Volume 1

The history of Melanesian society / by W.H.R. Rivers.

  • Rivers, W. H. R. (William Halse Rivers), 1864-1922.
Date:
1914
    corresponding terms are often used by two sisters. Such distinction according to age is, on the other hand, rare, if not unknown, in the case of the brother-sister relationship. A similar distinction usually applies also to distant relatives who under the classificatory principle receive the same name as the brother or sister. A man distinguishes all men of his clan and of his own generation and others whom he calls by the same term as his brothers, as elder or younger, but this does not always depend on the actual relative age. It may depend on this or it may depend on the relative ages of two persons from whom the men are descended. Thus, in the case of the grandsons of two brothers, the grandson of the elder brother may be addressed as elder in some systems even if he is actually younger than the speaker. This distinction according to age is also often applied to the brothers of the father, usually by means of words meaning “great” and “little” respectively, and this may be carried so far that the actual father, if a cadet of his family, will be only a “little father” while his elder brother, the uncle of the speaker, will be “great father,” and this superiority of de¬ signation may even carry with it a higher degree of respect and honour; the “ great father ” or uncle will be honoured more than the real father. Owing to these and many other differences between the classificatory system and such a system as our own, English terms of relationship have no real equivalents in the languages of those who use the classificatory system, while the terms of Polynesia and Melanesia are without real equivalents in our language. Consequently there would seem to be endless scope for misunderstanding if English terms of relationship are used in the description of classificatory systems. It would seem as if the only really satisfactory plan would be to employ symbols for the different relationships and it is probable that the time will come when this will be done and many parts of the description of the social systems of savage tribes will resemble a work on mathematics in which the results will be expressed by symbols, in some cases even in the form of equations. The adoption of such a practice at the present time does not seem advisable. The technicality of the subject is already so great that such use of symbols would probably deter most from reading the book at all and thus defeat its chief end, viz., the demonstration of the vast importance of
    these systems and the urgent need for their systematic collec¬ tion throughout the world. We must wait till the subject has become far more familiar than it is at present, even to professed anthropologists, before such symbolic representation will become advisable. It is clear that, in a book such as this which deals exclu¬ sively with classificatory systems of various kinds, our familiar English terms will have to be used in an unfamiliar way and it therefore becomes necessary to define as closely as possible the sense in which they will be used. It will hardly be possible to say in every case whether terms are being used in the classificatory or the ordinary English sense and since all the systems described and discussed in this book are of the classificatory kind, it may be laid down as a general rule that in future the English terms of relationship must be taken in the classificatory sense except when the contrary is stated or when the context makes it clear that they are being used in the English sense. Thus, in general, if I say that a man marries his father’s sister, I shall mean that he marries a woman who has the same status and is denoted by the same name as the own sister of his own father. The only general exception to this rule will be in the case of the terms “husband” and “wife,” which I shall use in the customary English sense, including under this sense the status involved in simple polygyny or polyandry. English terms of relationship, however, differ very greatly in definiteness of meaning and there are certain terms which it will often be convenient to use the connotation of which must be more carefully considered. There are certain English terms of relationship such as father, mother, son, daughter, brother and sister which, except when used in a metaphorical sense, are definitely limited to single persons, or to small groups of persons, all related in the same way. There are others, such as grandfather, grandmother, grandson and granddaughter, uncle, aunt, nephew and niece, which include relatives of different kinds, often, and indeed usually, distinguished in classificatory systems; and there is a third group, such as cousin, brother-in-law and sister-in-law which are used very vaguely, including a wide circle of relatives. If, as has been settled, English terms of relationship are to be used in this book, it might seem necessary for purposes of accuracy to use only the first group of terms which have clear and
    unambiguous meanings, and in referring to grandparents or cousins to speak always of the father’s father or mother’s father; of the child of the father’s brother or the child of the mother’s brother, etc. Such a practice if carried out systematically would, I am afraid, give the descriptions and discussions of this book an almost unendurable severity and it will often be convenient to use the less definite terms. I give therefore a brief account of the connotation of several of the more ambiguous terms and state how I propose to use them. Uncle and aunt. These terms include two distinct classes of relative, the brother and sister of the father and the brother and sister of the mother. As a rule I shall only use these terms with the qualification “paternal” or “maternal,” except when the context makes the exact meaning quite obvious. Similarly, the terms nephew and niece will only be used when it is clear whether they apply to the child of a brother or sister. Grandparent and grandchild. As used among ourselves there are two kinds of grandfather, the father’s father and the mother’s father, and two corresponding kinds of grandmother, and similarly two kinds of grandson or granddaughter, the son’s child and the daughter’s child, and since there are often different terms for these different kinds in the systems to be recorded they must be distinguished. I shall only use the terms “grandparent” or “grandchild” either with the necessary qualification or when the context makes the exact meaning perfectly clear. Cousin. This is liable to be a most misleading and dangerous term when dealing with the classificatory system, and yet for the purpose of brevity it will often be convenient to use it. We often apply the term to those of a generation different from our own, as when we speak of a cousin once or twice removed, but whenever I use the term “cousin ” it may be taken as certain that this sense is absolutely excluded. In the more limited sense there are four kinds of cousin, the children respectively of the father’s brother, the father’s sister, the mother’s brother and the mother’s sister, and when I use the term “ cousin ” without qualification it may be taken as a general term for all these relatives, the terms brother and sister in the relationships just mentioned being used in the classificatory sense, so as to include those whom we should call first, second, and third cousins.
