E-text prepared by Turgut Dincer, Les Galloway, and the Online Distributed
Proofreading Team (http://www.pgdp.net) from page images generously made
available by HathiTrust Digital Library (https://www.hathitrust.org/)
Note: Images of the original pages are available through
HathiTrust Digital Library. See
https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=coo1.ark:/13960/t2d79wm16;view=1up;seq=9
Transcriber’s note:
Text enclosed by underscores is in italics (_italics_).
Text enclosed by equal signs is in bold face (=bold=).
A caret character is used to denote superscription. A
single character following the caret is superscripted
(xix^e).
THE HISTORY OF HUMAN MARRIAGE
by
EDWARD WESTERMARCK
Lecturer on Sociology at the University of Finland,
Helsingfors
London
Macmillan and Co., Limited
New York: The Macmillan Company
1901
All rights reserved
Richard Clay and Sons, Limited
London and Bungay.
First Edition, 1891.
Second Edition, 1894.
Third Edition, 1901.
INTRODUCTORY NOTE
BY ALFRED R. WALLACE
Having read the proofs of Mr. Westermarck’s book I am asked by the
publishers to say a few words by way of introducing the work to
English readers. This I have great pleasure in doing, because I have
seldom read a more thorough or a more philosophic discussion of some
of the most difficult, and at the same time interesting problems of
anthropology.
The origin and development of human marriage have been discussed by
such eminent writers as Darwin, Spencer, Morgan, Lubbock, and many
others. On some of the more important questions involved in it all
these writers are in general accord, and this agreement has led to
their opinions being widely accepted as if they were well-established
conclusions of science. But on several of these points Mr. Westermarck
has arrived at different, and sometimes diametrically opposite,
conclusions, and he has done so after a most complete and painstaking
investigation of all the available facts.
With such an array of authority on the one side and a hitherto unknown
student on the other, it will certainly be thought that all the
probabilities are against the latter. Yet I venture to anticipate that
the verdict of independent thinkers will, on most of these disputed
points, be in favour of the new comer who has so boldly challenged
the conclusions of some of our most esteemed writers. Even those whose
views are here opposed, will, I think, acknowledge that Mr. Westermarck
is a careful investigator and an acute reasoner, and that his arguments
as well as his conclusions are worthy of the most careful consideration.
I would also call attention to his ingenious and philosophical
explanation of the repugnance to marriage between near relatives which
is so very general both among savage and civilised man, and as to the
causes of which there has been great diversity of opinion; and to his
valuable suggestions on the general question of sexual selection, in
which he furnishes an original argument against Darwin’s views on the
point, differing somewhat from my own though in general harmony with it.
Every reader of the work will admire its clearness of style, and the
wonderful command of what is to the author a foreign language.
PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION
I need scarcely say how fully I appreciate the honour of being
introduced to English readers by Mr. Alfred R. Wallace. I am also
greatly obliged for his kindness in reading the proofs, and in giving
me the benefit of his advice with regard to various parts of the
subject.
It is difficult for me to acknowledge sufficiently my obligations
to Mr. James Sime for his assistance in preparing this book for the
press. The work, as originally written, naturally contained a good many
foreign modes of expression. Mr. Sime has been indefatigable in helping
me to improve the form of the text; and, in our discussions on the main
lines of the argument, he has made several important suggestions. I am
sincerely obliged for the invaluable aid he has given me.
My cordial thanks are due to Mr. Charles J. Cooke, British Vice-Consul
at Helsingfors, who most kindly aided me in writing the first part of
the book in a tongue which is not my own. I am indebted also to Dr.
E. B. Tylor, Professor G. Croom Robertson, Mr. James Sully, and Dr. W.
C. Coupland for much encouraging interest; to Mr. Joseph Jacobs for
the readiness with which he has placed at my disposal some results of
his own researches; and to several gentlemen in different parts of the
world who have been so good as to respond to my inquiries as to their
personal observation of various classes of phenomena connected with
marriage among savage tribes. The information I have received from them
is acknowledged in the passages in which it is used.
A list of authorities is given at the end of the book—between the text
and the index, and it may be well to add that the references in the
notes have been carefully verified.
E. W.
LONDON, _May, 1891_.
PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION
In this new edition of my book I have made no essential changes, but
here and there the argument has been strengthened by the addition of
facts which have come to my knowledge since the appearance of the first
edition. The most important of these new facts will be found in the
second chapter.
I take this opportunity of expressing my warm appreciation of the
thorough way in which the ideas set forth in this book have been
discussed by many critics in England and elsewhere. Translations of the
work have appeared, or are about to appear, in German, Swedish, French,
Italian, and Russian.
E. W.
LONDON, _January, 1894_.
PREFACE TO THE THIRD EDITION
I much regret that the demand for a new edition of this book should
come at a time when circumstances prevent me from undertaking such a
revision of the work as I feel to be required. Since the appearance
of the Second Edition many important facts bearing upon the subject
have been brought to light, new theories have been advanced, and old
theories, supported by fresh arguments, have been revived. To all this,
however, I can do no justice, as I am at present being engaged in
anthropological research in Morocco. This edition is, in consequence, a
mere reprint of the second. But I purpose, after my return to Europe,
to issue an Appendix, in which the book will be brought more up to date
and some criticism will be replied to.
E. W.
MOGADOR (MOROCCO),
_August, 1901_.
CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION
ON THE METHOD OF INVESTIGATION
History of human civilization a part of Sociology, p. 1.—Early history
based on ethnography, p. 2.—Errors in method, pp. 2, _et seq._—How we
can from ethnographical facts acquire information regarding the early
history of mankind, pp. 3-6.—Dr. Tylor’s ‘method of investigating the
development of institutions,’ pp. 4, _et seq._—The causes of social
phenomena, p. 5.—What we know about the antiquity of the human race,
pp. 5, _et seq._—Social survivals, p. 6.—‘Human marriage,’ _ibid._
CHAPTER I
THE ORIGIN OF MARRIAGE
Tales of the origin of marriage, pp. 8, _et seq._—The subject
regarded from a scientific point of view, p. 9.—Parental care among
Invertebrata, _ibid._—The relations of the sexes and parental care
among Fishes, p. 10.—Among Reptiles, _ibid._—Among Birds, pp. 10,
_et seq._—Among the lower Mammals, p. 12.—Among the Quadrumana,
pp. 12-14.—Among savage and barbarous races of men, pp. 14-17.—The
father’s place in the family, pp. 15-19.—Definition of the word
marriage, pp. 19, _et seq._—Marriage a product of natural selection,
pp. 20, _et seq._—Marriage rooted in family rather than family in
marriage, pp. 22-24.
CHAPTER II
A HUMAN PAIRING SEASON IN PRIMITIVE TIMES
Hypotheses as to the periodicity in the sexual life of animals, p.
25.—Every month or season of the year the pairing season of one or
another mammalian species, pp. 25, _et seq._—The rut not dependent
upon any general physiological law, but adapted to the requirement
of each species separately, pp. 26, _et seq._—Wild species without
a definite pairing season, p. 27.—Rutting season among the man-like
apes, _ibid._—Among our earliest human or half-human progenitors,
p. 28.—Periodical increase of the sexual instinct among existing
savages, pp. 28-31.—Among civilized peoples, pp. 31-33.— The increase
of the sexual instinct at the end of spring or in the beginning of
summer, probably a survival of an ancient pairing season, pp. 34,
_et seq._—The winter maximum of conceptions, pp. 35-37.—Why man is
not limited to a particular period of the year in which to court the
female, pp. 37, _et seq._—Domestic animals without a definite pairing
season, p. 38.
CHAPTER III
THE ANTIQUITY OF HUMAN MARRIAGE
Marriage a necessary requirement for the existence of the human
race, p. 39.—The hypothesis that the maternal uncle was the guardian
of the children, pp. 39-41.—The father the head of the family, p.
41.—The hypothesis that all the men of the tribe indiscriminately were
their guardians, pp. 41, _et seq._—Man originally not a gregarious
animal, pp. 42, _et seq._—The solitary life of the man-like apes,
_ibid._—Savage peoples living in families rather than in tribes, pp.
