book v

. of his _Logic_, and Jeremy Bentham's _Book of Fallacies_ (1824)

contains valuable remarks.

See Rd. Whateley's _Logic_, bk. v.; A. de Morgan, _Formal Logic_ (1847); A. Sidgwick, _Fallacies_ (1883) and other text-books. See also article LOGIC, and for fallacies of Induction, see INDUCTION.

FALLIERES, CLEMENT ARMAND (1841- ), president of the French republic, was born at Mezin in the department of Lot-et-Garonne, where his father was clerk of the peace. He studied law and became an advocate at Nerac, beginning his public career there as municipal councillor (1868), afterwards mayor (1871), and as councillor-general of the department of Lot-et-Garonne (1871). Being an ardent Republican, he lost this position in May 1873 upon the fall of Thiers, but in February 1876 was elected deputy for Nerac. In the chamber he sat with the Republican Left, signed the protestation of the 18th of May 1877, and was re-elected in October by his constituency. In 1880 he became under-secretary of state in the department of the interior in the Jules Ferry ministry (May 1880 to November 1881). From the 7th of August 1882 to the 20th of February 1883 he was minister of the interior, and for a month (from the 29th of January 1883) was premier. His ministry had to face the question of the expulsion of the pretenders to the throne of France, owing to the proclamation by Prince Jerome Napoleon (January 1883), and M. Fallieres, who was ill at the time, was not able to face the storm of opposition, and resigned when the senate rejected his project. In the following November, however, he was chosen as minister of public instruction by Jules Ferry, and carried out various reforms in the school system. He resigned with the ministry in March 1885. Again becoming minister of the interior in the Rouvier cabinet in May 1887, he exchanged his portfolio in December for that of justice. He returned to the ministry of the interior in February 1889, and finally took the department of justice from March 1890 to February 1892. In June 1890 his department (Lot-et-Garonne) elected him to the senate by 417 votes to 23. There M. Fallieres remained somewhat apart from party struggles, although maintaining his influence among the Republicans. In March 1899 he was elected president of the senate, and retained that position until January 1906, when he was chosen by a union of the groups of the Left in both chambers as candidate for the presidency of the republic. He was elected on the first ballot by 449 votes against 371 for his opponent, Paul Doumer.

FALL-LINE, in American geology, a line marking the junction between the hard rocks of the Appalachian Mountains and the softer deposits of the coastal plain. The pre-Cambrian and metamorphic rocks of the mountain mass form a continuous ledge parallel to the east coast, where they are subject to denudation and form a series of "falls" and rapids in the river courses all along this line. The relief of the land below the falls is very slight, and this low country rarely rises to a height of 200 ft., so that the rivers are navigable up to the falls, while the falls themselves are a valuable source of power. A line of cities may be traced upon the map whose position will thus be readily understood in relation to the economic importance of the fall-line. They are Trenton on the Delaware, Philadelphia on the Schuylkill, Georgetown on the Potomac, Richmond on the James, and Augusta on the Savannah. It will be readily understood that the softer and more recent rocks of the coastal plain have been more easily washed away, while the harder rocks of the mountains, owing to differential denudation, are left standing high above them, and that the trend of the edge of this great lenticular mass of ancient rock is roughly parallel to that of the Appalachian system.

FALLMERAYER, JAKOB PHILIPP (1790-1861), German traveller and historical investigator, best known for his opinions in regard to the ethnology of the modern Greeks, was born, the son of a poor peasant, at Tschotsch, near Brixen in Tirol, on the 10th of December 1790. In 1809 he absconded from the cathedral choir school at Brixen and made his way to Salzburg, where he supported himself by private teaching while he studied theology, the Semitic languages, and history. After a year's study he sought to assure to himself the peace and quiet necessary for a student's life by entering the abbey of Kremsmunster, but difficulties put in his way by the Bavarian officials prevented the accomplishment of this intention. At the university of Landshut, to which he removed in 1812, he first applied himself to jurisprudence, but soon devoted his attention exclusively to history and philology. His immediate necessities were provided for by a rich patron. During the Napoleonic wars he joined the Bavarian infantry as a subaltern in 1813, fought at Hanau (30th October 1813), and served throughout the campaign in France. He remained in the army of occupation on the banks of the Rhine until Waterloo, when he spent six months at Orleans as adjutant to General von Spreti. Two years of garrison life at Lindau on Lake Constance after the peace were spent in the study of modern Greek, Persian and Turkish.

Resigning his commission in 1818, he was successively engaged as teacher in the gymnasium at Augsburg and in the progymnasium and lyceum at Landshut. In 1827 he won the gold medal offered by the university of Copenhagen with his _Geschichte des Kaisertums von Trapezunt_, based on patient investigation of Greek and oriental MSS. at Venice and Vienna. The strictures on priestcraft contained in the preface to this book gave offence to the authorities, and his position was not improved by the liberal views expressed in his _Geschichte der Halbinsel Morea wahrend des Mittelalters_ (Stuttgart, 1830-1836, 2 pts.). The three years from 1831 to 1834 he spent in travel with the Russian count Ostermann Tolstoy, visiting Egypt, Palestine, Syria, Cyprus, Rhodes, Constantinople, Greece and Naples. On his return he was elected in 1835 a member of the Royal Bavarian Academy of Sciences, but he soon after left the country again on account of political troubles, and spent the greater part of the next four years in travel, spending the winter of 1839-1840 with Count Tolstoy at Geneva. Constantinople, Trebizond, Athos, Macedonia, Thessaly and Greece were visited by him during 1840-1841; and after some years' residence in Munich he returned in 1847 to the East, and travelled in Palestine, Syria and Asia Minor. The authorities continued to regard him with suspicion, and university students were forbidden to attend the lectures he delivered at Munich. He entered, however, into friendly relations with the crown prince Maximilian, but this intimacy was destroyed by the events following on 1848. At that period he was appointed professor of history in the Munich University, and made a member of the national congress at Frankfort-on-Main. He there joined the left or opposition party, and in the following year he accompanied the rump-parliament to Stuttgart, a course of action which led to his expulsion from his professorate. During the winter of 1849-1850 he was an exile in Switzerland, but the amnesty of April 1850 enabled him to return to Munich. He died on the 26th of April 1861.

His contributions to the medieval history of Greece are of great value, and though his theory that the Greeks of the present day are of Albanian and Slav descent, with hardly a drop of true Greek blood in their veins, has not been accepted in its entirety by other investigators, it has served to modify the opinions of even his greatest opponents. A criticism of his views will be found in Hopf's _Geschichte Griechenlands_ (reprinted from Ersch and Gruber's _Encykl._) and in Finlay's _History of Greece in the Middle Ages_. Another theory which he propounded and defended with great vigour was that the capture of Constantinople by Russia was inevitable, and would lead to the absorption by the Russian empire of the whole of the Balkan and Grecian peninsula; and that this extended empire would constitute a standing menace to the western Germanic nations. These views he expressed in a series of brilliant articles in German journals. His most important contribution to learning remains his history of the empire of Trebizond. Prior to his discovery of the chronicle of Michael Panaretos, covering the dominion of Alexus Comnenus and his successors from 1204 to 1426, the history of this medieval empire was practically unknown.

His works are--_Geschichte des Kaiserthums Trapezunt_ (Munich, 1827-1848); _Geschichte der Halbinsel Morea im Mittelalter_ (Stuttgart, 1830-1836); _Uber die Entstehung der Neugriechen_ (Stuttgart, 1835); "Originalfragmente, Chroniken, u.s.w., zur Geschichte des K. Trapezunts" (Munich, 1843), in _Abhandl. der hist. Classe der K. Bayerisch. Akad. v. Wiss.; Fragmente aus dem Orient_ (Stuttgart, 1845); _Denkschrift uber Golgotha und das heilige Grab_ (Munich, 1852), and _Das Todte Meer_ (1853)--both of which had appeared in the _Abhandlungen_ of the Academy; _Das albanesische Element in Griechenland_, iii. parts, in the _Abhandl._ for 1860-1866. After his death there appeared at Leipzig in 1861, under the editorship of G.M. Thomas, three volumes of _Gesammelte Werke_, containing _Neue Fragmente aus dem Orient, Kritische Versuche_, and _Studien und Erinnerungen aus meinem Leben_. A sketch of his life will also be found in L. Steub, _Herbsttage in Tyrol_ (Munich, 1867).

FALLOPIUS (or FALLOPIO), GABRIELLO (1523-1562), Italian anatomist, was born about 1523 at Modena, where he became a canon of the cathedral. He studied medicine at Ferrara, and, after a European tour, became teacher of anatomy in that city. He thence removed to Pisa, and from Pisa, at the instance of Cosmo I., grand-duke of Tuscany, to Padua, where, besides the chairs of anatomy and surgery and of botany, he held the office of superintendent of the new botanical garden. He died at Padua on the 9th of October 1562. Only one treatise by Fallopius appeared during his lifetime, namely the _Observationes anatomicae_ (Venice, 1561). His collected works, _Opera genuina omnia_, were published at Venice in 1584. (See ANATOMY.)

FALLOUX, FREDERIC ALFRED PIERRE, COMTE DE (1811-1886), French politician and author, was born at Angers on the 11th of May 1811. His father had been ennobled by Charles X., and Falloux began his career as a Legitimist and clerical journalist under the influence of Mme Swetchine. In 1846 he entered the legislature as deputy for Maine-et-Loire, and with many other ultra-Catholics he gave real or pretended support to the revolution of 1848. Louis Napoleon made him minister of education in 1849, but disagreements with the president led to his resignation within a year. He had nevertheless secured the passage of the Loi Falloux (March 15, 1850) for the organization of primary and secondary education. This law provided that the clergy and members of ecclesiastical orders, male and female, might exercise the profession of teaching without producing any further qualification. This exemption was extended even to priests who taught in secondary schools, where a university degree was exacted from lay teachers. The primary schools were put under the management of the cures. Falloux was elected to the French Academy in 1856. His failure to secure re-election to the legislature in 1866, 1869, 1870 and 1871 was due to the opposition of the stricter Legitimists, who viewed with suspicion his attempts to reconcile the Orleans princes with Henri, comte de Chambord. In spite of his failure to enter the National Assembly his influence was very great, and was increased by the intimacy of his personal relations with Thiers. But in 1872 he offended both sections of the monarchical party at a conference arranged in the hope of effecting a fusion between the

## partisans of the comte de Chambord and of the Orleans princes, divided

on the vexed question of the flag. He suggested that the comte de Chambord might recede from his position with dignity at the desire of the National Assembly, and not content with this encroachment on royalist principles, he insinuated the possibility of a transitional stage with the duc d'Aumale as president of the republic. His disgrace was so complete that he was excommunicated by the bishop of Angers in 1876. He died on the 16th of January 1886.

Of his numerous works the best known are his _Histoire de Louis XVI_ (1840); _Histoire de Saint Pie_ (1845); _De la contre-revolution_ (1876); and the posthumous _Memoires d'un royaliste_ (2 vols., 1888).