    Often in the classificatory system these four kinds of cousin are grouped in two categories ; the children of the fathers brother and of the mother’s sister fall into one category and those of the mothers brother and of the father’s sister into another. Another way of putting this distinction is that the children of two brothers or of two sisters fall into one category and the children of a brother and sister into the other. It may help the reader to grasp the necessity for, and meaning of,, these two categories if I point out that with exogamy the children of two brothers or of two sisters will or may belong to the same social group, while the children of brother and sister must necessarily belong to different social groups. It will often be convenient to have a term by means of which cousins, the children of brother and sister, may be distinguished from cousins, the children of two brothers or of two sisters, and I propose to call the former “cross-cousins,” adopting this from the expression “cross¬ cousin marriage” introduced by Professor Tylor. This re¬ lationship is so important and often so fundamental and will have to be so often considered in Melanesia that it will be convenient to have some simple term to denote it. Parents-in-law. There are four possible kinds of parent- in-law ; the wife’s father and mother and the husband’s father and mother, and in some forms of the classificatory system each is denoted by a separate term. Whenever I use the term “ parent-in-law ” all four kinds will be understood to be included and when the father- or mother-in-law is mentioned, it will be understood that both wife’s and hus¬ band’s father in the one case and wife’s and husband’s mother in the other case are included, except when the context makes it clear that only one of these relatives is intended. Brother- and sister-in-law. I do not know whether it is generally recognised that these terms, even when used in their more limited sense, denote no less than eight different relatives who are not only often distinguished in the classifi¬ catory system but also differ in very important social functions. In addition to the more strict usage, the terms in question are also often used in English for other relationships such as that set up between men who have married sisters or women who have married brothers and these again are often denoted by quite distinct terms in classificatory systems. It may assist in the understanding of the subject if I point
    out that the eight relatives called brother- or sister-in-law in the more strict English sense may be grouped together in four relationships ; one existing between men, a second be¬ tween women, and the other two between men and women. The first relationship is that between a man and his wife’s brother, or reciprocally between a man and his sister’s husband. The second relationship is that between a woman and her husband’s sister, or reciprocally between a woman and her brother’s wife. The third relationship is between a man and his wife’s sister, which is reciprocally that between a woman and her sister’s husband. The fourth and last relationship is that between a man and his brother’s wife, which is recipro¬ cally that between a woman and her husband’s brother. It may be mentioned here that in many classificatory systems these relationships are denoted in a manner closely analogous to that used for brothers and sisters, i.e. there is a term to denote the relationship between men; sometimes the same, sometimes another term, to denote the relationship between women ; and other terms to denote the relationships between men and women. The English terms include so many different relatives that I shall use them very rarely and only when the context makes it quite clear to which category or categories of relationship reference is being made. I have already referred to the fact that in many forms of the classificatory system a brother or sister is denoted by one term when a man is speaking and by another term when a woman is speaking. The same is true of relatives by marriage, as when the relationship between a man and his brother’s wife is denoted by one name and that between a woman and her brother’s wife by another. The same also holds good, though more rarely, of other relationships; thus, in some systems a man and his wife use different terms for their children or for their son’s children or their daughter’s children. In consequence it is often necessary to indicate whether a man or woman is speaking, and this will be done throughout this book by inserting after the relationship the letters (m. s.) or (w. s.), (man speaking) and (woman speaking) respectively. In Melanesia terms of relationship are generally used together with a possessive pronoun, often in the form of an inseparable suffix. Further, in some cases the form of the possessive is different in different relationships and it is pro¬ bable that these differences are of considerable significance.