43-47.—Insufficient food supply a hindrance to a true gregarious
manner of living, pp. 47-49.—The gregariousness and sociability of
man sprang in the main from progressive intellectual and material
civilization, pp. 49, _et seq._
CHAPTER IV
A CRITICISM OF THE HYPOTHESIS OF PROMISCUITY
The hypothesis of promiscuity, pp. 51, _et seq._—The evidence adduced
in support of it, p. 52.—Notices of savage nations said to live
promiscuously, pp. 52-55.—Some of the facts adduced, no instances
of real promiscuity, pp. 55-57.—Most of the statements obviously
erroneous, pp. 57-59.—The accuracy of the others doubtful, pp. 59, _et
seq._—Even if correct, they cannot afford any evidence for promiscuity
having prevailed in primitive times, pp. 60, _et seq._—The free
cohabitation of the sexes before marriage, in some parts of the world,
given as evidence of ancient promiscuity, p. 61.—Sexual intercourse
out of wedlock rare, and unchastity on the part of the woman looked
upon as a disgrace, among many uncivilized peoples, pp. 61-66.—The
wantonness of savages in several cases due chiefly to the influence
of civilization, pp. 66-70.—It is quite different from promiscuity,
pp. 70, _et seq._—Customs interpreted as acts of expiation for
individual marriage, p. 72.—Religious prostitution, _ibid._—_Jus
primae noctis_ accorded to the wedding-guests or to the friends of the
bridegroom, pp. 72-76.—The practice of lending wives to visitors, pp.
73-75.—_Jus primae noctis_ granted to a chief, lord, or priest, pp.
76-80.—Courtesans held in greater estimation than women married to a
single husband, pp. 80, _et seq._
CHAPTER V
A CRITICISM OF THE HYPOTHESIS OF PROMISCUITY
(_Continued_)
The ‘classificatory system of relationship,’ pp. 82-84.—‘Marriage in
a group’ and the ‘consanguine family,’ pp. 84, _et seq._—Mr. Morgan’s
assumption that the ‘classificatory system’ is a system of blood
ties, p. 85.—Terms for relationships borrowed from the children’s
lips, pp. 85-87.—Other terms, pp. 87-89.—Mr. Morgan’s assumption not
consistent with the facts he has himself stated, p. 89.—The terms for
relationships originally terms of address, _ibid._—The names given
chiefly with reference to sex and age, as also to the external, or
social, relationship in which the speaker stands to the person whom he
addresses, pp. 90-95.—No inference regarding early marriage customs
to be drawn from the terms for relationships, pp. 95, _et seq._—The
system of ‘kinship through females only,’ p. 96.—Supposed to be due
to uncertain paternity, pp. 96, _et seq._—A list of peoples among whom
this system does not prevail, pp. 98-104.—The inference that ‘kinship
through females only’ everywhere preceded the rise of ‘kinship
through males’ inadmissible from Mr. McLennan’s point of view, p.
105.—The maternal system does not presuppose former uncertainty as
to fathers, _ibid._—The father’s participation in parentage not
discovered as soon as the mother’s, though now universally recognized,
pp. 105-107.—Once discovered, it was often exaggerated, p. 106.—The
denomination of children and the rules of succession, in the first
place, not dependent on ideas of consanguinity, p. 107.—Several
reasons for naming children after the mother rather than after the
father, apart from any consideration of relationship, _ibid._—The
tie between a mother and child much stronger than that which binds
a child to the father, pp. 107, _et seq._—Polygyny, p. 108.—Husband
living with the wife’s family, pp. 109, _et seq._—The rules of
succession influenced by local connections and by the family name,
pp. 110-112.—No general coincidence of what we consider moral and
immoral habits with the prevalence of the male and female line among
existing savages, p. 112.—Occasional coincidence of the paternal
system with uncertainty as to fathers, _ibid._—Avowed recognition of
kinship in the female line only does not show an unconsciousness of
male kinship, pp. 112, _et seq._—The prevalence of the female line
would not presuppose general promiscuity, even if, in some cases, it
were dependent on uncertain paternity, p. 113.—The groups of social
phenomena adduced as evidence for the hypothesis of promiscuity no
evidence, _ibid._
CHAPTER VI
A CRITICISM OF THE HYPOTHESIS OF PROMISCUITY
(_Concluded_)
Promiscuous intercourse between the sexes tends to a pathological
condition unfavourable to fecundity, p. 115.—The practice of polyandry
does not afford evidence in an opposite direction, pp. 115-117.—The
jealousy of man and other mammalian species the strongest argument
against ancient promiscuity, p. 117.—Jealousy among existing peoples,
pp. 117-121.—Punishments inflicted for adultery, pp. 121, 122,
130.—Man’s requirement of virginity from his bride, pp. 123, _et
seq._—A wife considered to belong to her husband, not during his
lifetime only, but after his death, pp. 124-130.—Widows killed,
pp. 125, _et seq._—Duties towards deceased husbands, pp. 126, _et
seq._—Widows forbidden to marry again, pp. 127, _et seq._—Prohibition
of speedy remarriage, pp. 128-130.—The practice of lending or
prostituting wives no evidence for the absence of jealousy, pp.
130, _et seq._—Contact with a ‘higher culture’ misleading natural
instincts, pp. 131, _et seq._—No reason to suppose that the feeling
of jealousy ever was restrained by conditions which made it necessary
for a man to share his wife with other men, pp. 132, _et seq._—The
hypothesis of promiscuity essentially unscientific, p. 133.
CHAPTER VII
MARRIAGE AND CELIBACY
Voluntary abstinence unheard of in a state of nature, p. 134.—Celibacy
rare among savage and barbarous races, pp. 134-136.—Savage views
on celibacy, pp. 136, _et seq._—Savages marry early in life,
pp. 137-139.—Celibacy rare among several civilized races, pp.
139-143.—Celibacy caused by the practice of purchasing wives, and
by polygyny, pp. 143-145.—Celibacy in Europe, and its causes,
pp. 145-150.—Sexual relations considered impure, pp. 151, _et
seq._—Religious celibacy, pp. 152-155.—Hypothesis as to the origin of
the notion of sexual uncleanness and of sexual bashfulness, pp. 155,
_et seq._
CHAPTER VIII
THE COURTSHIP OF MAN
Males active, females comparatively passive, in courtship, pp. 157,
_et seq._—Courtship by women among certain peoples, pp. 158, _et
seq._—Courtship by proxy, p. 159.—Fighting for females among the lower
animals, _ibid._—Among men, pp. 159-163.—Making love, p. 163.—Fights
by women for the possession of men, p. 164.—Female coquetry, _ibid._
CHAPTER IX
MEANS OF ATTRACTION
Savage predilection for ornaments, pp. 165, _et seq._—For
self-mutilation, pp. 166, _et seq._—For dressing the hair, p.
167.—For showy colours and paint, p. 168.—For tattooing, pp. 168, _et
seq._—Practices supposed to have a religious origin, pp. 169-172.—Mr.
Frazer’s theory as regards the origin of tattooing, &c., pp. 170,
_et seq._—Other theories, p. 172.—Men and women began to ornament,
mutilate, paint, and tattoo themselves, chiefly in order to make
themselves attractive to the opposite sex, pp. 172-182.—Savage women
less decorated than savage men, pp. 182-185.—Opinions as to the
origin of dress, p. 186.—Nakedness and want of modesty among many
savage peoples, pp. 186-189.—Ornamental ‘garments’ among savages,
pp. 189-192.—Covering a means of attraction, pp. 192-200, 211, _et
seq._—Practices serving a similar end, pp. 201-206.—Circumcision,
_ibid._—Different ideas of modesty, pp. 206-208—The power of custom
and the feeling of shame, pp. 208-211.
CHAPTER X
THE LIBERTY OF CHOICE
Females ‘engaged’ in infancy, pp. 213, _et seq._—The right of giving
a girl in marriage, pp. 214, _et seq._—Considerable liberty of
selection allowed to women among the lower races, pp. 215-221.—It was
even greater in primitive times, pp. 221, _et seq._—Bride-stealing and
elopement, p. 223.—The position of sons among uncivilized peoples, pp.
223-225.—Paternal authority based on ancestor worship, in the ancient
and Eastern World, pp. 225-235.—The _patria potestas_ of the Aryan
races, pp. 229-235.—The decline of the _patria potestas_, pp. 235-239.
CHAPTER XI
SEXUAL SELECTION AMONG ANIMALS
Mr. Darwin’s theory of ‘Sexual Selection,’ pp. 240, _et
seq._—Contradiction between the theories of natural and sexual
selection, pp. 241, _et seq._—The colours of flowers, pp. 242, _et
seq._—Mr. Wallace’s theory of the sexual colours of animals, p.
