THE FORMS OF HUMAN MARRIAGE
Most of the lower animal species are by instinct either monogamous or
polygynous. With man, every possible form of marriage occurs. There are
marriages of one man with one woman (monogamy), of one man with many
women (polygyny), of many men with one woman (polyandry), and, in a few
exceptional cases, of many men with many women.
Polygyny was permitted by most of the ancient peoples with whom history
acquaints us, and is, in our day, permitted by several civilized
nations and the bulk of savage tribes.
The ancient Chibchas practised polygyny to a large extent.[2628] Among
the Mexicans[2629] and the Peruvian Incas,[2630] a married man might
have, besides his legitimate wife, less legitimate wives or concubines.
The same is the case in China and Japan, where the children of a
concubine have the same legal rights as the children of a wife.[2631]
In Corea, the mandarins are even bound by custom, besides having
several wives, to retain several concubines in their “yamen.”[2632]
Tradition shows polygyny and concubinage to have been customary among
the Hebrews during the patriarchal age. Esau married Judith and
Basemath, Jacob married Leah and Rachel.[2633] Later on, we read of
Solomon, who had “seven hundred wives, princesses, and three hundred
concubines;”[2634] and of Rehoboam, who “took eighteen wives and
threescore concubines.”[2635] Indeed, polygyny was so much a matter of
course that the law did not even criticize it.[2636] According to the
Talmudic right also, it was permitted, though the number of legitimate
wives was restricted to four.[2637] Among European Jews, it was still
practised during the Middle Ages, and, among Jews living in Mohammedan
countries, it occurs even to this day.[2638] The Korân allows a man to
take four legitimate wives,[2639] and he may take as many concubines as
he likes. Between a wife and a concubine the difference is, indeed, not
great: the former has her father as her protector, whilst the latter is
defenceless against the husband.[2640] A slave, on the other hand, is
not permitted to have more than two wives at the same time.[2641]
Diodorus Siculus informs us that the Egyptians were not restricted to
any number of wives, but that everyone married as many as he chose,
with the exception of the priesthood, who were by law confined to
one consort.[2642] The Egyptians had concubines also, most of whom
appear to have been foreign women—war-captives or slaves; and these
were members of the family, ranking next to the wives and children
of their lord, and probably enjoying a share of the property after
his death.[2643] With regard to the Assyrians, Professor Rawlinson
states that, so far as we have any real evidence, their kings appear
as monogamists; but he thinks it is probable that they had a certain
number of concubines.[2644] In Media, on the other hand, polygyny
was commonly practised among the more wealthy classes;[2645] and the
Persian kings, particularly in later times, had a considerable number
of wives and concubines.[2646]
None of the Hindu law-books restricts the number of wives whom a man is
permitted to marry.[2647] We find undoubted cases of polygyny in the
hymns of the ‘Rig-Veda,’[2648] and several passages in the ‘Laws of
Manu’ provide for a plurality of wives without any restriction.[2649]
Speaking of the modern Hindus, Mr. Balfour says, “By the law a Hindu
may marry as many wives, and by custom keep as many concubines, as he
may choose.”[2650]
The Greeks of the Homeric age frequently had concubines, who lived
in the same house as the man’s family, and were regarded half as
wives.[2651] Polygyny, in the fullest sense of the term, appears to be
ascribed to Priam, but to no one else.[2652] At a later period a kind
of concubinage seems to have been recognized in Greece by law, and
scarcely proscribed by public opinion;[2653] and bigamy was practised
by the tyrants in some of the Greek colonies.[2654] The Romans were
more strictly monogamous. Among them, concubinage was always well
distinguished from legal marriage, and, according to Rossbach, was much
less common in early times than subsequently.[2655]
Among the Teutons, at the beginning of their history, we come across
plurality of wives in the West,[2656] and especially in the North.
The Scandinavian kings indulged in polygyny,[2657] and it does not
seem to have been restricted to them only.[2658] Nor was it unknown to
the pagan Russians.[2659] In the Finnish poems, though polygyny is not
mentioned, there are passages which seem to indicate that it was not
entirely unheard of among the Finns of early times.[2660]
Even in the Christian world open polygyny has occasionally been
permitted, or at least tolerated. It was frequently practised by the
Merovingian kings, and one law of Charles the Great seems to imply
that it was not unknown even among priests.[2661] Soon after the Peace
of Westphalia, bigamy was allowed in some German States where the
population had been largely reduced during the Thirty Years’ War. And
in modern Europe polygyny, as Mr. Spencer remarks, long survived in the
custom which permitted princes to have many mistresses; “polygyny in
this qualified form remaining a tolerated privilege of royalty down to
late times.”[2662] Moreover, St. Augustin said expressly that he did
not condemn polygyny;[2663] and Luther allowed Philip the Magnanimous
of Hessen, for political reasons, to marry two women. Indeed, he openly
declared that, as Christ is silent about polygyny, he could not forbid
the taking of more than one wife.[2664] The Mormons, as all the world
knows, regard polygyny as a divine institution.
