THE FORMS OF HUMAN MARRIAGE
(_Continued_)
It has also been asserted that monogamy is the natural form of human
marriage because there is an almost equal number of men and women. But
this is by no means the case. The numerical proportion between the
sexes varies, and in some cases varies greatly, among different peoples.
In the whole district of Nutka, it seemed to Meares that there were
not so many women as men, whereas, further north, the women decidedly
preponderated.[2890] Among the Kutchin, according to Kirby, women
form the minority;[2891] and they seem to hold the same position
among the Upper Californians and Western Eskimo.[2892] But as a rule,
among the North American aborigines, the opposite is apparently the
case. Thus there are more women than men among certain Eskimo tribes,
according to Dr. King; among the natives of the Sitka Islands,
according to Lisiansky; among the Californian Shastika, according to
Mr. Powers.[2893] The census of the Creeks taken in the year 1832
showed 6,555 men and 7,142 women; that of the Indian population around
Lakes Superior, Huron, Michigan, the Upper Mississippi, &c., in
the same year, 3,144 men and 3,571 women, excluding children, that
of the Nez Percés in Oregon, taken in 1851 by Dr. Dart, 698 men and
1,182 women.[2894] Among the Blackfeet and Shiyann, according to Mr.
Morgan—among the Puncahs and some other tribes, according to Mr.
Catlin—the number of women is said to be twice as large as that of men,
and in some cases even three times as large.[2895]
In Yucatan, according to Stephens, there are two women to one man;
among the Guaranies, according to Azara, fourteen women to thirteen
men; in Cochabamba, according to Gibbon, even five to one.[2896]
Among the Zapotecs and other nations of the Isthmus of Tehuantepec,
the women are greatly in excess of the men;[2897] whereas, among the
Tarumas,[2898] Avanos, Maypurs,[2899] and Guanas,[2900] the men are
stated to be more numerous than the women. Von Martius says that among
the Indians of Brazil, the number varied in some villages in favour of
the male sex, in others in favour of the female.[2901]
In Australia the men seem generally to be in the majority.[2902]
Speaking of the Australian natives, the Rev. L. Fison says, “I think
we may suppose that the number of males generally exceeds that of
females among the lower savages; at least, quite a number of observers
declare that such is the fact.”[2903] Among the Western Australians,
according to Mr. Oldfield, at all times the males are in excess of the
other sex.”[2904] Wilhelmi makes a similar statement with regard to
several other tribes;[2905] but this rule does not apply to all the
Australians. “On Herbert River,” says Herr Lumholtz, “the women are
more numerous than the men; this is also the case among the tribes
south-west of the Carpentarian Gulf and elsewhere. But, according to
accurate observations, the opposite is the case in a large part of
Australia.”[2906] In some tribes of the interior, Mr. Sturt found that
among children there were about two girls to one boy.[2907]
In Tasmania, according to Breton, the men greatly exceeded the women
in number.[2908] So also in Tahiti, where, at the time of Mr. Ellis’s
arrival, there were probably four or five men to one woman;[2909] in
Maupiti, where the disproportion between the sexes among adults was
at the rate of three men to two women;[2910] and in Easter Island,
where, according to the estimates of Cook and La Pérouse, the men
were twice as numerous as the women.[2911] In the Sandwich Islands,
Nukahiva, and some islands belonging to the Solomon Group, the male
sex predominated;[2912] and among the Maoris, according to a census
taken in the year 1881, there were 24,370 men and 19,729 women.[2913]
In Makin Island, of the Kingsmill Group, on the other hand, Wood
represented the women as outnumbering the men.[2914] The same was to a
very great extent the case in Tukopia;[2915] and d’Albertis says that
in Naiabui, a village in New Guinea with 300 inhabitants, “there are
more women than men by about a third.”[2916] Both sexes are nearly
equally represented at Port Moresby,[2917] and according to Marsden,
in Sumatra.[2918] In Sarawak the women are less numerous than the
men.[2919]
In Ceylon a considerable disparity is exhibited by the returns.