243.—The sexual colours make it easier for the sexes to find each
other, pp. 243, _et seq._—They occur exactly in those species whose
habits and manner of living make these colours most visible, pp. 244,
_et seq._—The odours of flowers, p. 246.—Sexual odours and sounds
among animals, pp. 246, _et seq._—The sexual colours, odours, and
sounds of animals complementary to each other in the way that is best
suited to make the animals easily discoverable, pp. 247-249.—The
untenableness of Mr. Darwin’s theory, p. 249.—The secondary sexual
characters due to natural selection, pp. 249, _et seq._—Mr. Wallace’s
views, p. 250.—Animal ‘ornaments,’ pp. 250, _et seq._—Further
arguments against Mr. Darwin’s theory, p. 251.—The variability of the
secondary sexual characters, pp. 251. _et seq._—Their stability in
wild species, p. 252.
CHAPTER XII
THE SEXUAL SELECTION OF MAN: TYPICAL BEAUTY
Female selection among animals and the indifference of the males,
p. 253.—Woman more particular in her choice than man, pp. 253, _et
seq._—Female appreciation of manly strength and courage, pp. 255, _et
seq._—Men attracted by healthy women, p. 256.—The connection between
love and beauty not peculiar to the civilized mind, p. 257.—Different
notions of personal beauty, pp. 257, _et seq._—Mr. Spencer’s theory
of ‘facial perfection,’ pp. 258, _et seq._—Men find beauty in the
full development of the visible characteristics belonging to the human
organism in general, p. 259.—Of those peculiar to the sex, pp. 259,
_et seq._—Of those peculiar to the race, pp. 261-264.—The connection
between love and beauty due to natural selection, pp. 265, 273, _et
seq._—Individual deviations from the national type less considerable
among savages than among civilized men, pp. 265, _et seq._—Racial
peculiarities in some way connected with the external circumstances
in which the various races live, pp. 266-271.—Acclimatization, pp.
268-270.—Professor Weismann’s theory of heredity applied to the
origin of the human races, pp. 271-273.—Physical beauty the outward
manifestation of physical perfection, pp. 273, _et seq._—Rejection
of Mr. Darwin’s opinion on the connection between love and beauty,
pp. 274, _et seq._—Rejection of his theory as to the origin of the
human races, pp. 275, _et seq._—The hairlessness of man, pp. 276, _et
seq._—The influence of sexual selection on the physical aspect of
mankind, p. 277.
CHAPTER XIII
THE LAW OF SIMILARITY
Instinctive aversion among animals to pairing with individuals
belonging to another species, pp. 278-280.—Infertility of first
crosses and of hybrids, pp. 279, _et seq._—‘The Law of Similarity,’
p. 280.—Bestiality, pp. 280, _et seq._—The various human races
said to have an instinctive aversion to intermingling, pp. 281,
_et seq._—Intermixture of races, pp. 282, _et seq._—Its effects on
fertility, pp. 283-288.—Rejection of M. Broca’s theory as to the
infertility of the connections of Europeans with Australian women,
pp. 284-287.—The doctrine of the unity of mankind independent of the
degree of fertility of first crosses, and of mongrels, pp. 288, _et
seq._
CHAPTER XIV
PROHIBITION OF MARRIAGE BETWEEN KINDRED
The horror of incest almost universally characteristic of mankind,
p. 290.—Intercourse between parents and children, pp. 290, _et
seq._—Between brother and sister, pp. 291-294.—Between half-brother
and half-sister, pp. 294, _et seq._—Between uncle and niece, and
aunt and nephew, pp. 295, _et seq._—Between first cousins, pp.
296, _et seq._—The prohibited degrees among peoples unaffected by
modern civilization more numerous, as a rule, than in advanced
communities, pp. 297-309.—Prohibition of marriage between relatives
by alliance, pp. 309, _et seq._—Early hypotheses as to the origin
of the prohibitions of marriage between near kin, p. 310.—Criticism
of Mr. McLennan’s hypothesis as to the origin of exogamy, pp.
311-314.—Criticism of Mr. Spencer’s views, pp. 314, _et seq._—Of Sir
John Lubbock’s, p. 316.—Of Professor Kohler’s, pp. 316, _et seq._—Of
Mr. Morgan’s, &c., pp. 318, _et seq._—The prohibition of incest
founded not on experience, but on instinct, p. 319.
CHAPTER XV
PROHIBITION OF MARRIAGE BETWEEN KINDRED
(_Concluded_)
No innate aversion to marriage with near relations, p. 320.—Innate
aversion to sexual intercourse between persons living very closely
together from early youth, pp. 320-330.—Local exogamy, pp.
321-323.—Connection between the prohibited degrees and the more or
less close living together, pp. 324-329.—Connection between the
‘classificatory system of relationship’ and exogamy, p. 329.—The
one-sidedness of prohibitions due in part directly to local
relationships, in part to the influence of names, pp. 330, _et
seq._—The prohibitions of marriage between relations by alliance and
by adoption due to an association of ideas, p. 331.—The prohibitions
on the ground of ‘spiritual relationship’ due to the same cause,
_ibid._—Endogamy seldom occurs in very small communities, p.
332.—Marriage between half-brothers and half-sisters not contrary
to the principle here laid down, _ibid._—Incestuous unions due to
pride of birth, to necessity, to extreme isolation, and to vitiated
instincts, p. 333.—Incest among the lower animals, p. 334.—The effects
of cross- and self-fertilization among plants, p. 335.—Evil effects
of close interbreeding among animals, pp. 335-337.—A certain amount
of differentiation favourable for the fertilisation or union of two
organisms, pp. 337, _et seq._—Difficulty of adducing direct evidence
for the evil effects of consanguineous marriages among men, pp.
338, _et seq._—Close intermarrying among the Veddahs, pp. 339, _et
seq._—The effects of marriage between first cousins, pp. 340-343.—The
experience of isolated communities does not prove consanguineous
marriages to be harmless, pp. 343-345.—The bad consequences of
self-fertilization and close interbreeding may almost fail to appear
under favourable conditions of life, pp. 345, _et seq._—Consanguineous
marriages more injurious in savage regions than in civilized
society, p. 346.—Tendency of endogamous peoples to die out, pp.
346-350.—Peoples who ascribe evil results to close intermarriage, pp.
350-352.—The horror of incest due to natural selection, pp. 352, _et
seq._—Exogamy arose when single families united in small hordes, p.
353.—Love excited by contrasts, pp. 353-355.
CHAPTER XVI
SEXUAL SELECTION AS INFLUENCED BY AFFECTION AND SYMPATHY, AND BY
CALCULATION
The compound character of love, p. 356.—Conjugal affection, at the
lower stages of civilization, less intense than parental love, pp.
356-358.—Conjugal affection among savages, pp. 358, _et seq._—Among
primitive men, pp. 359, _et seq._—Mutual love as the motive which
leads to marriage, pp. 360, et seq.—Sexual love has developed in
proportion as altruism has increased, _ibid._—Sexual love among the
Eastern nations, _ibid._—Sexual selection determined by intellectual,
emotional, and moral qualities, p. 362.—Sexual selection influenced
by sympathy, pp. 362-376.—By age, p. 362.—By the degree of
cultivation, pp. 362, _et seq._—Racial and national endogamy, pp.
363-365.—Tribal- communal- and clan-endogamy, pp. 365-368.—The origin
of castes and classes, pp. 368, _et seq._—Want of sympathy between
different classes, pp. 369, _et seq._—Class- and caste-endogamy,
pp. 370-373.—The decline of national- and class-endogamy in modern
society, pp. 373, _et seq._—Religion a bar to intermarriage, pp.
374-376.—The increase of mixed marriages, p. 376.—Desire for
offspring, pp. 376-378.—Appreciation of female fecundity, p.
378.—Sexual selection influenced by the desire for offspring, pp.
378, _et seq._—The causes of this desire, pp. 379, _et seq._—With
the progress of civilization this desire has become less intense, p.
381.—A wife chosen because of her ability as a labourer, pp. 381, _et
seq._—A husband chosen because of his ability to protect and provide
for a wife and offspring, p. 382.—Wife-purchase and husband-purchase
in modern society, _ibid._
CHAPTER XVII
MARRIAGE BY CAPTURE AND MARRIAGE BY PURCHASE
Marriage by capture as a reality or as a symbol among uncivilized
races, pp. 383-386.—Among peoples of the Aryan race, pp. 386, _et
seq._—No evidence that marriage by capture has prevailed among every
race, p. 387.—Marriage _with_ capture, p. 388.—Marriage by capture
and exogamy, pp. 388, _et seq._—The origin of marriage by capture, p.