Among many savage peoples polygyny is developed to an extraordinary
extent. In Unyoro, according to Emin Pasha, it would be absolutely
improper for even a small chief to have fewer than ten or fifteen
wives, and poor men have three or four each.[2665] Serpa Pinto tells
us of a minister in the Barôze, who at the time of his visit to that
country had more than seventy wives.[2666] In Fiji, the chiefs had from
twenty to a hundred wives;[2667] and, among all of the North American
tribes visited by Mr. Catlin, “it is no uncommon thing to find a chief
with six, eight, or ten, and some with twelve or fourteen wives in
his lodge.”[2668] The King of Loango is said to have seven thousand
wives.[2669]
It is a more noteworthy fact that among not a few uncivilized peoples,
polygyny is almost unknown, or even prohibited. The Wyandots, according
to Heriot, restricted themselves to one wife;[2670] and, among the
Iroquois, polygyny was not permitted, nor did it ever become a
practice.[2671] It is said that, among the Californian Kinkla and
Yurok, no man has more than one wife.[2672] The Karok do not allow
bigamy even to the chief; and, though a man may own as many women
for slaves as he can purchase, he brings obloquy upon himself if he
cohabits with more than one.[2673] Nor does polygyny occur among the
Simas, the Coco-Maricopas, and several other tribes on the banks of
the Gila and the Colorado;[2674] nor among the Moquis in New Mexico,
and certain nations who inhabit the Isthmus of Tehuantepec.[2675] And,
in several tribes of South America, the men are stated to have but one
wife.[2676]
The Guanches of the Canary Islands, except the inhabitants of
Lancerote, lived in monogamy;[2677] and the same is the case with the
Quissama tribe in Angola, the Touaregs, and the Beni-Mzab.[2678] Among
all the Moorish tribes in the Western Sahara, Vincent did not meet a
single man who had a plurality of wives.[2679]
In Asia we find many instances of strictly monogamous peoples. The
Veddahs in Ceylon are so rigorous in this respect that infidelity
never seems to occur among them.[2680] In the Andaman Islands,
according to Mr. E. H. Man, “bigamy, polygamy, polyandry, and divorce
are unknown;”[2681] and the Nicobar Islanders—at least those on the
most northern island, Car Nicobar—“have but one wife, and look upon
unchastity as a very deadly sin.”[2682] Among the Koch and Old Kukis,
polygyny and concubinage are forbidden;[2683] whilst, among the Pádams,
Mikris, and Munda Kols, a man, though not expressly forbidden to have
many wives, is blamed if he has more than one.[2684] The Badagas of
the Neilgherry Hills, the Nagas of Upper Assam, the Kisáns, and Meches
confine themselves to one consort at the same time;[2685] and so do
the Mrús and Toungtha, who do not consider it right for a master to
take advantage of his position even with regard to the female slaves
in his house.[2686] Among the Santals, says Mr. E. G. Man, a woman
reigns alone in her husband’s wigwam, “as there is seldom, if ever, a
second wife or concubine to divide his affections—polygamy, although
not exactly prohibited, being not very popular with the tribe.”[2687]
Among the Karens of Burma,[2688] and certain tribes of Indo-China, the
Malay Peninsula, and the Indian Archipelago, polygyny is said either
to be forbidden[2689] or unknown.[2690] The Igorrotes of Luzon are
so strictly monogamous, that, in case of adultery, the guilty party
can be compelled to leave the hut and the family for ever.[2691] The
Hill Dyaks marry but one wife, and a chief who once broke through this
custom lost all his influence; adultery is entirely unknown among
them.[2692] The Alfura of Minahassa were formerly monogamists, and the
occasional occurrence of polygyny in later times, according to Dr.
Hickson, was a degeneration from the old customs, brought about perhaps
by Mohammedan influence.[2693]
In Santa Christina or Tauata (Marquesas Islands), monogamy is said
to be the exclusive form of marriage.[2694] Among the Papuans of
Dorey, not only is polygyny forbidden, but concubinage and adultery
are unknown.[2695] In Australia, Mr. Curr has discovered some truly
monogamous tribes. In the Eucla tribe, “none of the men have more than
one wife;”[2696] among the Karawalla and Tunberri tribes, dwelling on
the Lower Diamantina, polygyny is not allowed;[2697] and in the Birria
tribe, “the possession of more than one wife is absolutely forbidden,
or was so before the coming of the whites.”[2698]
In certain American tribes the chiefs alone are permitted to have a
plurality of wives.[2699] A similar exclusive privilege seems to have
been granted to the nobility in ancient Peru.[2700] Among the Ainos
of Yessy, according to v. Siebold only the chief of the village, and,
in some places, the wealthier men are allowed to have more than one
wife.[2701]
Even where polygyny is permitted by custom or law, it is by no means
so generally practised as is often supposed. Almost everywhere it is
confined to the smaller part of the people, the vast majority being
monogamous. We are told that, in the New Hebrides, “all the men are
polygamists, generally having three or four wives apiece;”[2702] that
among certain Kafir tribes, “the average number of wives to each
married man amongst the common people is about three;”[2703] that,
among the Masai, a poor man has generally two wives.[2704] But there
is sufficient evidence that such peoples form exceptions to an almost
universal rule.
