CHAPTER XX

THE FORMS OF HUMAN MARRIAGE

Most of the lower animal species are by instinct either monogamous or polygynous. With man, every possible form of marriage occurs. There are marriages of one man with one woman (monogamy), of one man with many women (polygyny), of many men with one woman (polyandry), and, in a few exceptional cases, of many men with many women.

Polygyny was permitted by most of the ancient peoples with whom history acquaints us, and is, in our day, permitted by several civilized nations and the bulk of savage tribes.

The ancient Chibchas practised polygyny to a large extent.[2628] Among the Mexicans[2629] and the Peruvian Incas,[2630] a married man might have, besides his legitimate wife, less legitimate wives or concubines. The same is the case in China and Japan, where the children of a concubine have the same legal rights as the children of a wife.[2631] In Corea, the mandarins are even bound by custom, besides having several wives, to retain several concubines in their “yamen.”[2632]

Tradition shows polygyny and concubinage to have been customary among the Hebrews during the patriarchal age. Esau married Judith and Basemath, Jacob married Leah and Rachel.[2633] Later on, we read of Solomon, who had “seven hundred wives, princesses, and three hundred concubines;”[2634] and of Rehoboam, who “took eighteen wives and threescore concubines.”[2635] Indeed, polygyny was so much a matter of course that the law did not even criticize it.[2636] According to the Talmudic right also, it was permitted, though the number of legitimate wives was restricted to four.[2637] Among European Jews, it was still practised during the Middle Ages, and, among Jews living in Mohammedan countries, it occurs even to this day.[2638] The Korân allows a man to take four legitimate wives,[2639] and he may take as many concubines as he likes. Between a wife and a concubine the difference is, indeed, not great: the former has her father as her protector, whilst the latter is defenceless against the husband.[2640] A slave, on the other hand, is not permitted to have more than two wives at the same time.[2641]

Diodorus Siculus informs us that the Egyptians were not restricted to any number of wives, but that everyone married as many as he chose, with the exception of the priesthood, who were by law confined to one consort.[2642] The Egyptians had concubines also, most of whom appear to have been foreign women—war-captives or slaves; and these were members of the family, ranking next to the wives and children of their lord, and probably enjoying a share of the property after his death.[2643] With regard to the Assyrians, Professor Rawlinson states that, so far as we have any real evidence, their kings appear as monogamists; but he thinks it is probable that they had a certain number of concubines.[2644] In Media, on the other hand, polygyny was commonly practised among the more wealthy classes;[2645] and the Persian kings, particularly in later times, had a considerable number of wives and concubines.[2646]

None of the Hindu law-books restricts the number of wives whom a man is permitted to marry.[2647] We find undoubted cases of polygyny in the hymns of the ‘Rig-Veda,’[2648] and several passages in the ‘Laws of Manu’ provide for a plurality of wives without any restriction.[2649] Speaking of the modern Hindus, Mr. Balfour says, “By the law a Hindu may marry as many wives, and by custom keep as many concubines, as he may choose.”[2650]

The Greeks of the Homeric age frequently had concubines, who lived in the same house as the man’s family, and were regarded half as wives.[2651] Polygyny, in the fullest sense of the term, appears to be ascribed to Priam, but to no one else.[2652] At a later period a kind of concubinage seems to have been recognized in Greece by law, and scarcely proscribed by public opinion;[2653] and bigamy was practised by the tyrants in some of the Greek colonies.[2654] The Romans were more strictly monogamous. Among them, concubinage was always well distinguished from legal marriage, and, according to Rossbach, was much less common in early times than subsequently.[2655]

Among the Teutons, at the beginning of their history, we come across plurality of wives in the West,[2656] and especially in the North. The Scandinavian kings indulged in polygyny,[2657] and it does not seem to have been restricted to them only.[2658] Nor was it unknown to the pagan Russians.[2659] In the Finnish poems, though polygyny is not mentioned, there are passages which seem to indicate that it was not entirely unheard of among the Finns of early times.[2660]

Even in the Christian world open polygyny has occasionally been permitted, or at least tolerated. It was frequently practised by the Merovingian kings, and one law of Charles the Great seems to imply that it was not unknown even among priests.[2661] Soon after the Peace of Westphalia, bigamy was allowed in some German States where the population had been largely reduced during the Thirty Years’ War. And in modern Europe polygyny, as Mr. Spencer remarks, long survived in the custom which permitted princes to have many mistresses; “polygyny in this qualified form remaining a tolerated privilege of royalty down to late times.”[2662] Moreover, St. Augustin said expressly that he did not condemn polygyny;[2663] and Luther allowed Philip the Magnanimous of Hessen, for political reasons, to marry two women. Indeed, he openly declared that, as Christ is silent about polygyny, he could not forbid the taking of more than one wife.[2664] The Mormons, as all the world knows, regard polygyny as a divine institution.