389.—Marriage by capture once the normal, never the exclusive form
of contracting marriage, _ibid._—Marriage by exchange, p. 390.—Wives
obtained by service, pp. 390-392.—Wives obtained by actual purchase,
pp. 392-394.—Marriage on credit, p. 394.—Marriage by purchase among
civilized races, pp. 394-397.—Lower peoples among whom marriage
by purchase does not exist, pp. 397-399.—Marriage by purchase a
more recent stage than marriage by capture, pp. 399-401.—Barter a
comparatively late invention of man, pp. 400, _et seq._—Transition
from marriage by capture to marriage by purchase, p. 401.—The
bride-price a compensation for the loss sustained in giving up the
girl, p. 402.—Bargain about women, _ibid._—Savage views on marriage by
purchase, _ibid._
CHAPTER XVIII
THE DECAY OF MARRIAGE BY PURCHASE. THE MARRIAGE PORTION
The decay of marriage by purchase among civilized peoples, pp.
403-405.—Marriage by purchase transformed into a symbol, pp. 405, _et
seq._—Arbitrary presents and sham sale, p. 405.—Return gift, pp. 405,
_et seq._—The purchase-sum transformed into the morning gift and the
dotal portion, pp. 406-408.—The decay of marriage by purchase among
uncivilized races, pp. 408-410.—The marriage portion does not in every
case spring from a previous purchase, p. 411.—It serves different
ends, _ibid._—The marriage portion as a settlement for the wife, pp.
411-414.—The marriage portion among uncivilized races, pp. 414, _et
seq._—Fathers bound by law or custom to portion their daughters, pp.
415, _et seq._—Husband purchase, p. 416.
CHAPTER XIX
MARRIAGE CEREMONIES AND RITES
Peoples who have no marriage ceremony, pp. 417, _et seq._—The rise
of marriage ceremonies, pp. 418-421.—When the mode of contracting
a marriage altered, the earlier mode, from having been a reality,
survived as a ceremony, p. 418.—Wedding feasts, pp. 418, _et
seq._—Ceremonies symbolizing the relation between husband and wile,
pp. 419-421.—Religious ceremonies connected with marriage among
uncivilized nations, pp. 421-424.—Assistance of a priest, pp. 422, _et
seq._—Omens and ‘lucky days,’ pp. 423, _et seq._—Religious marriage
ceremonies among civilized nations, pp. 424-428.—Civil marriage, pp.
428, _et seq._—The validity of marriage, pp. 429, _et seq._
CHAPTER XX
THE FORMS OF HUMAN MARRIAGE
Polygyny permitted by many civilized nations and the bulk of savage
tribes, pp. 431-435.—Among many savage peoples developed to an
extraordinary extent, pp. 434, _et seq._—Among not a few uncivilized
peoples almost unknown, or even prohibited, pp. 435-437.—Among
certain peoples permitted only to the chief men, pp. 437, _et
seq._—Almost everywhere confined to the smaller part of the people,
pp. 438-442.—Modified in a monogamous direction through the higher
position granted to one of the wives, generally the first married, pp.
443-448.—Through the preference given to the favourite wife as regards
sexual intercourse, pp. 448, _et seq._—Bigamy the most common form of
polygyny, p. 450.—The occurrence of polyandry, pp. 450-455.—Polyandry
nowhere the exclusive form of marriage, pp. 455-457.—Modified in
directions towards monogamy, pp. 457, _et seq._—The first husband
the chief husband, _ibid._—Monogamy the most common form of human
marriage, p. 459.
CHAPTER XXI
THE FORMS OF HUMAN MARRIAGE
(_Continued_)
The proportion between the sexes varies among different peoples, pp.
460-464.—Causes to which the disparity in the numbers of the sexes is
due, pp. 465-482.—The higher mortality of men, dependent upon war,
&c., pp. 465, _et seq._—The higher mortality of women, dependent upon
female infanticide, &c., p. 466.—Disproportion between the sexes at
birth, pp. 466-469.—Hypotheses as to the causes which determine the
sex of the offspring, pp. 469-476.—The law of Hofacker and Sadler,
pp. 469, _et seq._—Dr. Düsing’s hypothesis, pp. 470-476.—Polyandry
dependent upon an excess of male births, pp. 472-474.—Coincidence of
polyandry with poverty of material resources, pp. 474-476.—Mixture
of race produces an excess of female births, pp. 476-480.—Unions
between related individuals or, generally, between individuals who
are very like each other, produce a comparatively great number of
male offspring, pp. 480-482.—The form of marriage influenced by the
numerical proportion between the sexes, pp. 482, _et seq._—Several
reasons why a man may desire to possess more than one wife, pp.
483-492.—Monogamy requires from him periodical continence, pp.
483-485.—He is attracted by female youth and beauty, pp. 485, _et
seq._—At the lower stages of civilization women become old sooner than
in more advanced communities, pp. 486-488.—Man’s taste for variety,
p. 488.—Man’s desire for offspring, pp. 488-491.—Women generally
less prolific among savage than among civilized nations, pp. 490,
_et seq._—A man’s fortune increased by a multitude of wives through
their labour, pp. 491, _et seq._—A man’s authority increased by a
multitude of wives, p. 492.—Hindrances to polygyny, pp. 493-503.—The
difficulty in maintaining a plurality of wives, p. 493.—The necessity
of paying the purchase-sum or of serving for a wife, pp. 493, _et
seq._—Polygyny practised chiefly by the principal men of the people,
pp. 494, _et seq._—Polygyny a violation of the feelings of women, pp.
495-500.—Marrying sisters, pp. 499, _et seq._—Coincidence of monogamy
with a higher _status_ of women, pp. 500-502.—The form of marriage
influenced by the quality of the passion which unites the sexes, p.
502.—The absorbing passion for one, pp. 502, _et seq._—The causes of
polyandry, pp. 503, _et seq._—The chief immediate cause a numerical
disproportion between the sexes, p. 504.
CHAPTER XXII
THE FORMS OF HUMAN MARRIAGE
(_Concluded_)
Monogamy more prevalent at the lowest stages of civilization than
at somewhat higher stages, pp. 505-508.—Polygyny favoured by social
differentiation, pp. 505, _et seq._—The very lowest races either
strictly monogamous, or but little addicted to polygyny, pp. 506, _et
seq._—Polygyny adopted under the influence of a higher civilization,
pp. 507, _et seq._—Monogamy prevails among the man-like apes, p.
508.—Civilization in its higher forms leads to monogamy, pp. 508, _et
seq._—Will monogamy be the only recognized form of marriage in the
future? pp. 509, _et seq._—Criticism of Mr. McLennan’s theory as to
the general prevalence of polyandry in early times, pp. 510-515—The
Levirate affords no evidence for this theory, pp. 510-514.—Polyandry
always an exception in the human race, pp. 514, _et seq._—It
presupposes an abnormally feeble disposition to jealousy, p. 515.—It
seems to presuppose a certain amount of civilization, pp. 515, _et
seq._—Polyandry an expression of fraternal benevolence, p. 516.—The
origin of the group-marriage of the Toda type, _ibid._
CHAPTER XXIII
THE DURATION OF HUMAN MARRIAGE
The time during which marriage lasts varies, p. 517.—Peoples among
whom separation is said to be unknown, _ibid._—Human marriage,
as a general rule, not necessarily contracted for life, pp.
518-520.—Divorce dependent upon the husband’s decision, pp. 520, _et
seq._—Divorce among a great many peoples exceptional, pp. 521-523.—A
man permitted to divorce his wife only under certain conditions, pp.
523-526.—Marriage dissolved by the wife, pp. 526-529.—The causes by
which the duration of human marriage is influenced, pp. 529-535.—The
duration of marriage among primitive men, p. 535.—The development of
the duration of human marriage, pp. 535, _et seq._
CHAPTER XXIV
SUMMARY
PP. 537-550.
AUTHORITIES QUOTED pp. 551-580
INDEX pp. 581-644
THE
HISTORY OF HUMAN MARRIAGE
INTRODUCTION
ON THE METHOD OF INVESTIGATION
It is in the firm conviction that the history of human civilization
should be made an object of as scientific a treatment as the history of
organic nature that I write this book. Like the phenomena of physical
and psychical life those of social life should be classified into
certain groups, and each group investigated with regard to its origin
and development. Only when treated in this way can history lay claim to
the rank and honour of a science in the highest sense of the term, as
forming an important part of Sociology the youngest of the principal
branches of learning.
