It
appeared among the tribes who had attained to the Upper
Status of barbarism; such, for example, as the Homeric Greeks,
and the Italian tribes of the period of Romulus. A large increase
in the number of people united in a nation, their establishment
in walled cities, and the creation of wealth in lands
and in flocks and herds, brought in the assembly of the people
as an instrument of government. The council of chiefs, which
still remained, found it necessary, no doubt through popular
constraint, to submit the most important public measures to an
assembly of the people for acceptance or rejection; whence the
popular assembly. This assembly did not originate measures.
It was its function to adopt or reject, and its action was final.
From its first appearance it became a permanent power in the
government. The council no longer passed important public
measures, but became a pre-considering council, with power to
originate and mature public acts, to which the assembly alone
could give validity. It may be called a government of three
powers; namely, the pre-considering council, the assembly of
the people, and the general. This remained until the institution
of political society, when, for example, among the Athenians,
the council of chiefs became the senate, and the assembly
of the people the ecclesia or popular assembly. The same organizations
have come down to modern times in the two houses
of parliament, of congress, and of legislatures. In like manner
the office of general military commander, as before stated, was
the germ of the office of the modern chief executive magistrate.
Recurring to the tribe, it was limited in the numbers of the
people, feeble in strength, and poor in resources; but yet a
completely organized society. It illustrates the condition of
mankind in the Lower Status of barbarism. In the Middle
Status there was a sensible increase of numbers in a tribe, and
an improved condition; but with a continuance of gentile society
without essential change. Political society was still impossible
from want of advancement. The gentes organized into
tribes remained as before; but confederacies must have been
more frequent. In some areas, as in the Valley of Mexico,
larger numbers were developed under a common government,
with improvements in the arts of life; but no evidence exists
of the overthrow among them of gentile society and the substitution
of political. It is impossible to found a political society
or a state upon gentes. A state must rest upon territory
and not upon persons, upon the township as the unit of a political
system, and not upon the gens which is the unit of a
social system. It required time and a vast experience, beyond
that of the American Indian tribes, as a preparation for such
a fundamental change of systems. It also required men of the
mental stature of the Greeks and Romans, and with the experience
derived from a long chain of ancestors to devise and
gradually introduce that new plan of government under which
civilized nations are living at the present time.
Following the ascending organic series, we are next to consider
the confederacy of tribes, in which the gentes, phratries
and tribes will be seen in new relations. The remarkable
adaptation of the gentile organization to the condition and
wants of mankind, while in a barbarous state, will thereby be
further illustrated.
Confederacies Natural Growths.—Founded upon Common Gentes,
and a Common Language.—The Iroquois Tribes.—Their Settlement in
New York.—Formation of the Confederacy.—Its Structure and Principles.—Fifty
Sachemships Created.—Made Hereditary in certain
Gentes.—Number assigned to each Tribe.—These Sachems formed the
Council of the Confederacy.—The Civil Council.—Its Mode of Transacting
Business.—Unanimity Necessary to its Action.—The Mourning
Council.—Mode of Raising up Sachems.—General Military Commanders.—This
Office the Germ of that of a Chief Executive Magistrate.—Intellectual
Capacity of the Iroquois.
A tendency to confederate for mutual defense would very
naturally exist among kindred and contiguous tribes. When
the advantages of a union had been appreciated by actual experience
the organization, at first a league, would gradually
cement into a federal unity. The state of perpetual warfare in
which they lived would quicken this natural tendency into action
among such tribes as were sufficiently advanced in intelligence
and in the arts of life to perceive its benefits. It would
be simply a growth from a lower into a higher organization by
an extension of the principle which united the gentes in a tribe.
As might have been expected, several confederacies existed
in different parts of North America when discovered, some of
which were quite remarkable in plan and structure. Among the
number may be mentioned the Iroquois Confederacy of five independent
tribes, the Creek Confederacy of six, the Otawa Confederacy
of three, the Dakota League of the “Seven Council-Fires,”
the Moqui Confederacy in New Mexico of Seven Pueblos,
and the Aztec Confederacy of three tribes in the Valley
of Mexico. It is probable that the Village Indians in other
parts of Mexico, in Central and in South America, were quite
generally organized in confederacies consisting of two or more
kindred tribes. Progress necessarily took this direction from
the nature of their institutions, and from the law governing
their development. Nevertheless, the formation of a confederacy
out of such materials, and with such unstable geographical
relations, was a difficult undertaking. It was easiest of achievement
by the Village Indians from the nearness to each other
of their pueblos, and from the smallness of their areas; but it
was accomplished in occasional instances by tribes in the Lower
Status of barbarism, and notably by the Iroquois. Wherever
a confederacy was formed it would of itself evince the superior
intelligence of the people.
The two highest examples of Indian confederacies in North
America were those of the Iroquois and of the Aztecs. From
their acknowledged superiority as military powers, and from
their geographical positions, these confederacies, in both cases,
produced remarkable results. Our knowledge of the structure
and principles of the former is definite and complete, while of
the latter it is far from satisfactory. The Aztec confederacy
has been handled in such a manner historically as to leave it
doubtful whether it was simply a league of three kindred tribes,
offensive and defensive, or a systematic confederacy like that
of the Iroquois. That which is true of the latter was probably
in a general sense true of the former, so that a knowledge of
one will tend to elucidate the other.
The conditions under which confederacies spring into being
and the principles on which they are formed are remarkably
simple. They grow naturally, with time, out of pre-existing
elements. Where one tribe had divided into several and these
subdivisions occupied independent but contiguous territories,
the confederacy re-integrated them in a higher organization, on
the basis of the common gentes they possessed, and of the
affiliated dialects they spoke. The sentiment of kin embodied
in the gens, the common lineage of the gentes, and their dialects
still mutually intelligible, yielded the material elements for
a confederation. The confederacy, therefore, had the gentes
for its basis and centre, and stock language for its circumference.
No one has been found that reached beyond the bounds
of the dialects of a common language. If this natural barrier
had been crossed it would have forced heterogeneous elements
into the organization. Cases have occurred where the remains
of a tribe, not cognate in speech, as the Natchez,84 have been
admitted into an existing confederacy; but this exception would
not invalidate the general proposition. It was impossible for
an Indian power to arise upon the American continent through
a confederacy of tribes organized in gentes, and advance to a
general supremacy unless their numbers were developed from
their own stock. The multitude of stock languages is a standing
explanation of the failure. There was no possible way of
becoming connected on equal terms with a confederacy excepting
through membership in a gens and tribe, and a common
speech.
It may here be remarked, parenthetically, that it was impossible
in the Lower, in the Middle, or in the Upper Status of
barbarism for a kingdom to arise by natural growth in any part
of the earth under gentile institutions. I venture to make this
suggestion at this early stage of the discussion in order to call
attention more closely to the structure and principles of ancient
society, as organized in gentes, phratries and tribes. Monarchy
is incompatible with gentilism. It belongs to the later period
of civilization. Despotisms appeared in some instances among
the Grecian tribes in the Upper Status of barbarism; but they
were founded upon usurpation, were considered illegitimate by
the people, and were, in fact, alien to the ideas of gentile society.
The Grecian tyrannies were despotisms founded upon
usurpation, and were the germ out of which the later kingdoms
arose; while the so-called kingdoms of the heroic age were
military democracies, and nothing more.
The Iroquois have furnished an excellent illustration of the
manner in which a confederacy is formed by natural growth assisted
by skillful legislation. Originally emigrants from beyond
the Mississippi, and probably a branch of the Dakota stock,
they first made their way to the valley of the St. Lawrence and
settled themselves near Montreal. Forced to leave this region
by the hostility of surrounding tribes, they sought the central
region of New York. Coasting the eastern shore of Lake Ontario
in canoes, for their numbers were small, they made their
first settlement at the mouth of the Oswego river, where, according
to their traditions, they remained for a long period of
time. They were then in at least three distinct tribes, the Mohawks,
the Onondagas, and the Senecas. One tribe subsequently
established themselves at the head of the Canandaigua
lake and became the Senecas. Another tribe occupied the
Onondaga Valley and became the Onondagas. The third
passed eastward and settled first at Oneida near the site of
Utica, from which place the main portion removed to the Mohawk
Valley and became the Mohawks. Those who remained
became the Oneidas. A portion of the Onondagas or Senecas
settled along the eastern shore of the Cayuga lake and became
the Cayugas. New York, before its occupation by the Iroquois,
seems to have been a part of the area of the Algonkin
tribes. According to Iroquois traditions they displaced its anterior
inhabitants as they gradually extended their settlements
eastward to the Hudson, and westward to the Genesee. Their
traditions further declare that a long period of time elapsed
after their settlement in New York before the confederacy was
formed, during which they made common cause against their
enemies and thus experienced the advantages of the federal
principle both for aggression and defense. They resided in villages,
which were usually surrounded with stockades, and subsisted
upon fish and game, and the products of a limited horticulture.
In numbers they did not at any time exceed 20,000
souls, if they ever reached that number. Precarious subsistence
and incessant warfare repressed numbers in all the aboriginal
tribes, including the Village Indians as well. The Iroquois
were enshrouded in the great forests, which then overspread
New York, against which they had no power to contend.
They were first discovered A. D. 1608. About 1675, they
attained their culminating point when their dominion reached
over an area remarkably large, covering the greater parts of
New York, Pennsylvania and Ohio,85 and portions of Canada
north of Lake Ontario. At the time of their discovery they
were the highest representatives of the Red Race north of New
Mexico in intelligence and advancement, though perhaps inferior
to some of the Gulf tribes in the arts of life. In the extent
and quality of their mental endowments they must be
ranked among the highest Indians in America. Although
they have declined in numbers there are still four thousand
Iroquois in New York, about a thousand in Canada, and near
that number in the West; thus illustrating the efficiency as well
as persistency of the arts of barbarous life in sustaining existence.
It is now said that they are slowly increasing.
When the confederacy was formed, about A. D. 1400-1450,86
the conditions previously named were present. The Iroquois
was in five independent tribes, occupied territories contiguous
to each other, and spoke dialects of the same language which
were mutually intelligible. Beside these facts certain gentes
were common in the several tribes as has been shown. In
their relations to each other, as separated parts of the same
gens, these common gentes afforded a natural and enduring
basis for a confederacy. With these elements existing, the
formation of a confederacy became a question of intelligence
and skill. Other tribes in large numbers were standing in precisely
the same relations in different parts of the continent without
confederating. The fact that the Iroquois tribes accomplished
the work affords evidence of their superior capacity.
Moreover, as the confederacy was the ultimate stage of organization
among the American aborigines its existence would be
expected in the most intelligent tribes only.
It is affirmed by the Iroquois that the confederacy was formed
by a council of wise-men and chiefs of the five tribes which
met for that purpose on the north shore of Onondaga lake,
near the site of Syracuse; and that before its session was concluded
the organization was perfected, and set in immediate
operation. At their periodical councils for raising up sachems
they still explain its origin as the result of one protracted effort
of legislation. It was probably a consequence of a previous alliance
for mutual defense, the advantages of which they had
perceived and which they sought to render permanent.
The origin of the plan is ascribed to a mythical, or, at least,
traditionary person, Hä-yo-went′-hä, the Hiawatha of Longfellow’s
celebrated poem, who was present at this council and
the central person in its management. In his communications
with the council he used a wise-man of the Onondagas, Da-gä-no-we′-dä,
as an interpreter and speaker to expound the structure
and principles of the proposed confederacy. The same
tradition further declares that when the work was accomplished
Hä-yo-went′-hä miraculously disappeared in a white canoe,
which arose with him in the air and bore him out of their sight.
Other prodigies, according to this tradition, attended and signalized
the formation of the confederacy, which is still celebrated
among them as a masterpiece of Indian wisdom. Such
in truth it was; and it will remain in history as a monument of
their genius in developing gentile institutions. It will also be
remembered as an illustration of what tribes of mankind have
been able to accomplish in the art of government while in the
Lower Status of barbarism, and under the disadvantages this
condition implies.
Which of the two persons was the founder of the confederacy
it is difficult to determine. The silent Hä-yo-went′-hä
was, not unlikely, a real person of Iroquois lineage;87 but tradition
has enveloped his character so completely in the supernatural
that he loses his place among them as one of their
number. If Hiawatha were a real person, Da-gä-no-we′-dä
must hold a subordinate place; but, if a mythical person invoked
for the occasion, then to the latter belongs the credit of
planning the confederacy.
The Iroquois affirm that the confederacy as formed by this
council, with its powers, functions and mode of administration,
has come down to them through many generations to the present
time with scarcely a change in its internal organization.
When the Tuscaroras were subsequently admitted, their sachems
were allowed by courtesy to sit as equals in the general
council, but the original number of sachems was not increased,
and in strictness those of the Tuscaroras formed no part of the
ruling body.
The general features of the Iroquois Confederacy may be
summarized in the following propositions:
I. The confederacy was a union of Five Tribes, composed of
common gentes, under one government on the basis of equality;
each Tribe remaining independent in all matters pertaining
to local self-government.
II. It created a General Council of Sachems, who were limited
in number, equal in rank and authority, and invested with
supreme powers over all matters pertaining to the Confederacy.
III. Fifty Sachemships were created and named in perpetuity
in certain gentes of the several Tribes; with power in these
gentes to fill vacancies, as often as they occurred, by election
from among their respective members, and with the further
power to depose from office for cause; but the right to invest
these Sachems with office was reserved to the General Council.
IV. The Sachems of the Confederacy were also Sachems in
their respective Tribes, and with the Chiefs of these Tribes formed
the Council of each, which was supreme over all matters pertaining
to the Tribe exclusively.
V. Unanimity in the Council of the Confederacy was made
essential to every public act.
VI. In the General Council the Sachems voted by Tribes,
which gave to each Tribe a negative upon the others.
VII. The Council of each Tribe had power to convene the
General Council; but the latter had no power to convene itself.
VIII. The General Council was open to the orators of the
people for the discussion of public questions; but the Council
alone decided.
IX. The Confederacy had no chief Executive Magistrate, or
official head.
X. Experiencing the necessity for a General Military Commander
they created the office in a dual form, that one might
neutralize the other. The two principal War-chiefs created
were made equal in powers.
These several propositions will be considered and illustrated,
but without following the precise form or order in which they
are stated.
At the institution of the confederacy fifty permanent sachemships
were created and named, and made perpetual in the gentes
to which they were assigned. With the exception of two,
which were filled but once, they have been held by as many
different persons in succession as generations have passed
away between that time and the present. The name of each
sachemship is also the personal name of each sachem while he
holds the office, each one in succession taking the name of his
predecessor. These sachems, when in session, formed the
council of the confederacy in which the legislative, executive,
and judicial powers were vested, although such a discrimination
of functions had not come to be made. To secure order
in the succession, the several gentes in which these offices were
made hereditary were empowered to elect successors from
among their respective members when vacancies occurred, as
elsewhere explained. As a further measure of protection to
their own body each sachem, after his election and its confirmation,
was invested with his office by a council of the confederacy.
When thus installed his name was “taken away” and
that of the sachemship was bestowed upon him. By this name
he was afterwards known among them. They were all upon
equality in rank, authority, and privileges.
These sachemships were distributed unequally among the
five tribes; but without giving to either a preponderance of
power; and unequally among the gentes of the last three tribes.
The Mohawks had nine sachems, the Oneidas nine, the Onondagas
fourteen, the Cayugas ten, and the Senecas eight. This
was the number at first, and it has remained the number to the
present time. A table of these sachemships is subjoined, with
their names in the Seneca dialect, and their arrangement in
classes to facilitate the attainment of unanimity in council. In
foot-notes will be found the signification of these names, and
the gentes to which they belonged.
Table of sachemships of the Iroquois, founded at the institution
of the Confederacy; with the names which have been
borne by their sachems in succession, from its formation to the
present time:
| Mohawks. |
| I. | 1. Da-gä-e′-o-gă.88 2. Hä-yo-went′-hä.89 3. Da-gä-no-we′-dä.90 |
| II. | 4. So-ä-e-wä′-ah.91 5. Da-yo′-ho-go.92 6. O-ä-ä′-go-wä.93 |
| III. | 7. Da-an-no-gä′-e-neh.94 8. Sä-da′-gä-e-wä-deh.95 9. Häs-dä-weh′-se-ont-hä.96 |
| Oneidas. |
| I. | 1. Ho-däs′-hä-teh.97 2. Ga-no-gweh′-yo-do.98 3. Da-yo-hä′-gwen-da.99 |
| II. | 4. So-no-sase′.100 5. To-no-ä-gă′-o.101 6. Hä-de-ä-dun-nent′-hä.102 |
| III. | 7. Da-wä-dä′-o-dä-yo.103 8. Gä-ne-ä-dus′-ha-yeh.104 9. Ho-wus′-hä-da-o.105 |
| Onondagas. |
| I. | 1. To-do-dä′-ho.106 2. To-nes′-sa-ah. 3. Da-ät′-ga-dose.107 |
| II. | 4. Gä-neä-dä′-je-wake.108 5. Ah-wä′-ga-yat.109 6. Da-ä-yat′-gwä-e. |
| III. | 7. Ho-no-we-nă′-to.110 |
| IV. | 8. Gä-wă-nă′-san-do.111 9. Hä-e′-ho.112 10. Ho-yo-ne-ä′-ne.113
11. Sa-dä′-kwä-seh.114 |
| V. | 12. Sä-go-ga-hä′.115 13. Ho-sa-hä′-ho.116 14. Skä-no′-wun-de.117 |
| Cayugas. |
| I. | 1. Da-gä′-ă-yo.118 2. Da-je-no′-dä-weh-o.119 3. Gä-dä′-gwä-sa.120
4. So-yo-wasé.121 5. Hä-de-äs′-yo-no.122 |
| II. | 6. Da-yo-o-yo′-go.123 7. Jote-ho-weh′-ko.124 8. De-ä-wate′-ho.125 |
| III. | 9. To-dä-e-ho′.126 10. Des-gä′-heh.127 |
| Senecas. |
| I. | 1. Ga-ne-o-di′-yo.128 2. Sä-dä-gä′-o-yase.129 |
| II. | 3. Gä-no-gi′-e.130 4. Sä-geh′-jo-wä.131 |
| III. | 5. Sä-de-a-no′-wus.132 6. Nis-hä-ne-a′-nent.133 |
| IV. | 7. Gä-no-go-e-dä′-we.134 8. Do-ne-ho-gä′-weh.135 |
Two of these sachemships have been filled but once since
their creation. Hä-yo-went′-hä and Da-gä-no-we′-da consented
to take the office among the Mohawk sachems, and to leave
their names in the list upon condition that after their demise
the two should remain thereafter vacant. They were installed
upon these terms, and the stipulation has been observed to the
present day. At all councils for the investiture of sachems
their names are still called with the others as a tribute of respect
to their memory. The general council, therefore, consisted
of but forty-eight members.
Each sachem had an assistant sachem, who was elected by
the gens of his principal from among its members, and who
was installed with the same forms and ceremonies. He was
styled an “aid.” It was his duty to stand behind his superior
on all occasions of ceremony, to act as his messenger, and in
general to be subject to his directions. It gave to the aid the
office of chief, and rendered probable his election as the successor
of his principal after the decease of the latter. In their
figurative language these aids of the sachems were styled
“Braces in the Long House,” which symbolized the confederacy.
The names bestowed upon the original sachems became the
names of their respective successors in perpetuity. For example,
upon the demise of Gä-ne-o-di′-yo, one of the eight
Seneca sachems, his successor would be elected by the Turtle
gens in which this sachemship was hereditary, and when raised
up by the general council he would receive this name, in place
of his own, as a part of the ceremony. On several different
occasions I have attended their councils for raising up sachems
both at the Onondaga and Seneca reservations, and witnessed
the ceremonies herein referred to. Although but a shadow of
the old confederacy now remains, it is fully organized with its
complement of sachems and aids, with the exception of the
Mohawk tribe which removed to Canada about 1775. Whenever
vacancies occur their places are filled, and a general council
is convened to install the new sachems and their aids. The
present Iroquois are also perfectly familiar with the structure
and principles of the ancient confederacy.
For all purposes of tribal government the five tribes were independent
of each other. Their territories were separated by
fixed boundary lines, and their tribal interests were distinct.
The eight Seneca sachems, in conjunction with the other Seneca
chiefs, formed the council of the tribe by which its affairs
were administered, leaving to each of the other tribes the same
control over their separate interests. As an organization the
tribe was neither weakened nor impaired by the confederate
compact. Each was in vigorous life within its appropriate
sphere, presenting some analogy to our own states within an
embracing republic. It is worthy of remembrance that the
Iroquois commended to our forefathers a union of the colonies
similar to their own as early as 1755. They saw in the common
interests and common speech of the several colonies the
elements for a confederation, which was as far as their vision
was able to penetrate.
The tribes occupied positions of entire equality in the confederacy,
in rights, privileges and obligations. Such special immunities
as were granted to one or another indicate no intention
to establish an unequal compact, or to concede unequal
privileges. There were organic provisions apparently investing
particular tribes with superior power; as, for example, the
Onondagas were allowed fourteen sachems and the Senecas but
eight; and a larger body of sachems would naturally exercise
a stronger influence in council than a smaller. But in this case
it gave no additional power, because the sachems of each tribe
had an equal voice in forming a decision, and a negative upon
the others. When in council they agreed by tribes, and unanimity
in opinion was essential to every public act. The Onondagas
were made “Keepers of the Wampum,” and “Keepers
of the Council Brand,” the Mohawks, “Receivers of Tribute”
from subjugated tribes, and the Senecas “Keepers of the Door”
of the Long House. These and some other similar provisions
were made for the common advantage.
The cohesive principle of the confederacy did not spring exclusively
from the benefits of an alliance for mutual protection,
but had a deeper foundation in the bond of kin. The confederacy
rested upon the tribes ostensibly, but primarily upon
common gentes. All the members of the same gens, whether
Mohawks, Oneidas, Onondagas, Cayugas, or Senecas, were
brothers and sisters to each other in virtue of their descent
from the same common ancestor; and they recognized each
other as such with the fullest cordiality. When they met the
first inquiry was the name of each other’s gens, and next the
immediate pedigree of their respective sachems; after which
they were usually able to find, under their peculiar system of
consanguinity,136 the relationship in which they stood to each
other. Three of the gentes, namely, the Wolf, Bear and
Turtle, were common to the five tribes; these and three others
were common to three tribes. In effect the Wolf gens, through
the division of an original tribe into five, was now in five divisions,
one of which was in each tribe. It was the same with
the Bear and the Turtle gentes. The Deer, Snipe and Hawk
gentes were common to the Senecas, Cayugas and Onondagas.
Between the separated parts of each gens, although its members
spoke different dialects of the same language, there existed
a fraternal connection which linked the nations together with
indissoluble bonds. When the Mohawk of the Wolf gens recognized
an Oneida, Onondaga, Cayuga or Seneca of the same
gens as a brother, and when the members of the other divided
gentes did the same, the relationship was not ideal, but a fact
founded upon consanguinity, and upon faith in an assured
lineage older than their dialects and coeval with their unity as
one people. In the estimation of an Iroquois every member
of his gens in whatever tribe was as certainly a kinsman as an
own brother. This cross-relationship between persons of the
same gens in the different tribes is still preserved and recognized
among them in all its original force. It explains the
tenacity with which the fragments of the old confederacy still
cling together. If either of the five tribes had seceded from
the confederacy it would have severed the bond of kin, although
this would have been felt but slightly. But had they
fallen into collision it would have turned the gens of the Wolf
against their gentile kindred, Bear against Bear, in a word
brother against brother. The history of the Iroquois demonstrates
the reality as well as persistency of the bond of kin, and
the fidelity with which it was respected. During the long
period through which the confederacy endured, they never fell
into anarchy, nor ruptured the organization.
The “Long House” (Ho-de′-no-sote) was made the symbol
of the confederacy; and they styled themselves the “People of
the Long House” (Ho-de′-no-sau-nee). This was the name, and
the only name, with which they distinguished themselves. The
confederacy produced a gentile society more complex than that
of a single tribe, but it was still distinctively a gentile society.
It was, however, a stage of progress in the direction of a nation,
for nationality is reached under gentile institutions. Coalescence
is the last stage in this process. The four Athenian
tribes coalesced in Attica into a nation by the intermingling of
the tribes in the same area, and by the gradual disappearance of
geographical lines between them. The tribal names and organizations
remained in full vitality as before, but without the basis
of an independent territory. When political society was instituted
on the basis of the deme or township, and all the residents
of the deme became a body politic, irrespective of their
gens or tribe, the coalescence became complete.
The coalescence of the Latin and Sabine gentes into the Roman
people and nation was a result of the same processes. In
all alike the gens, phratry and tribe were the first three stages
of organization. The confederacy followed as the fourth. But
it does not appear, either among the Grecian or Latin tribes in
the Later Period of barbarism, that it became more than a loose
league for offensive and defensive purposes. Of the nature and
details of organization of the Grecian and Latin confederacies
our knowledge is limited and imperfect, because the facts are
buried in the obscurity of the traditionary period. The process
of coalescence arises later than the confederacy in gentile
society; but it was a necessary as well as vital stage of progress
by means of which the nation, the state, and political society
were at last attained. Among the Iroquois tribes it had not
manifested itself.
The valley of Onondaga, as the seat of the central tribe, and
the place where the Council Brand was supposed to be perpetually
burning, was the usual though not the exclusive place for
holding the councils of the confederacy. In ancient times it
was summoned to convene in the autumn of each year; but
public exigencies often rendered its meetings more frequent.
Each tribe had power to summon the council, and to appoint
the time and place of meeting at the council-house of either
tribe, when circumstances rendered a change from the usual
place at Onondaga desirable. But the council had no power to
convene itself.
Originally the principal object of the council was to raise up
sachems to fill vacancies in the ranks of the ruling body occasioned
by death or deposition; but it transacted all other business
which concerned the common welfare. In course of time,
as they multiplied in numbers and their intercourse with foreign
tribes became more extended, the council fell into three distinct
kinds, which may be distinguished as Civil, Mourning and Religious.
The first declared war and made peace, sent and received
embassies, entered into treaties with foreign tribes, regulated
the affairs of subjugated tribes, and took all needful
measures to promote the general welfare. The second raised
up sachems and invested them with office. It received the
name of Mourning Council because the first of its ceremonies
was the lament for the deceased ruler whose vacant place was
to be filled. The third was held for the observance of a general
religious festival. It was made an occasion for the confederated
tribes to unite under the auspices of a general council in
the observance of common religious rites. But as the Mourning
Council was attended with many of the same ceremonies it
came, in time, to answer for both. It is now the only council
they hold, as the civil powers of the confederacy terminated
with the supremacy over them of the state.
Invoking the patience of the reader, it is necessary to enter
into some details with respect to the mode of transacting business
at the Civil and Mourning Councils. In no other way can
the archaic condition of society under gentile institutions be so
readily illustrated.
If an overture was made to the confederacy by a foreign
tribe, it might be done through either of the five tribes. It
was the prerogative of the council of the tribe addressed to determine
whether the affair was of sufficient importance to require
a council of the confederacy. After reaching an affirmative
conclusion, a herald was sent to the nearest tribes in
position, on the east and on the west, with a belt of wampum,
which contained a message to the effect that a civil council
(Ho-de-os′-seh) would meet at such a place and time, and for
such an object, each of which was specified. It was the duty
of the tribe receiving the message to forward it to the tribe
next in position, until the notification was made complete.137
No council ever assembled unless it was summoned under the
prescribed forms.
When the sachems met in council, at the time and place appointed,
and the usual reception ceremony had been performed,
they arranged themselves in two divisions and seated themselves
upon opposite sides of the council-fire. Upon one side
were the Mohawk, Onondaga and Seneca sachems. The tribes
they represented were, when in council, brother tribes to each
other and father tribes to the other two. In like manner their
sachems were brothers to each other and fathers to those opposite.
They constituted a phratry of tribes and of sachems, by
an extension of the principle which united gentes in a phratry.
On the opposite side of the fire were the Oneida and Cayuga,
and, at a later day, the Tuscarora sachems. The tribes they
represented were brother tribes to each other, and son tribes to
the opposite three. Their sachems also were brothers to each
other, and sons of those in the opposite division. They formed
a second tribal phratry. As the Oneidas were a subdivision
of the Mohawks, and the Cayugas a subdivision of the Onondagas
or Senecas, they were in reality junior tribes; whence
their relation of seniors and juniors, and the application of the
phratric principle. When the tribes are named in council the
Mohawks by precedence are mentioned first. Their tribal epithet
was “The Shield” (Da-gä-e-o′-dä). The Onondagas came
next under the epithet of “Name-Bearer” (Ho-de-san-no′-ge-tä),
because they had been appointed to select and name the fifty
original sachems.138 Next in the order of precedence were the
Senecas, under the epithet of “Door-Keeper” (Ho-nan-ne-ho′-ont).
They were made perpetual keepers of the western door
of the Long House. The Oneidas, under the epithet of “Great
Tree” (Ne-ar′-de-on-dar′-go-war), and the Cayugas, under that
of “Great Pipe” (So-nus′-ho-gwar-to-war), were named fourth
and fifth. The Tuscaroras, who came late into the confederacy,
were named last, and had no distinguishing epithet. Forms,
such as these, were more important in ancient society than we
would be apt to suppose.
It was customary for the foreign tribe to be represented at
the council by a delegation of wise-men and chiefs, who bore
their proposition and presented it in person. After the council
was formally opened and the delegation introduced, one of the
sachems made a short address, in the course of which he
thanked the Great Spirit for sparing their lives and permitting
them to meet together; after which he informed the delegation
that the council was prepared to hear them upon the affair for
which it had convened. One of the delegates then submitted
their proposition in form, and sustained it by such arguments
as he was able to make. Careful attention was given by the
members of the council that they might clearly comprehend
the matter in hand. After the address was concluded, the delegation
withdrew from the council to await at a distance the
result of its deliberations. It then became the duty of the sachems
to agree upon an answer, which was reached through
the ordinary routine of debate and consultation. When a decision
had been made, a speaker was appointed to communicate
the answer of the council, to receive which the delegation
were recalled. The speaker was usually chosen from the tribe
at whose instance the council had been convened. It was customary
for him to review the whole subject in a formal speech,
in the course of which the acceptance, in whole or in part, or
the rejection of the proposition were announced with the reasons
therefor. Where an agreement was entered upon, belts
of wampum were exchanged as evidence of its terms. With
these proceedings the council terminated.
“This belt preserves my words” was a common remark of
an Iroquois chief in council. He then delivered the belt as the
evidence of what he had said. Several such belts would be
given in the course of a negotiation to the opposite party. In
the reply of the latter a belt would be returned for each proposition
accepted. The Iroquois experienced the necessity for
an exact record of some kind of a proposition involving their
faith and honor in its execution, and they devised this method
to place it beyond dispute.
Unanimity among the sachems was required upon all public
questions, and essential to the validity of every public act. It
was a fundamental law of the confederacy.139 They adopted a
method for ascertaining the opinions of the members of the
council which dispensed with the necessity of casting votes.
Moreover, they were entirely unacquainted with the principle
of majorities and minorities in the action of councils. They
voted in council by tribes, and the sachems of each tribe were
required to be of one mind to form a decision. Recognizing
unanimity as a necessary principle, the founders of the confederacy
divided the sachems of each tribe into classes as a means
for its attainment. This will be seen by consulting the table,
(supra p. 130). No sachem was allowed to express an opinion
in council in the nature of a vote until he had first agreed with
the sachem or sachems of his class upon the opinion to be expressed,
and had been appointed to act as speaker for the class.
Thus the eight Seneca sachems being in four classes could have
but four opinions, and the ten Cayuga sachems, being in the
same number of classes, could have but four. In this manner
the sachems in each class were first brought to unanimity
among themselves. A cross-consultation was then held between
the four sachems appointed to speak for the four classes;
and when they had agreed, they designated one of their number
to express their resulting opinion, which was the answer of
their tribe. When the sachems of the several tribes had, by
this ingenious method, become of one mind separately, it remained
to compare their several opinions, and if they agreed
the decision of the council was made. If they failed of agreement
the measure was defeated, and the council was at an end.
The five persons appointed to express the decision of the five
tribes may possibly explain the appointment and the functions
of the six electors, so called, in the Aztec confederacy, which
will be noticed elsewhere.
By this method of gaining assent the equality and independence
of the several tribes were recognized and preserved. If
any sachem was obdurate or unreasonable, influences were
brought to bear upon him, through the preponderating sentiment,
which he could not well resist; so that it seldom happened
that inconvenience or detriment resulted from their adherence
to the rule. Whenever all efforts to procure unanimity
had failed, the whole matter was laid aside because further
action had become impossible.
The induction of new sachems into office was an event of
great interest to the people, and not less to the sachems who
retained thereby some control over the introduction of new
members into their body. To perform the ceremony of raising
up sachems the general council was primarily instituted. It
was named at the time, or came afterwards to be called, the
Mourning Council (Hen-nun-do-nuh′-seh), because it embraced
the twofold object of lamenting the death of the departed
sachems and of installing his successor. Upon the death of a
sachem, the tribe in which the loss had occurred had power to
summon a general council, and to name the time and place of
its meeting. A herald was sent out with a belt of wampum,
usually the official belt of the deceased sachem given to him at
his installation, which conveyed this laconic message;—“the
name” (mentioning that of the late ruler) “calls for a council.”
It also announced the day and place of convocation. In some
cases the official belt of the sachem was sent to the central
council-fire at Onondaga immediately after his burial, as a
notification of his demise, and the time for holding the council
was determined afterwards.
The Mourning Council, with the festivities which followed
the investiture of sachems, possessed remarkable attractions for
the Iroquois. They flocked to its attendance from the most
distant localities with zeal and enthusiasm. It was opened and
conducted with many forms and ceremonies, and usually lasted
five days. The first was devoted to the prescribed ceremony
of lamentations for the deceased sachem, which, as a religious
act, commenced at the rising of the sun. At this time the
sachems of the tribe, with whom the council was held, marched
out followed by their tribesmen, to receive formally the
sachems and people of the other tribes, who had arrived before
and remained encamped at some distance waiting for the appointed
day. After exchanging greetings, a procession was
formed and the lament was chanted in verse, with responses,
by the united tribes, as they marched from the place of reception
to the place of council. The lament, with the responses in
chorus, was a tribute of respect to the memory of the departed
sachem, in which not only his gens, but his tribe, and the confederacy
itself participated. It was certainly a more delicate
testimonial of respect and affection than would have been expected
from a barbarous people. This ceremonial, with the
opening of the council, concluded the first day’s proceedings.
On the second day, the installation ceremony commenced, and
it usually lasted into the fourth. The sachems of the several
tribes seated themselves in two divisions, as at the civil council.
When the sachem to be raised up belonged to either of the
three senior tribes the ceremony was performed by the sachems
of the junior tribes, and the new sachem was installed as a
father. In like manner, if he belonged to either of the three
junior tribes the ceremony was performed by the sachems of
the senior tribes, and the new sachem was installed as a son.
These special circumstances are mentioned to show the peculiar
character of their social and governmental life. To the Iroquois
these forms and figures of speech were full of significance.
Among other things, the ancient wampum belts, into
which the structure and principles of the confederacy “had
been talked,” to use their expression, were produced and read
or interpreted for the instruction of the newly inducted sachem.
A wise-man, not necessarily one of the sachems, took these
belts one after the other and walking to and fro between the
two divisions of sachems, read from them the facts which they
recorded. According to the Indian conception, these belts can
tell, by means of an interpreter, the exact rule, provision or
transaction talked into them at the time, and of which they
were the exclusive record. A strand of wampum consisting of
strings of purple and white shell beads, or a belt woven with
figures formed by beads of different colors, operated on the principle
of associating a particular fact with a particular string or figure;
thus giving a serial arrangement to the facts as well as fidelity
to the memory. These strands and belts of wampum were the
only visible records of the Iroquois; but they required those
trained interpreters who could draw from their strings and figures
the records locked up in their remembrance. One of the
Onondaga sachems (Ho-no-we-nă′-to) was made “Keeper of
the Wampum,” and two aids were raised up with him who were
required to be versed in its interpretation as well as the sachem.
The interpretation of these several belts and strings
brought out, in the address of the wise-man, a connected account
of the occurrences at the formation of the confederacy.
The tradition was repeated in full, and fortified in its essential
parts by reference to the record contained in these belts. Thus
the council to raise up sachems became a teaching council,
which maintained in perpetual freshness in the minds of the
Iroquois the structure and principles of the confederacy, as well
as the history of its formation. These proceedings occupied
the council until noon each day; the afternoon being devoted
to games and amusements. At twilight each day a dinner in
common was served to the entire body in attendance. It consisted
of soup and boiled meat cooked near the council-house,
and served directly from the kettle in wooden bowls, trays and
ladles. Grace was said before the feast commenced. It was a
prolonged exclamation by a single person on a high shrill note,
falling down in cadences into stillness, followed by a response
in chorus by the people. The evenings were devoted to the
dance. With these ceremonies, continued for several days, and
with the festivities that followed, their sachems were inducted
into office.
By investing their sachems with office through a general
council, the framers of the confederacy had in view the threefold
object of a perpetual succession in the gens, the benefits
of a free election among its members, and a final supervision
of the choice through the ceremony of investiture. To render
the latter effective it should carry with it the power to reject
the nominee. Whether the right to invest was purely functional,
or carried with it the right to exclude, I am unable to
state. No case of rejection is mentioned. The scheme adopted
by the Iroquois to maintain a ruling body of sachems may
claim, in several respects, the merit of originality, as well as of
adaptation to their condition. In form an oligarchy, taking
this term in its best sense, it was yet a representative democracy
of the archaic type. A powerful popular element pervaded
the whole organism and influenced its action. It is seen
in the right of the gentes to elect and depose their sachems and
chiefs, in the right of the people to be heard in council through
orators of their own selection, and in the voluntary system in
the military service. In this and the next succeeding ethnical
period democratic principles were the vital element of gentile
society.
The Iroquois name for a sachem (Ho-yar-na-go′-war), which
signifies “a counselor of the people,” was singularly appropriate
to a ruler in a species of free democracy. It not only defines
the office well, but it also suggests the analogous designation
of the members of the Grecian council of chiefs. The
Grecian chiefs were styled “councilors of the people.”140 From
the nature and tenure of the office among the Iroquois the sachems
were not masters ruling by independent right, but representatives
holding from the gentes by free election. It is
worthy of notice that an office which originated in savagery,
and continued through the three sub-periods of barbarism,
should reveal so much of its archaic character among the Greeks
after the gentile organization had carried this portion of the
human family to the confines of civilization. It shows further
how deeply inwrought in the human mind the principle of democracy
had become under gentilism.
The designation for a chief of the second grade, Ha-sa-no-wä′-na,
“an elevated name,” indicates an appreciation by barbarians
of the ordinary motives for personal ambition. It also
reveals the sameness of the nature of man, whether high up or
low down upon the rounds of the ladder of progress. The celebrated
orators, wise-men, and war-chiefs of the Iroquois were
chiefs of the second grade almost without exception. One
reason for this may be found in the organic provision which
confined the duties of the sachem to the affairs of peace. Another
may have been to exclude from the ruling body their
ablest men, lest their ambitious aims should disturb its action.
As the office of chief was bestowed in reward of merit, it fell
necessarily upon their ablest men. Red-Jacket, Brandt, Garangula,
Cornplanter, Farmer’s Brother, Frost, Johnson, and other
well known Iroquois, were chiefs as distinguished from sachems.
None of the long lines of sachems have become distinguished
in American annals, with the exception of Logan,141 Handsome
Lake,142 and at a recent day, Ely S. Parker.143 The remainder
have left no remembrance behind them extending beyond the
Iroquois.
At the time the confederacy was formed To-do-dä′-ho was
the most prominent and influential of the Onondaga chiefs.
His accession to the plan of a confederacy, in which he would
experience a diminution of power, was regarded as highly
meritorious. He was raised up as one of the Onondaga sachems
and his name placed first in the list. Two assistant
sachems were raised up with him to act as his aids and to
stand behind him on public occasions. Thus dignified, this
sachemship has since been regarded by the Iroquois as the
most illustrious of the forty-eight, from the services rendered
by the first To-do-dä′-ho. The circumstance was early seized
upon by the inquisitive colonists to advance the person who
held this office to the position of king of the Iroquois; but the
misconception was refuted, and the institutions of the Iroquois
were relieved of the burden of an impossible feature. In the
general council he sat among his equals. The confederacy had
no chief executive magistrate.
Under a confederacy of tribes the office of general, (Hos-gä-ä-geh′-da-go-wä)
“Great War Soldier,” makes its first appearance.
Cases would now arise when the several tribes in
their confederate capacity would be engaged in war; and the
necessity for a general commander to direct the movements of
the united bands would be felt. The introduction of this office
as a permanent feature in the government was a great event in
the history of human progress. It was the beginning of a differentiation
of the military from the civil power, which, when
completed, changed essentially the external manifestation of
the government. But even in later stages of progress, when
the military spirit predominated, the essential character of the
government was not changed. Gentilism arrested usurpation.
With the rise of the office of general, the government was
gradually changed from a government of one power, into a
government of two powers. The functions of government
became, in course of time, co-ordinated between the two.
This new office was the germ of that of a chief executive magistrate;
for out of the general came the king, the emperor, and
the president, as elsewhere suggested. The office sprang from
the military necessities of society, and had a logical development.
For this reason its first appearance and subsequent
growth have an important place in this discussion. In the course
of this volume I shall attempt to trace the progressive development
of this office, from the Great War Soldier of the Iroquois
through the Teuctli of the Aztecs, to the Basileus of the Grecian,
and the Rex of the Roman tribes; among all of whom,
through three successive ethnical periods, the office was the
same, namely, that of a general in a military democracy.
Among the Iroquois, the Aztecs, and the Romans the office
was elective, or confirmative, by a constituency. Presumptively,
it was the same among the Greeks of the traditionary
period. It is claimed that the office of basileus among the
Grecian tribes in the Homeric period was hereditary from
father to son. This is at least doubtful. It is such a wide and
total departure from the original tenure of the office as to require
positive evidence to establish the fact. An election, or
confirmation by a constituency, would still be necessary under
gentile institutions. If in numerous instances it were known
that the office had passed from father to son this might have
suggested the inference of hereditary succession, now adopted
as historically true, while succession in this form did not exist.
Unfortunately, an intimate knowledge of the organization and
usages of society in the traditionary period is altogether wanting.
Great principles of human action furnish the safest guide
when their operation must have been necessary. It is far
more probable that hereditary succession, when it first came
in, was established by force, than by the free consent of the
people; and that it did not exist among the Grecian tribes in
the Homeric period.
When the Iroquois confederacy was formed, or soon after
that event, two permanent war-chiefships were created and
named, and both were assigned to the Seneca tribe. One of
them (Ta-wan′-ne-ars, signifying needle-breaker) was made
hereditary in the Wolf, and the other (So-no′-so-wä, signifying
great oyster shell) in the Turtle gens. The reason assigned
for giving them both to the Senecas was the greater danger of
attack at the west end of their territories. They were elected
in the same manner as the sachems, were raised up by a general
council, and were equal in rank and power. Another account
states that they were created later. They discovered immediately
after the confederacy was formed that the structure of the
Long House was incomplete because there were no officers to
execute the military commands of the confederacy. A council
was convened to remedy the omission, which established the
two perpetual war-chiefs named. As general commanders
they had charge of the military affairs of the confederacy, and
the command of its joint forces when united in a general expedition.
Governor Blacksnake, recently deceased, held the
office first named, thus showing that the succession has been
regularly maintained. The creation of two principal war-chiefs
instead of one, and with equal powers, argues a subtle and calculating
policy to prevent the domination of a single man even
in their military affairs. They did without experience precisely
as the Romans did in creating two consuls instead of one,
after they had abolished the office of rex. Two consuls would
balance the military power between them, and prevent either
from becoming supreme. Among the Iroquois this office
never became influential.
In Indian Ethnography the subjects of primary importance
are the gens, phratry, tribe and confederacy. They exhibit the
organization of society. Next to these are the tenure and
functions of the office of sachem and chief, the functions of the
council of chiefs, and the tenure and functions of the office of
principal war-chief. When these are ascertained, the structure
and principles of their governmental system will be known. A
knowledge of their usages and customs, of their arts and inventions,
and of their plan of life will then fill out the picture. In
the work of American investigators too little attention has been
given to the former. They still afford a rich field in which
much information may be gathered. Our knowledge, which
is now general, should be made minute and comparative. The
Indian tribes in the Lower, and in the Middle Status of barbarism,
represent two of the great stages of progress from savagery
to civilization. Our own remote forefathers passed through
the same conditions, one after the other, and possessed, there
can scarcely be a doubt, the same, or very similar institutions,
with many of the same usages and customs. However little
we may be interested in the American Indians personally,
their experience touches us more nearly, as an exemplification
of the experience of our own ancestors. Our primary institutions
root themselves in a prior gentile society in which the
gens, phratry and tribe were the organic series, and in which the
council of chiefs was the instrument of government. The phenomena
of their ancient society must have presented many
points in common with that of the Iroquois and other Indian
tribes. This view of the matter lends an additional interest to
the comparative institutions of mankind.
The Iroquois confederacy is an excellent exemplification of
a gentile society under this form of organization. It seems to
realize all the capabilities of gentile institutions in the Lower
Status of barbarism; leaving an opportunity for further development,
but no subsequent plan of government until the institutions
of political society, founded upon territory and upon property,
with the establishment of which the gentile organization
would be overthrown. The intermediate stages were transitional,
remaining military democracies to the end, except where
tyrannies founded upon usurpation were temporarily established
in their places. The confederacy of the Iroquois was essentially
democratical; because it was composed of gentes each of which
was organized upon the common principles of democracy, not
of the highest but of the primitive type, and because the tribes
reserved the right of local self-government. They conquered
other tribes and held them in subjection, as for example the
Delawares; but the latter remained under the government of
their own chiefs, and added nothing to the strength of the confederacy.
It was impossible in this state of society to unite
tribes under one government who spoke different languages, or
to hold conquered tribes under tribute with any benefit but the
tribute.
This exposition of the Iroquois confederacy is far from exhaustive
of the facts, but it has been carried far enough to answer
my present object. The Iroquois were a vigorous and
intelligent people, with a brain approaching in volume the
Aryan average. Eloquent in oratory, vindictive in war, and
indomitable in perseverance, they have gained a place in history.
If their military achievements are dreary with the atrocities
of savage warfare, they have illustrated some of the highest
virtues of mankind in their relations with each other. The
confederacy which they organized must be regarded as a remarkable
production of wisdom and sagacity. One of its
avowed objects was peace; to remove the cause of strife by
uniting their tribes under one government, and then extending
it by incorporating other tribes of the same name and lineage.
They urged the Eries and the Neutral Nation to become members
of the confederacy, and for their refusal expelled them
from their borders. Such an insight into the highest objects
of government is creditable to their intelligence. Their numbers
were small, but they counted in their ranks a large number
of able men. This proves the high grade of the stock.
From their position and military strength they exercised a
marked influence upon the course of events between the English
and the French in their competition for supremacy in
North America. As the two were nearly equal in power and
resources during the first century of colonization, the French
may ascribe to the Iroquois, in no small degree, the overthrow
of their plans of empire in the New World.
With a knowledge of the gens in its archaic form and of its
capabilities as the unit of a social system, we shall be better able
to understand the gentes of the Greeks and Romans yet to be
considered. The same scheme of government composed of
gentes, phratries and tribes in a gentile society will be found
among them as they stood at the threshold of civilization, with
the superadded experience of two entire ethnical periods.
Descent among them was in the male line, property was inherited
by the children of the owner instead of the agnatic
kindred, and the family was now assuming the monogamian
form. The growth of property, now becoming a commanding
element, and the increase of numbers gathered in walled cities
were slowly demonstrating the necessity for the second great
plan of government—the political. The old gentile system
was becoming incapable of meeting the requirements of society
as it approached civilization. Glimpses of a state, founded
upon territory and property, were breaking upon the Grecian
and Roman minds before which gentes and tribes were to disappear.
To enter upon the second plan of government, it was
necessary to supersede the gentes by townships and city wards—the
gentile by a territorial system. The going down of the
gentes and the uprising of organized townships mark the dividing
line, pretty nearly, between the barbarian and the civilized
worlds—between ancient and modern society.
Divisions of American Aborigines.—Gentes in Indian Tribes; with
their Rules of Descent and Inheritance.—I. Hodenosaunian Tribes.—II.
Dakotian.—III. Gulf.—IV. Pawnee.—V. Algonkin.—VI. Athapasco-Apache.—VII.
Tribes of Northwest Coast.—Eskimos, a Distinct Family.—VIII.
Salish, Sahaptin, and Kootenay Tribes.—IX. Shoshonee.—X.
Village Indians of New Mexico, Mexico and Central America.—XI.
South American Indian Tribes.—Probable Universality of the Organization
in Gentes in the Ganowánian Family.
When America was first discovered in its several regions, the
Aborigines were found in two dissimilar conditions. First
were the Village Indians, who depended almost exclusively
upon horticulture for subsistence; such were the tribes in this
status in New Mexico, Mexico and Central America, and upon
the plateau of the Andes. Second, were the Non-horticultural
Indians, who depended upon fish, bread-roots and game;
such were the Indians of the Valley of the Columbia, of the
Hudson’s Bay Territory, of parts of Canada, and of some other
sections of America. Between these tribes, and connecting the
extremes by insensible gradations, were the partially Village,
and partially Horticultural Indians; such were the Iroquois, the
New England and Virginia Indians, the Creeks, Choctas, Cherokees,
Minnitarees, Dakotas and Shawnees. The weapons,
arts, usages, inventions, dances, house architecture, form of
government, and plan of life of all alike bear the impress of a
common mind, and reveal, through their wide range, the successive
stages of development of the same original conceptions.
Our first mistake consisted in overrating the comparative advancement
of the Village Indians; and our second in underrating
that of the Non-horticultural, and of the partially Village
Indians: whence resulted a third, that of separating one
from the other and regarding them as different races. There
was a marked difference in the conditions in which they were
severally found; for a number of the Non-horticultural tribes
were in the Upper Status of savagery; the intermediate tribes
were in the Lower Status of barbarism, and the Village Indians
were in the Middle Status. The evidence of their unity of origin
has now accumulated to such a degree as to leave no reasonable
doubt upon the question, although this conclusion is not
universally accepted. The Eskimos belong to a different family.