According to Pridham, it is found in the greatest degree among the
Sinhalese, among whom the surplus of men averages twelve per cent.,
but it is also observable in the case of the Malabar population in
the northern province, where the surplus of men averages six per
cent.[2920] Robert Orme states that, in India, the number of women
exceeds that of men;[2921] but this is certainly not the case in every
part of the country. In a census of the North-West Provinces, taken
during the year 1866, the proportions between the sexes were found to
be 100 men to 86·6 women, and, in the Panjab, even 100 to 81·8.[2922]
In some districts of the Himalayas there is a surplus of males, in
others of females.[2923] In Kashmir, the proportion of men to women
is as three to one.[2924] In the Buddhist country of Ladakh, says Sir
A. Cunningham, “it will be observed that the females outnumber the
males, while the reverse is the case in the Mussulman districts along
the Indus.”[2925] In Malwa, in Central India, the number of women
surpasses the number of men,[2926] and the same, according to Sir John
Bowring, is to a great extent the case in China.[2927] The Todas of
the Neilgherry Hills, on the other hand, amounted in the year 1867,
according to Mr. Breeks, to 455 males and 249 females of all ages,
whilst Mr. Marshall some few years ago found the Toda males of all
ages bear the proportion to females of all ages of 100 to 75.[2928]
Among the Mongols, as we are informed by Prejevalsky, “the women
are far less numerous than the men;”[2929] and the same is said to
have been the case with the Massagetæ, and to be the case still in
Kamchatka.[2930]
As for the peoples of Africa, I have found two cases only of an excess
of men, the one among the population of Galega, to the north-east of
Madagascar, the other among the Quissama tribe in Angola.[2931] The
reverse seems decidedly to be the rule. Thus, from Morocco Dr. Churcher
writes to me that “there appears to be a striking disproportion,
though there is no such thing as statistics in this land.” In Ma
Bung, in the Timannee country, Major Laing counted three women to one
man.[2932] A census taken in Lagos in 1872 showed among the population
of African origin, 27,774 men and 32,353 women.[2933] Among the Negroes
of the Gold Coast, according to Bosman; in Latúka, according to Emin
Pasha; among the Waguha of West Tanganyika, according to Mr. A. J.
Swann; among the Wa-taïta, according to Mr. Joseph Thomson, women
predominate.[2934] Mr. Cousins is inclined to think that the same is
the case with the Cis-Natalian Kafirs, “as there are few bachelors,
and the majority of men have more than one wife.”[2935] In Uganda, says
the Rev. C. T. Wilson, “the female population is largely in excess of
the male, the proportion being about three and a half to one.”[2936]
In European countries, the number of men and of women from fifteen to
twenty years of age is generally almost the same; but in an earlier
period of life there are more men than women, and, in a later, more
women than men.[2937]
This disparity in the numbers of the sexes is due to various causes.
The preponderance of women depends to a great extent upon the higher
mortality of men. Dr. Sutherland found that the average age of 109
Eskimo was nearly 22 years—that of the females 24·5, that of the males
19·3 years.[2938] The men pass most of their time at sea, in snow and
rain, heat and cold, and many of them are drowned. The result of this
troublesome and dangerous life is that few of them attain the age of
fifty, whereas many women reach the age of seventy or even eighty.
This, according to Dr. King, is the reason why, among this people,
there are generally fewer men than women.[2939] Mr. Bancroft states
that, among the Ingaliks near the mouth of the Yukon, some of the
women reach sixty, while the men rarely attain more than forty-five
years.[2940] In Europe, the death-rate is higher among men than among
women, partly because of the greater dangers they are exposed to. Among
many savage and barbarous peoples, however, the greater mortality of
the male population depends chiefly upon the destructive influence of
war.[2941] “As all nations of Indians in their natural condition,”
says Mr. Catlin, “are unceasingly at war with the tribes that are
about them, ... their warriors are killed off to that extent, that in
many instances two, or sometimes three women to a man are found in a
tribe.”[2942] According to Ellis, it is supposed by the Missionaries
in Madagascar that, in consequence of the destructive ravages of war,
in some of the provinces there are among the free portion of the
inhabitants five, and in other three, women to one man, whilst the
proportion of the sexes seems to be equal at birth.[2943] But I am
inclined to think that this cause operates principally at tolerably
advanced stages of civilization, and only in a smaller degree among
the rudest savages, who, devoid of any definite tribal organization,
live a wandering life, scattered in families or hordes consisting of
a few persons. Thus, with regard to the Yahgans of Tierra del Fuego,
Mr. Bridges writes to me, “On several occasions when some hundreds
of natives have been gathered together, I have taken censuses of
them, and have always found the sexes equal or nearly so.... War was
unknown, though fightings were frequent, but women took part in them as
energetically as the men, and suffered equally with them—if anything,
more.” Among the Australians also, as we have seen, wars do not cause
any disproportion between the sexes.