Among many savage peoples polygyny is developed to an extraordinary extent. In Unyoro, according to Emin Pasha, it would be absolutely improper for even a small chief to have fewer than ten or fifteen wives, and poor men have three or four each.[2665] Serpa Pinto tells us of a minister in the Barôze, who at the time of his visit to that country had more than seventy wives.[2666] In Fiji, the chiefs had from twenty to a hundred wives;[2667] and, among all of the North American tribes visited by Mr. Catlin, “it is no uncommon thing to find a chief with six, eight, or ten, and some with twelve or fourteen wives in his lodge.”[2668] The King of Loango is said to have seven thousand wives.[2669]

It is a more noteworthy fact that among not a few uncivilized peoples, polygyny is almost unknown, or even prohibited. The Wyandots, according to Heriot, restricted themselves to one wife;[2670] and, among the Iroquois, polygyny was not permitted, nor did it ever become a practice.[2671] It is said that, among the Californian Kinkla and Yurok, no man has more than one wife.[2672] The Karok do not allow bigamy even to the chief; and, though a man may own as many women for slaves as he can purchase, he brings obloquy upon himself if he cohabits with more than one.[2673] Nor does polygyny occur among the Simas, the Coco-Maricopas, and several other tribes on the banks of the Gila and the Colorado;[2674] nor among the Moquis in New Mexico, and certain nations who inhabit the Isthmus of Tehuantepec.[2675] And, in several tribes of South America, the men are stated to have but one wife.[2676]

The Guanches of the Canary Islands, except the inhabitants of Lancerote, lived in monogamy;[2677] and the same is the case with the Quissama tribe in Angola, the Touaregs, and the Beni-Mzab.[2678] Among all the Moorish tribes in the Western Sahara, Vincent did not meet a single man who had a plurality of wives.[2679]

In Asia we find many instances of strictly monogamous peoples. The Veddahs in Ceylon are so rigorous in this respect that infidelity never seems to occur among them.[2680] In the Andaman Islands, according to Mr. E. H. Man, “bigamy, polygamy, polyandry, and divorce are unknown;”[2681] and the Nicobar Islanders—at least those on the most northern island, Car Nicobar—“have but one wife, and look upon unchastity as a very deadly sin.”[2682] Among the Koch and Old Kukis, polygyny and concubinage are forbidden;[2683] whilst, among the Pádams, Mikris, and Munda Kols, a man, though not expressly forbidden to have many wives, is blamed if he has more than one.[2684] The Badagas of the Neilgherry Hills, the Nagas of Upper Assam, the Kisáns, and Meches confine themselves to one consort at the same time;[2685] and so do the Mrús and Toungtha, who do not consider it right for a master to take advantage of his position even with regard to the female slaves in his house.[2686] Among the Santals, says Mr. E. G. Man, a woman reigns alone in her husband’s wigwam, “as there is seldom, if ever, a second wife or concubine to divide his affections—polygamy, although not exactly prohibited, being not very popular with the tribe.”[2687] Among the Karens of Burma,[2688] and certain tribes of Indo-China, the Malay Peninsula, and the Indian Archipelago, polygyny is said either to be forbidden[2689] or unknown.[2690] The Igorrotes of Luzon are so strictly monogamous, that, in case of adultery, the guilty party can be compelled to leave the hut and the family for ever.[2691] The Hill Dyaks marry but one wife, and a chief who once broke through this custom lost all his influence; adultery is entirely unknown among them.[2692] The Alfura of Minahassa were formerly monogamists, and the occasional occurrence of polygyny in later times, according to Dr. Hickson, was a degeneration from the old customs, brought about perhaps by Mohammedan influence.[2693]

In Santa Christina or Tauata (Marquesas Islands), monogamy is said to be the exclusive form of marriage.[2694] Among the Papuans of Dorey, not only is polygyny forbidden, but concubinage and adultery are unknown.[2695] In Australia, Mr. Curr has discovered some truly monogamous tribes. In the Eucla tribe, “none of the men have more than one wife;”[2696] among the Karawalla and Tunberri tribes, dwelling on the Lower Diamantina, polygyny is not allowed;[2697] and in the Birria tribe, “the possession of more than one wife is absolutely forbidden, or was so before the coming of the whites.”[2698]

In certain American tribes the chiefs alone are permitted to have a plurality of wives.[2699] A similar exclusive privilege seems to have been granted to the nobility in ancient Peru.[2700] Among the Ainos of Yessy, according to v. Siebold only the chief of the village, and, in some places, the wealthier men are allowed to have more than one wife.[2701]

Even where polygyny is permitted by custom or law, it is by no means so generally practised as is often supposed. Almost everywhere it is confined to the smaller part of the people, the vast majority being monogamous. We are told that, in the New Hebrides, “all the men are polygamists, generally having three or four wives apiece;”[2702] that among certain Kafir tribes, “the average number of wives to each married man amongst the common people is about three;”[2703] that, among the Masai, a poor man has generally two wives.[2704] But there is sufficient evidence that such peoples form exceptions to an almost universal rule.