Descriptive historiography has no higher object than that of offering
materials to this science. It can, however, but very inadequately
fulfil this task. The written evidences of history do not reach far
into antiquity. They give us information about times when the scale
of civilization was already comparatively high—but scarcely anything
more. As to the origin and early development of social institutions,
they leave us entirely in the dark. The sociologist cannot rest content
with this. But the information which historical documents are unable to
afford him, may be, to a great extent, obtained from ethnography.
The admirable works of Dr. Tylor, Sir John Lubbock, and Mr. Herbert
Spencer have already made us familiar with the idea of a history of
primitive civilization, based on ethnographical grounds. This new
manner of treating history has, since the publication of their writings
on the subject, gained adherents day by day. Immeasurable expanses have
thus been opened to our knowledge, and many important results have
been reached. But it must, on the other hand, be admitted that the
scientific value of the conclusions drawn from ethnographical facts has
not always been adequate to the labour, thought, and acumen bestowed
on them. The various investigators have, in many important questions,
come to results so widely different, that the possibility of thus
getting any information about the past might easily be doubted. These
differences, however, seem to me to be due, not to the material, but to
the manner of treating it.
“The chief sources of information regarding the early history of civil
society,” says Mr. McLennan, “are, first, the study of races in their
primitive condition; and, second, the study of the symbols employed by
advanced nations in the constitution or exercise of civil rights.”[1]
Yet nothing has been more fatal to the Science of Society than the
habit of inferring, without sufficient reasons, from the prevalence of
a custom or institution among some savage peoples, that this custom,
this institution is a relic of a stage of development that the whole
human race once went through. Thus the assumption that primitive
men lived in tribes or hordes, all the men of which had promiscuous
intercourse with all the women, where no individual marriage existed,
and the children were the common property of the tribe, is founded,
in the first place, on the statements of some travellers and ancient
writers as to peoples among whom this custom is said actually to
prevail, or to have prevailed. Dr. Post has gone still further in his
book, ‘Die Geschlechtsgenossenschaft der Urzeit und die Entstehung
der Ehe.’ Without adducing any satisfactory reason for his opinion, he
considers it probable that “monogamous marriage originally emerged
everywhere from pure communism in women, through the intermediate
stages of limited communism in women, polyandry, and polygyny.”[2] Mr.
Lewis H. Morgan, in his ‘Systems of Consanguinity and Affinity of the
Human Family,’ has suggested no fewer than fifteen normal stages in
the evolution of marriage and the family, assuming the existence and
general prevalence of a series of customs and institutions “which
must of necessity have preceded a knowledge of marriage between single
pairs, and of the family itself, in the modern sense of the term.”[3]
According to him, one of the first stages in this series is the
intermarriage of brothers and sisters, as evidence of which he adduces,
besides other facts, the historical statements that one of the Herods
was married to his sister, and Cleopatra was married to her brother.[4]
Again, in the study of symbols, or survivals, the sociologists have by
no means always been so careful as the matter requires. True enough
that “wherever we discover symbolical forms, we are justified in
inferring that in the past life of the people employing them, there
were corresponding realities.”[5] But all depends upon our rightly
interpreting these symbols, and not putting into them a foreign
meaning. The worst is, however, that many customs have been looked upon
as survivals that probably are not so. Thus, for instance, I think that
Mr. McLennan is mistaken in considering the system of the Levirate,
under which, at a man’s death, his wife or wives pass to his brother,
as a test of the former presence of polyandry, the brothers of a family
having a common wife.
Similar conclusions being of common occurrence in modern Sociology, it
is not surprising that different writers dissent so frequently from
each other. This should be a strong reason for every conscientious
investigator first of all putting to himself the question: how can
we from ethnographical facts acquire information regarding the early
history of mankind?
I do not think that this question can be correctly answered in more
than one way. We have first to find out the causes of the social
phenomena; then, from the prevalence of the causes, we may infer the
prevalence of the phenomena themselves, if the former must be assumed
to have operated without being checked by other causes.
If, then, historical researches based on ethnography are to be
crowned with success, the first condition is that there shall be a
rich material. It is only by comparing a large number of facts that
we may hope to find the cause or causes on which a social phenomenon
is dependent. And a rich material is all the more indispensable, as
the trustworthiness of ethnographical statements is not always beyond
dispute. Without a thorough knowledge of a people it is impossible
to give an exact account of its habits and customs, and therefore
it often happens that the statements of a traveller cannot, as
regards trustworthiness, come up to the evidences of history. As the
sociologist is in many cases unable to distinguish falsehood from
truth, he must be prepared to admit the inaccuracy of some of the
statements he quotes. What is wanting in quality must be made up for
in quantity; and he who does not give himself the trouble to read
through a voluminous literature of ethnography should never enter into
speculations on the origin and early development of human civilization.
Often, no doubt, it is extremely difficult to make out the causes
of social phenomena. There are, for instance, among savage peoples
many customs which it seems almost impossible to explain. Still, the
statistical ‘method of investigating the development of institutions,’
admirably set forth in the paper which Dr. Tylor recently read before
‘The Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland,’[6] will
throw light upon many mysterious points. Dr. Tylor has there shown
that causal relations among social facts may be discovered by way of
tabulation and classification. The particular rules of the different
peoples are to be scheduled out into tables, so as to indicate the
“adhesions,” or relations of coexistence of each custom, showing
which peoples have the same custom, and what other customs accompany
it or lie apart from it. If, then, starting with any two customs,
the number of their “adhesions” is found to be much greater than the
number of times they would coexist according to the ordinary law of
chance-distribution—which number is calculated from the total number
of peoples classified and the number of occurrences of each custom—we
may infer that there is some causal connection between the two customs.
Further on, I shall mention some few of the inferences Dr. Tylor has
already drawn by means of this method.
The causes on which social phenomena are dependent fall within the
domain of different sciences—Biology, Psychology, or Sociology. The
reader will find that I put particular stress upon the psychological
causes, which have often been deplorably overlooked, or only
imperfectly touched upon. And more especially do I believe that the
mere instincts have played a very important part in the origin of
social institutions and rules.
We could not, however, by following the method of investigation here
set forth, form any idea of the earlier stages of human development,
unless we had _some_ previous knowledge of the antiquity of mankind.
Otherwise we should, of course, be quite ignorant whether the causes
in question operated or not in the past. Fortunately, in this respect
also, modern science has come to results which scarcely admit any
longer of being considered as mere hypotheses. It teaches us, to
quote Sir John Lubbock, “that man was at first a mere savage, and
that the course of history has on the whole been a progress towards
civilization, though at times—and at some times for centuries—some
races have been stationary, or even have retrograded;”[7] that,
however, all savage nations now existing are raised high above
primitive men; and that the first beings worthy to be called men,
were probably the gradually transformed descendants of some ape-like
ancestor. We may, further, take for granted that all the physical and
psychical qualities that man, in his present state, has in common with
his nearest relatives among the lower animals, also occurred at the
earlier stages of human civilization. These conclusions open to us a
rich source of new knowledge.
Finally, as to social survivals, I agree, certainly, with Mr. McLennan
that they are of great importance to Sociology. But we must be
extremely careful not to regard as rudiments customs which may be more
satisfactorily explained otherwise.
It is only by strictly keeping to these principles that we may hope
to derive information touching the early history of man. In doing so,
the student will be on his guard against rash conclusions. Considering
that he has to make out the primary sources of social phenomena before
writing their history, he will avoid assuming a custom to be primitive,
only because, at the first glance, it appears so; he will avoid making
rules of exceptions, and constructing the history of human development
on the immediate ground of isolated facts. It is true that the critical
sociologist, on account of the deficiency of our knowledge, very often
has to be content with hypotheses and doubtful presumptions. At any
rate, the interests of science are better looked to, if we readily
acknowledge our ignorance, than if we pass off vague guesses as
established truths.
* * * * *
It is one of the simplest of all social institutions the history of
which forms the subject of this book. Indeed, next to the family
consisting of mother and offspring only, marriage is probably _the_
simplest. I shall not, however, treat this subject in all its aspects,
but confine myself to human marriage, though before dealing with it I
must, of course, touch upon the sexual relations of the lower animals
also.
The expression “human marriage” will probably be regarded by most
people as an improper tautology. But, as we shall see, marriage, in
the natural history sense of the term, does not belong exclusively
to our own species. No more fundamental difference between man and
other animals should be implied in sociological than in biological and
psychological terminology. Arbitrary classifications do science much
injury.
I shall examine human marriage from its different sides, giving, in
accordance with my method, an historical account of each separately.
The reader may find much that will outrage his feelings, and, possibly,
hurt his sense of modesty; but the concealment of truth is the only
indecorum known to science. To keep anything secret within its cold and
passionless expanses, would be the same as to throw a cloth round a
naked statue.