The surplus of males is often due to female infanticide;[2944] and
among certain peoples there is another cause which must be taken into
account. Captain Lewin states that, among the Toungtha, women die at a
comparatively early age because of the constant labour which their sex
entails upon them, whereas the men live very long.[2945] And the same
is said by Mr. Kirby with regard to the Kutchin.[2946]
Moreover, there is a disproportion between the sexes at birth. Among
some peoples more boys are born, among others more girls; and the
surplus is often considerable. Mr. Ross thinks that, among the Eastern
Tinneh, “the proportion of births is rather in favour of females,”
whilst the Aht women seem to have more boys than girls.[2947] Von
Humboldt found by examining baptismal registers, that more boys than
girls were born in some communities of New Spain.[2948] The same,
according to M. Belly, is the case among the Indians of Guatemala and
Nicaragua.[2949]
In the interior of Australia, Mr. Sturt met with several smaller tribes
in which the number of girls was considerably greater than the number
of boys, though in other tribes the proportion of births is in favour
of males.[2950] Sir. G. Grey drew up a list of 222 births, and of these
93 were females, 129 males.[2951] In Tasmania, where the men were more
numerous than the women, female infanticide was very rare.[2952] The
same is the case with the Sinhalese. They hold in abhorrence the crime
of exposing children, says Dr. Davy; and it is never committed except
in some of the wildest parts of the country, and even there only when
the parents themselves are on the brink of starvation, and must either
sacrifice a part of the family or die.[2953] Haeckel assures us that
among this people there is a permanent disproportion between male and
female births, ten boys being born, on the average, to eight or nine
girls.[2954] Among the Todas, as we are informed by Mr. Marshall, the
male children under fourteen years of age bear to the female children
of the same period—ages estimated from their personal appearance—the
ratio of 100 to 80·0,[2955] though female infanticide is never
practised, having long since become extinct through the action of the
British Government.[2956] Mr. Man’s inquiries tended to show that,
among the Andamanese, there is a slight predominance of female over
male births.[2957]
Bruce observes, “From a diligent inquiry into the South and
Scripture-part of Mesopotamia, Armenia, and Syria, from Mousul (or
Nineveh) to Aleppo and Antioch, I find the proportion to be fully
two women born to one man. There is indeed, a fraction over, but
not a considerable one. From Latikea, Laodicea ad mare, down the
coast of Syria to Sidon, the number is very nearly three, or two and
three-fourths to one man. Through the Holy Land, the country called
Horan, in the Isthmus of Suez, and the parts of the Delta, unfrequented
by strangers, it is something less than three. But from Suez to the
Straits of Babelmandeb, which contains the three Arabias, the portion
is fully four women to one man, which, I have reason to believe, holds
as far as the Line, and 30° beyond it.” The manner in which Bruce
came to these conclusions he describes as follows:—“Whenever I went
into a town, village, or inhabited place, dwelt long in a mountain,
or travelled journeys with any set of people, I always made it my
business to inquire how many children they had, or their fathers, their
next neighbours, or acquaintance. This not being a captious question,
or what any one would scruple to answer, there was no interest to
deceive.... I say, therefore, that a medium of both sexes arising from
three or four hundred families indiscriminately taken, shall be the
proportion in which one differs from the other.”[2958]
This statement has been contradicted, but, so far as I know, it has not
been proved to be wholly without foundation. It is to some extent made
credible by what Dr. Churcher informs me regarding the disproportion
of the sexes among the Moors of Morocco. As the result of his own
observation, and that of a Mohammedan friend of his, he writes, “There
is certainly a disproportion also at birth.... It would be safe to say
that the female births are in the proportion of three females to one
male; this partly accounts for the great rejoicing when a son is born.
It reacts, however, in this way, that the people say, ‘Allah has given
us more women than men, hence it is evident that polygamy is of God.’”
In the Monbuttu country, according to Emin Pasha, “far more female
children are born than males.”[2959] And, regarding the disproportion
between the sexes in Uganda, Mr. Wilson says, “Careful observation
has established the fact that there are a good many more female births
than male, and, on taking the groups of children playing by the
roadside, there will always be found to be more girls than boys.”[2960]
Confronted by these definite statements, and by the fact that, in many
African countries, there is a striking excess of women, we cannot with
Süssmilch and Chervin[2961] dismiss as wholly groundless Montesquieu’s
well-known assertion that in the hot regions of the Old World more
girls are born than boys,[2962] although such disproportion certainly
does not exist in every tropical country.
In Europe, the average male births outnumber the female by about five
per cent., the still-born being excluded. But the rate varies in the
different countries. Thus, in Russian Poland, only 101 boys are born
to 100 girls, whilst, in Roumania and Greece, the proportion is 111 to
100.[2963] The excess of male over female births is less when they are
illegitimate than when legitimate.[2964]
* * * * *
Ever since Aristotle’s days inquirers have sought to discover the
causes which determine the sex of the offspring; but no conclusion
commanding general assent has yet been arrived at. The law of Hofacker
and Sadler, according to which more boys are born if the husband
is older than the wife, more girls if the wife is older than the
husband, has attracted the greatest number of adherents.[2965] But
Noirot and Breslau have lately come to the opposite result, and, from
the data of Norwegian statistics, Berner has shown that the law is
untenable.[2966] Dr. Goehlert has modified it so far that he holds the
sex to be influenced, not by the relative, but by the absolute ages
of the parents.[2967] But W. Stieda has found from the registers of
births in Alsace-Lorraine, that neither the relative nor the absolute
ages of the parents exercise this sort of influence.[2968] Again,
Platter, in a paper in ‘Statistische Monatsschrift’ (Vienna) for 1875,
concludes from the examination of thirty million births that the less