In a ‘Sociological Study’ on the Lower Congo, Mr. Phillips remarks,
“It is a mistaken opinion that in a polygamous society most men
have more than one wife: the relative numbers of the sexes forbid
the arrangement being extended to the whole population; really only
the wealthier can indulge in a plurality of wives, the poorer having
to be content with one or often with none.”[2705] Proyart says the
same of the people of Loango, adding that the rich, who can use the
privilege of having many wives, are far from being numerous;[2706]
and like statements are made with reference to several other negro
peoples.[2707] Among many Kafir tribes,[2708] the Bechuanas,[2709]
Hottentots,[2710] and Eastern Central Africans,[2711] monogamy is the
rule; whilst, amongst the Touaregs,[2712] Tedâ,[2713] Marea,[2714]
Beni-Amer,[2715] &c.,[2716] polygyny is expressly stated to be confined
to a few men only. “La plupart des Kabyles,” say Messrs. Honateau and
Letournex, “n’ont ... qu’une femme;”[2717] and in Egypt, according to
Mr. Lane, not more than one husband in twenty has two wives.[2718] We
may, indeed, say with Munzinger[2719] that even in Africa, the chief
centre of polygynous habits, polygyny is an exception.
It is so among all Mohammedan peoples, in Asia and Europe, as well
as in Africa.[2720] “In India,” says Syed Amír’ Alí, “more than
ninety-five per cent. of Mohammedans are at the present moment,
either by conviction or necessity, monogamists. Among the educated
classes versed in the history of their ancestors, and able to compare
it with the records of other nations, the custom is regarded with
disapprobation amounting almost to disgust. In Persia, according to
Colonel Macgregor’s statement, only two per cent. of the population
enjoy the questionable luxury of a plurality of wives.[2721] Moreover,
although polygyny is sanctioned by custom among the Cochin Chinese,
the Siamese, the Hindus, and many other races of India, the mass of
these peoples are in practice monogamous.[2722] In China, among the
labouring classes, it is rare to find more than one woman to one man,
and Dr. Gray thinks that, in the earliest ages, concubinage was a
privilege of the wealthy classes only.[2723] Among the peoples of
Central and Northern Asia and, generally, among all the uncivilized or
semi-civilized peoples belonging to the Russian Empire, polygyny is,
or, before the introduction of Christianity, was, an exception.[2724]
In the Indian Archipelago, says Mr. Crawfurd, polygyny and concubinage
exist only among a few of the higher ranks, and may be looked upon
as a kind of vicious luxury of the great, for it would be absurd to
regard either one or the other as an institution affecting the whole
mass of society.[2725] The truth of this assertion is fully confirmed
by Raffles, as regards the Javanese; by Low and Boyle, as regards
the Malays of Sarawak; by Marsden, Wilken, and Forbes as regards the
Sumatrans; by Schadenberg, as regards the Aëtas of the Philippines; and
so on.[2726]
In various parts of the Australian continent monogamy is said to be the
rule.[2727] In the Larrakía tribe (Port Darwin), for instance, only
about ten per cent. of those who are married have two wives.[2728] In
Tasmania, polygyny, if not unknown, was quite exceptional.[2729] Among
the Maoris, according to Dieffenbach, it is “very uncommon.”[2730] In
the Sandwich Islands, it was practised only by the chiefs, whose means
enabled them to maintain a plurality of wives.[2731] Indeed, in almost
every group of the Pacific Islands polygyny is expressly stated to be
an exception.[2732]
The same is the case with the American aborigines.[2733] Dalager states
that, on the west coast of Greenland, in his time, hardly one man in
twenty had two wives, and it was still more uncommon for one man to
have three or four.[2734] Among the Thlinkets, as a rule, a man had but
one wife.[2735] The aborigines of Hispaniola, with the exception of
the king or chief, seemed to Columbus to live in monogamy.[2736] And
Mr. Bridges writes that, in Tierra del Fuego, polygyny is practised
“in some districts very rarely, in others more frequently, but in no
part generally.”
All the statements we have from the ancient world seem to indicate that
polygyny was an exception. Speaking of the Hebrews, Dr. Scheppig says
that, although our information about the marital affairs of common
Hebrews is too scanty to entitle us to conclude, from the scarcity of
cases of polygyny recorded, that such cases were actually rare, we may
assume that keeping up several establishments was too expensive for any
but the rich.[2737] In Egypt, as we may infer from the numerous ancient
paintings illustrative of domestic life in that country, polygyny
was of rare occurrence; and Herodotus expressly affirms that it was
customary for the Egyptians to marry only one wife.”[2738] Spiegel
thinks that the ancient Persians were as a rule monogamous,[2739]
and Sir Henry Maine and Dr. Schrader make a similar suggestion as to
the early Indo-Europeans in general.[2740] Among the West Germans,
according to Tacitus, only a few persons of noble birth had a plurality
of wives;[2741] and, in India, polygyny as a rule was confined to kings
and wealthy lords.[2742] In a hymn of the ‘Rig-Veda,’ which dwells
upon the duality of the two Aświns, the pairs of deities are compared
with pairs of almost everything that runs in couples, including a
husband and wife, and two lips uttering sweet sounds.[2743]
Where polygyny occurs, it is modified, as a rule, in ways that tend
towards monogamy: first, through the higher position granted to one
of the wives, generally the first married; secondly, through the
preference given by the husband to his favourite wife as regards sexual
intercourse.