CHAPTER I
THE ORIGIN OF MARRIAGE
From remote antiquity we are told of kings and rulers who instituted
marriage amongst their subjects. We read in ‘Mahâbhârata,’ the Indian
poem, that formerly “women were unconfined, and roved about at their
pleasure, independent. Though in their youthful innocence, they went
astray from their husbands, they were guilty of no offence; for such
was the rule in early times.” But Swêtakêtu, son of the Rishi Uddâlaka,
could not bear this custom, and established the rule that thenceforward
wives should remain faithful to their husbands and husbands to their
wives.[8] The Chinese annals recount that, “in the beginning, men
differed in nothing from other animals in their way of life. As
they wandered up and down in the woods, and women were in common,
it happened that children never knew their fathers, but only their
mothers.” The Emperor Fou-hi abolished, however, this indiscriminate
intercourse of the sexes and instituted marriage.[9] Again, the ancient
Egyptians are stated to be indebted to Menes for this institution,[10]
and the Greeks to Kekrops. Originally, it is said, they had no idea
of conjugal union; they gratified their desires promiscuously, and
the children that sprang from these irregular connections always bore
the mother’s name. But Kekrops showed the Athenians the inconvenience
to society from such an abuse, and established the laws and rules
of marriage.[11] The remote Laplanders, also, sing about Njavvis and
Attjis, who instituted marriage, and bound their wives by sacred
oaths.[12]
Popular imagination prefers the clear and concrete; it does not
recognize any abstract laws that rule the universe. Nothing exists
without a cause, but this cause is not sought in an agglomeration of
external or internal forces; it is taken to be simple and palpable,
a personal being, a god or a king. Is it not natural, then, that
marriage, which plays such an important part in the life of the
individual, as well as in that of the people, should be ascribed to a
wise and powerful ruler, or to direct divine intervention?
With notions of this kind science has nothing to do. If we want to
find out the origin of marriage, we have to strike into another path,
the only one which can lead to the truth, but a path which is open
to him alone who regards organic nature as one continued chain, the
last and most perfect link of which is man. For we can no more stop
within the limits of our own species, when trying to find the root of
our psychical and social life, than we can understand the physical
condition of the human race without taking into consideration that of
the lower animals. I must, therefore, beg the reader to follow me into
a domain which many may consider out of the way, but which we must, of
necessity, explore in order to discover what we seek.
It is obvious that the preservation of the progeny of the lowest
animals depends mainly upon chance. In the great sub-kingdom of the
Invertebrata, even the mothers are exempted from nearly all anxiety as
regards their offspring. In the highest order, the Insects, the eggs
are hatched by the heat of the sun, and the mother, in most cases,
does not even see her young. Her care is generally limited to seeking
out an appropriate place for laying the eggs, and to fastening them to
some proper object and covering them, if this be necessary for their
preservation. Again, to the male’s share nothing falls but the function
of propagation.[13]
In the lowest classes of the Vertebrata, parental care is likewise
almost unheard of. In the immense majority of species, young fishes are
hatched without the assistance of their parents, and have, from the
outset, to help themselves. Many Teleostei form, however, an exception;
and, curiously enough, it is the male on which, in these cases, the
parental duty generally devolves. In some instances he constructs a
nest, and jealously guards the ova deposited in it by the female; while
the male of certain species of Arius carries the ova about with him in
his capacious pharynx.[14] Most of the Reptiles place their eggs in a
convenient and sunny spot between moss and leaves, and take no further
trouble about them. But several of the larger serpents have a curious
fashion of laying them in a heap, and then coiling themselves around
them in a great hollow cone.[15] And female Crocodiles, as also certain
aquatic snakes of Cochin China, observed by Dr. Morice, carry with them
even their young.[16]
Among the lower Vertebrata it rarely happens that both parents jointly
take care of their progeny. M. Milne Edwards states, indeed, that in
the Pipa, or Toad of Surinam, the male helps the female to disburthen
herself of her eggs;[17] and the Chelonia are known to live in pairs.
“La femelle,” says M. Espinas, “vient sur les plages sablonneuses au
moment de la ponte, accompagnée du mâle, et construit un nid en forme
de four où la chaleur du soleil fait éclore les œufs.”[18] But it may
be regarded as an almost universal rule that the relations of the sexes
are utterly fickle. The male and female come together in the paring
time; but having satisfied their sexual instincts they part again, and
have nothing more to do with one another.
The Chelonia form, with regard to their domestic habits, a transition
to the Birds, as they do also from a zoological and, particularly,
from an embryological point of view. In the latter class, parental
affection has reached a very high degree of development, not only on
the mother’s side, but also on the father’s. Male and female help each
other to build the nest, the former generally bringing the materials,
the latter doing the work. In fulfilling the numberless duties of the
breeding season, both birds take a share. Incubation rests principally
with the mother, but the father, as a rule, helps his companion, taking
her place when she wants to leave the nest for a moment, or providing
her with food and protecting her from every danger. Finally, when the
duties of the breeding season are over, and the result desired is
obtained, a period with new duties commences. During the first few
days after hatching, most birds rarely leave their young for long, and
then only to procure food for themselves and their family. In cases
of great danger, both parents bravely defend their offspring. As soon
as the first period of helplessness is over, and the young have grown
somewhat, they are carefully taught to shift for themselves; and it is
only when they are perfectly capable of so doing that they leave the
nest and the parents.
There are, indeed, a few birds that from the first day of their
ultra-oval existence lack all parental care; and in some species, as
the ducks, it frequently happens that the male leaves family duties
wholly to the female. But, as a general rule, both share prosperity and
adversity. The hatching of the eggs and the chief part of the rearing
duties belong to the mother,[19] whilst the father acts as protector,
and provides food, &c.
The relations of the sexes are thus of a very intimate character,
male and female keeping together not only during the breeding season,
but also after it. Nay, most birds, with the exception of those
belonging to the Gallinaceous family, when pairing, do so once for all
till either one or the other dies. And Dr. Brehm is so filled with
admiration for their exemplary family life, that he enthusiastically
declares that “real genuine marriage can only be found among
birds.”[20]
This certainly cannot be said of most of the Mammals. The mother
is, indeed, very ardently concerned for the welfare of her young,
generally nursing them with the utmost affection, but this is by no
means the case with the father. There are cases in which he acts as
an enemy of his own progeny. But there are not wanting instances to
the contrary, the connections between the sexes, though generally
restricted to the time of the rut, being, with several species of a
more durable character. This is the case with whales,[21] seals,[22]
the hippopotamus,[23] the _Cervus campestris_,[24] gazelles,[25] the
_Neotragus Hemprichii_ and other small antelopes,[26] reindeer,[27] the
_Hydromus coypus_,[28] squirrels,[29] moles,[30] the ichneumon,[31] and
some carnivorous animals, as a few cats and martens,[32] the yaguarundi
in South America,[33] the _Canis Brasiliensis_,[34] and possibly also
the wolf.[35] Among all these animals the sexes remain together even
after the birth of the young, the male being the protector of the
family.
What among lower Mammals is an exception, is among the Quadrumana a
rule. The natives of Madagascar relate that in some species of the
Prosimii, male and female nurse their young in common[36]—a statement,
however, which has not yet been proved to be true. The mirikina
(_Nyctipithecus trivirgatus_) seems, according to Rengger, to live in
pairs throughout the whole year, for, whatever the season, a male and a
female are always found together.[37] Of the _Mycetes Caraya_, _Cebus
Azarae_,[38] and _Ateles paniscus_,[39] single individuals are very
seldom, or never, seen, whole families being generally met with. Among
the Arctopitheci,[40] the male parent is expressly said to assist the
female in taking care of the young ones.
The most interesting to us are, of course, the man-like apes. Diard
was told by the Malays, and he found it afterwards to be true, that
the young Siamangs, when in their helpless state, are carried about by
their parents, the males by the father, the females by the mother.[41]
Lieutenant C. de Crespigny, who was wandering in the northern part of
Borneo in 1870, gives the following description of the Orang-utan:
“They live in families—the male, female, and a young one. On one
occasion I found a family in which were two young ones, one of them
much larger than the other, and I took this as a proof that the family
tie had existed for at least two seasons. They build commodious
nests in the trees which form their feeding-ground, and, so far as I
could observe, the nests, which are well lined with dry leaves, are
only occupied by the female and young, the male passing the night in
the fork of the same or another tree in the vicinity. The nests are
very numerous all over the forests, for they are not occupied above
a few nights, the mias (or Orang-utan) leading a roving life.”[42]
According to Dr. Mohnike, however, the old males generally live with
the females during the rutting season only;[43] and Mr. Wallace never
saw two full-grown animals together. But as he sometimes found not only
females, but also males, accompanied by half-grown young ones,[44]
we may take for granted that the offspring of the Orang-utan are not
devoid of all paternal care.