the difference in the age of the parents the greater is the probability
of boys being born.[2969]
It has, further, been suggested that polygyny leads to the birth
of a greater proportion of female infants.[2970] Dr. J. Campbell,
however, who carefully attended to this subject in the harems of Siam,
concludes that the proportion of male to female births is the same
as from monogamous unions.[2971] It has also been maintained, in a
paper read before the “Anthropological Institute of Great Britain
and Ireland” by Mr. John Sanderson, that, among the Kafirs resident
in Natal and the adjoining countries, there was no surplus of female
births in polygynous families.[2972] The mass of facts collected by
Mr. Sanderson is, however, too small to warrant any positive general
deductions, and the like must be said of the information on the subject
which Mr. Cousins and Mr. Eyles have sent me from the same part of
South Africa. According to M. Remy and Mr. Hyde, on the other hand, the
censuses of the Mormons show a great excess of female births.[2973]
But it is impossible to believe that polygynous intercourse _per se_
can cause such an excess. Hardly any animal, as Mr. Darwin remarks,
has been rendered so highly polygynous as English race-horses;
nevertheless, their male and female offspring are almost exactly equal
in number.[2974]
Of all the theories relating to this subject, the one set forth by
Dr. Düsing[2975] is by far the most important. According to him, the
characters of animals and plants which influence the formation of
sex are due to natural selection. In every species, the proportion
between the sexes has a tendency to keep constant, but the organisms
are so well adapted to the conditions of life that, under anomalous
circumstances, they produce more individuals of that sex of which
there is the greatest need. When nourishment is abundant, strengthened
reproduction is an advantage to the species, whereas the reverse is
the case when nourishment is scarce. Hence—the power of multiplication
depending chiefly upon the number of females—organisms, when unusually
well nourished, produce comparatively more female offspring; in the
opposite case, more male. Dr. Düsing and, before him, Dr. Ploss,[2976]
have adduced several remarkable facts which seem to indicate that such
a connection between abundance and the production of females, and
between scarcity and the production of males, actually exists. It is,
for example, a common opinion among furriers that rich regions give
more female furs, poor regions more male.[2977] It is an established
fact that male births are in greater excess in country districts,
the population of which is often badly fed, than in towns, where the
conditions of life are shown to be, as a rule, more luxurious.[2978] A
similar excess is found among poor people as compared with the well-off
classes.[2979] Especially remarkable is Dr. Ploss’s statement that in
highlands comparatively more boys are born than in lowlands. He found
that, in Saxony, in the years 1847-1849, the proportion between male
and female births was 105·9 to 100 in the region not exceeding 500
Paris feet above the level of the sea; 107·3 to 100, at a height of
between 1,001 and 1,500 feet; and 107·8 to 100, at a height of between
1,501 and 2,000.[2980]
The evidence adduced by Dr. Ploss and Dr. Düsing is certainly not
strong enough to permit us to regard their inference otherwise than as
an hypothesis. But it is an hypothesis in which there seems to be some
truth. There are ethnological facts which fully harmonize with it.
According to the census made by the collectors of districts in 1814,
the whole population of the old English possessions in Ceylon formed
a grand total of 475,883 souls, the males outnumbering the females
by 27,193. Above the age of puberty there were 156,447 males, and
142,453 females; below that age, 95,091 males, and 81,892 females.
Davy, who thinks that the census is not far from the truth, remarks,
“The disproportion appears to be greatest in the poorest parts of the
country, where the population is thinnest, and it is most difficult
to support life; and smallest where there is least want. Indeed, in
some of the fishing villages, where there is abundance of food, the
number of females rather exceeds that of the males. May it not be a
wise provision of provident Nature to promote, by extreme poverty, the
generation of males rather than of females?”[2981]
Very remarkable is the striking coincidence of polyandry with the
great poverty of the countries in which it prevails. It seems to be
beyond doubt that this practice, as a rule, is due to scarcity of
women. This is the view taken by most of the authorities to whom we
owe our knowledge of polyandrous peoples.[2982] And this disproportion
between the sexes cannot, at least in many instances, be explained
as a result of female infanticide. It was formerly said that the
excess of men among the Todas was owing to the fact that all the
girls beyond a certain number were destroyed in the cradle; but later
investigations, as we have seen, show that the excess depends upon a
striking disproportion between male and female births. Dr. Seemann
states that, among those Eskimo tribes who practise polyandry, and
among whom men are more numerous than women, female infanticide seems
to be unknown.[2983] With regard to the inhabitants of the Jounsar
district of the Himalayas, Mr. Dunlop says, “Wherever the practice of
polyandry exists, there is a striking discrepance in the proportions of
the sexes among young children as well as adults; thus, in a village
where I have found upwards of four hundred boys, there were only one
hundred and twenty girls, yet the temptations to female infanticide,
owing to expensive marriages and extravagant dowers which exist among
the Rajputs of the plains, are not found in the hills where the
marriages are comparatively inexpensive, and where the wife, instead
of bringing a large dowry, is usually purchased for a considerable
sum from her parents. In the Garhwal Hills, moreover, where polygamy
is prevalent, there is a surplus of female children.... I am inclined
to give more weight to Nature’s adaptability to national habit, than
to the possibility of infanticide being the cause of the discrepance
found in Jounsar.”[2984] Female infants are killed only where they
are a burden to the family or community to which they belong. But it
will be shown subsequently that this is by no means the case with the
inhabitants of the Himalayas. Hence it seems almost probable that,
among the polyandrous peoples of these regions, as among the Todas and
Sinhalese, more boys are born than girls.