FALLOW, land ploughed and tilled, but left unsown, usually for a year, in order, on the one hand, to disintegrate, aerate and free it from weeds, and, on the other, to allow it to recuperate. The word was probably early confused with "fallow" (from O. Eng. _fealu_, probably cognate with Gr. [Greek: polios], grey), of a pale-brown or yellow colour, often applied to soil left unfilled and unsown, but chiefly seen in the name of the "fallow deer." The true derivation is from the O. Eng. _fealga_, only found in the plural, a harrow, and the ultimate origin is a Teutonic root meaning "to plough," cf. the German _falgen_. The recognition that continuous growing of wheat on the same area of land robs the soil of its fertility was universal among ancient peoples, and the practice of "fallowing" or resting the soil is as old as agriculture itself. The "Sabbath rest" ordered to be given every seventh year to the land by the Mosaic law is a classical instance of the "fallow." Improvements in crop rotations and manuring have diminished the necessity of the "bare fallow," which is uneconomical because the land is left unproductive, and because the nitrates in the soil unintercepted by the roots of plants are washed away in the drainage waters. At the present time bare fallowing is, in general, only advisable on stiff soils and in dry climates. A "green fallow" is land planted with turnips, potatoes or some similar crop in rows, the space between which may be cleared of weeds by hoeing. The "bastard fallow" is a modification of the bare fallow, effected by the growth of rye, vetches, or some other rapidly growing crop, sown in autumn and fed off in spring, the land then undergoing the processes of ploughing, grubbing and harrowing usual in the bare fallow.

FALLOW-DEER (that is, DUN DEER, in contradistinction to the red deer, _Cervus [Dama] dama_), a medium-sized representative of the family _Cervidae_, characterized by its expanded or palmated antlers, which generally have no bez-tine, rather long tail (black above and white below), and a coat spotted with white in summer but uniformly coloured in winter. The shoulder height is about 3 ft. The species is semi-domesticated in British parks, and occurs wild in western Asia, North Africa, the south of Europe and Sardinia. In prehistoric times it occurred throughout northern and central Europe. One park-breed has no spots. Bucks and does live apart except during the pairing-season; and the doe produces one or two, and sometimes three fawns at a birth. These deer are particularly fond of horse-chestnuts, which the stags are said to endeavour to procure by striking at the branches with their antlers. The Persian fallow-deer (C. [D.] _mesopotamicus_), a native of the mountains of Luristan, is larger than the typical species, and has a brighter coat, differing in some details of colouring. The antlers have the trez-tine near the small brow-tine, and the palmation beginning near the former. Here may be mentioned the gigantic fossil deer commonly known as the Irish elk, which is perhaps a giant type of fallow-deer, and if so should be known as _Cervus (Dama) giganteus_. If a distinct type, its title should be _C. (Megaceros) giganteus_. This deer inhabited Ireland, Great Britain, central and northern Europe, and western Asia in Pleistocene and prehistoric times; and must have stood 6 ft. high at the shoulder. The antlers are greatly palmated and of enormous size, fine specimens measuring as much as 11 ft. between the tips.

FALL RIVER, a city of Bristol county, Massachusetts, U.S.A., situated on Mount Hope Bay, at the mouth of the Taunton river, 49 m. S. of Boston. Pop. (1890) 74,398; (1900) 104,863; (estimated, 1906) 105,942;[1] (1910 census) 119,295. It is the third city in size of the commonwealth. Of the population in 1900, 50,042, or 47.7%, were foreign-born, 90,244 were of foreign parentage (i.e. either one or both parents were foreign), and of these 81,721 had both foreign father and foreign mother. Of the foreign-born, 20,172 were French Canadians, 2329 were English Canadians, 12,268 were from England, 1045 were from Scotland, 7317 were from Ireland, 2805 were from Portugal, and 1095 were from Russia, various other countries being represented by smaller numbers. Fall River is served by the New York, New Haven & Hartford railway, and has good steamer connexions with Providence, Newport and New York, notably by the "Fall River Line," which is much used, in connexion with the N.Y., N.H. & H. railway, by travellers between New York and Boston. The harbour is large, deep and easy of access. The city lies on a plateau and on slopes that rise rather steeply from the river, and is irregularly laid out. Granite underlying the city furnishes excellent building material; among the principal buildings are the state armoury, the county court house, the B.M.C. Durfee high school, the custom house, Notre Dame College, the church of Notre Dame, the church of St Anne, the Central Congregational church and the public library. The commonwealth aids in maintaining a textile school (the Bradford Durfee textile school), opened in 1904. The city library contained in 1908 about 78,500 volumes. There is considerable commerce, but it is as a manufacturing centre that Fall River is best known. Above the city, on the plateau, about 2 m. from the bay, are the Watuppa Lakes, 7 m. long and on an average three-fourths of a mile wide, and from them runs the Fall (Quequechan) river, with a constant flow and descending near its mouth through 127 ft. in less than half a mile. The conjunction of water transportation and water power is thus remarkable, and accounts in great part for the city's rapid growth. The waters of the North Watuppa Lake (which is fed by springs and drains out a very small area) are also exceptionally pure and furnish an excellent water-supply. The Fall river runs directly through the city (passing beneath the city hall), and along its banks are long rows of cotton mills; formerly many of these were run by water power, and their wheels were placed directly in the stream bed, but steam power is now used almost exclusively. According to the special census of manufactures of 1905, the value of all factory products for the calendar year 1904 was $43,473,105, of which amount $35,442,581, or 81.5%, consisted of cotton goods and dyeing and finishing, making Fall River the largest producer of cotton goods among American cities.[2] A large hat manufactory (the Marshall Brothers' factory) furnishes the United States army with hats. Until forced by the competition of mills in the Southern states to direct attention to finer products, the cotton manufacturers of Fall River devoted themselves almost exclusively to the making of print cloth, in which respect the city was long distinguished from Lawrence and Lowell, whose products were more varied and of higher grade. The number of spindles increased from 265,328 in 1865 to 1,269,043 in 1875, 3,000,000 in 1900, and to about 3,500,000 in 1906. Excellent drainage and sewerage systems contribute to the city's health. The birth-rate was in 1900 the highest (38.75) of any city in the country of above 30,000 inhabitants (three of the four next highest being Massachusetts towns). The social conditions and labour problems of Fall River have long been exceptional. The mills supplement the public schools in the mingling of races and the work for Americanization, and labour disturbances, for which Fall River was once conspicuous, have become less frequent and less bitter, the great strike of 1904-1905--perhaps the greatest in the history of the textile industry in the United States--being marked by little or no violence. Fall River has become a "city of homes," and tenements are giving way to dwellings for one or two families. The lists of the city's corporation stockholders show more than 10,000 names. The municipal police is controlled (as nowhere else in the state save in Boston) by a state board; this arrangement is generally regarded as having worked for better order. Lowell was about three times as large as Fall River in 1850, and Lawrence was larger until after 1870. Fall River was originally a part of Freetown; it was incorporated as a township in 1803 (being known as "Troy" in 1804-1834), and was chartered as a city in 1854. In 1861 it was increased by certain territory secured from Rhode Island, the city having spread across the state boundary and become subject to a divided jurisdiction. In 1902 the city received a new charter. Its manufactures amounted to little before the War of 1812. A disastrous fire occurred in 1843 (loss above $500,000). In 1904 Fall River became the see of the Roman Catholic diocese of that name.

See H.H. Earl, _Centennial History of Fall River ... 1656-1876_ (New York, 1877); and the report of Carroll D. Wright on _Fall River, Lowell and Lawrence_, in 13th annual report of the Massachusetts Bureau of Statistics of Labor (1882), which, however, was regarded as unjust and partial by the manufacturers of Fall River.

FOOTNOTES:

[1] The small increase between 1900 and 1906 was due in large part to the emigration of many of the inhabitants during the great strike of 1904-1905.

[2] The above figures do not show adequately the full importance of Fall River as a cotton manufacturing centre, for during six months of the census year the great strike was in progress; this strike, caused by a reduction in wages, lasted from the 25th of July 1904 to the 18th of January 1905.

FALMOUTH, a municipal and contributary parliamentary borough and seaport of Cornwall, England, 306 m. W.S.W. of London, on a branch of the Great Western railway. Pop. (1901) 11,789. It is finely situated on the west shore of the largest of the many estuaries which open upon the south coast of the county. This is entered by several streams, of which the largest is the Fal. Falmouth harbour lies within Pendennis Point, which shelters the estuary from the more open Falmouth Bay. The Penryn river, coming in from the north-west, forms one of several shallow, winding arms of the estuary, the main channel of which is known as Carrick Roads. To the east Pendennis Castle stands on its lofty promontory, while on the opposite side of the roads the picturesque inlet of the Porthcuel river opens between Castle Point on the north, with St Mawes' Castle, and St Anthony Head and Zoze Point on the south. The shores of the estuary as a rule slope sharply up to about 250 ft., and are beautifully wooded. The entrance is 1 m. across, and the roads form one of the best refuges for shipping on the south coast, being accessible at all times by the largest vessels. Among the principal buildings and institutions in Falmouth are the town hall, market-house, hall of the Cornwall Polytechnic Society, a meteorological and magnetic observatory, and a submarine mining establishment. The Royal Cornwall Yacht Club has its headquarters here, and in the annual regatta the principal prize is a cup given by the prince of Wales as duke of Cornwall. Engineering, shipbuilding, brewing and the manufacture of manure are carried on, and there are oyster and trawl fisheries, especially for pilchard. The inner harbour, under the jurisdiction partly of commissioners and partly of a dock company, is enclosed between two breakwaters, of which the eastern has 23 ft. of water at lowest tides alongside. The area of the harbour is 42 acres, with nearly 700 lineal yards of quayage. There are two graving docks, and repairing yards. Grain, timber, coal and guano and other manures are imported, and granite, china clay, copper ore, ropes and fish exported. Falmouth is also in favour as a watering-place. The parliamentary borough of Penryn and Falmouth returns one member. The municipal borough is under a mayor, 4 aldermen and 12 councillors. Area, 790 acres.

Falmouth (Falemuth) as a haven and port has had a place in the maritime history of Cornwall from very early times. The site of the town, which is comparatively modern, was formerly known as Smithick and Pennycomequick and formed part of the manor of Arwenack held by the family of Killigrew. The corporations of Penryn, Truro and Helston opposed the undertaking, but the lords in council, to whom the matter was referred, decided in Killigrew's favour. In 1652 the House of Commons considered that it would be advantageous to the Commonwealth to grant a Thursday market to Smithick. This market was confirmed to Sir Peter Killigrew in 1660 together with two fairs, on the 30th of October and the 27th of July, and also a ferry between Smithick and Flushing. By the charter of incorporation granted in the following year the name was changed to Falmouth, and a mayor, recorder, 7 aldermen and 12 burgesses constituted a common council with the usual rights and privileges. Three years later an act creating the borough a separate ecclesiastical parish empowered the mayor and aldermen to assess all buildings within the town at the rate of sixteen pence in the pound for the support of the rector. This rector's rate occasioned much ill-feeling in modern times, and by act of parliament in 1896 was taken over by the corporation, and provision made for its eventual extinction. The disfranchisement of Penryn, which had long been a subject of debate in the House of Commons, was settled in 1832, by uniting Penryn with Falmouth for parliamentary purposes and assigning two members to the united boroughs. By the Redistribution of Seats Act 1885, the number of members was reduced to one. The fairs granted in 1660 are no longer held, and a Saturday market has superseded the chartered market. In the 17th and 18th centuries Falmouth grew in importance owing to its being a station of the Packet Service for the conveyance of mails.