Among the Greenlanders,[2744] Thlinkets,[2745] Kaniagmuts,[2746]
Crees,[2747] and probably most of the North American tribes who
practise polygyny,[2748] the first married wife is the mistress of
the house. The Aleuts distinguish the first or real wife from the
subsequent wives by a special name.[2749] Among the Ahts, the children
of a chief’s extra wives have not the father’s rank.[2750] The
Algonquins, says Heriot, permit two wives to one husband, but “the
one is considered of a rank superior to the other, and her children
alone are accounted legitimate.”[2751] Among the Mexicans,[2752]
Mayas,[2753] Chibchas,[2754] and Peruvians,[2755] the first wife took
precedence of the subsequent wives, or, strictly speaking, they had
only one “true and lawful wife,” though as many concubines as they
liked. In Nicaragua, bigamy, in the juridical sense of the term,
was punished by exile and confiscation of property;[2756] and, in
Mexico, neither the wives of “second rank” nor their children could
inherit property.[2757] Among the Mosquitoes, Tamanacs, Uaupés,
Mundrucûs,[2758] and other South American peoples,[2759] the first
wife generally has superiority in domestic affairs. Among the Brazilian
aborigines, however, no difference in rights exist between the children
of different wives.[2760]
The first wife is superior in authority to the others among the
Western Victorians, Narrinyeri, Maoris,[2761] &c.[2762] In Samoa, a
chief had, besides his wife, one, two, or three concubines;[2763] and
in Tahiti, according to Ellis, it was rather a system of concubinage
than a plurality of wives, that prevailed among the higher chiefs, the
woman to whom the chief was first united in marriage, or whose rank
was nearest his own, being generally considered his wife in the proper
sense of the term, while the others held an inferior position.[2764]
In the Indian Archipelago, according to Mr. Crawfurd, the wife of the
first marriage is always the real mistress of the family; the rest are
often little better than her hand-maids.[2765] The same holds good for
the Burmese, according to Lieutenant-General Fytche; for the Santals,
according to Colonel Dalton.[2766] In Siam, “the wife who has been the
object of the marriage ceremony ‘khan mak’ takes precedence of all
the rest, and she and her descendants are the only legal heirs to the
husband’s possessions.”[2767] Among the Khamtis, Samoyedes,[2768] and
other Asiatic peoples,[2769] the first wife is always the mistress of
the household and the most respected in the family; whilst, among the
Ainos,[2770] Mongols, and Tangutans,[2771] one man can take only one
lawful wife, though as many concubines as he pleases. But, except among
the Ainos, the children of concubines are illegitimate and have no
share in the inheritance.
The polygyny of China is a legalized concubinage, and the law actually
prohibits the taking of a second wife during the lifetime of the
first.[2772] The wife is invested with a certain amount of power over
the concubines, who may not even sit in her presence without special
permission.[2773] She addresses her partner with a term corresponding
to our “husband,” whilst the concubines call him “master.”[2774]
These are generally women with large feet and of low origin, not
unfrequently slaves or prostitutes; whereas the wife is almost
invariably, except of course in the case of Tartar ladies, a woman
with small feet.[2775] A wife cannot be degraded to the position of
a concubine, nor can a concubine be raised to the position of a wife
so long as the wife is alive, under a penalty in the one case of a
hundred, in the other of ninety blows.[2776] But the question upon
which the legitimacy of the offspring depends, is not whether the woman
is wife or concubine, but whether she has been received into the house
of the man or not.[2777] In Mohammedan countries, in households where
two or more wives belong to one man, the first married generally enjoys
the highest rank; she is called “the great lady,” and is commonly
united with her husband for life. But all the children of the man are
considered equally legitimate, even those born of female slaves.[2778]
Among the negro peoples, the principal wife, to whom the housekeeping
and command over all the rest are intrusted, is in most cases the one
first married. She has certain privileges, and in many cases can be
repudiated only if she has been unfaithful to her husband.[2779] Among
the Edeeyahs of Fernando Po, it was for the first wife alone that a
man had to serve several years with his father-in-law.[2780] Speaking
of the Eastern Central African tribes, Mr. Macdonald says, “As a
rule, a man has one wife that is free, while the other three or four
are slaves.... The chief wife is generally the woman that was married
first.... The chief wife has the superintendence of the domestic and
agricultural establishment. She keeps the others at their work, and
has power to exercise discipline upon them.” Generally, it is only by
inheriting the possessions of an elder brother that a man procures more
than one free wife.[2781] Among the Damaras and other South African
tribes, the eldest son of the principal or first wife inherits his