In a ‘Sociological Study’ on the Lower Congo, Mr. Phillips remarks, “It is a mistaken opinion that in a polygamous society most men have more than one wife: the relative numbers of the sexes forbid the arrangement being extended to the whole population; really only the wealthier can indulge in a plurality of wives, the poorer having to be content with one or often with none.”[2705] Proyart says the same of the people of Loango, adding that the rich, who can use the privilege of having many wives, are far from being numerous;[2706] and like statements are made with reference to several other negro peoples.[2707] Among many Kafir tribes,[2708] the Bechuanas,[2709] Hottentots,[2710] and Eastern Central Africans,[2711] monogamy is the rule; whilst, amongst the Touaregs,[2712] Tedâ,[2713] Marea,[2714] Beni-Amer,[2715] &c.,[2716] polygyny is expressly stated to be confined to a few men only. “La plupart des Kabyles,” say Messrs. Honateau and Letournex, “n’ont ... qu’une femme;”[2717] and in Egypt, according to Mr. Lane, not more than one husband in twenty has two wives.[2718] We may, indeed, say with Munzinger[2719] that even in Africa, the chief centre of polygynous habits, polygyny is an exception.

It is so among all Mohammedan peoples, in Asia and Europe, as well as in Africa.[2720] “In India,” says Syed Amír’ Alí, “more than ninety-five per cent. of Mohammedans are at the present moment, either by conviction or necessity, monogamists. Among the educated classes versed in the history of their ancestors, and able to compare it with the records of other nations, the custom is regarded with disapprobation amounting almost to disgust. In Persia, according to Colonel Macgregor’s statement, only two per cent. of the population enjoy the questionable luxury of a plurality of wives.[2721] Moreover, although polygyny is sanctioned by custom among the Cochin Chinese, the Siamese, the Hindus, and many other races of India, the mass of these peoples are in practice monogamous.[2722] In China, among the labouring classes, it is rare to find more than one woman to one man, and Dr. Gray thinks that, in the earliest ages, concubinage was a privilege of the wealthy classes only.[2723] Among the peoples of Central and Northern Asia and, generally, among all the uncivilized or semi-civilized peoples belonging to the Russian Empire, polygyny is, or, before the introduction of Christianity, was, an exception.[2724]

In the Indian Archipelago, says Mr. Crawfurd, polygyny and concubinage exist only among a few of the higher ranks, and may be looked upon as a kind of vicious luxury of the great, for it would be absurd to regard either one or the other as an institution affecting the whole mass of society.[2725] The truth of this assertion is fully confirmed by Raffles, as regards the Javanese; by Low and Boyle, as regards the Malays of Sarawak; by Marsden, Wilken, and Forbes as regards the Sumatrans; by Schadenberg, as regards the Aëtas of the Philippines; and so on.[2726]

In various parts of the Australian continent monogamy is said to be the rule.[2727] In the Larrakía tribe (Port Darwin), for instance, only about ten per cent. of those who are married have two wives.[2728] In Tasmania, polygyny, if not unknown, was quite exceptional.[2729] Among the Maoris, according to Dieffenbach, it is “very uncommon.”[2730] In the Sandwich Islands, it was practised only by the chiefs, whose means enabled them to maintain a plurality of wives.[2731] Indeed, in almost every group of the Pacific Islands polygyny is expressly stated to be an exception.[2732]

The same is the case with the American aborigines.[2733] Dalager states that, on the west coast of Greenland, in his time, hardly one man in twenty had two wives, and it was still more uncommon for one man to have three or four.[2734] Among the Thlinkets, as a rule, a man had but one wife.[2735] The aborigines of Hispaniola, with the exception of the king or chief, seemed to Columbus to live in monogamy.[2736] And Mr. Bridges writes that, in Tierra del Fuego, polygyny is practised “in some districts very rarely, in others more frequently, but in no part generally.”

All the statements we have from the ancient world seem to indicate that polygyny was an exception. Speaking of the Hebrews, Dr. Scheppig says that, although our information about the marital affairs of common Hebrews is too scanty to entitle us to conclude, from the scarcity of cases of polygyny recorded, that such cases were actually rare, we may assume that keeping up several establishments was too expensive for any but the rich.[2737] In Egypt, as we may infer from the numerous ancient paintings illustrative of domestic life in that country, polygyny was of rare occurrence; and Herodotus expressly affirms that it was customary for the Egyptians to marry only one wife.”[2738] Spiegel thinks that the ancient Persians were as a rule monogamous,[2739] and Sir Henry Maine and Dr. Schrader make a similar suggestion as to the early Indo-Europeans in general.[2740] Among the West Germans, according to Tacitus, only a few persons of noble birth had a plurality of wives;[2741] and, in India, polygyny as a rule was confined to kings and wealthy lords.[2742] In a hymn of the ‘Rig-Veda,’ which dwells upon the duality of the two Aświns, the pairs of deities are compared with pairs of almost everything that runs in couples, including a husband and wife, and two lips uttering sweet sounds.[2743]

Where polygyny occurs, it is modified, as a rule, in ways that tend towards monogamy: first, through the higher position granted to one of the wives, generally the first married; secondly, through the preference given by the husband to his favourite wife as regards sexual intercourse.