FALSE POINT, a landlocked harbour in the Cuttack district of Bengal, India. It was reported by the famine commissioners in 1867 to be the best harbour on the coast of India from the Hugli to Bombay. It derives its name from the circumstance that vessels proceeding up the Bay of Bengal frequently mistook it for Point Palmyras, a degree farther north. The anchorage is safe, roomy and completely landlocked, but large vessels are obliged to lie out at some distance from its mouth in an exposed roadstead. The capabilities of False Point as a harbour remained long unknown, and it was only in 1860 that the port was opened. It was rapidly developed, owing to the construction of the Orissa canals. Two navigable channels lead inland across the Mahanadi delta, and connect the port with Cuttack city. The trade of False Point is chiefly with other Indian harbours, but a large export trade in rice and oil-seeds has sprung up with Mauritius, the French colonies and France. False Point is now a regular port of call for Anglo-Indian coasting steamers. Its capabilities were first appreciated during the Orissa famine of 1866, when it afforded almost the only means by which supplies of rice could be thrown into the province. A lighthouse is situated a little to the south of the anchorage, on the point which screens it from the southern monsoon.

FALSE PRETENCES, in English law, the obtaining from any other person by any false pretence any chattel, money or valuable security, with intent to defraud. It is an indictable misdemeanour under the Larceny Act of 1861. The broad distinction between this offence and larceny is that in the former the owner intends to part with his property, in the latter he does not. This offence dates as a statutory crime practically from 1756. At common law the only remedy originally available for an owner who had been deprived of his goods by fraud was an indictment for the crime of cheating, or a civil action for deceit. These remedies were insufficient to cover all cases where money or other properties had been obtained by false pretences, and the offence was first partially created by a statute of Henry VIII. (1541), which enacted that if any person should falsely and deceitfully obtain any money, goods, &c., by means of any false token or counterfeit letter made in any other man's name, the offender should suffer any punishment other than death, at the discretion of the judge. The scope of the offence was enlarged to include practically all false pretences by the act of 1756, the provisions of which were embodied in the Larceny Act 1861.

The principal points to notice are that the pretence must be a false pretence of some existing fact, made for the purpose of inducing the prosecutor to part with his property (e.g. it was held not to be a false pretence to promise to pay for goods on delivery), and it may be by either words or conduct. The property, too, must have been actually obtained by the false pretence. The owner must be induced by the pretence to make over the absolute and immediate ownership of the goods, otherwise it is "larceny by means of a trick." It is not always easy, however, to draw a distinction between the various classes of offences. In the case where a man goes into a restaurant and orders a meal, and, after consuming it, says that he has no means of paying for it, it was usual to convict for obtaining food by false pretences. But _R._ v. _Jones_, 1898, L.R. 1 Q.B. 119 decided that it is neither larceny nor false pretences, but an offence under the Debtors Act 1869, of obtaining credit by fraud. (See also CHEATING; FRAUD; LARCENY.)

_United States._--American statutes on this subject are mainly copied from the English statutes, and the courts there in a general way follow the English interpretations. The statutes of each state must be consulted. There is no Federal statute, though there are Federal laws providing penalties for false personation of the lawful owner of public stocks, &c., or of persons entitled to pensions, prize money, &c. (U.S. Rev. Stats. S 5435), or the false making of any order purporting to be a money order (id. S 5463).

In Arizona, obtaining money or property by falsely personating another is punishable as for larceny (Penal Code, 1901, S 479). Obtaining credit by false pretences as to wealth and mercantile character is punishable by six months' imprisonment and a fine not exceeding three times the value of the money or property obtained (id. S 481).

In Illinois, whoever by any false representation or writing signed by him, of his own respectability, wealth or mercantile correspondence or connexions, obtains credit and thereby defrauds any person of money, goods, chattels or any valuable thing, or who procures another to make a false report of his honesty, wealth, &c., shall return the money, goods, &c., and be fined and imprisoned for a term not exceeding one year (Crim. Code, 1903, ch. xxxviii. SS 96, 97). Obtaining money or property by bogus cheques, the "confidence game" (_Dorr_ v. _People_, 1907, S 228, Ill. 216), or "three card monte," sleight of hand, fortune-telling, &c., is punishable by imprisonment for from one to ten years (id. SS 98, 100). Obtaining goods from warehouse, mill or wharf by fraudulent receipt wrongly stating amount of goods deposited--by imprisonment for not less than one nor more than ten years (id. S 124). Fraudulent use of railroad passes is a misdemeanour (id. 125a).

In Massachusetts it is simple larceny to obtain by false pretences the money or personal chattel of another (Rev. Laws, 1902, ch. ccviii. S 26). Obtaining by a false pretence with intent to defraud the signature of a person to a written instrument, the false making whereof would be forgery, is punishable by imprisonment in a state prison or by fine (id. S 27).

In New York, obtaining property by false pretences, felonious breach of trust and embezzlement are included in the term "larceny" (Penal Code, S 528; _Paul_ v. _Dumar_, 106 N.Y. 508; _People_ v. _Tattlekan_, 1907, 104 N.Y. Suppl. 805), but the methods of proof required to establish each crime remain as before the code. Obtaining lodging and food on credit at hotel or lodging house with intent to defraud is a misdemeanour (Pen. Code, S 382). Purchase of property by false pretences as to person's means or ability to pay is not criminal when in writing signed by the party to be charged (Pen. Code, S 544).

FALTICHENI (_Falticeni_), the capital of the department of Suceava, Rumania, situated on a small right-hand tributary of the Sereth, among the hills of north-west Moldavia, and 2 m. S.E. of the frontier of Bukovina. Pop. (1900) 9643, about half being Jews. A branch railway runs for 15 m. to join the main line between Czernowitz in Bukovina, and Galatz. The Suceava department (named after Suceava or Suciava, its former capital, now Suczawa in Bukowina) is densely forested; its considerable timber trade centres in Falticheni. For five weeks, from the 20th July onwards, Russians and Austro-Hungarians, as well as Rumans, attend the fair which is held at Falticheni, chiefly for the sale of horses, carriages and cattle.

FALUN, a town of Sweden, capital of the district (_lan_) of Kopparberg, 153 m. N.W. of Stockholm by rail. Pop. (1900) 9606. It is situated in a bare and rocky country near the western shore of lake Runn. Here are the oldest and most celebrated copper mines in Europe. Their produce has gradually decreased since the 17th century, and is now unimportant, but sulphate of copper, iron pyrites, and some gold, silver, sulphur and sulphuric acid, and red ochre are also produced. The mines belong to the Kopparberg Mining Company (_Stora Kopparbergs Bergslags Aktiebolag_, formerly _Kopparbergslagen_). This is the oldest industrial corporation in Sweden, and perhaps the oldest still existing in the world; it is known to have been established before 1347. Since its reorganization as a joint-stock company in 1890 many of the shares have been held by the crown, philanthropic institutions and other public bodies. The company also owns iron mines, limestone and quartz quarries, large iron-works at Domnarfvet and elsewhere, a great extent of forests and saw-mills, and besides the output of the copper mines it produces manufactured iron and steel, timber, wood-pulp, bricks and charcoal. Falun has also railway rolling-stock factories. There are museums of mineralogy and geology, a lower school of mining, model room and scientific library. The so-called "Gothenburg System" of municipal control over the sale of spirits was actually devised at Falun as early as 1850.

FAMA (Gr. [Greek: Pheme, Ossa]), in classical mythology, the personification of Rumour. The Homeric equivalent _Ossa_ (_Iliad_, ii. 93) is represented as the messenger of Zeus, who spreads reports with the rapidity of a conflagration. Homer does not personify _Pheme_, which is merely a presage drawn from human utterances, whereas Ossa (until later times) is associated with the idea of divine origin. A more definite character is given to Pheme by Hesiod (_Works and Days_, 764), who calls her a goddess; in Sophocles (_Oed. Tyr._ 158) she is the immortal daughter of golden Hope and is styled by the orator Aeschines (_Contra Timarchum_, S 128) one of the mightiest of goddesses. According to Pausanias (i. 17. 1) there was a temple of Pheme at Athens, and at Smyrna (ib. ix. 11, 7), whose inhabitants were especially fond of seeking the aid of divination, there was a sanctuary of Cledones (sounds or rumours supposed to convey omens).

There does not seem to have been any cult of Fama among the Romans, by whom she was regarded merely as "a figure of poetical religion." The Temple of Fame and Omen (Pheme and Cledon) mentioned by Plutarch (_Moralia_, p. 319) is due to a confusion with Aius Locutius, the divinity who warned the Romans of the coming attack of the Gauls. There are well-known descriptions of Fame in Virgil (_Aeneid_, iv. 173) and Ovid (_Metam._ xii. 39); see also Valerius Flaccus (ii. 116), Statius (_Thebais_, iii. 425). An unfavourable idea gradually became attached to the name; thus Ennius speaks of Fama as the personification of "evil" reputation and the opposite of Gloria (cp. the adjective _famosus_, which is not used in a good sense till the post-Augustan age). Chaucer in his _House of Fame_ is obviously imitating Virgil and Ovid, although he is also indebted to Dante's _Divina Commedia_.

FAMAGUSTA (Gr. _Ammochostos_), a town and harbour on the east cost of Cyprus, 2-1/2 m. S. of the ruins of Salamis. The population in 1901 was 818, nearly all being Moslems who live within the walls of the fortress; the Christian population has migrated to a suburb called Varosia (pop. 2948). The foundation of Salamis (q.v.) was ascribed to Teucer: it was probably the most important town in early Cyprus. The revolt of the Jews under Trajan, and earthquakes in the time of Constantius and Constantine the Great helped in turn to destroy it. It was restored by Fl. Constantius II. (A.D. 337-361) as Constantia. Another town a little to the south, built by Ptolemy Philadelphus in 274 B.C., and called Arsinoe in honour of his sister, received the refugees driven from Constantia by the Arabs under Mu'awiyah, became the seat of the orthodox archbishopric, and was eventually known as Famagusta. It received a large accession of population at the fall of Acre in 1291; was annexed by the Genoese in 1376; reunited to the throne of Cyprus in 1464; and surrendered, after an investment of nearly a year, to the Turks in 1571. The fortifications, remodelled by the Venetians after 1489, the castle, the grand cathedral church of St Nicolas, and the remains of the palace and many other churches make Famagusta a place of unique interest. Acts ii. and v. of Shakespeare's _Othello_ pass there. In 1903 measures were taken to develop the fine natural harbour of Famagusta. Basins were dredged to give depths of 15 and 24 ft. respectively at ordinary low tides, and commodious jetties and quays were constructed.

