CHAPTER XXII

THE FORMS OF HUMAN MARRIAGE

(_Concluded_)

As to the history of the forms of human marriage, two inferences regarding monogamy and polygyny may be made with absolute certainty: monogamy, always the predominant form of marriage, has been more prevalent at the lowest stages of civilization than at somewhat higher stages; whilst, at a still higher stage, polygyny has again, to a great extent, yielded to monogamy.

As already said, wars, often greatly disturbing the proportion of the sexes among peoples with a highly developed tribal organization, exercise a much smaller influence in that respect in societies of a ruder type. As in such societies all men are nearly equal, and, to quote Mr. Wallace, “each man scrupulously respects the rights of his fellow, and any infraction of those rights rarely or never takes place,”[3192] no great scope is left for polygynous habits.

Plurality of wives has comparatively few attractions for the men of rude communities, where life is supported chiefly by hunting, and female labour is of slight value. In societies of a higher kind, the case is different. True, in such societies a man has to buy his wife, and women are often costly chattels; but this obstacle to polygyny is more than counterbalanced by the accumulation of wealth and the distinction of classes.

Nothing, indeed, is more favourable to polygyny than social differentiation. “In its highest and regulated form,” Mr. Morgan justly observes, “it presupposes a considerable advance of society, together with the development of superior and inferior classes, and of some kinds of wealth.”[3193] Speaking of the Iroquois, Colden long ago remarked that, “in any nation where all are on a par as to riches and power, plurality of wives cannot well be introduced.”[3194] According to Waitz, the reason why polygyny is very rare among the Hottentots is, that they do not know of any disparity in rank and wealth.[3195] The Rock Veddahs have no class distinction, and, though each party among them has a headman—the most energetic senior of the tribe,—he exercises scarcely any authority.[3196] Almost the same may be said of most of the monogamous savage peoples whom we have mentioned. Thus, among the Pádams, all, except slaves, are equal in rank;[3197] and of the Kukis it is said that all eat and drink together, and that “one man is as good as another.”[3198] This is true of the Chittagong Hill tribes in general, who enjoy a perfect social equality, their nomadic life precluding any great accumulation of wealth.[3199] Among the Hill Dyaks, as Mr. Spencer observes, chiefs are unable to enforce genuine subordination; the headman of each Bodo and Dhimál village has but nominal authority; and the governor of a Pueblo town is annually elected.[3200] In Tana, where the authority of a chief does not seem to extend a gunshot beyond his own dwelling, few chiefs have more than three wives, and most of them have only one or two.[3201] On the other hand, throughout Africa, polygyny and great class distinctions occur simultaneously. We may therefore safely conclude that polygyny became more prevalent in proportion as differentiation increased with the progress of civilization.

It is a notable fact that the higher savages and barbarians indulge in this practice to a greater extent than the very lowest races. These, with few exceptions, are either strictly monogamous, or but little addicted to polygyny. The lowest forest tribes in Brazil and the interior of Borneo are monogamous. Among the Veddahs and Andamanese, monogamy is as rigidly insisted upon as anywhere in Europe. According to Captain Lewin, the monogamous Toungtha are “unamenable to the lures of civilization,” and he thinks it will be found difficult, if not impossible, to wean them from their savage life.[3202] The Mrús are despised as wild men by the polygynous Khyoungtha;[3203] and the Californians, who, according to Mr. Powers, were far less addicted to polygyny than the Atlantic Indians, are “a humble and a lowly race, ... one of the lowest on earth.”[3204]