Among the Greenlanders,[2744] Thlinkets,[2745] Kaniagmuts,[2746] Crees,[2747] and probably most of the North American tribes who practise polygyny,[2748] the first married wife is the mistress of the house. The Aleuts distinguish the first or real wife from the subsequent wives by a special name.[2749] Among the Ahts, the children of a chief’s extra wives have not the father’s rank.[2750] The Algonquins, says Heriot, permit two wives to one husband, but “the one is considered of a rank superior to the other, and her children alone are accounted legitimate.”[2751] Among the Mexicans,[2752] Mayas,[2753] Chibchas,[2754] and Peruvians,[2755] the first wife took precedence of the subsequent wives, or, strictly speaking, they had only one “true and lawful wife,” though as many concubines as they liked. In Nicaragua, bigamy, in the juridical sense of the term, was punished by exile and confiscation of property;[2756] and, in Mexico, neither the wives of “second rank” nor their children could inherit property.[2757] Among the Mosquitoes, Tamanacs, Uaupés, Mundrucûs,[2758] and other South American peoples,[2759] the first wife generally has superiority in domestic affairs. Among the Brazilian aborigines, however, no difference in rights exist between the children of different wives.[2760]

The first wife is superior in authority to the others among the Western Victorians, Narrinyeri, Maoris,[2761] &c.[2762] In Samoa, a chief had, besides his wife, one, two, or three concubines;[2763] and in Tahiti, according to Ellis, it was rather a system of concubinage than a plurality of wives, that prevailed among the higher chiefs, the woman to whom the chief was first united in marriage, or whose rank was nearest his own, being generally considered his wife in the proper sense of the term, while the others held an inferior position.[2764]

In the Indian Archipelago, according to Mr. Crawfurd, the wife of the first marriage is always the real mistress of the family; the rest are often little better than her hand-maids.[2765] The same holds good for the Burmese, according to Lieutenant-General Fytche; for the Santals, according to Colonel Dalton.[2766] In Siam, “the wife who has been the object of the marriage ceremony ‘khan mak’ takes precedence of all the rest, and she and her descendants are the only legal heirs to the husband’s possessions.”[2767] Among the Khamtis, Samoyedes,[2768] and other Asiatic peoples,[2769] the first wife is always the mistress of the household and the most respected in the family; whilst, among the Ainos,[2770] Mongols, and Tangutans,[2771] one man can take only one lawful wife, though as many concubines as he pleases. But, except among the Ainos, the children of concubines are illegitimate and have no share in the inheritance.

The polygyny of China is a legalized concubinage, and the law actually prohibits the taking of a second wife during the lifetime of the first.[2772] The wife is invested with a certain amount of power over the concubines, who may not even sit in her presence without special permission.[2773] She addresses her partner with a term corresponding to our “husband,” whilst the concubines call him “master.”[2774] These are generally women with large feet and of low origin, not unfrequently slaves or prostitutes; whereas the wife is almost invariably, except of course in the case of Tartar ladies, a woman with small feet.[2775] A wife cannot be degraded to the position of a concubine, nor can a concubine be raised to the position of a wife so long as the wife is alive, under a penalty in the one case of a hundred, in the other of ninety blows.[2776] But the question upon which the legitimacy of the offspring depends, is not whether the woman is wife or concubine, but whether she has been received into the house of the man or not.[2777] In Mohammedan countries, in households where two or more wives belong to one man, the first married generally enjoys the highest rank; she is called “the great lady,” and is commonly united with her husband for life. But all the children of the man are considered equally legitimate, even those born of female slaves.[2778]