More unanimous are the statements which we have regarding the Gorilla.
According to Dr. Savage, they live in bands, and all his informants
agree in the assertion that but one adult male is seen in every band.
“It is said that when the male is first seen he gives a terrific yell
that resounds far and wide through the forest.... The females and young
at the first cry quickly disappear; he then approaches the enemy in
great fury, pouring out his horrid cries in quick succession.”[45]
Again, Mr. Du Chaillu found “almost always one male with one female,
though sometimes the old male wanders companionless;”[46] and Mr.
Winwood Reade states likewise that the Gorilla goes “sometimes alone,
sometimes accompanied by his female and young one.”[47] The same
traveller was told that, when a family of Gorillas ascend a tree and
eat a certain fruit, the old father remains seated at the foot of the
tree. And when the female is pregnant, he builds a rude nest, usually
about fifteen or twenty feet from the ground; here she is delivered,
and the nest is then abandoned.[48]
For more recent information about the Gorilla we are indebted to Herr
von Koppenfells. He states that the male spends the night crouching
at the foot of the tree, against which he places his back, and thus
protects the female and their young, which are in the nest above, from
the nocturnal attacks of leopards. Once he observed a male and female
with two young ones of different ages, the elder being perhaps about
six years old, the younger about one.[49]
When all these statements are compared, it is impossible to doubt that
the Gorilla lives in families, the male parent being in the habit of
building the nest and protecting the family. And the same is the case
with the Chimpanzee. According to Dr. Savage, “it is not unusual to
see ‘the old folks’ sitting under a tree regaling themselves with
fruit and friendly chat, while ‘their children’ are leaping around
them and swinging from branch to branch in boisterous merriment.”[50]
And Herr von Koppenfells assures us that the Chimpanzee, like the
Gorilla, builds a nest for the young and female on a forked branch, the
male himself spending the night lower down in the tree.[51]
Passing from the highest monkeys to the savage and barbarous races
of man, we meet with the same phenomenon. With the exception of a
few cases in which certain tribes are asserted to live together
promiscuously—almost all of which assertions I shall prove further on
to be groundless—travellers unanimously agree that in the human race
the relations of the sexes are, as a rule, of a more or less durable
character. The family consisting of father, mother, and offspring, is
a universal institution, whether founded on a monogamous, polygynous,
or polyandrous marriage. And, as among the lower animals having the
same habit, it is to the mother that the immediate care of the children
chiefly belongs, while the father is the protector and guardian of the
family. Man in the savage state is generally supposed to be rather
indifferent to the welfare of his wife and children, and this is really
often the case, especially if he be compared with civilized man. But
the simplest paternal duties are, nevertheless, universally recognized.
If he does nothing else, the father builds the habitation, and employs
himself in the chase and in war.
Thus, among the North American Indians, it was considered disgraceful
for a man to have more wives than he was able to maintain.[52] Mr.
Powers says that among the Patwin, a Californian tribe which ranks
among the lowest in the world, “the sentiment that the men are bound
to support the women—that is to furnish the supplies—is stronger even
than among us.”[53] Among the Iroquois it was the office of the husband
“to make a mat, to repair the cabin of his wife, or to construct a new
one.” The product of his hunting expeditions, during the first year of
marriage, belonged of right to his wife, and afterwards he shared it
equally with her, whether she remained in the village, or accompanied
him to the chase.[54] Azara states that among the Charruas of South
America, “du moment où un homme se marie, il forme une famille à part
et travaille pour la nourrir;”[55] and among the Fuegians, according
to Admiral Fitzroy, “as soon as a youth is able to maintain a wife,
by his exertions in fishing or bird-catching, he obtains the consent
of her relations.”[56] Again, among the utterly rude Botocudos, whose
girls are married very young, remaining in the house of the father till
the age of puberty, the husband is even then obliged to maintain his
wife, though living apart from her.[57]
To judge from the recent account of Herr Lumholtz, the paternal duties
seemed to be scarcely recognized by the natives of Queensland.[58] But
with reference to the Kurnai in South Australia, Mr. Howitt states
that “the man has to provide for his family with the assistance of
his wife. His share is to hunt for their support, and to fight for
their protection.” As a Kurnai once said to him, “A man hunts, spears
fish, fights, and sits about.”[59] And in the Encounter Bay tribe the
paternal care is considered so indispensable, that, if the father dies
before a child is born, the child is put to death by the mother, as
there is no longer any one to provide for it.[60]
Among the cannibals of New Britain, the chiefs have to see that the
families of the warriors are properly maintained.[61] As regards the
Tonga Islanders, Martin remarks, “A married woman is one who cohabits
with a man, and lives under his roof and protection;”[62] and in
Samoa, according to Mr. Pritchard, “whatever intercourse may take
place between the sexes, a woman does not become a man’s wife unless
the latter take her to his own house.”[63] Among the Maoris, says Mr.
Johnston, “the mission of woman was to increase and multiply; that
of man to defend his home.”[64] In Radack, even natural children are
received by the father into his house, as soon as they are able to
walk.[65]
The Rev. D. Macdonald states that, in some African tribes, “a father
has to fast after the birth of his child, or take some such method of
showing that he recognizes that he as well as the mother should take
care of the young stranger.”[66] Certain Africans will not even go on
any warlike expedition when they have a young child;[67] and the South
American Guaranies, while their wives are pregnant do not risk their
lives in hunting wild beasts.[68] In Lado the bridegroom has to assure
his father-in-law three times that he will protect his wife, calling
the people present to witness.[69] And among the Touaregs, according
to Dr. Chavanne, a man who deserts his wife is blamed, as he has taken
upon himself the obligation of maintaining her.[70]
The wretched Rock Veddahs in Ceylon, according to Sir J. Emerson
Tennent, “acknowledge the marital obligation and the duty of
supporting their own families.”[71] Among the Maldivians, “although
a man is allowed four wives at one time, it is only on condition of
his being able to support them.”[72] The Nagas are not permitted to
marry until they are able to set up house on their own account.[73] The
Nairs, we are told, consider it a husband’s duty to provide his wife
with food, clothing, and ornaments;[74] and almost the same is said
by Dr. Schwaner with reference to the tribes of the Barito district,
in the south-east part of Borneo.[75] A Burmese woman can demand a
divorce, if her husband is not able to maintain her properly.[76]
Among the Mohammedans, the maintenance of the children devolves so
exclusively on the father, that the mother is even entitled to claim
wages for nursing them.[77] And among the Romans, _manus_ implied not
only the wife’s subordination to the husband, but also the husband’s
obligation to protect the wife.[78]
The father’s place in the family being that of a supporter and
protector, a man is often not permitted to marry until he has given
some proof of his ability to fulfil these duties.
The Koyúkuns believe that a youth who marries before he has killed
a deer will have no children.[79] The aborigines of Pennsylvania
considered it a shame for a boy to think of a wife before having given
some proof of his manhood.[80] Among the wild Indians of British
Guiana, says Mr. Im Thurn, before a man is allowed to choose a wife he
must prove that he can do a man’s work and is able to support himself
and his family.[81] Among the Dyaks of Borneo,[82] the Nagas of Upper
Assam,[83] and the Alfura of Ceram,[84] no one can marry unless he has
in his possession a certain number of heads. The Karmanians, according
to Strabo, were considered marriageable only after having killed an
enemy.[85] The desire of a Galla warrior is to deprive the enemy of his
genitals, the possession of such a trophy being a necessary preliminary
to marriage.[86] Among the Bechuana and Kafir tribes south of the
Zambesi, the youth is not allowed to take a wife until he has killed
a rhinoceros.[87] In the Marianne Group, the suitor had to give proof
of his bodily strength and skill.[88] And among the Arabs of Upper
Egypt, the man must undergo an ordeal of whipping by the relations of
his bride in order to test his courage. If he wishes to be considered
worth having, he must receive the chastisement, which is sometimes
exceedingly severe, with an expression of enjoyment.[89]
The idea that a man is bound to maintain his family is, indeed, so
closely connected with that of marriage and fatherhood, that sometimes
even repudiated wives with their children are, at least to a certain
extent, supported by their former husbands. This is the case among the
Chukchi of North-Western Asia,[90] the Basutos in Southern Africa,[91]
and the Munda Kols in Chota Nagpore.[92] Further, a wife frequently
enjoys her husband’s protection even after sexual relations have been
broken off. And upon his death, the obligation of maintaining her and
her children devolves on his heirs, the wide-spread custom of a man
marrying the widow of his deceased brother being, as we shall see
in a subsequent chapter, not only a privilege belonging to the man,
but, among several peoples, even a duty. We may thus take for granted
that in the human race, at least at its present stage, the father has
to perform the same function as in other animal species, where the
connections between the sexes last longer than the sexual desire.