Certain peoples who were originally monogamous are known to have adopted polygyny under the influence of a higher civilization. Thus, according to Professor Vámbéry, there is not a single indication that polygyny was an institution of the primitive Turco-Tartars, and even now it is almost unknown among the nomadic peoples of that race.[3205] Dr. Mason and Mr. Smeaton state that, among the Karens, it is occasionally practised only by those who are brought much in contact with the Burmese.[3206] Among the Hindus, according to Mr. Dutt, polygyny seems to have grown in the latter part of the Vedic age, as there are scarcely any allusions to it in the earlier hymns.[3207] Goguet observes that “fables which can be traced back to the earliest times give us no instance of any man’s having more than one lawful wife.”[3208] Although the majority of the heroes in the writings of Kalidasa are described as polygynists,[3209] the principal divinities whom the Hindus acknowledge are represented as married to but one legitimate wife.[3210] The higher position so generally granted to the _first_ married wife in polygynous families seems to indicate in most cases a transition from monogamous to polygynous habits, and not _vice versa_, as has often been suggested.[3211]

Monogamy is the more likely to have prevailed almost exclusively among our earliest human ancestors, since it does so among the man-like apes. Mr. Darwin certainly mentions the Gorilla as a polygamist;[3212] but the majority of statements we have regarding this animal are to the opposite effect. Relying on the most trustworthy authorities, Professor Hartmann says, “The Gorilla lives in a society consisting of male and female and their young of varying ages.”[3213]

We may thus take for granted that civilization up to a certain point is favourable to polygyny; but it is equally certain that in its higher forms it leads to monogamy.

One of the chief advantages of civilization is the decrease of wars. The death-rate of men has consequently become less, and the considerable disproportion between the sexes which, among many warlike peoples, makes polygyny almost a law of nature, no longer exists among the most advanced nations. No superstitious belief keeps the civilized man apart from his wife during her pregnancy and whilst she suckles her child; and the suckling time has become much shorter since the introduction of domesticated animals and the use of milk. To a cultivated mind youth and beauty are by no means the only attractions of a woman; and civilization has made female beauty more durable. The desire for offspring as we have seen, has become less intense. A large family, instead of being a help in the struggle for existence, is often considered an insufferable burden. A man’s kinsfolk are not now his only friends, and his wealth and power do not depend upon the number of his wives and children. A wife has ceased to be a mere labourer, and for manual labour we have to a great extent substituted the work of domesticated animals and the use of implements and machines.[3214] Polygyny has thus, in many ways, become less desirable for the civilized man than it was for his barbarian and savage ancestors. And other causes have co-operated to produce the same result.

When the feelings of women are held in due respect, monogamy will necessarily be the only recognized form of marriage. In no way does the progress of mankind show itself more clearly than in the increased acknowledgment of women’s rights, and the causes which, at lower stages of development, may make polygyny desired by women themselves, do not exist in highly civilized societies. The refined feeling of love, depending chiefly upon mutual sympathy and upon appreciation of mental qualities, is scarcely compatible with polygynous habits; and the passion for one has gradually become more absorbing.

Will monogamy be the only recognized form of marriage in the future? This question has been answered in different ways. According to Mr. Spencer, “the monogamic form of the sexual relation is manifestly the ultimate form; and any changes to be anticipated must be in the direction of completion and extension of it.”[3215] Dr. Le Bon, on the other hand, thinks that European laws will, in the future, legalize polygyny;[3216] and M. Letourneau remarks that, although we may now look upon monogamy as superior to any other form of marriage yet known, “we need not consider it the Ultima Thule in the evolution of connubial ceremonies.”[3217] But we may without hesitation assert that, if mankind advance in the same direction as hitherto; if, consequently, the causes to which monogamy in the most progressive societies owes its origin continue to operate with constantly growing force; if, especially, altruism increases, and the feeling of love becomes more refined, and more exclusively directed to one,—the laws of monogamy can never be changed, but must be followed much more strictly than they are now.

* * * * *

Mr. McLennan suggests that, in early times, polyandry was the rule and monogamy and polygyny exceptions. According to his view, the only marriage law in which female kinship could have originated was polyandry—polyandry of “the ruder sort,” in which the husbands are not kinsmen. And it is, he says, impossible not to believe that the Levirate—that is, the practice of marrying a dead brother’s widow—is derived from polyandry.[3218] The fallacy of the first inference, which assumes the system of “kinship through females only” to depend upon uncertainty as to fathers, has already been shown. The second inference will be found to be equally erroneous.