Among the negro peoples, the principal wife, to whom the housekeeping and command over all the rest are intrusted, is in most cases the one first married. She has certain privileges, and in many cases can be repudiated only if she has been unfaithful to her husband.[2779] Among the Edeeyahs of Fernando Po, it was for the first wife alone that a man had to serve several years with his father-in-law.[2780] Speaking of the Eastern Central African tribes, Mr. Macdonald says, “As a rule, a man has one wife that is free, while the other three or four are slaves.... The chief wife is generally the woman that was married first.... The chief wife has the superintendence of the domestic and agricultural establishment. She keeps the others at their work, and has power to exercise discipline upon them.” Generally, it is only by inheriting the possessions of an elder brother that a man procures more than one free wife.[2781] Among the Damaras and other South African tribes, the eldest son of the principal or first wife inherits his father’s property.[2782] Speaking of the Basutos, Mr. Casalis observes, “A very marked distinction exists between the first wife and those who succeed her. The choice of the ‘great’ wife (as she is always called) is generally made by the father, and is an event in which all the relations are interested. The others, who are designated by the name of ‘serete’ (heels), because they must on all occasions hold an inferior position to the mistress of the house, are articles of luxury, to which the parents are not obliged to contribute.” The chief of the Basutos, when asked by foreigners how many children he has, alludes in his answer only to those of his first wife; and, if he says he is a widower, this means that he has lost his real wife, and has not raised any of his concubines to the rank she occupied.[2783] Among the Zulus, the chief wife is the one first married,[2784] and this is often, but not always, the case among the Kafirs.[2785] According to Rochon, polygyny in Madagascar is, in fact, a sort of concubinage.[2786]

Eber suggests that the kings of ancient Egypt, although they might have many concubines, had only one real wife, as there is no instance of two consorts given in the inscriptions.[2787] Professor Rawlinson makes a similar remark as to the polygyny of the Persian kings.[2788] Regarding the Hindus, Mr. Mayne says, “A peculiar sanctity ... seems to have been attributed to the first marriage, as being that which was contracted from a sense of duty, and not merely for personal gratification. The first married wife had precedence over the others, and her first-born son over his half-brothers. It is probable that originally the secondary wives were considered as merely a superior class of concubines, like the hand-maids of the Jewish patriarchs.”[2789] It was necessary that the first married wife should be of the same caste as her husband.[2790] She sat by him at marriages and other religious ceremonies, was head of the family, and entitled to adopt a son if she had no sons at the time of her husband’s death.[2791] The modified polygyny of the ancient Assyrians and Greeks has been already noted. The ancient Scandinavians had almost always only one legitimate wife, though as many concubines as they chose.[2792] Touching the Pagan Russians, Ewers says that of the wives of a prince one probably had precedence.[2793] Among the Mormons, Sir R. F. Burton observes, “the first wife, as among polygamists generally, is _the_ wife and assumes the husband’s name and title.”[2794]

The difference in the position held by the several wives belonging to one man, shows itself also in the demand of various peoples that the first wife shall be of the husband’s rank, whilst the succeeding wives may be of lower birth.[2795]

As just mentioned, there is another way in which polygyny is modified. Among certain peoples the husband is bound by custom or law to cohabit with his wives in turn. The Caribs, when they married several sisters at the same time, lived a month with each in her separate hut.[2796] Among the wild Indians of Chili, according to Mr. Darwin, the cazique lives a week in turn with each of his wives.[2797] The Kafirs have an old traditional law requiring a husband who has many wives to devote three succeeding days and nights to each of them.[2798] A Mohammedan is obliged to visit his four legal wives by turns;[2799] and the same custom prevails, according to Krasheninnikoff, in Kamchatka.[2800] The negroes often follow a like rule in order to keep peace in the family.[2801] And, in Samoa, the system adopted when a person has several wives, “is to allow each wife to enjoy three days’ supremacy in rotation.”[2802] But such arrangements are, no doubt, exceptions, and it is doubtful whether, in these cases, theory and practice coincide.[2803] A marriage may, in fact, be monogamous, though, from a juridical point of view, it is polygynous.

“It is not uncommon for an Indian,” says Carver, “although he takes to himself so many wives, to live in a state of continence with many of them for several years,” and those who do not succeed in pleasing the husband may “continue in their virgin state during the whole of their lives.”[2804] Among the Apaches, the chiefs “can have any number of wives they choose, but one only is the favourite.”[2805] In Bokhara, a rich man generally has two, three, or four wives; yet, according to Georgi, one of them, as a rule, holds precedence in the husband’s love.[2806] Speaking of the modern Egyptians, Mr. Lane says, “In general, the most beautiful of a man’s wives or slaves is, of course, for a time his greatest favourite; but in many—if not most—cases, the lasting favourite is not the most handsome.”[2807] Sometimes the wife who has proved most fruitful and given birth to the healthiest children is most favoured by the husband;[2808] and, among the Indians of Western Washington and North-Western Oregon, according to Dr. Gibbs, the man usually lives with his first wife, at least after his interest in subsequent wives has cooled down.[2809] But it is generally the youngest wife who is the favourite. An Arabian Sheik said to Sir S. W. Baker, “I have four wives; as one has become old, I have replaced her with a young one; here they all are (he now marked four strokes upon the sand with his stick). This one carries water; that grinds the corn; this makes the bread; the last does not do much, as she is the youngest, and my favourite.”[2810] In Guiana, “an Indian is never seen with two young wives; the only case in which he takes a second is when the first has become old.” The first wife certainly retains the management of domestic affairs, but she no longer possesses the husband’s love.[2811] Statements to a similar effect are made regarding the Arabs of the Sahara, Tahitians, Central Asiatic Turks, Mormons, &c.[2812]