In a previous work I presented the system of consanguinity
and affinity of some seventy American Indian tribes; and
upon the fact of their joint possession of the same system, with
evidence of its derivation from a common source, ventured to
claim for them the distinctive rank of a family of mankind, under
the name of the Ganowánian, the “Family of the Bow and
Arrow.”144
Having considered the attributes of the gens in its archaic
form, it remains to indicate the extent of its prevalence in the
tribes of the Ganowánian family. In this chapter the organization
will be traced among them, confining the statements to
the names of the gentes in each tribe, with their rules of descent
and inheritance as to property and office. Further explanations
will be added when necessary. The main point to
be established is the existence or non-existence of the gentile
organization among them. Wherever the institution has been
found in these several tribes it is the same in all essential respects
as the gens of the Iroquois, and therefore needs no further
exposition in this connection. Unless the contrary is
stated, it may be understood that the existence of the organization
was ascertained by the author from the Indian tribe or
some of its members. The classification of tribes follows that
adopted in “Systems of Consanguinity.”
I. Hodenosaunian Tribes.
1. Iroquois. The gentes of the Iroquois have been considered.145
2. Wyandotes. This tribe, the remains of the ancient Hurons,
is composed of eight gentes, as follows:
| 1. Wolf. | 2. Bear. | 3. Beaver. | 4. Turtle. |
| 5. Deer. | 6. Snake. | 7. Porcupine. | 8. Hawk.146 |
Descent is in the female line, with marriage in the gens prohibited.
The office of sachem, or civil chief, is hereditary in
the gens, but elective among its members. They have seven
sachems and seven war-chiefs, the Hawk gens being now extinct.
The office of sachem passes from brother to brother, or
from uncle to nephew; but that of war-chief was bestowed in
reward of merit, and was not hereditary. Property was hereditary
in the gens, consequently children took nothing from
their father; but they inherited their mother’s effects. Where
the rule is stated hereafter it will be understood that unmarried
as well as married persons are included. Each gens had
power to depose as well as elect its chiefs. The Wyandotes
have been separated from the Iroquois at least four hundred
years; but they still have five gentes in common, although
their names have either changed beyond identification, or new
names have been substituted by one or the other.
The Eries, Neutral Nation, Nottoways, Tutelos,147 and Susquehannocks148
now extinct or absorbed in other tribes, belong
to the same lineage. Presumptively they were organized in
gentes, but the evidence of the fact is lost.
II. Dakotian Tribes.
A large number of tribes are included in this great stock of
the American aborigines. At the time of their discovery they
had fallen into a number of groups, and their language into a
number of dialects; but they inhabited, in the main, continuous
areas. They occupied the head waters of the Mississippi, and
both banks of the Missouri for more than a thousand miles in
extent. In all probability the Iroquois, and their cognate
tribes, were an offshoot from this stem.
1. Dakotas or Sioux. The Dakotas, consisting at the present
time of some twelve independent tribes, have allowed the
gentile organization to fall into decadence. It seems substantially
certain that they once possessed it because their nearest
congeners, the Missouri tribes, are now thus organized. They
have societies named after animals analogous to gentes, but
the latter are now wanting. Carver, who was among them in
1767, remarks that “every separate body of Indians is divided
into bands or tribes; which band or tribe forms a little community
with the nation to which it belongs. As the nation has some
particular symbol by which it is distinguished from others, so
each tribe has a badge from which it is denominated; as that of
the eagle, the panther, the tiger, the buffalo, etc. One band of
the Naudowissies [Sioux] is represented by a Snake, another a
Tortoise, a third a Squirrel, a fourth a Wolf, and a fifth a Buffalo.
Throughout every nation they particularize themselves in
the same manner, and the meanest person among them will remember
his lineal descent, and distinguish himself by his respective
family.”149 He visited the eastern Dakotas on the Mississippi.
From this specific statement I see no reason to doubt
that the gentile organization was then in full vitality among
them. When I visited the eastern Dakotas in 1861, and the
western in 1862, I could find no satisfactory traces of gentes
among them. A change in the mode of life among the Dakotas
occurred between these dates when they were forced upon
the plains, and fell into nomadic bands, which may, perhaps,
explain the decadence of gentilism among them.
Carver also noticed the two grades of chiefs among the
western Indians, which have been explained as they exist
among the Iroquois. “Every band,” he observes, “has a chief
who is termed the Great Chief, or the Chief Warrior, and who
is chosen in consideration of his experience in war, and of his
approved valor, to direct their military operations, and to regulate
all concerns belonging to that department. But this
chief is not considered the head of the state; besides the great
warrior who is elected for his warlike qualifications, there is
another who enjoys a pre-eminence as his hereditary right, and
has the more immediate management of their civil affairs. This
chief might with greater propriety be denominated the sachem;
whose assent is necessary to all conveyances and treaties, to
which he affixes the mark of the tribe or nation.”150
2. Missouri tribes. 1. Punkas. This tribe is composed of
eight gentes, as follows:
| 1. Grizzly Bear. |
2. Many People. |
3. Elk. |
4. Skunk. |
| 5. Buffalo. |
6. Snake. |
7. Medicine. |
8. Ice.151 |
In this tribe, contrary to the general rule, descent is in the
male line, the children belonging to the gens of their father.
Intermarriage in the gens is prohibited. The office of sachem
is hereditary in the gens, the choice being determined by election;
but the sons of a deceased sachem are eligible. It is
probable that the change from the archaic form was recent,
from the fact that among the Otoes and Missouris, two of the
eight Missouri tribes, and also among the Mandans, descent is
still in the female line. Property is hereditary in the gens.
2. Omahas. This tribe is composed of the following twelve
gentes:
| 1. Deer. |
2. Black. |
3. Bird. |
4. Turtle. |
| 5. Buffalo. |
6. Bear. |
7. Medicine. |
8. Kaw. |
| 9. Head. |
10. Red. |
11. Thunder. |
12. Many Seasons.152 |
Descent, inheritance, and the law of marriage are the same
as among the Punkas.
3. Iowas. In like manner the Iowas have eight gentes, as
follows:
| 1. Wolf. |
2. Bear. |
3. Cow Buffalo. |
4. Elk. |
| 5. Eagle. |
6. Pigeon. |
7. Snake. |
8. Owl.153 |
A gens of the Beaver Pä-kuh′-thä once existed among the
Iowas and Otoes, but it is now extinct. Descent, inheritance,
and the prohibition of intermarriage in the gens are the same
as among the Punkas.
4. Otoes and Missouris. These tribes have coalesced into
one, and have the eight following gentes:
| 1. Wolf. |
2. Bear. |
3. Cow Buffalo. |
4.Elk. |
| 5. Eagle. |
6. Pigeon. |
7. Snake. |
8. Owl.154 |
Descent among the Otoes and Missouris is in the female
line, the children belonging to the gens of their mother. The
office of sachem, and property are hereditary in the gens, in
which intermarriage is prohibited.
5. Kaws. The Kaws (Kaw′-ză) have the following fourteen
gentes:
| 1. Deer. |
2. Bear. |
3. Buffalo. |
4. Eagle (white). |
| 5. Eagle (black). |
6. Duck. |
7. Elk. |
8. Raccoon. |
| 9. Prairie Wolf. |
10. Turtle. |
11. Earth. |
12. Deer Tail. |
| 13. Tent. |
14. Thunder.155 |
|
|
The Kaws are among the wildest of the American aborigines,
but are an intelligent and interesting people. Descent,
inheritance and marriage regulations among them are the
same as among the Punkas. It will be observed that there are
two Eagle gentes, and two of the Deer, which afford a good
illustration of the segmentation of a gens; the Eagle gens having
probably divided into two and distinguished themselves by
the names of white and black. The Turtle will be found hereafter
as a further illustration of the same fact. When I visited
the Missouri tribes in 1859 and 1860, I was unable to reach the
Osages and Quappas. The eight tribes thus named speak
closely affiliated dialects of the Dakotian stock language, and
the presumption that the Osages and Quappas are organized
in gentes is substantially conclusive. In 1869, the Kaws, then
much reduced, numbered seven hundred, which would give an
average of but fifty persons to a gens. The home country of
these several tribes was along the Missouri and its tributaries
from the mouth of the Big Sioux river to the Mississippi, and
down the west bank of the latter river to the Arkansas.
3. Winnebagoes. When discovered this tribe resided near
the lake of their name in Wisconsin. An offshoot from the
Dakotian stem, they were apparently following the track of the
Iroquois eastward to the valley of the St. Lawrence, when
their further progress in that direction was arrested by the Algonkin
tribes between Lakes Huron and Superior. Their nearest
affiliation is with the Missouri tribes. They have eight
gentes as follows:
| 1. Wolf. |
2. Bear. |
3. Buffalo. |
4. Eagle. |
| 5. Elk. |
6. Deer. |
7. Snake. |
8. Thunder.156 |
Descent, inheritance, and the law of marriage are the same
among them as among the Punkas. It is surprising that so
many tribes of this stock should have changed descent from
the female line to the male, because when first known the idea
of property was substantially undeveloped, or but slightly beyond
the germinating stage, and could hardly, as among the
Greeks and Romans, have been the operative cause. It is
probable that it occurred at a recent period under American
and missionary influences. Carver found traces of descent in
the female line in 1787 among the Winnebagoes. “Some nations,”
he remarks, “when the dignity is hereditary, limit the
succession to the female line. On the death of a chief his sisters’
son succeeds him in preference to his own son; and if he
happens to have no sister the nearest female relation assumes
the dignity. This accounts for a woman being at the head of
the Winnebago nation, which, before I was acquainted with
their laws, appeared strange to me.”157 In 1869, the Winnebagoes
numbered fourteen hundred, which would give an average
of one hundred and fifty persons to the gens.
4. Upper Missouri Tribes.
1. Mandans. In intelligence and in the arts of life the
Mandans were in advance of all their kindred tribes, for which
they were probably indebted to the Minnitarees. They are
divided into seven gentes as follows:
| 1. Wolf. |
2. Bear. |
3. Prairie Chicken. |
4. Good Knife. |
| 5. Eagle. |
6. Flathead. |
7. High Village.158 |
|
Descent is in the female line, with office and property hereditary
in the gens. Intermarriage in the gens is not permitted.
Descent in the female line among the Mandans would be singular
where so many tribes of the same stock have it in the
male, were it not in the archaic form from which the other
tribes had but recently departed. It affords a strong presumption
that it was originally in the female line in all the Dakotian
tribes. This information with respect to the Mandans was obtained
at the old Mandan Village in the Upper Missouri, in
1862, from Joseph Kip, whose mother was a Mandan woman.
He confirmed the fact of descent by naming his mother’s gens,
which was also his own.
2. Minnitarees. This tribe and the Upsarokas (Up-sar′-o-kas)
or Crows, are subdivisions of an original people. They
are doubtful members of this branch of the Ganowánian family:
although from the number of words in their dialects and in
those of the Missouri and Dakota tribes which are common,
they have been placed with them linguistically. They have
had an antecedent experience of which but little is known.
Minnitarees carried horticulture, the timber-framed house, and
a peculiar religious system into this area which they taught to
the Mandans. There is a possibility that they are descendants
of the Mound-Builders. They have the seven following
gentes:
| 1. Knife. |
2. Water. |
3. Lodge. |
| 4. Prairie Chicken. |
5. Hill People. |
6. Unknown Animal. |
| |
7. Bonnet.159 |
|
Descent is in the female line, intermarriage in the gens is
forbidden, and the office of sachem as well as property is
hereditary in the gens. The Minnitarees and Mandans now
live together in the same village. In personal appearance
they are among the finest specimens of the Red Man now living
in any part of North America.
3. Upsarokas or Crows. This tribe has the following gentes:
| 1. Prairie Dog. |
2. Bad Leggins. |
| 3. Skunk. |
4. Treacherous Lodges. |
| 5. Lost Lodges. |
6. Bad Honors. |
| 7. Butchers. |
8. Moving Lodges. |
| 9. Bear’s Paw Mountain. |
10. Blackfoot Lodges. |
| 11. Fish Catchers. |
12. Antelope. |
| 13. Raven.160 |
Descent, inheritance and the prohibition of intermarriage in
the gens, are the same as among the Minnitarees. Several of
the names of the Crow gentes are unusual, and more suggestive
of bands than of gentes. For a time I was inclined to discredit
them. But the existence of the organization into gentes was
clearly established by their rules of descent, and marital usages,
and by their laws of inheritance with respect to property. My
interpreter when among the Crows was Robert Meldrum, then
one of the factors of the American Fur Company, who had
lived with the Crows forty years, and was one of their chiefs.
He had mastered the language so completely that he thought
in it. The following special usages with respect to inheritance
were mentioned by him. If a person to whom any article of
property had been presented died with it in his possession, and
the donor was dead, it reverted to the gens of the latter.
Property made or acquired by a wife descended after her death
to her children; while that of her husband after his decease belonged
to his gentile kindred. If a person made a present to
a friend and died, the latter must perform some recognized act
of mourning, such as cutting off the joint of a finger at the
funeral, or surrender the property to the gens of his deceased
friend.161
The Crows have a custom with respect to marriage, which I
have found in at least forty other Indian tribes, which may be
mentioned here, because some use will be made of it in a subsequent
chapter. If a man marries the eldest daughter in a
family he is entitled to all her sisters as additional wives when
they attain maturity. He may waive the right, but if he insists,
his superior claim would be recognized by her gens.
Polygamy is allowed by usage among the American aborigines
generally; but it was never prevalent to any considerable extent
from the inability of persons to support more than one
family. Direct proof of the existence of the custom first mentioned
was afforded by Meldrum’s wife, then at the age of twenty-five.
She was captured when a child in a foray upon the Blackfeet,
and became Meldrum’s captive. He induced his mother-in-law
to adopt the child into her gens and family, which made
the captive the younger sister of his then wife, and gave him
the right to take her as another wife when she reached maturity.
He availed himself of this usage of the tribe to make his
claim paramount. This usage has a great antiquity in the
human family. It is a survival of the old custom of punalua.
III. Gulf Tribes.
1. Muscokees or Creeks. The Creek Confederacy consisted
of six Tribes; namely, the Creeks, Hitchetes, Yoochees, Alabamas,
Coosatees, and Natches, all of whom spoke dialects of
the same language, with the exception of the Natches, who
were admitted into the confederacy after their overthrow by
the French.
The Creeks are composed of twenty-two gentes as follows:
| 1. Wolf. |
2. Bear. |
3. Skunk. |
| 4. Alligator. |
5. Deer. |
6. Bird. |
| 7. Tiger. |
8. Wind. |
9. Toad. |
| 10. Mole. |
11. Fox. |
12. Raccoon. |
| 13. Fish. |
14. Corn. |
15. Potatoe. |
| 16. Hickory Nut. |
17. Salt. |
18. Wild Cat. |
| 19. (Sig’n Lost). |
20. (Sig’n Lost).162 |
21. (Sig’n Lost). |
| |
22. (Sig’n Lost).163 |
|
The remaining tribes of this confederacy are said to have had
the organization into gentes, as the author was informed by the
Rev. S. M. Loughridge, who was for many years a missionary
among the Creeks, and who furnished the names of the gentes
above given. He further stated that descent among the Creeks
was in the female line; that the office of sachem and the property
of deceased persons were hereditary in the gens, and that
intermarriage in the gens was prohibited. At the present time
the Creeks are partially civilized with a changed plan of life.
They have substituted a political in place of the old social system,
so that in a few years all traces of their old gentile institutions
will have disappeared. In 1869 they numbered about
fifteen thousand, which would give an average of five hundred
and fifty persons to the gens.
2. Choctas. Among the Choctas the phratric organization
appears in a conspicuous manner, because each phratry is
named, and stands out plainly as a phratry. It doubtless existed
in a majority of the tribes previously named, but the subject
has not been specially investigated. The tribe of the
Creeks consists of eight gentes arranged in two phratries, composed
of four gentes each, as among the Iroquois.
| I. Divided People. (First Phratry). |
| 1. Reed. |
2. Law Okla. |
3. Lulak. |
4. Linoklusha. |
| II. Beloved People. (Second Phratry). |
| 1. Beloved People. |
2. Small People. |
| 3. Large People. |
4. Cray Fish.164 |
The gentes of the same phratry could not intermarry; but
the members of either of the first gentes could marry into either
gens of the second, and vice versâ. It shows that the Choctas,
like the Iroquois, commenced with two gentes, each of
which afterwards subdivided into four, and that the original
prohibition of intermarriage in the gens had followed the subdivisions.
Descent among the Choctas was in the female line.
Property and the office of sachem were hereditary in the gens.
In 1869 they numbered some twelve thousand, which would
give an average of fifteen hundred persons to a gens. The
foregoing information was communicated to the author by the
late Dr. Cyrus Byington, who entered the missionary service
in this tribe in 1820 while they still resided in their ancient territory
east of the Mississippi, who removed with them to the Indian
Territory, and died in the missionary service about the
year 1868, after forty-five years of missionary labors. A man
of singular excellence and purity of character, he has left behind
him a name and a memory of which humanity may be
proud.
A Chocta once expressed to Dr. Byington a wish that he
might be made a citizen of the United States, for the reason
that his children would then inherit his property instead of his
gentile kindred under the old law of the gens. Chocta usages
would distribute his property after his death among his brothers
and sisters and the children of his sisters. He could, however,
give his property to his children in his life-time, in which
case they could hold it against the members of his gens. Many
Indian tribes now have considerable property in domestic animals
and in houses and lands owned by individuals, among
whom the practice of giving it to their children in their life-time
has become common to avoid gentile inheritance. As property
increased in quantity the disinheritance of children began
to arouse opposition to gentile inheritance; and in some of the
tribes, that of the Choctas among the number, the old usage
was abolished a few years since, and the right to inherit was
vested exclusively in the children of the deceased owner. It
came, however, through the substitution of a political system in
the place of the gentile system, an elective council and magistracy
being substituted in place of the old government of
chiefs. Under the previous usages the wife inherited nothing
from her husband, nor he from her; but the wife’s effects were
divided among her children, and in default of them, among her
sisters.
3. Chickasas. In like manner the Chickasas were organized
in two phratries, of which the first contains four, and the second
eight gentes, as follows:
| I. Panther Phratry. |
| 1. Wild Cat. |
2. Bird. |
3. Fish. |
4. Deer. |
| II. Spanish Phratry. |
| 1. Raccoon. |
2. Spanish. |
3. Royal. |
4. Hush-ko-ni. |
| 5. Squirrel. |
6. Alligator. |
7. Wolf. |
8. Blackbird.165 |
Descent was in the female line, intermarriage in the gens was
prohibited, and property as well as the office of sachem were
hereditary in the gens. The above particulars were obtained
from the Rev. Charles C. Copeland, an American missionary residing
with this tribe. In 1869 they numbered some five thousand,
which would give an average of about four hundred persons
to the gens. A new gens seems to have been formed
after their intercourse with the Spaniards commenced, or this
name, for reasons, may have been substituted in the place of an
original name. One of the phratries is also called the Spanish.
4. Cherokees. This tribe was anciently composed of ten
gentes, of which two, the Acorn, Ah-ne-dsŭ′-la, and the Bird,
Ah-ne-dse′-skwä, are now extinct. They are the following:
| 1. Wolf. |
2. Red Paint |
3. Long Prairie. |
4. Deaf. (A bird.) |
| 5. Holly. |
6. Deer. |
7. Blue. |
8. Long Hair.166 |
Descent is in the female line, and intermarriage in the gens
prohibited. In 1869 the Cherokees numbered fourteen thousand,
which would give an average of seventeen hundred and
fifty persons to each gens. This is the largest number, so far
as the fact is known, ever found in a single gens among the
American aborigines. The Cherokees and Ojibwas at the present
time exceed all the remaining Indian tribes within the
United States in the number of persons speaking the same dialect.
It may be remarked further, that it is not probable that
there ever was at any time in any part of North America a hundred
thousand Indians who spoke the same dialect. The Aztecs,
Tezcucans and Tlascalans were the only tribes of whom so
large a number could, with any propriety, be claimed; and
with respect to them it is difficult to perceive how the existence
of so large a number in either tribe could be established, at the
epoch of the Spanish Conquest, upon trustworthy evidence.
The unusual numbers of the Creeks and Cherokees is due to
the possession of domestic animals and a well-developed field
agriculture. They are now partially civilized, having substituted
an elective constitutional government in the place of the
ancient gentes, under the influence of which the latter are rapidly
falling into decadence.
5. Seminoles. This tribe is of Creek descent. They are
said to be organized into gentes, but the particulars have not
been obtained.
IV. Pawnee Tribes.
Whether or not the Pawnees are organized in gentes has not
been ascertained. Rev. Samuel Allis, who had formerly been
a missionary among them, expressed to the author his belief
that they were, although he had not investigated the matter
specially. He named the following gentes of which he believed
they were composed:
| 1. Bear. |
2. Beaver. |
3. Eagle. |
| 4. Buffalo. |
5. Deer. |
6. Owl. |
I once met a band of Pawnees on the Missouri, but was unable
to obtain an interpreter.
The Arickarees, whose village is near that of the Minnitarees,
are the nearest congeners of the Pawnees, and the same difficulty
occurred with them. These tribes, with the Huecos and
some two or three other small tribes residing on the Canadian
river, have always lived west of the Missouri, and speak an independent
stock language. If the Pawnees are organized in
gentes, presumptively the other tribes are the same.
V. Algonkin Tribes.
At the epoch of their discovery this great stock of the
American aborigines occupied the area from the Rocky
Mountains to Hudson’s Bay, south of the Siskatchewun, and
thence eastward to the Atlantic, including both shores of Lake
Superior, except at its head, and both banks of the St. Lawrence
below Lake Champlain. Their area extended southward
along the Atlantic coast to North Carolina, and down the east
bank of the Mississippi in Wisconsin and Illinois to Kentucky.
Within the eastern section of this immense region the Iroquois
and their affiliated tribes were an intrusive people, their only
competitor for supremacy within its boundaries.
Gitchigamian167 Tribes. 1. Ojibwas. The Ojibwas speak the
same dialect, and are organized in gentes, of which the names
of twenty-three have been obtained without being certain that
they include the whole number. In the Ojibwa dialect the
word totem, quite as often pronounced dodaim, signifies the
symbol or device of a gens; thus the figure of a wolf was the
totem of the Wolf gens. From this Mr. Schoolcraft used the
words “totemic system,” to express the gentile organization,
which would be perfectly acceptable were it not that we have
both in the Latin and the Greek a terminology for every quality
and character of the system which is already historical. It
may be used, however, with advantage. The Ojibwas have the
following gentes:
| 1. Wolf. |
2. Bear. |
3. Beaver. |
| 4. Turtle (Mud). |
5. Turtle (Snapping). |
6. Turtle (Little). |
| 7. Reindeer. |
8. Snipe. |
9. Crane. |
| 10. Pigeon Hawk. |
11. Bald Eagle. |
12. Loon. |
| 13. Duck. |
14. Duck. |
15. Snake. |
| 16. Muskrat. |
17. Marten. |
18. Heron. |
| 19. Bull-head. |
20. Carp. |
21. Cat Fish |
| 22. Sturgeon. |
23. Pike.168 |
|
Descent is in the male line, the children belonging to their
father’s gens. There are several reasons for the inference that
it was originally in the female line, and that the change was
comparatively recent. In the first place, the Delawares, who
are recognized by all Algonkin tribes as one of the oldest of
their lineage, and who are styled “Grandfathers” by all alike,
still have descent in the female line. Several other Algonkin
tribes have the same. Secondly, evidence still remains that
within two or three generations back of the present, descent was
in the female line, with respect to the office of chief.169 Thirdly,
American and missionary influences have generally opposed it.
A scheme of descent which disinherited the sons seemed to the
early missionaries, trained under very different conceptions,
without justice or reason; and it is not improbable that in a
number of tribes, the Ojibwas included, the change was made
under their teachings. And lastly, since several Algonkin
tribes now have descent in the female line, it leads to the conclusion
that it was anciently universal in the Ganowánian family,
it being also the archaic form of the institution.
Intermarriage in the gens is prohibited, and both property
and office are hereditary in the gens. The children, however,
at the present time, take the most of it to the exclusion of
their gentile kindred. The property and effects of the mother
pass to her children, and in default of them, to her sisters, own
and collateral. In like manner the son may succeed his father
in the office of sachem; but where there are several sons the
choice is determined by the elective principle. The gentiles
not only elect, but they also retain the power to depose. At
the present time the Ojibwas number some sixteen thousand,
which would give an average of about seven hundred to each
gens.
2. Potawattamies. This tribe has fifteen gentes, as follows:
| 1. Wolf. |
2. Bear. |
3. Beaver. |
| 4. Elk. |
5. Loon. |
6. Eagle. |
| 7. Sturgeon. |
8. Carp. |
9. Bald Eagle. |
| 10. Thunder. |
11. Rabbit. |
12. Crow. |
| 13. Fox. |
14. Turkey. |
15. Black Hawk.170 |
Descent, inheritance, and the law of marriage are the same
as among the Ojibwas.
3. Otawas.171 The Ojibwas, Otawas and Potawattamies were
subdivisions of an original tribe. When first known they were
confederated. The Otawas were undoubtedly organized in
gentes, but their names have not been obtained.
4. Crees. This tribe, when discovered, held the northwest
shore of Lake Superior, and spread from thence to Hudson’s
Bay, and westward to the Red River of the North. At a later
day they occupied the region of the Siskatchewun, and south
of it. Like the Dakotas they have lost the gentile organization
which presumptively once existed among them. Linguistically
their nearest affiliation is with the Ojibwas, whom
they closely resemble in manners and customs, and in personal
appearance.
Mississippi Tribes. The western Algonkins, grouped under
this name, occupied the eastern banks of the Mississippi in
Wisconsin and Illinois, and extended southward into Kentucky,
and eastward into Indiana.
1. Miamis. The immediate congeners of the Miamis,
namely, the Weas, Piankeshaws,
Peorias, and Kaskaskias,
known at an early day, collectively, as the Illinois, are now
few in numbers, and have abandoned their ancient usages for a
settled agricultural life. Whether or not they were formerly
organized in gentes has not been ascertained, but it is probable
that they were. The Miamis have the following ten gentes:
| 1. Wolf. |
2. Loon. |
3. Eagle. |
4. Buzzard. |
| 5. Panther. |
6. Turkey. |
7. Raccoon. |
8. Snow. |
| 9. Sun. |
10. Water.172 |
Under their changed condition and declining numbers the
gentile organization is rapidly disappearing. When its decline
commenced descent was in the male line, intermarriage in the
gens was forbidden, and the office of sachem together with
property were hereditary in the gens.
2. Shawnees. This remarkable and highly advanced tribe,
one of the highest representatives of the Algonkin stock, still
retain their gentes, although they have substituted in place of
the old gentile system a civil organization with a first and second
head-chief and a council, each elected annually by popular
suffrage. They have thirteen gentes, which they still maintain
for social and genealogical purposes, as follows:
| 1. Wolf. |
2. Loon. |
3. Bear. |
4. Buzzard. |
| 5. Panther. |
6. Owl. |
7. Turkey. |
8. Deer. |
| 9. Raccoon. |
10. Turtle. |
11. Snake. |
12. Horse. |
| 13. Rabbit.173 |
Descent, inheritance, and the rule with respect to marrying
out of the gens are the same as among the Miamis. In 1869
the Shawnees numbered but seven hundred, which would give
an average of about fifty persons to the gens. They once numbered
three or four thousand persons, which was above the
average among the American Indian tribes.
The Shawnees had a practice, common also to the Miamis
and Sauks and Foxes, of naming children into the gens of the
father or of the mother or any other gens, under certain restrictions,
which deserves a moment’s notice. It has been shown
that among the Iroquois each gens had its own special names
for persons which no other gens had a right to use.174 This
usage was probably general. Among the Shawnees these
names carried with them the rights of the gens to which they
belonged, so that the name determined the gens of the person.
As the sachem must, in all cases, belong to the gens over which
he is invested with authority, it is not unlikely that the change
of descent from the female line to the male commenced in this
practice; in the first place to enable a son to succeed his father,
and in the second to enable children to inherit property from
their father. If a son when christened received a name belonging
to the gens of his father it would place him in his father’s
gens and in the line of succession, but subject to the elective
principle. The father, however, had no control over the question.
It was left by the gens to certain persons, most of them
matrons, who were to be consulted when children were to be
named, with power to determine the name to be given. By
some arrangement between the Shawnee gentes these persons
had this power, and the name when conferred in the prescribed
manner, carried the person into the gens to which the name
belonged.
There are traces of the archaic rule of descent among the
Shawnees, of which the following illustration may be given as
it was mentioned to the author. Lä-ho′-weh, a sachem of the
Wolf gens, when about to die, expressed a desire that a son of
one of his sisters might succeed him in the place of his own
son. But his nephew (Kos-kwa′-the) was of the Fish and his
son of the Rabbit gens, so that neither could succeed him
without first being transferred, by a change of name, to the
Wolf gens, in which the office was hereditary. His wish was
respected. After his death the name of his nephew was
changed to Tep-a-tä-go-the′, one of the Wolf names, and he
was elected to the office. Such laxity indicates a decadence
of the gentile organization; but it tends to show that at no remote
period descent among the Shawnees was in the female
line.
3. Sauks and Foxes. These tribes are consolidated into one,
and have the following gentes:
| 1. Wolf. |
2. Bear. |
3. Deer. |
4. Elk. |
| 5. Hawk. |
6. Eagle. |
7. Fish. |
8. Buffalo. |
| 9. Thunder. |
10. Bone. |
11. Fox. |
12. Sea. |
| 13. Sturgeon. |
14. Big Tree.175 |
|
|
Descent, inheritance, and the rule requiring marriage out of
the gens, are the same as among the Miamis. In 1869 they
numbered but seven hundred, which would give an average of
fifty persons to the gens. The number of gentes still preserved
affords some evidence that they were several times more numerous
within the previous two centuries.
4. Menominees and Kikapoos. These tribes, which are independent
of each other, are organized in gentes, but their
names have not been procured. With respect to the Menominees
it may be inferred that, until a recent period, descent was
in the female line, from the following statement made to the
author, in 1859, by Antoine Gookie, a member of this tribe. In
answer to a question concerning the rule of inheritance, he replied:
“If I should die, my brothers and maternal uncles would
rob my wife and children of my property. We now expect
that our children will inherit our effects, but there is no certainty
of it. The old law gives my property to my nearest kindred
who are not my children, but my brothers and sisters, and maternal
uncles.” It shows that property was hereditary in the
gens, but restricted to the agnatic kindred in the female line.
Rocky Mountain Tribes. 1. Blood Blackfeet. This tribe is
composed of the five following gentes:
| 1. Blood. |
2. Fish Eaters. |
3. Skunk. |
| 4. Extinct Animal. |
5. Elk.176 |
|
Descent is in the male line, but intermarriage in the gens is
not allowed.
2. Piegan Blackfeet. This tribe has the eight following
gentes:
| 1. Blood. |
2. Skunk. |
3. Web Fat. |
| 4. Inside Fat. |
5. Conjurers. |
6. Never Laugh. |
| 7. Starving. |
8. Half Dead Meat.177 |
Descent is in the male line, and intermarriage in the gens is
prohibited. Several of the names above given are more appropriate
to bands than to gentes; but as the information was
obtained from the Blackfeet direct, through competent interpreters,
(Mr. and Mrs. Alexander Culbertson, the latter a
Blackfeet woman) I believe it reliable. It is possible that nicknames
for gentes in some cases may have superseded the
original names.
Atlantic Tribes.
1. Delawares. As elsewhere stated the Delawares are, in
the duration of their separate existence, one of the oldest of
the Algonkin tribes. Their home country, when discovered,
was the region around and north of Delaware Bay. They are
comprised in three gentes, as follows:
| I. Wolf. |
Took′-seat. |
Round Paw. |
| II. Turtle. |
Poke-koo-un′-go. |
Crawling. |
| III. Turkey. |
Pul-la′-ook. |
Non-chewing. |
These subdivisions are in the nature of phratries, because
each is composed of twelve sub-gentes, each having some of the
attributes of a gens.178 The names are personal, and mostly, if
not in every case, those of females. As this feature was unusual
I worked it out as minutely as possible at the Delaware reservation
in Kansas, in 1860, with the aid of William Adams, an
educated Delaware. It proved impossible to find the origin of
these subdivisions, but they seemed to be the several eponymous
ancestors from whom the members of the gentes respectively
derived their descent. It shows also the natural growth of the
phratries from the gentes.
Descent among the Delawares is in the female line, which
renders probable its ancient universality in this form in the Algonkin
tribes. The office of sachem was hereditary in the
gens, but elective among its members, who had the power both
to elect and depose. Property also was hereditary in the gens.
Originally the members of the three original gentes could not
intermarry in their own gens; but in recent years the prohibition
has been confined to the sub-gentes. Those of the same name in
the Wolf gens, now partially become a phratry, for example,
cannot intermarry, but those of different names marry. The
practice of naming children into the gens of their father also
prevails among the Delawares, and has introduced the same
confusion of descents found among the Shawnees and Miamis.
American civilization and intercourse necessarily administered a
shock to Indian institutions under which the ethnic life of the
people is gradually breaking down.
Examples of succession in office afford the most satisfactory
illustrations of the aboriginal law of descent. A Delaware
woman, after stating to the author that she, with her children,
belonged to the Wolf gens, and her husband to the Turtle, remarked
that when Captain Ketchum (Tä-whe′-lä-na), late head
chief or sachem of the Turtle gens, died, he was succeeded by
his nephew, John Conner (Tä-tä-ne′-shă), a son of one of the
sisters of the deceased sachem, who was also of the Turtle gens.
The decedent left a son, but he was of another gens and consequently
incapable of succeeding. With the Delawares, as with
the Iroquois, the office passed from brother to brother, or from
uncle to nephew, because descent was in the female line.
2. Munsees. The Munsees are an offshoot from the Delawares,
and have the same gentes, the Wolf, the Turtle and the Turkey.
Descent is in the female line, intermarriage in the gens is not
permitted, and the office of sachem, as well as property, are hereditary
in the gens.
3. Mohegans. All of the New England Indians, south of
the river Kennebeck, of whom the Mohegans formed a part,
were closely affiliated in language, and could understand each
other’s dialects. Since the Mohegans are organized in gentes,
there is a presumption that the Pequots, Narragansetts, and
other minor bands were not only similarly organized, but had
the same gentes. The Mohegans have the same three with the
Delawares, the Wolf, the Turtle and the Turkey, each of which
is composed of a number of gentes. It proves their immediate
connection with the Delawares and Munsees by descent, and
also reveals, as elsewhere stated, the process of subdivision by
which an original gens breaks up into several, which remain
united in a phratry. In this case also it may be seen how the
phratry arises naturally under gentile institutions. It is rare
among the American aborigines to find preserved the evidence
of the segmentation of original gentes as clearly as in the present
case.
The Mohegan phratries stand out more conspicuously than
those of any other tribe of the American aborigines, because
they cover the gentes of each, and the phratries must be stated
to explain the classification of the gentes; but we know less
about them than of those of the Iroquois. They are the following:
| I. Wolf Phratry. Took-se-tuk′. |
| 1. Wolf. |
2. Bear. |
3. Dog. |
4. Opossum. |
| II. Turtle Phratry. Tone-bä′-o. |
| 1. Little Turtle. |
2. Mud Turtle. |
3. Great Turtle. |
4. Yellow Eel. |
| III. Turkey Phratry. |
| 1. Turkey 2. Crane.
3. Chicken.179 |
Descent is in the female line, intermarriage in the gens is forbidden,
and the office of sachem is hereditary in the gens, the
office passing either from brother to brother, or from uncle to
nephew. Among the Pequots and Narragansetts descent was
in the female line, as I learned from a Narragansett woman
whom I met in Kansas.
4. Abenakis. The name of this tribe, Wä-be-nă′-kee, signifies
“Rising Sun People.”180 They affiliate more closely with
the Micmacs than with the New England Indians south of the
Kennebeck. They have fourteen gentes, as follows:
| 1. Wolf. |
2. Wild Cat. (Black.) |
3. Bear. |
| 4. Snake. |
5. Spotted Animal. |
6. Beaver. |
| 7. Cariboo. |
8. Sturgeon. |
9. Muskrat |
| 10. Pigeon Hawk. |
11. Squirrel. |
12. Spotted Frog. |
| 13. Crane. |
14. Porcupine.181 |
Descent is now in the male line, intermarriage in the gens
was anciently prohibited, but the prohibition has now lost most
of its force. The office of sachem was hereditary in the gens.
It will be noticed that several of the above gentes are the same
as among the Ojibwas.
VI. Athapasco-Apache Tribes.
Whether or not the Athapascans of Hudson’s Bay Territory,
and the Apaches of New Mexico, who are subdivisions of an
original stock, are organized in gentes has not been definitely
ascertained. When in the former territory, in 1861, I made an
effort to determine the question among the Hare and Red Knife
Athapascans, but was unsuccessful for want of competent interpreters;
and yet it seems probable that if the system existed,
traces of it would have been discovered even with imperfect
means of inquiry. The late Robert Kennicott made a
similar attempt for the author among the A-chä′-o-ten-ne, or
Slave Lake Athapascans, with no better success. He found
special regulations with respect to marriage and the descent of
the office of sachem, which seemed to indicate the presence of
gentes, but he could not obtain satisfactory information. The
Kutchin (Louchoux) of the Yukon river region are Athapascans.
In a letter to the author by the late George Gibbs, he
remarks: “In a letter which I have from a gentleman at Fort
Simpson, Makenzie river, it is mentioned that among the Louchoux
or Kutchin there are three grades or classes of society—undoubtedly
a mistake for totem, though the totems probably
differ in rank, as he goes on to say—that a man does not marry
into his own class, but takes a wife from some other; and that
a chief from the highest may marry with a woman of the lowest
without loss of caste. The children belong to the grade of
the mother; and the members of the same grade in the different
tribes do not war with each other.”
Among the Kolushes of the Northwest Coast, who affiliate
linguistically though not closely with the Athapascans, the organization
into gentes exists. Mr. Gallatin remarks that they
are “like our own Indians, divided into tribes or clans; a distinction
of which, according to Mr. Hale, there is no trace
among the Indians of Oregon. The names of the tribes [gentes]
are those of animals, namely: Bear, Eagle, Crow, Porpoise
and Wolf.... The right of succession is in the female
line, from uncle to nephew, the principal chief excepted, who is
generally the most powerful of the family.”182
VII. Indian Tribes of the Northwest Coast.
In some of these tribes, beside the Kolushes, the gentile organization
prevails. “Before leaving Puget’s Sound,” observes
Mr. Gibbs, in a letter to the author, “I was fortunate enough to
meet representatives of three principal families of what we call
the Northern Indians, the inhabitants of the Northwest Coast,
extending from the Upper end of Vancouver’s Island into the
Russian Possessions, and the confines of the Esquimaux.
From them I ascertained positively that the totemic system
exists at least among these three. The families I speak of are,
beginning at the northwest, Tlinkitt, commonly called the Stikeens,
after one of their bands; the Tlaidas; and Chimsyans,
called by Gallatin, Weas. There are four totems common to
these, the Whale, the Wolf, the Eagle, and the Crow. Neither
of these can marry into the same totem, although in a different
nation or family. What is remarkable is that these nations constitute
entirely different families. I mean by this that their languages
are essentially different, having no perceptible analogy.”
Mr. Dall, in his work on Alaska, written still later, remarks that
“the Tlinkets are divided into four totems: the Raven (Yehl),
the Wolf (Kanu′kh), the Whale, and the Eagle (Chethl)....
Opposite totems only can marry, and the child usually takes
the mother’s totem.”183
Mr. Hubert H. Bancroft presents their organization still more
fully, showing two phratries, and the gentes belonging to each.
He remarks of the Thlinkeets that the “nation is separated into
two great divisions or clans, one of which is called the Wolf and
the other the Raven.... The Raven trunk is again divided
into sub-clans, called the Frog, the Goose, the Sea-Lion, the
Owl, and the Salmon. The Wolf family comprises the Bear,
Eagle, Dolphin, Shark, and Alca.... Tribes of the same clan
may not war on each other, but at the same time members of
the same clan may not marry with each other. Thus, the
young Wolf warrior must seek his mate among the Ravens.”184
The Eskimos do not belong to the Ganowánian family.
Their occupation of the American continent in comparison
with that of the latter family was recent or modern. They are
also without gentes.
VIII. Salish, Sahaptin and Kootenay Tribes.
The tribes of the Valley of the Columbia, of whom those
above named represent the principal stocks, are without the
gentile organization. Our distinguished philologists, Horatio
Hale and the late George Gibbs, both of whom devoted special
attention to the subject, failed to discover any traces of the system
among them. There are strong reasons for believing that
this remarkable area was the nursery land of the Ganowánian
family, from which, as the initial point of their migrations, they
spread abroad over both divisions of the continent. It seems
probable, therefore, that their ancestors possessed the organization
into gentes, and that it fell into decay and finally disappeared.
IX. Shoshonee Tribes.
The Comanches of Texas, together with the Ute tribes, the
Bonnaks, the Shoshonees, and some other tribes, belong to this
stock. Mathew Walker, a Wyandote half-blood, informed the
author, in 1859, that he had lived among the Comanches, and
that they had the following gentes:
| 1. Wolf. |
2. Bear. |
3. Elk. |
| 4. Deer. |
5. Gopher. |
6. Antelope. |
If the Comanches are organized in gentes, there is a presumption
that the other tribes of this stock are the same.
This completes our review of the social system of the Indian
tribes of North America, north of New Mexico. The greater
portion of the tribes named were in the Lower Status of barbarism
at the epoch of European discovery, and the remainder
in the Upper Status of savagery. From the wide and nearly
universal prevalence of the organization into gentes, its ancient
universality among them with descent in the female line may
with reason be assumed. Their system was purely social, having
the gens as its unit, and the phratry, tribe and confederacy
as the remaining members of the organic series. These four
successive stages of integration and re-integration express the
whole of their experience in the growth of the idea of government.
Since the principal Aryan and Semitic tribes had the
same organic series when they emerged from barbarism, the
system was substantially universal in ancient society, and inferentially
had a common origin. The punaluan group, hereafter
to be described more fully in connection with the growth of the
idea of the family, evidently gave birth to the gentes, so that
the Aryan, Semitic, Uralian, Turanian and Ganowánian families
of mankind point with a distinctiveness seemingly unmistakable
to a common punaluan stock, with the organization into
gentes engrafted upon it, from which each and all were derived,
and finally differentiated into families. This conclusion, I believe,
will ultimately enforce its own acceptance, when future
investigation has developed and verified the facts on a minuter
scale. Such a great organic series, able to hold mankind in
society through the latter part of the period of savagery, through
the entire period of barbarism, and into the early part of the
period of civilization, does not arise by accident, but had a natural
development from pre-existing elements. Rationally and
rigorously interpreted, it seems probable that it can be made demonstrative
of the unity of origin of all the families of mankind
who possessed the organization into gentes.
X. Village Indians.
1. Moqui Pueblo Indians. The Moqui tribes are still in undisturbed
possession of their ancient communal houses, seven in
number, near the Little Colorado in Arizona, once a part of
New Mexico. They are living under their ancient institutions,
and undoubtedly at the present moment fairly represent the
type of Village Indian life which prevailed from Zuñi to Cuzco
at the epoch of Discovery. Zuñi, Acoma, Taos, and several
other New Mexican pueblos are the same structures which were
found there by Coronado in 1540-1542. Notwithstanding
their apparent accessibility we know in reality but little concerning
their mode of life or their domestic institutions. No
systematic investigation has ever been made. What little information
has found its way into print is general and accidental.
The Moquis are organized in gentes, of which they have nine,
as follows:
| 1. Deer. |
2. Sand. |
3. Rain. |
| 4. Bear. |
5. Hare. |
6. Prairie Wolf. |
| 7. Rattlesnake. |
8. Tobacco Plant. |
9. Reed Grass. |
Dr. Ten Broeck, Assistant Surgeon, U. S. A., furnished to
Mr. Schoolcraft the Moqui legend of their origin which he obtained
at one of their villages. They said that “many years
ago their Great Mother185 brought from her home in the West
nine races of men in the following form. First, the Deer race;
second, the Sand race; third, the Water [Rain] race; fourth,
the Bear race; fifth, the Hare race; sixth, the Prairie Wolf race;
seventh, the Rattlesnake race; eighth, the Tobacco Plant race;
and ninth, the Reed Grass race. Having planted them on the
spot where their villages now stand, she transformed them into
men who built up the present pueblos; and the distinction of race
is still kept up. One told me that he was of the Sand race, another,
the Deer, etc. They are firm believers in metempsychosis,
and say that when they die they will resolve into their original
forms, and become bears, deers, etc., again.... The
government is hereditary, but does not necessarily descend to
the son of the incumbent; for if they prefer any other blood
relative, he is chosen.”186 Having passed, in this case, from the
Lower into the Middle Status of barbarism, and found the organization
into gentes in full development, its adaptation to
their changed condition is demonstrated. Its existence among
the Village Indians in general is rendered probable; but from
this point forward in the remainder of North, and in the whole
of South America, we are left without definite information except
with respect to the Lagunas. It shows how incompletely
the work has been done in American Ethnology, that the unit
of their social system has been but partially discovered, and
its significance not understood. Still, there are traces of it in
the early Spanish authors, and direct knowledge of it in a few
later writers, which when brought together will leave but little
doubt of the ancient universal prevalence of the gentile organizations
throughout the Indian family.
There are current traditions in many gentes, like that of the
Moquis, of the transformation of their first progenitors from
the animal, or inanimate object, which became the symbol of
the gens, into men and women. Thus, the Crane gens of the
Ojibwas have a legend that a pair of cranes flew over the wide
area from the Gulf to the Great Lakes and from the prairies of
the Mississippi to the Atlantic in quest of a place where subsistence
was most abundant, and finally selected the Rapids on
the outlet of Lake Superior, since celebrated for its fisheries.
Having alighted on the bank of the river and folded their
wings the Great Spirit immediately changed them into a man
and woman, who became the progenitors of the Crane gens of
the Ojibwas. There are a number of gentes in the different
tribes who abstain from eating the animal whose name they
bear; but this is far from universal.
2. Lagunas. The Laguna Pueblo Indians are organized in
gentes, with descent in the female line, as appears from an address
of Rev. Samuel Gorman before the Historical Society of
New Mexico in 1860. “Each town is classed into tribes or
families, and each of these groups is named after some animal,
bird, herb, timber, planet, or one of the four elements. In the
pueblo of Laguna, which is one of above one thousand inhabitants,
there are seventeen of these tribes; some are called
bear, some deer, some rattlesnake, some corn, some wolf, some
water, etc., etc. The children are of the same tribe as their
mother. And, according to ancient custom, two persons of
the same tribe are forbidden to marry; but, recently, this custom
begins to be less rigorously observed than anciently.”
“Their land is held in common, as the property of the community,
but after a person cultivates a lot he has a personal
claim to it, which he can sell to any one of the same community;
or else when he dies it belongs to his widow or daughters;
or, if he were a single man, it remains in his father’s
family.”187 That wife or daughter inherit from the father is
doubtful.
3. Aztecs, Tezcucans and Tlacopans. The question of the
organization of these, and the remaining Nahuatlac tribes of
Mexico, in gentes will be considered in the next ensuing
chapter.
4. Mayas of Yucatan. Herrera makes frequent reference to
the “kindred,” and in such a manner with regard to the tribes
in Mexico, Central and South America as to imply the existence
of a body of persons organized on the basis of consanguinity
much more numerous than would be found apart from
gentes. Thus: “He that killed a free man was to make satisfaction
to the children and kindred.”188 It was spoken of the
aborigines of Nicaragua, and had it been of the Iroquois,
among whom the usage was the same, the term kindred would
have been equivalent to gens. And again, speaking generally
of the Maya Indians of Yucatan, he remarks that “when any
satisfaction was to be made for damages, if he who was adjudged
to pay was like to be reduced to poverty, the kindred
contributed.”189 In this another gentile usage may be recognized.
Again, speaking of the Aztecs; “if they were guilty, no favor
or kindred could save them from death.”190 One more citation
to the same effect may be made, applied to the Florida Indians
who were organized in gentes. He observes “that they
were extravagantly fond of their children, and cherished them,
the parents and kindred lamenting such as died a whole year.”191
The early observers noticed, as a peculiarity of Indian society,
that large numbers of persons were bound together by the bond
of kin, and therefore the group came to be mentioned as “the
kindred.” But they did not carry the scrutiny far enough to
discover, what was probably the truth, that the kindred formed
a gens, and, as such, the unit of their social system.
Herrera remarks further of the Mayas, that “they were wont
to observe their pedigrees very much, and therefore thought
themselves all related, and were helpful to one another....
They did not marry mothers, or sisters-in-law, nor any that
bore the same name as their father, which was looked upon as
unlawful.”192 The pedigree of an Indian under their system of
consanguinity could have no significance apart from a gens;
but leaving this out of view, there was no possible way, under
Indian institutions, by which a father and his children could
bear the same name except through a gens, which conferred a
common gentile name upon all its members. It would also require
descent in the male line to bring father and children into
the same gens. The statement shows, moreover, that intermarriage
in the gens among the Mayas was prohibited. Assuming
the correctness of Herrera’s words, it is proof conclusive of the
existence of gentes among the Mayas, with descent in the male
line. Tylor, in his valuable work on the Early History of Mankind,
which is a repository of widely-drawn and well-digested
ethnological information, cites the same fact from another
source, with the following remarks: “The analogy of the North
American Indian custom is therefore with that of the Australian
in making clanship on the female side a bar to marriage, but
if we go down further south into Central America, the reverse
custom, as in China, makes its appearance. Diego de Landa
says of the people of Yucatan, that no one took a wife of his
name, on the father’s side, for this was a very vile thing among
them; but they might marry cousins german on the mother’s
side.”193
XI. South American Indian Tribes.
Traces of the gens have been found in all parts of South
America, as well as the actual presence of the Ganowánian system
of consanguinity, but the subject has not been fully investigated.