It has been said that Tibetan polyandry depends upon the scarcity of
women in a marriageable state, and that this scarcity is due to the
Lama nunneries absorbing so many of the girls.[2985] But Koeppen clears
the religion of Tibet of any responsibility for polyandry, showing
that the practice existed in the country before the introduction
of Buddhism.[2986] Mr. Baber states the very remarkable fact that
“polygamy obtains in valleys, while polyandry prevails in the
uplands.”[2987] According to Mr. Rockhill, “female infanticide is not
practised in Tibet, except among the women married to Chinese;”[2988]
and Grosier and Du Halde expressly assert that more males than females
are born there.[2989]
Much stress must be laid on the fact that polyandry prevails chiefly
in poor countries. “Polyandry,” says Lieutenant Cunningham, “appears
to be essential in a country in which the quantity of cultivable land
is limited, and in which pastures are not extensive, in which there
are but few facilities for carrying on commerce, and in which there
is no mineral wealth readily made available.”[2990] “Il est connu,”
says M. Vinson, “que sur la côte de Malabar la polyandrie a été
établie pour obvier à la pénurie des subsistances.”[2991] The Santals
live in a country a great part of which is poor and sterile.[2992]
Regarding the Kunawari, Miss Gordon Cumming remarks, “There is a
curious distinction in the social customs of the people in the upper
and lower part of this valley. Below Wangtu it is said that polygamy
prevails, as elsewhere; every man buying his wives from their parents
for a given number of rupees.... Farther up the valley, however, where
the people are very poor, and the tiny ridges of cultivation will not
support large families, polyandry is common.”[2993] Speaking of the
Botis of Ladakh, Sir A. Cunningham asserts that polyandry “was a most
politic measure for a poor country which does not produce sufficient
food for its inhabitants.”[2994] Mr. Bellew holds the same view with
regard to polyandry in Lammayru in Ladakh:—“The population is kept
down to a proportion which the country is capable of supporting. For
the only parts of it which are habitable are the narrow valleys through
which its rivers flow, and the little nooks in the mountains which
are watered by their torrent tributaries.”[2995] According to Mr.
Wilson, even one of the Moravian missionaries defended the polyandry
of the Tibetans “as good for the heathen of so sterile a country,”
since superabundant population in an unfertile country, would be a
great calamity and produce “eternal warfare or eternal want.”[2996]
A similar opinion is pronounced by Koeppen, Turner, de Ujfalvy, and
Wilson.[2997]
It is commonly asserted that this coincidence of polyandry with poverty
of material resources depends upon the intention of the people to check
an increase of population, or upon the fact that the men are not rich
enough to support or buy wives for themselves. But the accuracy of
these assumptions is very doubtful. Among no polyandrous people, except
the Tibetans with their nunneries do we know of a class of unmarried
women. Moreover, even if a woman is sometimes a burden to her husband
in a tribe that lives by hunting, her position is very different among
a pastoral or agricultural people. In the Himalayas, as Mr. Fraser
remarks, women are useful in the fields and in domestic labours, and
fully earn their own subsistence.[2998] Again, Turner, who had many
opportunities of seeing Western Tibet, asserts that polyandry there is
not confined to the lower ranks alone, but is frequently found in the
most opulent families,—a statement with which Mr. Wilson agrees.[2999]
In Ceylon, as we have seen, it prevails chiefly among the wealthier
classes.[3000] And in the villages of the Kotegarh district in the
Himalayas, according to Dr. Stulpnagel, most of the cases of polyandry
are found among well-to-do peoples. “It is the poor,” he says, “who
prefer polygamy, on account of the value of the women as household
drudges.”[3001] All these facts are certainly in favour of Dr. Düsing’s
theory; and Dr. Floss’s statement as to the excess of male births in
the highlands of Saxony becomes very important when we consider that
polyandry chiefly occurs among mountaineers—in South Africa, as we have
seen, as well as in Asia.
Dr. Düsing has, moreover, inferred that incest is less common in
proportion as the number of males is great. The more males, he says,
the farther off they have to go from their birthplace to find mates.
Incest is injurious to the species; hence incestuous unions have a
tendency to produce an excess of male offspring.[3002] Thus, according
to Dr. Nagel, certain plants, when self-fertilized, produce an excess
of male flowers. According to Dr. Goehlert’s statistical investigation,
in the case of horses, the more the parent animals differ in colour,
the more the female foals outnumber the male.[3003] Among the Jews,
many of whom marry cousins, there is a remarkable excess of male
births. In country districts where, as we have seen, comparatively
more boys are born than in towns, marriage more frequently takes place
between kinsfolk. It is for a similar reason, says Dr. Düsing, that
illegitimate unions show a tendency to produce female births.[3004]
The evidence given by Dr. Düsing for the correctness of his deduction
is, then, exceedingly scanty—if, indeed, it can be called evidence.