The Levirate is undoubtedly a wide-spread custom;[3219] and, if it could be proved to be a survival of polyandry, we should be compelled to conclude that this form of marriage was at one time very common. Where women are regarded as property, they are, of course, inherited like other possessions.[3220] In many cases the brother, or, in default of a brother, the nearest male relation, is expressly stated to be _entitled_ to have the widow; and, if he does not marry her, he has nevertheless, the guardianship over her, and may give her away or sell her to some other man.[3221] But there are several peoples who consider the Levirate a duty rather than a right.[3222] Among the Thlinkets, for example, when a husband dies, his brother or his sister’s son must marry the widow, and the neglect of this obligation has occasioned bloody feuds.[3223] The law requiring a man to take care of a sister-in-law is analogous to other duties devolving on kinsfolk, such as the vendetta, &c. Mr. McLennan lays stress on the fact that it is the deceased husband’s _brother_ who inherits his widow. “How came the right of succession,” he says, “to open, as in the ruder cases, to the brother in preference to the son of the deceased? We repeat that the only explanation that can be given of this is, that the law of succession was derived from polyandry.”[3224] But among many of the peoples who have the custom of the Levirate, sons either inherit nothing or are preceded by brothers in succession.[3225] Among the Santals, for instance, “when the elder brother dies, the next younger inherits the widow, children, and all the property.”[3226] Among a few peoples, the widow together with the other property of the dead man goes either to his brother or to his sister’s son.[3227] But it is more natural, where succession runs in the female line, that the widow should be married by the brother than by the nephew, because, as a rule, she is much older than the nephew, and he, in many cases, is too young to marry and to maintain her properly.

Even when a son inherits the other property of his father, it is easy to understand why he does not inherit the widow. To inherit her is, generally speaking, to marry her. But nowhere is a son allowed to marry his own mother; hence it is natural, at least where monogamy prevails, that the right of succession in this case should belong to the brother. In polygynous families, on the other hand, it often happens that the eldest son, or all the sons, inherit the father’s widows, the mother being in each case excepted.[3228] Among the Bakalai, a tribe in Equatorial Africa, widows are permitted to marry the son of their deceased husband, and, if there be no son, they may live with the deceased husband’s brother.[3229] As regards the Negroes of Benin, Bosman states that, if the mother of the eldest son, the only heir, be alive, he allows her a proper maintenance, but his father’s other widows, especially those who have not had children, the son takes home, if he likes them, and uses as his own; but if the deceased leaves no children, the brother inherits all his property.[3230] Among the Mishmis, the heir obtains the wives, with the exception of his own mother, who goes to the next male relation.[3231] Concerning the Kafirs of Natal, Mr. Shooter observes that, “when a man dies, those wives who have not left the kraal remain with the eldest son. If they wish to marry again, they must go to one of their late husband’s brothers.”[3232] The rules of succession are thus modified according to circumstances, and they are not uniform even among the same people. It frequently happens that the brother succeeds to the chieftainship, whilst the son inherits the property of the dead man[3233]—no doubt because the brother, being older and more experienced, is generally better fitted for command than the son.[3234]

Mr. McLennan calls attention to the fact that, among certain peoples, the children begotten by the brother are accounted the children of the brother deceased.[3235] “It is obvious,” he says, “that it could more easily be feigned that the children belonged to the brother deceased, if already, at a prior stage, the children of the brotherhood had been accounted the children of the eldest brother, _i.e._, if we suppose the obligation to be a relic of polyandry.”[3236] But this explanation is very far-fetched. As Dr. Starcke justly observes, a man may, from a juridical point of view, be the father of a child, though he is not so in fact.[3237] In New Guinea, says M. Bink, “à la mort du père, c’est l’oncle (frère du père) qui se charge de la tutelle; si l’enfant devient orphelin, il reconnaît son oncle comme son père.”[3238] In Samoa, the brother of a deceased husband considered himself entitled to have his brother’s wife, and to be regarded by the orphan children as their father.[3239] And, among the Kafirs of Natal, the children of a deceased man’s widow born in marriage with his brother, belong to his son.[3240] Quite in accordance with these facts, the children of a widow may be considered to belong to her former husband. Indeed, where death without posterity is looked upon as a horrible calamity, the ownership of the children is a thing of the utmost importance for the dead man. It is only when the deceased has no offspring that the Jewish, Hindu, and Malagasy laws prescribe that the brother shall “raise up seed” to him.