Speaking of the numerous tribes of the Andes brought
by the Incas under a species of confederation, Herrera observes
that “this variety of tongues proceeded from the nations being divided
into races, tribes, or clans.”194 Here in the clans the existence
of gentes is recognized. Mr. Tylor, discussing the rules
with respect to marriage and descent, remarks that “further
south, below the Isthmus, both the clanship and the prohibition
re-appear on the female side. Bernau says that among the Arrawaks
of British Guiana, ‘Caste is derived from the mother,
and children are allowed to marry into their father’s family,
but not into that of their mother.’ Lastly, Father Martin
Dobrizhoffer says that the Guaranis avoid, as highly criminal,
marriage with the most distant relations; and speaking of the
Abipones, he makes the following statement: ... ‘The Abipones,
instructed by nature and the example of their ancestors,
abhor the very thought of marrying any one related to them
by the most distant tie of relationship.’”195 These references to
the social system of the aborigines are vague; but in the light
of the facts already presented the existence of gentes with descent
in the female line, and with intermarriage in the gens prohibited,
renders them intelligible. Brett remarks of the Indian
tribes in Guiana that they “are divided into families, each of
which has a distinct name, as the Siwidi, Karuafudi, Onisidi,
etc. Unlike our families, these all descend in the female line,
and no individual of either sex is allowed to marry another of
the same family name. Thus a woman of the Siwidi family
bears the same name as her mother, but neither her father nor
her husband can be of that family. Her children and the children
of her daughters will also be called Siwidi, but both her
sons and daughters are prohibited from an alliance with any individual
bearing the same name; though they may marry into
the family of their father, if they choose. These customs are
strictly observed, and any breach of them would be considered
as wicked.”196 In the family of this writer may at once be
recognized the gens in its archaic form. All the South American
tribes above named, with the exception of the Andean,
were when discovered either in the Lower Status of barbarism,
or in the Status of savagery. Many of the Peruvian tribes concentrated
under the government established by the Inca Village
Indians were in the Lower Status of barbarism, if an opinion
may be formed from the imperfect description of their domestic
institutions found in Garcillasso de la Vega.
To the Village Indians of North and South America, whose
indigenous culture had advanced them far into, and near the
end of, the Middle Period of barbarism, our attention naturally
turns for the transitional history of the gentes. The archaic
constitution of the gens has been shown; its latest phases remain
to be presented in the gentes of the Greeks and Romans;
but the intermediate changes, both of descent and inheritance,
which occurred in the Middle Period, are essential to a complete
history of the gentile organization. Our information is
quite ample with respect to the earlier and later condition of
this great institution, but defective with respect to the transitional
stage. Where the gentes are found in any tribe of mankind
in their latest form, their remote ancestors must have possessed
them in the archaic form; but historical criticism demands
affirmative proofs rather than deductions. These proofs
once existed among the Village Indians. We are now well
assured that their system of government was social and not political.
The upper members of the series, namely, the tribe
and the confederacy, meet us at many points; with positive evidence
of the gens, the unit of the system, in a number of the
tribes of Village Indians. But we are not able to place our
hands upon the gentes among the Village Indians in general
with the same precise information afforded by the tribes in the
Lower Status of barbarism. The golden opportunity was presented
to the Spanish conquerers and colonists, and lost, from
apparent inability to understand a condition of society from
which civilized man had so far departed in his onward progress.
Without a knowledge of the unit of their social system, which
impressed its character upon the whole organism of society, the
Spanish histories fail entirely in the portrayal of their governmental
institutions.
A glance at the remains of ancient architecture in Central
America and Peru sufficiently proves that the Middle Period of
barbarism was one of great progress in human development, of
growing knowledge, and of expanding intelligence. It was
followed by a still more remarkable period in the Eastern
hemisphere after the invention of the process of making iron
had given that final great impulse to human progress which
was to bear a portion of mankind into civilization. Our appreciation
of the grandeur of man’s career in the Later Period
of barbarism, when inventions and discoveries multiplied
with such rapidity, would be intensified by an accurate knowledge
of the condition of society in the Middle Period, so remarkably
exemplified by the Village Indians. By a great effort,
attended with patient labor, it may yet be possible to recover
a large portion at least of the treasures of knowledge
which have been allowed to disappear. Upon our present information
the conclusion is warrantable that the American Indian
tribes were universally organized in gentes at the epoch
of European discovery, the few exceptions found not being
sufficient to disturb the general rule.
Misconception of Aztec Society.—Condition of Advancement.—Nahuatlac
Tribes.—Their Settlement in Mexico.—Pueblo of Mexico
founded, A. D., 1325.—Aztec Confederacy Established, A. D., 1426.—Extent
of Territorial Domination.—Probable Number of the People.—Whether
or not the Aztecs were organized in Gentes and Phratries.—The
Council of Chiefs.—Its probable Functions.—Office held by Montezuma.—Elective
in Tenure.—Deposition of Montezuma.—Probable
Functions of the Office.—Aztec Institutions essentially Democratical—The
Government a Military Democracy.
The Spanish adventurers, who captured the Pueblo of Mexico,
adopted the erroneous theory that the Aztec government
was a monarchy, analogous in essential respects to existing
monarchies in Europe. This opinion was adopted generally
by the early Spanish writers, without investigating minutely
the structure and principles of the Aztec social system. A
terminology not in agreement with their institutions came in
with this misconception which has vitiated the historical narrative
nearly as completely as though it were, in the main, a
studied fabrication. With the capture of the only stronghold
the Aztecs possessed, their governmental fabric was destroyed,
Spanish rule was substituted in its place, and the subject of
their internal organization and polity was allowed substantially
to pass into oblivion.197
The Aztecs and their confederate tribes were ignorant of iron
and consequently without iron tools; they had no money, and
traded by barter of commodities; but they worked the native
metals, cultivated by irrigation, manufactured coarse fabrics of
cotton, constructed joint-tenement houses of adobe-bricks and
of stone, and made earthenware of excellent quality. They
had, therefore, attained to the Middle Status of barbarism.
They still held their lands in common, lived in large households
composed of a number of related families; and, as there are
strong reasons for believing, practiced communism in living in
the household. It is rendered reasonably certain that they had
but one prepared meal each day, a dinner; at which they separated,
the men eating first and by themselves, and the women
and children afterwards. Having neither tables nor chairs for
dinner service they had not learned to eat their single daily
meal in the manner of civilized nations. These features of their
social condition show sufficiently their relative status of advancement.
In connection with the Village Indians of other parts of Mexico
and Central America, and of Peru, they afforded the best
exemplification of this condition of ancient society then existing
on the earth. They represented one of the great stages of
progress toward civilization in which the institutions derived
from a previous ethnical period are seen in higher advancement,
and which were to be transmitted, in the course of human
experience, to an ethnical condition still higher, and undergo
still further development before civilization was possible.
But the Village Indians were not destined to attain the Upper
Status of barbarism so well represented by the Homeric
Greeks.
The Indian pueblos in the valley of Mexico revealed to
Europeans a lost condition of ancient society, which was so
remarkable and peculiar that it aroused at the time an insatiable
curiosity. More volumes have been written, in the proportion
of ten to one, upon the Mexican aborigines and the Spanish
Conquest, than upon any other people of the same advancement,
or upon any event of the same importance. And yet,
there is no people concerning whose institutions and plan of
life so little is accurately known. The remarkable spectacle
presented so inflamed the imagination that romance swept the
field, and has held it to the present hour. The failure to ascertain
the structure of Aztec society which resulted was a serious
loss to the history of mankind. It should not be made a cause
of reproach to any one, but rather for deep regret. Even that
which has been written, with such painstaking industry, may
prove useful in some future attempt to reconstruct the history
of the Aztec confederacy. Certain facts remain of a positive
kind from which other facts may be deduced; so that it is not
improbable that a well-directed original investigation may yet
recover, measurably at least, the essential features of the Aztec
social system.
The “kingdom of Mexico” as it stands in the early histories,
and the “empire of Mexico” as it appears in the later, is a fiction
of the imagination. At the time there was a seeming
foundation for describing the government as a monarchy, in the
absence of a correct knowledge of their institutions; but the
misconception can no longer be defended. That which the
Spaniards found was simply a confederacy of three Indian
tribes, of which the counterpart existed in all parts of the continent,
and they had no occasion in their descriptions to advance
a step beyond this single fact. The government was administered
by a council of chiefs, with the co-operation of a
general commander of the military bands. It was a government
of two powers; the civil being represented by the council,
and the military by a principal war-chief. Since the institutions
of the confederate tribes were essentially democratical,
the government may be called a military democracy, if a designation
more special than confederacy is required.
Three tribes, the Aztecs or Mexicans, the Tezcucans and
the Tlacopans, were united in the Aztec confederacy, which
gives the two upper members of the organic social series.
Whether or not they possessed the first and the second, namely,
the gens and the phratry, does not appear in a definite form
in any of the Spanish writers; but they have vaguely described
certain institutions which can only be understood by supplying
the lost members of the series. Whilst the phratry is not essential,
it is otherwise with the gens, because it is the unit upon
which the social system rests. Without entering the vast and
unthreadable labyrinth of Aztec affairs as they now stand
historically, I shall venture to invite attention to a few particulars
only of the Aztec social system, which may tend to
illustrate its real character. Before doing this, the relations of
the confederated to surrounding tribes should be noticed.
The Aztecs were one of seven kindred tribes who had migrated
from the north and settled in and near the valley of
Mexico; and who were among the historical tribes of that
country at the epoch of the Spanish Conquest. They called
themselves collectively the Nahuatlacs in their traditions.
Acosta, who visited Mexico in 1585, and whose work was published
at Seville in 1589, has given the current native tradition
of their migrations, one after the other, from Aztlan, with their
names and places of settlement. He states the order of their
arrival as follows: 1. Sochimilcas, “Nation of the Seeds of
Flowers,” who settled upon Lake Xochimilco, on the south
slope of the valley of Mexico; 2. Chalcas, “People of Mouths,”
who came long after the former and settled near them, on Lake
Chalco; 3. Tepanecans, “People of the Bridge,” who settled
at Azcopozalco, west of Lake Tezcuco, on the western slope of
the valley; 4. Culhuas, “A Crooked People,” who settled on
the east side of Lake Tezcuco, and were afterwards known as
Tezcucans; 5. Tlatluicans, “Men of the Sierra,” who, finding
the valley appropriated around the lake, passed over the Sierra
southward and settled upon the other side; 6. Tlascalans,
“Men of Bread,” who, after living for a time with the Tepanecans,
finally settled beyond the valley eastward, at Tlascala;
7. The Aztecs, who came last and occupied the site of the present
city of Mexico.198 Acosta further observes that they came
“from far countries which lie toward the north, where now
they have found a kingdom which they call New Mexico.”199
The same tradition is given by Herrera,200 and also by Clavigero.201
It will be noticed that the Tlacopans are not mentioned.
They were, in all probability, a subdivision of the Tepanecans
who remained in the original area of that tribe, while the remainder
seem to have removed to a territory immediately south
of the Tlascalans, where they were found under the name of
the Tepeacas. The latter had the same legend of the seven
caves, and spoke a dialect of the Nahuatlac language.202
This tradition embodies one significant fact of a kind that
could not have been invented; namely, that the seven tribes
were of immediate common origin, the fact being confirmed by
their dialects; and a second fact of importance, that they came
from the north. It shows that they were originally one people,
who had fallen into seven and more tribes by the natural process
of segmentation. Moreover, it was this same fact which
rendered the Aztec confederacy possible as well as probable, a
common language being the essential basis of such organizations.
The Aztecs found the best situations in the valley occupied,
and after several changes of position they finally settled upon
a small expanse of dry land in the midst of a marsh bordered
with fields of pedregal and with natural ponds. Here they
founded the celebrated pueblo of Mexico (Tenochtitlan), A. D.
1325, according to Clavigero, one hundred and ninety-six
years prior to the Spanish Conquest.203 They were few in number
and poor in condition. But fortunately for them, the outlet of
Lakes Xochimilco and Chalco and rivulets from the western
hills flowed past their site into Lake Tezcuco. Having the
sagacity to perceive the advantages of the location they succeeded,
by means of causeways and dikes, in surrounding their
pueblo with an artificial pond of large extent, the waters being
furnished from the sources named; and the level of Lake Tezcuco
being higher then than at present, it gave them, when
the whole work was completed, the most secure position of any
tribe in the valley. The mechanical engineering by which they
accomplished this result was one of the greatest achievements
of the Aztecs, and one without which they would not probably
have risen above the level of the surrounding tribes. Independence
and prosperity followed, and in time a controlling influence
over the valley tribes. Such was the manner, and so
recent the time of founding the pueblo according to Aztec traditions
which may be accepted as substantially trustworthy.
At the epoch of the Spanish Conquest five of the seven
tribes, namely, the Aztecs, Tezcucans, Tlacopans, Sochimilcas,
and Chalcans resided in the valley, which was an area of quite
limited dimensions, about equal to the state of Rhode Island.
It was a mountain or upland basin having no outlet, oval in
form, being longest from north to south, one hundred and
twenty miles in circuit, and embracing about sixteen hundred
square miles excluding the surface covered by water. The
valley, as described, is surrounded by a series of hills, one
range rising above another with depressions between, encompassing
the valley with a mountain barrier. The tribes named
resided in some thirty pueblos, more or less, of which that of
Mexico was the largest. There is no evidence that any considerable
portion of these tribes had colonized outside of the
valley and the adjacent hill-slopes; but, on the contrary, there
is abundant evidence that the remainder of modern Mexico
was then occupied by numerous tribes who spoke languages
different from the Nahuatlac, and the majority of whom were
independent. The Tlascalans, the Cholulans, a supposed subdivision
of the former, the Tepeacas, the Huexotzincos, the
Meztitlans, a supposed subdivision of the Tezcucans, and the
Tlatluicans were the remaining Nahuatlac tribes living without
the valley of Mexico, all of whom were independent excepting
the last, and the Tepeacas. A large number of other tribes,
forming some seventeen territorial groups, more or less, and
speaking as many stock languages, held the remainder of Mexico.
They present, in their state of disintegration and independence,
a nearly exact repetition of the tribes of the United
States and British America, at the time of their discovery, a
century or more later.
Prior to A. D. 1426, when the Aztec confederacy was formed,
very little had occurred in the affairs of the valley tribes of
historical importance. They were disunited and belligerent,
and without influence beyond their immediate localities.
About this time the superior position of the Aztecs began to
manifest its results in a preponderance of numbers and of
strength. Under their war-chief, Itzcoatl, the previous supremacy
of the Tezcucans and Tlacopans was overthrown, and
a league or confederacy was established as a consequence of
their previous wars against each other. It was an alliance between
the three tribes, offensive and defensive, with stipulations
for the division among them, in certain proportions, of the
spoils, and the after tributes of subjugated tribes.204 These tributes,
which consisted of the manufactured fabrics and horticultural
products of the villages subdued, seem to have been
enforced with system, and with rigor of exaction.
The plan of organization of this confederacy has been lost.
From the absence of particulars it is now difficult to determine
whether it was simply a league to be continued or dissolved at
pleasure; or a consolidated organization, like that of the Iroquois,
in which the parts were adjusted to each other in permanent
and definite relations. Each tribe was independent in
whatever related to local self-government; but the three were
externally one people in whatever related to aggression or defense.
While each tribe had its own council of chiefs, and its
own head war-chief, the war-chief of the Aztecs was the commander-in-chief
of the confederate bands. This may be inferred
from the fact that the Tezcucans and Tlacopans had a
voice either in the election or in the confirmation of the Aztec
war-chief. The acquisition of the chief command by the Aztecs
tends to show that their influence predominated in establishing
the terms upon which the tribes confederated.
Nezahualcojotl had been deposed, or at least dispossessed of
his office, as principal war-chief of the Tezcucans, to which he
was at this time (1426) restored by Aztec procurement. The
event may be taken as the elate of the formation of the confederacy
or league whichever it was.
Before discussing the limited number of facts which tend to
illustrate the character of this organization, a brief reference
should be made to what the confederacy accomplished in acquiring
territorial domination during the short period of its
existence.
From A. D. 1426 to 1520, a period of ninety-four years,
the confederacy was engaged in frequent wars with adjacent
tribes, and particularly with the feeble Village Indians southward
from the valley of Mexico to the Pacific, and thence eastward
well toward Guatemala. They began with those nearest
in position whom they overcame, through superior numbers
and concentrated action, and subjected to tribute. The villages
in this area were numerous but small, consisting in many cases
of a single large structure of adobe-brick or of stone, and in
some cases of several such structures grouped together. These
joint-tenement houses interposed serious hinderances to Aztec
conquest, but they did not prove insuperable. These forays
were continued from time to time for the avowed object of
gathering spoil, imposing tribute, and capturing prisoners for
sacrifice;205 until the principal tribes within the area named, with
some exceptions, were subdued and made tributary, including
the scattered villages of the Totonacs near the present Vera
Cruz.
No attempt was made to incorporate these tribes in the
Aztec confederacy, which the barrier of language rendered
impossible under their institutions. They were left under the
government of their own chiefs, and to the practice of their
own usages and customs. In some cases a collector of tribute
resided among them. The barren results of these conquests
reveal the actual character of their institutions. A domination
of the strong over the weak for no other object than to enforce
an unwilling tribute, did not even tend to the formation of a
nation. If organized in gentes, there was no way for an individual
to become a member of the government except
through a gens, and no way for the admission of a gens except
by its incorporation among the Aztec, Tezcucan, or Tlacopan
gentes. The plan ascribed to Romulus of removing the gentes
of conquered Latin tribes to Rome might have been resorted
to by the Aztec confederacy with respect to the tribes overrun;
but they were not sufficiently advanced to form such a
conception, even though the barrier of language could have
been obviated. Neither could colonists for the same reason, if
sent among them, have so far assimilated the conquered tribes
as to prepare them for incorporation in the Aztec social
system. As it was, the confederacy gained no strength by the
terrorism it created; or by holding these tribes under burdens,
inspired with enmity and ever ready to revolt. It seems, however,
that they used the military bands of subjugated tribes in
some cases, and shared with them the spoils. All the Aztecs
could do, after forming the confederacy, was to expand it over
the remaining Nahuatlac tribes. This they were unable to accomplish.
The Xochimilcas and Chalcans were not constituent
members of the confederacy, but they enjoyed a nominal independence,
though tributary.
This is about all that can now be discovered of the material
basis of the so-called kingdom or empire of the Aztecs. The
confederacy was confronted by hostile and independent tribes
on the west, northwest, northeast, east, and southeast sides:
as witness, the Mechoacans on the west, the Otomies on the
northwest, (scattered bands of the Otomies near the valley had
been placed under tribute), the Chichimecs or wild tribes north
of the Otomies, the Meztitlans on the northeast, the Tlascalans
on the east, the Cholulans and Huexotzincos on the southeast,
and beyond them the tribes of the Tabasco, the tribes of
Chiapas, and the Zapotecs. In these several directions the
dominion of the Aztec confederacy did not extend a hundred
miles beyond the valley of Mexico, a portion of which surrounding
area was undoubtedly neutral ground separating the
confederacy from perpetual enemies. Out of such limited
materials the kingdom of Mexico of the Spanish chronicles
was fabricated, and afterwards magnified into the Aztec empire
of current history.
A few words seem to be necessary concerning the population
of the valley and of the pueblo of Mexico. No means exist
for ascertaining the number of the people in the five
Nahuatlac tribes who inhabited the valley. Any estimate
must be conjectural. As a conjecture then, based upon what
is known of their horticulture, their means of subsistence, their
institutions, their limited area, and not forgetting the tribute
they received, two hundred and fifty thousand persons in the
aggregate would probably be an excessive estimate. It would
give about a hundred and sixty persons to the square mile,
equal to nearly twice the present average population of the
state of New York, and about equal to the average population
of Rhode Island. It is difficult to perceive what sufficient
reason can be assigned for so large a number of inhabitants
in all the villages within the valley, said to have
been from thirty to forty. Those who claim a higher number
will be bound to show how a barbarous people, without
flocks and herds, and without field agriculture, could have
sustained in equal areas a larger number of inhabitants than
a civilized people can now maintain armed with these advantages.
It cannot be shown for the simple reason that it
could not have been true. Out of this population thirty thousand
may, perhaps, be assigned to the pueblo of Mexico.206
It will be unnecessary to discuss the position and relations
of the valley tribes beyond the suggestions made. The Aztec
monarchy should be dismissed from American aboriginal history,
not only as delusive, but as a misrepresentation of the
Indians, who had neither developed nor invented monarchical
institutions. The government they formed was a confederacy
of tribes, and nothing more; and probably not equal in plan
and symmetry with that of the Iroquois. In dealing with this
organization, War-chief, Sachem, and Chief will be sufficient to
distinguish their official persons.
The pueblo of Mexico was the largest in America. Romantically
situated in the midst of an artificial lake, its large
joint-tenement houses plastered over with gypsum, which
made them a brilliant white, and approached by causeways, it
presented to the Spaniards, in the distance, a striking and
enchanting spectacle. It was a revelation of an ancient society
lying two ethnical periods back of European society, and
eminently calculated, from its orderly plan of life, to awaken
curiosity and inspire enthusiasm. A certain amount of extravagance
of opinion was unavoidable.
A few particulars have been named tending to show the
extent of Aztec advancement to which some others may now
be added. Ornamental gardens were found, magazines of
weapons and of military costumes, improved apparel, manufactured
fabrics of cotton of superior workmanship, improved
implements and utensils, and an increased variety of food;
picture-writing, used chiefly to indicate the tribute in kind
each subjugated village was to pay; a calendar for measuring
time, and open markets for the barter of commodities.
Administrative offices had been created to meet the demands
of a growing municipal life; a priesthood, with a temple worship
and a ritual including human sacrifices, had been established.
The office of head war-chief had also risen into increased
importance. These, and other circumstances of their
condition, not necessary to be detailed, imply a corresponding
development of their institutions. Such are some of the
differences between the Lower and the Middle Status of barbarism,
as illustrated by the relative conditions of the Iroquois
and the Aztecs, both having doubtless the same original
institutions.
With these preliminary suggestions made, the three most
important and most difficult questions with respect to the
Aztec social system, remain to be considered. They relate
first, to the existence of Gentes and Phratries; second, the
existence and functions of the Council of Chiefs; and, third,
the existence and functions of the office of General Military
Commander, held by Montezuma.
I. The Existence of Gentes and Phratries.
It may seem singular that the early Spanish writers did not
discover the Aztec gentes, if in fact they existed; but the case
was nearly the same with the Iroquois under the observation of
our own people more than two hundred years. The existence
among them of clans, named after animals, was pointed out at
an early day, but without suspecting that it was the unit of a
social system upon which both the tribe and the confederacy
rested.207 The failure of the Spanish investigators to notice the
existence of the gentile organization among the tribes of Spanish
America would afford no proof of its non-existence; but if
it did exist, it would simply prove that their work was superficial
in this respect.
There is a large amount of indirect and fragmentary evidence
in the Spanish writers pointing both to the gens and the phratry,
some of which will now be considered. Reference has been
made to the frequent use of the term “kindred” by Herrera,
showing that groups of persons were noticed who were bound
together by affinities of blood. This, from the size of the group,
seems to require a gens. The term “lineage” is sometimes
used to indicate a still larger group, and implying a phratry.
The pueblo of Mexico was divided geographically into four
quarters, each of which was occupied by a lineage, a body of
people more nearly related by consanguinity among themselves
than they were to the inhabitants of the other quarters. Presumptively,
each lineage was a phratry. Each quarter was
again subdivided, and each local subdivision was occupied by a
community of persons bound together by some common tie.208
Presumptively, this community of persons was a gens. Turning
to the kindred tribe of Tlascalans, the same facts nearly
re-appear. Their pueblo was divided into four quarters, each
occupied by a lineage. Each had its own Teuctli or head war-chief,
its distinctive military costume, and its own standard and
blazon.209 As one people they were under the government of a
council of chiefs, which the Spaniards honored with the name
of the Tlascalan senate.210 Cholula, in like manner, was divided
into six quarters, called wards by Herrera, which leads to the
same inference.211 The Aztecs in their social subdivisions having
arranged among themselves the parts of the pueblo they
were severally to occupy, these geographical districts would result
from their mode of settlement. If the brief account of
these quarters at the foundation of Mexico, given by Herrera,
who follows Acosta, is read in the light of this explanation, the
truth of the matter will be brought quite near. After mentioning
the building of a “chapel of lime and stone for the idol,”
Herrera proceeds as follows: “When this was done, the idol
ordered a priest to bid the chief men divide themselves, with
their kindred and followers, into four wards or quarters, leaving
the house that had been built for him to rest in the middle,
and each party to build as they liked best. These are the four
quarters of Mexico now called St. John, St. Mary the Round,
St. Paul and St. Sebastian. That division being accordingly
made, their idol again directed them to distribute among themselves
the gods he should name, and each ward to appoint peculiar
places where the gods should be worshiped; and thus
every quarter has several smaller wards in it according to the
number of their gods this idol called them to adore.... Thus
Mexico, Tenochtitlan, was founded.... When the aforesaid
partition was made, those who thought themselves injured, with
their kindred and followers, went away to seek some other
place,”212 namely, Tlatelulco, which was adjacent. It is a reasonable
interpretation of this language that they divided by kin,
first into four general divisions, and these into smaller subdivisions,
which is the usual formula for stating results. But the
actual process was the exact reverse; namely, each body of
kindred located in an area by themselves, and the several
bodies in such a way as to bring those most nearly related in
geographical connection with each other. Assuming that the
lowest subdivision was a gens, and that each quarter was occupied
by a phratry, composed of related gentes, the primary distribution
of the Aztecs in their pueblo is perfectly intelligible.
Without this assumption it is incapable of a satisfactory explanation.
When a people, organized in gentes, phratries and
tribes, settled in a town or city, they located by gentes and by
tribes, as a necessary consequence of their social organization.
The Grecian and Roman tribes settled in their cities in this manner.
For example, the three Roman tribes were organized in
gentes and curiæ, the curia being the analogue of the phratry;
and they settled at Rome by gentes, by curias and by tribes.
The Ramnes occupied the Palatine Hill. The Tities were
mostly on the Quirinal, and the Luceres mostly on the Esquiline.
If the Aztecs were in gentes and phratries, having but
one tribe, they would of necessity be found in as many quarters
as they had phratries, with each gens of the same phratry
in the main locally by itself. As husband and wife were of
different gentes, and the children were of the gens of the father
or mother as descent was in the male or the female line, the
preponderating number in each locality would be of the same
gens.
Their military organization was based upon these social divisions.
As Nestor advised Agamemnon to arrange the troops
by phratries and by tribes, the Aztecs seem to have arranged
themselves by gentes and by phratries. In the Mexican
Chronicles, by the native author Tezozomoc (for a reference to
the following passage, in which I am indebted to my friend
Mr. Ad. F. Bandelier, of Highland, Illinois, who is now engaged
upon its translation), a proposed invasion of Michoacan is
referred to. Axaycatl “spoke to the Mexican captains Tlacatecatl
and Tlacochcalcatl, and to all the others, and inquired
whether all the Mexicans were prepared, after the usages and
customs of each ward, each one with its captains; and if so
that they should begin to march, and that all were to reunite
at Matlatzinco Toluca.”213 It indicates that the military organization
was by gentes and by phratries.
An inference of the existence of Aztec gentes arises also
from their land tenure. Clavigero remarks that “the lands
which were called Altepetlalli [altepetl = pueblo] that is, those of
the communities of cities and villages, were divided into as
many parts as there were districts in a city, and every district
possessed its own part entirely distinct from, and independent
of every other. These lands could not be alienated by any
means whatever.”214 In each of these communities we are led
to recognize a gens, whose localization was a necessary consequence
of their social system. Clavigero puts the districts for
the community, whereas it was the latter which made the district,
and which owned the lands in common. The element of
kin which united each community, omitted by Clavigero, is
supplied by Herrera. “There were other lords, called major
parents [sachems], whose landed property all belonged to one
lineage [gens], which lived in one district, and there were many
of them when the lands were distributed at the time New Spain
was peopled; and each lineage received its own, and have possessed
them until now; and these lands did not belong to any
one in particular, but to all in common, and he who possessed
them could not sell them, although he enjoyed them for life
and left them to his sons and heirs; and if a house died out
they were left to the nearest parent to whom they were given
and to no other, who administered the same district or lineage.”215
In this remarkable statement our author was puzzled
to harmonize the facts with the prevailing theory of Aztec institutions.
He presents to us an Aztec lord who held the fee
of the land as a feudal proprietor, and a title of rank pertaining
to it, both of which he transmitted to his son and heir. But in
obedience to truth he states the essential fact that the lands belonged
to a body of consanguinei of whom he is styled the
major parent, i. e., he was the sachem, it may be supposed, of
the gens, the latter owning these lands in common. The suggestion
that he held the lands in trust means nothing. They
found Indian chiefs connected with gentes, each gens owning
a body of lands in common, and when the chief died, his place
was filled by his son, according to Herrera. In so far it may
have been analogous to a Spanish estate and title; and the misconception
resulted from a want of knowledge of the nature
and tenure of the office of chief. In some cases they found the
son did not succeed his father, but the office went to some
other person; hence the further statement, “if a house (alguna
casa, another feudal feature) died out, they [the lands] were left
to the nearest major parent;” i. e., another person was elected
sachem, as near as any conclusion can be drawn from the language.
What little has been given to us by the Spanish writers
concerning Indian chiefs, and the land tenure of the tribes
is corrupted by the use of language adapted to feudal institutions
that had no existence among them. In this lineage we
are warranted in recognizing an Aztec gens; and in this lord
an Aztec sachem, whose office was hereditary in the gens, in
the sense elsewhere stated, and elective among its members.
If descent was in the male line, the choice would fall upon one
of the sons of the deceased sachem, own or collateral, upon a
grandson, through one of his sons, or upon a brother, own or
collateral. But if in the female line it would fall upon a
brother or nephew, own or collateral, as elsewhere explained.
The sachem had no title whatever to the lands, and therefore
none to transmit to any one. He was thought to be the proprietor
because he held an office which was perpetually maintained,
and because there was a body of lands perpetually belonging
to a gens over which he was a sachem. The misconception
of this office and of its tenure has been the fruitful
source of unnumbered errors in our aboriginal histories. The
lineage of Herrera, and the communities of Clavigero were evidently
organizations, and the same organization. They found
in this body of kindred, without knowing the fact, the unit of
their social system—a gens, as we must suppose.
Indian chiefs are described as lords by Spanish writers, and
invested with rights over lands and over persons they never
possessed. It is a misconception to style an Indian chief a
lord in the European sense, because it implies a condition of
society that did not exist. A lord holds a rank and a title
by hereditary right, secured to him by special legislation in
derogation of the rights of the people as a whole. To this
rank and title, since the overthrow of feudalism, no duties are
attached which may be claimed by the king or the kingdom as a
matter of right. On the contrary, an Indian chief holds an
office, not by hereditary right, but by election from a constituency,
which retained the right to depose him for cause. The
office carried with it the obligation to perform certain duties for
the benefit of the constituency. He had no authority over the
persons or property or lands of the members of the gens. It
is thus seen that no analogy exists between a lord and his title,
and an Indian chief and his office. One belongs to political
society, and represents an aggression of the few upon the
many; while the other belongs to gentile society and is founded
upon the common interests of the members of the gens. Unequal
privileges find no place in the gens, phratry or tribe.
Further traces of the existence of Aztec gentes will appear.
A prima facie case of the existence of gentes among them is
at least made out. There was also an antecedent probability
to this effect, from the presence of the two upper members of
the organic series, the tribe, and the confederacy, and from the
general prevalence of the organization among other tribes. A
very little close investigation by the early Spanish writers would
have placed the question beyond a doubt, and, as a consequence,
have given a very different complexion to Aztec history.
The usages regulating the inheritance of property among the
Aztecs have come down to us in a confused and contradictory
condition. They are not material in this discussion, except as
they reveal the existence of bodies of consanguinei, and the
inheritance by children from their fathers. If the latter were
the fact it would show that descent was in the male line, and
also an extraordinary advance in a knowledge of property. It
is not probable that children enjoyed an exclusive inheritance,
or that any Aztec owned a foot of land which he could call his
own, with power to sell and convey to whomsoever he pleased.
II. The Existence and Functions of the Council of Chiefs.
The existence of such a council among the Aztecs might
have been predicted from the necessary constitution of Indian
society. Theoretically, it would have been composed of that
class of chiefs, distinguished as sachems, who represented bodies
of kindred through an office perpetually maintained. Here
again, as elsewhere, a necessity is seen for gentes, whose principal
chiefs would represent the people in their ultimate social
subdivisions as among the Northern tribes. Aztec gentes are
fairly necessary to explain the existence of Aztec chiefs. Of
the presence of an Aztec council there is no doubt whatever;
but of the number of its members and of its functions we are
left in almost total ignorance. Brasseur de Bourbourg remarks
generally that “nearly all the towns or tribes are divided into
four clans or quarters whose chiefs constitute the great council.”216
Whether he intended to limit the number to one chief
from each quarter is not clear; but elsewhere he limits the Aztec
council to four chiefs. Diego Duran, who wrote his work
in 1579-1581, and thus preceded both Acosta and Tezozomoc,
remarks as follows: “First we must know, that in Mexico
after having elected a king they elected four lords of the
brothers or near relations of this king to whom they gave the
titles of princes, and from whom they had to choose the king.
[To the offices he gives the names of Tlacachcalcatl, Tlacatecal,
Ezuauacatl, and Fillancalque].... These four lords and titles
after being elected princes, they made them the royal council,
like the presidents and judges of the supreme council, without
whose opinion nothing could be done.”217 Acosta, after naming
the same offices, and calling the persons who held them “electors,”
remarks that “all these four dignities were of the great
council, without whose advice the king might not do anything
of importance.”218 And Herrera, after placing these offices in
four grades, proceeds: “These four sorts of noblemen were of
the supreme council, without whose advice the king was to do
nothing of moment, and no king could be chosen but what
was of one of these four orders.”219 The use of the term king
to describe a principal war-chief and of princes to describe Indian
chiefs cannot create a state or a political society where
none existed; but as misnomers they stilt up and disfigure our
aboriginal history and for that reason ought to be discarded.
When the Huexotzincos sent delegates to Mexico proposing
an alliance against the Tlascalans, Montezuma addressed
them, according to Tezozomoc, as follows: “Brothers and
sons, you are welcome, rest yourselves awhile, for although
I am king indeed I alone cannot satisfy you, but only
together with all the chiefs of the sacred Mexican senate.”220
The above accounts recognize the existence of a supreme
council, with authority over the action of the principal war-chief,
which is the material point. It tends to show that the
Aztecs guarded themselves against an irresponsible despot, by
subjecting his action to a council of chiefs, and by making him
elective and deposable. If the limited and incomplete statements
of these authors intended to restrict this council to four
members, which Duran seems to imply, the limitation is improbable.
As such the council would represent, not the Aztec
tribe, but the small body of kinsmen from whom the military
commander was to be chosen. This is not the theory of a
council of chiefs. Each chief represents a constituency, and
the chiefs together represent the tribe. A selection from their
number is sometimes made to form a general council; but it is
through an organic provision which fixes the number, and provides
for their perpetual maintenance. The Tezcucan council is
said to have consisted of fourteen members,221 while the council at
Tlascala was a numerous body. Such a council among the Aztecs
is required by the structure and principles of Indian society,
and therefore would be expected to exist. In this council may
be recognized the lost element in Aztec history. A knowledge
of its functions is essential to a comprehension of Aztec society.
In the current histories this council is treated as an advisory
board of Montezuma’s, as a council of ministers of his own
creation; thus Clavigero: “In the history of the conquest we
shall find Montezuma in frequent deliberation with his council
on the pretensions of the Spaniards. We do not know the
number of each council, nor do historians furnish us with the
lights necessary to illustrate such a subject.”222 It was one of the
first questions requiring investigation, and the fact that the
early writers failed to ascertain its composition and functions is
proof conclusive of the superficial character of their work. We
know, however, that the council of chiefs is an institution which
came in with the gentes, which represents electing constituencies,
and which from time immemorial had a vocation as well
as original governing powers. We find a Tezcucan and Tlacopan
council, a Tlascalan, a Cholulan and a Michoacan council,
each composed of chiefs. The evidence establishes the existence
of an Aztec council of chiefs; but so far as it is limited
to four members, all of the same lineage, it is presented in an
improbable form. Every tribe in Mexico and Central America,
beyond a reasonable doubt, had its council of chiefs. It was
the governing body of the tribe, and a constant phenomenon
in all parts of aboriginal America. The council of chiefs is
the oldest institution of government of mankind. It can show
an unbroken succession on the several continents from the
Upper Status of savagery through the three sub-periods of
barbarism to the commencement of civilization, when, having
been changed into a preconsidering council with the rise of
the assembly of the people, it gave birth to the modern
legislature in two bodies.
It does not appear that there was a general council of the
Aztec confederacy, composed of the principal chiefs of the
three tribes, as distinguished from the separate councils of
each. A complete elucidation of this subject is required before
it can be known whether the Aztec organization was simply a
league, offensive and defensive, and as such under the primary
control of the Aztec tribe, or a confederacy in which the parts
were integrated in a symmetrical whole. This problem must
await future solution.
III. The Tenure and Functions of the Office of Principal War-chief.
The name of the office held by Montezuma, according to
the best accessible information, was simply Teuctli, which signifies
a war-chief. As a member of the council of chiefs he was
sometimes called Tlatoani, which signifies speaker. This office
of a general military commander was the highest known to the
Aztecs. It was the same office and held by the same tenure as
that of principal war-chief in the Iroquois confederacy. It made
the person, ex officio, a member of the council of chiefs, as may
be inferred from the fact that in some of the tribes the principal
war-chief had precedence in the council both in debate and in
pronouncing his opinion.223 None of the Spanish writers apply
this title to Montezuma or his successors. It was superseded by
the inappropriate title of king. Ixtlilxochitl, who was of mixed
Tezcucan and Spanish descent, describes the head war-chiefs
of Mexico, Tezcuco and Tlacopan, by the simple title of war-chief,
with another to indicate the tribe. After speaking of
the division of powers between the three chiefs when the confederacy
was formed, and of the assembling of the chiefs of the
three tribes on that occasion, he proceeds: “The king of
Tezcuco was saluted by the title of Aculhua Teuctli, also by
that of Chichimecatl Teuctli which his ancestors had worn,
and which was the mark of the empire; Itzcoatzin, his uncle,
received the title of Culhua Teuctli, because he reigned over
the Toltecs-Culhuas; and Totoquihuatzin that of Tecpanuatl
Teuctli, which had been the title of Azcaputzalco. Since that
time their successors have received the same title.”224 Izcoatzin
(Itzcoatl), here mentioned, was war-chief of the Aztecs when
the confederacy was formed. As the title was that of war-chief,
then held by many other persons, the compliment consisted in
connecting with it a tribal designation. In Indian speech the
office held by Montezuma was equivalent to head war-chief,
and in English to general.
Clavigero recognizes this office in several Nahuatlac tribes,
but never applies it to the Aztec war-chief. “The highest
rank of nobility in Tlascala, in Huexotzinco and in Cholula
was that of Teuctli. To obtain this rank it was necessary to
be of noble birth, to have given proofs in several battles of the
utmost courage, to have arrived at a certain age, and to command
great riches for the enormous expenses which were necessary
to be supported by the possessor of such a dignity.”225
After Montezuma had been magnified into an absolute potentate,
with civil as well as military functions, the nature and
powers of the office he held were left in the background—in
fact uninvestigated. As their general military commander he
possessed the means of winning the popular favor, and of commanding
the popular respect. It was a dangerous but necessary
office to the tribe and to the confederacy. Throughout
human experience, from the Lower Status of barbarism to the
present time, it has ever been a dangerous office. Constitutions
and laws furnish the present security of civilized nations,
so far as they have any. A body of usages and customs grew
up, in all probability, among the advanced Indian tribes and
among the tribes of the valley of Mexico, regulating the powers
and prescribing the duties of this office. There are general
reasons warranting the supposition that the Aztec council of
chiefs was supreme, not only in civil affairs, but over military
affairs, the person and direction of the war-chief included.
The Aztec polity under increased numbers and material advancement,
had undoubtedly grown complex, and for that reason
a knowledge of it would have been the more instructive.
Could the exact particulars of their governmental organization
be ascertained they would be sufficiently remarkable without
embellishment.
The Spanish writers concur generally in the statement that
the office held by Montezuma was elective, with the choice
confined to a particular family. The office was found to pass
from brother to brother, or from uncle to nephew. They were
unable, however, to explain why it did not in some cases pass
from father to son. Since the mode of succession was unusual to
the Spaniards there was less possibility of a mistake with regard
to the principal fact. Moreover, two successions occurred
under the immediate notice of the conquerors. Montezuma
was succeeded by Cuitlahua. In this case the office passed
from brother to brother, although we cannot know whether
they were own or collateral brothers without a knowledge of
their system of consanguinity. Upon the death of the latter
Guatemozin was elected to succeed him. Here the office
passed from uncle to nephew, but we do not know whether
he was an own or a collateral nephew. (See Part Third, ch.
iii.) In previous cases the office had passed from brother to
brother and also from uncle to nephew.226 An elective office
implies a constituency; but who were the constituents in this
case? To meet this question the four chiefs mentioned by
Duran (supra] are introduced as electors, to whom one elector
from Tezcuco and one from Tlacopan are added, making six,
who are then invested with power to choose from a particular
family the principal war-chief. This is not the theory of an
elective Indian office, and it may be dismissed as improbable.
Sahagun indicates a much larger constituency. “When the
king or lord died,” he remarks, “all the senators called Tecutlatoques,
and the old men of the tribe called Achcacauhiti, and
also the captains and old warriors called Yautequioaques, and
other prominent captains in warlike matters, and also the priests
called Tlenamacaques, or Papasaques—all these assembled in
the royal houses. Then they deliberated upon and determined
who had to be lord, and chose one of the most noble of the
lineage of the past lords, who should be a valiant man,
experienced in warlike matters, daring and brave....
When they agreed upon one they at once named him as lord,
but this election was not made by ballot or votes, but all together
conferring at last agreed upon the man. The lord once
elected they also elected four others which were like senators,
and had to be always with the lord, and be informed of all the
business of the kingdom.”227 This scheme of election by a large
assembly, while it shows the popular element in the government
which undoubtedly existed, is without the method of Indian
institutions. Before the tenure of this office and the
mode of election can be made intelligible, it is necessary to find
whether or not they were organized in gentes, whether descent
was in the female line or the male, and to know something of
their system of consanguinity. If they had the system found
in many other tribes of the Ganowánian family, which is probable,
a man would call his brother’s son his son, and his
sister’s son his nephew; he would call his father’s brother his
father, and his mother’s brother his uncle; the children of his
father’s brother his brothers and sisters, and the children of his
mother’s brother his cousins, and so on. If organized into gentes
with descent in the female line, a man would have brothers,
uncles and nephews, collateral grandfathers and grandsons
within his own gens; but neither own father, own son, or lineal
grandson. His own sons and his brother’s sons would belong
to other gentes. It cannot as yet be affirmed that the Aztecs
were organized in gentes; but the succession to the office of principal
war-chief is of itself strong proof of the fact, because it
would explain this succession completely. Then with descent
in the female line the office would be hereditary in a particular
gens, but elective among its members. In that case the office
would pass, by election within the gens, from brother to
brother, or from uncle to nephew, precisely as it did among
the Aztecs, and never from father to son. Among the Iroquois
at that same time the offices of sachem and of principal
war-chief were passing from brother to brother or from uncle
to nephew, as the choice might happen to fall, and never to
the son. It was the gens, with descent in the female line,
which gave this mode of succession, and which could have
been secured in no other conceivable way. It is difficult to
resist the conclusion, from these facts alone, that the Aztecs
were organized in gentes, and that in respect to this office at
least descent was still in the female line.
It may therefore be suggested, as a probable explanation,
that the office held by Montezuma was hereditary in a gens
(the eagle was the blazon or totem on the house occupied by
Montezuma), by the members of which the choice was made
from among their number; that their nomination was then submitted
separately to the four lineages or divisions of the Aztecs
(conjectured to be phratries), for acceptance or rejection; and
also to the Tezcucans and Tlacopans, who were directly interested
in the selection of the general commander. When they
had severally considered and confirmed the nomination each
division appointed a person to signify their concurrence;
whence the six miscalled electors. It is not unlikely that the
four high chiefs of the Aztecs, mentioned as electors by a number
of authors, were in fact the war-chiefs of the four divisions
of the Aztecs, like the four war-chiefs of the four lineages of the
Tlascalans. The function of these persons was not to elect,
but to ascertain by a conference with each other whether the
choice made by the gens had been concurred in, and if so to
announce the result. The foregoing is submitted as a conjectural
explanation, upon the fragments of evidence remaining, of
the mode of succession to the Aztec office of principal war-chief.
It is seen to harmonize with Indian usages, and with
the theory of the office of an elective Indian chief.
The right to depose from office follows as a necessary consequence
of the right to elect, where the term was for life. It is
thus turned into an office during good behavior. In these two
principles of electing and deposing, universally established in the
social system of the American aborigines, sufficient evidence is
furnished that the sovereign power remained practically in the
hands of the people. This power to depose, though seldom
exercised, was vital in the gentile organization. Montezuma
was no exception to the rule. It required time to reach this
result from the peculiar circumstances of the case, for a good
reason was necessary. When Montezuma allowed himself,
through intimidation, to be conducted from his place of residence
to the quarters of Cortes where he was placed under
confinement, the Aztecs were paralyzed for a time for the
want of a military commander. The Spaniards had possession
both of the man and of his office.228 They waited some
weeks, hoping the Spaniards would retire; but when they found
the latter intended to remain they met the necessity, as there
are sufficient reasons for believing, by deposing Montezuma for
want of resolution, and elected his brother to fill his place.
Immediately thereafter they assaulted the Spanish quarters with
great fury, and finally succeeded in driving them from their
pueblo. This conclusion respecting the deposition of Montezuma
is fully warranted by Herrera’s statement of the facts.
After the assault commenced, Cortes, observing the Aztecs
obeying a new commander, at once suspected the truth of the
matter, and “sent Marina to ask Montezuma whether he thought
they had put the government into his hands,”229 i. e., the hands of
the new commander. Montezuma is said to have replied “that
they would not presume to choose a king in Mexico whilst he was
living.”230 He then went upon the roof of the house and addressed
his countrymen, saying among other things, “that he
had been informed they had chosen another king because he
was confined and loved the Spaniards;” to which he received
the following ungracious reply from an Aztec warrior: “Hold
your peace, you effeminate scoundrel, born to weave and spin;
these dogs keep you a prisoner, you are a coward.”231 Then
they discharged arrows upon him and stoned him, from the effects
of which and from deep humiliation he shortly afterwards
died. The war-chief in the command of the Aztecs in this
assault was Cuitlahua, the brother of Montezuma and his successor.232
Respecting the functions of this office very little satisfactory
information can be derived from the Spanish writers. There
is no reason for supposing that Montezuma possessed any
power over the civil affairs of the Aztecs. Moreover, every
presumption is against it. In military affairs when in the field
he had the powers of a general; but military movements were
probably decided upon by the council. It is an interesting
fact to be noticed that the functions of a priest were attached
to the office of principal war-chief, and, as it is claimed, those
of a judge.233 The early appearance of these functions in the
natural growth of the military office will be referred to again
in connection with that of basileus. Although the government
was of two powers it is probable that the council was
supreme, in case of a conflict of authority, over civil and military
affairs. It should be remembered that the council of
chiefs was the oldest in time, and possessed a solid basis of
power in the needs of society and in the representative character
of the office of chief.
The tenure of the office of principal war-chief and the presence
of a council with power to depose from office, tend to
show that the institutions of the Aztecs were essentially democratical.
The elective principle with respect to war-chief, and
which we must suppose existed with respect to sachem and
chief, and the presence of a council of chiefs, determine the
material fact. A pure democracy of the Athenian type was
unknown in the Lower, in the Middle, or even in the Upper
Status of barbarism; but it is very important to know whether
the institutions of a people are essentially democratical, or essentially
monarchical, when we seek to understand them. Institutions
of the former kind are separated nearly as widely
from those of the latter, as democracy is from monarchy. Without
ascertaining the unit of their social system, if organized in
gentes as they probably were, and without gaining a knowledge
of the system that did exist, the Spanish writers boldly invented
for the Aztecs an absolute monarchy with high feudal characteristics,
and have succeeded in placing it in history. This
misconception has stood, through American indolence, quite as
long as it deserves to stand. The Aztec organization presented
itself plainly to the Spaniards as a league or confederacy of
tribes. Nothing but the grossest perversion of obvious facts
could have enabled the Spanish writers to fabricate the Aztec
monarchy out of a democratic organization.
Theoretically, the Aztecs, Tezcucans and Tlacopans should
severally have had a head-sachem to represent the tribe in civil
affairs when the council of chiefs was not in session, and to take
the initiative in preparing its work. There are traces of such
an officer among the Aztecs in the Ziahuacatl, who is sometimes
called the second chief, as the war-chief is called the first.
But the accessible information respecting this office is too limited
to warrant a discussion of the subject.
It has been shown among the Iroquois that the warriors
could appear before the council of chiefs and express their
views upon public questions; and that the women could do the
same through orators of their own selection. This popular
participation in the government led in time to the popular assembly,
with power to adopt or reject public measures submitted
to them by the council. Among the Village Indians there
is no evidence, so far as the author is aware, that there was an
assembly of the people to consider public questions with power
to act upon them. The four lineages probably met for special
objects, but this was very different from a general assembly for
public objects. From the democratic character of their institutions
and their advanced condition the Aztecs were drawing
near the time when the assembly of the people might be expected
to appear.
The growth of the idea of government among the American
aborigines, as elsewhere remarked, commenced with the gens
and ended with the confederacy. Their organizations were
social and not political. Until the idea of property had advanced
very far beyond the point they had attained, the substitution
of political for gentile society was impossible. There is
not a fact to show that any portion of the aborigines, at least
in North America, had reached any conception of the second
great plan of government founded upon territory and upon
property. The spirit of the government and the condition of
the people harmonize with the institutions under which they
live. When the military spirit predominates, as it did among
the Aztecs, a military democracy rises naturally under gentile
institutions. Such a government neither supplants the free
spirit of the gentes, nor weakens the principles of democracy,
but accords with them harmoniously.