* * * * *
In encyclopedical and philosophical works we meet with several
different definitions of the word marriage. Most of these definitions
are, however, of a merely juridical or ethical nature, comprehending
either what is required to make the union legal,[93] or what, in the
eye of an idealist, the union ought to be.[94] But it is scarcely
necessary to say how far I am here from using the word in either of
these senses. It is the natural history of human marriage that is the
object of this treatise; and, from a scientific point of view, I think
there is but one definition which may claim to be generally admitted,
that, namely, according to which marriage is nothing else than a more
or less durable connection between male and female, lasting beyond
the mere act of propagation till after the birth of the offspring.
This definition is wide enough to include all others hitherto given,
and narrow enough to exclude those wholly loose connections which by
usage are never honoured with the name of marriage. It implies not
only sexual relations, but also living together, as is set forth in
the proverb of the Middle Ages, “Boire, manger, coucher ensemble est
mariage, ce me semble.”[95] And, though, rather vague, which is a
matter of course, it has the advantage of comprehending in one notion
phenomena essentially similar and having a common origin.
Thus, as appears from the preceding investigation, the first traces of
marriage are found among the Chelonia. With the Birds it is an almost
universal institution, whilst, among the Mammals, it is restricted to
certain species only. We observed, however, that it occurs, as a rule,
among the monkeys, especially the anthropomorphous apes as well as in
the races of men. Is it probable, then, that marriage was transmitted
to man from some ape-like ancestor, and that there never was a time
when it did not occur in the human race? These questions cannot be
answered before we have found out the cause to which it owes its origin.
It is obvious that where the generative power is restricted to a
certain season, it cannot be the sexual instinct that keeps male and
female together for months or years. Nor is there any other egoistic
motive that could probably account for this habit. Considering that
the union lasts till after the birth of the offspring, and considering
the care taken of this by the father, we may assume that the prolonged
union of the sexes is, in some way or other connected with parental
duties. I am, indeed, strongly of opinion that the tie which joins male
and female is an instinct developed through the powerful influence of
natural selection. It is evident that, when the father helps to protect
the offspring, the species is better able to subsist in the struggle
for existence than it would be if this obligation entirely devolved
on the mother. Paternal affection and the instinct which causes male
and female to form somewhat durable alliances, are thus useful mental
dispositions which, in all probability, have been acquired through the
survival of the fittest.
But how, then, can it be that among most animals the father never
concerns himself about his progeny? The answer is not difficult to
find. Marriage is only one of many means by which a species is enabled
to subsist. Where parental care is lacking, we may be sure to find
compensation for it in some other way. Among the Invertebrata, Fishes,
and Reptiles, both parents are generally quite indifferent as to their
progeny. An immense proportion of the progeny therefore succumb before
reaching maturity; but the number of eggs laid is proportionate to the
number of those lost, and the species is preserved nevertheless. If
every grain of roe, spawned by the female fishes, were fecundated and
hatched, the sea would not be large enough to hold all the creatures
resulting from them. The eggs of Reptiles need no maternal care, the
embryo being developed by the heat of the sun; and their young are
from the outset able to help themselves, leading the same life as the
adults. Among Birds, on the other hand, parental care is an absolute
necessity. Equal and continual warmth is the first requirement for
the development of the embryo and the preservation of the young ones.
For this the mother almost always wants the assistance of the father,
who provides her with necessaries, and sometimes relieves her of the
brooding. Among Mammals, the young can never do without the mother
at the tenderest age, but the father’s aid is generally by no means
indispensable. In some species, as the walrus,[96] the elephant,[97]
the _Bos americanus_,[98] and the bat,[99] there seems to be a rather
curious substitute for paternal protection, the females, together with
their young ones, collecting in large herds or flocks apart from the
males. Again, as to the marriage of the Primates, it is, I think, very
probably due to the small number of young, the female bringing forth
but one at a time; and, among the highest apes, as in man, also to the
long period of infancy.[100] Perhaps, too, the defective family life
of the Orang-utan, compared with that of the Gorilla and Chimpanzee,
depends upon the fewer dangers to which this animal is exposed. For
“except man,” Dr. Mohnike says, “the Orang-utan in Borneo has
no enemy of equal strength.”[101] In short, the factors which the
existence of a species depends upon, as the number of the progeny,
their ability to help themselves when young, maternal care, marriage,
&c., vary indefinitely in different species. But in those that do not
succumb, all these factors are more or less proportionate to each
other, the product always being the maintenance of the species.
Marriage and family are thus intimately connected with each other: it
is for the benefit of the young that male and female continue to live
together. Marriage is therefore rooted in family, rather than family
in marriage. There are also many peoples among whom true conjugal life
does not begin before a child is born, and others who consider that the
birth of a child out of wedlock makes it obligatory for the parents
to marry. Among the Eastern Greenlanders[102] and the Fuegians,[103]
marriage is not regarded as complete till the woman has become a
mother. Among the Shawanese[104] and Abipones,[105] the wife very often
remains at her father’s house till she has a child. Among the Khyens,
the Ainos of Yesso, and one of the aboriginal tribes of China, the
husband goes to live with his wife at her father’s house, and never
takes her away till after the birth of a child.[106] In Circassia,
the bride and bridegroom are kept apart until the first child is
born;[107] and among the Bedouins of Mount Sinai, a wife never enters
her husband’s tent until she becomes far advanced in pregnancy.[108]
Among the Baele, the wife remains with her parents until she becomes
a mother, and if this does not happen, she stays there for ever, the
husband getting back what he has paid for her.[109] In Siam, a wife
does not receive her marriage portion before having given birth to a
child;[110] while among the Atkha Aleuts, according to Erman, a husband
does not pay the purchase sum before he has become a father.[111]
Again, the Badagas in Southern India have two marriage ceremonies, the
second of which does not take place till there is some indication that
the pair are to have a family; and if there is no appearance of this,
the couple not uncommonly separate.[112] Dr. Bérenger-Féraud states
that, among the Wolofs in Senegambia, “ce n’est que lorsque les signes
de la grossesse sont irrécusables chez la fiancée, quelquefois même ce
n’est qu’après la naissance d’un ou plusieurs enfants, que la cérémonie
du mariage proprement dit s’accomplit.”[113] And the Igorrotes of Luzon
consider no engagement binding until the woman has become pregnant.[114]
On the other hand, Emin Pasha tells us that, among the Mádi in Central
Africa, “should a girl become pregnant, the youth who has been her
companion is bound to marry her, and to pay to her father the customary
price of a bride.”[115] Burton reports a similar custom as prevailing
among peoples dwelling to the south of the equator.[116] Among many of
the wild tribes of Borneo, there is almost unrestrained intercourse
between the youth of both sexes; but, if pregnancy ensue, marriage
is regarded as necessary.[117] The same, as I am informed by Dr.
A. Bunker, is the case with some Karen tribes in Burma. In Tahiti,
according to Cook, the father might kill his natural child, but if he
suffered it to live, the parties were considered to be in the married
state.[118] Among the Tipperahs of the Chittagong Hills,[119] as well
as the peasants of the Ukraine,[120] a seducer is bound to marry the
girl, should she become pregnant. Again, Mr.Powers informs us that,
among the Californian Wintun, if a wife is abandoned when she has a
young child, she is justified by her friends in destroying it on the
ground that it has no supporter.[121] And among the Creeks, a young
woman that becomes pregnant by a man whom she had expected to marry,
and is disappointed, is allowed the same privilege.[122]
It might, however, be supposed that, in man, the prolonged union of the
sexes is due to another cause besides the offspring’s want of parental
care, _i.e._, to the fact that the sexual instinct is not restricted to
any particular season, but endures throughout the whole year. “That
which distinguishes man from the beast,” Beaumarchais says, “is
drinking without being thirsty, and making love at all seasons.” But in
the next chapter, I shall endeavour to show that this is probably not
quite correct, so far as our earliest human or semi-human ancestors are
concerned.