Bigamy is the most common form of polygyny, and a multitude of wives is the luxury of a few despotic rulers or very wealthy men. The Eskimo, for example, have rarely more than two wives, and a Greenlander who took a third or fourth was blamed by his countrymen, as we are told by Cranz.[2813] The tribes of Oregon generally confine themselves to a couple of wives.[2814] Bishop Salvado never knew a West Australian native with more than two—“à moins peut-être que par générosité un homme ne prenne sous sa protection la femme de son ami ou parent absent; ou bien que par voie d’hérédité il n’adopte les veuves de son frère.”[2815] Rich Kafirs are stated to have commonly two or three wives;[2816] and Colonel Dalton does not recollect that, among the Khamtis, he ever met with a case in which more than two women were married to one husband.[2817] The Hebrews who indulged in polygyny were generally bigamists.[2818]

* * * * *

Polyandry is a much rarer form of marriage than polygyny. In Oonalashka, one of the Aleutian Islands, according to v. Langsdorf, a woman sometimes lived with two husbands who agreed between themselves upon the conditions on which they were to share her.[2819] Among the Kaniagmuts, two or three men occasionally had a wife in common;[2820] and Veniaminoff tells us that in ancient times a Thlinket woman, besides her real husband, could have a legal paramour, who usually was the brother of the husband.[2821] Among the Eskimo also, “two men sometimes marry the same woman.”[2822] Father Lafitau writes, “Par une suite de la Gynécocratie, la polygamie, qui n’est pas permise aux hommes, l’est pourtant aux femmes chez les Iroquois Tsonnontouans, où il en est, lesquelles ont deux maris, qu’on regarde comme légitimes.”[2823] Among the Avanos and Maypurs, along the Orinoco, v. Humboldt found that brothers often had but one wife;[2824] according to Mr. Brett, the Warraus do not consider the practice of one woman having two husbands to be bad; and he mentions an instance of a woman amongst them having even three.[2825]

In Nukahiva, as we are told by Lisiansky, in rich families every woman had two husbands, of whom one might be called the assistant husband.[2826] In New Caledonia, according to M. Moncelon, polyandry does not seem to have been entirely unknown;[2827] and Mr. Radfield writes to me from Lifu that an old man knew of three cases of polyandrous marriage having occurred in that island, but the husbands were despised by the rest of the natives. In two of these cases the husbands were brothers, in the third they were unrelated. It is said that, among the Tasmanians, “polyandry, or something very like it, existed;”[2828] but this statement, if correct, refers to altogether exceptional cases.

Bontier and Le Verrier assert that, in the island of Lancerote, of the Canaries, most women had three husbands.[2829] Thunberg observes that, among the Hottentots, there were women who married two men.[2830] Dr. Fritsch mentions the existence of polyandry among the Damaras, and Mr. Theal among the mountain tribes of the Bantu race.[2831] The Hovas of Madagascar have a word to express the leave given to a wife to have intercourse with another man during a husband’s prolonged absence from home.[2832]

Until prohibited by the governor, Sir Henry Ward, about the year 1860, polyandry prevailed among the Sinhalese throughout the interior of Ceylon, one woman having in many cases three or four husbands, and in others five or six or even seven. It is recorded that the same practice was at one time universal throughout the island, except among the Veddahs,[2833] and even now it occurs in spite of government interdict.[2834] The husbands are usually members of the same family, and most frequently brothers.

Among the Todas, all brothers of one family, be they many or few, live in mixed cohabitation with one or more wives. “If there be four or five brothers,” says Dr. Shortt, “and one of them, being old enough, gets married, his wife claims all the other brothers as her husbands, and, as they successively attain manhood, she consorts with them; or, if the wife has one or more younger sisters, they in turn, on attaining a marriageable age, become the wives of their sister’s husband or husbands.... Owing, however, to the great scarcity of women in this tribe, it more frequently happens that a single woman is wife to several husbands, sometimes as many as six.”[2835] The same practice occurs among the Kurgs of Mysore.[2836] Among the Nairs of Malabar, it is the custom for one woman “to have attached to her two males, or four, or perhaps more, and they cohabit according to rules.”[2837] Polyandry is also found among the Miris, Dophlas, Butlas,[2838] Sissee Abors,[2839] Khasias,[2840] and Santals.[2841] It prevails in the Siwalik mountains, Sirmore,[2842] Ladakh,[2843] the Jounsar and Bawar hill districts attached to the Doon,[2844] Kunawar,[2845] Kotegarh,[2846] and, especially, in Tibet. This custom exists, as Mr. Wilson asserts, “all over the country of the Tibetan-speaking people; that is to say, from China to the dependencies of Kashmir and Afghanistan, with the exception of Sikkim, and some other of the provinces on the Indian side of the Himalaya, where, though the Tibetan language may in part prevail, yet the people are either Aryan in race, or have been much influenced by Aryan ideas.”[2847] Polyandry is said to occur among the Saporogian Cossacks;[2848] and Mr. Ravenstein quotes a statement of a Japanese traveller that it prevails among the Smerenkur Gilyaks in Eastern Siberia.[2849]