Early condition of Grecian Tribes.—Organized into Gentes.—Changes
in the Character of the Gens.—Necessity for a Political System.—Problem
to be Solved.—The Formation of a State.—Grote’s Description
of the Grecian Gentes.—Of Their Phratries and Tribes.—Attributes
of the Gens.—Similar to those of the Iroquois Gentes.—The Office of
Chief of the Gens.—Whether Elective or Hereditary.—The Gens the
Basis of the Social System.—Antiquity of the Gentile Lineage.—Inheritance
of Property.—Archaic and Final Rule.—Relationships between
the Members of a Gens.—The Gens the Centre of Social and Religious
Influence.
Civilization may be said to have commenced among the Asiatic
Greeks with the composition of the Homeric poems about
850 B. C.; and among the European Greeks about a century
later with the composition of the Hesiodic poems. Anterior
to these epochs, there was a period of several thousand years
during which the Hellenic tribes were advancing through the
Later Period of barbarism, and preparing for their entrance
upon a civilized career. Their most ancient traditions find
them already established in the Grecian peninsula, upon the
eastern border of the Mediterranean, and upon the intermediate
and adjacent islands. An older branch of the same stock,
of which the Pelasgians were the chief representatives, had
preceded them in the occupation of the greater part of these
areas, and were in time either Hellenized by them, or forced
into emigration. The anterior condition of the Hellenic tribes
and of their predecessors, must be deduced from the arts and
inventions which they brought down from the previous period,
from the state of development of their language, from their
traditions and from their social institutions, which severally
survived into the period of civilization. Our discussion will be
restricted, in the main, to the last class of facts.
Pelasgians and Hellenes alike were organized in gentes,
phratries234 and tribes; and the latter united by coalescence into
nations. In some cases the organic series was not complete.
Whether in tribes or nations their government rested upon the
gens as the unit of organization, and resulted in a gentile society
or a people, as distinguished from a political society or a
state. The instrument of government was a council of chiefs,
with the co-operation of an agora or assembly of the people,
and of a basileus or military commander. The people were
free, and their institutions democratical. Under the influence
of advancing ideas and wants the gens had passed out of its
archaic into its ultimate form. Modifications had been forced
upon it by the irresistible demands of an improving society;
but, notwithstanding the concessions made, the failure of the
gentes to meet these wants was constantly becoming more apparent.
The changes were limited, in the main, to three particulars:
firstly, descent was changed to the male line; secondly,
intermarriage in the gens was permitted in the case of
female orphans and heiresses; and thirdly, children had gained
an exclusive inheritance of their father’s property. An attempt
will elsewhere be made to trace these changes, briefly,
and the causes by which they were produced.
The Hellenes in general were in fragmentary tribes, presenting
the same characteristics in their form of government as the
barbarous tribes in general, when organized in gentes and in
the same stage of advancement. Their condition was precisely
such as might have been predicted would exist under gentile
institutions, and therefore presents nothing remarkable.
When Grecian society came for the first time under historical
observation, about the first Olympiad (776 B. C.) and
down to the legislation of Cleisthenes (509 B. C.), it was
engaged upon the solution of a great problem. It was no less
than a fundamental change in the plan of government, involving
a great modification of institutions. The people were seeking
to transfer themselves out of gentile society, in which they
had lived from time immemorial, into political society based
upon territory and upon property, which had become essential
to a career of civilization. In fine, they were striving to establish
a state, the first in the experience of the Aryan family, and
to place it upon a territorial foundation, such as the state has
occupied from that time to the present. Ancient society rested
upon an organization of persons, and was governed through
the relations of persons to a gens and tribe; but the Grecian
tribes were outgrowing this old plan of government, and began
to feel the necessity of a political system. To accomplish this
result it was only necessary to invent a deme or township, circumscribed
with boundaries, to christen it with a name, and organize
the people therein as a body politic. The township,
with the fixed property it contained, and with the people who
inhabited it for the time being, was to become the unit of organization
in the new plan of government. Thereafter the gentilis,
changed into a citizen, would be dealt with by the state
through his territorial relations, and not through his personal
relations to a gens. He would be enrolled in the deme of his
residence, which enrollment was the evidence of his citizenship;
would vote and be taxed in his deme; and from it be called
into the military service. Although apparently a simple idea,
it required centuries of time and a complete revolution of pre-existing
conceptions of government to accomplish the result.
The gens, which had so long been the unit of a social system,
had proved inadequate, as before suggested, to meet the requirements
of an advancing society. But to set this organization
aside, together with the phratry and tribe, and substitute a
number of fixed areas, each with its community of citizens, was,
in the nature of the case, a measure of extreme difficulty. The
relations of the individual to his gens, which were personal, had
to be transferred to the township and become territorial; the
demarch of the township taking, in some sense, the place of
the chief of the gens. A township with its fixed property would
be permanent, and the people therein sufficiently so; while the
gens was a fluctuating aggregate of persons, more or less scattered,
and now growing incapable of permanent establishment
in a local circumscription. Anterior to experience, a township,
as the unit of a political system, was abstruse enough to tax the
Greeks and Romans to the depths of their capacities before the
conception was formed and set in practical operation. Property
was the new element that had been gradually remoulding
Grecian institutions to prepare the way for political society, of
which it was to be the mainspring as well as the foundation.
It was no easy task to accomplish such a fundamental change,
however simple and obvious it may now seem; because all the
previous experience of the Grecian tribes had been identified
with the gentes whose powers were to be surrendered to the
new political bodies.
Several centuries elapsed, after the first attempts were made
to found the new political system, before the problem was
solved. After experience had demonstrated that the gentes
were incapable of forming the basis of a state, several distinct
schemes of legislation were tried in the various Grecian communities,
who copied more or less each other’s experiments, all
tending to the same result. Among the Athenians, from whose
experience the chief illustrations will be drawn, may be mentioned
the legislation of Theseus, on the authority of tradition;
that of Draco (624 B. C.); that of Solon (594 B. C.); and
that of Cleisthenes (509 B. C.), the last three of which were
within the historical period. The development of municipal
life and institutions, the aggregation of wealth in walled cities,
and the great changes in the mode of life thereby produced,
prepared the way for the overthrow of gentile society, and for
the establishment of political society in its place.
Before attempting to trace the transition from gentile into political
society, with which the closing history of the gentes is
identified, the Grecian gens and its attributes will be first considered.
Athenian institutions are typical of Grecian institutions in
general, in whatever relates to the constitution of the gens and
tribe, down to the end of ancient society among them. At
the commencement of the historical period, the Ionians of Attica
were subdivided, as is well known, into four tribes (Geleontes,
Hopletes, Aegicores, and Argades), speaking the same
dialect, and occupying a common territory. They had coalesced
into a nation as distinguished from a confederacy of
tribes; but such a confederacy had probably existed in anterior
times.235 Each Attic tribe was composed of three phratries, and
each phratry of thirty gentes, making an aggregate of twelve
phratries, and of three hundred and sixty gentes in the four
tribes. Such is the general form of the statement, the fact being
constant with respect to the number of tribes, and the
number of phratries in each, but liable to variation in the number
of gentes in each phratry. In like manner the Dorians
were generally found in three tribes (Hylleis, Pamphyli, and
Dymanes), although forming a number of nationalities; as at
Sparta, Argos, Sicyon, Corinth, Epidaurus and Troezen; and
beyond the Peloponnesus at Megara, and elsewhere. One or
more non-Dorian tribes were found in some cases united with
them, as at Corinth, Sicyon and Argos.
In all cases the Grecian tribe presupposes the gentes, the
bond of kin and of dialect forming the basis upon which they
united in a tribe; but the tribe did not presuppose the phratry,
which, as an intermediate organization, although very common
among all these tribes, was liable to be intermitted. At
Sparta, there were subdivisions of the tribes called obês (ὠβαί),
each tribe containing ten, which were analogous to phratries;
but concerning the functions of these organizations some uncertainty
prevails.236
The Athenian gentes will now be considered as they appeared
in their ultimate form and in full vitality; but with the
elements of an incipient civilization arrayed against them, before
which they were yielding step by step, and by which they
were to be overthrown with the social system they created.
In some respects it is the most interesting portion of the history
of this remarkable organization, which had brought human
society out of savagery, and carried it through barbarism into
the early stages of civilization.
The social system of the Athenians exhibits the following
series: first, the gens (γένος) founded upon kin; second, the
phratry (φράτρα and φρατρία), a brotherhood of gentes derived
by segmentation, probably, from an original gens; third,
the tribe (φῦλον, later φυλὴ), composed of several phratries,
the members of which spoke the same dialect; and fourth, a
people or nation, composed of several tribes united by coalescence
into one gentile society, and occupying the same territory.
These integral and ascending organizations exhausted
their social system under the gentes, excepting the confederacy
of tribes occupying independent territories, which, although
it occurred in some instances in the early period and sprang
naturally out of gentile institutions, led to no important results.
It is likely that the four Athenian tribes confederated before
they coalesced, the last occurring after they had collected in one
territory under pressure from other tribes. If true of them, it
would be equally true of the Dorian and other tribes. When
such tribes coalesced into a nation, there was no term in the
language to express the result, beyond a national name. The
Romans, under very similar institutions, styled themselves the
Populus Romanus, which expressed the fact exactly. They
were then simply a people, and nothing more; which was all
that could result from an aggregation of gentes, curiæ and
tribes. The four Athenian tribes formed a society or people,
which became completely autonomous in the legendary period
under the name of the Athenians. Throughout the early
Grecian communities, the gens phratry and tribe were constant
phenomena of their social systems, with the occasional absence
of the phratry.
Mr. Grote has collected the principal facts with respect to
the Grecian gentes with such critical ability that they cannot
be presented in a more authoritative manner than in his own
language, which will be quoted where he treats the subject
generally. After commenting upon the tribal divisions of the
Greeks, he proceeds as follows: “But the Phratries and Gentes
are a distribution completely different from this. They seem
aggregations of small primitive unities into larger; they are
independent of, and do not presuppose, the tribe; they arise
separately and spontaneously, without preconcerted uniformity,
and without reference to a common political purpose; the legislator
finds them pre-existing, and adapts or modifies them to
answer some national scheme. We must distinguish the general
fact of the classification, and the successive subordination in the
scale, of the families to the gens, of the gentes to the phratry,
and of the phratries to the tribe—from the precise numerical
symmetry with which this subordination is invested, as we read
it,—thirty families to a gens, thirty gentes to a phratry, three
phratries to each tribe. If such nice equality of numbers
could ever have been procured, by legislative constraint, operating
upon pre-existent natural elements, the proportions
could not have been permanently maintained. But we may
reasonably doubt whether it did ever so exist.... That
every phratry contained an equal number of gentes, and every
gens an equal number of families, is a supposition hardly admissible
without better evidence than we possess. But apart from
this questionable precision of numerical scale, the Phratries and
Gentes themselves were real, ancient, and durable associations
among the Athenian people, highly important to be understood.
The basis of the whole was the house, hearth, or family,—a
number of which, greater or less, composed the Gens or Genos.
This gens was therefore a clan, sept, or enlarged, and partly
factitious, brotherhood, bound together by,—1. Common religious
ceremonies, and exclusive privilege of priesthood, in honor
of the same god, supposed to be the primitive ancestor, and
characterized by a special surname. 2. By a common burial
place.237 3. By mutual rights of succession to property. 4. By
reciprocal obligations of help, defense, and redress of injuries.
5. By mutual right and obligation to intermarry in certain determinate
cases, especially where there was an orphan daughter
or heiress. 6. By possession, in some cases, at least, of common
property, an archon and treasurer of their own. Such were the
rights and obligations characterizing the gentile union. The
phratric union, binding together several gentes, was less intimate,
but still included some mutual rights and obligations of
an analogous character; especially a communion of particular
sacred rites, and mutual privileges of prosecution in the event
of a phrator being slain. Each phratry was considered as
belonging to one of the four tribes, and all the phratries of the
same tribe enjoyed a certain periodical communion of sacred
rites under the presidency of a magistrate called the Phylo-Basileus
or tribe-king selected from the Eupatrids.”238
The similarities between the Grecian and the Iroquois gens
will at once be recognized. Differences in characteristics will
also be perceived, growing out of the more advanced condition
of Grecian society, and a fuller development of their religious
system. It will not be necessary to verify the existence of the
several attributes of the gens named by Mr. Grote, as the
proof is plain in the classical authorities. There were other
characteristics which doubtless pertained to the Grecian gens,
although it may be difficult to establish the existence of all
of them; such as: 7. The limitation of descent to the male line;
8. The prohibition of intermarriage in the gens excepting in the
case of heiresses; 9. The right of adopting strangers into the
gens; and 10. The right of electing and deposing its chiefs.
The rights, privileges and obligations of the members of the
Grecian gens may be recapitulated, with the additions named,
as follows:
| I. | Common religious rites. |
| II. | A common burial place. |
| III. | Mutual rights of succession to property of deceased members. |
| IV. | Reciprocal obligations of help, defense and redress of
injuries. |
| V. | The right to intermarry in the gens in the cases of orphan
daughters and heiresses. |
| VI. | The possession of common property, an archon, and a
treasurer. |
| VII. | The limitation of descent to the male line. |
| VIII. | The obligation not to marry in the gens except in specified
cases. |
| IX. | The right to adopt strangers into the gens. |
| X. | The right to elect and depose its chiefs. |
A brief reference to the added characteristics should be
made.
7. The limitation of descent to the male line. There is no doubt
that such was the rule, because it is proved by their genealogies.
I have not been able to find in any Greek author a definition
of a gens or of a gentilis that would furnish a sufficient
test of the right of a given person to the gentile connection.
Cicero, Varro and Festus have defined the Roman gens and
gentilis, which were strictly analogous to the Grecian, with
sufficient fullness to show that descent was in the male line.
From the nature of the gens, descent was either in the female
line or the male, and included but a moiety of the descendants
of the founder. It is precisely like the family among ourselves.
Those who are descended from the males bear the family name,
and they constitute a gens in the full sense of the term, but in
a state of dispersion, and without any bond of union excepting
those nearest in degree. The females lose, with their marriage,
the family name, and with their children are transferred to another
family. Grote remarks that Aristotle was the “son of
the physician Nikomachus who belonged to the gens of the
Asklepiads.”239 Whether Aristotle was of the gens of his father
depends upon the further question whether they both derived
their descent from Aesculapius, through males exclusively.
This is shown by Laertius, who states that “Aristotle was the
son of Nikomachus ... and Nikomachus was descended
from Nikomachus the son of Machaon, the son of Aesculapius.”240
Although the higher members of the series may be
fabulous, the manner of tracing the descent would show the
gens of the person. The statement of Hermann, on the authority
of Isaeus, is also to the point. “Every infant was registered
in the phratria and clan (γένος) of its father.”241 Registration
in the gens of the father implies that his children were
of his gens.
8. The obligation not to marry in the gens excepting in specified
cases. This obligation may be deduced from the consequences
of marriage. The wife by her marriage lost the religious
rites of her gens, and acquired those of her husband’s
gens. The rule is stated as so general as to imply that marriage
was usually out of the gens. “The virgin who quits her
father’s house,” Wachsmuth remarks, “is no longer a sharer
of the paternal sacrificial hearth, but enters the religious communion
of her husband, and this gave sanctity to the marriage
tie.”242 The fact of her registration is stated by Hermann as
follows: “Every newly married woman, herself a citizen, was
on this account enrolled in the phratry of her husband.”243 Special
religious rites (sacra gentilicia) were common in the Grecian
and Latin gens. Whether the wife forfeited her agnatic
rights by her marriage, as among the Romans, I am unable to
state. It is not probable that marriage severed all connection
with her gens, and the wife doubtless still counted herself of
the gens of her father.
The prohibition of intermarriage in the gens was fundamental
in the archaic period; and it undoubtedly remained
after descent was changed to the male line, with the exception
of heiresses and female orphans for whose case special provision
was made. Although a tendency to free marriage, beyond
certain degrees of consanguinity, would follow the complete
establishment of the monogamian family, the rule requiring
persons to marry out of their own gens would be apt to remain
so long as the gens was the basis of the social system. The
special provision in respect to heiresses tends to confirm this
supposition. Becker remarks upon this question, that “relationship
was, with trifling limitations, no hinderance to marriage,
which could take place within all degrees of [ἀγχιστεία Greek: agchisteia], or
συγγένεια, though naturally not in the [γένος Greek: genos] itself.”244
9. The right to adopt strangers into the gens. This right was
practiced at a later day, at least in families; but it was done
with public formalities, and was doubtless limited to special
cases.245 Purity of lineage became a matter of high concern in
the Attic gentes, interposing no doubt serious obstacles to the
use of the right except for weighty reasons.
10. The right to elect and depose its chiefs. This right undoubtedly
existed in the Grecian gentes in the early period.
Presumptively it was possessed by them while in the Upper
Status of barbarism. Each gens had its archon (ἀρχὸς), which
was the common name for a chief. Whether the office was
elective, for example, in the Homeric period, or was transmitted
by hereditary right to the eldest son, is a question. The
latter was not the ancient theory of the office; and a change so
great and radical, affecting the independence and personal
rights of all the members of the gens, requires positive proof
to override the presumption against it. Hereditary right to an
office, carrying with it authority over, and obligations from, the
members of a gens is a very different thing from an office bestowed
by a free election, with the reserved power to depose for
unworthy behavior. The free spirit of the Athenian gentes
down to the time of Solon and Cleisthenes forbids the supposition,
as to them, that they had parted with a right so vital to
the independence of the members of the gens. I have not
been able to find any satisfactory explanation of the tenure of
this office. Hereditary succession, if it existed, would indicate
a remarkable development of the aristocratical element in
ancient society, in derogation of the democratical constitution
of the gentes. Moreover, it would be a sign of the commencement,
at least, of their decadence. All the members of a
gens were free and equal, the rich and the poor enjoying equal
rights and privileges, and acknowledging the same in each
other. We find liberty, equality and fraternity, written as
plainly in the constitution of the Athenian gentes as in those
of the Iroquois. Hereditary right to the principal office of the
gens is totally inconsistent with the older doctrine of equal
rights and privileges.
Whether the higher offices of anax, koiranos, and basileus
were transmitted by hereditary right from father to son, or
were elective or confirmative by a larger constituency, is also
a question. It will be considered elsewhere. The former
would indicate the subversion, as the latter the conservation,
of gentile institutions. Without decisive evidence to the contrary
every presumption is adverse to hereditary right. Some
additional light will be gained on this subject when the Roman
gentes are considered. A careful re-investigation of the tenure
of this office would, not unlikely, modify essentially the received
accounts.
It may be considered substantially assured that the Grecian
gentes possessed the ten principal attributes named. All save
three, namely, descent in the male line, marrying into the gens
in the case of heiresses, and the possible transmission of the
highest military office by hereditary right, are found with slight
variations in the gentes of the Iroquois. It is thus rendered
apparent that in the gentes, both the Grecian and the Iroquois
tribes possessed the same original institution, the one having
the gens in its later, and the other in its archaic form.
Recurring now to the quotation from Mr. Grote, it may be
remarked that had he been familiar with the archaic form
of the gens, and with the several forms of the family anterior
to the monogamian, he would probably have modified essentially
some portion of his statement. An exception must be
taken to his position that the basis of the social system of the
Greeks “was the house, hearth, or family.” The form of the
family in the mind of the distinguished historian was evidently
the Roman, under the iron-clad rule of a pater familias, to
which the Grecian family of the Homeric period approximated
in the complete domination of the father over the household.
It would have been equally untenable had other and anterior
forms of the family been intended. The gens, in its origin,
is older than the monogamian family, older than the syndyasmian,
and substantially contemporaneous with the punaluan.
In no sense was it founded upon either. It does not recognize
the existence of the family of any form as a constituent of
itself. On the contrary, every family in the archaic as well as
in the later period, was partly within and partly without the
gens, because husband and wife must belong to different gentes.
The explanation is both simple and complete; namely,
that the family springs up independently of the gens with
entire freedom to advance from a lower into a higher form,
while the gens is constant, as well as the unit of the social
system. The gens entered entire into the phratry, the phratry
entered entire into the tribe, and the tribe entered entire into
the nation; but the family could not enter entire into the gens
because husband and wife must belong to different gentes.
The question here raised is important, since not only Mr.
Grote, but also Niebuhr, Thirlwall, Maine, Mommsen, and
many other able and acute investigators have taken the same
position with respect to the monogamian family of the patriarchal
type as the integer around which society integrated in
the Grecian and Roman systems. Nothing whatever was
based upon the family in any of its forms, because it was
incapable of entering a gens as a whole. The gens was homogeneous
and to a great extent permanent in duration, and as
such, the natural basis of a social system. A family of the
monogamian type might have become individualized and powerful
in a gens, and in society at large; but the gens nevertheless
did not and could not recognize or depend upon the
family as an integer of itself. The same remarks are equally
true with respect to the modern family and political society.
Although individualized by property rights and privileges, and
recognized as a legal entity by statutory enactment, the family
is not the unit of the political system. The state recognizes
the counties of which it is composed, the county its townships,
but the township takes no note of the family; so the nation
recognized its tribes, the tribes its phratries, and the phratries
its gentes; but the gens took no note of the family. In dealing
with the structure of society, organic relations alone are to be
considered. The township stands in the same relation to political
society that the gens did to gentile society. Each is the
unit of a system.
There are a number of valuable observations by Mr. Grote,
upon the Grecian gentes, which I desire to incorporate as an
exposition of them; although these observations seem to
imply that they are no older than the then existing mythology,
or hierarchy of the gods from the members of which some
of the gentes claimed to have derived their eponymous ancestor.
In the light of the facts presented, the gentes are seen
to have existed long before this mythology was developed—before
Jupiter or Neptune, Mars or Venus were conceived in
the human mind.
Mr. Grote proceeds: “Thus stood the primitive religious
and social union of the population of Attica in its gradually
ascending scale—as distinguished from the political union,
probably of later introduction, represented at first by the
trittyes and naukraries, and in after times by the ten Kleisthenean
tribes, subdivided into trittyes and demes. The religious
and family bond of aggregation is the earlier of the two; but
the political bond, though beginning later, will be found to
acquire constantly increasing influence throughout the greater
part of this history. In the former, personal relation is the
essential and predominant characteristic—local relation being
subordinate: in the latter, property and residence become the
chief considerations, and the personal element counts only as
measured along with these accompaniments. All these phratric
and gentile associations, the larger as well as the smaller,
were founded upon the same principles and tendencies of the
Grecian mind—a coalescence of the idea of worship with that
of ancestry, or of communion in certain special religious rites
with communion of blood, real or supposed. The god or
hero, to whom the assembled members offered their sacrifices,
was conceived as the primitive ancestor to whom they owed
their origin; often through a long list of intermediate names,
as in the case of the Milesian Hekatæus, so often before referred
to. Each family had its own sacred rites and funeral
commemorations of ancestors, celebrated by the master of the
house, to which none but members of the family were admissible....
The larger associations, called gens, phratry, tribe,
were formed by an extension of the same principle—of the
family considered as a religious brotherhood, worshiping some
common god or hero with an appropriate surname, and recognizing
him as their joint ancestor; and the festival of Theoenia,
and Apaturia (the first Attic, the second common to all the
Ionian race) annually brought together the members of these
phratries and gentes for worship, festivity, and maintenance
of special sympathies; thus strengthening the larger ties without
effacing the smaller.... But the historian must accept
as an ultimate fact the earliest state of things which his witnesses
make known to him, and in the case now before us,
the gentile and phratric unions are matters into the beginning
of which we cannot pretend to penetrate.”246
“The gentes both at Athens, and in other parts of Greece,
bore a patronymic name, the stamp of their believed common
paternity.247 ... But at Athens, at least after the revolution
of Kleisthenês, the gentile name was not employed: a man
was described by his own single name, followed first by the
name of his father, and next by that of the deme to which he
belonged,—as Aeschinês son of Atromêtus, a Kothôkid....
The gens constituted a close incorporation, both as to property
and as to persons. Until the time of Solon, no man had any
power of testamentary disposition. If he died without children,
his gennêtes succeeded to his property, and so they
continued to do even after Solon, if he died intestate. An
orphan girl might be claimed in marriage of right by any
member of the gens, the nearest agnates being preferred; if she
was poor, and he did not choose to marry her himself, the law
of Solon compelled him to provide her with a dowry proportional
to his enrolled scale of property, and to give her out
in marriage to another.... If a man was murdered, first
his near relations, next his gennêtes and phrators, were both
allowed and required to prosecute the crime at law; while his
fellow demots, or inhabitants of the same deme, did not possess
the like right of prosecuting. All that we hear of the most
ancient Athenian laws is based upon the gentile and phratric
divisions, which are treated throughout as extensions of the
family. It is to be observed that this division is completely independent
of any property qualification—rich men as well as poor
being comprehended in the same gens. Moreover, the different
gentes were very unequal in dignity, arising chiefly from
the religious ceremonies of which each possessed the hereditary
and exclusive administration, and which, being in some cases
considered of pre-eminent sanctity in reference to the whole
city, were therefore nationalized. Thus the Eumolpidæ and
Kêrykes, who supplied the hierophant and superintendent
of the mysteries of the Eleusinian Dêmêtêr—and the Butadæ,
who furnished the priestess of Athênê Polias, as well as
the priest of Poseidôn Erechtheus in the Acropolis—seem to
have been reverenced above all the other gentes.”248
Mr. Grote speaks of the gens as an extension of the family,
and as presupposing its existence; treating the family as primary
and the gens as secondary. This view, for the reasons
stated, is untenable. The two organizations proceed upon different
principles and are independent of each other. The gens
embraces a part only of the descendants of a supposed common
ancestor, and excludes the remainder; it also embraces a part
only of a family, and excludes the remainder. In order to be
a constituent of the gens, the family should enter entire within
its folds, which was impossible in the archaic period, and constructive
only in the later. In the organization of gentile society
the gens is primary, forming both the basis and the unit
of the system. The family also is primary, and older than the
gens; the punaluan and the consanguine families having preceded
it in the order of time; but it was not a member of the
organic series in ancient society any more than it is in modern.
The gens existed in the Aryan family when the Latin, Grecian
and Sanskrit speaking tribes were one people, as is shown
by the presence in their dialects of the same term (gens, [γένος Greek: genos],
and ganas) to express the organization. They derived it from
their barbarous ancestors, and more remotely from their savage
progenitors. If the Aryan family became differentiated as
early as the Middle Period of barbarism, which seems probable,
the gens must have been transmitted to them in its archaic
form. After that event, and during the long periods of time
which elapsed between the separation of these tribes from each
other and the commencement of civilization, those changes in
the constitution of the gens, which have been noticed hypothetically,
must have occurred. It is impossible to conceive of the
gens as appearing, for the first time, in any other than its archaic
form; consequently the Grecian gens must have been
originally in this form. If, then, causes can be found adequate
to account for so great a change of descent as that from the female
line to the male, the argument will be complete, although
in the end it substituted a new body of kindred in the gens in
place of the old. The growth of the idea of property, and the
rise of monogamy, furnished motives sufficiently powerful to
demand and obtain this change in order to bring children into
the gens of their father, and into a participation in the inheritance
of his estate. Monogamy assured the paternity of children, which
was unknown when the gens was instituted, and the exclusion
of children from the inheritance was no longer possible. In
the face of the new circumstances, the gens would be forced
into reconstruction or dissolution. When the gens of the
Iroquois, as it appeared in the Lower Status of barbarism, is
placed beside the gens of the Grecian tribes as it appeared in
the Upper Status, it is impossible not to perceive that they are
the same organization, the one in its archaic and the other in its
ultimate form. The differences between them are precisely
those which would have been forced upon the gens by the exigencies
of human progress.
Along with these mutations in the constitution of the gens
are found the parallel mutations in the rule of inheritance.
Property, always hereditary in the gens, was first hereditary
among the gentiles; secondly, hereditary among the agnates, to
the exclusion of the remaining gentiles; and now, thirdly, hereditary
among the agnates in succession, in the order of their
nearness to the decedent, which gave an exclusive inheritance
to the children as the nearest agnates. The pertinacity
with which the principle was maintained down to the time of
Solon, that the property should remain in the gens of the deceased
owner, illustrates the vitality of the organization through
all these periods. It was this rule which compelled the heiress
to marry in her own gens to prevent a transfer of the property
by her marriage to another gens. When Solon allowed the
owner of property to dispose of it by will, in case he had no
children, he made the first inroad upon the property rights of
the gens.
How nearly the members of a gens were related, or whether
they were related at all, has been made a question. Mr. Grote
remarked that “Pollux informs us distinctly that the members of
the same gens at Athens were not commonly related by blood,—and
even without any express testimony we might have concluded
such to be the fact. To what extent the gens, at the unknown
epoch of its formation was based upon actual relationship,
we have no means of determining, either with regard to the
Athenian or the Roman gentes, which were in the main points
analogous. Gentilism is a tie by itself; distinct from the family
ties, but presupposing their existence and extending them by
an artificial analogy, partly founded in religious belief, and
partly on positive compact, so as to comprehend strangers in
blood. All the members of one gens, or even of one phratry,
believed themselves to be sprung, not indeed from the same
grandfather or great-grandfather, but from the same divine or
heroic ancestor.... And this fundamental belief, into which
the Greek mind passed with so much facility, was adopted and
converted by positive compact into the gentile and phratric principle
of union.... Doubtless Niebuhr, in his valuable discussion
of the ancient Roman gentes, is right in supposing that
they were not real families, procreated from any common historical
ancestor. Still it is not the less true (although he seems
to suppose otherwise) that the idea of the gens involved the belief
in a common first father, divine or heroic—a genealogy
which we may properly call fabulous, but which was consecrated
and accredited among the members of the gens itself; and
served as one important bond of union between them.... The
natural families of course changed from generation to generation,
some extending themselves, while others diminished or died
out; but the gens received no alterations, except through the
procreation, extinction, or subdivision of these component
families. Accordingly the relations of the families with the gens
were in perpetual course of fluctuation, and the gentile ancestorial
genealogy, adapted as it doubtless was to the early condition
of the gens, became in process of time partially obsolete
and unsuitable. We hear of this genealogy but rarely, because
it is only brought before the public in certain cases pre-eminent
and venerable. But the humbler gentes had their common
rites, and common superhuman ancestor and genealogy, as
well as the more celebrated: the scheme and ideal basis was
the same in all.”249
The several statements of Pollux, Niebuhr and Grote are
true in a certain sense, but not absolutely so. The lineage of
a gens ran back of the acknowledged ancestor, and therefore
the gens of ancient date could not have had a known progenitor;
neither could the fact of a blood connection be proved by
their system of consanguinity; nevertheless the gentiles not
only believed in their common descent, but were justified in so
believing. The system of consanguinity which pertained to
the gens in its archaic form, and which the Greeks probably
once possessed, preserved a knowledge of the relationships of
all the members of a gens to each other. This fell into desuetude
with the rise of the monogamian family, as I shall
endeavor elsewhere to show. The gentile name created a pedigree
beside which that of a family was insignificant. It was
the function of this name to preserve the fact of the common
descent of those who bore it; but the lineage of the gens was
so ancient that its members could not prove the actual relationship
existing between them, except in a limited number of
cases through recent common ancestors. The name itself was
the evidence of a common descent, and conclusive, except as it
was liable to interruption through the adoption of strangers in
blood in the previous history of the gens. The practical denial
of all relationship between its members made by Pollux and
Niebuhr, which would change the gens into a purely fictitious
association, has no ground to rest upon. A large proportion
of the number could prove their relationship through descent
from common ancestors within the gens, and as to the remainder
the gentile name they bore was sufficient evidence of common
descent for practical purposes. The Grecian gens was
not usually a large body of persons. Thirty families to a gens,
not counting the wives of the heads of families, would give, by
the common rule of computation, an average of one hundred
and twenty persons to the gens.
As the unit of the organic social system, the gens would
naturally become the centre of social life and activity. It was
organized as a social body, with its archon or chief, and treasurer;
having common lands to some extent, a common burial
place, and common religious rites. Beside these were the
rights, privileges and obligations which the gens conferred and
imposed upon all its members. It was in the gens that the religious
activity of the Greeks originated, which expanded over
the phratries, and culminated in periodical festivals common to
all the tribes. This subject has been admirably treated by M.
De Coulanges in his recent work on “The Ancient City.”
In order to understand the condition of Grecian society, anterior
to the formation of the state, it is necessary to know the
constitution and principles of the Grecian gens; for the character
of the unit determines the character of its compounds in
the ascending series, and can alone furnish the means for their
explanation.
The Athenian Phratry.—How Formed.—Definition of Dikæarchus.—Objects
chiefly Religious.—The Phratriarch.—The Tribe.—Composed
of Three Phratries.—The Phylo-basileus.—The Nation.—Composed of
Four Tribes.—Boule, or Council of Chiefs.—Agora, or Assembly of the
People.—The Basileus.—Tenure of the Office.—Military and Priestly
Functions.—Civil Functions not shown.—Governments of the Heroic
Age, Military Democracies.—Aristotle’s Definition of a Basileus.—Later
Athenian Democracy.—Inherited From the Gentes.—Its powerful
Influence upon Athenian Development.
The phratry, as we have seen, was the second stage of organization
in the Grecian social system. It consisted of several
gentes united for objects, especially religious, which were common
to them all. It had a natural foundation in the bond
of kin, as the gentes in a phratry were probably subdivisions
of an original gens, a knowledge of the fact having been
preserved by tradition. “All the contemporary members
of the phratry of Hekatæus,” Mr. Grote remarks, “had a
common god for their ancestor at the sixteenth degree,”250 which
could not have been asserted unless the several gentes comprised
in the phratry of Hekatæus, were supposed to be derived
by segmentation from an original gens. This genealogy,
although in part fabulous, would be traced according to gentile
usages. Dikæarchus supposed that the practice of certain
gentes in supplying each other with wives, led to the phratric
organization for the performance of common religious rites.
This is a plausible explanation, because such marriages would
intermingle the blood of the gentes. On the contrary, gentes
formed, in the course of time, by the division of a gens and
by subsequent subdivisions, would give to all a common lineage,
and form a natural basis for their re-integration in a phratry.
As such the phratry would be a natural growth, and as such
only can it be explained as a gentile institution. The gentes
thus united were brother gentes, and the association itself was
a brotherhood as the term imports.
Stephanus of Byzantium has preserved a fragment of
Dikæarchus, in which an explanation of the origin of the
gens, phratry and tribe is suggested. It is not full enough,
with respect to either, to amount to a definition; but it is valuable
as a recognition of the three stages of organization in
ancient Grecian society. He uses patry (πάτρᾶ) in the place
of gens (γένος), as Pindar did in a number of instances, and
Homer occasionally. The passage may be rendered: “Patry
is one of three forms of social union among the Greeks, according
to Dikæarchus, which we call respectively, patry, phratry,
and tribe. The patry comes into being when relationship,
originally solitary, passes over into the second stage [the relationship
of parents with children and children with parents],
and derives its eponym from the oldest and chief member of
the patry, as Aicidas, Pelopidas.”
“But it came to be called phatria and phratria when certain
ones gave their daughters to be married into another patry.
For the woman who was given in marriage participated no
longer in her paternal sacred rites, but was enrolled in the
patry of her husband; so that for the union, formerly subsisting
by affection between sisters and brothers, there was established
another union based on community of religious rites,
which they denominated a phratry; and so that again, while
the patry took its rise in the way we have previously mentioned,
from the blood relation between parents and children
and children and parents, the phratry took its rise from the
relationship between brothers.”
“But tribe and tribesmen were so called from the coalescence
into communities and nations so called, for each of the coalescing
bodies was called a tribe.”251
It will be noticed that marriage out of the gens is here
recognized as a custom, and that the wife was enrolled in the
gens, rather than the phratry, of her husband. Dikæarchus,
who was a pupil of Aristotle, lived at a time when the gens
existed chiefly as a pedigree of individuals, its powers having
been transferred to new political bodies. He derived the origin
of the gens from primitive times; but his statement that the
phratry originated in the matrimonial practices of the gentes,
while true doubtless as to the practice, is but an opinion as to
the origin of the organization. Intermarriages, with common
religious rites, would cement the phratric union; but a more
satisfactory foundation of the phratry may be found in the
common lineage of the gentes of which it was composed. It
must be remembered that the gentes have a history running
back through the three sub-periods of barbarism into the previous
period of savagery, antedating the existence even of the
Aryan and Semitic families. The phratry has been shown to
have appeared among the American aborigines in the Lower
Status of barbarism; while the Greeks were familiar with so
much only of their former history as pertained to the Upper
Status of barbarism.
Mr. Grote does not attempt to define the functions of the
phratry, except generally. They were doubtless of a religious
character chiefly; but they probably manifested themselves, as
among the Iroquois, at the burial of the dead, at public games,
at religious festivals, at councils, and at the agoras of the
people, where the grouping of chiefs and people would be by
phratries rather than by gentes. It would also naturally show
itself in the array of the military forces, of which a memorable
example is given by Homer in the address of Nestor to Agamemnon.252
“Separate the troops by tribes and by phratries,
Agamemnon, so that phratry may support phratry, and tribes,
tribes (κρῖν' ἄνδρας κατὰ φῦλα, κατὰ φρήτρας, Ἀγάμεμνον,
ὡς φρήτρη φρήτρηφιν ἀρήγῃ, φῦλα δὲ φύλοις). If thou
wilt thus act, and the Greeks obey, thou wilt then ascertain
which of the commanders and which of the soldiers is a
coward, and which of them may be brave, for they will fight
their best.” The number from the same gens in a military
force would be too small to be made a basis in the organization
of an army; but the larger aggregations of the phratries and
tribes would be sufficient. Two things may be inferred from
the advice of Nestor: first, that the organization of armies by
phratries and tribes had then ceased to be common; and
secondly, that in ancient times it had been the usual plan of
army organization, a knowledge of which had not then disappeared.
We have seen that the Tlascalans and Aztecs, who
were in the Middle Status of barbarism, organized and sent out
their military bands by phratries which, in their condition, was
probably the only method in which a military force could be
organized. The ancient German tribes organized their armies
for battle on a similar principle.253 It is interesting to notice
how closely shut in the tribes of mankind have been to the
theory of their social system.
The obligation of blood revenge, which was turned at a later
day into a duty of prosecuting the murderer before the legal
tribunals, rested primarily upon the gens of the slain person;
but it was also shared in by the phratry, and became a phratric
obligation.254 In the Eumenides of Aeschylus, the Erinnys,
after speaking of the slaying of his mother by Orestes, put the
question: “What lustral water of his phrators shall await him?”255
which seems to imply that if the criminal escaped punishment
final purification was performed by his phratry instead of his
gens. Moreover, the extension of the obligation from the
gens to the phratry implies a common lineage of all the gentes
in a phratry.
Since the phratry was intermediate between the gens and
the tribe, and not invested with governmental functions, it was
less fundamental and less important than either of the others;
but it was a common, natural and perhaps necessary stage
of re-integration between the two. Could an intimate knowledge
of the social life of the Greeks in that early period be
recovered, the phenomena would centre probably in the phratric
organization far more conspicuously than our scanty records
lead us to infer. It probably possessed more power and influence
than is usually ascribed to it as an organization. Among
the Athenians it survived the overthrow of the gentes as the
basis of a system, and retained, under the new political system,
some control over the registration of citizens, the enrollment
of marriages and the prosecution of the murderer of a phrator
before the courts.
It is customary to speak of the four Athenian tribes as
divided each into three phratries, and of each phratry as
divided into thirty gentes; but this is merely for convenience
in description. A people under gentile institutions do not
divide themselves into symmetrical divisions and subdivisions.
The natural process of their formation was the exact reverse
of this method; the gentes fell into phratries, and ultimately
into tribes, which reunited in a society or a people. Each was
a natural growth. That the number of gentes in each Athenian
phratry was thirty is a remarkable fact incapable of explanation
by natural causes. A motive sufficiently powerful,
such as a desire for a symmetrical organization of the phratries
and tribes, might lead to a subdivision of gentes by consent
until the number was raised to thirty in each of these phratries;
and when the number in a tribe was in excess, by the consolidation
of kindred gentes until the number was reduced to
thirty. A more probable way would be by the admission
of alien gentes into phratries needing an increase of number.
Having a certain number of tribes, phratries and gentes by
natural growth, the reduction of the last two to uniformity
in the four tribes could thus have been secured. Once cast
in this numerical scale of thirty gentes to a phratry and three
phratries to a tribe, the proportion might easily have been
maintained for centuries, except perhaps as to the number
of gentes in each phratry.
The religious life of the Grecian tribes had its centre and
source in the gentes and phratries. It must be supposed that
in and through these organizations, was perfected that marvelous
polytheistic system, with its hierarchy of gods, its symbols
and forms of worship, which impressed so powerfully the mind
of the classical world. In no small degree this mythology inspired
the great achievements of the legendary and historical
periods, and created that enthusiasm which produced the temple
and ornamental architecture in which the modern world has
taken so much delight. Some of the religious rites, which originated
in these social aggregates, were nationalized from the superior
sanctity they were supposed to possess; thus showing to
what extent the gentes and phratries were nurseries of religion.
The events of this extraordinary period, the most eventful in
many respects in the history of the Aryan family, are lost, in
the main, to history. Legendary genealogies and narratives,
myths and fragments of poetry, concluding with the Homeric
and Hesiodic poems, make up its literary remains. But their
institutions, arts, inventions, mythological system, in a word the
substance of civilization which they wrought out and brought
with them, were the legacy they contributed to the new society
they were destined to found. The history of the period may
yet be reconstructed from these various sources of knowledge,
reproducing the main features of gentile society as they appeared
shortly before the institution of political society.
As the gens had its archon, who officiated as its priest in the
religious observances of the gens, so each phratry had its phratriarch
(φρατριάρχος), who presided at its meetings, and officiated
in the solemnization of its religious rites. “The phratry,”
observes M. De Coulanges, “had its assemblies and its tribunals,
and could pass decrees. In it, as well as in the family, there
was a god, a priesthood, a legal tribunal and a government.”256
The religious rites of the phratries were an expansion of those
of the gentes of which it was composed. It is in these directions
that attention should be turned in order to understand the
religious life of the Greeks.
Next in the ascending scale of organization was the tribe,
consisting of a number of phratries, each composed of gentes.
The persons in each phratry were of the same common lineage,
and spoke the same dialect. Among the Athenians as before
stated each tribe contained three phratries, which gave to each
a similar organization. The tribe corresponds with the Latin
tribe, and also with those of the American aborigines, an independent
dialect for each tribe being necessary to render the
analogy with the latter complete. The concentration of such
Grecian tribes as had coalesced into a people, in a small area,
tended to repress dialectical variation, which a subsequent
written language and literature tended still further to arrest
each tribe from antecedent habits, however, was more or less
localized in a fixed area, through the requirements of a social
system resting on personal relations. It seems probable that
each tribe had its council of chiefs, supreme in all matters relating
to the tribe exclusively. But since the functions and
powers of the general council of chiefs, who administered the
general affairs of the united tribes, were allowed to fall into obscurity,
it would not be expected that those of an inferior and
subordinate council would be preserved. If such a council existed,
which was doubtless the fact from its necessity under their
social system, it would have consisted of the chiefs of the gentes.
When the several phratries of a tribe united in the commemoration
of their religious observances it was in their higher organic
constitution as a tribe. As such, they were under the
presidency, as we find it expressed, of a phylo-basileus, who
was the principal chief of the tribe. Whether he acted as their
commander in the military service I am unable to state. He
possessed priestly functions, always inherent in the office of
basileus, and exercised a criminal jurisdiction in cases of murder;
whether to try or to prosecute a murderer, I am unable to
state. The priestly and judicial functions attached to the office
of basileus tend to explain the dignity it acquired in the legendary
and heroic periods. But the absence of civil functions, in
the strict sense of the term, of the presence of which we have
no satisfactory evidence, is sufficient to render the term king,
so constantly employed in history as the equivalent of basileus,
a misnomer. Among the Athenians we have the tribe-basileus,
where the term is used by the Greeks themselves as legitimately
as when applied to the general military commander of the four
united tribes. When each is described as a king it makes the
solecism of four tribes each under a king separately, and the
four tribes together under another king. There is a larger
amount of fictitious royalty here than the occasion requires.
Moreover, when we know that the institutions of the Athenians
at the time were essentially democratical it becomes a caricature
of Grecian society. It shows the propriety of returning to
simple and original language, using the term basileus where the
Greeks used it, and rejecting king as a false equivalent. Monarchy
is incompatible with gentilism, for the reason that gentile
institutions are essentially democratical. Every gens, phratry
and tribe was a completely organized self-governing body;
and where several tribes coalesced into a nation the resulting
government would be constituted in harmony with the principles
animating its constituent parts.
The fourth and ultimate stage of organization was the nation
united in a gentile society. Where several tribes, as those of
the Athenians and the Spartans, coalesced into one people, it
enlarged the society, but the aggregate was simply a more complex
duplicate of a tribe. The tribes took the same place in
the nation which the phratries held in the tribe, and the gentes
in the phratry. There was no name for the organism257 which was
simply a society (societas), but in its place a name sprang up
for the people or nation. In Homer’s description of the forces
gathered against Troy, specific names are given to these nations,
where such existed, as Athenians, Ætolians, Locrians;
but in other cases they are described by the name of the city
or country from which they came. The ultimate fact is thus
reached, that the Greeks, prior to the times of Lycurgus and
Solon, had but the four stages of social organization (gens,
phratry, tribe and nation), which was so nearly universal in ancient
society, and which has been shown to exist, in part, in the
Status of savagery, and complete in the Lower, in the Middle
and in the Upper Status of barbarism, and still subsisting after
civilization had commenced. This organic series expresses the
extent of the growth of the idea of government among mankind
down to the institution of political society. Such was the
Grecian social system. It gave a society, made up of a series
of aggregates of persons, with whom the government dealt
through their personal relations to a gens, phratry or tribe. It
was also a gentile society as distinguished from a political society,
from which it was fundamentally different and easily distinguishable.
The Athenian nation of the heroic age presents in its government
three distinct, and in some sense co-ordinate, departments
or powers, namely: first, the council of chiefs (βουλή);
second, the agora (ἀγορά), or assembly of the people; and
third, the basileus (βασιλεύς), or general military commander.
Although municipal and subordinate military offices in large
numbers had been created, from the increasing necessities of
their condition, the principal powers of the government were
held by the three instrumentalities named. I am unable to
discuss in an adequate manner the functions and powers of the
council, the agora or the basileus, but will content myself with
a few suggestions upon subjects grave enough to deserve reinvestigation
at the hands of professed Hellenists.
I. The Council of Chiefs. The office of basileus in the Grecian
tribes has attracted far more attention than either the
council or the agora. As a consequence it has been unduly
magnified while the council and the agora have either been depreciated
or ignored. We know, however, that the council of
chiefs was a constant phenomenon in every Grecian nation
from the earliest period to which our knowledge extends down
to the institution of political society. Its permanence as a
feature of their social system is conclusive evidence that its
functions were substantial, and that its powers, at least presumptively,
were ultimate and supreme. This presumption
arises from what is known of the archaic character and functions
of the council of chiefs under gentile institutions, and
from its vocation. How it was constituted in the heroic age,
and under what tenure the office of chief was held, we are not
clearly informed; but it is a reasonable inference that the council
was composed of the chiefs of the gentes. Since the number
who formed the council was usually less than the number
of gentes, a selection must have been made in some way from
the body of chiefs. In what manner the selection was made
we are not informed. The vocation of the council as a legislative
body representing the principal gentes, and its natural
growth under the gentile organization, rendered it supreme in
the first instance, and makes it probable that it remained so to
the end of its existence. The increasing importance of the
office of basileus, and the new offices created in their military
and municipal affairs with their increase in numbers and in
wealth, would change somewhat the relations of the council to
public affairs, and perhaps diminish its importance; but it could
not be overthrown without a radical change of institutions. It
seems probable, therefore, that every office of the government,
from the highest to the lowest, remained accountable to the
council for their official acts. The council was fundamental in
their social system;258 and the Greeks of the period were free
self-governing peoples, under institutions essentially democratical.
A single illustration of the existence of the council may
be given from Aeschylus, simply to show that in the Greek
conception it was always present and ready to act. In The
Seven against Thebes, Eteocles is represented in command of
the city, and his brother Polynices as one of the seven chiefs
who had invested the place. The assault was repelled, but the
brothers fell in a personal combat at one of the gates. After
this occurrence a herald says: “It is necessary for me to announce
the decree and good pleasure of the councilors of the
people of this city of Cadmus. It is resolved,”259 etc. A council
which can make and promulgate a decree at any moment,
which the people are expected to obey, possesses the supreme
powers of government. Aeschylus, although dealing in this
case with events in the legendary period, recognizes the council
of chiefs as a necessary part of the system of government
of every Grecian people. The boulê of ancient Grecian society
was the prototype and pattern of the senate under the subsequent
political system of the state.
II. The Agora. Although an assembly of the people became
established in the legendary period, with a recognized
power to adopt or reject public measures submitted by the
council, it is not as ancient as the council. The latter came in
at the institution of the gentes; but it is doubtful whether the
agora existed, with the functions named, back of the Upper
Status of barbarism. It has been shown that among the Iroquois,
in the Lower Status, the people presented their wishes
to the council of chiefs through orators of their own selection,
and that a popular influence was felt in the affairs of the confederacy;
but an assembly of the people, with the right to
adopt or reject public measures, would evince an amount of
progress in intelligence and knowledge beyond the Iroquois.
When the agora first appears, as represented in Homer, and in
the Greek Tragedies, it had the same characteristics which it
afterwards maintained in the ecclesia of the Athenians, and in
the comitia curiata of the Romans. It was the prerogative of
the council of chiefs to mature public measures, and then submit
them to the assembly of the people for acceptance or rejection,
and their decision was final. The functions of the
agora were limited to this single act. It could neither originate
measures, nor interfere in the administration of affairs;
but nevertheless it was a substantial power, eminently adapted
to the protection of their liberties. In the heroic age certainly,
and far back in the legendary period, the agora is a constant
phenomenon among the Grecian tribes, and, in connection with
the council, is conclusive evidence of the democratical constitution
of gentile society throughout these periods. A public
sentiment, as we have reason to suppose, was created among
the people on all important questions, through the exercise of
their intelligence, which the council of chiefs found it desirable
as well as necessary to consult, both for the public good and
for the maintenance of their own authority. After hearing
the submitted question discussed, the assembly of the people,
which was free to all who desired to speak,260 made their decision
in ancient times usually by a show of hands.261 Through participation
in public affairs, which affected the interests of all, the
people were constantly learning the art of self-government, and
a portion of them, as the Athenians, were preparing themselves
for the full democracy subsequently established by the constitutions
of Cleisthenes. The assembly of the people to deliberate
upon public questions, not unfrequently derided as a mob
by writers who were unable to understand or appreciate the
principle of democracy, was the germ of the ecclesia (ἐκκλησία)
of the Athenians, and of the lower house of modern legislative
bodies.