FAMILIAR (through the Fr. _familier_, from Lat. _familiaris_, of or belonging to the _familia_, family), an adjective, properly meaning belonging to the family or household, but in this sense the word is rare. The more usual meanings are: friendly, intimate, well known; and from its application to the easy relations of intimate friends the term may be used in an invidious sense of "free and easy" conduct on the part of any one not justified by any close relationship, friendship or intimacy. "Familiar" is, however, also used as a substantive, especially of the spirit or demon which attended on a wizard or magician, and was summoned to execute his master's wishes. The idea underlies the notion of the Christian guardian angel and of the Roman _genius natalis_ (see DEMONOLOGY; WITCHCRAFT). In the Roman Church the term is applied to persons attached to the household of the pope or of bishops. These must actually do some domestic service. They are supported by their patron, and enjoy privileges which in the case of the papal familiars are considerable. "Familiars of the Holy Office" were lay officers of the Inquisition, whose functions were chiefly those of police, in making arrests, &c., of persons charged.

FAMILISTS, a term of English origin (later adopted in other languages) to denote the members of the _Familia Caritatis_ (_Hus der Lieften_; _Huis der Liefde_; _Haus der Liebe_; "Family of Love"), founded by Hendrik Niclaes (born on the 9th or 10th of January 1501 or 1502, probably at Munster; died after 1570, not later than 1581, probably in 1580). His calling was that of a merchant, in which he and his son Franz prospered, becoming ultimately wealthy. Not till 1540 did he appear in the character of one divinely endowed with "the spirit of the true love of Jesus Christ." For twenty years (1540-1560) Emden was the headquarters at once of his merchandise and of his propaganda; but he travelled in both interests to various countries, visiting England in 1552 or 1553. To this period belong most of his writings. His primary work was _Den Spegel der Gherechticheit dorch den Geist der Liefden unde den vergodeden Mensch H.N. uth de hemmelische Warheit betuget_. It appeared in an English form with the author's revision, as _An Introduction to the holy Understanding of the Glasse of Righteousness_ (1575?; reprinted in 1649). None of his works bear his name in full; his initials were mystically interpreted as standing for _Homo Novus_. His "glass of righteousness" is the spirit of Christ as interpreted by him. The remarkable fact was brought out by G. Arnold (and more fully by F. Nippold in 1862) that the printer of Niclaes's works was Christopher Plantin, of Antwerp, a specially privileged printer of Roman Catholic theology and liturgy, yet secretly a steadfast adherent of Niclaes. It is true that Niclaes claimed to hold an impartial attitude towards all existing religious parties, and his mysticism, derived from David Joris, was undogmatic. Yet he admitted his followers by the rite of adult baptism, and set up a hierarchy among them on the Roman model (see his _Evangelium Regni_, in English _A Joyfull Message of the Kingdom_, 1574?; reprinted, 1652). His pantheism had an antinomian drift; for himself and his officials he claimed impeccability; but, whatever truth there may be in the charge that among his followers were those who interpreted "love" as licence, no such charge can be sustained against the morals of Niclaes and the other leaders of the sect. His chief apostle in England was Christopher Vitel, a native of Delft, an "illuminate elder," living at Colchester and Southwark, who ultimately recanted. The society spread in the eastern counties, in spite of repressive measures; it revived under the Commonwealth, and lingered into the early years of the 18th century; the leading idea of its "service of love" was a reliance on sympathy and tenderness for the moral and spiritual edification of its members. Thus, in an age of strife and polemics, it seemed to afford a refuge for quiet, gentle spirits, and meditative temperaments.

See F. Nippold, "H. Niclaes u. das Haus der Liebe," in _Zeitschrift fur die histor. Theol._ (1862); article "H. Niclaes" in A.J. van der Aa, Biog. _Woordenboek der Nederlanden_ (1868); article "H. Nicholas," by C. Fell Smith, in _Dict. Nat. Biog._ (1894); article "Familisten," by Loofs, in Herzog-Hauck's _Realencyklopadie_ (1898). (A. Go.*)

FAMILY, a word of which the etymology but partially illustrates the meaning. The Roman _familia_, derived from the Oscan _famel_ (_servus_), originally signified the servile property, the thralls, of a master. Next, the term denoted other domestic property, in things as well as in persons. Thus, in the fifth of the laws of the Twelve Tables, the rules are laid down: SI . INTESTATO . MORITUR . CUI . SUUS . HERES . NEC . SIT . ADGNATUS . PROXIMUS . AMILIAM . ABETO, and SI . AGNATUS . NEC . ESCIT . GENTILIS . FAMILIAM . NANCITOR; that is, if a man die intestate, leaving no natural heir who had been under his _potestas_, the nearest agnate, or relative tracing his connexion with the deceased exclusively through males, is to inherit the _familia_, or family fortune of every sort. Failing an agnate, a member of the _gens_ of the dead man is to inherit. In a third sense, _familia_ was applied to all the persons who could prove themselves to be descended from the same ancestor, and thus the word almost corresponded to our own use of it in the widest meaning, as when we say that a person is "of a good family" (Ulpian, _Dig._ 50, 16, 195 _fin_.).

Old theory.

1. Leaving for awhile the Roman terms, to which it will be necessary to return, we may provisionally define Family, in the modern sense, as the small community formed by the union of one man with one woman, and by the increase of children born to them. These in modern times, and in most European countries, constitute the household, and it has been almost universally supposed that little natural associations of this sort are the germ-cell of early society. The Bible presents the growth of the Jewish nation from the one household of Abraham. His patriarchal family differed from the modern family in being polygamous, but, as female chastity was one of the conditions of the patriarchal family, and as descent through males was therefore recognized as certain, the plurality of wives makes no real difference to the argument. In the same way the earliest formal records of Indian, Greek and Roman society present the family as firmly established, and generally regarded as the most primitive of human associations. Thus, Aristotle derives the first household ([Greek: oikia prote]) from the combination of man's possession of property--in the slave or in domesticated animals--with man's relation to woman, and he quotes Hesiod: [Greek: oikon men protista gunaika te boun t' arotera] (_Politics_, i. 2. 5). The village, again, with him is a colony or offshoot of the household, and monarchical government in states is derived from the monarchy of the eldest male member of the family. Now, though certain ancient terms, introduced by Aristotle in the chapters to which we refer, might have led him to imagine a very different origin of society, his theory is, on the face of it, natural and plausible, and it has been almost universally accepted. The beginning of society, it has been said a thousand times, is the family, a natural association of kindred by blood, composed of father, mother and their descendants. In this family, the father is absolute master of his wife, his children and the goods of the little community; at his death his eldest son succeeds him; and in course of time this association of kindred, by natural increase and by adoption, develops into the clan, _gens_, or [Greek: genos]. As generations multiply, the more distant relations split off into other clans, and these clans, which have not lost the sense of primitive kinship, unite once more into tribes. The tribes again, as civilization advances, acknowledge themselves to be subjects of a king, in whose veins the blood of the original family runs purest. This, or something like this, is the common theory of the growth of society.

Modern criticism

2. It was between 1866 and 1880 that the common opinion began to be seriously opposed. John Ferguson McLennan, in his _Primitive Marriage_ and his essays on _The Worship of Plants and Animals_ (see his _Studies in Ancient History_, second series), drew attention to the wide prevalence of the custom of inheriting the kinship name through mothers, not fathers; and to the law of "Exogamy" (q.v.). The former usage he attributed to archaic uncertainty as to fatherhood; the natural result of absolute sexual promiscuity, or of Polyandry (q.v.). Either practice is inconsistent, prima facie, with the primitive existence of the Family, whether polygamous or monogamous, whether patriarchal or modern. The custom of Exogamy, again,--here taken to mean the unwritten law which makes it incest, and a capital offence, to marry within the real or supposed kin denoted by the common name of the kinship,--pointed to an archaic condition of family affairs all unlike our Table of prohibited degrees. This law of Exogamy was found, among many savage races, associated with Totems, that is plants, animals and other natural objects which give names to the various kinships, and are themselves, in various degrees, reverenced by members of the kinships. (See TOTEM AND TOTEMISM.) Traces of such kinships, and of Totemism, also of alleged promiscuity in ancient times, were detected by McLennan in the legends, folk-lore and institutions of Greece, Rome and India. Later, Prof. Robertson Smith found similar survivals, or possible survivals, among the Semitic races (_Kinship in Early Arabia_). Others have followed the same trail among the Celts (S. Reinach, _Cultes, mythes et religions_, 1904).

If arguments founded on these alleged survivals be valid, it may be that the most civilized races have passed through the stages of Exogamy, Totemism and reckoning descent in the female line. McLennan explained Exogamy as a result of scarcity of women, due to female infanticide. Women being scarce, the men of a group would steal them from other groups, and it would become shameful, and finally a deadly sin, for a man to marry within his own group-name, or name of kinship, say Wolf or Raven. Meanwhile, owing to scarcity of women, one woman would be the mate of many husbands (polyandry); hence, paternity being undetermined, descent would be reckoned through mothers.

McLennan's value.

Such are the outlines of McLennan's theory, which, as a whole, has been attacked by many writers, and is now, perhaps, accepted by none. McLennan's was the most brilliant pioneer work; but his supply of facts was relatively scanty, and his friend Charles Darwin stated objections which to many seem final, as regards the past existence of a stage of sexual promiscuity. C.N. Starcke (_The Primitive Family_, 1889), Edward Alexander Westermarck (_History of Human Marriage_, 1891), Ernest Crawley (_The Mystic Rose_), Herbert Spencer, Emile Durkheim, Lord Avebury and many others, have criticized McLennan, who, however, in coining the term Exogamy, and drawing scientific attention to Totemism, and reckoning of kin through mothers, founded the study of early society. Here it must be observed that "Matriarchate" (q.v.) is a misleading term, as is "Gynaecocracy," for the custom of deducing descent on the spindle side. Women among totemistic and exogamous savages are in a degraded position, nor does the deriving and inheriting of the kinship name, or anything else, on the spindle side, imply any ignorance of paternal relations; even where, as among Central Australian tribes, the facts of reproduction are said to be unknown.

Lewis Morgan.

3. Simultaneous with McLennan's researches and speculations were the works of Lewis H. Morgan. He was the discoverer of a custom very important in its bearing on the history of society. In about two-thirds of the globe, persons in addressing a kinsman do not discriminate between grades of relationship. All these grades are merged in large categories. Thus, in what Morgan calls the "Malayan system," "all _consanguinei_, near or far, fall within one of these relationships--grandparent, parent, brother, sister, child and grandchild." No other blood-relationships are recognized (_Ancient Society_). This at once reminds us of the Platonic Republic. "We devised means that no one should ever be able to know his own child, but that all should imagine themselves to be of one family, and should regard as brothers and sisters those who were within a certain limit of age; and those who were of an elder generation they were to regard as parents and grandparents, and those who were of a younger generation as children and grandchildren" (_Timaeus_, 18, Jowett's translation, first edition, vol. ii., 1871). This system prevails in the Polynesian groups and in New Zealand. Next comes what Morgan chooses to call the Turanian system. "It was universal among the North American aborigines," whom he styles Ganowanians. "Traces of it have been found in parts of Africa" (_Ancient Society_), and "it still prevails in South India among the Hindus, who speak the Dravidian language," and also in North India, among other Hindus. The system, Morgan says, "is simply stupendous." It is not exactly the same among all his miscellaneous "Turanians," but, on the whole, assumes the following shapes. Suppose the speaker to be a male, he will style his nephew and niece in the male line, his brother's children, "son" and "daughter," and his grand-nephews and grand-nieces in the male line, "grandson" and "granddaughter." Here the Turanian and the Malayan systems agree. But change the sex; let the male speaker address his nephews and nieces in the female line,--the children of his sister,--he salutes them as "nephew" and "niece," and they hail him as "uncle." Now, in the Malay system, nephews and nieces on both sides, brother's children or sisters, are alike named "children" of the uncle. If the speaker be a female, using the Turanian style, these terms are reversed. Her sister's sons and daughters are saluted by her as "son" and "daughter," her brother's children she calls "nephew" and "niece." Yet the children of the persons thus styled "nephew" and "niece" are not recognized in conversation as "grand-nephew" and "grand-niece," but as "grandson" and "granddaughter." It is impossible here to do more than indicate these features of the classificatory nomenclature, from which the others may be inferred. The reader is referred for particulars to Morgan's _Systems of Consanguinity and Affinity of the Human Race_.