father’s property.[2782] Speaking of the Basutos, Mr. Casalis observes,
“A very marked distinction exists between the first wife and those
who succeed her. The choice of the ‘great’ wife (as she is always
called) is generally made by the father, and is an event in which all
the relations are interested. The others, who are designated by the
name of ‘serete’ (heels), because they must on all occasions hold an
inferior position to the mistress of the house, are articles of luxury,
to which the parents are not obliged to contribute.” The chief of the
Basutos, when asked by foreigners how many children he has, alludes in
his answer only to those of his first wife; and, if he says he is a
widower, this means that he has lost his real wife, and has not raised
any of his concubines to the rank she occupied.[2783] Among the Zulus,
the chief wife is the one first married,[2784] and this is often, but
not always, the case among the Kafirs.[2785] According to Rochon,
polygyny in Madagascar is, in fact, a sort of concubinage.[2786]
Eber suggests that the kings of ancient Egypt, although they might
have many concubines, had only one real wife, as there is no
instance of two consorts given in the inscriptions.[2787] Professor
Rawlinson makes a similar remark as to the polygyny of the Persian
kings.[2788] Regarding the Hindus, Mr. Mayne says, “A peculiar
sanctity ... seems to have been attributed to the first marriage, as
being that which was contracted from a sense of duty, and not merely
for personal gratification. The first married wife had precedence
over the others, and her first-born son over his half-brothers. It
is probable that originally the secondary wives were considered as
merely a superior class of concubines, like the hand-maids of the
Jewish patriarchs.”[2789] It was necessary that the first married
wife should be of the same caste as her husband.[2790] She sat by him
at marriages and other religious ceremonies, was head of the family,
and entitled to adopt a son if she had no sons at the time of her
husband’s death.[2791] The modified polygyny of the ancient Assyrians
and Greeks has been already noted. The ancient Scandinavians had
almost always only one legitimate wife, though as many concubines
as they chose.[2792] Touching the Pagan Russians, Ewers says that
of the wives of a prince one probably had precedence.[2793] Among
the Mormons, Sir R. F. Burton observes, “the first wife, as among
polygamists generally, is _the_ wife and assumes the husband’s name and
title.”[2794]
The difference in the position held by the several wives belonging to
one man, shows itself also in the demand of various peoples that the
first wife shall be of the husband’s rank, whilst the succeeding wives
may be of lower birth.[2795]
As just mentioned, there is another way in which polygyny is modified.
Among certain peoples the husband is bound by custom or law to cohabit
with his wives in turn. The Caribs, when they married several sisters
at the same time, lived a month with each in her separate hut.[2796]
Among the wild Indians of Chili, according to Mr. Darwin, the cazique
lives a week in turn with each of his wives.[2797] The Kafirs have an
old traditional law requiring a husband who has many wives to devote
three succeeding days and nights to each of them.[2798] A Mohammedan
is obliged to visit his four legal wives by turns;[2799] and the same
custom prevails, according to Krasheninnikoff, in Kamchatka.[2800]
The negroes often follow a like rule in order to keep peace in the
family.[2801] And, in Samoa, the system adopted when a person has
several wives, “is to allow each wife to enjoy three days’ supremacy
in rotation.”[2802] But such arrangements are, no doubt, exceptions,
and it is doubtful whether, in these cases, theory and practice
coincide.[2803] A marriage may, in fact, be monogamous, though, from a
juridical point of view, it is polygynous.
“It is not uncommon for an Indian,” says Carver, “although he takes
to himself so many wives, to live in a state of continence with many of
them for several years,” and those who do not succeed in pleasing the
husband may “continue in their virgin state during the whole of their
lives.”[2804] Among the Apaches, the chiefs “can have any number of
wives they choose, but one only is the favourite.”[2805] In Bokhara,
a rich man generally has two, three, or four wives; yet, according
to Georgi, one of them, as a rule, holds precedence in the husband’s
love.[2806] Speaking of the modern Egyptians, Mr. Lane says, “In
general, the most beautiful of a man’s wives or slaves is, of course,
for a time his greatest favourite; but in many—if not most—cases,
the lasting favourite is not the most handsome.”[2807] Sometimes the
wife who has proved most fruitful and given birth to the healthiest
children is most favoured by the husband;[2808] and, among the Indians
of Western Washington and North-Western Oregon, according to Dr. Gibbs,
the man usually lives with his first wife, at least after his interest
in subsequent wives has cooled down.[2809] But it is generally the
youngest wife who is the favourite. An Arabian Sheik said to Sir S. W.