III. The Basileus. This officer became a conspicuous character
in the Grecian society of the heroic age, and was equally
prominent in the legendary period. He has been placed by
historians in the centre of the system. The name of the office
(βασιλεύς) was used by the best Grecian writers to characterize
the government, which was styled a basileia (βᾶσίλειᾶ).
Modern writers, almost without exception, translate basileus by
the term king, and basileia by the term kingdom, without qualification,
and as exact equivalents. I wish to call attention to
this office of basileus, as it existed in the Grecian tribes, and to
question the correctness of this interpretation. There is no
similarity whatever between the basileia of the ancient Athenians
and the modern kingdom or monarchy; certainly not
enough to justify the use of the same term to describe both.
Our idea of a kingly government is essentially of a type in
which a king, surrounded by a privileged and titled class in the
ownership and possession of the lands, rules according to his
own will and pleasure by edicts and decrees; claiming an
hereditary right to rule, because he cannot allege the consent
of the governed. Such governments have been self-imposed
through the principle of hereditary right, to which the priesthood
have sought to superadd a divine right. The Tudor
kings of England and the Bourbon kings of France are illustrations.
Constitutional monarchy is a modern development,
and essentially different from the basileia of the Greeks. The
basileia was neither an absolute nor a constitutional monarchy;
neither was it a tyranny or a despotism. The question then
is, what was it.
Mr. Grote claims that “the primitive Grecian government is
essentially monarchical, reposing on personal feeling and divine
right;”262 and to confirm this view he remarks further, that
“the memorable dictum in the Iliad is borne out by all that
we hear in actual practice: ‘the rule of many is not a good
thing; let us have one ruler only—one king—him to whom
Zeus has given the sceptre, with the tutelary sanctions.’”263
This opinion is not peculiar to Mr. Grote, whose eminence as a
historian all delight to recognize; but it has been steadily and
generally affirmed by historical writers on Grecian themes, until
it has come to be accepted as historical truth. Our views
upon Grecian and Roman questions have been moulded by
writers accustomed to monarchical government and privileged
classes, who were perhaps glad to appeal to the earliest known
governments of the Grecian tribes for a sanction of this form
of government, as at once natural, essential and primitive.
The true statement, as it seems to an American, is precisely
the reverse of Mr. Grote’s; namely, that the primitive
Grecian government was essentially democratical, reposing on
gentes, phratries and tribes, organized as self-governing bodies,
and on the principles of liberty, equality and fraternity.
This is borne out by all we know of the gentile organization,
which has been shown to rest on principles essentially democratical.
The question then is, whether the office of basileus
passed in reality from father to son by hereditary right; which,
if true, would tend to show a subversion of these principles.
We have seen that in the Lower Status of barbarism the office of
chief was hereditary in a gens, by which is meant that the vacancy
was filled from the members of the gens as often as it
occurred. Where descent was in the female line, as among
the Iroquois, an own brother was usually selected to succeed
the deceased chief, and where descent was in the male line, as
among the Ojibwas and Omahas, the oldest son. In the absence
of objections to the person such became the rule; but
the elective principle remained, which was the essence of self-government.
It cannot be claimed, on satisfactory proof, that
the oldest son of the basileus took the office, upon the demise
of his father, by absolute hereditary right. This is the essential
fact; and it requires conclusive proof for its establishment.
The fact that the oldest, or one of the sons, usually succeeded,
which is admitted, does not establish the fact in question; because
by usage he was in the probable line of succession by a
free election from a constituency. The presumption, on the
face of Grecian institutions, is against succession to the office
of basileus by hereditary right; and in favor either of a free
election, or of a confirmation of the office by the people through
their recognized organizations, as in the case of the Roman
rex.264 With the office of basileus transmitted in the manner
last named, the government would remain in the hands of the
people. Because without an election or confirmation he could
not assume the office; and because further, the power to elect
or confirm implies the reserved right to depose.
The illustration of Mr. Grote, drawn from the Iliad, is without
significance on the question made. Ulysses, from whose
address the quotation is taken, was speaking of the command
of an army before a besieged city. He might well say: “All
the Greeks cannot by any means rule here. The rule of many
is not a good thing. Let us have one koiranos, one basileus,
to whom Zeus has given the sceptre, and the divine sanctions in
order that he may command us.”265 Koiranos and basileus are
used as equivalents, because both alike signified a general military
commander. There was no occasion for Ulysses to discuss
or endorse any plan of government; but he had sufficient
reasons for advocating obedience to a single commander of the
army before a besieged city.
Basileia may be defined as a military democracy, the people
being free, and the spirit of the government, which is the essential
thing, being democratical. The basileus was their general,
holding the highest, the most influential and the most
important office known to their social system. For the want
of a better term to describe the government, basileia was
adopted by Grecian writers, because it carried the idea of a
generalship which had then become a conspicuous feature in
the government. With the council and the agora both existing
with the basileus, if a more special definition of this form of
government is required, military democracy expresses it with
at least reasonable correctness; while the use of the term kingdom,
with the meaning it necessarily conveys, would be a misnomer.
In the heroic age the Grecian tribes were living in walled
cities, and were becoming numerous and wealthy through field
agriculture, manufacturing industries, and flocks and herds.
New offices were required, as well as some degree of separation
of their functions; and a new municipal system was growing
up apace with their increasing intelligence and necessities. It
was also a period of incessant military strife for the possession
of the most desirable areas. Along with the increase of property
the aristocratic element in society undoubtedly increased,
and was the chief cause of those disturbances which prevailed
in Athenian society from the time of Theseus to the times of
Solon and Cleisthenes. During this period, and until the final
abolition of the office some time before the first Olympiad,
(776 B. C.) the basileus, from the character of his office and
from the state of the times, became more prominent and more
powerful than any single person in their previous experience.
The functions of a priest and of a judge were attached to or
inherent in his office; and he seems to have been ex officio a
member of the council of chiefs. It was a great as well as a
necessary office, with the powers of a general over the army in
the field, and over the garrison in the city, which gave him the
means of acquiring influence in civil affairs as well. But it
does not appear that he possessed civil functions. Prof. Mason
remarks, that “our information respecting the Grecian kings in
the more historical age is not ample or minute enough to enable
us to draw out a detailed scheme of their functions.”266 The
military and priestly functions of the basileus are tolerably well
understood, the judicial imperfectly, and the civil functions cannot
properly be said to have existed. The powers of such an
office under gentile institutions would gradually become defined
by the usage of experience, but with a constant tendency in
the basileus to assume new ones dangerous to society. Since
the council of chiefs remained as a constituent element of the
government, it may be said to have represented the democratic
principles of their social system, as well as the gentes, while
the basileus soon came to represent the aristocratic principle.
It is probable that a perpetual struggle was maintained between
the council and the basileus, to hold the latter within the limits
of powers the people were willing to concede to the office.
Moreover, the abolition of the office by the Athenians makes
it probable that they found the office unmanageable, and incompatible
with gentile institutions, from the tendency to usurp
additional powers.
Among the Spartan tribes the ephoralty was instituted at a
very early period to limit the powers of the basileis in consequence
of a similar experience. Although the functions of the
council in the Homeric and the legendary periods are not accurately
known, its constant presence is evidence sufficient that
its powers were real, essential and permanent. With the simultaneous
existence of the agora, and in the absence of proof
of a change of institutions, we are led to the conclusion that the
council, under established usages, was supreme over gentes,
phratries, tribes and nation, and that the basileus was amenable
to this council for his official acts. The freedom of the
gentes, of whom the members of the council were representatives,
presupposes the independence of the council, as well as its
supremacy.
Thucydides refers incidentally to the governments of the traditionary
period, as follows: “Now when the Greeks were becoming
more powerful, and acquiring possession of property
still more than before, many tyrannies were established in the
cities, from their revenues becoming greater; whereas before
there had been hereditary basileia with specified powers.”
(πρότερον δὲ ἦσαν ἐπὶ ῥητοῖς γέρασι πατρικαὶ βασιλεῖαι)267
The office was hereditary in the sense of perpetual because it
was filled as often as a vacancy occurred, but probably hereditary
in a gens, the choice being by a free election by his gennêtes,
or by nomination possibly by the council, and confirmation
of the gentes, as in the case of the rex of the Romans.
Aristotle has given the most satisfactory definition of the basileia
and of the basileus of the heroic period of any of the Grecian
writers. These then are the four kinds of basileia he
remarks: the first is that of the heroic times, which was a government
over a free people, with restricted rights in some particulars;
for the basileus was their general, their judge and
their chief priest. The second, that of the barbarians, which is
an hereditary despotic government, regulated by laws; the third
is that which they call Aesymnetic, which is an elective tyranny.
The fourth is the Lacedaemonian, which is nothing
more than an hereditary generalship.268 Whatever may be said
of the last three forms, the first does not answer to the idea of a
kingdom of the absolute type, nor to any recognizable form of
monarchy. Aristotle enumerates with striking clearness the
principal functions of the basileus, neither of which imply civil
powers, and all of which are consistent with an office for life, held
by an elective tenure. They are also consistent with his entire
subordination to the council of chiefs. The “restricted rights,”
and the “specified powers” in the definitions of these authors,
tend to show that the government had grown into this form in
harmony with, as well as under, gentile institutions. The essential
element in the definition of Aristotle is the freedom of the
people, which in ancient society implies that the people held
the powers of the government under their control, that the
office of basileus was voluntarily bestowed, and that it could
be recalled for sufficient cause. Such a government as that described
by Aristotle can be understood as a military democracy,
which, as a form of government under free institutions, grew
naturally out of the gentile organization when the military
spirit was dominant, when wealth and numbers appeared, with
habitual life in fortified cities, and before experience had prepared
the way for a pure democracy.
Under gentile institutions, with a people composed of gentes,
phratries and tribes, each organized as independent self-governing
bodies, the people would necessarily be free. The rule
of a king by hereditary right and without direct accountability
in such a society was simply impossible. The impossibility
arises from the fact that gentile institutions are incompatible
with a king or with a kingly government. It would require,
what I think cannot be furnished, positive proof of absolute
hereditary right in the office of basileus, with the presence
of civil functions, to overcome the presumption which arises
from the structure and principles of ancient Grecian society.
An Englishman, under his constitutional monarchy, is as free
as an American under the republic, and his rights and liberties
are as well protected; but he owes that freedom and protection
to a body of written laws, created by legislation and enforced
by courts of justice. In ancient Grecian society, usages and
customs supplied the place of written laws, and the person
depended for his freedom and protection upon the institutions
of his social system. His safeguard was pre-eminently in such
institutions as the elective tenure of office implies.
The reges of the Romans were, in like manner, military
commanders, with priestly functions attached to their office;
and this so-called kingly government falls into the same category
of a military democracy. The rex, as before stated, was
nominated by the senate, and confirmed by the comitia curiata;
and the last of the number was deposed. With his deposition
the office was abolished, as incompatible with what remained
of the democratic principle, after the institution of Roman
political society.
The nearest analogues of kingdoms among the Grecian
tribes were the tyrannies, which sprang up here and there, in
the early period, in different parts of Greece. They were
governments imposed by force, and the power claimed was no
greater than that of the feudal kings of mediæval times. A
transmission of the office from father to son through a few
generations in order to superadd hereditary right was needed
to complete the analogy. But such governments were so
inconsistent with Grecian ideas, and so alien to their democratic
institutions, that none of them obtained a permanent footing
in Greece. Mr. Grote remarks that “if any energetic man
could by audacity or craft break down the constitution and
render himself permanent ruler according to his own will and
pleasure—even though he might rule well—he could never
inspire the people with any sentiment of duty towards him.
His sceptre was illegitimate from the beginning, and even the
taking of his life, far from being interdicted by that moral
feeling which condemned the shedder of blood in other cases,
was considered meritorious.”269 It was not so much the illegitimate
sceptre which aroused the hostility of the Greeks, as the
antagonism of democratical with monarchical ideas, the former
of which were inherited from the gentes.
When the Athenians established the new political system,
founded upon territory and upon property, the government was
a pure democracy. It was no new theory, or special invention
of the Athenian mind, but an old and familiar system, with
an antiquity as great as that of the gentes themselves. Democratic
ideas had existed in the knowledge and practice of their
forefathers from time immemorial, and now found expression in
a more elaborate, and, in many respects, in an improved government.
The false element, that of aristocracy, which had
penetrated the system and created much of the strife in the
transitional period connected itself with the office of basileus,
and remained after this office was abolished; but the new system
accomplished its overthrow. More successfully than the
remaining Grecian tribes, the Athenians were able to carry
forward their ideas of government to their logical results. It
is one reason why they became, for their numbers, the most
distinguished, the most intellectual and the most accomplished
race of men the entire human family has yet produced. In
purely intellectual achievements they are still the astonishment
of mankind. It was because the ideas which had been germinating
through the previous ethnical period, and which had
become interwoven with every fibre of their brains, had found
a happy fruition in a democratically constituted state. Under
its life-giving impulses their highest mental development occurred.
The plan of government instituted by Cleisthenes rejected
the office of a chief executive magistrate, while it retained the
council of chiefs in an elective senate, and the agora in the popular
assembly. It is evident that the council, the agora and
the basileus of the gentes were the germs of the senate, the
popular assembly, and the chief executive magistrate (king,
emperor and president) of modern political society. The latter
office sprang from the military necessities of organized society,
and its development with the upward progress of mankind is
instructive. It can be traced from the common war-chief, first
to the Great War Soldier, as in the Iroquois Confederacy;
secondly, to the same military commander in a confederacy
of tribes more advanced, with the functions of a priest attached
to the office, as the Teuctli of the Aztec Confederacy;
thirdly, to the same military commander in a nation
formed by a coalescence of tribes, with the functions of a priest
and of a judge attached to the office, as in the basileus of the
Greeks; and finally, to the chief magistrate in modern political
society. The elective archon of the Athenians, who succeeded
the basileus, and the president of modern republics, from the
elective tenure of the office, were the natural outcome of gentilism.
We are indebted to the experience of barbarians for
instituting and developing the three principal instrumentalities
of government now so generally incorporated in the plan of
government in civilized states. The human mind, specifically
the same in all individuals in all the tribes and nations of mankind,
and limited in the range of its powers, works and must
work, in the same uniform channels, and within narrow limits
of variation. Its results in disconnected regions of space, and
in widely separated ages of time, articulate in a logically connected
chain of common experiences. In the grand aggregate
may still be recognized the few primary germs of thought,
working upon primary human necessities, which, through the
natural process of development, have produced such vast results.
Failure of the Gentes as a Basis of Government.—Legislation of
Theseus.—Attempted Substitution of Classes.—Its Failure.—Abolition
of the Office of Basileus.—The Archonship.—Naucraries and Tryttyes.—Legislation
of Solon.—The Property Classes.—Partial Transfer of
Civil Power from the Gentes to the Classes.—Persons Unattached to
any Gens.—Made Citizens.—The Senate.—The Ecclesia.—Political Society
Partially Attained.—Legislation of Cleisthenes.—Institution Of
Political Society.—The Attic Deme or Township.—Its Organization
and Powers.—Its Local Self-government.—The Local Tribe or District.—The
Attic Commonwealth.—Athenian Democracy.
The several Grecian communities passed through a substantially
similar experience in transferring themselves from gentile
into political society; but the mode of transition can be best
illustrated from Athenian history, because the facts with respect
to the Athenians are more fully preserved. A bare outline
of the material events will answer the object in view, as it
is not proposed to follow the growth of the idea of government
beyond the inauguration of the new political system.
It is evident that the failure of gentile institutions to meet
the now complicated wants of society originated the movement
to withdraw all civil powers from the gentes, phratries and
tribes, and re-invest them in new constituencies. This movement
was gradual, extending through a long period of time,
and was embodied in a series of successive experiments by
means of which a remedy was sought for existing evils. The
coming in of the new system was as gradual as the going out of
the old, the two for a part of the time existing side by side. In
the character and objects of the experiments tried we may discover
wherein the gentile organization had failed to meet the
requirements of society, the necessity for the subversion of the
gentes, phratries and tribes as sources of power, and the means
by which it was accomplished.
Looking backward upon the line of human progress, it may
be remarked that the stockaded village was the usual home of
the tribe in the Lower Status of barbarism. In the Middle
Status joint-tenement houses of adobe-bricks and of stone, in
the nature of fortresses, make their appearance. But in the
Upper Status, cities surrounded with ring embankments, and
finally with walls of dressed stone, appear for the first time in
human experience. It was a great step forward when the
thought found expression in action of surrounding an area ample
for a considerable population with a defensive wall of
dressed stone, with towers, parapets and gates, designed to
protect all alike and to be defended by the common strength.
Cities of this grade imply the existence of a stable and developed
field agriculture, the possession of domestic animals in
flocks and herds, of merchandise in masses and of property in
houses and lands. The city brought with it new demands in
the art of government by creating a changed condition of society.
A necessity gradually arose for magistrates and judges,
military and municipal officers of different grades, with a mode
of raising and supporting military levies which would require
public revenues. Municipal life and wants must have greatly
augmented the duties and responsibilities of the council of
chiefs, and perhaps have overtaxed its capacity to govern.
It has been shown that in the Lower Status of barbarism the
government was of one power, the council of chiefs; that in
the Middle Status it was of two powers, the council of chiefs
and the military commander; and that in the Upper Status it
was of three powers, the council of chiefs, the assembly of the
people and the military commander. But after the commencement
of civilization, the differentiation of the powers of
the government had proceeded still further. The military
power, first devolved upon the basileus, was now exercised by
generals and captains under greater restrictions. By a further
differentiation the judicial power had now appeared among the
Athenians. It was exercised by the archons and dicasts.
Magisterial powers were now being devolved upon municipal
magistrates. Step by step, and with the progress of experience
and advancement, these several powers had been taken by
differentiation from the sum of the powers of the original
council of chiefs, so far as they could be said to have passed
from the people into this council as a representative body.
The creation of these municipal offices was a necessary consequence
of the increasing magnitude and complexity of their
affairs. Under the increased burden gentile institutions were
breaking down. Unnumbered disorders existed, both from the
conflict of authority, and from the abuse of powers not as yet
well defined. The brief and masterly sketch by Thucydides
of the condition of the Grecian tribes in the transitional period,270
and the concurrent testimony of other writers to the same
effect, leave no doubt that the old system of government was
failing, and that a new one had become essential to further
progress. A wider distribution of the powers of the government,
a clearer definition of them, and a stricter accountability
of official persons were needed for the welfare as well as safety
of society; and more especially the substitution of written laws,
enacted by competent authority, in the place of usages and
customs. It was through the experimental knowledge gained
in this and the previous ethnical period that the idea of political
society or a state was gradually forming in the Grecian
mind. It was a growth running through centuries of time,
from the first appearance of a necessity for a change in the
plan of government, before the entire result was realized.
The first attempt among the Athenians to subvert the gentile
organization and establish a new system is ascribed to
Theseus, and therefore rests upon tradition; but certain facts
remained to the historical period which confirm some part at
least of his supposed legislation. It will be sufficient to regard
Theseus as representing a period, or a series of events. From
the time of Cecrops to Theseus, according to Thucydides, the
Attic people had always lived in cities, having their own prytaneums
and archons, and when not in fear of danger did not
consult their basileus, but governed their own affairs separately
according to their own councils. But when Theseus was made
basileus, he persuaded them to break up the council-houses
and magistracies of their several cities and come into relation
with Athens, with one council-house (βουλευτήριος), and one
prytaneum (πρυτανεῖον), to which all were considered as belonging.271
This statement embodies or implies a number of
important facts, namely; that the Attic population were organized
in independent tribes, each having its own territory
in which the people were localized, with its own council-house
and prytaneum; and that while they were self-governing
societies they were probably confederated for mutual protection,
and elected their basileus or general to command their
common forces. It is a picture of communities democratically
organized, needing a military commander as a necessity of
their condition, but not invested with civil functions which their
gentile system excluded. Under Theseus they were brought
to coalesce into one people, with Athens as their seat of government,
which gave them a higher organization than before
they had been able to form. The coalescence of tribes into a
nation in one territory is later in time than confederations,
where the tribes occupy independent territories. It is a higher
organic process. While the gentes had always been intermingled
by marriage, the tribes were now intermingled by
obliterating territorial lines, and by the use of a common
council-hall and prytaneum. The act ascribed to Theseus
explains the advancement of their gentile society from a lower
to a higher organic form, which must have occurred at some
time, and probably was effected in the manner stated.
But another act is ascribed to Theseus evincing a more
radical plan, as well as an appreciation of the necessity for
a fundamental change in the plan of government. He divided
the people into three classes, irrespective of gentes, called
respectively the Eupatridæ or “well-born,” the Geomori or
“husbandmen,” and the Demiurgi or “artisans.” The principal
offices were assigned to the first class both in the civil
administration and in the priesthood. This classification was
not only a recognition of property and of the aristocratic
element in the government of society, but it was a direct
movement against the governing power of the gentes. It was
the evident intention to unite the chiefs of the gentes with
their families, and the men of wealth in the several gentes, in
a class by themselves, with the right to hold the principal
offices in which the powers of society were vested. The separation
of the remainder into two great classes traversed the
gentes again. Important results might have followed if the
voting power had been taken from the gentes, phratries and
tribes, and given to the classes, subject to the right of the first
to hold the principal offices. This does not appear to have
been done, although absolutely necessary to give vitality to the
classes. Moreover, it did not change essentially the previous
order of things with respect to holding office. Those now
called Eupatrids were probably the men of the several gentes
who had previously been called into office. This scheme
of Theseus died out, because there was in reality no transfer
of powers from the gentes, phratries and tribes to the classes,
and because such classes were inferior to the gentes as the
basis of a system.
The centuries that elapsed from the unknown time of Theseus
to the legislation of Solon (594 B. C.) formed one of the
most important periods in Athenian experience; but the succession
of events is imperfectly known. The office of basileus
was abolished prior to the first Olympiad (776 B. C.), and the
archonship established in its place. The latter seems to have
been hereditary in a gens, and it is stated to have been hereditary
in a particular family within the gens, the first twelve archons
being called the Medontidæ, from Medon, the first archon,
claimed to have been the son of Codrus, the last basileus.
In the case of these archons, who held for life, the same question
exists which has elsewhere been raised with respect to the
basileus; that an election or confirmation by a constituency
was necessary before the office could be assumed. The presumption
is against the transmission of the office by hereditary
right. In 711 B. C. the office of archon was limited to ten
years, and bestowed by free election upon the person esteemed
most worthy of the position. We are now within the historical
period, though near its threshold, where we meet the elective
principle with respect to the highest office in the gift of the people
clearly and completely established. It is precisely what
would have been expected from the constitution and principles
of the gentes, although the aristocratical principle, as we must
suppose, had increased in force with the increase of property,
and was the source through which hereditary right was introduced
wherever found. The existence of the elective principle
with respect to the later archons is not without significance in
its relation to the question of the previous practice of the Athenians.
In 683 B. C. the office was made elective annually, the
number was increased to nine, and their duties were made ministerial
and judicial.272 We may notice, in these events, evidence
of a gradual progress in knowledge with respect to the tenure
of office. The Athenian tribes had inherited from their remote
ancestors the office of archon (ἀρχός) as chief of the gens. It
was hereditary in the gens, as may fairly be supposed, and
elective among its members. After descent was changed to
the male line the sons of the deceased chief were within the line
of succession, and one of their number would be apt to be chosen
in the absence of personal objections. But now they reverted
to this original office for the name of their highest magistrate,
made it elective irrespective of any gens, and limited its duration,
first to ten years, and finally to one. Prior to this, the
tenure of office to which they had been accustomed was for
life. In the Lower and also in the Middle Status of barbarism
we have found the office of chief, elective and for life; or
during good behavior, for this limitation follows from the right
of the gens to depose from office. It is a reasonable inference
that the office of chief in a Grecian gens was held by a free
election and by the same tenure. It must be regarded as
proof of a remarkable advancement in knowledge at this early
period that the Athenian tribes substituted a term of years for
their most important office, and allowed a competition of candidates.
They thus worked out the entire theory of an elective
and representative office, and placed it upon its true basis.
In the time of Solon, it may be further noticed, the Court of
Areopagus, composed of ex-archons, had come into existence
with power to try criminals and with a censorship over morals,
together with a number of new offices in the military, naval
and administrative services. But the most important event
that occurred about this time was the institution of the naucraries
(ναυκραρίαι), twelve in each tribe, and forty-eight in
all; each of which was a local circumscription of householders
from which levies were drawn into the military and naval service,
and from which taxes were probably collected. The
naucrary was the incipient deme or township which, when the
idea of a territorial basis was fully developed, was to become
the foundation of the second great plan of government. By
whom the naucraries were instituted is unknown. “They must
have existed even before the time of Solon,” Boeckh remarks,
“since the presiding officers of the naucraries (πρυτάνεις τῶν ναυκράρων) are mentioned before the time of his legislation;
and when Aristotle ascribes their institution to Solon, we may
refer this account only to their confirmation by the political
constitution of Solon.”273 Twelve naucraries formed a trittys
(τριττύς) a larger territorial circumscription, but they were not
necessarily contiguous. It was, in like manner, the germ of
the county, the next territorial aggregate above the township.
Notwithstanding the great changes that had occurred in the
instrumentalities by which the government was administered,
the people were still in a gentile society, and living under gentile
institutions. The gens, phratry and tribe were in full vitality,
and the recognized sources of power. Before the time of
Solon no person could become a member of this society except
through connection with a gens and tribe. All other persons
were beyond the pale of the government. The council of
chiefs remained, the old and time-honored instrument of government;
but the powers of the government were now coordinated
between itself, the agora or assembly of the people,
the Court of Areopagus, and the nine archons. It was the
prerogative of the council to originate and mature public
measures for submission to the people, which enabled it to
shape the policy of the government. It doubtless had the
general administration of the finances, and it remained to the
end, as it had been from the beginning, the central feature of
the government. The assembly of the people had now come
into increased prominence. Its functions were still limited to
the adoption or rejection of public measures submitted to its
decision by the council; but it began to exercise a powerful influence
upon public affairs. The rise of this assembly as a
power in the government is the surest evidence of the progress
of the Athenian people in knowledge and intelligence. Unfortunately
the functions and powers of the council of chiefs
and of the assembly of the people in this early period have
been imperfectly preserved, and but partially elucidated.
In 624 B. C. Draco had framed a body of laws for the Athenians
which were chiefly remarkable for their unnecessary severity;
but this code demonstrated that the time was drawing
near in Grecian experience when usages and customs were to
be superseded by written laws. As yet the Athenians had not
learned the art of enacting laws as the necessity for them appeared,
which required a higher knowledge of the functions of
legislative bodies than they had attained. They were in that
stage in which lawgivers appear, and legislation is in a scheme
or in gross, under the sanction of a personal name. Thus slowly
the great sequences of human progress unfold themselves.
When Solon came into the archonship (594 B. C.) the evils
prevalent in society had reached an unbearable degree. The
struggle for the possession of property, now a commanding interest,
had produced singular results. A portion of the Athenians
had fallen into slavery, through debt,—the person of the
debtor being liable to enslavement in default of payment; others
had mortgaged their lands and were unable to remove the
encumbrances; and as a consequence of these and other embarrassments
society was devouring itself. In addition to a
body of laws, some of them novel, but corrective of the principal
financial difficulties, Solon renewed the project of Theseus
of organizing society into classes, not according to callings as
before, but according to the amount of their property. It is
instructive to follow the course of these experiments to supersede
the gentes and substitute a new system, because we shall
find the Roman tribes, in the time of Servius Tullius, trying
the same experiment for the same purpose. Solon divided the
people into four classes according to the measure of their
wealth, and going beyond Theseus, he invested these classes
with certain powers, and imposed upon them certain obligations.
It transferred a portion of the civil powers of the gentes,
phratries and tribes to the property classes. In proportion
as the substance of power was drawn from the former and invested
in the latter, the gentes would be weakened and their
decadence would commence. But so far as classes composed
of persons were substituted for gentes composed of persons,
the government was still founded upon person, and upon relations
purely personal. The scheme failed to reach the substance
of the question. Moreover, in changing the council of
chiefs into the senate of four hundred, the members were taken
in equal numbers from the four tribes, and not from the classes.
But it will be noticed that the idea of property, as the basis of
a system of government, was now incorporated by Solon in
the new plan of property classes. It failed, however, to reach
the idea of political society, which must rest upon territory as
well as property, and deal with persons through their territorial
relations. The first class alone were eligible to the high offices,
the second performed military service on horseback, the third
as infantry, and the fourth as light-armed soldiers. This last
class were the numerical majority. They were disqualified
from holding office, and paid no taxes; but in the popular assembly
of which they were members, they possessed a vote
upon the election of all magistrates and officers, with power to
bring them to an account. They also had power to adopt or
reject all public measures submitted by the senate to their decision.
Under the constitution of Solon their powers were
real and durable, and their influence upon public affairs was
permanent and substantial. All freemen, though not connected
with a gens and tribe, were now brought into the government,
to a certain extent, by becoming citizens and members
of the assembly of the people with the powers named.
This was one of the most important results of the legislation of
Solon.
It will be further noticed that the people were now organized
as an army, consisting of three divisions; the cavalry, the
heavy-armed infantry, and the light-armed infantry, each with
its own officers of different grades. The form of the statement
limits the array to the last three classes, which leaves the first
class in the unpatriotic position of appropriating to themselves
the principal offices of the government, and taking no part in
the military service. This undoubtedly requires modification.
The same plan of organization, but including the five classes,
will re-appear among the Romans under Servius Tullius, by
whom the body of the people were organized as an army (exercitus)
fully officered and equipped in each subdivision. The
idea of a military democracy, different in organization but the
same theoretically as that of the previous period, re-appears in
a new dress both in the Solonian and in the Servian constitution.
In addition to the property element, which entered into the
basis of the new system, the territorial element was partially
incorporated through the naucraries before adverted to, in
which it is probable there was an enrollment of citizens and of
their property to form a basis for military levies and for taxation.
These provisions, with the senate, the popular assembly
now called the ecclesia, the nine archons, and the Court of
Areopagus, gave to the Athenians a much more elaborate government
than they had before known, and requiring a higher
degree of intelligence for its management. It was also essentially
democratical in harmony with their antecedent ideas
and institutions; in fact a logical consequence of them, and explainable
only as such. But it fell short of a pure system in
three respects: firstly, it was not founded upon territory; secondly,
all the dignities of the state were not open to every citizen;
and thirdly, the principle of local self-government in primary
organizations was unknown, except as it may have existed
imperfectly in the naucraries. The gentes, phratries and tribes
still remained in full vitality, but with diminished powers. It
was a transitional condition, requiring further experience to develop
the theory of a political system toward which it was a
great advance. Thus slowly but steadily human institutions
are evolved from lower into higher forms, through the logical
operations of the human mind working in uniform but predetermined
channels.
There was one weighty reason for the overthrow of the gentes
and the substitution of a new plan of government. It was
probably recognized by Theseus, and undoubtedly by Solon.
From the disturbed condition of the Grecian tribes and the unavoidable
movements of the people in the traditionary period
and in the times prior to Solon, many persons transferred themselves
from one nation to another, and thus lost their connection
with their own gens without acquiring a connection with
another. This would repeat itself from time to time, through
personal adventure, the spirit of trade, and the exigencies of
warfare, until a considerable number with their posterity would
be developed in every tribe unconnected with any gens. All
such persons, as before remarked, would be without the pale of
the government with which there could be no connection excepting
through a gens and tribe. The fact is noticed by Mr.
Grote. “The phratries and gentes,” he remarks, “probably
never at any time included the whole population of the country—and
the population not included in them tended to become
larger and larger in the times anterior to Kleisthenes, as well as
afterwards.”274 As early as the time of Lycurgus there was a
considerable immigration into Greece from the islands of the
Mediterranean, and from the Ionian cities of its eastern coasts,
which increased the number of persons unattached to any gens.
When they came in families they would bring a fragment of a
new gens with them; but they would remain aliens unless the
new gens was admitted into a tribe. This probably occurred in
a number of cases, and it may assist in explaining the unusual
number of gentes in Greece. The gentes and phratries were
close corporations, both of which would have been adulterated
by the absorption of these aliens through adoption into a native
gens. Persons of distinction might be adopted into some gens,
or secure the admission of their own gens into some tribe; but
the poorer class would be refused either privilege. There can
be no doubt that as far back as the time of Theseus, and more
especially in the time of Solon, the number of the unattached
class, exclusive of the slaves, had become large. Having neither
gens nor phratry they were also without direct religious privileges,
which were inherent and exclusive in these organizations.
It is not difficult to see in this class of persons a growing
element of discontent dangerous to the security of society.
The schemes of Theseus and of Solon made imperfect provision
for their admission to citizenship through the classes;
but as the gentes and phratries remained from which they were
excluded, the remedy was still incomplete. Mr. Grote further
remarks, that “it is not easy to make out distinctly what was
the political position of the ancient Gentes and Phratries, as
Solon left them. The four tribes consisted altogether of gentes
and phratries, insomuch that no one could be included in any
one of the tribes who was not also a member of some gens and
phratry. Now the new probouleutic or pre-considering senate
consisted of 400 members,—100 from each of the tribes: persons
not included in any gens and phratry could therefore
have had no access to it. The conditions of eligibility were
similar, according to ancient custom, for the nine archons—of
course, also, for the senate of Areopagus. So that there
remained only the public assembly, in which an Athenian,
not a member of these tribes, could take part: yet he was a
citizen, since he could give his vote for archons and senators,
and could take part in the annual decision of their accountability,
besides being entitled to claim redress for wrong from
the archons in his own person—while the alien could only do so
through the intervention of an avouching citizen, or Prostatês.
It seems therefore that all persons not included in the four
tribes, whatever their grade or fortune might be, were on the
same level in respect to political privilege as the fourth and
poorest class of the Solonian census. It has already been remarked,
that even before the time of Solon, the number of
Athenians not included in the gentes or phratries was probably
considerable: it tended to become greater and greater, since
these bodies were close and unexpansive, while the policy of
the new lawgiver tended to invite industrious settlers from other
parts of Greece to Athens.”275 The Roman Plebeians originated
from causes precisely similar. They were not members of any
gens, and therefore formed no part of the Populus Romanus.
We may find in the facts stated one of the reasons of the failure
of the gentile organization to meet the requirements of society.
In the time of Solon, society had outgrown their ability
to govern, its affairs had advanced so far beyond the condition
in which the gentes originated. They furnished a basis too
narrow for a state, up to the measure of which the people had
grown.
There was also an increasing difficulty in keeping the members
of a gens, phratry and tribe locally together. As parts
of a governmental organic series, this fact of localization was
highly necessary. In the earlier period, the gens held its lands
in common, the phratries held certain lands in common for religious
uses, and the tribe probably held other lands in common.
When they established themselves in country or city,
they settled locally together by gentes, by phratries and by
tribes, as a consequence of their social organization. Each gens
was in the main by itself—not all of its members, for two gentes
were represented in every family, but the body who propagated
the gens. Those gentes belonging to the same phratry
naturally sought contiguous or at least near areas, and the same
with the several phratries of the tribe. But in the time of Solon,
lands and houses had come to be owned by individuals in
severalty, with power of alienation as to lands, but not of
houses out of the gens. It doubtless became more and more
impossible to keep the members of a gens locally together, from
the shifting relations of persons to land, and from the creation
of new property by its members in other localities. The unit
of their social system was becoming unstable in place, and also
in character. Without stopping to develop this fact of their
condition further, it must have proved one of the reasons of
the failure of the old plan of government. The township, with
its fixed property and its inhabitants for the time being, yielded
that element of permanence now wanting in the gens. Society
had made immense progress from its former condition of extreme
simplicity. It was very different from that which the
gentile organization was instituted to govern. Nothing but the
unsettled condition and incessant warfare of the Athenian tribes,
from their settlement in Attica to the time of Solon, could have
preserved this organization from overthrow. After their establishment
in walled cities, that rapid development of wealth and
numbers occurred which brought the gentes to the final test,
and demonstrated their inability to govern a people now rapidly
approaching civilization. But their displacement even then
required a long period of time.
The seriousness of the difficulties to be overcome in creating
a political society are strikingly illustrated in the experience of
the Athenians. In the time of Solon, Athens had already produced
able men; the useful arts had attained a very considerable
development; commerce on the sea had become a national
interest; agriculture and manufactures were well advanced;
and written composition in verse had commenced. They were
in fact a civilized people, and had been for two centuries; but
their institutions of government were still gentile, and of the
type prevalent throughout the Later Period of barbarism. A
great impetus had been given to the Athenian commonwealth
by the new system of Solon; nevertheless, nearly a century
elapsed, accompanied with many disorders, before the idea of a
state was fully developed in the Athenian mind. Out of the
naucrary, a conception of a township as the unit of a political
system was finally elaborated; but it required a man of the
highest genius, as well as great personal influence, to seize the
idea in its fullness, and give it an organic embodiment. That
man finally appeared in Cleisthenes (509 B. C.), who must be
regarded as the first of Athenian legislators—the founder of
the second great plan of human government, that under which
modern civilized nations are organized.
Cleisthenes went to the bottom of the question, and placed
the Athenian political system upon the foundation on which it
remained to the close of the independent existence of the commonwealth.
He divided Attica into a hundred demes, or
townships, each circumscribed by metes and bounds, and distinguished
by a name. Every citizen was required to register
himself, and to cause an enrollment of his property in the
deme in which he resided. This enrollment was the evidence
as well as the foundation of his civil privileges. The deme
displaced the naucrary. Its inhabitants were an organized
body politic with powers of local self-government, like the
modern American township. This is the vital and the remarkable
feature of the system. It reveals at once its democratic
character. The government was placed in the hands of
the people in the first of the series of territorial organizations.
The demotæ elected a demarch (δήμαρχος), who had the custody
of the public register; he had also power to convene the
demotæ for the purpose of electing magistrates and judges, for
revising the registry of citizens, and for the enrollment of such
as became of age during the year. They elected a treasurer,
and provided for the assessment and collection of taxes, and
for furnishing the quota of troops required of the deme for the
service of the state. They also elected thirty dicasts or judges,
who tried all causes arising in the deme where the amount involved
fell below a certain sum. Besides these powers of local
self-government, which is the essence of a democratic system,
each deme had its own temple and religious worship, and its
own priest, also elected by the demotæ. Omitting minor particulars,
we find the instructive and remarkable fact that the
township, as first instituted, possessed all the powers of local
self-government, and even upon a fuller and larger scale than
an American township. Freedom in religion is also noticeable,
which was placed where it rightfully belongs, under the control
of the people. All registered citizens were free, and equal in
their rights and privileges, with the exception of equal eligibility
to the higher offices. Such was the new unit of organization
in Athenian political society, at once a model for a free state,
and a marvel of wisdom and knowledge. The Athenians
commenced with a democratic organization at the point where
every people must commence who desire to create a free state,
and place the control of the government in the hands of its
citizens.
The second member of the organic territorial series consisted
of ten demes, united in a larger geographical district. It was
called a local tribe (φῦλον τοπικὸν), to preserve some part of
the terminology of the old gentile system.276 Each district was
named after an Attic hero, and it was the analogue of the modern
county. The demes in each district were usually contiguous,
which should have been true in every instance to render
the analogy complete; but in a few cases one or more of the
ten were detached, probably in consequence of the local separation
of portions of the original consanguine tribe who desired
to have their deme incorporated in the district of their
immediate kinsmen. The inhabitants of each district or county
were also a body politic, with certain powers of local self-government.
They elected a phylarch (φύλαρχος), who commanded
the cavalry; a taxiarch (ταξίαρχος), who commanded
the foot-soldiers, and a general (στρατηγός), who commanded
both; and as each district was required to furnish five triremes,
they probably elected as many trierarchs (τριήραρχος) to
command them. Cleisthenes increased the senate to five hundred,
and assigned fifty to each district. They were elected by
its inhabitants. Other functions of this larger body politic
doubtless existed, but they have been imperfectly explained.
The third and last member of the territorial series was the
Athenian commonwealth or state, consisting of ten local tribes
or districts. It was an organized body politic, embracing the
aggregate of Athenian citizens. It was represented by a senate,
an ecclesia, the court of Areopagus, the archons, and
judges, and the body of elected military and naval commanders.
Thus the Athenians founded the second great plan of government
upon territory and upon property. They substituted
a series of territorial aggregates in the place of an ascending
series of aggregates of persons. As a plan of government it
rested upon territory which was necessarily permanent, and
upon property which was more or less localized; and it dealt
with its citizens, now localized in demes through their territorial
relations. To be a citizen of the state it was necessary to
be a citizen of a deme. The person voted and was taxed in
his deme, and he was called into the military service from his
deme. In like manner he was called by election into the senate,
and to the command of a division of the army or navy
from the larger district of his local tribe. His relations to a
gens or phratry ceased to govern his duties as a citizen. The
contrast between the two systems is as marked as their difference
was fundamental. A coalescence of the people into
bodies politic in territorial areas now became complete.
The territorial series enters into the plan of government of
modern civilized nations. Among ourselves, for example, we
have the township, the county, the state, and the United States;
the inhabitants of each of which are an organized body politic
with powers of local self-government. Each organization is in
full vitality and performs its functions within a definite sphere
in which it is supreme. France has a similar series in the commune,
the arrondissement, the department, and the empire, now
the republic. In Great Britain the series is the parish, the
shire, the kingdom, and the three kingdoms. In the Saxon period
the hundred seems to have been the analogue of the township;277
but already emasculated of the powers of local self-government,
with the exception of the hundred court. The inhabitants
of these several areas were organized as bodies politic,
but those below the highest with very limited powers.
The tendency to centralization under monarchical institutions
has atrophied, practically, all the lower organizations.
As a consequence of the legislation of Cleisthenes, the gentes,
phratries and tribes were divested of their influence, because
their powers were taken from them and vested in the
deme, the local tribe and the state, which became from thenceforth
the sources of all political power. They were not dissolved,
however, even after this overthrow, but remained for
centuries as a pedigree and lineage, and as fountains of religious
life. In certain orations of Demosthenes, where the cases
involved personal or property rights, descents or rights of sepulture,
both the gens and phratry appear as living organizations
in his time.278 They were left undisturbed by the new system
so far as their connection with religious rites, with certain criminal
proceedings, and with certain social practices were concerned,
which arrested their total dissolution. The classes,
however, both those instituted by Theseus and those afterwards
created by Solon, disappeared after the time of Cleisthenes.279
Solon is usually regarded as the founder of Athenian democracy,
while some writers attribute a portion of the work to Cleisthenes
and Theseus. We shall draw nearer the truth of the
matter by regarding Theseus, Solon and Cleisthenes as standing
connected with three great movements of the Athenian people,
not to found a democracy, for Athenian democracy was older
than either, but to change the plan of government from a gentile
into a political organization. Neither sought to change the existing
principles of democracy which had been inherited from
the gentes. They contributed in their respective times to the
great movement for the formation of a state, which required the
substitution of a political in the place of gentile society. The
invention of a township, and the organization of its inhabitants
as a body politic, was the main feature in the problem. It may
seem to us a simple matter; but it taxed the capacities of the
Athenians to their lowest depths before the idea of a township
found expression in its actual creation. It was an inspiration
of the genius of Cleisthenes; and it stands as the master work
of a master mind. In the new political society they realized
that complete democracy which already existed in every essential
principle, but which required a change in the plan of government
to give it a more ample field and a fuller expression.
It is precisely here, as it seems to the writer, that we have been
misled by the erroneous assumption of the great historian, Mr.
Grote, whose general views of Grecian institutions are so sound
and perspicuous, namely, that the early governments of the
Grecian tribes were essentially monarchical.280 On this assumption
it requires a revolution of institutions to explain the existence
of that Athenian democracy under which the great mental
achievements of the Athenians were made. No such revolution
occurred, and no radical change of institutions was ever
effected, for the reason that they were and always had been
essentially democratical. Usurpations not unlikely occurred,
followed by controversies for the restoration of the previous order;
but they never lost their liberties, or those ideas of freedom
and of the right of self-government which had been their
inheritance in all ages.
Recurring for a moment to the basileus, the office tended to
make the man more conspicuous than any other in their affairs.
He was the first person to catch the mental eye of the historian
by whom he has been metamorphosed into a king, notwithstanding
he was made to reign, and by divine right, over a rude
democracy. As a general in a military democracy, the basileus
becomes intelligible, and without violating the institutions that
actually existed. The introduction of this office did not change
the principles of the gentes, phratries and tribes, which in their
organization were essentially democratical, and which of necessity
impressed that character on their gentile system. Evidence
is not wanting that the popular element was constantly
active to resist encroachments on personal rights. The basileus
belongs to the traditionary period, when the powers of government
were more or less undefined; but the council of chiefs existed
in the centre of the system, and also the gentes, phratries
and tribes in full vitality. These are sufficient to determine the
character of the government.281
The government as reconstituted by Cleisthenes contrasted
strongly with that previous to the time of Solon. But the
transition was not only natural but inevitable if the people followed
their ideas to their logical results. It was a change of
plan, but not of principles nor even of instrumentalities. The
council of chiefs remained in the senate, the agora in the ecclesia;
the three highest archons were respectively ministers of
state, of religion, and of justice as before, while the six inferior
archons exercised judicial functions in connection with the
courts, and the large body of dicasts now elected annually for
judicial service. No executive officer existed under the system,
which is one of its striking peculiarities. The nearest approach
to it was the president of the senate, who was elected
by lot for a single day, without the possibility of a re-election
during the year. For a single day he presided over the popular
assembly, and held the keys of the citadel and of the treasury.
Under the new government the popular assembly held
the substance of power, and guided the destiny of Athens.
The new element which gave stability and order to the state
was the deme or township, with its complete autonomy, and
local self-government. A hundred demes similarly organized
would determine the general movement of the commonwealth.
As the unit, so the compound. It is here that the people, as
before remarked, must begin if they would learn the art of
self-government, and maintain equal laws, and equal rights and
privileges. They must retain in their hands all the powers of
society not necessary to the state to insure an efficient general
administration, as well as the control of the administration
itself.
Athens rose rapidly into influence and distinction under the
new political system. That remarkable development of genius
and intelligence, which raised the Athenians to the highest eminence
among the historical nations of mankind, occurred under
the inspiration of democratic institutions.
With the institution of political society under Cleisthenes, the
gentile organization was laid aside as a portion of the rags of
barbarism. Their ancestors had lived for untold centuries in
gentilism, with which they had achieved all the elements of
civilization, including a written language, as well as entered
upon a civilized career. The history of the gentile organization
will remain as a perpetual monument of the anterior ages,
identified as it has been with the most remarkable and extended
experience of mankind. It must ever be ranked as one of
the most remarkable institutions of the human family.
In this brief and inadequate review the discussion has been
confined to the main course of events in Athenian history.
Whatever was true of the Athenian tribes will be found substantially
true of the remaining Grecian tribes, though not exhibited
on so broad or so grand a scale. The discussion tends
to render still more apparent one of the main propositions advanced—that
the idea of government in all the tribes of mankind
has been a growth through successive stages of development.
Italian Tribes Organized in Gentes.—Founding of Rome.—Tribes Organized
into a Military Democracy.—The Roman Gens.—Definition of
a Gentilis by Cicero.—By Festus.—By Varro.—Descent in Male Line.—Marrying
out of the Gens.—Rights and Obligations of the Members of
a Gens.—Democratic Constitution of Ancient Latin Society.—Number
of Persons in a Gens.
When the Latins, and their congeners the Sabellians, the
Oscans and the Umbrians, entered the Italian peninsula probably
as one people, they were in possession of domestic animals,
and probably cultivated cereals and plants.282 At the least they
were well advanced in the Middle Status of barbarism; and
when they first came under historical notice they were in the
Upper Status, and near the threshold of civilization.
The traditionary history of the Latin tribes, prior to the
time of Romulus, is much more scanty and imperfect than that
of the Grecian, whose earlier relative literary culture and stronger
literary proclivities enabled them to preserve a larger proportion
of their traditionary accounts. Concerning their anterior
experience, tradition did not reach beyond their previous
life on the Alban hills, and the ranges of the Appenines eastward
from the site of Rome. For tribes so far advanced in
the arts of life it would have required a long occupation of
Italy to efface all knowledge of the country from which they
came. In the time of Romulus283 they had already fallen by
segmentation into thirty independent tribes, still united in a
loose confederacy for mutual protection. They also occupied
contiguous territorial areas. The Sabellians, Oscans, and
Umbrians were in the same general condition; their respective
tribes were in the same relations; and their territorial circumscriptions,
as might have been expected, were founded upon
dialect. All alike, including their northern neighbors the
Etruscans, were organized in gentes, with institutions similar
to those of the Grecian tribes. Such was their general condition
when they first emerged from behind the dark curtain of
their previous obscurity, and the light of history fell upon
them.
Roman history has touched but slightly the particulars of a
vast experience anterior to the founding of Rome (about 753
B. C.). The Italian tribes had then become numerous and
populous; they had become strictly agricultural in their habits,
possessed flocks and herds of domestic animals, and had made
great progress in the arts of life. They had also attained the
monogamian family. All this is shown by their condition
when first made known to us; but the particulars of their progress
from a lower to a higher state had, in the main, fallen out
of knowledge. They were backward in the growth of the
idea of government; since the confederacy of tribes was still
the full extent of their advancement. Although the thirty
tribes were confederated, it was in the nature of a league for
mutual defense, and neither sufficiently close or intimate to
tend to a nationality.
The Etruscan tribes were confederated; and the same was
probably true of the Sabellian, Oscan and Umbrian tribes.
While the Latin tribes possessed numerous fortified towns and
country strongholds, they were spread over the surface of the
country for agricultural pursuits, and for the maintenance of
their flocks and herds. Concentration and coalescence had
not occurred to any marked extent until the great movement
ascribed to Romulus which resulted in the foundation
of Rome. These loosely united Latin tribes furnished the
principal materials from which the new city was to draw its
strength. The accounts of these tribes from the time of the
supremacy of the chiefs of Alba down to the time of Servius
Tullius, were made up to a great extent of fables and traditions;
but certain facts remained in the institutions and social usages
transmitted to the historical period which tend, in a remarkable
manner, to illustrate their previous condition. They are even
more important than an outline history of actual events.