The existence of the classificatory system is not an entirely novel discovery. Nicolaus Damascenus, one of the inquirers into early society, who lived in the first century of our era, noticed this mode of address among the Galactophagi. Lafitau found it among the Iroquois. To Morgan's perception of the importance of the facts, and to his energetic collection of reports, we owe our knowledge of the wide prevalence of the system. From an examination of the degrees of kindred which seem to be indicated by the "Malayan" and "Turanian" modes of address, he has worked out a theory of the evolution of the modern family. A brief comparison of this with other modern theories will close our account of the family. The main points of the theory are shortly stated in _Systems of Consanguinity_, &c., and in _Ancient Society_. From the latter work we quote the following description of the five different and successive forms of the family:--

"I. _The Consanguine Family._--It was founded upon the intermarriage of brothers and sisters, own and collateral, in a group.

"II. _The Punaluan Family._--It was founded upon the intermarriage of several sisters, own and collateral, with each others' husbands, in a group--the joint husbands not being necessarily kinsmen of each other; also, on the intermarriage of several brothers, own and collateral, with each others' wives in a group--these wives not being necessarily of kin to each other, although often the case in both instances (sic). In each case the group of men were conjointly married to the group of women.

"III. _The Syndyasmian or Pairing Family._--It was founded upon marriage between single pairs, but without an exclusive cohabitation. The marriage continued during the pleasure of the parties.

"IV. _The Patriarchal Family._--It was founded upon the marriage of one man with several wives, followed in general by the seclusion of the wives.

"V. _The Monogamian Family._--It was founded upon marriage between single pairs with an exclusive cohabitation.

"Three of these forms, namely, the first, second, and fifth, were radical, because they were sufficiently general, and influential to create three distinct systems of consanguinity, all of which still exist in living forms. Conversely, these systems are sufficient of themselves to prove the antecedent existence of the forms of the family and of marriage with which they severally stand connected."

Morgan makes the systems of nomenclature proofs of the existence of the Consanguine and Punaluan families. Unhappily, there is no other proof, and the same systems have been explained on a very different principle (McLennan, _Studies in Ancient History_). Looking at facts, we find the Consanguine family nowhere, and cannot easily imagine how early groups abstained from infringing on each other, and created a systematic marriage of brothers and sisters. St Augustine, however (De civ. Dei, xv. 16), and Archinus in his _Thessalica_ (_Odyssey_, xi. 7, scholia B, Q) agree more or less with Morgan. Next, how did the Consanguine family change into the Punaluan? Morgan says (_Ancient Society_) brothers ceased to marry their sisters, because "the evils of it could not for ever escape human observation." Thus the Punaluan family was hit upon, and "created a distinct system of consanguinity" (_Ancient Society_), the Turanian. Again, "marriages in Punaluan groups explain the relationships in the system." But Morgan provides himself with another explanation, "the Turanian system owes its origin to marriage in the group _and_ to the gentile organization." He calls exogamy "the gentile organization," though, in point of fact, the only gentes we know, the Roman gentes, show scarcely a trace of exogamy. Again, "the change of relationships which resulted from substituting Punaluan in the place of Consanguine marriage turns the Malayan into the Turanian system." On the same page Morgan attributes the change to the "gentile organization," and, still on the same page, uses _both_ factors in his working out of the problem. Now, if the Punaluan marriage is a sufficient explanation, we do not need the "gentile organization." Both, in Morgan's opinion, were efforts of conscious moral reform. In _Systems of Consanguinity_ the gentile organization (there called tribal), that is, exogamy, is said to have been "designed to work out a reformation in the intermarriage of brothers and sisters." But the Punaluan marriage had done that, otherwise it would not have produced (as Morgan says it did) the change from the Malayan to the Turanian system, the difference in the two systems, as exemplified in Seneca and Tamil, being "in the relationships which depended on the intermarriage or non-intermarriage of brothers and sisters" (_Ancient Society_). Yet the Punaluan family, though itself a reform in morals and in "breeding," "did not furnish adequate motives to reform the Malay system," which, as we have seen, it did reform. The Punaluan family, it is suspected, "frequently involved own brothers and sisters"; had it not been so, there would have been no need of a fresh moral reformation,--"the gentile organization." Yet even in the Punaluan family (_Ancient Society_) "brothers ceased to marry their own sisters." What, then, did the "gentile organization" do for men? As they had already ceased to marry their own sisters, and as, under the gentile organization, they were still able to marry their half-sisters, the reformatory "ingenuity" of the inventors of the organizations was at once superfluous and useless. It is impossible to understand the Punaluan system. Its existence is inferred from a system of nomenclature which it does (and does not) produce; it admits (and excludes) own brothers and sisters. Morgan has intended, apparently, to represent the Punaluan marriage as a long transition to the definite custom of exogamy, but it will be seen that his language is not very clear nor his positions assured. He does not adduce sufficient proof that the Punaluan family ever existed as an institution, even in Hawaii. There is, if possible, a greater absence of historical testimony to the existence of the Consanguine family. It is difficult to believe that exogamy was a conscious moral and social reformation, because, _ex hypothesi_, the savages had no moral data, nothing to cause disgust at relations which seem revolting to us. It is as improbable that they discovered the supposed physical evils of breeding in and in. That discovery could only have been made after a long experience, and in the Consanguine family that experience was impossible. Thus, setting moral reform aside as inconceivable, we cannot understand how the Consanguine families ever broke up. Morgan's ingenious speculations as to a transitional step towards the gens (as he calls what we style the totem-kindred), supposed to be found in the "classes" and marriage laws of the Kamilaroi, are vitiated by the weakness and contradictory nature of the evidence (see Pritchard; J.D. Lang's Queensland, Appendix; _Proceedings of American Academy of Arts_, &c., vol. viii. 412; Nature, October 29, 1874). Further, though Morgan calls the Australian "gentile organization" "incipient," he admits (_Ancient Society_) that the Narrinyeri have totem groups, in which "the children are of the clan of the father." Far from being "incipient," the gens of the Narrinyeri is on the footing of the ghotra of Hindu custom. Lastly, though Morgan frequently declares that the Polynesians have not the gens (for he thinks them not sufficiently advanced), W.W. Gill (_Myths and Songs from the South Pacific_, London, 1876) has shown that unmistakable traces of the totem survive in Polynesian mythology.

Rival theories.

4. Morgan's theory was opposed by McLennan (_Studies in Ancient History_, 1876), who maintained that the names of relationships, in the "classificatory system," were merely terms of address, as among ourselves when a preacher calls any adult male "brother," when an old woman is addressed as "mother," when an elder man calls a junior "my son." He also showed that his own system accounted for the terms. The controversy is still alive; one set of writers regarding the savage terms of relationship as indicating a state of things in which human beings dwelt in a "horde," with promiscuous intercourse; another set holding that the terms do not indicate consanguineous kinship, but degrees of age, status, and reciprocal obligations in a local _tribe_, and therefore that they do not yield any presumption that there was a past of promiscuity or of what is called "group marriage." On Morgan's side (not of course accepting all his details) are L. Fison and A.W. Howitt, and Baldwin Spencer and F.J. Gillen. Against him are Starcke, Westermarck, A. Lang, Dr Durkheim, apparently, Crawley and many others.

Evidence of original promiscuity.

5. A second presumption in favour of original promiscuity has been drawn by the eminent Australian students, Baldwin Spencer and F.J. Gillen, and by A.W. Howitt, from the customs of some Australian aborigines. In each tribe, owing to customary laws which are to be examined later, only men and women of a given status are intermarriageable (_nupa_, _noa_, _unawa_) with each other. Though child-betrothals are usual, and though the woman is specialized to one man, who protects and nourishes her and all her children, and though their union is immediately preceded by an extended _jus primae noctis_ (such as Herodotus describes among the Nasamones), yet, among certain tribes, the following custom prevails. At great meetings the tribal leaders assign a woman as paramour (with what amount of permanence remains obscure) to a man (_pirrauru_); one woman may have several _pirrauru_ men, one man several _pirrauru_ women, in addition to their regularly betrothed (_tippa malku_) wives and husbands. The husband occasionally shows fight, and bitter jealousies prevail, but, at the great ceremonial meetings, complaisance is enforced under penalty of strangling. Thenceforth, if the husband permits, the male _pirrauru_ has matrimonial rights over the other man's _tippa malku_ wife when they meet. A symbolic ceremony of union precedes the junction of the _pirrauru_ people. This institution, as far as reported, is peculiar to a group of tribes near Lake Eyre, the Dieri, Urabunna, and their congeners,--or perhaps to all who have the same "phratry" names as the Dieri and Urabunna (_Kiraru_ and _Mattera_, in various dialectic forms).

Elsewhere the _pirrauru_ custom is not known: but almost everywhere there are licentious festivals, in which all marriage rules except those which forbid incest (in our sense of the word, namely between the closest relations) are thrown to the winds. Also a native travelling among alien tribes is lent women of the status into which he may legally marry.

Group marriage.

Baldwin Spencer and F.J. Gillen, and A.W. Howitt, regard _pirrauru_ as "group marriage" and as a proof that, at one time, all intermarriageable people were actually husbands and wives, while the other examples of licence are also survivals, in a later stage of decay, of promiscuity, and "group marriage." To this it is replied that "_group_ marriage" is a misnomer; that if _pirrauru_ be in a sense marriage it is _status_, not _group_ marriage. Again, it is urged, _pirrauru_ is a modification of _tippa malku_, which comes first; a woman is "specialized" to a man _before_ she can be made _pirrauru_ to another, and her tippa _malku husband_ continues to support her, and to recognize her children as his own, after she has become _pirrauru_ to another man or other men. Without the foregoing _tippa malku_ union, the _pirrauru_ unions are not conceivable; they are mere legalized paramourships, modifying the _tippa malku_ marriage (like the Italian cicisbeism); procuring a protector for a woman in her husband's absence, and supplying legal loves for bachelors. The custom is peculiar to a given set of kindred tribes. The festivals are the legalized, restricted and more or less permanent modification of the casual orgies of feasts of licence, or _Saturnalia_, which have their analogies among many people, ancient and modern. _Pirrauru_ is no more a survival of and a proof of primitive promiscuity, than is the legalized incest of ancient Egypt or ancient Peru. If these views be correct the argument for primitive promiscuity derived from _pirrauru_ falls to the ground.

The historical problem.

