164 
CHINESE MARRIAGES. 
husband does not convey his rank or quality : vide, e.g. definitions 
of 4 concubine ’ and 4 concubinage ’ in Webster’s Unabridged Dic- 
tionary and in Wharton’s Law Lexicon quoting John’s Biblical 
Antiquities. 
44 If this view is true of the concubine of the Pentateuch it is 
certainly true of the t’sip. Abraham from motives of policy pre- 
sented Sarai his wife, 44 a fair woman to look upon ” as his sister 
to more than one royal suitor. The Pharaoh of the period met 
with great plagues in consequence — Ahimelech of Gerar received 
timely warning 44 in a dream by night.” 
“ Under the Maneliu Code Abraham would have received one 
hundred blows even for dealing by Ha, gar or Keturah his t’sips as 
he did by Sarai his wife. 
44 Again, if Staunton is right in his interpretation of section 
116 of the Code, Abraham would have suffered castigation for his 
action in turning Hagar out into the wilderness merely to appease 
the jealousy of Sarai. 
44 Sentiment and the material feelings are doubtless often in- 
fluences in the selection of a t’sip. The man’s guardian chooses 
his t’sai. He chooses his t’sip for himself. There is a proverb 
to the effect that a t’sai is taken for her virtue, a t’sip for her 
beauty. 
44 But it seems to be fully accepted that the taking of a t’sip 
is authorised in order to the fulfilment of the dictates of filial piety 
which requires male issue for 'the purpose of ancestor worship. 
44 There does not seem to be any need to review what has been 
shown before the Courts on former occasions as to the status of 
the children of the t’sip. It is enough to say that in some respects 
there is no distinction drawn between them and the children of the 
t’sai while the sons of the t’sip have their place in the order of 
succession to the inheritance and to hereditary dignities. They 
also share, though not on equal terms, in the patrimony. 
44 Herr von Mollendorf has compared the unions of the t’sai 
and of the t’sip to connubium and concubinatus respectively. This 
may stand as a rough comparison. The union of the t’sai ap- 
proaches justae nuptiae as nearly as the East can approach the 
West. But whereas the offspring of concubinatus did not come 
under the patria potestas except by process of legitimation, the 
offspring of tire t’sip are subject to it as an incident of their birth. 
44 English law cannot conceive of varying degrees of legitimacy 
of birth or marriage. Birth can be either legitimate or illegiti- 
mate and the union between man and woman can be either lawful 
or illicit. There is no middle state. It does not seem possible 
to interpret the status of the children of the t’sip as anything 
but that of legitimate children. They are fully recognised. Nor 
does it seem possible to hold that children whom we must accept 
as legitimate can have sprung from an union which remains illicit. 
Jour. Straits Branch 