Nevertheless, I think his main conclusion holds good. Independently
of his reasoning, I had come to exactly the same result in a purely
inductive way. There is some ground for believing that mixture of
race produces an excess of female births. In his work on the ‘Tribes
of California,’ Mr. Powers observes, “It is a curious fact, which
has frequently come under my observation, and has been abundantly
confirmed by the pioneers, that among half-breed children a decided
majority are girls.... Often I have seen whole families of half-breed
girls, but never one composed entirely of boys, and seldom one wherein
they were more numerous.”[3005] When I mentioned this statement to a
gentleman who had spent many years in British Columbia and other parts
of North America, he replied that he himself had made exactly the same
observation. Mr. Starkweather has found that, according to the United
States statistical tables of the sex of mulattoes born in the Southern
States, there is an excess of from 12 to 15 per cent. of female mulatto
children, whilst, taking the whole population together, the male births
show an excess of 5 per cent.[3006] In Central America, according to
Colonel Galindo, “an extraordinary excess is observable in the births
of white and Ladino females over those of the males, the former being
in proportion to the latter as six, or at least as five, to four: among
the Indians the births of males and females are about equal.”[3007] Mr.
Stephens asserts that, among the Ladinos of Yucatan, the proportion is
even as two to one.[3008] Taken in connection with the fact mentioned
by Mr. Squier, that the whites in Central America are as one to eight
in comparison with the mixed population,[3009] these statements
accord well with the following observation of M. Belly as regards
Nicaragua:—“Ce qui me paraît être le fait général,” he says, “c’est
que dans les villes où l’élément blanc domine, il se procrée en effet
plus de filles que de garçons.... Mais dans les campagnes et partout
où la race Indienne l’emporte, c’est le contraire qui se produit,
et dès lors la prépondérance du sexe masculin se maintient par la
prépondérance de l’élément indigène. Le même phénomène avait déjà été
observé au Mexique.”[3010]
Concerning the proportion of the sexes at birth among the mixed races
of South America, I have unfortunately no definite statements at my
disposal. But Mr. J. S. Roberton informs me, from Chañaral in Chili,
that in that country, with its numerous mongrels, more females are born
than males. According to the list of the population of the capitaina
of São Paulo, in the year 1815, given by v. Spix and v. Martius—a list
which includes more than 200,000 persons,—the proportion between women
and men is, among the mulattoes, 114·65 to 100; among the whites,
109·3 to 100; among the blacks, 100 to 129.[3011] But this last
proportion is of no consequence, as we have no account of the number
of negro slaves annually imported into the capitaina. Sir R. F. Burton
found, from the census returns of 1859 for the town of São João d’El
Rei, where there is a large intermixture of the white race with the
coloured women, an excess of nearly 50 per cent. of women as compared
with men.[3012] A census of the population in the Province of Rio,
taken in the year 1844, also shows a considerable excess of women, not
only, however, among the mixed population, but among the Indian and
negro creoles as well;[3013] and M. de Castelnau was astonished at the
disproportionately large number of females in Goyaz.[3014]
In the northern parts of the United States, according to Kohl, female
children predominate in the families of the cross-breeds arising from
the intercourse of Frenchmen with Indian women.[3015] This statement
is very much like Graf v. Görtz’s, that the families of the offspring
of Dutchmen and Malay women in Java (Lipplapps) consist chiefly of
daughters.[3016] A census taken in the eighteenth century, given by
Süssmilch, proves also that among these mongrels there is a great
excess of women over men.[3017] From Stanley Pool in Congo, Dr. Sims
writes to me, “It is the subject of general remark here, that the
half-caste children are generally girls; out of ten I can count, two
only are boys.” At the same time he states that, among the native
Bateke people, no disproportion between the sexes is observable. Mr.
Cousins informs me that, in the western province of Cis-Natalian
Kafirland, in the “Karoo” district from Caledon up to Mossel Bay,
there is a half-caste or mixed race called “Bruin Menschen,” generally
known as bastards, among whom more females than males are born. Dr.
Felkin found that, among the foreign women imported to Uganda, the
excess of females in the first births was enormous, _viz._, 510 females
to 100 males, as compared with 102 females to 100 males in first births
from pure Waganda women; whilst in subsequent pregnancies of these
imported women the ratio was 137 females to 100 males. As a matter of
fact, in the families of the poorer classes of Uganda, who “do all
in their power to marry pure Waganda women,” the sexes are as evenly
balanced as in Europe, whereas this is certainly not the case among
the children of chiefs and wealthy men who have large harems supplied
mainly with foreign wives. “I found,” says Dr. Felkin, “that of the
women captured by the slave-raiders in Central Africa, and brought down
to the East Coast, either near Zanzibar or through the Soudan to the
Red Sea, those who had been impregnated on the way usually produced
female children. Hence the Soudan slave-dealers, instead of having only
one slave to sell, have a woman and a female child.”[3018] Dr. Felkin
suggests, as an explanation of this excess of female births, that the
temporarily superior parent produces the opposite sex; but the facts
stated seem strongly to corroborate the theory that intermixture of
race is in favour of female births. Very remarkable are two statements
in the Talmud, that mixed marriages produce only girls.[3019] Mr.