6. The questions at issue obviously are, was mankind originally promiscuous, with no objections to marriage between persons of the nearest kin; and was the first step in advance the prohibition of marriage (or of amatory intercourse) between brothers and sisters; or did mankind originally live in very small groups, under a jealous sire, who imposed restrictions on intercourse between the young males, his sons, and all the females of the "hearth-circle," who constituted his harem? The problem has been studied, first, in the institutions of savages, notably of the most backward savages, the black natives of Australia; and next, in the light of the habits of the higher mammalia.

As regards Australian matrimonial institutions, it has been known since the date of the _Journals of two Expeditions of Discovery_, by Sir George Grey (1837-1839), that they are very complex and peculiar, in points strongly resembling the customary laws of the more backward Red Indian tribes of North America. Information came in, while McLennan was working, from G. Taplin (_The Narrinyeri_, 1874), from A.W. Howitt and L. Fison, and many other inquirers (in Brough Smyth's _Aborigines of Victoria_, 1878), from Howitt and Fison again (in _Kamilaroi and Kurnai_, 1880), and many essays by these authors, and finally, in _Native Tribes of Central Australia_ (1899) and _Northern Tribes of Central Australia_ (1904), by Baldwin Spencer and F.J. Gillen; and in Howitt's _Native Tribes of South-East Australia_ (1904), with R. Roth's _North-West Central Queensland Aborigines_ (1897). All of these are works of very high merit. Knowledge is now much more wide, minute and securely based than it was when McLennan's _Studies in Ancient History_, second series, was posthumously published (1896). We know with certainty that in Australia, among archaic savages who have neither metals, agriculture, pottery nor domesticated animals, a graduated scale of matrimonial institutions exists. First there are _local_ tribes, each tribe having its own dialect; holding a recognized area of territory; and living on friendly terms with neighbouring tribes. Territorial conquest is never attempted. In many cases a knot of tribes of allied dialects and kindred rites may be, or at least is, spoken of as a "nation" by our authorities.

Primitive restrictions on marriage.

7. Customary law is administered by the Seniors, the wise, the magically skilled, who in many cases are "headmen" of local groups or of sets of kindred. As to marriage, persons may wed within the local tribe, or into a neighbouring local tribe, at will, provided that they obey the restrictions of customary law. The local tribe is neither exogamous nor endogamous, any more than is an English county. The restrictions, except where they have become obsolete, fall into six main categories:--

(1) In the most primitive, each tribe consists of two intermarrying and exogamous divisions, which are often styled _phratries_. Each such division has a name, which, when it can be translated, is the name of an animal: in the majority of cases, however, the meaning of the phratry name is lost. In one instance, that of the Euahlayi tribe of north-west New South Wales, the phratry names are said (by Mrs Langloh Parker) to mean "Light Blood" and "Dark Blood." This, as in the theory of the Rev. J. Mathews, _Eagle and Crow_, might be taken to indicate a blending of two distinct _races_.

Taking, for the sake of clearness, tribes whose phratry names mean "Crow" and "Eagle Hawk," every member of the tribe belongs either to Eagle Hawk phratry or to Crow phratry: if to Crow, the man or woman can only marry an Eagle Hawk, if to Eagle Hawk, can only marry a Crow. The children invariably belong to the phratry of the mother, in this most primitive type. Within Eagle Hawk phratry is one set of totem kins, named usually after various species of animals and plants; within Crow phratry is another set of totem kins, named always (except in one region of Central Australia) after a _different_ set of plants and animals. With the exception mentioned (that of the Arunta "nation"), in no tribe does the same totem ever occur in both phratries. Totems and totem names are inherited by the children from the mother, in this primitive type. Thus a man, Eagle Hawk by phratry, Snipe by totem, marries a woman Crow by phratry, Black Duck by totem. His children by her are of phratry Crow, of totem Black Duck. Obviously no person can marry another of his or her own totem, because, in the phratry into which he or she _must_ marry, no man or woman of his or her totem exists. The prohibition extends to members of alien and remote tribes, if of the same totem name.

The same rules exist in the more primitive North American tribes, but as the phratry there has generally, though not always, decayed, the rule, where this has occurred, merely forbids marriage within the totem kin.

(2) We find this type of organization, where the child inherits phratry and totem from the father, not from the mother.

(3) We find tribes in which phratry and totem are inherited from the mother, but an additional rule prevails: the rule of "Matrimonial Classes." By this device, in phratry "Dilbi," there are two classes, "Muri" and "Kubi." In phratry "Kupathin" are two classes, "Ipai" and "Kumbo" (all these names are of unknown meaning). Each child inherits its mother's phratry name and totem name, and also the name of that class of the two in the mother's phratry to which the mother does _not_ belong. No person may marry into his or her own class--practically into his or her own generation: the rule makes parental and filial marriages impossible,--but these never occur even among more primitive tribes which have not the institution of classes. Suppose that the class names are really names of animals and other objects in nature--as in a few cases they actually are. Then the rules, where classes exist, would amount to this: no person may marry another who, by phratry, totem or generation, owns the same hereditary animal name as himself or herself. In practice, where phratries exist, a man who knows a woman's phratry name knows whether or not he may marry her. Where class names exist (even though the phratry name be lost), a man who knows a woman's class name knows whether or not he may marry her. Nothing can be simpler in practice.

(4) The same rules as under (3) exist, but the phratry, totem and class are inherited through the father: the class of the child of course not being the father's, but the linked class in his phratry.

(5) In the fifth category (Central North Australia), while phratry name (if not lost) and totem name are inherited from the father, by a refinement of law which is spreading southwards there are _four_ classes in each phratry (or main exogamous division unnamed), and the choice of a partner in life is thus more restricted than in more primitive tribes.

Arunta customs.

(6) Finally we reach the institutions of the group of tribes called, from the name of the most powerful tribe in the set, "the Arunta nation." They occupy the Macdonnell Ranges and other territory in the very centre of Australia. The Arunta reckon kinship in the male line: their phratry names they have forgotten, in place of phratries eight matrimonial classes regulate marriage. In these respects they resemble most of the central and northern tribes, but present this unique peculiarity, that the same totems may and do exist in _both_ of the opposed intermarrying exogamous divisions consisting of four classes each. It thus results that a man, in the Arunta tribe, may marry a woman of his own totem, if she be in the class with which he may intermarry. This licence is unknown in every other part of the totemic world, and even in the Kaitish tribe of the Arunta nation intertotemic marriages, in practice, almost never occur.

Among the Arunta the totems are only prominent in magical ceremonies, unknown in South-Eastern Australia. At these ceremonies (Intichiuma) the men of the totem do cooperative magic for the benefit of their plant or animal, as part of the tribal food-supply. The members of the totem taste it sparingly on these occasions, apparently under the belief that to do so increases their magical power: the rest of the tribe eat freely. But, as far as denoting kinship or regulating marriage is concerned, the totems, among the Arunta, have no legally important existence. Men and women of the same totem may intermarry, their children need not belong to the totem of either father or mother.

The process by which Arunta totems came thus to differ from those of all other savages is easily understood. Like the other tribes from the centre to the north (including the Urabunna nation, which reckons descent through women), the Arunta believe that the souls of the primal semi-bestial ancestors of the Alcheringa or "dream time" are perpetually reincarnated. This opinion does not affect by itself the usual exogamous character of totemism among the other tribes. The Arunta nation, however, cultivates an additional myth, namely that the primal ancestors, when they sank into the ground, left behind them certain oval stone slabs, with archaic markings, called _churinga nanja_, or "sacred things of the _nanja_." The _nanja_, again, is a tree or rock, fabled to have risen up to mark the spot where a group of primal ancestors, all of one and the same totem in each case (Cats here, Grubs there, Ducks elsewhere), "went into the ground." The souls of these ancestors haunt such spots, especially they haunt the nanja tree or rock, and the stone _churinga nanja_. Each district, therefore, has its own _oknanikilla_ (or local totem centre of the ghosts), Cat ghosts, Grub ghosts, Hakea flower ghosts and so on. These spirits enter into women and are reborn as children. When a child comes to birth, the mother names the oknanikilla in which she conceived it, and, whatever the ghost totem of that place may be, it is the child's totem. Its mother may be a Grub, its father may be a Crow, but if the child was conceived in a Duck, or Cat, or Opossum or Kangaroo locality, it is, by totem, a Cat, Opossum, Duck or Kangaroo. The _churinga nanja_ of its primal ancestor is sought for at the place of the child's conception, and is put into the sacred repository of such objects.

Thus the child does not inherit its totem from father, or from mother, as everywhere else, but _does_ inherit the right to do ceremonies for the paternal totem: a proof that, of old, totems were inherited, as elsewhere, and that in the male line. If totems among the Arunta, as everywhere else, were once arranged on the plan that the same totem never occurs in both exogamous moieties, that arrangement has been destroyed, as was inevitable, by the existing method of allotting totems to children,--not by inheritance,--but at haphazard. By this means (a consequence of the unique Arunta belief about _churinga nanja_) the same totems have got into _both_ exogamous moieties, so that persons of the same totem, but of appropriate matrimonial classes, may marry. This licence is absolutely confined to the limited region in which stone _churinga nanja_ occur.

The whole system is impossible except where descent is reckoned in the male line, for there alone is _local_ totemism possible, and the Arunta system is based on local totemism, _plus_ the _churinga nanja_ and reincarnation beliefs. With reckoning of descent in the female line, no locality can possibly have its _local_ totem: all the totems indiscriminately distributed everywhere: and thus no woman can say in what totemic locality her child was conceived, for there is not and cannot be, with female descent, any totemic _locality_. Now it is admitted that reckoning by female descent is the earlier method, and it is granted that in rites and ceremonies the Arunta are of a relatively advanced and highly organized pattern. Their social organization is local, and they have a kind of local magistracies, hereditary in the male line.

In spite of these facts, Spencer and Gillen conceive that the peculiar totemism of the Arunta is the most primitive type extant (cp. Spencer, _J.A.I._ (N.S.), vol. i. 275-281; and Frazer, _ibid._ 281-288). It is not easy to understand this position, as, without male kinship and consequent local totemism (which are not primitive), and without the _churinga nanja_ (which exist only in a strictly limited area), the Arunta system of non-exogamous totems cannot possibly exist. Again, the other tribes cannot have passed through the Arunta stage, for, if they had, their totems would have existed, as among the Arunta, in _both_ exogamous moieties, and would there remain when they came to be inherited; so that the totems of all these tribes would still be non-exogamous, like those of the Arunta. But this is not the case. Once more, it is clear that the Arunta system has but recently reached their neighbours, the Kaitish, for though they have the _churinga nanja_ belief, and the haphazard method of acquiring totems by local accident, these things have not yet overcome the old traditional reluctance to marry within the totem name. It is not unlawful among the Kaitish; but it is hardly ever done.

Despite these objections, however, Spencer and Gillen hold, as we have said, that, originally, there were no restrictions (or no known restrictions) on marriage. Totems were merely the result of the formation of co-operative magical societies, in the interest of the tribal food supply. Then, in some unknown way, regulations as to marriage were introduced for some unknown purpose, or were involved in some manner not understood. "The traditions of the Arunta," says Spencer, "point to a very definite introduction of an exogamous system long after the totemic groups were fully developed, and, further, they point very clearly to the fact that the introduction was due to the deliberate action of certain ancestors. Our knowledge of the natives leads us to the opinion that it is quite possible that this really took place, that the exogamic groups were deliberately introduced so as to regulate marital relations."