Among the institutions of the Latin tribes existing at the
commencement of the historical period were the gentes, curiæ
and tribes upon which Romulus and his successors established
the Roman power. The new government was not in all respects
a natural growth; but modified in the upper members
of the organic series by legislative procurement. The gentes,
however, which formed the basis of the organization, were natural
growths, and in the main either of common or cognate lineage.
That is, the Latin gentes were of the same lineage, while
the Sabine and other gentes, with the exception of the Etruscans,
were of cognate descent. In the time of Tarquinius Priscus,
the fourth in succession from Romulus, the organization
had been brought to a numerical scale, namely: ten gentes to
a curia, ten curiæ to a tribe, and three tribes of the Romans;
giving a total of three hundred gentes integrated in one gentile
society.
Romulus had the sagacity to perceive that a confederacy of
tribes, composed of gentes and occupying separate areas, had
neither the unity of purpose nor sufficient strength to accomplish
more than the maintenance of an independent existence.
The tendency to disintegration counteracted the advantages of
the federal principle. Concentration and coalescence were the
remedy proposed by Romulus and the wise men of his time.
It was a remarkable movement for the period, and still more
remarkable in its progress from the epoch of Romulus to the
institution of political society under Servius Tullius. Following
the course of the Athenian tribes and concentrating in one
city, they wrought out in five generations a similar and complete
change in the plan of government, from a gentile into a
political organization.
It will be sufficient to remind the reader of the general facts
that Romulus united upon and around the Palatine Hill a hundred
Latin gentes, organized as a tribe, the Ramnes; that by a
fortunate concurrence of circumstances a large body of Sabines
were added to the new community whose gentes, afterwards increased
to one hundred, were organized as a second tribe, the
Tities; and that in the time of Tarquinius Priscus a third tribe,
the Luceres, had been formed, composed of a hundred gentes
drawn from surrounding tribes, including the Etruscans. Three
hundred gentes, in about the space of a hundred years, were
thus gathered at Rome, and completely organized under a council
of chiefs now called the Roman Senate, an assembly of the
people now called the comitia curiata, and one military commander,
the rex; and with one purpose, that of gaining a military
ascendency in Italy.
Under the constitution of Romulus, and the subsequent legislation
of Servius Tullius, the government was essentially a military
democracy, because the military spirit predominated in
the government. But it may be remarked in passing that a
new and antagonistic element, the Roman senate, was now incorporated
in the centre of the social system, which conferred
patrician rank upon its members and their posterity. A privileged
class was thus created at a stroke, and intrenched first
in the gentile and afterwards in the political system, which ultimately
overthrew the democratic principles inherited from the
gentes. It was the Roman senate, with the patrician class it
created, that changed the institutions and the destiny of the
Roman people, and turned them from a career, analogous to
that of the Athenians, to which their inherited principles naturally
and logically tended.
In its main features the new organization was a masterpiece
of wisdom for military purposes. It soon carried them entirely
beyond the remaining Italian tribes, and ultimately into supremacy
over the entire peninsula.
The organization of the Latin and other Italian tribes into
gentes has been investigated by Niebuhr, Hermann, Mommsen,
Long and others; but their several accounts fall short of a clear
and complete exposition of the structure and principles of the
Italian gens. This is due in part to the obscurity in which
portions of the subject are enveloped, and to the absence of
minute details in the Latin writers. It is also in part due to a
misconception, by some of the first named writers, of the relations
of the family to the gens. They regard the gens as composed
of families, whereas it was composed of parts of families;
so that the gens and not the family was the unit of the social
system. It may be difficult to carry the investigation much
beyond the point where they have left it; but information
drawn from the archaic constitution of the gens may serve to
elucidate some of its characteristics which are now obscure.
Concerning the prevalence of the organization into gentes
among the Italian tribes, Niebuhr remarks as follows: “Should
any one still contend that no conclusion is to be drawn from
the character of the Athenian gennē**tes to that of the Roman
gentiles, he will be bound to show how an institution which
runs through the whole ancient world came to have a completely
different character in Italy and in Greece.... Every
body of citizens was divided in this manner; the Gephyræans
and Salaminians as well as the Athenians, the Tusculans as
well as the Romans.”284
Besides the existence of the Roman gens, it is desirable to
know the nature of the organization; its rights, privileges and
obligations, and the relations of the gentes to each other, as
members of a social system. After these have been considered,
their relations to the curiæ, tribes, and resulting people
of which they formed a part, will remain for consideration in
the next ensuing chapter.
After collecting the accessible information from various
sources upon these subjects it will be found incomplete in many
respects, leaving some of the attributes and functions of the
gens a matter of inference. The powers of the gentes were
withdrawn, and transferred to new political bodies before historical
composition among the Romans had fairly commenced.
There was, therefore, no practical necessity resting upon the
Romans for preserving the special features of a system substantially
set aside. Gaius, who wrote his Institutes in the early
part of the second century of our era, took occasion to remark
that the whole jus gentilicium had fallen into desuetude, and
that it was then superfluous to treat the subject.285 But at the
foundation of Rome, and for several centuries thereafter, the
gentile organization was in vigorous activity.
The Roman definition of a gens and of a gentilis, and the
line in which descent was traced should be presented before
the characteristics of the gens are considered. In the Topics
of Cicero a gentilis is defined as follows: Those are gentiles
who are of the same name among themselves. This is
insufficient. Who were born of free parents. Even that is not
sufficient. No one of whose ancestors has been a slave.
Something still is wanting. Who have never suffered capital
diminution. This perhaps may do; for I am not aware that
Scaevola, the Pontiff, added anything to this definition.286 There
is one by Festus: “A gentilis is described as one both sprung
from the same stock, and who is called by the same name.”287
Also by Varro: As from an Aemilius men are born Aemilii,
and gentiles; so from the name Aemilius terms are derived
pertaining to gentilism.288
Cicero does not attempt to define a gens, but rather to furnish
certain tests by which the right to the gentile connection
might be proved, or the loss of it be detected. Neither of these
definitions show the composition of a gens; that is, whether all,
or a part only, of the descendants of a supposed genarch were
entitled to bear the gentile name; and, if a part only, what
part. With descent in the male line the gens would include
those only who could trace their descent though males exclusively;
and if in the female line, then through females only.
If limited to neither, then all the descendants would be included.
These definitions must have assumed that descent in the male
line was a fact known to all. From other sources it appears
that those only belonged to the gens who could trace their
descent through its male members. Roman genealogies supply
this proof. Cicero omitted the material fact that those
were gentiles who could trace their descent through males exclusively
from an acknowledged ancestor within the gens. It
is in part supplied by Festus and Varro. From an Aemilius,
the latter remarks, men are born Aemilii, and gentiles; each
must be born of a male bearing the gentile name. But Cicero’s
definition also shows that a gentilis must bear the gentile name.
In the address of the Roman tribune Canuleius (445 B. C.),
on his proposition to repeal an existing law forbidding intermarriage
between patricians and plebeians, there is a statement
implying descent in the male line. For what else is there in
the matter, he remarks, if a patrician man shall wed a plebeian
woman, or a plebeian man a patrician woman? What right
in the end is thereby changed? The children surely follow
the father, (nempe patrem sequuntur liberi.)289
A practical illustration, derived from transmitted gentile
names, will show conclusively that descent was in the male
line. Julia, the sister of Caius Julius Caesar, married Marcus
Attius Balbus. Her name shows that she belonged to the
Julian gens.290 Her daughter Attia, according to custom, took
the gentile name of her father and belonged to the Attian
gens. Attia married Caius Octavius, and became the mother
of Caius Octavius, the first Roman emperor. The son, as usual,
took the gentile name of his father, and belonged to the Octavian
gens.291 After becoming emperor he added the names
Caesar Augustus.
In the Roman gens descent was in the male line from Augustus
back to Romulus, and for an unknown period back of
the latter. None were gentiles except such as could trace their
descent through males exclusively from some acknowledged
ancestor within the gens. But it was unnecessary, because impossible,
that all should be able to trace their descent from the
same common ancestor; and much less from the eponymous
ancestor.
It will be noticed that in each of the above cases, to which a
large number might be added, the persons married out of the
gens. Such was undoubtedly the general usage by customary
law.
The Roman gens was individualized by the following rights,
privileges and obligations:
| I. | Mutual rights of succession to the property of deceased gentiles. |
| II. | The possession of a common burial place. |
| III. | Common religious rites; sacra gentilicia. |
| IV. | The obligation not to marry in the gens. |
| V. | The possession of lands in common. |
| VI. | Reciprocal obligations of help, defense, and redress of injuries. |
| VII. | The right to bear the gentile name. |
| VIII. | The right to adopt strangers into the gens. |
| IX. | The right to elect and depose its chiefs; query. |
These several characteristics will be considered in the order
named.
I. Mutual rights of succession to the property of deceased gentiles.
When the law of the Twelve Tables was promulgated (451
B. C.), the ancient rule, which presumptively distributed the inheritance
among the gentiles, had been superseded by more
advanced regulations. The estate of an intestate now passed,
first, to his sui heredes, that is, to his children; and, in default
of children, to his lineal descendants through males.292 The
living children took equally, and the children of deceased sons
took the share of their father equally. It will be noticed that
the inheritance remained in the gens; the children of the female
descendants of the intestate, who belonged to other gentes, being
excluded. Second, if there were no sui heredes, by the same
law, the inheritance then passed to the agnates.293 The agnatic
kindred comprised all those persons who could trace their descent
through males from the same common ancestor with the
intestate. In virtue of such a descent they all bore the same
gentile name, females as well as males, and were nearer in degree
to the decedent than the remaining gentiles. The agnates
nearest in degree had the preference; first, the brothers and
unmarried sisters; second, the paternal uncles and unmarried
aunts of the intestate, and so on until the agnatic relatives were
exhausted. Third, if there were no agnates of the intestate, the
same law called the gentiles to the inheritance.294 This seems at
first sight remarkable; because the children of the intestate’s
sisters were excluded from the inheritance, and the preference
given to gentile kinsmen so remote that their relationship to the
intestate could not be traced at all, and only existed in virtue of
an ancient lineage preserved by a common gentile name. The
reason, however, is apparent; the children of the sisters of the
intestate belonged to another gens, and the gentile right predominated
over greater nearness of consanguinity, because the
principle which retained the property in the gens was fundamental.
It is a plain inference from the law of the Twelve Tables
that inheritance began in the inverse order, and that the
three classes of heirs represent the three successive rules of inheritance;
namely: first, the gentiles; second, the agnates,
among whom were the children of the decedent after descent
was changed to the male line; and third, the children, to the
exclusion of the remaining agnates.
A female, by her marriage, suffered what was technically
called a loss of franchise or capital diminution (deminutio capitis),
by which she forfeited her agnatic rights. Here again
the reason is apparent. If after her marriage she could inherit
as an agnate it would transfer the property inherited from her
own gens to that of her husband. An unmarried sister could
inherit, but a married sister could not.
With our knowledge of the archaic principles of the gens, we
are enabled to glance backward to the time when descent in
the Latin gens was in the female line, when property was inconsiderable,
and distributed among the gentiles; not necessarily
within the life-time of the Latin gens, for its existence
reached back of the period of their occupation of Italy. That
the Roman gens had passed from the archaic into its historical
form is partially indicated by the reversion of property in certain
cases to the gentiles.295
“The right of succeeding to the property of members who
died without kin and intestate,” Niebuhr remarks, “was that
which lasted the longest; so long indeed, as to engage the attention
of the jurists, and even—though assuredly not as anything
more than a historical question—that of Gaius, the manuscript
of whom is unfortunately illegible in this part.”296
II. A common burial place.
The sentiment of gentilism seems to have been stronger in
the Upper Status of barbarism than in earlier conditions, through
a higher organization of society, and through mental and
moral advancement. Each gens usually had a burial place for
the exclusive use of its members as a place of sepulture. A few
illustrations will exhibit Roman usages with respect to burial.
Appius Claudius, the chief of the Claudian gens, removed
from Regili, a town of the Sabines, to Rome in the time of
Romulus, where in due time he was made a senator, and thus
a patrician. He brought with him the Claudian gens, and such
a number of clients that his accession to Rome was regarded
as an important event. Suetonius remarks that the gens received
from the state lands upon the Anio for their clients, and
.
a burial place for themselves near the capitol.297 This statement
seems to imply that a common burial place was, at that time,
considered indispensable to a gens. The Claudii, having abandoned
their Sabine connection and identified themselves with
the Roman people, received both a grant of lands and a burial
place for the gens, to place them in equality of condition with
the Roman gentes. The transaction reveals a custom of the
times.
The family tomb had not entirely superseded that of the
gens in the time of Julius Caesar, as was illustrated by the case
of Quintilius Varus, who, having lost his army in Germany,
destroyed himself, and his body fell into the hands of the enemy.
The half-burned body of Varus, says Paterculus, was
mangled by the savage enemy; his head was cut off, and
brought to Maroboduus, and by him having been sent to Caesar,
was at length honored with burial in the gentile sepulchre.298
In his treatise on the laws, Cicero refers to the usages of his
own times in respect to burial in the following language: now
the sacredness of burial places is so great that it is affirmed
to be wrong to perform the burial independently of the sacred
rites of the gens. Thus in the time of our ancestors A. Torquatus
decided respecting the Popilian gens.299 The purport of
the statement is that it was a religious duty to bury the dead
with sacred rites, and when possible in land belonging to the
gens. It further appears that cremation and inhumation were
both practiced prior to the promulgation of the Twelve Tables,
which prohibited the burying or burning of dead bodies within
the city.300 The columbarium, which would usually accommodate
several hundred urns, was eminently adapted to the uses of a
gens. In the time of Cicero the gentile organization had fallen
into decadence, but certain usages peculiar to it had remained,
and that respecting a common burial place among the number.
The family tomb began to take the place of that of the gens, as
the families in the ancient gentes rose into complete autonomy;
nevertheless, remains of ancient gentile usages with respect to
burial manifested themselves in various ways, and were still
fresh in the history of the past.
III. Common sacred rites; sacra gentilicia.
The Roman sacra embody our idea of divine worship, and
were either public or private. Religious rites performed by a
gens were called sacra privata, or sacra gentilicia. They were
performed regularly at stated periods by the gens.301 Cases are
mentioned in which the expenses of maintaining these rites had
become a burden in consequence of the reduced numbers in
the gens. They were gained and lost by circumstances, e. g.,
adoption or marriage.302 “That the members of the Roman gens
had common sacred rites,” observes Niebuhr, “is well known;
there were sacrifices appointed for stated days and places.”303
The sacred rites, both public and private, were under pontifical
regulation exclusively, and not subject to civil cognizance.304
The religious rites of the Romans seem to have had their
primary connection with the gens rather than the family. A
college of pontiffs, of curiones, and of augurs, with an elaborate
system of worship under these priesthoods, in due time grew
into form and became established; but the system was tolerant
and free. The priesthood was in the main elective.305 The head
of every family also was the priest of the household.306 The gentes
of the Greeks and Romans were the fountains from which
flowed the stupendous mythology of the classical world.
In the early days of Rome many gentes had each their own
sacellum for the performance of their religious rites. Several
gentes had each special sacrifices to perform, which had been
transmitted from generation to generation, and were regarded
as obligatory; as those of the Nautii to Minerva, of the Fabii
to Hercules, and of the Horatii in expiation of the sororicide
committed by Horatius.307 It is sufficient for my purpose to
have shown generally that each gens had its own religious rites
as one of the attributes of the organization.
IV. The obligation not to marry in the gens.
Gentile regulations were customs having the force of law.
The obligation not to marry in the gens was one of the number.
It does not appear to have been turned, at a later day,
into a legal enactment; but evidence that such was the rule of
the gens appears in a number of ways. The Roman genealogies
show that marriage was out of the gens, of which instances
have been given. This, as we have seen, was the archaic rule
for reasons of consanguinity. A woman by her marriage
forfeited her agnatic rights, to which rule there was no exception.
It was to prevent the transfer of property by marriage
from one gens to another, from the gens of her birth to the
gens of her husband. The exclusion of the children of a
female from all rights of inheritance from a maternal uncle or
maternal grandfather, which followed, was for the same reason.
As the female was required to marry out of her gens her
children would be of the gens of their father, and there could
be no privity of inheritance between members of different
gentes.
V. The possession of lands in common.
The ownership of lands in common was so general among
barbarous tribes that the existence of the same tenure among
the Latin tribes is no occasion for surprise. A portion of their
lands seems to have been held in severalty by individuals from
a very early period. No time can be assigned when this was
not the case; but at first it was probably the possessory right
to lands in actual occupation, so often before referred to, which
was recognized as far back as the Lower Status of barbarism.
Among the rustic Latin tribes, lands were held in common
by each tribe, other lands by the gentes, and still other by
households.
Allotments of lands to individuals became common at Rome
in the time of Romulus, and afterwards quite general. Varro
and Dionysius both state that Romulus allotted two jugera
(about two and a quarter acres) to each man.308 Similar allotments
are said to have been afterwards made by Numa and
Servius Tullius. They were the beginnings of absolute ownership
in severalty, and presuppose a settled life as well as a great
advancement in intelligence. It was not only admeasured but
granted by the government, which was very different from a
possessory right in lands growing out of an individual act. The
idea of absolute individual ownership of land was a growth
through experience, the complete attainment of which belongs
to the period of civilization. These lands, however, were taken
from those held in common by the Roman people. Gentes,
curiæ and tribes held certain lands in common after civilization
had commenced, beyond those held by individuals in severalty.
Mommsen remarks that “the Roman territory was divided in
the earliest times into a number of clan-districts, which were
subsequently employed in the formation of the earliest rural
wards (tribus rusticæ).... These names are not, like those
of the districts added at a later period, derived from the localities,
but are formed without exception from the names of the
clans.”309 Each gens held an independent district, and of necessity
was localized upon it. This was a step in advance, although
it was the prevailing practice not only in the rural districts,
but also in Rome, for the gentes to localize in separate
areas. Mommsen further observes: “As each household had
its own portion of land, so the clan-household or village, had
clan-lands belonging to it, which, as will afterwards be shown,
were managed up to a comparatively late period after the analogy
of house-lands, that is, on the system of joint possession....
These clanships, however, were from the beginning regarded
not as independent societies, but as integral parts of a
political community (civitas populi). This first presents itself
as an aggregate of a number of clan-villages of the same stock,
language and manners, bound to mutual observance of law and
mutual legal redress and to united action in aggression and defense.”310
Clan is here used by Mommsen, or his translator, in
the place of gens, and elsewhere canton is used in the place of
tribe, which are the more singular since the Latin language
furnishes specific terms for these organizations which have become
historical. Mommsen represents the Latin tribes anterior
to the founding of Rome as holding lands by households, by
gentes and by tribes; and he further shows the ascending series
of social organizations in these tribes; a comparison of which
with those of the Iroquois, discloses their close parallelism,
namely, the gens, tribe and confederacy.311 The phratry is not
mentioned although it probably existed. The household referred
to could scarcely have been a single family. It is not
unlikely that it was composed of related families who occupied
a joint-tenement house, and practiced communism in living in
the household.
VI. Reciprocal obligations of help, defense and redress of injuries.
During the period of barbarism the dependence of the gentiles
upon each other for the protection of personal rights would
be constant; but after the establishment of political society,
the gentilis, now a citizen, would turn to the law and to the
state for the protection before administered by his gens. This
feature of the ancient system would be one of the first to disappear
under the new. Accordingly but slight references to these
mutual obligations are found in the early authors. It does not
follow, however, that the gentiles did not practice these duties to
each other in the previous period; on the contrary, the inference
that they did is a necessary one from the principles of the gentile
organization. Remains of these special usages appear, under
special circumstances, well down in the historical period.
When Appius Claudius was cast into prison (about 432 B. C.),
Caius Claudius, then at enmity with him, put on mourning, as
well as the whole Claudian gens.312 A calamity or disgrace
falling upon one member of the body was felt and shared by
all. During the second Punic war, Niebuhr remarks, “the gentiles
united to ransom their fellows who were in captivity, and
were forbidden to do it by the senate. This obligation is an
essential characteristic of the gens.”313 In the case of Camillus,
against whom a tribune had lodged an accusation on account
of the Veientian spoil, he summoned to his house before the day
appointed for his trial his tribesmen and clients to ask their advice,
and he received for an answer that they would collect
whatever sum he was condemned to pay; but to clear him was
impossible.314 The active principle of gentilism is plainly illustrated
in these cases. Niebuhr further remarks that the obligation
to assist their indigent gentiles rested on the members of
Roman gens.315
VII. The right to bear the gentile name.
This followed necessarily from the nature of the gens. All
such persons as were born sons or daughters of a male member
of the gens were themselves members, and of right entitled to
bear the gentile name. In the lapse of time it was found impossible
for the members of a gens to trace their descent back
to the founder, and, consequently, for different families within
the gens to find their connection through a later common ancestor.
Whilst this inability proved the antiquity of the lineage,
it was no evidence that these families had not sprung from a
remote common ancestor. The fact that persons were born
in the gens, and that each could trace his descent through a
series of acknowledged members of the gens, was sufficient
evidence of gentile descent, and strong evidence of the blood
connection of all the gentiles. But some investigators, Niebuhr
among the number,316 have denied the existence of any
blood relationship between the families in a gens, since they
could not show a connection through a common ancestor. This
treats the gens as a purely fictitious organization, and is therefore
untenable. Niebuhr’s inference against a blood connection
from Cicero’s definition is not sustainable. If the right of
a person to bear the gentile name were questioned, proof of
the right would consist, not in tracing his descent from the
genarch, but from a number of acknowledged ancestors within
the gens. Without written records the number of generations
through which a pedigree might be traced would be limited.
Few families in the same gens might not be able to find a common
ancestor, but it would not follow that they were not of
common descent from some remote ancestor within the gens.317
After descent was changed to the male line the ancient
names of the gentes, which not unlikely were taken from animals,318
or inanimate objects, gave place to personal names.
Some individual, distinguished in the history of the gens, became
its eponymous ancestor, and this person, as elsewhere
suggested, was not unlikely superseded by another at long intervals
of time. When a gens divided in consequence of separation
in area, one division would be apt to take a new name;
but such a change of name would not disturb the kinship upon
which the gens was founded. When it is considered that the
lineage of the Roman gentes, under changes of names, ascended
to the time when the Latins, Greeks and the Sanskrit speaking
people of India were one people, without reaching its source,
some conception of its antiquity may be gained. The loss of
the gentile name at any time by any individual was the most
improbable of all occurrences; consequently its possession was
the highest evidence that he shared with his gentiles the same
ancient lineage. There was one way, and but one, of adulterating
gentile descent, namely: by the adoption of strangers
in blood into the gens. This practice prevailed, but the extent
of it was small. If Neibuhr had claimed that the blood relationship
of the gentiles had become attenuated by lapse of
time to an inappreciable quantity between some of them, no
objection could be taken to his position; but a denial of all
relationship which turns the gens into a fictitious aggregation
of persons, without any bond of union, controverts the principle
upon which the gens came into existence, and which perpetuated
it through three entire ethnical periods.
Elsewhere I have called attention to the fact that the gens
came in with a system of consanguinity which reduced all consanguinei
to a small number of categories, and retained their
descendants indefinitely in the same. The relationships of
persons were easily traced, no matter how remote their actual
common ancestor. In an Iroquois gens of five hundred persons,
all its members are related to each other and each person
knows or can find his relationship to every other; so that the
fact of kin was perpetually present in the gens of the archaic
period. With the rise of the monogamian family, a new and
totally different system of consanguinity came in, under which
the relationships between collaterals soon disappeared. Such
was the system of the Latin and Grecian tribes at the commencement
of the historical period. That which preceded it
was, presumptively at least, Turanian, under which the relationships
of the gentiles to each other would have been known.
After the decadence of the gentile organization commenced,
new gentes ceased to form by the old process of segmentation;
and some of those existing died out. This tended to enhance
the value of gentile descent as a lineage. In the times of the
empire, new families were constantly establishing themselves in
Rome from foreign parts, and assuming gentile names to gain
social advantages. This practice being considered an abuse,
the Emperor Claudius (A. D. 40-54), prohibited foreigners from
assuming Roman names, especially those of the ancient gentes.319
Roman families, belonging to the historical gentes, placed the
highest value upon their lineages both under the republic and
the empire.
All the members of a gens were free, and equal in their
rights and privileges, the poorest as well as the richest, the distinguished
as well as the obscure; and they shared equally in
whatever dignity the gentile name conferred which they inherited
as a birthright. Liberty, equality and fraternity were cardinal
principles of the Roman gens, not less certainly than of
the Grecian, and of the American Indian.
VIII. The right of adopting strangers in blood into the gens.
In the times of the republic, and also of the empire, adoption
into the family, which carried the person into the gens of
the family, was practiced; but it was attended with formalities
which rendered it difficult. A person who had no children,
and who was past the age to expect them, might adopt a son
with the consent of the pontifices, and of the comitia curiata.
The college of pontiffs were entitled to be consulted lest the
sacred rites of the family, from which the adopted person was
taken, might thereby be impaired;320 as also the assembly, because
the adopted person would receive the gentile name, and
might inherit the estate of his adoptive father. From the precautions
which remained in the time of Cicero, the inference is reasonable
that under the previous system, which was purely gentile,
the restrictions must have been greater and the instances
rare. It is not probable that adoption in the early period was
allowed without the consent of the gens, and of the curia to
which the gens belonged; and if so, the number adopted must
have been limited. Few details remain of the ancient usages
with respect to adoption.
IX. The right of electing and deposing its chiefs; query.
The incompleteness of our knowledge of the Roman gentes
is shown quite plainly by the absence of direct information with
respect to the tenure of the office of chief (princeps). Before
the institution of political society each gens had its chief, and
probably more than one. When the office became vacant it
was necessarily filled, either by the election of one of the gentiles,
as among the Iroquois, or taken by hereditary right.
But the absence of any proof of hereditary right, and the presence
of the elective principle with respect to nearly all offices
under the republic, and before that, under the reges, leads to
the inference that hereditary right was alien to the institutions
of the Latin tribes. The highest office, that of rex, was elective,
the office of senator was elective or by appointment, and that
of consuls and of inferior magistrates. It varied with respect
to the college of pontiffs instituted by Numa. At first the
pontiffs themselves filled vacancies by election. Livy speaks
of the election of a pontifex maximus by the comitia about
212 B. C.321 By the lex Domitia the right to elect the members
of the several colleges of pontiffs and of priests was transferred
to the people, but the law was subsequently modified by Sulla.322
The active presence of the elective principle among the Latin
gentes when they first come under historical notice, and from
that time through the period of the republic, furnishes strong
grounds for the inference that the office of chief was elective in
tenure. The democratic features of their social system, which
present themselves at so many points, were inherited from the
gentes. It would require positive evidence that the office of
chief passed by hereditary right to overcome the presumption
against it. The right to elect carries with it the right to depose
from office, where the tenure is for life.
These chiefs, or a selection from them, composed the council
of the several Latin tribes before the founding of Rome, which
was the principal instrument of government. Traces of the
three powers co-ordinated in the government appear among
the Latin tribes as they did in the Grecian, namely: the council
of chiefs, the assembly of the people, to which we must suppose
the more important public measures were submitted for
adoption or rejection, and the military commander. Mommsen
remarks that “All of these cantons [tribes] were in primitive
times politically sovereign, and each of them was governed by
its prince, and the co-operation of the council of elders, and
the assembly of the warriors.”323 The order of Mommsen’s
statement should be reversed, and the statement qualified.
This council, from its functions and from its central position in
their social system, of which it was a growth, held of necessity
the supreme power in civil affairs. It was the council that
governed, and not the military commander. “In all the cities
belonging to civilized nations on the coasts of the Mediterranean,”
Niebuhr observes, “a senate was a no less essential and
indispensable part of the state, than a popular assembly; it was
a select body of elder citizens; such a council, says Aristotle,
there always is, whether the council be aristocratical or democratical;
even in oligarchies, be the number of sharers in the
sovereignty ever so small, certain councilors are appointed for
preparing public measures.”324 The senate of political society
succeeded the council of chiefs of gentile society. Romulus
formed the first Roman senate of a hundred elders; and as
there were then but a hundred gentes, the inference is substantially
conclusive that they were the chiefs of these gentes. The
office was for life, and non-hereditary; whence the final inference,
that the office of chief was at the time elective. Had it
been otherwise there is every probability that the Roman senate
would have been instituted as an hereditary body. Evidence
of the essentially democratic constitution of ancient society
meets us at many points, which fact has failed to find its
way into the modern historical expositions of Grecian and Roman
gentile society.
With respect to the number of persons in a Roman gens, we
are fortunately not without some information. About 474 B. C.
the Fabian gens proposed to the senate to undertake the Veientian
war as a gens, which they said required a constant rather
than a large force.325 Their offer was accepted, and they marched
out of Rome three hundred and six soldiers, all patricians,
amid the applause of their countrymen.326 After a series of
successes they were finally cut off to a man through an ambuscade.
But they left behind them at Rome a single male
under the age of puberty, who alone remained to perpetuate
the Fabian gens.327 It seems hardly credible that three hundred
should have left in their families but a single male child, below
the age of puberty, but such is the statement. This number
of persons would indicate an equal number of females, who,
with the children of the males, would give an aggregate of at
least seven hundred members of the Fabian gens.
Although the rights, obligations and functions of the Roman
gens have been inadequately presented, enough has been adduced
to show that this organization was the source of their
social, governmental and religious activities. As the unit of
their social system it projects its character upon the higher organizations
into which it entered as a constituent. A much
fuller knowledge of the Roman gens than we now possess is
essential to a full comprehension of Roman institutions in their
origin and development.
Roman Gentile Society.—Four Stages of Organization—1. The Gens;
2. The Curia, consisting of Ten Gentes; 3. The Tribe, composed of Ten
Curiæ; 4. The Populus Romanus, composed of Three Tribes.—Numerical
Proportions—How Produced.—Concentration of Gentes at Rome.—The
Roman Senate.—Its Functions.—The Assembly of the People.—Its
Powers.—The People Sovereign.—Office of Military Commander
(Rex).—Its Powers and Functions.—Roman Gentile Institutions essentially
Democratical.
Having considered the Roman gens, it remains to take up
the curia composed of several gentes, the tribe composed of
several curiæ, and lastly the Roman people composed of several
tribes. In pursuing the subject the inquiry will be limited
to the constitution of society as it appeared from the time of
Romulus to that of Servius Tullius, with some notice of the
changes which occurred in the early period of the republic
while the gentile system was giving way, and the new political
system was being established.
It will be found that two governmental organizations were in
existence for a time, side by side, as among the Athenians, one
going out and the other coming in. The first was a society
(societas), founded upon the gentes; and the other a state
(civitas), founded upon territory and upon property, which
was gradually supplanting the former. A government in a
transitional stage is necessarily complicated, and therefore difficult
to be understood. These changes were not violent but
gradual, commencing with Romulus and substantially completed,
though not perfected, by Servius Tullius; thus embracing a
supposed period of nearly two hundred years, crowded with
events of great moment to the infant commonwealth. In order
to follow the history of the gentes to the overthrow of their
influence in the state it will be necessary, after considering the
curia, tribe and nation, to explain briefly the new political system.
The last will form the subject of the ensuing chapter.
Gentile society among the Romans exhibits four stages of
organization: first, the gens, which was a body of consanguinei
and the unit of the social system; second, the curia, analogous
to the Grecian phratry, which consisted of ten gentes united in
a higher corporate body; third, the tribe, consisting of ten
curiæ, which possessed some of the attributes of a nation under
gentile institutions; and fourth, the Roman people (Populus
Romanus), consisting, in the time of Tullus Hostilius, of three
such tribes united by coalescence in one gentile society, embracing
three hundred gentes. There are facts warranting the conclusion
that all the Italian tribes were similarly organized at the
commencement of the historical period; but with this difference,
perhaps, that the Roman curia was a more advanced organization
than the Grecian phratry, or the corresponding
phratry of the remaining Italian tribes; and that the Roman
tribe, by constrained enlargement, became a more comprehensive
organization than in the remaining Italian stocks. Some
evidence in support of these statements will appear in the sequel.
Before the time of Romulus the Italians, in their various
branches, had become a numerous people. The large number
of petty tribes, into which they had become subdivided, reveals
that state of unavoidable disintegration which accompanies
gentile institutions. But the federal principle had asserted itself
among the other Italian tribes as well as the Latin, although
it did not result in any confederacy that achieved important results.
Whilst this state of things existed, that great movement
ascribed to Romulus occurred, namely: the concentration of a
hundred Latin gentes on the banks of the Tiber, which was followed
by a like gathering of Sabine, Latin and Etruscan and
other gentes, to the additional number of two hundred, ending
in their final coalescence into one people. The foundations of
Rome were thus laid, and Roman power and civilization were
to follow. It was this consolidation of gentes and tribes under
one government, commenced by Romulus and completed by
his successors, that prepared the way for the new political system—for
the transition from a government based upon persons
and upon personal relations, into one based upon territory and
upon property.
It is immaterial whether either of the seven so-called kings
of Rome were real or mythical persons, or whether the legislation
ascribed to either of them is fabulous or true, so far as this
investigation is concerned: because the facts with respect to
the ancient constitution of Latin society remained incorporated
in Roman institutions, and thus came down to the historical
period. It fortunately so happens that the events of human
progress embody themselves, independently of particular men,
in a material record, which is crystallized in institutions, usages
and customs, and preserved in inventions and discoveries.
Historians, from a sort of necessity, give to individuals great
prominence in the production of events; thus placing persons,
who are transient, in the place of principles, which are enduring.
The work of society in its totality, by means of which all
progress occurs, is ascribed far too much to individual men,
and far too little to the public intelligence. It will be recognized
generally that the substance of human history is bound
up in the growth of ideas, which are wrought out by the people
and expressed in their institutions, usages, inventions and
discoveries.
The numerical adjustment, before adverted to, of ten gentes
to a curia, ten curiæ to a tribe, and three tribes of the Roman
people, was a result of legislative procurement not older, in the
first two tribes, than the time of Romulus. It was made possible
by the accessions gained from the surrounding tribes, by
solicitation or conquest; the fruits of which were chiefly incorporated
in the Tities and Luceres, as they were successively
formed. But such a precise numerical adjustment could not be
permanently maintained through centuries, especially with respect
to the number of gentes in each curia.
We have seen that the Grecian phratry was rather a religious
and social than a governmental organization. Holding an intermediate
position between the gens and the tribe, it would be
less important than either, until governmental functions were
superadded. It appears among the Iroquois in a rudimentary
form, its social as distinguished from its governmental character
being at that early day equally well marked. But the Roman
curia, whatever it may have been in the previous period, grew
into an organization more integral and governmental than the
phratry of the Greeks; more is known, however, of the former
than of the latter. It is probable that the gentes comprised in
each curia were, in the main, related gentes; and that their reunion
in a higher organization was further cemented by intermarriages,
the gentes of the same curia furnishing each other
with wives.
The early writers give no account of the institution of the
curia; but it does not follow that it was a new creation by
Romulus. It is first mentioned as a Roman institution in connection
with his legislation, the number of curiæ in two of the
tribes having been established in his time. The organization,
as a phratry, had probably existed among the Latin
tribes from time immemorial.
Livy, speaking of the favor with which the Sabine women
were regarded after the establishment of peace between the
Sabines and Latins through their intervention, remarks that
Romulus, for this reason, when he had divided the people into
thirty curiæ bestowed upon them their names.328 Dionysius uses
the term phratry as the equivalent of curia, but gives the latter
also (κουρία),329 and observes further, that Romulus divided the
curiæ into decades, the ten in each being of course gentes.330
In like manner Plutarch refers to the fact that each tribe contained
ten curiæ, which some say, he remarks, were called after
the Sabine women.331 He is more accurate in the use of language
than Livy or Dionysius in saying that each tribe contained
ten curiæ, rather than that each was divided into ten, because
the curiæ were made of gentes as original unities, and not
the gentes out of a curia by subdivision. The work performed
by Romulus was the adjustment of the number of gentes in
each curia, and the number of curiæ in each tribe, which he
was enabled to accomplish through the accessions gained from
the surrounding tribes. Theoretically each curia should have
been composed of gentes derived by segmentation from one or
more gentes, and the tribe by natural growth through the formation
of more than one curia, each composed of gentes
united by the bond of a common dialect. The hundred gentes
of the Ramnes were Latin gentes. In their organization into
ten curiæ, each composed of ten gentes, Romulus undoubtedly
respected the bond of kin by placing related gentes in the
same curia, as far as possible, and then reached numerical
symmetry by arbitrarily taking the excess of gentes from
one natural curia to supply the deficiency in another. The
hundred gentes of the tribe Tities were, in the main, Sabine
gentes. These were also arranged in ten curiæ, and most likely
on the same principle. The third tribe, the Luceres, was
formed later from gradual accessions and conquests. It was
heterogeneous in its elements, containing, among others, a
number of Etruscan gentes. They were brought into the same
numerical scale of ten curiæ each composed of ten gentes.
Under this re-constitution, while the gens, the unit of organization,
remained pure and unchanged, the curia was raised above
its logical level, and made to include, in some cases, a foreign
element which did not belong to a strict natural phratry; and
the tribe also was raised above its natural level, and made to
embrace foreign elements that did not belong to a tribe as the
tribe naturally grew. By this legislative constraint the tribes,
with their curiæ and gentes, were made severally equal, while
the third tribe was in good part an artificial creation under the
pressure of circumstances. The linguistic affiliations of the
Etruscans are still a matter of discussion. There is a presumption
that their dialect was not wholly unintelligible to the Latin
tribes, otherwise they would not have been admitted into the
Roman social system, which at the time was purely gentile.
The numerical proportions thus secured, facilitated the governmental
action of the society as a whole.
Niebuhr, who was the first to gain a true conception of the institutions
of the Romans in this period, who recognized the
fact that the people were sovereign, that the so-called kings exercised
a delegated power, and that the senate was based on the
principle of representation, each gens having a senator, became
at variance with the facts before him in stating in connection
with this graduated scale, that “such numerical proportions are
an irrefragible proof that the Roman houses [gentes]332 were not
more ancient than the constitution; but corporations formed by
a legislator in harmony with the rest of his scheme.”333 That a
small foreign element was forced into the curiæ of the second
and third tribes, and particularly into the third, is undeniable;
but that a gens was changed in its composition or reconstructed
or made, was simply impossible. A legislator could not make
a gens; neither could he make a curia, except by combining
existing gentes around a nucleus of related gentes; but he
might increase or decrease by constraint the number of gentes in
a curia, and increase or decrease the number of curiæ in a tribe.
Niebuhr has also shown that the gens was an ancient and universal
organization among the Greeks and Romans, which renders
his preceding declaration the more incomprehensible.
Moreover it appears that the phratry was universal, at least
among the Ionian Greeks, leaving it probable that the curia,
perhaps under another name, was equally ancient among the
Latin tribes. The numerical proportions referred to were no
doubt the result of legislative procurement in the time of
Romulus, and we have abundant evidence of the sources from
which the new gentes were obtained with which these proportions
might have been produced.
The members of the ten gentes united in a curia were called
curiales among themselves. They elected a priest, curio, who
was the chief officer of the fraternity. Each curia had its sacred
rites, in the observance of which the brotherhood participated;
its sacellum as a place of worship, and its place of assembly
where they met for the transaction of business. Besides
the curio, who had the principal charge of their religious
affairs, the curiales also elected an assistant priest, flamen curialis,
who had the immediate charge of these observances.
The curia gave its name to the assembly of the gentes, the
comitia curiata which was the sovereign power in Rome to a
greater degree than the senate under the gentile system.
Such, in general terms, was the organization of the Roman curia
or phratry.334
Next in the ascending scale was the Roman tribe, composed
of ten curiæ and a hundred gentes. When a natural growth,
uninfluenced externally, a tribe would be an aggregation of
such gentes as were derived by segmentation from an original
gens or pair of gentes; all the members of which would speak
the same dialect. Until the tribe itself divided, by processes
before pointed out, it would include all the descendants of the
members of these gentes. But the Roman tribe, with which
alone we are now concerned, was artificially enlarged for special
objects and by special means, but the basis and body of the
tribe was a natural growth.
Prior to the time of Romulus each tribe elected a chief officer
whose duties were magisterial, military and religious.335 He performed
in the city magisterial duties for the tribe, as well as
administered its sacra, and he also commanded its military
forces in the field.336 He was probably elected by the curiæ
collected in a general assembly; but here again our information
is defective. It was undoubtedly an ancient office in each Latin
tribe, peculiar in character and held by an elective tenure. It
was also the germ of the still higher office of rex, or general
military commander, the functions of the two offices being
similar. The tribal chiefs are styled by Dionysius leaders of
the tribes (τριβῶν ἡγεμονίας).337 When the three Roman tribes
had coalesced into one people, under one senate, one assembly
of the people, and one military commander, the office of tribal
chief was overshadowed and became less important; but the
continued maintenance of the office by an elective tenure confirms
the inference of its original popular character.
An assembly of the tribe must also have existed, from
a remote antiquity. Before the founding of Rome each
Italian tribe was practically independent, although the tribes
were more or less united in confederate relations. As a
self-governing body each of these ancient tribes had its council
of chiefs (who were doubtless the chiefs of the gentes), its assembly
of the people, and its chiefs who commanded its military
bands. These three elements in the organization of the
tribe; namely, the council, the tribal chief, and the tribal assembly,
were the types upon which were afterwards modeled
the Roman senate, the Roman rex, and the comitia curiata.
The tribal chief was in all probability called by the name
of rex before the founding of Rome; and the same remark is
applicable to the name of senators (senex), and the comitia
(con-ire). The inference arises, from what is known of the
condition and organization of these tribes, that their institutions
were essentially democratical. After the coalescence of the
three Roman tribes, the national character of the tribe was lost
in the higher organization; but it still remained as a necessary
integer in the organic series.
The fourth and last stage of organization was the Roman nation
or people, formed, as stated, by the coalescence of three
tribes. Externally the ultimate organization was manifested by
a senate (senatus), a popular assembly (comitia curiata), and a
general military commander (rex). It was further manifested
by a city magistracy, by an army organization, and by a common
national priesthood of different orders.338
A powerful city organization was from the first the central
idea of their governmental and military systems, to which all
areas beyond Rome remained provincial. Under the military
democracy of Romulus, under the mixed democratical and aristocratical
organization of the republic, and under the later imperialism
it was a government with a great city in its centre, a
perpetual nucleus, to which all additions by conquest were
added as increments, instead of being made, with the city, common
constituents of the government. Nothing precisely like
this Roman organization, this Roman power, and the career of
the Roman race, has appeared in the experience of mankind.
It will ever remain the marvel of the ages.
As organized by Romulus they styled themselves the Roman
People (Populus Romanus), which was perfectly exact. They
had formed a gentile society and nothing more. But the rapid
increase of numbers in the time of Romulus, and the still
greater increase between this period and that of Servius Tullius,
demonstrated the necessity for a fundamental change in
the plan of government. Romulus and the wise men of his
time had made the most of gentile institutions. We are indebted
to his legislation for a grand attempt to establish upon
the gentes a great national and military power; and thus for
some knowledge of the character and structure of institutions
which might otherwise have faded into obscurity, if they had
not perished from remembrance. The rise of the Roman power
upon gentile institutions was a remarkable event in human experience.
It is not singular that the incidents that accompanied
the movement should have come to us tinctured with romance,
not to say enshrouded in fable. Rome came into existence
through a happy conception, ascribed to Romulus, and
adopted by his successors, of concentrating the largest possible
number of gentes in a new city, under one government, and
with their united military forces under one commander. Its
objects were essentially military, to gain a supremacy in Italy,
and it is not surprising that the organization took the form of
a military democracy.
Selecting a magnificent situation upon the Tiber, where, after
leaving the mountain range it had entered the campagna, Romulus
occupied the Palatine Hill, the site of an ancient fortress,
with a tribe of the Latins of which he was the chief. Tradition
derived his descent from the chiefs of Alba, which is a matter of
secondary importance. The new settlement grew with marvelous
rapidity, if the statement is reliable that at the close of
his life the military forces numbered 46,000 foot and 1,000 horse,
which would indicate some 200,000 people in the city and in
the surrounding region under its protection. Livy remarks
that it was an ancient device (vetus consilium) of the founders
of cities to draw to themselves an obscure and humble multitude,
and then set up for their progeny the autocthonic claim.339
Romulus pursuing this ancient policy is said to have opened an
asylum near the Palatine, and to have invited all persons in the
surrounding tribe, without regard to character or condition, to
share with his tribes the advantages and the destiny of the new
city. A great crowd of people, Livy further remarks, fled to
this place from the surrounding territories, slave as well as free,
which was the first accession of foreign strength to the new undertaking.340
Plutarch,341 and Dionysius342 both refer to the asylum
or grove, the opening of which, for the object and with the success
named, was an event of probable occurrence. It tends to
show that the people of Italy had then become numerous for
barbarians, and that discontent prevailed among them in consequence,
doubtless, of the imperfect protection of personal rights,
the existence of domestic slavery, and the apprehension of violence.
Of such a state of things a wise man would naturally
avail himself if he possessed sufficient military genius to handle
the class of men thus brought together. The next important
event in this romantic narrative, of which the reader should be
reminded, was the assault of the Sabines to avenge the entrapment
of the Sabine virgins, now the honored wives of their captors.
It resulted in a wise accommodation under which the
Latins and Sabines coalesced into one society, but each division
retaining its own military leader. The Sabines occupied the
Quirinal and Capitoline Hills. Thus was added the principal
part of the second tribe, the Tities, under Titius Tatius their
military chief. After the death of the latter they all fell under
the military command of Romulus.
Passing over Numa Pompilius, the successor of Romulus, who
established upon a broader scale the religious institutions of the
Romans, his successor, Tullus Hostilius, captured the Latin city
of Alba and removed its entire population to Rome. They occupied
the Cœlian Hill, with all the privileges of Roman citizens.
The number of citizens was now doubled, Livy remarks;343 but
not likely from this source exclusively. Ancus Martius, the
successor of Tullus, captured the Latin city of Politorium, and
following the established policy, transferred the people bodily to
Rome.344 To them was assigned the Aventine Hill, with similar
privileges. Not long afterwards the inhabitants of Tellini and
Ficana were subdued and removed to Rome, where they also
occupied the Aventine.345 It will be noticed that in each case
the gentes brought to Rome, as well as the original Latin and
Sabine gentes, remained locally distinct. It was the universal
usage in gentile society, both in the Middle and in the Upper
Status of barbarism, when the tribes began to gather in fortresses
and in walled cities, for the gentes to settle locally together
by gentes and by phratries.346 Such was the manner the
gentes settled at Rome. The greater portion of these accessions
were united in the third tribe, the Luceres, which gave it a
broad basis of Latin gentes. It was not entirely filled until the
time of Tarquinius Priscus, the fourth military leader from Romulus,
some of the new gentes being Etruscan.
By these and other means three hundred gentes were gathered
at Rome and there organized in curiæ and tribes, differing
somewhat in tribal lineage; for the Ramnes, as before remarked,
were Latins, the Tities were in the main Sabines and the Luceres
were probably in the main Latins with large accessions
from other sources. The Roman people and organization thus
grew into being by a more or less constrained aggregation of gentes
into curiæ, of curiæ into tribes, and of tribes into one gentile
society. But a model for each integral organization, excepting
the last, had existed among them and their ancestors from time
immemorial; with a natural basis for each curia in the kindred
gentes actually united in each, and a similar basis for each tribe in
the common lineage of a greater part of the gentes united in each.
All that was new in organization was the numerical proportions
of gentes to a curia, of curiæ to a tribe, and the coalescence of the
latter into one people. It may be called a growth under legislative
constraint, because the tribes thus formed were not entirely
free from the admixture of foreign elements; whence arose the
new name tribus=a third part of the people, which now came
in to distinguish this organism. The Latin language must have
had a term equivalent to the Greek phylon (φῦλον) = tribe,
because they had the same organization; but if so it has disappeared.
The invention of this new term is some evidence
that the Roman tribes contained heterogeneous elements, while
the Grecian were pure, and kindred in the lineage of the gentes
they contained.
Our knowledge of the previous constitution of Latin society
is mainly derived from the legislation ascribed to Romulus,
since it brings into view the anterior organization of the Latin
tribes, with such improvements and modifications as the wisdom
of the age was able to suggest. It is seen in the senate as a
council of chiefs, in the comitia curiata as an assembly of the
the people by curiæ, in the office of a general military commander,
and in the ascending series of organizations. It is
seen more especially in the presence of the gentes, with their
recognized rights, privileges and obligations. Moreover, the
government instituted by Romulus and perfected by his immediate
successors presents gentile society in the highest
structural form it ever attained in any portion of the human
family. The time referred to was immediately before the institution
of political society by Servius Tullius.
The first momentous act of Romulus, as a legislator, was
the institution of the Roman senate. It was composed of a
hundred members, one from each gens, or ten from each curia.
A council of chiefs as the primary instrument of government
was not a new thing among the Latin tribes. From time immemorial
they had been accustomed to its existence and to its
authority. But it is probable that prior to the time of Romulus
it had become changed, like the Grecian councils, into a
pre-considering body, obligated to prepare and submit to an
assembly of the people the most important public measures for
adoption or rejection. This was in effect a resumption by
the people of powers before vested in the council of chiefs.
Since no public measure of essential importance could become
operative until it received the sanction of the popular assembly,
this fact alone shows that the people were sovereign, and not
the council, nor the military commander. It reveals also the
extent to which democratic principles had penetrated their social
system. The senate instituted by Romulus, although its
functions were doubtless substantially similar to those of the
previous council of chiefs, was an advance upon it in several
respects. It was made up either of the chiefs or of the wise
men of the gentes. Each gens, as Niebuhr remarks, “sending
its decurion who was its alderman,”347 to represent it in the senate.
It was thus a representative and an elective body in its
inception, and it remained elective, or selective, down to the
empire. The senators held their office for life, which was the
only term of office then known among them, and therefore not
singular. Livy ascribes the selection of the first senators to
Romulus, which is probably an erroneous statement, for the reason
that it would not have been in accordance with the theory
of their institutions. Romulus chose a hundred senators, he
remarks, either because that number was sufficient, or because
there were but a hundred who could be created Fathers.