Jacobs informs me that his collection of Jewish statistics includes
details of 118 mixed marriages; of these 28 are sterile, and in the
remainder there are 145 female children and 122 male—that is, 118·82 to
100 males.
We must not, of course, take for granted that what applies to certain
races of men holds good for all of them; but it should be observed that
the cases mentioned refer to mongrels of very different kinds. It is
indeed scarcely probable that anything else than the crossing can be
the cause of this excess of females, as facts tend to show that unions
between related individuals or, generally, between individuals who are
very like each other, produce a comparatively great number of male
offspring.
In all the in-and-in bred stocks of the Bates herd at Kirklevington,
according to Mr. Bell, the number of bull calves was constantly very
far in excess of the heifers.[3020] Of the in-and-in bred Warlaby
branch of short-horns, Mr. Carr says that it “appears to have a most
destructive propensity to breed bulls.”[3021] Dr. Goehlert’s statement
as regards horses, just referred to, is corroborated by Crampe’s
investigations, which included more than two thousand different cases,
all tending to prove that female foals predominate in proportion as the
parent animals differ in colour.[3022]
We have seen that the Todas of the Neilgherry Hills are probably the
most in-and-in bred people of whom anything is known, and we have
also seen how, among them, the disproportion between male and female
births is strikingly in favour of the males. Among the Badagas, a
neighbouring people, who, like the Todas, have numerous subdivisions
of caste, each of which differs in some social or ceremonial
custom,[3023] and all of which, probably, are endogamous, there is also
a considerable surplus of men.[3024] Now it is very remarkable that
in another tribe inhabiting the same hill ranges, the Kotars, who do
not intermarry with the inhabitants of their own village, but always
seek a wife from another “kotagiri,” women are not so scarce as among
the Todas and the Badagas.[3025] Among the endogamous Maoris, the
men outnumber the women. So also among the Sinhalese, who consider
marriage between the father’s sister’s son and the mother’s brother’s
daughter the most proper union. Among the polyandrous Arabs mentioned
by Strabo, marriage between cousins was the rule. The polyandrous
mountaineer of South Africa, in almost every case, marries a daughter
of his father’s brother.[3026] And with the Jews, among whom cousin
marriages occur perhaps three times as often as among the surrounding
populations,[3027] the proportion of births is probably more in favour
of the males than among the non-Jewish population of Europe.[3028]
All these facts, taken together, seem to render it probable that
the degree of differentiation in the sexual elements of the parents
exercises some influence upon the sex of the offspring, so that, when
the differentiation is unusually great, the births are in favour of
females; when it is unusually small, in favour of males.
We certainly cannot, from the numerical proportion of the sexes,
especially at birth, draw any inference as to the form of marriage
characteristic of the species. Among birds living in a state of nature,
polyandry is almost unheard of, though, according to Dr. Brehm, the
males are generally more numerous than the females.[3029] As for
man, there are several non-polyandrous peoples among whom the men
are considerably in excess of the women; whilst among other peoples
polygyny is forbidden, though the women are in excess of the men.
Nevertheless, the form of marriage depends to a great extent upon
the proportion between the male and female population. Polyandry, as
already said, is due chiefly to a surplus of men, though it prevails
only where the circumstances are otherwise in favour of it. And, as
regards polygyny, I cannot agree with M. Chervin that it is quite
independent of the proportion between the sexes.[3030] It has been
observed that, in India, polyandry occurs in those parts of the country
where the males outnumber the females, polygyny in those where the
reverse is the case.[3031] Indeed, in countries unaffected by European
civilization, polygyny seems to prevail wherever women form the
majority.
Thus the causes which determine the proportion of the sexes exercise
some influence also upon the form of marriage. Among the Eskimo, for
instance, who, according to Armstrong, take more than one wife when
the women are sufficiently numerous,[3032] polygyny results chiefly
from the dangerous life the men have to lead in order to gain their
subsistence. Among the Indians of North America, it is, to a large
extent, due to the wars which destroy many of the male population. In
certain countries it seems to be furthered by physiological conditions
leading to an excess of female births. As for polyandry, we have some
reason to believe that it is due, on the one hand, to poor conditions
of life, on the other to close intermarrying. As a matter of fact, the
chief polyandrous peoples either live in sterile mountain regions, or
are endogamous in a very high degree.