Thus the wisdom of men living promiscuously as regards marriage, but organized in magical societies for the benefit of the common food supply of the local _tribe_ (a complex institution postulated as already in being at this early stage), induced them to institute exogamy. Why they did this, what harm they saw in their promiscuity, we are not informed. Spencer goes on, "by this we do not mean that the regulations had anything whatever to do with the idea of incest, or of any harm accruing from the union of individuals who were regarded as too nearly related.... There was felt the need of some kind of organization, and this gradually resulted in the development of exogamous groups." But as "it is quite possible that the exogamous groups were deliberately introduced to regulate marital relations," and as they could only do so by introducing exogamy, we do not see how that system can be the result of the _gradual_ development of an organization _quelconque_,--of unknown nature. A magical organization already existed (_Journal of the Anthropological Institute_, New Series, i. pp. 284-285).

The traditions of the Arunta seem here to be first accepted: "quite possibly" they are correct in stating that an exogamic system was purposefully introduced, long after totemic groups had arisen, by "the deliberate action of certain ancestors," and then that myth is rejected, in favour of the _gradual_ development of exogamy, "out of some form of organization," unknown.

People who, like the Arunta, have lost memory of the very names of the phratries, cannot conceivably remember the nature of the origin of exogamy. Accustomed as they now are to tribal councils which introduce new rules, they fancy that, in the beginning, new rules were thus introduced.

Conclusion as to Spencer's hypothesis.

Meanwhile the working of magic for the behoof of the totem animals and plants, or rather for the name-giving animals of magical societies, is not known to Howitt among the tribes of primitive social organization, while it is well known among agricultural natives of the Torres Strait Islands and among the advanced Sioux and Omaha of North America. The practice seems to belong rather to the decadence than to the dawn of totemism. On the whole, then, there seem to be insuperable difficulties in the way of Spencer's hypothesis that mankind were promiscuous, as regards marriage, but were organized into cooperative magical groups, athwart which came, in some unexplained way, the rule of exogamy; while, when it did come, all savages except the Arunta arranged matters so that totem kins were exogamous. The reverse was probably the case, totem kins were originally exogamous, and ceased to be so, and even to be kins among the Arunta, in consequence of the _churinga nanja_ creed, becoming co-operative magical societies (Hartland, Marett, Durkheim and others).

Origin of exogamy.

8. Spencer and Gillen leave the origin of exogamy an open question. Howitt supposes that, in the shape of the phratriac division of the tribe into two exogamous moieties, the scheme may have been introduced to the tribal headmen by a medicine man "announcing to his fellow headman a command received from some supernatural being ..." (_Natives of South-East Australia_, pp. 89, 90). The Council, so to speak, of "headmen" accept the divine decree, and the assembled tribe pass the Act. But this explanation explains nothing. Why did the prophet wish to introduce exogamy? Why were names of animals given, in so many cases, to the two exogamous divisions? As Howitt asks (op. cit. p. 153), "How was it that men assumed the names of objects, which in fact must have been the commencement of totemism?"

It is apparent that any theory which begins by postulating the existence of early mankind in promiscuous groups or hordes, into which exogamous moieties are introduced by tribal decree, takes for granted that the _tribe_, with its headman, councils and great meetings (not to mention its inspired prophet, with the tribal "All Father" who inspires him), existed before any rules regulating "marital relations" were evolved. Even if all this were probable, we are not told why a promiscuous tribe thought good to establish exogamous divisions. Some native myths attribute the institution to certain wise ancestors; some to the supernatural "All Father," say Baiame; some to a treaty between Eagle Hawk and Crow, beings of cosmogonic legend, who give names to the phratries. Such myths are mere hypotheses. It is impossible to imagine how early savages, _ex hypothesi_ promiscuous, saw anything to reform in their state of promiscuity. They now think certain unions wrong, because they are forbidden: they were not forbidden, originally, because they were thought wrong.

Westermarck

Westermarck has endeavoured to escape the difficulty thus: "Among the ancestors of man, as among other animals, there was no doubt a time when blood relationship was no bar to sexual intercourse. But variations here, as elsewhere, would naturally present themselves, and those of our ancestors who avoided in and in breeding would survive," while the others would die out. This appears to be orthodox evolutionary language, but it carries us no further. Human societies are not animals or plants, in whose structure various favourable "accidents" occur, producing better types, which survive. We ask _why_ in human society did "variations present themselves"; _why_ did certain sets of human beings "avoid in and in breeding"? We are merely told that some of our ancestors became exogamous and survived, while others remained promiscuous and perished. No light is thrown on the problem,--wherefore did some of our ancestors avoid in and in breeding, and become exogamous? Nothing is gained by saying "thus an instinct would be developed which would be powerful enough, as a rule, to prevent injurious unions." There is no "instinct," there is a tribal law of exogamy. If there had been an "instinct," it might account for the avoidance of "in and in breeding"--that is, it might account for exogamy, _ab initio_. But that is left unaccounted for by the theory which, after maintaining that the avoidance produced the instinct, seems to argue that the instinct produced the avoidance. Westermarck goes on to say that "exogamy, as a natural extension of the instinct, would arise when single families united in small hordes." But, if the single families already had the "instinct," they would not marry within the family: they would be exogamous,--marrying only into other families,--_before_ they "united in small hordes." The difficulty of accounting for exogamy does not seem to have been overcome, and no attempt is made to explain the animal names of totem kins and phratries. Westermarck, however, says that "there is no reason why we should assume, as so many anthropologists have done, that primitive men lived in small endogamous groups, practising incest in every degree," although, as he also says, "there was no doubt a time when blood relationship was no bar to sexual intercourse." If there was no bar, people would "practise incest in every degree,"--what was there to prevent them? (_History of Human Marriage_, pp. 352, 353 (1891)).

Durkheim.

So far we have seen no luminous and consistent account of how mankind became exogamous, if they began by being promiscuous. The theories rest on the idea that man, dwelling in an "undivided horde" (except so far as it was divided into co-operative magical societies), bisected it into two exogamous intermarrying moieties. Durkheim has put forward a theory which is not at all points easily understood. He supposes that, "at the beginning of societies of men, incest was not prohibited ... before each horde (_peuplade_) divided itself into two primitive 'clans' at least" (_L'Annee sociologique_, i. pp. 62, 63). Each of the two "clans" claimed descent from a different animal, which was its totem, and its "god." The two clans were exogamous,--out of respect to the blood of their totem (with which every member of the clan is mystically one), and, being hostile, the two clans raided each other for women. Each clan threw off colonies, which took new totems, new "gods," though still owning some regard to their original clan, from which they had seceded, while abandoning its "god." When the two "primary clans" made alliance and _connubium_, they became the phratries in the local tribe, and their colonies became the totem kins within the phratries.

We are not told why the original horde was disrupted into two hostile and intermarrying "clans": we especially wonder why the horde, if it wanted an animal god, did not choose one animal for the whole community; and we may suspect that a difference of taste in animal "gods" caused the hostility of the two clans. Nor do we see why, if things occurred thus, the totem kins should not represent twenty or thirty differences of religious taste, in the original horde, as to the choice of animal gods. If the horde was going to vary in opinion, it is unlikely that only _two_ factions put forward animal candidates for divinity. Again, a "clan" (a totem kin, with exogamy and descent derived through mothers) cannot overflow its territorial area and be therefore obliged to send out colonies, for such a clan (as Durkheim himself remarks) has no territorial area to overflow. It is not a _local_ institution at all.

While these objections cannot but occur, Durkheim does provide a valid reason for the existence of exogamy. When once the groups (however they got them) had totems, with the usual taboos on any sort of use of the totem by his human kinsfolk, the women of the kin would be tabooed to the men of the same kin. In marrying a maiden of his own totem, a man inevitably violates the sanctity of the blood of the totem (_L'Annee sociologique_, i. pp. 47-57. Cf. Reinach, _Cultes, mythes et religions_, vol. i. pp. 162-166).

Here at last we have a theory which accounts for the "religious horror" that attaches to the violation of the rule of totemic exogamy: a mysterious entity, the totem, is hereby offended. But how did totems, animals, plants and so on, come to be mystically _solidaires_ with their human namesakes and kinsmen? We do not observe that Dr Durkheim ever explains _why_ two divisions of one horde chose each a different animal god, or why the supposed colonies thrown off by these primary clans deserted their animal gods for others, or why, and on what principle, they all chose new "gods,"--fresh animals, plants and other objects. His hereditary totem is, in practice, the last thing that a savage changes. The only case of change on record is a recent attempt to increase the range of legal marriages in a waning Australian tribe, on whose lands certain species of animals are perishing.

Howitt's solution.

Theories based on a supposed primal state of promiscuity certainly encounter, when explaining the social oganization of Australian savages, difficulties which they do not surmount. But Howitt has provided (apparently without fully realizing the merit of his own suggestions) a way out of the perplexities caused by the conception of early mankind dwelling promiscuously in "undivided communes." The way out is practically to say that, in everyday life, they lived in nothing of the sort. Howitt writes (_Native Tribes of South-East Australia_, p. 173): "A study of the evidence ... has led me to the conclusion that the state of society among the early Australians was that of an 'Undivided Commune.'... It is, however, well to guard this expression. I do not desire to imply necessarily the existence of complete and continuous communism between the sexes. The character of the country, the necessity of moving from one point to another in search of game and vegetable food, would cause any Undivided Commune, when it assumed dimensions greater than the immediate locality could provide with food, to break up into two or more Communes of the same character. In addition to this it is clear ... that in the past as now, individual likes and dislikes must have existed, so that, admitting the existence of common rights between the members of the Commune, these rights would remain in abeyance, so far as the separated parts of the Commune were concerned. But at certain gatherings ... or on great ceremonial occasions, all the segments of the original Commune would reunite," and would behave in the fashion now common in great licentious festive meetings.

Primitive promiscuity improbable.

In the early ages contemplated, how can we postulate "great ceremonial occasions" or even peaceful assemblies at fruit-bearing spots? How can we postulate a surviving sense of solidarity among the scattered segments of the Commune, obviously very small, owing to lack of supplies, and perpetually disintegrated? But, taking the original groups as very small, and as ruled by likes and dislikes, by affection and jealousy, we are no longer concerned with a promiscuous horde, but with a little knot of human beings, in whom love, parental affection and the jealousy of sires, would promptly make discriminations between this person and that person, as regards sexual privileges. Thus we have edged away from the hypothesis of the promiscuous indiscriminating horde to the opinion of Darwin. "We may conclude," he says, "from what we know of the jealousy of all male quadrupeds, armed as many of them are with special weapons for battling with their rivals, that promiscuous intercourse in a state of Nature is extremely improbable.... The most probable view is that Man originally lived in small communities, each (man) with a single wife, or, if powerful, with-several, whom he jealously guarded against all other men." But, in a community of this early type, to guard women jealously would mean constant battle, at least when Man became an animal who makes love all the year round. So Darwin adds: "Or man may not have been a social animal, and yet have lived with several wives, like the Gorilla,--for all the natives agree that but one adult male is seen in a band; when the young male grows up a contest takes place for the mastery, and the strongest, by killing or driving out the others, establishes himself as head of the Community. Younger males, being thus expelled and wandering about, would, when at last successful in finding a partner, prevent too close interbreeding within the limits of the same _family_" (_Descent of Man_, ii. pp. 361, 363 (1871)).

