Although our information on these points is scanty, these few hints seem to prove that there were some infringements of the father's liberty from outside. How far they were _legal_ is difficult to ascertain. At any rate we see that the father's authority was rather limited by legal factors than enhanced. But even if this be an exceptional instance, and if as a rule nobody could interfere with the father in whatever he was pleased to do with his children--a supposition which seems fairly to agree with the general authority of the husband and the isolation of families--it must still be remembered that the father as a matter of fact never made use of his unrestricted authority. In the first place, as will be plainly shown below, the father's contact with and exclusive influence over his children ceased at the moment they reached puberty. Our question is therefore limited to the period before reaching puberty (in the boys perhaps even sooner, from about seven to ten years; see below), and _eo ipso_ loses a great deal of its contents. A small child living with its parents alone in the wilderness is naturally entirely in their hands and at their mercy. But it would be a fallacy to lay any stress on that point. As our statements show, the child is protected against any ill-treatment, or even against any severity from either of its parents, by their own feelings much better than it could be by any legal measures. And the fact remains that the father's _potestas_ or authority (or whatever any kind of coercive power may be called) is by no means a characteristic feature of his relation to his children, for according to aboriginal custom and psychology, any element of that kind is absolutely absent from their family life. In other words we may say that our information on the regulation of paternal authority in the few cases where it can come into play is very scanty. Probably there are no rules, or only a few,[751] and the father is more or less free to dispose of his child. But I mentioned some contradictory instances, and I would not lay any stress on that assertion. What appears to be quite clear is that paternal authority does not play any important part in family life; for the parental relation is a _régime_ of love, and not of coercion. And considering that we know very little about the father's authority and only feel sure that it is insignificant, it cannot be reasonably chosen as a determining factor of the paternal relation. [751] As mentioned above it is impossible to say how far such rules are legal, _i. e._ laid down and _enforced_ by society.