With the exception of the Nairs, Khasias, and Saporogian Cossacks, the husbands in almost every one of these cases are stated to be brothers. A colonel who lived among the Kulus of Kotegarh for twenty-five years assures us that, among that people, the husbands are always brothers;[2850] and, so far as Mr. Wilson could learn, the polyandry of Central Asia must be limited to the marriage of one woman to two or more brothers, no other form being found there.[2851]

A very curious kind of polyandry prevails, according to Dr. Shortt, among the Reddies. It often happens that a young woman of sixteen or twenty years of age is married to a boy of five or six years, or even of a tenderer age. After marriage the wife lives with some other man, a near relation on the maternal side, frequently an uncle, and sometimes with her boy-husband’s own father, the progeny so begotten being affiliated to the boy-husband. When he comes of age he finds his wife an old woman, and perhaps past child-bearing. So he, in his turn, takes possession of the wife of some other boy, who will nominally be the father of her children.[2852] A similar custom is said to exist among the Vellalah caste in the Coimbore district,[2853] and prevailed, till the emancipation of the serfs, among the Russian peasants, the father being in the habit of cohabiting with the wife of his son during the son’s minority.[2854] Ahlqvist mentions the occurrence of the same practice among the Ostyaks,[2855] v. Haxthausen among the Ossetes.[2856]

Passing to ancient nations, we find indications of polyandry in a hymn in the ‘Rig-Veda,’ which is addressed to the two Aświns,[2857], and in the Mahâbhârata, where Draupadi is represented as won at an archery match by the eldest of the five Pandava princes, and as then becoming the wife of all. According to Strabo, polyandry occurred in Media, and in Arabia Felix, where all male members of the same family married one woman.[2858] Ma-touan-lin states that, among the Massagetæ, the brothers had one wife in common, and when a man had no brothers he associated with other men, as otherwise he was obliged to live single through the whole of his life.[2859] We have in the Irish Nennius direct evidence of the existence of polyandry among the Picts,[2860] and of the ancient Britons Cæsar says that “by tens and by twelves husbands possessed their wives in common, and especially brothers with brothers, and parents with children.”[2861] Among the ancient Scandinavians we possibly find a trace of this custom in the mythic statement that the goddess Frigg, during the absence of her husband Odin, was married to his brothers Vili and Ve.[2862]

Among the peoples of America, Africa, and the Pacific Islands, just referred to, polyandry, in almost every case, is confined to a very small part of the population; and among the polyandrous nations of India and Central Asia it is by no means the exclusive form of marriage. Sir Emerson Tennent says that, in Ceylon, polyandry prevails chiefly among the wealthier classes, whilst, according to Dr. Davy, it is “more or less general among the high and low, the rich and poor,” other forms of marriage, however, being by no means excluded.[2863] Among the Todas, “any degree of complication in perfectly lawful wedded life may be met with, from the sample of the single man living with the single wife, to that of the group of relatives married to a group of wives.”[2864] Mr. Balfour says that “the practice of polyandry does not seem to have ever prevailed generally amongst the Nairs and many of the Teeyer of North Malabar, from Kurumbranad to Mangalore.”[2865] Among the Miris there are only a few instances of this custom.[2866] Of the Dophlas those who can afford it are polygynists.[2867] Among the Khasias, polyandry “can be said to prevail only among the poorer sort, with whom, too, it would often seem to mean rather facility of divorce than the simultaneous admission of a plurality of husbands.”[2868] Among the Santals, the wife of the eldest brother _may_ be at the same time a wife for the younger brothers also.[2869] The Sissee Abors have often as many wives as they can afford to buy;[2870] and in the Kunawar valley, polyandry is common only in the upper part of the valley, whilst polygyny prevails in the lower part.[2871] In the Kotegarh valley, according to Dr. Stulpnagel, the practice of polyandry is not universal; it can scarcely be said to be even very common. “If diligently searched for,” he observes, “single cases of polyandry will be found in the Kôtgadh parganâ, in Kulu, in the territory of the Rânâs of Komarsen and Kaneti, and in Bussahir.... Though common enough in Kunawar at the present day, it exists side by side with polygamy and monogamy. In one house there may be three brothers with one wife; in the next three brothers with four wives, all alike in common; in the next house there may be a man with three wives to himself; in the next a man with only one wife.”[2872] Among the Butias, or Botis, of Ladakh, according to Sir Alexander Cunningham, polyandry prevails “only among the poorer classes, for the rich, as in all Eastern countries, generally have two or three wives, according to their circumstances.”[2873] In the Jounsar and Bawah pargannahs, polyandry is almost universal, but it is apparently unknown in the hills of Garhwal on the east, or those of the Simla superintendency on the west.[2874] Nowhere, except perhaps in the Neilgherry Hills, has polyandry prevailed more extensively than in Tibet; but it is not the only form of marriage. According to Captain J. D. Cunningham, “even among the Lamaic Tibetans any casual influx of wealth, as from trade or other sources, immediately leads to the formation of separate establishments by the several members of a house.”[2875] We may thus take for granted that polyandry, although frequently practised in certain parts of India and Central Asia,[2876] nowhere excludes the simultaneous occurrence of other forms of marriage. The instances of ancient Aryan polyandry in India evidently form exceptions to the general rule among the people of the Vedic period. The father of Draupadi is represented by the compilers of the epic as shocked at the proposal of the princes to marry his daughter:—“You who know the law,” he says, “must not commit an unlawful act which is contrary to usage and the Vedas.” In the Râmâyana, the giant Virâdha attacks the two divine brothers Râma and Lakshmana and their wife Sítâ, saying, “Why do you two devotees remain with one woman? Why are you, O profligate wretches, corrupting the devout sages?”[2877] And in the ‘Aitareya Brâhmana’ we read that “one man has many wives, but one wife has not many husbands at the same time.”[2878] Indeed, with the exception of the Massagetæ, the account of whom cannot be critically checked, there is no people among whom polyandry is stated to be the only recognized form of marriage.