Mr. McLennan has thus failed in his attempt to prove that polyandry has formed a general stage in the development of marriage institutions; and we may almost with certainty infer that it has always been exceptional. We have already pointed out the groundlessness of Mr. McLennan’s suggestion that in all, or nearly all, the primitive hordes there was a want of balance between the sexes, the men being in the majority on account of female infanticide.[3241] Moreover, though polyandry is due to an excess of men, it would be a mistake to conclude that an excess of men always causes polyandry. This practice presupposes an abnormally feeble disposition to jealousy—a peculiarity of all peoples among whom polyandry occurs. The Eskimo are described as a race with extraordinarily weak passions.[3242] Among the Sinhalese, says Dr. Davy, jealousy is not very troublesome among the men, and the infidelity of a woman is generally easily forgiven.[3243] The people of Ladakh are a mild, timid, and indolent race.[3244] The Kulu husbands “sont très peu jaloux.”[3245] The same is said by Mr. Fraser with regard to the people of Sirmore. The women are “entirely at the service of such as will pay for their favours, without feeling the slightest sense of shame or crime in a practice from which they are not discouraged by early education, example, or even the dread of their lords, who only require a part of the profit.”[3246] The Tibetans are represented as very little addicted to jealousy,[3247] being, as Mr. Wilson remarks, a race of a peculiarly placid and unpassionate temperament.[3248] But such a lack of jealousy, as we have seen, is a rare exception in the human race, and utterly unlikely to have been universal at any time.

Polyandry seems, indeed, to presuppose a certain amount of civilization. We have no trustworthy account of its occurrence among the lowest savage races. Mr. Bridges writes that the Yahgans of Tierra del Fuego consider it utterly abominable. With regard to the Veddahs, Mr. Bailey states, “Polyandry is unknown among them. The practice is alluded to with genuine disgust. I asked a Veddah once what the consequence would be if one of their women were to live with two husbands, and the unaffected vehemence with which he raised his axe, and said, ‘A blow would settle it,’ showed conclusively to my mind the natural repugnance with which they regard the national custom of their Kandyan neighbours.”[3249] These neighbours are much superior to the Veddahs in civilization; and the other peoples practising polyandry have left the lowest stages of development far behind them. The Eskimo are a rather advanced race, and so are the polyandrous nations of the Asiatic continent. Speaking of the people of Sirmore, Mr. Fraser observes, “It is remarkable that a people so degraded in morals, and many of whose customs are of so revolting a nature, should in other respects evince a much higher advancement in civilization than we discover among other nations, whose manners are more engaging, and whose moral character ranks infinitely higher. Their persons are better clad and more decent; their approach more polite and unembarrassed; and their address is better than that of most of the inhabitants of the remote Highlands of Scotland; ... and their houses, in point of construction, comfort and internal cleanliness, are beyond comparison superior to Scottish Highland dwellings.”[3250] On the arrival of the Spaniards, the polyandrous inhabitants of Lancerote were distinguished from the other Canarians, who were strictly monogamous, by marks of greater civilization.[3251]

We have seen that in polyandrous families the husbands are generally brothers, and that the eldest brother, at least in many cases, has the superiority, the younger husbands having almost the position, if the term may be used, of male concubines. It is a fair conclusion that, in such instances, polyandry was originally an expression of fraternal benevolence on the part of the eldest brother, who gave his younger brothers a share in his wife, if, on account of the scarcity of women, they would otherwise have had to live unmarried. If additional wives were afterwards acquired, they would naturally be considered the common property of all the brothers. In this way the group-marriage of the Toda type seems to have been evolved.