Baker, “I have four wives; as one has become old, I have replaced
her with a young one; here they all are (he now marked four strokes
upon the sand with his stick). This one carries water; that grinds the
corn; this makes the bread; the last does not do much, as she is the
youngest, and my favourite.”[2810] In Guiana, “an Indian is never
seen with two young wives; the only case in which he takes a second
is when the first has become old.” The first wife certainly retains
the management of domestic affairs, but she no longer possesses the
husband’s love.[2811] Statements to a similar effect are made regarding
the Arabs of the Sahara, Tahitians, Central Asiatic Turks, Mormons,
&c.[2812]
Bigamy is the most common form of polygyny, and a multitude of wives is
the luxury of a few despotic rulers or very wealthy men. The Eskimo,
for example, have rarely more than two wives, and a Greenlander who
took a third or fourth was blamed by his countrymen, as we are told
by Cranz.[2813] The tribes of Oregon generally confine themselves to
a couple of wives.[2814] Bishop Salvado never knew a West Australian
native with more than two—“à moins peut-être que par générosité un
homme ne prenne sous sa protection la femme de son ami ou parent
absent; ou bien que par voie d’hérédité il n’adopte les veuves de son
frère.”[2815] Rich Kafirs are stated to have commonly two or three
wives;[2816] and Colonel Dalton does not recollect that, among the
Khamtis, he ever met with a case in which more than two women were
married to one husband.[2817] The Hebrews who indulged in polygyny were
generally bigamists.[2818]
* * * * *
Polyandry is a much rarer form of marriage than polygyny. In
Oonalashka, one of the Aleutian Islands, according to v. Langsdorf, a
woman sometimes lived with two husbands who agreed between themselves
upon the conditions on which they were to share her.[2819] Among the
Kaniagmuts, two or three men occasionally had a wife in common;[2820]
and Veniaminoff tells us that in ancient times a Thlinket woman,
besides her real husband, could have a legal paramour, who usually
was the brother of the husband.[2821] Among the Eskimo also, “two men
sometimes marry the same woman.”[2822] Father Lafitau writes, “Par
une suite de la Gynécocratie, la polygamie, qui n’est pas permise aux
hommes, l’est pourtant aux femmes chez les Iroquois Tsonnontouans,
où il en est, lesquelles ont deux maris, qu’on regarde comme
légitimes.”[2823] Among the Avanos and Maypurs, along the Orinoco, v.
Humboldt found that brothers often had but one wife;[2824] according to
Mr. Brett, the Warraus do not consider the practice of one woman having
two husbands to be bad; and he mentions an instance of a woman amongst
them having even three.[2825]
In Nukahiva, as we are told by Lisiansky, in rich families every
woman had two husbands, of whom one might be called the assistant
husband.[2826] In New Caledonia, according to M. Moncelon, polyandry
does not seem to have been entirely unknown;[2827] and Mr. Radfield
writes to me from Lifu that an old man knew of three cases of
polyandrous marriage having occurred in that island, but the husbands
were despised by the rest of the natives. In two of these cases the
husbands were brothers, in the third they were unrelated. It is said
that, among the Tasmanians, “polyandry, or something very like it,
existed;”[2828] but this statement, if correct, refers to altogether
exceptional cases.
Bontier and Le Verrier assert that, in the island of Lancerote, of the
Canaries, most women had three husbands.[2829] Thunberg observes that,
among the Hottentots, there were women who married two men.[2830] Dr.
Fritsch mentions the existence of polyandry among the Damaras, and
Mr. Theal among the mountain tribes of the Bantu race.[2831] The Hovas
of Madagascar have a word to express the leave given to a wife to have
intercourse with another man during a husband’s prolonged absence from
home.[2832]
Until prohibited by the governor, Sir Henry Ward, about the year 1860,
polyandry prevailed among the Sinhalese throughout the interior of
Ceylon, one woman having in many cases three or four husbands, and
in others five or six or even seven. It is recorded that the same
practice was at one time universal throughout the island, except among
the Veddahs,[2833] and even now it occurs in spite of government
interdict.[2834] The husbands are usually members of the same family,
and most frequently brothers.
Among the Todas, all brothers of one family, be they many or few, live
in mixed cohabitation with one or more wives. “If there be four or
five brothers,” says Dr. Shortt, “and one of them, being old enough,
gets married, his wife claims all the other brothers as her husbands,
and, as they successively attain manhood, she consorts with them; or,
if the wife has one or more younger sisters, they in turn, on attaining
a marriageable age, become the wives of their sister’s husband or
husbands.... Owing, however, to the great scarcity of women in this
tribe, it more frequently happens that a single woman is wife to
several husbands, sometimes as many as six.”[2835] The same practice
occurs among the Kurgs of Mysore.[2836] Among the Nairs of Malabar,
it is the custom for one woman “to have attached to her two males,
or four, or perhaps more, and they cohabit according to rules.”[2837]
Polyandry is also found among the Miris, Dophlas, Butlas,[2838]
Sissee Abors,[2839] Khasias,[2840] and Santals.[2841] It prevails
in the Siwalik mountains, Sirmore,[2842] Ladakh,[2843] the Jounsar
and Bawar hill districts attached to the Doon,[2844] Kunawar,[2845]
Kotegarh,[2846] and, especially, in Tibet. This custom exists, as
Mr. Wilson asserts, “all over the country of the Tibetan-speaking
people; that is to say, from China to the dependencies of Kashmir
and Afghanistan, with the exception of Sikkim, and some other of the
provinces on the Indian side of the Himalaya, where, though the Tibetan
language may in part prevail, yet the people are either Aryan in race,
or have been much influenced by Aryan ideas.”[2847] Polyandry is said
to occur among the Saporogian Cossacks;[2848] and Mr. Ravenstein
quotes a statement of a Japanese traveller that it prevails among the
Smerenkur Gilyaks in Eastern Siberia.[2849]
With the exception of the Nairs, Khasias, and Saporogian Cossacks, the
husbands in almost every one of these cases are stated to be brothers.