Like polygyny, polandry is modified in directions tending towards monogamy. As one, usually the first married, wife in polygynous families is the chief wife, one, usually the first, husband in polyandrous families is the chief husband. This was the case with the Aleuts, among whom, according to Erman, the secondary husband was generally a hunter or wandering trader; and with the Kaniagmuts, among whom, as we have already seen, he acted as husband and master of the house during the absence of the true lord. Upon the latter’s return, the deputy not only yielded to him his place, but became in the meantime his servant.[2879] In Nukahiva, the subordinate partner sometimes was chosen after marriage, “but in general,” says Lisiansky, “two men present themselves to the same woman, who, if she approves their addresses, appoints one for the real husband, and the other as his auxiliary; the auxiliary is generally poor, but handsome and well-made.”[2880]

In Ladakh, according to Moorcraft and Trebeck, should there be several brothers in a family, the juniors, if they agree to the arrangement, become inferior husbands to the wife of the elder; all the children, however, are supposed to belong to the head of the family. The younger brothers have, indeed, no authority; they wait upon the elder as his servants, and can be turned out of doors at his pleasure, without its being incumbent upon him to provide for them. On the death of the eldest brother, his property, authority, and widow devolve upon his next brother.[2881] In Kamaon, too, where the brothers of a family all marry one wife, the children are attributed to the eldest brother.[2882] The same is the case in the Jounsar district, as it was formerly with the Massagetæ.[2883] Touching the polyandrous tribes of Arabia Felix, Strabo tells us that the eldest brother was the ruler of the family, and that the common wife spent the nights with him.[2884] Among the ancient Britons, as described by Cæsar, the children were regarded as belonging to him who had first taken the virgin to wife.[2885] In Tibet, the choice of a wife is the right of the elder brother, and the contract he makes is understood to involve a marital contract with all the other brothers, if they choose to avail themselves of it. The children call the eldest husband father, the younger husbands uncles.[2886] Among the Todas also, the eldest brother seems to be the real husband. “If the husband has brothers or very near relatives, all living together,” says Mr. Marshall, “they may each, if both she and he consent, participate in the right to be considered her husband also, on making up a share of the dowry that has been paid.”[2887] Again, in Spiti, where polyandry no longer prevails, the same object is attained by the custom of primogeniture, by which only the eldest son marries, while the younger sons become monks.[2888] Speaking of the Khyoungtha, a Chittagong Hill tribe, Captain Lewin observes, “After marriage a younger brother is allowed to touch the hand, to speak and laugh with his elder brother’s wife; but it is thought improper for an elder even to look at the wife of his younger brother. This is a custom more or less among all hill tribes; it is found carried to even a preposterous extent among the Santals.”[2889] In this custom there is perhaps a trace of ancient polyandry.

* * * * *

Summing up the results reached in this chapter, we may safely say that, although polygyny occurs among most existing peoples, and polyandry among some, monogamy is by far the most common form of human marriage. It was so also among the ancient peoples of whom we have any direct knowledge. Monogamy is the form which is generally recognized as legal and permitted. The great majority of peoples are, as a rule, monogamous, and the other forms of marriage are usually modified in a monogamous direction.

We have still to inquire how the matter stood in early times, and to trace the general development of the forms of human marriage. But, in accordance with our method of investigation, we must first examine the causes by which these forms have been influenced.