It has been suggested by Sir Henry Maine and others that the _patria potestas_ of the Romans was a survival of the paternal authority which existed among the primitive Aryans.[1419] But no clear evidence of the general prevalence of such unlimited authority among other Indo-European peoples has been adduced. Justinian justly observed, “The power which we have over our children is peculiar to Roman citizens; for there are no other men possessing such a power over their children as we have.”[1420] That the father, among the Greeks, Germans, and Celts, had the power to expose his children when they were very young and to sell his marriageable daughters, does not imply the possession of a sovereignty like that which the Roman house-father exercised over his descendants at all ages. As, however, the family institution seems to have had a religious basis among the early Aryans, the father probably had a higher authority than he has among any existing uncivilized people.
According to Sir Henry Maine, the fulness of the ancient Hindu _patria potestas_ may be safely inferred from the veneration which even a living father must have inspired under a system of ancestor-worship.[1421] At a later date, the law-book of Manu declares that three persons—a wife, a son, and a slave—have in general no wealth exclusively their own; the wealth which they may earn being regularly acquired for the man to whom they belong.[1422] A more recent, but still ancient authority, Narada, says that a son is “of age and independent, in case his parents be dead; during their lifetime he is dependent, even though he be grown old.”[1423] And, speaking of the South of India, Mr. Nelson observes, “It is an undoubted fact that, amongst the so-called Hindus of the Madras Province, the father is looked upon by all at the present day as the Rajah or absolute Sovereign of the family that depends upon him. He is entitled to reverence during his life, as he is to worship after his death. His word is law, to be obeyed without question or demur. He is emphatically the ‘Master’ of his family, of his wife, of his sons, of his slaves, and of his wealth.”[1424] But, on the other hand, it appears from the ‘Rig-Veda’ that, among the ancient Hindus, the father was the head of the family only as long as he was able to be its protector and maintainer,[1425] decrepit parents being even allowed to die of starvation,—a custom which was prevalent among the ancient Teutons and Eranians.[1426] Moreover, according to the ‘Laws of Manu,’ a daughter might choose her husband in accordance with her own wish. This permission, however, seems to have been an innovation, as Manu himself disapproves of such a “voluntary union of a maiden and her lover, ... which springs from desire and has sexual intercourse for its purpose.”[1427] The four marriages—Brâhma, Daiva, Ârsha, and Prâgâpatya—in which the father gives away his daughter, are blessed marriages, and from them spring sons radiant with knowledge of the Veda, honoured by good men, and destined to live a hundred years. But the remaining four marriages—those effected by purchase, voluntary union, forcible abduction, or stealth—are blamable marriages, from which spring sons who are cruel and untruthful, who hate the Veda and the sacred law.[1428] Among the ancient Persians also, marriage contracted with the woman’s own consent, but against the will of her parents, was looked upon as the worst kind of marriage.[1429] In India,[1430] as well as in Persia,[1431] children were often affianced in earliest youth by their parents.