Here, then, we have practical Exogamy, as regards unions of brothers and sisters, among man still brutish, while the Sire is husband of the whole harem of females, probably unchecked as regards his daughters.

Atkinson's theory.

On this Darwinian text J.J. Atkinson builds his theory of the evolution of exogamy and of savage society in his _Primal Law_ (_Social Origins and Primal Law_, by Lang and Atkinson, 1903). Paternal jealousy "gave birth to Primal Law, prohibitory of marriage between certain members of a family or local group, and thus, in natural sequence, led to _forced_ connubial selection _beyond_ its circle, that is, led to Exogamy ... as a _habit_, not as an expressed law...." The "expressed law" was necessarily a later development; conditioned by the circumstances which produced totemism, and sanctioned, as on Durkheim's scheme, by the totemic taboo. Atkinson worked out his theory by a minute study of customs of avoidance between near kin by blood or affinity; by observations on the customs of animals, and by hypotheses as to the very gradual evolution of human restrictions through many modifications. He also gave a theory of the "classificatory" system of names for relationships opposed to that of Morgan. The names are based merely "on reference to relativity of age of a class in relation to the group." The exogamous moieties of a tribe (phratries) are not the result of a reformatory legislative bisection of the tribe, but of the existence of "two intermarrying totem clan groups." The whole treatise, allowing for defects caused by the author's death before the book was printed, is highly original and ingenious. The author, however, did not touch on the evolution of totemism.

Lang's system.

9. The following system, as a means of making intelligible the evolution of Australian totemic society, is proposed by the present writer. We may suggest that men originally lived in the state of "the Cyclopean family" of Atkinson; that is, in Darwin's "family group," containing but one adult male, with the females, the adolescent males being driven out, to find each a female mate, or mates, elsewhere if they can. With increase of skill, improvements in implements and mitigation of ferocity, such groups may become larger, in a given area, but men may retain the habit of seeking mates outside the limits of the group of contiguity; the "avoidance" of brothers and sisters may already have arisen. Among the advanced Arunta, now, a man may speak freely to his elder sisters; to younger sisters, or "tribal sisters," he may not speak, "or only at such a distance that the features are indistinguishable." This archaic rule of avoidance would be a step facilitating the permission to adult males to dwell in their paternal group, avoiding their sisters. Such groups, whether habitually exogamous or not, will require names for each other, and various reasons would yield a preference to names derived from animals. These are easily signalled in gesture language; are easily presented in pictographs and tattooing; are even now, among savages and boys, the most usual sort of _personal_ nicknames; and are widely employed as _group_ names of villagers in European folk-lore. Among European rustics such group sobriquets are usual, but are resented. The savage, with his ideas of the equality or superiority of animals to himself, sees nothing to resent in an animal sobriquet, and the names, originally group sobriquets, would not find more difficulty in being accepted than "Whig," "Tory," "Huguenot," "Cavalier," "Christian," "Cameronian,"--all of them originally nicknames given from without. Again, "Wry Nose" and "Crooked Mouth" are _derisive_ nicknames, but they are the translations of the ancient Celtic clan names Cameron and Campbell. The nicknames "Naked Dogs," "Liars," "Buffalo Dung," "Men who do not laugh," "Big Topknots," have been thoroughly accepted by the "gentes" of the Blackfoot Indians, now passing out of Totemism (Grinnell, _Blackfoot Lodge Tales_, pp. 208-225).

As Howitt writes, "the assumption of the names of objects by men must in fact have been the origin of totemism." Howitt does not admit the theory that the totem names came to arise in this way, but this way is a _vera causa_. Names must be given either from within or from without. A group, in savagery, has no need of a name for itself; "we" are "we," or are "The Men"; for all other adjacent groups names are needed. The name of one totem, _Thaballa_, "The Laughing Boy" totem, among the Warramunga and another tribe, is quite transparently a nickname, as is _Karti_, "The Grown-up Men" (Spencer and Gillen, _Northern Tribes of Central Australia_, p. 207).

There is nothing, prima facie, which renders this origin of animal, plant and other such names for early savage groups at all improbable. They would not even be resented, as now are the animal names for villagers in the Orkneys, the Channel Islands, France, Cornwall and in ancient Israel (for examples see _Social Origins_, pp. 295-301). The names once accepted, and their origin forgotten, would be inevitably regarded as implying a mystic _rapport_ between the bestial and the human namesakes, Crow, Eagle Hawk, Grub, Bandicoot, Opossum, Emu, Kangaroo and so on (see NAME). On this subject it is enough to cite J.G. Frazer, in _The Golden Bough_ (2nd ed., vol. i. pp. 404-446). Here will be found a rich and satisfactory collection of proof that community of name implies mystic _rapport_. Professor Rhys is quoted for the statement that probably "the whole Aryan race believed at one time not only that the name was a part of the man, but that it was that part of him which is termed the soul." In such a mental stage the men "Crows" identify themselves with the actual Crow species: the birds are now "of their flesh," are fabled to be their ancestors, or the men have been evolved out of the birds. The Crow is sacro-sanct, a friend and protector, and a centre of taboos, one of which is the prohibition preventing a Crow man from intercourse with a Crow woman, "however far apart their hunting grounds may have been." All men and women Crows are recognized as brothers and sisters in the Crow, and are not intermarriageable.

On these lines the prohibition to infringe the totem taboo by marriage within the totem name is intelligible, but the system of phratries has yet to be accounted for. It is obvious that the names could only have been given originally to _local_ groups: the people who held this or that local habitation received the name. Suppose that the rule of each such group, or heart circle, had been "no marriage within the local group or camp," as in Atkinson's scheme. When the groups accept their new names, the rule becomes, "no marriage within local group Eagle Hawk, group Crow," and so on. So far the animal giving the group name may not yet have become a revered totem. The result of the rule would inevitably be, in three or four generations, that in groups Crow or Eagle Hawk, there were no Crows or Eagle Hawks _by descent_, if the children took the names of descent from their mothers; for the sake of differentiation: the Ant woman's children in local group Crow being Ants, the Grub woman's children being Grubs, the Eagle Hawk woman's children being Eagle Hawks,--all in local group Crow, and inheriting the names of the local groups whence their mothers were brought into local group Crow.

By this means (indicated first by McLennan) each member of a local group would have a _local_ group name, say Eagle Hawk, and a name by _female descent_, say Kangaroo, in addition, as now, to his or her personal name. In this way, all members of each local group would find, in any other local group, people of his name of descent, and, as the totem belief grew to maturity, kinsmen of his in the totem. When this fact was realized, it would inevitably make for peace among all contiguous groups. In place of taking women by force, at the risk of shedding kindred blood, peaceful betrothals between men and women of different local group names and of different names by descent could be arranged. Say that local groups Eagle Hawk and Crow took the lead in this arrangement of alliance and _connubium_, and that (as they would naturally flourish in the strength conferred by union) the other local groups came into it, ranging themselves under Eagle Hawk and Crow, we should have the existing primitive type of organization: Local Groups Eagle Hawk (_Mukwara_) and Crow (_Kilpara_) would have become the widely diffused phratries, _Mukwara_ and _Kilpara_, with all the totem kins within them.

But, on these lines, some members of any totem kin, say Cat, would be in phratry Eagle Hawk, some would be in phratry _Kilpara_ as now (for the different reason already indicated) among the Arunta. Such persons were in a quandary. By _phratry_ law, as being in opposite phratries, a Cat in Eagle Hawk' phratry could marry a Cat in Crow phratry. But, by totem law, this was impossible. To avoid the clash of law, all Cats had to go into one phratry or the other, either into Eagle Hawk or into Crow.

Two whole totem kins were in the same unhappy position. The persons who were Eagle Hawks by _descent_ could not be in Eagle Hawk local group, now phratry, as we have already shown. They were in Crow phratry, they could not, by phratry law, marry in their own phratry, and to marry in Eagle Hawk was to break the old law, "no marriage within the _local_ group name." Their only chance was to return to Eagle Hawk phratry, while Crow totem kin went into Crow phratry, and thus we often find, in fact, that in Australian phratries _Mukwara_ (Eagle Hawk) there is a totem kin Eagle Hawk, and in _Kilpara_ phratry (Crow) there is a totem kin Crow. This arrangement--the totem kin within the phratry of its own name--has long been known to exist in America. The Thlinkets have Raven phratry, with totem kins Raven, Frog, Goose, &c., and Wolf phratry, with totem kins Wolf, Bear, Eagle, &c. (Frazer, _Totemism_, pp. 61, 62 (1887)). In Australia the fact has hitherto escaped observation, because so many phratry names are not translated, while, though _Mukwara_ and _Kilpara_ are translated, the Eagle Hawk and Crow totem kins within them bear other names for the same birds, more recent names, or tribal native names, such as _Biliari_ and _Waa_, while _Mukwara_ and _Kilpara_ may have been names borrowed, within the institution of phratries, from some alien tribe now perhaps extinct.

We have now sketched a scheme explanatory of the most primitive type of social organization in Australia. The tendency is for phratries first to lose the meanings of their names, and, next, for their names to lapse into oblivion, as among the Arunta; the work of regulating marriage being done by the opposed Matrimonial Classes.

These classes are obviously an artificial arrangement, intended to restrict marriage to persons on the same level as generations. The meanings of the class names are only known with certainty in two cases, and then are names of animals, while there is reason to suspect that animal names occur in four or five of the eight class-names which, in different dialect forms, prevail in central and northern Australia. Conceivably the new class regulations made use of the old totemic machinery of nomenclature. But until Australian philologists can trace the original meanings of Class names, further speculation is premature.

Breaking up of totemism.

10. Much might be said about the way out of totemism. When once descent and inheritance are traced through males, the social side of totemism begins to break up. One way out is the Arunta way, where totems no longer designate kinships. In parts of America totems are simply fading into heraldry, or into magical societies, while the "gentes," once totemic, have acquired new names, often local, as among the Sioux, or mere sobriquets, as among the Blackfeet. In Melanesia the phratries, whether named or nameless, have survived, while the totems have left but a few traces which some consider disputable (_Social Origins_, pp. 176-184). Among the Bantu of South Africa the _tribes_ have sacred animals (_Siboko_), which may be survivals of the totems of the chief local totem group, with male descent in the tribe, the whole of which now bears the name of the sacred animal. Even in Australia, among tribes where there is reckoning of descent in the male line, and where there are no matrimonial classes, the tendency is for totems to dwindle, while exogamy becomes _local_, the rule being to marry out of the _district_, not out of the _kin_ (Howitt, _Native Tribes of South-East Australia_, pp. 270-272; cf. pp. 135-137).

The problem as to why, among savages all on the same low level of material culture, one tribe derives descent through women, while its nearest neighbouring tribe, with ceremonies, rites, beliefs and myths like its own, and occupying lands of similar character in a similar climate, traces descent through men, seems totally insoluble. Again, we find that the civilized Lycians, as described by Herodotus (