Fathers certainly they were called on account of their official
dignity, and their descendants were called patricians.348 The
character of the senate as a representative body, the title of
Fathers of the People bestowed upon its members, the life-tenure
of the office, but, more than all these considerations, the
distinction of patricians conferred upon their children and lineal
descendants in perpetuity, established at a stroke an aristocracy
of rank in the centre of their social system where it became
firmly intrenched. The Roman senate, from its high vocation,
from its composition, and from the patrician rank received by
its members and transmitted to their descendants, held a powerful
position in the subsequent state. It was this aristocratic
element, now for the first time planted in gentilism, which gave
to the republic its mongrel character, and which, as might have
been predicted, culminated in imperialism, and with it in the
final dissolution of the race. It may perhaps have increased
the military glory and extended the conquests of Rome, whose
institutions, from the first, aimed at a military destiny; but it
shortened the career of this great and extraordinary people, and
demonstrated the proposition that imperialism of necessity will
destroy any civilized race. Under the republic, half aristocratic,
half democratic, the Romans achieved their fame, which
one can but think would have been higher in degree, and more
lasting in its fruits, had liberty and equality been nationalized,
instead of unequal privileges and an atrocious slavery. The
long protracted struggle of the plebeians to eradicate the aristocratic
element represented by the senate, and to recover the
ancient principles of democracy, must be classed among the
heroic labors of mankind.
After the union of the Sabines the senate was increased to
two hundred by the addition of a hundred senators349 from the
gentes of the tribe Tities; and when the Luceres had increased
to a hundred gentes in the time of Tarquinius Priscus, a third
hundred senators were added from the gentes of this tribe.350 Cicero
has left some doubt upon this statement of Livy, by saying
that Tarquinius Priscus doubled the original number of the
senators.351 But Schmitz well suggests, as an explanation of the
discrepancy, that at the time of the final increase the senate
may have become reduced to a hundred and fifty members, and
been filled up to two hundred from the gentes of the first two
tribes, when the hundred were added from the third. The senators
taken from the tribes Ramnes and Tities were thenceforth
called Fathers of the Greater Gentes (patres maiorum gentium),
and those of the Luceres Fathers of the Lesser Gentes (patres
minorum gentium).352 From the form of the statement the inference
arises that the three hundred senators represented the three
hundred gentes, each senator representing a gens. Moreover, as
each gens doubtless had its principal chief (princeps), it becomes
extremely probable that this person was chosen for the position
either by his gens, or the ten were chosen together by the curia,
from the ten gentes of which it was composed. Such a
method of representation and of choice is most in accordance
with what is known of Roman and gentile institutions.353 After
the establishment of the republic, the censors filled the vacancies
in the senate by their own choice, until it was devolved
upon the consuls. They were generally selected from the ex-magistrates
of the higher grades.
The powers of the senate were real and substantial. All
public measures originated in this body—those upon which they
could act independently, as well as those which must be submitted
to the popular assembly and be adopted before they
could become operative. It had the general guardianship of
the public welfare, the management of their foreign relations,
the levying of taxes and of military forces, and the general
control of revenues and expenditures. Although the administration
of religious affairs belonged to the several colleges of
priests, the senate had the ultimate power over religion as well.
From its functions and vocation it was the most influential body
which ever existed under gentile institutions.
The assembly of the people, with the recognized right of
acting upon important public measures to be discussed by them
and adopted or rejected, was unknown in the Lower, and probably
in the Middle Status of barbarism; but it existed in the
Upper Status, in the agora of the Grecian tribes, and attained
its highest form in the ecclesia of the Athenians; and it also
existed in the assembly of the warriors among the Latin tribes,
attaining its highest form in the comitia curiata of the Romans.
The growth of property tended to the establishment of the
popular assembly, as a third power in gentile society, for the
protection of personal rights and as a shield against the encroachments
of the council of chiefs, and of the military commander.
From the period of savagery, after the institution of
the gentes, down to the times of Solon and Romulus, the popular
element had always been active in ancient gentile society.
The council of chiefs was usually open in the early conditions
to the orators of the people, and public sentiment influenced
the course of events. But when the Grecian and Latin tribes
first came under historical notice the assembly of the people to
discuss and adopt or reject public measures was a phenomenon
quite as constant as that of a council of chiefs. It was more
perfectly systematized among the Romans under the constitution
of Romulus than among the Athenians in the time of Solon.
In the rise and progress of this institution may be traced the
growth and development of the democratic principle.
This assembly among the Romans was called the comitia
curiata, because the members of the gentes of adult age met
in one assembly by curiæ, and voted in the same manner.
Each curia had one collective vote, the majority in each was
ascertained separately, and determined what that vote should
be.354 It was the assembly of the gentes, who alone were members
of the government. Plebeians and clients, who already
formed a numerous class, were excluded, because there could
be no connection with the Populus Romanus, except through
a gens and tribe. This assembly, as before stated, could neither
originate public measures, nor amend such as were submitted
to them; but none of a certain grade could become operative
until adopted by the comitia. All laws were passed or
repealed by this assembly; all magistrates and high public
functionaries, including the rex, were elected by it on the nomination
of the senate.355 The imperium was conferred upon
these persons by a law of the assembly (lex curiata de imperio),
which was the Roman method of investing with office. Until
the imperium was thus conferred, the person, although the election
was complete, could not enter upon his office. The comitia
curiata, by appeal, had the ultimate decision in criminal
cases involving the life of a Roman citizen. It was by a
popular movement that the office of rex was abolished. Although
the assembly of the people never acquired the power
of originating measures, its powers were real and influential.
At this time the people were sovereign.
The assembly had no power to convene itself; but it is said
to have met on the summons of the rex, or, in his absence, on
that of the praefect (praefectus urbi). In the time of the republic
it was convened by the consuls, or, in their absence, by
the praetor; and in all cases the person who convened the assembly
presided over its deliberations.
In another connection the office of rex has been considered.
The rex was a general and also a priest, but without civil functions,
as some writers have endeavored to imply.356 His powers
as a general, though not defined, were necessarily absolute over
the military forces in the field and in the city. If he exercised
any civil powers in particular cases, it must be supposed that
they were delegated for the occasion. To pronounce him a
king, as that term is necessarily understood, is to vitiate and
mis-describe the popular government to which he belonged, and
the institutions upon which it rested. The form of government
under which the rex and basileus appeared is identified with
gentile institutions and disappeared after gentile society was
overthrown. It was a peculiar organization having no parallel
in modern society, and is unexplainable in terms adapted to
monarchical institutions. A military democracy under a senate,
an assembly of the people, and a general of their nomination
and election, is a near, though it may not be a perfect,
characterization of a government so peculiar, which belongs
exclusively to ancient society, and rested on institutions essentially
democratical. Romulus, in all probability, emboldened
by his great successes, assumed powers which were regarded
as dangerous to the senate and to the people, and his assassination
by the Roman chiefs is a fair inference from the statements
concerning his mysterious disappearance which have come
down to us. This act, atrocious as it must be pronounced,
evinces that spirit of independence, inherited from the gentes,
which would not submit to arbitrary individual power. When
the office was abolished, and the consulate was established in
its place, it is not surprising that two consuls were created instead
of one. While the powers of the office might raise one
man to a dangerous height, it could not be the case with two.
The same subtlety of reasoning led the Iroquois, without original
experience, to create two war-chiefs of the confederacy instead
of one, lest the office of commander-in-chief, bestowed
upon a single man, should raise him to a position too influential.
In his capacity of chief priest the rex took the auspices on
important occasions, which was one of the highest acts of the
Roman religious system, and in their estimation quite as necessary
in the field on the eve of a battle as in the city. He
performed other religious rites as well. It is not surprising
that in those times priestly functions are found among the Romans,
as among the Greeks, attached to or inherent in the
highest military office. When the abolition of this office occurred,
it was found necessary to vest in some one the religious
functions appertaining to it, which were evidently special;
whence the creation of the new office of rex sacrificulus, or
rex sacrorum, the incumbent of which performed the religious
duties in question. Among the Athenians the same idea reappears
in the second of the nine archons, who was called archon
basileus, and had a general supervision of religious affairs.
Why religious functions were attached to the office of rex and
basileus, among the Romans and Greeks, and to the office of
Teuctli among the Aztecs; and why, after the abolition of
the office in the two former cases, the ordinary priesthoods
could not perform them, has not been explained.
Thus stood Roman gentile society from the time of Romulus
to the time of Servius Tullius, through a period of more than
two hundred years, during which the foundations of Roman
power were laid. The government, as before remarked, consisted
of three powers, a senate, an assembly of the people, and
a military commander. They had experienced the necessity
for definite written laws to be enacted by themselves, as a substitute
for usages and customs. In the rex they had the germinal
idea of a chief executive magistrate, which necessity
pressed upon them, and which was to advance into a more complete
form after the institution of political society. But they
found it a dangerous office in those times of limited experience
in the higher conceptions of government, because the powers of
the rex were, in the main, undefined, as well as difficult of definition.
It is not surprising that when a serious controversy
arose between the people and Tarquinius Superbus, they deposed
the man and abolished the office. As soon as something
like the irresponsible power of a king met them face to face
it was found incompatible with liberty and the latter gained
the victory. They were willing, however, to admit into the
system of government a limited executive, and they created the
office in a dual form in the two consuls. This occurred after the
institution of political society.
No direct steps were taken, prior to the time of Servius Tullius,
to establish a state founded upon territory and upon property;
but the previous measures were a preparation for that
event. In addition to the institutions named, they had created
a city magistracy, and a complete military system, including the
institution of the equestrian order. Under institutions purely
gentile Rome had become, in the time of Servius Tullius, the
strongest military power in Italy.
Among the new magistrates created, that of warden of the
city (custos urbis) was the most important. This officer, who
was chief of the senate (princeps senatus), was, in the first instance,
according to Dionysius, appointed by Romulus.357 The
senate, which had no power to convene itself, was convened by
him. It is also claimed that the rex had power to summon the
senate. That it would be apt to convene upon his request,
through the call of its own officer, is probable; but that he
could command its convocation is improbable, from its independence
in functions, from its dignity, and from its representative
character. After the time of the Decemvirs the name
of the office was changed to præfect of the city (præfectus
urbi), its powers were enlarged, and it was made elective by
the new comitia centuriata. Under the republic, the consuls,
and in their absence, the praetor, had power to convene the senate,
and also to hold the comitia. At a later day, the office of
praetor (praetor urbanus) absorbed the functions of this ancient
office and became its successor. A judicial magistrate,
the Roman praetor was the prototype of the modern judge.
Thus, every essential institution in the government or administration
of the affairs of society may generally be traced to a
simple germ, which springs up in a rude form from human
wants, and, when able to endure the test of time and experience,
is developed into a permanent institution.
A knowledge of the tenure of the office of chief, and of the
functions of the council of chiefs, before the time of Romulus,
could they be ascertained, would reflect much light upon the condition
of Roman gentile society in the time of Romulus. Moreover,
the several periods should be studied separately, because
the facts of their social condition were changing with their advancement
in intelligence. The Italian period prior to Romulus,
the period of the seven reges, and the subsequent periods
of the republic and of the empire are marked by great differences
in the spirit and character of the government. But the
institutions of the first period entered into the second, and
these again were transmitted into the third, and remained with
modifications in the fourth. The growth, development and fall
of these institutions embody the vital history of the Roman people.
It is by tracing these institutions from the germ through
their successive stages of growth, on the wide scale of the tribes
and nations of mankind, that we can follow the great movements
of the human mind in its evolution from its infancy in
savagery to its present high development. Out of the necessities
of mankind for the organization of society came the gens;
out of the gens came the chief, and the tribe with its council
of chiefs; out of the tribe came by segmentation the group of
tribes, afterwards re-united in a confederacy, and finally consolidated
by coalescence into a nation; out of the experience
of the council came the necessity of an assembly of the people
with a division of the powers of the government between them;
and finally, out of the military necessities of the united tribes
came the general military commander, who became in time a
third power in the government, but subordinate to the two superior
powers. It was the germ of the office of the subsequent
chief magistrate, the king and the president. The principal institutions
of civilized nations are simply continuations of those
which germinated in savagery, expanded in barbarism, and
which are still subsisting and advancing in civilization.
As the Roman government existed at the death of Romulus,
it was social, and not political; it was personal, and not territorial.
The three tribes were located, it is true, in separate and
distinct areas within the limits of the city; but this was the prevailing
mode of settlement under gentile institutions. Their
relations to each other and to the resulting society, as gentes,
curiæ and tribes, were wholly personal, the government dealing
with them as groups of persons, and with the whole as the Roman
people. Localized in this manner within inclosing ramparts,
the idea of a township or city ward would suggest itself
when the necessity for a change in the plan of government was
forced upon them by the growing complexity of affairs. It
was a great change that was soon to be required of them, to be
wrought out through experimental legislation—precisely the
same which the Athenians had entered upon shortly before the
time of Servius Tullius. Rome was founded, and its first victories
were won under institutions purely gentile; but the fruits
of these achievements by their very magnitude demonstrated
the inability of the gentes to form the basis of a state. But it
required two centuries of intense activity in the growing commonwealth
to prepare the way for the institution of the second
great plan of government based upon territory and upon property.
A withdrawal of governing powers from the gentes,
curiæ and tribes, and their bestowal upon new constituencies
was the sacrifice demanded. Such a change would become
possible only through a conviction that the gentes could not be
made to yield such a form of government as their advanced
condition demanded. It was practically a question of continuance
in barbarism, or progress into civilization. The inauguration
of the new system will form the subject of the next
chapter.
The Populus.—The Plebeians.—The Clients.—The Patricians.—Limits
of the Order.—Legislation of Servius Tullius.—Institution of Property
Classes.—Of the Centuries.—Unequal Suffrage.—Comitia Centuriata.—Supersedes
Comitia Curiata.—Classes Supersede the Gentes.—The
Census.—Plebeians made Citizens.—Institution of City Wards.—Of
Country Townships.—Tribes Increased To Four.—Made Local instead
of Consanguine.—Character of New Political System.—Decline
and Disappearance of Gentile Organization.—The Work it Accomplished.
Servius Tullius, the sixth chief of the Roman military democracy,
came to the succession about one hundred and thirty-three
years after the death of Romulus, as near as the date can be
ascertained.358 This would place his accession about 576 B. C.
To this remarkable man the Romans were chiefly indebted for
the establishment of their political system. It will be sufficient
to indicate its main features, together with some of the reasons
which led to its adoption.
From the time of Romulus to that of Servius Tullius the
Romans consisted of two distinct classes, the populus and the
plebeians. Both were personally free, and both entered the
ranks of the army; but the former alone were organized in
gentes, curiæ and tribes, and held the powers of the government.
The plebeians, on the other hand, did not belong to
any gens, curia or tribe, and consequently were without the
government.359 They were excluded from office, from the
comitia curiata, and from the sacred rites of the gentes.
In the time of Servius they had become nearly if not quite as
numerous as the populus. They were in the anomalous position
of being subject to the military service, and of possessing
families and property, which identified them with the interests
of Rome, without being in any sense connected with the government.
Under gentile institutions, as we have seen, there
could be no connection with the government except through a
recognized gens, and the plebeians had no gentes. Such a
state of things, affecting so large a portion of the people, was
dangerous to the commonwealth. Admitting of no remedy
under gentile institutions, it must have furnished one of the
prominent reasons for attempting the overthrow of gentile society,
and the substitution of political. The Roman fabric would,
in all probability, have fallen in pieces if a remedy had not been
devised. It was commenced in the time of Romulus, renewed
by Numa Pompilius, and completed by Servius Tullius.
The origin both of the plebeians and of the patricians, and
their subsequent relations to each other, have been fruitful
themes of discussion and of disagreement. A few suggestions
may be ventured upon each of these questions.
A person was a plebeian because he was not a member of a
gens, organized with other gentes in a curia and tribe. It is
easy to understand how large numbers of persons would have
become detached from the gentes of their birth in the unsettled
times which preceded and followed the founding of Rome.
The adventurers who flocked to the new city from the surrounding
tribes, the captives taken in their wars and afterwards
set free, and the unattached persons mingled with the gentes
transplanted to Rome, would rapidly furnish such a class. It
might also well happen that in filling up the hundred gentes
of each tribe, fragments of gentes, and gentes having less than
a prescribed number of persons, were excluded. These unattached
persons, with the fragments of gentes thus excluded
from recognition and organization in a curia, would soon become,
with their children and descendants, a great and increasing
class. Such were the Roman plebeians, who, as such, were
not members of the Roman gentile society. It seems to be a
fair inference from the epithet applied to the senators of the
Luceres, the third Roman tribe admitted, who were styled
“Fathers of the Lesser Gentes,” that the old gentes were reluctant
to acknowledge their entire equality. For a stronger reason
they debarred the plebeians from all participation in the
government. When the third tribe was filled up with the prescribed
number of gentes, the last avenue of admission was
closed, after which the number in the plebeian class would increase
with greater rapidity. Niebuhr remarks that the existence
of the plebeian class may be traced to the time of Ancus,
thus implying that they made their first appearance at that
time.360 He also denies that the clients were a part of the plebeian
body;361 in both of which positions he differs from Dionysius,362
and from Plutarch.363 The institution of the relation of
patron and client is ascribed by the authors last named to Romulus,
and it is recognized by Suetonius as existing in the time
of Romulus.364 A necessity for such an institution existed in
the presence of a class without a gentile status, and without religious
rites, who would avail themselves of this relation for the
protection of their persons and property, and for the access it
gave them to religious privileges. Members of a gens would
not be without this protection or these privileges; neither
would it befit the dignity or accord with the obligations of a
gens to allow one of its members to accept a patron in another
gens. The unattached class, or, in other words, the plebeians,
were the only persons who would naturally seek patrons and
become their clients. The clients formed no part of the populus
for the reasons stated. It seems plain, notwithstanding the
weight of Niebuhr’s authority on Roman questions, that the
clients were a part of the plebeian body.
The next question is one of extreme difficulty, namely: the
origin and extent of the patrician class—whether it originated
with the institution of the Roman Senate, and was limited to
the senators, and to their children and descendants; or included
the entire populus, as distinguished from the plebeians. It is
claimed by the most eminent modern authorities that the entire
populus were patricians. Niebuhr, who is certainly the first on
Roman questions, adopts this view,365 to which Long, Schmitz,
and others have given their concurrence.366 But the reasons assigned
are not conclusive. The existence of the patrician class,
and of the plebeian class as well, may be traced, as stated, to
the time of Romulus.367 If the populus, who were the entire body
of the people organized in gentes, were all patricians at this
early day, the distinction would have been nominal, as the plebeian
class was then unimportant. Moreover, the plain statements
of Cicero and of Livy are not reconcilable with this conclusion.
Dionysius, it is true, speaks of the institution of the patrician
class as occurring before that of the senate, and as composed
of a limited number of persons distinguished for their
birth, their virtue, and their wealth; thus excluding the poor
and obscure in birth, although they belonged to the historical
gentes.368 Admitting a class of patricians without senatorial connection,
there was still a large class remaining in the several gentes
who were not patricians. Cicero has left a plain statement
that the senators and their children were patricians, and without
referring to the existence of any patrician class beyond their
number. When that senate of Romulus, he remarks, which
was constituted of the best men, whom Romulus himself respected
so highly that he wished them to be called fathers, and
their children patricians, attempted,369 etc. The meaning attached
to the word fathers (patres) as here used was a subject of disagreement
among the Romans themselves; but the word patricii,
for the class is formed upon patres, thus tending to show the
necessary connection of the patricians with the senatorial office.
Since each senator at the outset represented, in all probability,
a gens, and the three hundred thus represented all the recognized
gentes, this fact could not of itself make all the members
of the gentes patricians, because the dignity was limited to the
senators, their children, and their posterity. Livy is equally explicit.
They were certainly called fathers, he remarks, on account
of their official dignity, and their posterity (progenies)
patricians.370 Under the reges and also under the republic, individuals
were created patricians by the government; but apart
from the senatorial office, and special creation by the government,
the rank could not be obtained. It is not improbable
that a number of persons, not admitted into the senate when it
was instituted, were placed by public act on the same level with
the senators as to the new patrician rank; but this would include
a small number only of the members of the three hundred gentes,
all of whom were embraced in the Populus Romanus.
It is not improbable that the chiefs of the gentes were called
fathers before the time of Romulus, to indicate the paternal character
of the office; and that the office may have conferred a species
of recognized rank upon their posterity. But we have no
direct evidence of the fact. Assuming it to have been the case,
and further, that the senate at its institution did not include all
the principal chiefs, and further still, that when vacancies in the
senate were subsequently filled, the selection was made on account
of merit and not on account of gens, a foundation for a
patrician class might have previously existed independently of
the senate. These assumptions might be used to explain the
peculiar language of Cicero, namely that Romulus desired that
the senators might be called Fathers, possibly because this was
already the honored title of the chiefs of the gentes. In this
way a limited foundation for a patrician class may be found independent
of the senate; but it would not be broad enough to
include all the recognized gentes. It was in connection with the
senators that the suggestion was made that their children and
descendants should be called patricians. The same statement
is repeated by Paterculus.371
It follows that there could be no patrician gens and no plebeian
gens, although particular families in one gens might be
patricians, and in another plebeians. There is some confusion
also upon this point. All the adult male members of the
Fabian gens, to the number of three hundred and six, were
patricians.372 It must be explained by the supposition that all
the families in this gens could trace their descent from senators,
or to some public act by which their ancestors were raised to
the patriciate. There were of course patrician families in many
gentes, and at a later day patrician and plebeian families in the
same gens. Thus the Claudii and Marcelli, before referred to
(supra p. 287), were two families of the Claudian gens, but the
Claudii alone were patricians. It will be borne in mind, that
prior to the time of Servius Tullius the Romans were divided
into two classes, the populus and the plebeians; but that after
his time, and particularly after the Licinian legislation (367
B. C.) by which all the dignities of the state were opened to
every citizen, the Roman people, of the degree of freemen, fell
into two political classes, which may be distinguished as the
aristocracy and the commonalty. The former class consisted
of the senators, and those descended from senators, together
with those who had held either of the three curule offices,
(consul, praetor, and curule ædile) and their descendants.
The commonalty were now Roman citizens. The gentile
organization had fallen into decadence, and the old division
could no longer be maintained. Persons, who in the first
period as belonging to the populus, could not be classed with
the plebeians, would in the subsequent period belong to the
aristocracy without being patricians. The Claudii could trace
their descent from Appius Claudius who was made a senator
in the time of Romulus; but the Marcelli could not trace
their descent from him, nor from any other senator, although,
as Niebuhr remarks, “equal to the Apii in the splendor of
the honors they attained to, and incomparably more useful to
the commonwealth.”373 This is a sufficient explanation of the
position of the Marcelli without resorting to the fanciful hypothesis
of Niebuhr, that the Marcelli had lost patrician rank
through a marriage of disparagement.374
The patrician class were necessarily numerous, because the
senators, rarely less than three hundred, were chosen as often
as vacancies occurred, thus constantly including new families;
and because it conferred patrician rank on their posterity.
Others were from time to time made patricians by act of the
state.375 This distinction, at first probably of little value, became
of great importance with their increase in wealth, numbers
and power; and it changed the complexion of Roman society.
The full effect of introducing a privileged class in Roman
gentile society was not probably appreciated at the time;
and it is questionable whether this institution did not exercise
a more injurious than beneficial influence upon the subsequent
career of the Roman people.
When the gentes had ceased to be organizations for governmental
purposes under the new political system, the populus no
longer remained as distinguished from the plebeians; but the
shadow of the old organization and of the old distinction remained
far into the republic.376 The plebeians under the new
system were Roman citizens, but they were now the commonalty;
the question of the connection or non-connection with a
gens not entering into the distinction.
From Romulus to Servius Tullius the Roman organization,
as before stated, was simply a gentile society, without relation
to territory or to property. All we find is a series of aggregates
of persons, in gentes, curiæ and tribes, by means of
which the people were dealt with by the government as groups
of persons forming these several organic unities. Their condition
was precisely like that of the Athenians prior to the time
of Solon. But they had instituted a senate in the place of the
old council of chiefs, a comitia curiata in the place of the old
assembly of the people, and had chosen a military commander,
with the additional functions of a priest and judge. With a
government of three powers, co-ordinated with reference to
their principal necessities, and with a coalescence of the three
tribes, composed of an equal number of gentes and curiæ, into
one people, they possessed a higher and more complete governmental
organization than the Latin tribes had before attained.
A numerous class had gradually developed, however, who
were without the pale of the government, and without religious
privileges, excepting that portion who had passed into the relation
of clients. If not a dangerous class, their exclusion from
citizenship, and from all participation in the government, was
detrimental to the commonwealth. A municipality was growing
up upon a scale of magnitude unknown in their previous experience,
requiring a special organization to conduct its local
affairs. A necessity for a change in the plan of government
must have forced itself more and more upon the attention of
thoughtful men. The increase of numbers and of wealth, and
the difficulty of managing their affairs, now complex from
weight of numbers and diversity of interests, began to reveal
the fact, it must be supposed, that they could not hold together
under gentile institutions. A conclusion of this kind is required
to explain the several expedients which were tried.
Numa, the successor of Romulus, made the first significant
movement, because it reveals the existence of an impression,
that a great power could not rest upon gentes as the basis of a
system. He attempted to traverse the gentes, as Theseus did,
by dividing the people into classes, some eight in number, according
to their arts and trades.377 Plutarch, who is the chief
authority for this statement, speaks of this division of the people
according to their vocations as the most admired of Numa’s
institutions; and remarks further, that it was designed to take
away the distinction between Latin and Sabine, both name and
thing, by mixing them together in a new distribution. But as
he did not invest the classes with the powers exercised by the
gentes, the measure failed, like the similar attempt of Theseus,
and for the same reason. Each guild, as we are assured by
Plutarch, had its separate hall, court and religious observances.
These records, though traditionary, of the same experiment in
Attica and at Rome, made for the same object, for similar reasons,
and by the same instrumentalities, render the inference
reasonable that the experiment as stated was actually tried in
each case.
Servius Tullius instituted the new system, and placed it upon
a foundation where it remained to the close of the republic, although
changes were afterwards made in the nature of improvements.
His period (about 576-533 B. C.) follows closely that
of Solon (596 B. C.), and precedes that of Cleisthenes (509 B.
C.). The legislation ascribed to him, and which was obviously
modeled upon that of Solon, may be accepted as having occurred
as early as the time named, because the system was in
practical operation when the republic was established 509 B.
C., within the historical period. Moreover, the new political
system may as properly be ascribed to him as great measures
have been attributed to other men, although in both cases the
legislator does little more than formulate what experience had
already suggested and pressed upon his attention. The three
principal changes which set aside the gentes and inaugurated
political society based upon territory and upon property, were:
first, the substitution of classes, formed upon the measure of individual
wealth, in the place of the gentes; second, the institution
of the comitia centuriata, as the new popular assembly, in
the place of the comitia curiata, the assembly of the gentes,
with a transfer of the substantial powers of the latter to the
former; and third, the creation of four city wards, in the nature
of townships, circumscribed by metes and bounds and
named as territorial areas, in which the residents of each ward
were required to enroll their names and register their property.
Imitating Solon, with whose plan of government he was
doubtless familiar, Servius divided the people into five classes,
according to the value of their property, the effect of which
was to concentrate in one class the wealthiest men of the several
gentes.378 Each class was then subdivided into centuries,
the number in each being established arbitrarily without regard
to the actual number of persons it contained, and with one
vote to each century in the comitia. The amount of political
power to be held by each class was thus determined by the
number of centuries given to each. Thus, the first class consisted
of eighty centuries, with eighty votes in the comitia centuriata;
the second class of twenty centuries, to which two
centuries of artisans were attached, with twenty-two votes;
the third class of twenty centuries, with twenty votes; the
fourth class of twenty, to which two centuries of horn-blowers
and trumpeters were attached, with twenty-two votes; and the
fifth class of thirty centuries, with thirty votes. In addition to
these, the equites consisted of eighteen centuries, with eighteen
votes. To these classes Dionysius adds a sixth class, consisting
of one century, with one vote. It was composed of
those who had no property, or less than the amount required
for admission into the fifth class. They neither paid taxes, nor
served in war.379 The whole number of centuries in the six
classes with the equites added, made a total of one hundred
and ninety-three, according to Dionysius.380 Livy, agreeing with
the former as to the number of regular centuries in the five
classes, differs from him by excluding the sixth class, the persons
being formed into one century with one vote, and included
in or attached to the fifth class. He also makes three centuries
of horn-blowers instead of two, and the whole number
of centuries one more than Dionysius.381 Cicero remarks that
ninety-six centuries were a minority, which would be equally
true under either statement.382 The centuries of each class were
divided into seniors and juniors, of which the senior centuries
were composed of such persons as were above the age of fifty-five
years, and were charged with the duty, as soldiers, of defending
the city; while the junior centuries consisted of those
persons who were below this age and above seventeen, and
were charged with external military enterprises.383 The armature
of each class was prescribed and made different for each.384
It will be noticed that the control of the government, so far
as the assembly of the people could influence its action, was
placed in the hands of the first class, and the equites. They
held together ninety-eight votes, a majority of the whole. Each
century agreed upon its vote separately when assembled in the
comitia centuriata, precisely as each curia had been accustomed
to do in the comitia curiata. In taking a vote upon any public
question, the equites were called first, and then the first class.385 If
they agreed in their votes it decided the question, and the remaining
centuries were not called upon to vote; but if they
disagreed, the second class was called, and so on to the last, unless
a majority sooner appeared.
The powers formerly exercised by the comitia curiata, now
transferred to the comitia centuriata, were enlarged in some
slight particulars in the subsequent period. It elected all officers
and magistrates on the nomination of the senate; it enacted
or rejected laws proposed by the senate, no measure becoming
a law without its sanction; it repealed existing laws on
the proposition of the same body, if they chose to do so; and
it declared war on the same recommendation. But the senate
concluded peace without consulting the assembly. An appeal
in all cases involving life could be taken to this assembly as the
highest judicial tribunal of the state. These powers were substantial,
but limited—control over the finances being excluded.
A majority of the votes, however, were lodged with the first
class, including the equites, which embraced the body of the
patricians, as must be supposed, and the wealthiest citizens.
Property and not numbers controlled the government. They
were able, however, to create a body of laws in the course of
time which afforded equal protection to all, and thus tended to
redeem the worst effects of the inequalities of the system.
The meetings of the comitia were held in the Campus Martius
annually for the election of magistrates and officers, and at
other times when the public necessities required. The people
assembled by centuries, and by classes under their officers, organized
as an army (exercitus); for the centuries and classes
were designed to subserve all the purposes of a military as well
as a civil organization. At the first muster under Servius Tullius,
eighty thousand citizen soldiers appeared in the Campus
Martius under arms, each man in his proper century, each century
in its class, and each class by itself.386 Every member of a
century was now a citizen of Rome, which was the most important
fruit of the new political system. In the time of the republic
the consuls, and in their absence, the praetor, had power
to convene the comitia, which was presided over by the person
who caused it to assemble.
Such a government appears to us, in the light of our more
advanced experience, both rude and clumsy; but it was a sensible
improvement upon the previous gentile government, defective
and illiberal as it appears. Under it, Rome became mistress
of the world. The element of property, now rising into
commanding importance, determined its character. It had
brought aristocracy and privilege into prominence, which seized
the opportunity to withdraw the control of the government in
a great measure from the hands of the people, and bestow it
upon the men of property. It was a movement in the opposite
direction from that to which the democratic principles inherited
from the gentes naturally tended. Against the new elements
of aristocracy and privilege now incorporated in their
governmental institutions, the Roman plebeians contended
throughout the period of the republic, and at times with some
measure of success. But patrician rank and property possessed
by the higher classes, were too powerful for the wiser
and grander doctrines of equal rights and equal privileges represented
by the plebeians. It was even then far too heavy a
tax upon Roman society to carry a privileged class.
Cicero, patriot and noble Roman as he was, approved and
commended this gradation of the people into classes, with the
bestowment of a controlling influence in the government upon
the minority of citizens. Servius Tullius, he remarks, “having
created a large number of equites from the common mass of
the people, divided the remainder into five classes, distinguishing
between the seniors and juniors, which he so constituted
as to place the suffrages, not in the hands of the multitude, but
of the men of property; taking care to make it a rule of ours,
as it ought to be in every government, that the greatest
number should not have the greatest weight.”387 In the
light of the experience of the intervening two thousand
years, it may well be observed that the inequality of privileges,
and the denial of the right of self-government here commended,
created and developed that mass of ignorance and corruption
which ultimately destroyed both government and people. The
human race is gradually learning the simple lesson, that the
people as a whole are wiser for the public good and the public
prosperity, than any privileged class of men, however refined
and cultivated, have ever been, or, by any possibility, can ever
become. Governments over societies the most advanced are
still in a transitional stage; and they are necessarily and logically
moving, as President Grant, not without reason, intimated
in his last inaugural address, in the direction of democracy;
that form of self-government which represents and expresses
the average intelligence and virtue of a free and educated
people.
The property classes subserved the useful purpose of breaking
up the gentes, as the basis of a governmental system, by
transferring their powers to a different body. It was evidently
the principal object of the Servian legislation to obtain a deliverance
from the gentes, which were close corporations, and
to give the new government a basis wide enough to include all
the inhabitants of Rome, with the exception of the slaves.
After the classes had accomplished this work, it might have been
expected that they would have died out as they did at Athens;
and that city wards and country townships, with their inhabitants
organized as bodies politic, would have become the
basis of the new political system, as they rightfully and logically
should. But the municipal organization of Rome prevented
this consummation. It gained at the outset, and maintained
to the end the central position in the government, to
which all areas without were made subordinate. It presents
the anomaly of a great central municipal government expanded,
in effect, first over Italy, and finally over the conquered
provinces of three continents. The five classes, with
some modifications of the manner of voting, remained to the
end of the republic. The creation of a new assembly of the
people to take the place of the old, discloses the radical character
of the Servian constitution. These classes would never
have acquired vitality without a newly constituted assembly, investing
them with political powers. With the increase of wealth
and population the duties and responsibilities of this assembly
were much increased. It was evidently the intention of Servius
Tullius that it should extinguish the comitia curiata, and with
it the power of the gentes.
This legislator is said to have instituted the comitia tributa,
a separate assembly of each local tribe or ward, whose chief
duties related to the assessment and collection of taxes, and to
furnishing contingents of troops. At a later day this assembly
elected the tribunes of the people. The ward was the natural
unit of their political system, and the centre where local self-government
should have been established had the Roman
people wished to create a democratic state. But the senate
and the property classes had forestalled them from that career.
One of the first acts ascribed to Servius was the institution
of the census. Livy pronounces the census a most salutary
measure for an empire about to become so great, according to
which the duties of peace and of war were to be performed,
not individually as before, but according to the measure of personal
wealth.388 Each person was required to enroll himself in
the ward of his residence, with a statement of the amount of
his property. It was done in the presence of the censor; and
the lists when completed furnished the basis upon which the
classes were formed.389 This was accompanied by a very remarkable
act for the period, the creation of four city wards, circumscribed
by boundaries, and distinguished by appropriate
names. In point of time it was earlier than the institution of
the Attic deme by Cleisthenes; but the two were quite different
in their relations to the government. The Attic deme, as
has been shown, was organized as a body politic with a similar
registry of citizens and of their property, and having besides a
complete local self-government, with an elective magistracy,
judiciary and priesthood. On the other hand, the Roman
ward was a geographical area, with a registry of citizens and
of their property, with a local organization, a tribune and other
elective offices, and with an assembly. For a limited number
of special objects the inhabitants of the wards were dealt with
by the government through their territorial relations. But the
government of the ward did not possess the solid attributes of
that of the Attic deme. It was a nearer copy of the previous
Athenian naucrary, which not unlikely furnished the model, as
the Solonian classes did of the Servian. Dionysius remarks,
that after Servius Tullius had inclosed the seven hills with one
wall he divided the city into four parts, and gave the names of
the hills to the re-divisions: to the first, Palatina, to the second,
Suburra, to the third, Collina, and to the fourth, Esquilina;
and made the city consist of four parts, which before consisted
of three; and he ordered the people who dwelt in each
of the four regions, like villagers, not to take any other dwelling,
nor to pay taxes elsewhere, nor give in their names as soldiers
elsewhere, nor pay their assessments for military purposes
and other needs, which each must furnish for the common welfare;
for these things were no longer to be done according to
the three consanguine tribes (φυλὰς τὰς γενικὰς), but according
to the four local tribes (φυλὰς τὰς τοπικὰς), which last
had been arranged by himself; and he appointed commanders
over each tribe, as phylarchs or comarchs, whom he directed
to note what house each inhabited.390 Mommsen observes that
“each of these four levy-districts had to furnish the fourth part
not only of the force as a whole, but of each of its military
subdivisions, so that each legion and each century numbered an
equal proportion of conscripts from each region; evidently for
the purpose of merging all distinctions of a gentile and local
nature in one common levy of the community, and especially
of binding, through the powerful leveling influence of the military
spirit, the meteoci and the burgesses into one people.”391
In like manner, the surrounding country under the government
of Rome was organized in townships (tribus rusticae),
the number of which is stated at twenty-six by some writers,
and at thirty-one by others; making, with the four city wards,
a total of thirty in one case, and of thirty-five in the other.392
The total number was never increased beyond thirty-five.
These townships did not become integral in the sense of participating
in the administration of the government.
As finally established under the Servian constitution, the
government was cast in the form in which it remained during
the existence of the republic; the consuls taking the place of
the previous military commanders. It was not based upon
territory in the exclusive sense of the Athenian government, or
in the modern sense; ascending from the township or ward,
the unit of organization, to the county or arrondissement, and
from the latter to the state, each organized and invested with
governmental functions as constituents of a whole. The central
government overshadowed and atrophied the parts. It
rested more upon property than upon territory, this being made
the commanding element, as is shown by the lodgment of the
controlling power of the government in the highest property
classes. It had, nevertheless, a territorial basis as well, since it
recognized and used territorial subdivisions for citizenship, and
for financial and military objects, in which the citizen was dealt
with through his territorial relations.
The Romans were now carried fairly out of gentile society
into and under the second great plan of government, founded
upon territory and upon property. They had left gentilism
and barbarism behind them, and entered upon a new career of
civilization. Henceforth the creation and protection of property
became the primary objects of the government, with a superadded
career of conquest for domination over distant tribes
and nations. This great change of institutions, creating political
society as distinguished from gentile society, was simply
the introduction of the new elements of territory and property,
making the latter a power in the government, which before had
been simply an influence. Had the wards and rustic townships
been organized with full powers of local self-government,
and the senate been made elective by these local constituencies
without distinction of classes, the resulting government would
have been a democracy, like the Athenian; for these local governments
would have moulded the state into their own likeness.
The senate, with the hereditary rank it conferred, and the property
basis qualifying the voting power in the assembly of the
people, turned the scale against democratical institutions, and
produced a mixed government, partly aristocratic and partly
democratic; eminently calculated to engender perpetual animosity
between the two classes of citizens thus deliberately and
unnecessarily created by affirmative legislation. It is plain, I
think, that the people were circumvented by the Servian constitution,
and had a government put upon them which the majority
would have rejected had they fully comprehended its
probable results. The evidence is conclusive of the antecedent
democratical principles of the gentes, which, however exclusive
as against all persons not in their communion, were carried out
fully among themselves. The evidence of this free spirit and
of their free institutions is so decisive that the proposition elsewhere
stated, that gentilism is incompatible with monarchy,
seems to be incontrovertible.
As a whole, the Roman government was anomalous. The
overshadowing municipality of Rome, made the centre of the
state in its plan of government, was one of the producing
causes of its novel character. The primary organization of the
people into an army with the military spirit it fostered created
the cohesive force which held the republic together, and afterwards
the empire. With a selective senate holding office for
life, and possessing substantial powers; with a personal rank
passing to their children and descendants; with an elective magistracy
graded to the needs of a central metropolis; with an
assembly of the people organized into property classes, possessing
an unequal suffrage, but holding both an affirmative
and a negative upon all legislation; and with an elaborate military
organization, no other government strictly analogous has
appeared among men. It was artificial, illogical, approaching
a monstrosity; but capable of wonderful achievements, because
of its military spirit, and because the Romans were endowed
with remarkable powers for organizing and managing affairs.
The patchwork in its composition was the product of the superior
craft of the wealthy classes who intended to seize the
substance of power while they pretended to respect the rights
and interests of all.
When the new political system became established, the old
one did not immediately disappear. The functions of the senate
and of the military commander remained as before; but
the property classes took the place of the gentes, and the assembly
of the classes took the place of the assembly of the gentes.
Radical as the changes were, they were limited, in the main, to
these particulars, and came in without friction or violence.
The old assembly (comitia curiata) was allowed to retain a
portion of its powers, which kept alive for a long period of
time the organizations of the gentes, curiæ and consanguine
tribes. It still conferred the imperium upon all the higher
magistrates after their election was completed, though in time
it became a matter of form merely; it inaugurated certain
priests, and regulated the religious observances of the curiæ.
This state of things continued down to the time of the first
Punic war, after which the comitia curiata lost its importance
and soon fell into oblivion. Both the assembly and the curiæ
were superseded rather than abolished, and died out from inanition;
but the gentes remained far into the empire, not as an
organization, for that also died out in time, but as a pedigree
and a lineage. Thus the transition from gentile into political
society was gradually but effectually accomplished, and the
second great plan of human government was substituted by
the Romans in the place of the first which had prevailed from
time immemorial.
After an immensely protracted duration, running back of
the separate existence of the Aryan family, and received by
the Latin tribes from their remote ancestors, the gentile organization
finally surrendered its existence, among the Romans, to
to the demands of civilization. It had held exclusive possession
of society through these several ethnical periods, and until
it had won by experience all the elements of civilization,
which it then proved unable to manage. Mankind owe a debt
of gratitude to their savage ancestors for devising an institution
able to carry the advancing portion of the human race out of
savagery into barbarism, and through the successive stages of
the latter into civilization. It also accumulated by experience
the intelligence and knowledge necessary to devise political
society while the institution yet remained. It holds a position
on the great chart of human progress second to none in its influence,
in its achievements and in its history. As a plan of
government, the gentile organization was unequal to the wants
of civilized man; but it is something to be said in its remembrance
that it developed from the germ the principal governmental
institutions of modern civilized states. Among others,
as before stated, out of the ancient council of chiefs came the
modern senate; out of the ancient assembly of the people came
the modern representative assembly, the two together constituting
the modern legislature; out of the ancient general military
commander came the modern chief magistrate, whether
a feudal or constitutional king, an emperor or a president, the
latter being the natural and logical result; and out of the ancient
custos urbis, by a circuitous derivation, came the Roman
praetor and the modern judge. Equal rights and privileges,
personal freedom and the cardinal principles of democracy
were also inherited from the gentes. When property had become
created in masses, and its influence and power began to
be felt in society, slavery came in; an institution violative of
all these principles, but sustained by the selfish and delusive
consideration that the person made a slave was a stranger in
blood and a captive enemy. With property also came in gradually
the principle of aristocracy, striving for the creation of
privileged classes. The element of property, which has controlled
society to a great extent during the comparatively short
period of civilization, has given mankind despotism, imperialism,
monarchy, privileged classes, and finally representative democracy.
It has also made the career of the civilized nations essentially
a property-making career. But when the intelligence of
mankind rises to the height of the great question of the abstract
rights of property,—including the relations of property to the
state, as well as the rights of persons to property,—a modification
of the present order of things may be expected. The
nature of the coming changes it may be impossible to conceive;
but it seems probable that democracy, once universal in a rudimentary
form and repressed in many civilized states, is destined
to become again universal and supreme.
An American, educated in the principles of democracy, and
profoundly impressed with the dignity and grandeur of those
great conceptions which recognize the liberty, equality and fraternity
of mankind, may give free expression to a preference for
self-government and free institutions. At the same time the
equal rights of every other person must be recognized to accept
and approve any form of government, whether imperial or
monarchical, that satisfies his preferences.
How the change might have been made.—Inheritance of property
the Motive.—descent in the Female Line among the Lycians.—The
Cretans.—The Etruscans.—Probably among the Athenians in the time
of Cecrops.—The Hundred Families of the Locrians.—Evidence from
Marriages.—Turanian System of Consanguinity among Grecian Tribes.—Legend
of the Danaidæ.
An important question remains to be considered, namely:
whether any evidence exists that descent was anciently in the
female line in the Grecian and Latin gentes. Theoretically, this
must have been the fact at some anterior period among their remote
ancestors; but we are not compelled to rest the question
upon theory alone. Since a change to the male line involved
a nearly total alteration of the membership in a gens, a method
by which it might have been accomplished should be pointed
out. More than this, it should be shown, if possible, that an adequate
motive requiring the change was certain to arise, with
the progress of society out of the condition in which this form
of descent originated. And lastly, the existing evidence of ancient
descent in the female line among them should be presented.
A gens in the archaic period, as we have seen, consisted of a
supposed female ancestor and her children, together with the
children of her daughters, and of her female descendants through
females in perpetuity. The children of her sons, and of her male
descendants, through males, were excluded. On the other
hand, with descent in the male line, a gens consisted of a supposed
male ancestor and his children, together with the children
of his sons and of his male descendants through males in perpetuity.
The children of his daughters, and of his female
descendants, through females, were excluded. Those excluded
in the first case would be members of the gens in the second
case, and vice versâ. The question then arises, how could
descent be changed from the female line to the male without
the destruction of the gens?
The method was simple and natural, provided the motive to
make the change was general, urgent and commanding. When
done at a given time, and by preconcerted determination, it
was only necessary to agree that all the present members of the
gens should remain members, but that in future all children,
whose fathers belonged to the gens, should alone remain in it
and bear the gentile name, while the children of its female
members should be excluded. This would not break or change
the kinship or relations of the existing gentiles; but thereafter
it would retain in the gens the children it before excluded, and
exclude those it before retained. Although it may seem a
hard problem to solve, the pressure of an adequate motive
would render it easy, and the lapse of a few generations would
make it complete. As a practical question, it has been changed
from the female line to the male among the American aborigines
in a number of instances. Thus, among the Ojibwas descent
is now in the male line, while among their congeners, the
Delawares and Mohegans, it is still in the female line. Originally,
without a doubt, descent was in the female line in the
entire Algonkin stock.
Since descent in the female line is archaic, and more in accordance
with the early condition of ancient society than descent
in the male line, there is a presumption in favor of its
ancient prevalence in the Grecian and Latin gentes. Moreover,
when the archaic form of any transmitted organization
has been discovered and verified, it is impossible to conceive of
its origination in the later more advanced form.
Assuming a change of descent among them from the female
line to the male, it must have occurred very remotely from the
historical period. Their history in the Middle Status of barbarism
is entirely lost, except it has been in some measure preserved
in their arts, institutions and inventions, and in improvements
in language. The Upper Status has the superadded
light of tradition and of the Homeric poems to acquaint us
with its experience and the measure of progress then made.
But judging from the condition in which their traditions place
them, it seems probable that descent in the female line had not
entirely disappeared, at least among the Pelasgian and Grecian
tribes, when they entered the Upper Status of barbarism.
When descent was in the female line in the Grecian and
Latin gentes, the gens possessed the following among other
characteristics: 1. Marriage in the gens was prohibited; thus
placing children in a different gens from that of their reputed
father. 2. Property and the office of chief were hereditary in
the gens; thus excluding children from inheriting the property
or succeeding to the office of their reputed father. This state
of things would continue until a motive arose sufficiently general
and commanding to establish the injustice of this exclusion
in the face of their changed condition.
The natural remedy was a change of descent from the female
line to the male. All that was needed to effect the change was
an adequate motive. After domestic animals began to be
reared in flocks and herds, becoming thereby a source of subsistence
as well as objects of individual property, and after tillage
had led to the ownership of houses and lands in severalty, an antagonism
would be certain to arise against the prevailing form of
gentile inheritance, because it excluded the owner’s children,
whose paternity was becoming more assured, and gave his property
to his gentile kindred. A contest for a new rule of inheritance,
shared in by fathers and their children, would furnish a
motive sufficiently powerful to effect the change. With property
accumulating in masses and assuming permanent forms,
and with an increased proportion of it held by individual ownership,
descent in the female line was certain of overthrow, and
the substitution of the male line equally assured. Such a change
would leave the inheritance in the gens as before, but it would
place children in the gens of their father, and at the head of
the agnatic kindred. For a time, in all probability, they would
share in the distribution of the estate with the remaining agnates;
but an extension of the principle by which the agnates cut
off the remaining gentiles, would in time result in the exclusion
of the agnates beyond the children and an exclusive inheritance
in the children. Farther than this, the son would now be brought
in the line of succession to the office of his father.
Such had the law of inheritance become in the Athenian gens
in the time of Solon or shortly after; when the property passed
to the sons equally, subject to the obligation of maintaining the
daughters, and of apportioning them in marriage; and in default
of sons, to the daughters equally. If there were no children,
then the inheritance passed to the agnatic kindred, and in default
of the latter, to the gentiles. The Roman law of the Twelve
Tables was substantially the same.
It seems probable further, that when descent was changed
to the male line, or still earlier, animal names for the gentes were
laid aside and personal names substituted in their place. The
individuality of persons would assert itself more and more with
the progress of society, and with the increase and individual
ownership of property, leading to the naming of the gens after
some ancestral hero. Although new gentes were being formed
from time to time by the process of segmentation, and others
were dying out, the lineage of a gens reached back through
hundreds not to say thousands of years. After the supposed
substitution, the eponymous ancestor would have been a shifting
person, at long intervals of time, some later person distinguished
in the history of the gens being put in his place, when
the knowledge of the former person became obscured, and faded
from view in the misty past. That the more celebrated Grecian
gentes made the change of names, and made it gracefully, is
shown by the fact, that they retained the name of the mother
of their gentile father, and ascribed his birth to her embracement
by some particular god. Thus Eumolpus, the eponymous
ancestor of the Attic Eumolpidæ, was the reputed son of Neptune
and Chione; but even the Grecian gens was older than the
conception of Neptune.
Recurring now to the main question, the absence of direct
proof of ancient descent in the female line in the Grecian and
Latin gentes would not silence the presumption in its favor;
but it so happens that this form of descent remained in some
tribes nearly related to the Greeks with traces of it in a number
of Grecian tribes.