A colonel who lived among the Kulus of Kotegarh for twenty-five
years assures us that, among that people, the husbands are always
brothers;[2850] and, so far as Mr. Wilson could learn, the polyandry
of Central Asia must be limited to the marriage of one woman to two or
more brothers, no other form being found there.[2851]
A very curious kind of polyandry prevails, according to Dr. Shortt,
among the Reddies. It often happens that a young woman of sixteen
or twenty years of age is married to a boy of five or six years, or
even of a tenderer age. After marriage the wife lives with some other
man, a near relation on the maternal side, frequently an uncle, and
sometimes with her boy-husband’s own father, the progeny so begotten
being affiliated to the boy-husband. When he comes of age he finds his
wife an old woman, and perhaps past child-bearing. So he, in his turn,
takes possession of the wife of some other boy, who will nominally be
the father of her children.[2852] A similar custom is said to exist
among the Vellalah caste in the Coimbore district,[2853] and prevailed,
till the emancipation of the serfs, among the Russian peasants, the
father being in the habit of cohabiting with the wife of his son during
the son’s minority.[2854] Ahlqvist mentions the occurrence of the same
practice among the Ostyaks,[2855] v. Haxthausen among the Ossetes.[2856]
Passing to ancient nations, we find indications of polyandry in a hymn
in the ‘Rig-Veda,’ which is addressed to the two Aświns,[2857], and
in the Mahâbhârata, where Draupadi is represented as won at an archery
match by the eldest of the five Pandava princes, and as then becoming
the wife of all. According to Strabo, polyandry occurred in Media, and
in Arabia Felix, where all male members of the same family married
one woman.[2858] Ma-touan-lin states that, among the Massagetæ, the
brothers had one wife in common, and when a man had no brothers he
associated with other men, as otherwise he was obliged to live single
through the whole of his life.[2859] We have in the Irish Nennius
direct evidence of the existence of polyandry among the Picts,[2860]
and of the ancient Britons Cæsar says that “by tens and by twelves
husbands possessed their wives in common, and especially brothers
with brothers, and parents with children.”[2861] Among the ancient
Scandinavians we possibly find a trace of this custom in the mythic
statement that the goddess Frigg, during the absence of her husband
Odin, was married to his brothers Vili and Ve.[2862]
Among the peoples of America, Africa, and the Pacific Islands, just
referred to, polyandry, in almost every case, is confined to a very
small part of the population; and among the polyandrous nations
of India and Central Asia it is by no means the exclusive form
of marriage. Sir Emerson Tennent says that, in Ceylon, polyandry
prevails chiefly among the wealthier classes, whilst, according to
Dr. Davy, it is “more or less general among the high and low, the
rich and poor,” other forms of marriage, however, being by no means
excluded.[2863] Among the Todas, “any degree of complication in
perfectly lawful wedded life may be met with, from the sample of
the single man living with the single wife, to that of the group of
relatives married to a group of wives.”[2864] Mr. Balfour says that
“the practice of polyandry does not seem to have ever prevailed
generally amongst the Nairs and many of the Teeyer of North Malabar,
from Kurumbranad to Mangalore.”[2865] Among the Miris there are only
a few instances of this custom.[2866] Of the Dophlas those who can
afford it are polygynists.[2867] Among the Khasias, polyandry “can be
said to prevail only among the poorer sort, with whom, too, it would
often seem to mean rather facility of divorce than the simultaneous
admission of a plurality of husbands.”[2868] Among the Santals, the
wife of the eldest brother _may_ be at the same time a wife for the
younger brothers also.[2869] The Sissee Abors have often as many wives
as they can afford to buy;[2870] and in the Kunawar valley, polyandry
is common only in the upper part of the valley, whilst polygyny
prevails in the lower part.[2871] In the Kotegarh valley, according
to Dr. Stulpnagel, the practice of polyandry is not universal; it
can scarcely be said to be even very common. “If diligently searched
for,” he observes, “single cases of polyandry will be found in the
Kôtgadh parganâ, in Kulu, in the territory of the Rânâs of Komarsen
and Kaneti, and in Bussahir.... Though common enough in Kunawar at
the present day, it exists side by side with polygamy and monogamy.