The inquisitive and observing Herodotus found one nation,
the Lycians, Pelasgian in lineage, but Grecian in affiliation,
among whom in his time (440 B. C.), descent was in the female
line. After remarking that the Lycians were sprung from
Crete, and stating some particulars of their migration to Lycia
under Sarpedon, he proceeds as follows: “Their customs are
partly Cretan and partly Carian. They have, however, one
singular custom in which they differ from every other nation
in the world. Ask a Lycian who he is, and he answers by
giving his own name, that of his mother, and so on in the female
line. Moreover, if a free woman marry a man who is a
slave, their children are free citizens; but if a free man marry
a foreign woman, or cohabit with a concubine, even though he
be the first person in the state, the children forfeit all the rights
of citizenship.”393 It follows necessarily from this circumstantial
statement that the Lycians were organized in gentes, with a
prohibition against intermarriage in the gens, and that the children
belonged to the gens of their mother. It presents a clear
exemplification of a gens in the archaic form, with confirmatory
tests of the consequences of a marriage of a Lycian man with
a foreign woman, and of a Lycian woman with a slave.394 The
aborigines of Crete were Pelasgian, Hellenic and Semitic tribes,
living locally apart. Minos, the brother of Sarpedon, is usually
regarded as the head of the Pelasgians in Crete; but the Lycians
were already Hellenized in the time of Herodotus and quite
conspicuous among the Asiatic Greeks for their advancement.
The insulation of their ancestors upon the island of Crete,
prior to their migration in the legendary period to Lycia, may
afford an explanation of their retention of descent in the female
line to this late period.
Among the Etruscans also the same rule of descent prevailed.
“It is singular enough,” observes Cramer, “that two customs
peculiar to the Etruscans, as we discover from their monuments,
should have been noticed by Herodotus as characteristic
of the Lycians and Caunians of Asia Minor. The first is,
that the Etruscans invariably describe their parentage and family
with reference to the mother, and not the father. The
other, that they admitted their wives to their feasts and banquets.”395
Curtius comments on Lycian, Etruscan and Cretan descent
in the female line in the following language: “It would be an
error to understand the usage in question as an homage to the
female sex. It is rather rooted in primitive conditions of society,
in which monogamy was not yet established with sufficient
certainty to enable descent upon the father’s side to be
affirmed with assurance. Accordingly the usage extends far
beyond the territory commanded by the Lycian nationality.
It occurs, even to this day, in India; it may be demonstrated
to have existed among the ancient Egyptians; it is mentioned
by Sanchoniathon (p. 16, Orell), where the reasons for its existence
are stated with great freedom; and beyond the confines
of the East it appears among the Etruscans, among the Cretans,
who were so closely connected with the Lycians, and who
called their father-land mother-land; and among the Athenians,
consult Bachofen, etc. Accordingly, if Herodotus regards the
usage in question as thoroughly peculiar to the Lycians, it
must have maintained itself longest among them of all the nations
related to the Greeks, as is also proved by the Lycian inscriptions.
Hence we must in general regard the employment
of the maternal name for a designation of descent as the remains
of an imperfect condition of social life and family law,
which, as life becomes more regulated, was relinquished in
favor of usages, afterwards universal in Greece, of naming children
after the father. This diversity of usages, which is extremely
important for the history of ancient civilization, has
been recently discussed by Bachofen in his address above
named.”396
In a work of vast research, Bachofen has collected and discussed
the evidence of female authority (mother-right) and of
female rule (gyneocracy) among the Lycians, Cretans, Athenians,
Lemnians, Ægyptians, Orchomenians, Locrians, Lesbians,
Mantineans, and among eastern Asiatic nations.397 The
condition of ancient society, thus brought under review, requires
for its full explanation the existence of the gens in its archaic
form as the source of the phenomena. This would bring the
mother and her children into the same gens, and in the composition
of the communal household, on the basis of gens,
would give the gens of the mothers the ascendency in the
household. The family, which had probably attained the syndyasmian
form, was still environed with the remains of that
conjugal system which belonged to a still earlier condition.
Such a family, consisting of a married pair with their children,
would naturally have sought shelter with kindred families in a
communal household, in which the several mothers and their
children would be of the same gens, and the reputed fathers of
these children would be of other gentes. Common lands and
joint tillage would lead to joint-tenement houses and communism
in living; so that gyneocracy seems to require for its creation,
descent in the female line. Women thus entrenched in
large households, supplied from common stores, in which their
own gens so largely predominated in numbers, would produce
the phenomena of mother right and gyneocracy, which Bachofen
has detected and traced with the aid of fragments of
history and of tradition. Elsewhere I have referred to the
unfavorable influence upon the position of women which was
produced by a change of descent from the female line to the
male, and by the rise of the monogamian family, which displaced
the joint-tenement house, and in the midst of a society
purely gentile, placed the wife and mother in a single house
and separated her from her gentile kindred.398
Monogamy was not probably established among the Grecian
tribes until after they had attained the Upper Status of barbarism;
and we seem to arrive at chaos in the marriage relation within
this period, especially in the Athenian tribes. Concerning the
latter, Bachofen remarks: “For before the time of Cecrops the
children, as we have seen, had only a mother, no father; they
were of one line. Bound to no man exclusively, the woman
brought only spurious children into the world. Cecrops first
made an end of this condition of things; led the lawless union
of the sexes back to the exclusiveness of marriage; gave to the
children a father and mother, and thus from being of one line
(unilateres) made them of two lines (bilateres).”399 What is here
described as the lawless union of the sexes must be received
with modifications. We should expect at that comparatively
late day to find the syndyasmian family, but attended by the remains
of an anterior conjugal system which sprang from marriages
in the group. The punaluan family, which the statement
fairly implies, must have disappeared before they reached
the ethnical period named. This subject will be considered in
subsequent chapters in connection with the growth of the family.
There is an interesting reference by Polybius to the hundred
families of the Locrians of Italy. “The Locrians themselves,”
he remarks, “have assured me that their own traditions are
more conformable to the account of Aristotle than to that of Timæus.
Of this they mention the following proofs. The first is,
that all nobility of ancestry among them is derived from women,
and not from men. That those, for example, alone are noble, who
derive their origin from the hundred families. That these families
were noble among the Locrians before they migrated; and
were the same, indeed, from which a hundred virgins were taken
by lot, as the oracle had commanded, and were sent to Troy.”400 It
is at least a reasonable supposition that the rank here referred to
was connected with the office of chief of the gens, which ennobled
the particular family within the gens, upon one of the members
of which it was conferred. If this supposition is tenable, it
implies descent in the female line both as to persons and to office.
The office of chief was hereditary in the gens, and elective among
its male members in archaic times; and with descent in the female
line, it would pass from brother to brother, and from uncle
to nephew. But the office in each case passed through females,
the eligibility of the person depending upon the gens of his
mother, who gave him his connection with the gens, and with
the deceased chief whose place was to be filled. Wherever
office or rank runs through females, it requires descent in the
female line for its explanation.
Evidence of ancient descent in the female line among the Grecian
tribes is found in particular marriages which occurred in
the traditionary period. Thus Salmōneus and Krētheus were
own brothers, the sons of Æolus. The former gave his daughter
Tyrō in marriage to her uncle. With descent in the male
line, Krētheus and Tyrō would have been of the same gens, and
could not have married for that reason; but with descent in the
female line, they would have been of different gentes, and
therefore not of gentile kin. Their marriage in that case
would not have violated strict gentile usages. It is immaterial
that the persons named are mythical, because the legend would
apply gentile usages correctly. This marriage is explainable
on the hypothesis of descent in the female line, which in turn
raises a presumption of its existence at the time, or as justified
by their ancient usages which had not wholly died out.
The same fact is revealed by marriages within the historical
period, when an ancient practice seems to have survived the
change of descent to the male line, even though it violated the
gentile obligations of the parties. After the time of Solon a
brother might marry his half-sister, provided they were born
of different mothers, but not conversely. With descent in the
female line, they would be of different gentes, and, therefore, not
of gentile kin. Their marriage would interfere with no gentile
obligation. But with descent in the male line, which was the
fact when the cases about to be cited occurred, they would be
of the same gens, and consequently under prohibition. Cimon
married his half-sister, Elpinice, their father being the same,
but their mothers different. In the Eubulides of Demosthenes
we find a similar case. “My grandfather,” says Euxithius,
“married his sister, she not being his sister by the same mother.”401
Such marriages, against which a strong prejudice had
arisen among the Athenians as early as the time of Solon, are
explainable as a survival of an ancient custom with respect to
marriage, which prevailed when descent was in the female line,
and which had not been entirely eradicated in the time of Demosthenes.
Descent in the female line presupposes the gens to distinguish
the lineage. With our present knowledge of the ancient
and modern prevalence of the gentile organization upon five
continents, including the Australian, and of the archaic constitution
of the gens, traces of descent in the female line might
be expected to exist in traditions, if not in usages coming down
to historical times. It is not supposable, therefore, that the
Lycians, the Cretans, the Athenians and the Locrians, if the
evidence is sufficient to include the last two, invented a usage
so remarkable as descent in the female line. The hypothesis
that it was the ancient law of the Latin, Grecian, and other
Græco-Italian gentes affords a more rational as well as satisfactory
explanation of the facts. The influence of property and
the desire to transmit it to children furnished adequate motives
for the change to the male line.
It may be inferred that marrying out of the gens was the
rule among the Athenians, before as well as after the time of
Solon, from the custom of registering the wife, upon her marriage,
in the phratry of her husband, and the children, daughters
as well as sons, in the gens and phratry of their father.402 The
fundamental principle on which the gens was founded was the
prohibition of intermarriage among its members as consanguinei.
In each gens the number of members was not large. Assuming
sixty thousand as the number of registered Athenians in the
time of Solon, and dividing them equally among the three
hundred and sixty Attic gentes, it would give but one hundred
and sixty persons to each gens. The gens was a great family
of kindred persons, with common religious rites, a common
burial place, and, in general, common lands. From the theory
of its constitution, intermarriage would be disallowed. With
the change of descent to the male line, with the rise of monogamy
and an exclusive inheritance in the children, and with the
appearance of heiresses, the way was being gradually prepared
for free marriage regardless of gens, but with a prohibition
limited to certain degrees of near consanguinity. Marriages
in the human family began in the group, all the males and females
of which, excluding the children, were joint husbands
and wives; but the husbands and wives were of different gentes;
and it ended in marriage between single pairs, with an
exclusive cohabitation. In subsequent chapters an attempt
will be made to trace the several forms of marriage and of the
family from the first stage to the last.
A system of consanguinity came in with the gens, distinguished
as the Turanian in Asia, and as the Ganowánian in
America, which extended the prohibition of intermarriage as
far as the relationship of brother and sister extended among
collaterals. This system still prevails among the American
aborigines, in portions of Asia and Africa, and in Australia.
It unquestionably prevailed among the Grecian and Latin
tribes in the same anterior period, and traces of it remained
down to the traditionary period. One feature of the Turanian
system may be restated as follows: the children of brothers are
themselves brothers and sisters, and as such could not intermarry;
the children of sisters stood in the same relationship,
and were under the same prohibition. It may serve to explain
the celebrated legend of the Danaidæ, one version of which
furnished to Aeschylus his subject for the tragedy of the Suppliants.
The reader will remember that Danaus and Ægyptus
were brothers, and descendants of Argive Io. The former
by different wives had fifty daughters, and the latter by different
wives had fifty sons; and in due time the sons of Ægyptus
sought the daughters of Danaus in marriage. Under the system
of consanguinity appertaining to the gens in its archaic
form, and which remained until superseded by the system introduced
by monogamy, they were brothers and sisters, and
for that reason could not marry. If descent at the time was
in the male line, the children of Danaus and Ægyptus would
have been of the same gens, which would have interposed
an additional objection to their marriage, and of equal weight.
Nevertheless the sons of Ægyptus sought to overstep these
barriers and enforce wedlock upon the Danaidæ; whilst the
latter, crossing the sea, fled from Egypt to Argos to escape
what they pronounced an unlawful and incestuous union. In
the Prometheus of the same author, this event is foretold to
Io by Prometheus, namely: that in the fifth generation from
her future son Epaphus, a band of fifty virgins should come to
Argos, not voluntarily, but fleeing from incestuous wedlock
with the sons of Ægyptus.403 Their flight with abhorrence
from the proposed nuptials finds its explanation in the ancient
system of consanguinity, independently of gentile law.
Apart from this explanation the event has no significance, and
their aversion to the marriages would have been mere prudery.
The tragedy of the Suppliants is founded upon the incident
of their flight over the sea to Argos, to claim the protection of
their Argive kindred against the proposed violence of the sons
of Ægyptus, who pursued them. At Argos the Danaidæ declare
that they did not depart from Egypt under the sentence
of banishment, but fled from men of common descent with
themselves, scorning unholy marriage with the sons of Ægyptus.404
Their reluctance is placed exclusively upon the fact of
kin, thus implying an existing prohibition against such marriages,
which they had been trained to respect. After hearing
the case of the Suppliants, the Argives in council resolved to
afford them protection, which of itself implies the existence of
the prohibition of the marriages and the validity of their objection.
At the time this tragedy was produced, Athenian law
permitted and even required marriage between the children of
brothers in the case of heiresses and female orphans, although
the rule seems to have been confined to these exceptional cases;
such marriages, therefore, would not seem to the Athenians
either incestuous or unlawful; but this tradition of the Danaidæ
had come down from a remote antiquity, and its whole significance
depended upon the force of the custom forbidding the
nuptials. The turning-point of the tradition and its incidents
was their inveterate repugnance to the proposed marriages as
forbidden by law and custom. No other reason is assigned,
and no other is needed. At the same time their conduct is
intelligible on the assumption that such marriages were as unpermissible
then, as marriage between a brother and sister
would be at the present time. The attempt of the sons of
Ægyptus to break through the barrier interposed by the Turanian
system of consanguinity may mark the time when this
system was beginning to give way, and the present system,
which came in with monogamy, was beginning to assert itself,
and which was destined to set aside gentile usages and Turanian
consanguinity by the substitution of fixed degrees as the
limits of prohibition.
Upon the evidence adduced it seems probable that among
the Pelasgian, Hellenic and Italian tribes descent was originally
in the female line, from which, under the influence of property
and inheritance, it was changed to the male line. Whether
or not these tribes anciently possessed the Turanian system of
consanguinity, the reader will be better able to judge after that
system has been presented, with the evidence of its wide prevalence
in ancient society.
The length of the traditionary period of these tribes is of
course unknown in the years of its duration, but it must be
measured by thousands of years. It probably reached back
of the invention of the process of smelting iron ore, and if so,
passed through the Later Period of barbarism and entered the
Middle Period. Their condition of advancement in the Middle
Period must have at least equaled that of the Aztecs, Mayas
and Peruvians, who were found in the status of the Middle Period;
and their condition in the Later Period must have surpassed
immensely that of the Indian tribes named. The vast
and varied experience of these European tribes in the two great
ethnical periods named, during which they achieved the remaining
elements of civilization, is entirely lost, excepting as it
is imperfectly disclosed in their traditions, and more fully by
their acts of life, their customs, language and institutions, as revealed
to us by the poems of Homer. Empires and kingdoms
were necessarily unknown in these periods; but tribes and inconsiderable
nations, city and village life, the growth and development
of the arts of life, and physical, mental and moral
improvement, were among the particulars of that progress.
The loss of the events of these great periods to human knowledge
was much greater than can easily be imagined.
The Scottish Clan.—The Irish Sept.—Germanic Tribes.—Traces of
a prior Gentile System.—Gentes in Southern Asiatic Tribes.—In
Northern.—In Uralian Tribes.—Hundred Families of Chinese.—Hebrew
Tribes.—Composed of Gentes and Phratries Apparently.—Gentes
in African Tribes.—In Australian Tribes.—Subdivisions of Fejees And
Pewas.—Wide Distribution of Gentile Organization.
Having considered the organization into gentes, phratries
and tribes in their archaic as well as later form, it
remains to trace the extent of its prevalence in the human
family, and particularly with respect to the gens, the basis
of the system.
The Celtic branch of the Aryan family retained, in the
Scottish clan and Irish sept, the organization into gentes to
a later period of time than any other branch of the family,
unless the Aryans of India are an exception. The Scottish
clan in particular was existing in remarkable vitality in the
Highlands of Scotland in the middle of the last century. It
was an excellent type of the gens in organization and in
spirit, and an extraordinary illustration of the power of the
gentile life over its members. The illustrious author of
Waverley has perpetuated a number of striking characters
developed under clan life, and stamped with its peculiarities.
Evan Dhu, Torquil, Rob Roy and many others rise
before the mind as illustrations of the influence of the gens
in molding the character of individuals. If Sir Walter exaggerated
these characters in some respects to suit the emergencies
of a tale, they had a real foundation. The same
clans, a few centuries earlier, when clan life was stronger and
external influences were weaker, would probably have verified
the pictures. We find in their feuds and blood revenge,
in their localization by gentes, in their use of lands in common,
in the fidelity of the clansman to his chief and of the
members of the clan to each other, the usual and persistent
features of gentile society. As portrayed by Scott, it was a
more intense and chivalrous gentile life than we are able to
find in the gentes of the Greeks and Romans, or, at the other
extreme, in those of the American aborigines. Whether
the phratric organization existed among them does not appear;
but at some anterior period both the phratry and the
tribe doubtless did exist. It is well known that the British
government were compelled to break up the Highland clans,
as organizations, in order to bring the people under the
authority of law and the usages of political society. Descent
was in the male line, the children of the males remaining
members of the clan, while the children of its female members
belonged to the clans of their respective fathers.
We shall pass over the Irish sept, the phis or phrara of
the Albanians, which embody the remains of a prior gentile
organization, and the traces of a similar organization in
Dalmatia and Croatia; and also the Sanskrit ganas, the
existence of which term in the language implies that this
branch of the Aryan family formerly possessed the same
institution. The communities of Villeins on French estates
in former times, noticed by Sir Henry Maine in his recent
work, may prove to be, as he intimates, remains of ancient
Celtic gentes. “Now that the explanation has once been
given,” he remarks, “there can be no doubt that these
associations were not really voluntary partnerships, but
groups of kinsmen; not, however, so often organized on the
ordinary type of the Village-Community as on that of
the House-Community, which has recently been examined
in Dalmatia and Croatia. Each of them was what
the Hindus call a Joint-Undivided family, a collection of
assumed descendants from a common ancestor, preserving
a common hearth and common meals during several
generations.”405
A brief reference should be made to the question whether
any traces of the gentile organization remained among the
German tribes when they first came under historical notice.
That they inherited this institution, with other Aryan tribes,
from the common ancestors of the Aryan family, is probable.
When first known to the Romans, they were in the Upper
Status of barbarism. They could scarcely have developed
the idea of government further than the Grecian and Latin
tribes, who were in advance of them, when each respectively
became known. While the Germans may have acquired an
imperfect conception of a state, founded upon territory and
upon property, it is not probable that they had any knowledge
of the second great plan of government which the
Athenians were first among Aryan tribes to establish. The
condition and mode of life of the German tribes, as described
by Cæsar and Tacitus, tend to the conclusion that
their several societies were held together through personal
relations, and with but slight reference to territory; and
that their government was through these relations. Civil
chiefs and military commanders acquired and held office
through the elective principle, and constituted the council
which was the chief instrument of government. On lesser
affairs, Tacitus remarks, the chiefs consult, but on those of
greater importance the whole community. While the final
decision of all important questions belonged to the people,
they were first maturely considered by the chiefs.406 The
close resemblance of these to Grecian and Latin usages will
be perceived. The government consisted of three powers,
the council of chiefs, the assembly of the people, and the
military commander.
Cæsar remarks that the Germans were not studious of
agriculture, the greater part of their food consisting of milk,
cheese and meat; nor had anyone a fixed quantity of land,
or his own individual boundaries, but the magistrates and
chiefs each year assigned to the gentes and kinsmen who
had united in one body (gentibus cognationibusque hominum,
qui una coerint) as much land, and in such places as seemed
best, compelling them the next year to remove to another
place.407 To give effect to the expression in parenthesis, it
must be supposed that he found among them groups of
persons, larger than a family, united on the basis of kin, to
whom, as groups of persons, lands were allotted. It excludes
individuals, and even the family, both of whom were
merged in the group thus united for cultivation and subsistence.
It seems probable, from the form of the statement,
that the German family at this time was syndyasmian;
and that several related families were united in households
and practiced communism in living.
Tacitus refers to a usage of the German tribes in the
arrangement of their forces in battle, by which kinsmen
were placed side by side. It would have no significance, if
kinship were limited to near consanguinei. And what is an
especial incitement of their courage, he remarks, neither
chance nor a fortuitous gathering of the forces make up the
squadron of horse, or the infantry wedge; but they were
formed according to families and kinships (familiæ et propinquitates).408
This expression, and that previously quoted from
Cæsar, seem to indicate the remains at least of a prior gentile
organization, which at this time was giving place to the
mark or local district as the basis of a still imperfect political
system.
The German tribes, for the purpose of military levies, had
the mark (markgenossenschaft), which also existed among
the English Saxons, and a larger group, the gau, to which
Cæsar and Tacitus gave the name of pagus.409 It is doubtful
whether the mark and the gau were then strictly geographical
districts, standing to each other in the relations of township
and county, each circumscribed by bounds, with the
people in each politically organized. It seems more probable
that the gau was a group of settlements associated with
reference to military levies. As such, the mark and the gau
were the germs of the future township and county, precisely
as the Athenian naucrary and trittys were the rudiments
of the Cleisthenean deme and local tribe. These
organizations seemed transitional stages between a gentile
and a political system, the grouping of the people still resting
on consanguinity.410
We naturally turn to the Asiatic continent, where the
types of mankind are the most numerous, and where, consequently,
the period of human occupation has been longest,
to find the earliest traces of the gentile organization. But
here the transformations of society have been the most
extended, and the influence of tribes and nations upon each
other the most constant. The early development of Chinese
and Indian civilization and the overmastering influence of
modern civilization have wrought such changes in the condition
of Asiatic stocks that their ancient institutions are not
easily ascertainable. Nevertheless, the whole experience of
mankind from savagery to civilization was worked out upon
the Asiatic continent, and among its fragmentary tribes the
remains of their ancient institutions must now be sought.
Descent in the female line is still very common in the
ruder Asiatic tribes; but there are numerous tribes among
whom it is traced in the male line. It is the limitation of
descent to one line or the other, followed by the organization
of the body of consanguinei, thus separated under a
common name which indicates a gens.
In the Magar tribe of Nepaul, Latham remarks, “there
are twelve thums. All individuals belonging to the same
thum are supposed to be descended from the same male
ancestor; descent from the same mother being by no means
necessary. So husband and wife must belong to different
thums. Within one and the same there is no marriage.
Do you wish for a wife? If so, look to the thum of your
neighbor; at any rate look beyond your own. This is the
first time I have found occasion to mention this practice.
It will not be the last; on the contrary, the principle it suggests
is so common as to be almost universal. We shall
find it in Australia; we shall find it in North and South
America; we shall find it in Africa; we shall find it in Europe;
we shall suspect and infer it in many places where the
actual evidence of its existence is incomplete.”411 In this
case we have in the thum clear evidence of the existence of
a gens, with descent in the male line.
“The Munnieporees, and the following tribes inhabiting
the hills round Munniepore—the Koupooes, the Mows,
the Murams, and the Murring—are each and all divided into
four families—Koomul, Looang, Angom, and Ningthajà.
A member of any of these families may marry a member
of any other, but the intermarriage of members of the same
family is strictly prohibited.”412 In these families may be
recognized four gentes in each of these tribes. Bell, speaking
of the Telûsh of the Circassians, remarks that “the tradition
in regard to them is, that the members of each and
all sprang from the same stock or ancestry; and thus they
may be considered as so many septs or clans.... These
cousins german, or members of the same fraternity, are not
only themselves interdicted from intermarrying, but their
serfs, too, must wed with serfs of another fraternity.”413 It
is probable that the telûsh is a gens.
Among the Bengalese “the four castes are subdivided
into many different sects or classes, and each of these is
again subdivided; for instance, I am of Nundy tribe [gens?],
and if I were a heathen I could not marry a woman of the
same tribe, although the caste must be the same. The
children are of the tribe of their father. Property descends
to the sons. In case the person has no sons, to his daughters;
and if he leaves neither, to his nearest relatives. Castes
are subdivided, such as Shuro, which is one of the first
divisions; but it is again subdivided, such as Khayrl, Tilly,
Tamally, Tanty, Chomor, Kari, etc. A man belonging to
one of these last-named subdivisions cannot marry a woman
of the same.”414 These smallest groups number usually
about a hundred persons, and still retain several of the characteristics
of a gens.
Mr. Tyler remarks, that “in India it is unlawful for a
Brahman to marry a wife whose clan-name or ghotra (literally
‘cow-stall’) is the same as his own, a prohibition which
bars marriage among relatives in the male line indefinitely.
This law appears in the code of Manu as applying to the
first three castes, and connexions on the female side are
also forbidden to marry within certain wide limits.”415 And
again: “Among the Kols of Chota-Nagpur, we find many
of the Oraon and Munda clans named after animals, as eel,
hawk, crow, heron, and they must not kill or eat what they
are named after.”416
The Mongolians approach the American aborigines quite
nearly in physical characteristics. They are divided into
numerous tribes. “The connection,” says Latham, “between
the members of a tribe is that of blood, pedigree, or
descent; the tribe being, in some cases, named after a real
or supposed patriarch. The tribe, by which we translate
the native name aimauk, or aimâk, is a large division falling
into so many kokhums, or banners.”417 The statement is
not full enough to show the existence of gentes. Their
neighbors, the Tungusians, are composed of subdivisions
named after animals, as the horse, the dog, the reindeer,
which imply the gentile organizations, but it cannot be
asserted without further particulars.
Sir John Lubbock remarks of the Kalmucks that according
to De Hell, they “are divided into hordes, and no man
can marry a woman of the same horde;” and of the Ostiaks,
that they “regard it as a crime to marry a woman of the
same family or even of the same name;” and that “when a
Jakut (Siberia) wishes to marry, he must choose a girl from
another clan.”418 We have in each of these cases evidence
of the existence of a gens, one of the rules of which, as has
been shown, is the prohibition of intermarriage among its
members. The Yurak Samoyeds are organized in gentes.
Klaproth, quoted by Latham, remarks that “this division
of the kinsmanship is so rigidly observed that no Samoyed
takes a wife from the kinsmanship to which he himself belongs.
On the contrary, he seeks her in one of the other
two.”419
A peculiar family system prevails among the Chinese
which seems to embody the remains of an ancient gentile
organization. Mr. Robert Hart, of Canton, in a letter to
the author remarks, “that the Chinese expression for the
people is Pih-sing, which means the Hundred Family Names;
but whether this is mere word-painting, or had its origin at
a time when the Chinese general family consisted of one
hundred subfamilies or tribes [gentes?] I am unable to determine.
At the present day there are about four hundred
family names in this country, among which I find some that
have reference to animals, fruits, metals, natural objects,
etc., and which may be translated as Horse, Sheep, Ox,
Fish, Bird, Phœnix, Plum, Flower, Leaf, Rice, Forest,
River, Hill, Water, Cloud, Gold, Hide, Bristles, etc., etc.
In some parts of the country large villages are met with, in
each of which there exists but one family name; thus in
one district will be found, say, three villages, each containing
two or three thousand people, the one of the Horse,
the second of the Sheep, and the third of the Ox family
name.... Just as among the North American Indians
husbands and wives are of different tribes [gentes], so
in China husband and wife are always of different families,
i.e., of different surnames. Custom and law alike prohibit
intermarriage on the part of people having the same family
surname. The children are of the father’s family, that is,
they take his family surname.... Where the father
dies intestate the property generally remains undivided, but
under the control of the oldest son during the life of the
widow. On her death he divides the property between himself
and his brothers, the shares of the juniors depending
entirely upon the will of the elder brother.”
The family here described appears to be a gens, analogous
to the Roman in the time of Romulus; but whether it was
reintegrated, with other gentes of common descent, in a
phratry does not appear. Moreover, the gentiles are still
located as an independent consanguine body in one area, as
the Roman gentes were localized in the early period, and
the names of the gentes are still of the archaic type. Their
increase to four hundred by segmentation might have been
expected; but their maintenance to the present time, after
the period of barbarism has long passed away, is the remarkable
fact, and an additional proof of their immobility as a
people. It may be suspected also that the monogamian
family in these villages has not attained its full development,
and that communism in living, and in wives as well,
may not be unknown among them. Among the wild aboriginal
tribes, who still inhabit the mountain regions of
China and who speak dialects different from the Mandarin,
the gens in its archaic form may yet be discovered. To
these isolated tribes, we should naturally look for the ancient
institutions of the Chinese.
In like manner the tribes of Afghanistan are said to be
subdivided into clans; but whether these clans are true
gentes has not been ascertained.
Not to weary the reader with further details of a similar
character, a sufficient number of cases have been adduced
to create a presumption that the gentile organization prevailed
very generally and widely among the remote ancestors
of the present Asiatic tribes and nations.
The twelve tribes of the Hebrews, as they appear in the
Book of Numbers, represent a reconstruction of Hebrew
society by legislative procurement. The condition of barbarism
had then passed away, and that of civilization had
commenced. The principle on which the tribes were organized,
as bodies of consanguinei, presuppose an anterior gentile
system, which had remained in existence and was now
systematized. At this time they had no knowledge of any
other plan of government than a gentile society formed
of consanguine groups united through personal relations.
Their subsequent localization in Palestine by consanguine
tribes, each district named after one of the twelve sons of
Jacob, with the exception of the tribe of Levi, is a practical
recognition of the fact that they were organized by lineages
and not into a community of citizens. The history of the
most remarkable nation of the Semitic family has been concentrated
around the names of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob,
and the twelve sons of the latter.
Hebrew history commences essentially with Abraham,
the account of whose forefathers is limited to a pedigree
barren of details. A few passages will show the extent of
the progress then made, and the status of advancement in
which Abraham appeared. He is described as “very rich
in cattle, in silver, and in gold.”420 For the cave of Machpelah
“Abraham weighed to Ephron the silver, which he
had named in the audience of the sons of Heth, four hundred
shekels of silver, current money with the merchant.”421
With respect to domestic life and subsistence, the following
passage may be cited: “And Abraham hastened into the
tent unto Sarah, and said, Make ready quickly three measures
of fine meal; knead it, and make cakes upon the
hearth.”422 “And he took butter and milk, and the calf
which he had dressed, and set it before them.”423 With
respect to implements, raiment and ornaments: “Abraham
took the fire in his hand and a knife.”424 “And the servant
brought forth jewels of silver, and jewels of gold, and raiment,
and gave them to Rebekah: he gave also to her
brother and to her mother precious things.”425 When she
met Isaac, Rebekah “took a veil and covered herself.”426 In
the same connection are mentioned the camel, ass, ox, sheep
and goat, together with flocks and herds; the grain mill,
the water pitcher, earrings, bracelets, tents, houses and
cities. The bow and arrow, the sword, corn and wine, and
fields sown with grain, are mentioned. They indicate the
Upper Status of barbarism for Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.
Writing in this branch of the Semitic family was probably
then unknown. The degree of development shown corresponds
substantially with that of the Homeric Greeks.
Early Hebrew marriage customs indicate the presence of
the gens, and in its archaic form. Abraham, by his servant,
seemingly purchased Rebekah as a wife for Isaac; the “precious
things” being given to the brother, and to the mother
of the bride, but not to the father. In this case the presents
went to the gentile kindred, provided a gens existed,
with descent in the female line. Again, Abraham married
his half-sister Sarah. “And yet indeed,” he says, “she is
my sister; she is the daughter of my father, but not the
daughter of my mother: and she became my wife.”427
With an existing gens and descent in the female line
Abraham and Sarah would have belonged to different gentes,
and although of blood kin they were not of gentile kin, and
could have married by gentile usage. The case would have
been reversed in both particulars with descent in the male
line. Nahor married his niece, the daughter of his brother
Haran;428 and Amram, the father of Moses, married his aunt,
the sister of his father, who became the mother of the
Hebrew lawgiver.429 In these cases, with descent in the
female line, the persons marrying would have belonged to
different gentes; but otherwise with descent in the male
line. While these cases do not prove absolutely the existence
of gentes, the latter would afford such an explanation
of them as to raise a presumption of the existence of the
gentile organization in its archaic form.
When the Mosaic legislation was completed the Hebrews
were a civilized people, but not far enough advanced to
institute political society. The scripture account shows
that they were organized in a series of consanguine groups
in an ascending scale, analogous to the gens, phratry and
tribe of the Greeks. In the muster and organization of the
Hebrews, both as a society and as an army, while in the
Sinaitic peninsula, repeated references are made to these
consanguine groups in an ascending series, the seeming
equivalents of a gens, phratry and tribe. Thus, the tribe
of Levi consisted of eight gentes, organized in three phratries,
as follows:
| Tribe of Levi. |
Sons
of
Levi. |
⎧
⎨
⎩ |
I. |
Gershon. |
7,500 |
Males. |
| II. |
Kohath. |
8,600 |
” |
| III. |
Merari. |
6,200 |
” |
I. Gershonite Phratry.
Gentes.—1.Libni. 2. Shimei.
II. Kohathite Phratry.
Gentes.—1. Amram. 2. Izhar. 3. Hebron. 4. Uzziel.
III. Merarite Phratry.
Gentes.—1. Mahli. 2. Mushi.
“Number the children of Levi after the house of their
fathers, by their families.... And these were the sons
of Levi by their names; Gershon, and Kohath, and Merari.
And these were the names of the sons of Gershon by their
families; Libni, and Shimei. And the sons of Kohath by
their families; Amram, and Izhar, Hebron, and Uzziel. And
the sons of Merari by their families; Mahli, and Mushi.
These are the families of the Levites by the house of their
fathers.”430
The description of these groups sometimes commences
with the upper member of the series, and sometimes with
the lower or the unit. Thus: “Of the children of Simeon,
by their generations, after their families, by the house of
their fathers.”431 Here the children of Simeon, with their generations,
constitute the tribe; the families are the phratries;
and the house of the father is the gens. Again: “And the
chief of the house of the father of the families of the
Kohathites shall be Elizaphan the son of Uzziel.”432 Here
we find the gens first, and then the phratry, and last the
tribe. The person named was the chief of the phratry.
Each house of the father also had its ensign or banner to
distinguish it from others. “Every man of the children of
Israel shall pitch by his own standard, with the ensign of
their father’s house.”433 These terms describe actual organizations;
and they show that their military organization
was by gentes, by phratries and by tribes.
With respect to the first and smallest of these groups,
“the house of the father,” it must have numbered several
hundred persons from the figures given of the number in
each phratry. The Hebrew term beth’ ab, signifies paternal
house, house of the father, and family house. If the
Hebrews possessed the gens, it was this group of persons.
The use of two terms to describe it would leave a doubt,
unless individual families under monogamy had then become
so numerous and so prominent that this circumlocution
was necessary to cover the kindred. We have literally,
the house of Amram, of Izhar, of Hebron, and of Uzziel;
but as the Hebrews at that time could have had no conception
of a house as now applied to a titled family, it
probably signified, as used, kindred or lineage.434 Since each
division and subdivision is headed by a male, and since
Hebrew descents are traced through males exclusively,
descent among them, at this time, was undoubtedly in the
male line. Next in the ascending scale is the family, which
seems to be a phratry. The Hebrew term for this organization,
mishpacah, signifies union, clanship. It was composed
of two or more houses of the father, derived by segmentation
from an original group, and distinguished by a phratric
name. It answers very closely to the phratry. The family
or phratry had an annual sacrificial feast.435 Lastly, the tribe,
called in Hebrew matteh, which signifies a branch, stem or
shoot, is the analogue of the Grecian tribe.
Very few particulars are given respecting the rights,
privileges and obligations of the members of these bodies
of consanguinei. The idea of kin which united each organization
from the house of the father to the tribe, is carried out
in a form much more marked and precise than in the corresponding
organizations of Grecian, Latin or American Indian
tribes. While the Athenian traditions claimed that
the four tribes were derived from the four sons of Ion, they
did not pretend to explain the origin of the gentes and
phratries. On the contrary, the Hebrew account not only
derives the twelve tribes genealogically from the twelve
sons of Jacob, but also the gentes and phratries from the
children and descendants of each. Human experience furnishes
no parallel of the growth of gentes and phratries precisely
in this way. The account must be explained as a
classification of existing consanguine groups, according to
the knowledge preserved by tradition, in doing which minor
obstacles were overcome by legislative constraint.
The Hebrews styled themselves the “People of Israel,”
and also a “Congregation.”436 It is a direct recognition of
the fact that their organization was social, and not political.
In Africa we encounter a chaos of savagery and barbarism.
Original arts and inventions have largely disappeared,
through fabrics and utensils introduced from external
sources; but savagery in its lowest forms, cannibalism
included, and barbarism in its lowest forms prevail over the
greater part of the continent. Among the interior tribes,
there is a nearer approach to an indigenous culture and to a
normal condition; but Africa, in the main, is a barren ethnological
field.
Although the home of the Negro race, it is well known that
their numbers are limited and their areas small. Latham
significantly remarks that “the negro is an exceptional
African.”437 The Ashiras, Aponos, Ishogos and Ashangos,
between the Congo and the Niger, visited by Du Chaillu,
are of the true negro type. “Each village,” he remarks,
“had its chief, and further in the interior the villages seemed
to be governed by elders, each elder with his people having
a separate portion of the village to themselves. There was
in each clan the ifoumou, fumou, or acknowledged head of
the clan (ifoumou meaning the source, the father). I have
never been able to obtain from the natives a knowledge
concerning the splitting of their tribes into clans; they
seemed not to know how it happened, but the formation of
new clans does not take place now among them....
The house of a chief or elder is not better than those of his
neighbors. The despotic form of government is unknown....
A council of the elders is necessary before one is
put to death.... Tribes and clans intermarry with
each other, and this brings about a friendly feeling among
the people. People of the same clan cannot intermarry
with each other. The least consanguinity is considered an
abomination; nevertheless the nephew has not the slightest
objection to take his uncle’s wives, and, as among the Balakai,
the son takes his father’s wives, except his own mother....
Polygamy and slavery exist everywhere among
the tribes I have visited.... The law of inheritance
among the Western tribes is, that the next brother inherits
the wealth of the eldest (women, slaves, etc.), but that if the
youngest dies the eldest inherits his property, and if there
are no brothers that the nephew inherits it. The headship
of the clan or family is hereditary, following the same law
as that of the inheritance of property. In the case of all the
brothers having died, the eldest son of the eldest sister inherits,
and it goes on thus until the branch is extinguished, for
all clans are considered as descended from the female side.”438
All the elements of a true gens are embodied in the foregoing
particulars, namely, descent is limited to one line, in
this case the female, which gives the gens in its archaic
form. Moreover, descent is in the female line with respect
to office and to property, as well as the gentile name. The
office of chief passes from brother to brother, or from uncle
to nephew, that nephew being the son of a sister, as among
the American aborigines; whilst the sons are excluded
because not members of the gens of the deceased chief.
Marriage in the gens is also forbidden. The only material
omission in these precise statements is the names of some
of the gentes. The hereditary feature requires further
explanation.
Among the Banyai of the Zambezi river, who are a people
of higher grade than the negroes, Dr. Livingstone observed
the following usages: “The government of the Banyai is
rather peculiar, being a sort of feudal republicanism. The
chief is elected, and they choose the son of a deceased chief’s
sister in preference to his own offspring. When dissatisfied
with one candidate, they even go to a distant tribe for a
successor, who is usually of the family of the late chief, a
brother, or a sister’s son, but never his own son or daughter....
All the wives, goods, and children of his
predecessor belong to him.”439 Dr. Livingstone does not
give the particulars of their social organization; but the descent
of the office of chief from brother to brother, or from
uncle to nephew, implies the existence of the gens with
descent in the female line.
The numerous tribes occupying the country watered by
the Zambezi, and from thence southward to Cape Colony,
are regarded by the natives themselves, according to Dr.
Livingstone, as one stock in three great divisions, the Bechuanas,
the Basutos, and the Kafirs.440 With respect to the former,
he remarks that “the Bechuana tribes are named after
certain animals, showing probably that in ancient times
they were addicted to animal worship like the ancient
Egyptians. The term Bakatla means ‘they of the Monkey’;
Bakuona, ‘they of the Alligator’; Batlapi, ‘they of
the Fish’; each tribe having a superstitious dread of the
animal after which it is called.... A tribe never eats
the animal which is its namesake.... We find traces
of many ancient tribes in individual members of those now
extinct; as Bátau, ‘they of the Lion’; Banoga, ‘they of the
Serpent,’ though no such tribes now exist.”441 These animal
names are suggestive of the gens rather than the tribe.
Moreover, the fact that single individuals are found, each
of whom was the last survivor of his tribe, would be more
likely to have occurred if gens were understood in the
place of tribe. Among the Bangalas of the Cassange Valley,
in Argola, Livingstone remarks that “a chief’s brother
inherits in preference to his sons. The sons of a sister belong
to her brother; and he often sells his nephews to pay
his debts.”442 Here again we have evidence of descent in the
female line; but his statements are too brief and general in
these and other cases to show definitely whether or not
they possessed the gens.
Among the Australians the gentes of the Kamilaroi have
already been noticed. In ethnical position the aborigines
of this great island are near the bottom of the scale.
When discovered they were not only savages, but in a low
condition of savagery. Some of the tribes were cannibals.
Upon this last question Mr. Fison, before mentioned, writes
as follows to the author: “Some, at least, of the tribes are
cannibals. The evidence of this is conclusive. The Wide
Bay tribes eat not only their enemies slain in battle, but
their friends also who have been killed, and even those who
have died a natural death, provided they are in good condition.
Before eating they skin them, and preserve the
skins by rubbing them with mingled fat and charcoal.
These skins they prize very highly, believing them to have
great medicinal value.”
Such pictures of human life enable us to understand the
condition of savagery, the grade of its usages, the degree
of material development, and the low level of the mental
and moral life of the people. Australian humanity, as seen
in their cannibal customs, stands on as low a plane as it has
been known to touch on the earth. And yet the Australians
possessed an area of continental dimensions, rich in
minerals, not uncongenial in climate, and fairly supplied
with the means of subsistence. But after an occupation
which must be measured by thousands of years, they are
still savages of the grade above indicated. Left to themselves
they would probably have remained for thousands of
years to come, not without any, but with such slight improvement
as scarcely to lighten the dark shade of their
savage state.
Among the Australians, whose institutions are normal
and homogeneous, the organization into gentes is not confined
to the Kamilaroi, but seems to be universal. The
Narrinyeri of South Australia, near Lacepede Bay are organized
in gentes named after animals and insects. Rev.
George Taplin, writing to my friend Mr. Fison, after stating
that the Narrinyeri do not marry into their own gens, and
that the children were of the gens of their father, continues
as follows: “There are no castes, nor are there any classes,
similar to those of the Kamilaroi-speaking tribes of New
South Wales. But each tribe or family (and a tribe is a
family) has its totem, or ngaitye; and indeed some individuals
have this ngaitye. It is regarded as the man’s tutelary
genius. It is some animal, bird, or insect.... The
natives are very strict in their marriage arrangements. A
tribe [gens] is considered a family, and a man never marries
into his own tribe.”
Mr. Fison also writes, “that among the tribes of the Maranoa
district, Queensland, whose dialect is called Urghi,
according to information communicated to me by Mr. A. S.
P. Cameron, the same classification exists as among the Kamilaroi-speaking
tribes, both as to the class names and the
totems.” With respect to the Australians of the Darling
River, upon information communicated by Mr. Charles G.
N. Lockwood, he further remarks, that “they are subdivided
into tribes [gentes], mentioning the Emu, Wild Duck,
and Kangaroo, but without saying whether there are others,
and that the children take both the class name and totem
of the mother.”443
From the existence of the gentile organization among
the tribes named its general prevalence among the Australian
aborigines is rendered probable; although the institution,
as has elsewhere been pointed out, is in the incipient
stages of its development.
Our information with respect to the domestic institutions
of the inhabitants of Polynesia, Micronesia and the Papuan
Islands is still limited and imperfect. No traces of the
gentile organization have been discovered among the Hawaiians,
Samoans, Marquesas Islanders or New Zealanders.
Their system of consanguinity is still primitive, showing
that their institutions have not advanced as far as this
organization presupposes.444 In some of the Micronesian
Islands the office of chief is transmitted through females;445
but this usage might exist independently of the gens. The
Fijians are subdivided into several tribes speaking dialects
of the same stock language. One of these, the Rewas, consists
of four subdivisions under distinctive names, and each
of these is again subdivided. It does not seem probable
that the last subdivisions are gentes, for the reason, among
others, that its members are allowed to intermarry. Descent
is in the male line. In like manner the Tongans are
composed of divisions, which are again subdivided the same
as the Rewas.
Around the simple ideas relating to marriage and the
family, to subsistence and to government, the earliest social
organizations were formed; and with them an exposition of
the structure and principle of ancient society must commence.
Adopting the theory of a progressive development
of mankind through the experience of the ages, the insulation
of the inhabitants of Oceanica, their limited local areas,
and their restricted means of subsistence predetermined a
slow rate of progress. They still represent a condition of
mankind on the continent of Asia in times immensely remote
from the present; and while peculiarities, incident to their
insulation, undoubtedly exist, these island societies represent
one of the early phases of the great stream of human
progress. An exposition of their institutions, inventions
and discoveries, and mental and moral traits, would supply
one of the great needs of anthropological science.
This concludes the discussion of the organization into
gentes, and the range of its distribution. The organization
has been found among the Australians and African Negroes,
with traces of the system in other African tribes. It has
been found generally prevalent among that portion of the
American aborigines who when discovered were in the
Lower Status of barbarism; and also among a portion of
the Village Indians who were in the Middle Status of barbarism.
In like manner it existed in full vitality among
the Grecian and Latin tribes in the Upper Status of barbarism;
with traces of it in several of the remaining branches
of the Aryan family. The organization has been found, or
traces of its existence, in the Turanian, Uralian and Mongolian
families; in the Tungusian and Chinese stocks, and
in the Semitic family among the Hebrews. Facts sufficiently
numerous and commanding have been adduced to claim
for it an ancient universality in the human family, as well
as a general prevalence through the latter part of the period
of savagery, and throughout the period of barbarism.
The investigation has also arrayed a sufficient body of
facts to demonstrate that this remarkable institution was
the origin and the basis of Ancient Society. It was the
first organic principle, developed through experience, which
was able to organize society upon a definite plan, and hold
it in organic unity until it was sufficiently advanced for the
transition into political society. Its antiquity, its substantial
universality and its enduring vitality are sufficiently
shown by its perpetuation upon all the continents to the
present time. The wonderful adaptability of the gentile
organization to the wants of mankind in these several
periods and conditions is sufficiently attested by its prevalence
and by its preservation. It has been identified
with the most eventful portion of the experience of mankind.
Whether the gens originates spontaneously in a given
condition of society, and would thus repeat itself in disconnected
areas; or whether it had a single origin, and was
propagated from an original center, through successive migrations,
over the earth’s surface, are fair questions for speculative
consideration. The latter hypothesis, with a simple
modification, seems to be the better one, for the following
reasons: We find that two forms of marriage, and two forms
of the family preceded the institution of the gens. It required
a peculiar experience to attain to the second form of marriage
and of the family, and to supplement this experience
by the invention of the gens. This second form of the family
was the final result, through natural selection, of the reduction
within narrower limits of a stupendous conjugal system
which enfolded savage man and held him with a powerful
grasp. His final deliverance was too remarkable and too
improbable, as it would seem, to be repeated many different
times, and in widely separated areas. Groups of consanguinei,
united for protection and subsistence, doubtless, existed
from the infancy of the human family; but the gens
is a very different body of kindred. It takes a part and
excludes the remainder; it organized this part on the bond
of kin, under a common name, and with common rights
and privileges. Intermarriage in the gens was prohibited
to secure the benefits of marrying out with unrelated persons.
This was a vital principle of the organism as well as
one most difficult of establishment. Instead of a natural
and obvious conception, the gens was essentially abstruse;
and, as such, a product of high intelligence for the times in
which it originated. It required long periods of time, after
the idea was developed into life, to bring it to maturity
with its uses evolved. The Polynesians had this punaluan
family, but failed of inventing the gens; the Australians
had the same form of the family and possessed the gens.
It originates in the punaluan family, and whatever tribes
had attained to it possessed the elements out of which the
gens was formed. This is the modification of the hypothesis
suggested. In the prior organization, on the basis of
sex, the germ of the gens existed. When the gens had
become fully developed in its archaic form it would propagate
itself over immense areas through the superior powers
of an improved stock thus created. Its propagation is more
easily explained than its institution. These considerations
tend to show the improbability of its repeated reproduction
in disconnected areas. On the other hand, its beneficial
effects in producing a stock of savages superior to any then
existing upon the earth must be admitted. When migrations
were flights under the law of savage life, or movements
in quest of better areas, such a stock would spread
in wave after wave until it covered the larger part of the
earth’s surface. A consideration of the principal facts now
ascertained bearing upon this question seems to favor the
hypothesis of a single origin of the organization into gentes,
unless we go back of this to the Australian classes,
which gave the punaluan family out of which the gens originated,
and regard these classes as the original basis of
ancient society. In this event wherever the classes were
established, the gens existed potentially.
Assuming the unity of origin of mankind, the occupation
of the earth occurred through migrations from an original
center. The Asiatic continent must then be regarded as
the cradle-land of the species, from the greater number of
original types of man it contains in comparison with Europe,
Africa and America. It would also follow that the separation
of the Negroes and Australians from the common stem
occurred when society was organized on the basis of sex,
and when the family was punuluan; that the Polynesian
migration occurred later, but with society similarly constituted;
and finally, that the Ganowánian migration to
America occurred later still, and after the institution of the
gentes. These inferences are put forward simply as suggestions.
A knowledge of the gens and its attributes, and of the
range of its distribution, is absolutely necessary to a proper
comprehension of Ancient Society. This is the great subject
now requiring special and extended investigation.
This society among the ancestors of civilized nations attained
its highest development in the last days of barbarism.
But there were phases of that same society far back in the
anterior ages, which must now be sought among barbarians
and savages in corresponding conditions. The idea of
organized society has been a growth through the entire
existence of the human race; its several phases are logically
connected, the one giving birth to the other in succession;
and that form of it we have been contemplating originated
in the gens. No other institution of mankind has held
such an ancient and remarkable relation to the course of
human progress. The real history of mankind is contained
in the history of the growth and development of institutions,
of which the gens is but one. It is, however, the
basis of those which have exercised the most material
influence upon human affairs.