In one house there may be three brothers with one wife; in the next
three brothers with four wives, all alike in common; in the next house
there may be a man with three wives to himself; in the next a man with
only one wife.”[2872] Among the Butias, or Botis, of Ladakh, according
to Sir Alexander Cunningham, polyandry prevails “only among the
poorer classes, for the rich, as in all Eastern countries, generally
have two or three wives, according to their circumstances.”[2873]
In the Jounsar and Bawah pargannahs, polyandry is almost universal,
but it is apparently unknown in the hills of Garhwal on the east,
or those of the Simla superintendency on the west.[2874] Nowhere,
except perhaps in the Neilgherry Hills, has polyandry prevailed more
extensively than in Tibet; but it is not the only form of marriage.
According to Captain J. D. Cunningham, “even among the Lamaic
Tibetans any casual influx of wealth, as from trade or other sources,
immediately leads to the formation of separate establishments by the
several members of a house.”[2875] We may thus take for granted that
polyandry, although frequently practised in certain parts of India and
Central Asia,[2876] nowhere excludes the simultaneous occurrence of
other forms of marriage. The instances of ancient Aryan polyandry in
India evidently form exceptions to the general rule among the people
of the Vedic period. The father of Draupadi is represented by the
compilers of the epic as shocked at the proposal of the princes to
marry his daughter:—“You who know the law,” he says, “must not commit
an unlawful act which is contrary to usage and the Vedas.” In the
Râmâyana, the giant Virâdha attacks the two divine brothers Râma and
Lakshmana and their wife Sítâ, saying, “Why do you two devotees remain
with one woman? Why are you, O profligate wretches, corrupting the
devout sages?”[2877] And in the ‘Aitareya Brâhmana’ we read that “one
man has many wives, but one wife has not many husbands at the same
time.”[2878] Indeed, with the exception of the Massagetæ, the account
of whom cannot be critically checked, there is no people among whom
polyandry is stated to be the only recognized form of marriage.
Like polygyny, polandry is modified in directions tending towards
monogamy. As one, usually the first married, wife in polygynous
families is the chief wife, one, usually the first, husband in
polyandrous families is the chief husband. This was the case with
the Aleuts, among whom, according to Erman, the secondary husband
was generally a hunter or wandering trader; and with the Kaniagmuts,
among whom, as we have already seen, he acted as husband and master
of the house during the absence of the true lord. Upon the latter’s
return, the deputy not only yielded to him his place, but became in
the meantime his servant.[2879] In Nukahiva, the subordinate partner
sometimes was chosen after marriage, “but in general,” says Lisiansky,
“two men present themselves to the same woman, who, if she approves
their addresses, appoints one for the real husband, and the other
as his auxiliary; the auxiliary is generally poor, but handsome and
well-made.”[2880]
In Ladakh, according to Moorcraft and Trebeck, should there be several
brothers in a family, the juniors, if they agree to the arrangement,
become inferior husbands to the wife of the elder; all the children,
however, are supposed to belong to the head of the family. The younger
brothers have, indeed, no authority; they wait upon the elder as his
servants, and can be turned out of doors at his pleasure, without
its being incumbent upon him to provide for them. On the death of
the eldest brother, his property, authority, and widow devolve upon
his next brother.[2881] In Kamaon, too, where the brothers of a
family all marry one wife, the children are attributed to the eldest
brother.[2882] The same is the case in the Jounsar district, as it
was formerly with the Massagetæ.[2883] Touching the polyandrous
tribes of Arabia Felix, Strabo tells us that the eldest brother was
the ruler of the family, and that the common wife spent the nights
with him.[2884] Among the ancient Britons, as described by Cæsar, the
children were regarded as belonging to him who had first taken the
virgin to wife.[2885] In Tibet, the choice of a wife is the right of
the elder brother, and the contract he makes is understood to involve
a marital contract with all the other brothers, if they choose to
avail themselves of it. The children call the eldest husband father,
the younger husbands uncles.[2886] Among the Todas also, the eldest
brother seems to be the real husband. “If the husband has brothers or
very near relatives, all living together,” says Mr. Marshall, “they
may each, if both she and he consent, participate in the right to be
considered her husband also, on making up a share of the dowry that has
been paid.”[2887] Again, in Spiti, where polyandry no longer prevails,
the same object is attained by the custom of primogeniture, by which
only the eldest son marries, while the younger sons become monks.[2888]
Speaking of the Khyoungtha, a Chittagong Hill tribe, Captain Lewin
observes, “After marriage a younger brother is allowed to touch the
hand, to speak and laugh with his elder brother’s wife; but it is
thought improper for an elder even to look at the wife of his younger
brother. This is a custom more or less among all hill tribes; it is
found carried to even a preposterous extent among the Santals.”[2889]
In this custom there is perhaps a trace of ancient polyandry.
* * * * *
Summing up the results reached in this chapter, we may safely say that,
although polygyny occurs among most existing peoples, and polyandry
among some, monogamy is by far the most common form of human marriage.
It was so also among the ancient peoples of whom we have any direct
knowledge. Monogamy is the form which is generally recognized as
legal and permitted. The great majority of peoples are, as a rule,
monogamous, and the other forms of marriage are usually modified in a
monogamous direction.
We have still to inquire how the matter stood in early times, and to
trace the general development of the forms of human marriage. But, in
accordance with our method of investigation, we must first examine the
causes by which these forms have been influenced.