* * * * *
There are several reasons why a man may desire to possess more than
one wife. First, monogamy requires from him periodical continence. He
has to live apart from his wife, not only for a certain time every
month,[3033] but, among many peoples, during her pregnancy also.[3034]
Among the Shawanese, for instance, “as soon as a wife is announced to
be in a state of pregnancy, the matrimonial rights are suspended, and
continency preserved with a religious and mystical scrupulosity.”[3035]
This suspension of matrimonial rights is usually continued till a
considerable time after child-birth. Among the Northern Indians, a
mother has to remain in a small tent placed at a little distance from
the others during a month or five weeks;[3036] and similar customs
are found among many other peoples.[3037] Very commonly, in a state
of savage and barbarous life, the husband must not cohabit with his
wife till the child is weaned.[3038] And this prohibition is all the
more severe, as the suckling-time generally lasts for two, three,
four years, or even more. In Sierra Leone, it was looked upon as a
crime of the most heinous nature if a wife cohabited with her husband
before the child was able to run alone.[3039] Among the Makonde, in
Eastern Africa, says Mr. Joseph Thomson, “when a woman bears a child,
she lives completely apart from her husband till the child is able to
speak, as otherwise it is believed that harm, if not death, would come
to the infant.”[3040] In Fiji, “the relatives of a woman take it as a
public insult if any child should be born before the customary three or
four years have elapsed.”[3041] This long suckling-time is due chiefly
to want of soft food and animal milk.[3042] But when milk can be
obtained,[3043] and even when the people have domesticated animals able
to supply them with it,[3044] this kind of food is often avoided. The
Chinese, who are a Tartar people, and must have descended at one time
from the “Land of Grass,” entirely eschew the use of milk.[3045]
Professor Bastian suggests that it is on hygienic grounds, though
almost instinctively, that a man abstains from cohabitation with his
wife during her pregnancy, and as long as she suckles her child.[3046]
But the reason seems rather to be of a religious character. Diseases
are generally attributed by savages to the influence of some evil
spirit.[3047] Among many peoples the attainment of the age of puberty
is marked by most superstitious ceremonies.[3048] A woman, during the
time of menstruation, is looked upon with a mystic detestation.[3049]
It is therefore quite in accordance with primitive ideas that the
appearance of a new being should be connected in some way with
supernatural agencies. Among the Ashantees, according to Mr. Reade,
“when conception becomes apparent, the girl goes through a ceremony
of abuse, and is pelted down to the sea, where she is cleansed. She is
then set aside; charms are bound on her wrists, spells are muttered
over her, and, by a wise sanitary regulation, her husband is not
allowed to cohabit with her from that time until she has finished
nursing her child.”[3050] A woman in child-bed is very commonly
considered unclean.[3051] In China, a man of the upper classes does not
speak to his wife within the first month after the birth of a child,
and no visitor will enter the house where she lives.[3052] According to
early Aryan traditions, as v. Żmigrodzki remarks, a witch and a woman
in child-bed are persons so intimately connected, that it is impossible
to make any distinction between them.[3053]
One of the chief causes of polygyny is the attraction which female
youth and beauty exercise upon man. Several instances have already
been mentioned of a fresh wife being taken when the first wife grows
old. Indeed, when a man, soon after he has attained manhood, marries
a woman of similar age—not to speak of such countries as China and
Corea, where the first wife is generally a woman from three to eight
years older than her husband[3054]—he will still be a man in the prime
of life, when the youthful beauty of his wife has passed away for
ever. This is especially the case among peoples at the lower stages of
civilization, among whom, as a rule, women get old much sooner than in
more advanced communities.
Thus in California, according to Mr. Powers, women are rather handsome
in their free and untoiling youth, but after twenty-five or thirty they
break down under their heavy burdens and become ugly.[3055] Among the
Mandans, the beauty of the women vanishes soon after marriage.[3056]
The Kutchin women get “coarse and ugly as they grow old, owing to
hard labour and bad treatment.”[3057] Patagonian women are said to
lose their youth at a very early age, “from exposure and hard work;”
and among the Warraus, according to Schomburgk, “when the woman has
reached her twentieth year, the flower of her life is gone.”[3058]
In New Zealand, Tahiti, Hawaii, and other islands of the South Sea,
the beauty of women soon decays—“the result,” says Mr. Angas, “of
hard labour in some cases, and in others of early intercourse with
the opposite sex, combined with their mode of living, which rapidly
destroys their youthful appearance.”[3059]
“Women of fifty in Europe,” Stavorinus observes, “look younger and
fresher than those of thirty in Batavia.”[3060] At two and twenty,
Dyak beauty “has already begun to fade, and the subsequent decay is
rapid.”[3061] Among the Manipuris and Garos, the women, pretty when
young, soon become “hags”;[3062] and this is true also of the Aino
women in Yesso, partly, it is said, because of the exposed life they
lead as children, partly because of the early age at which they marry
and become mothers, and partly because of the hard life they continue
to lead afterwards.[3063]
In Africa female beauty fades quickly. The Egyptian women, from the age
of about fourteen to that of eighteen or twenty, are generally models
of loveliness in body and limbs, but, when they reach maturity, their
attractions do not long survive.[3064] In Eastern Africa, according
to Sir R. F. Burton, the beauty of women is less perishable than in
India and Arabia; but even there charms are on the wane at thirty, and,
when old age comes on, the women are no exceptions to “the hideous
decrepitude of the East.”[3065] Arab girls in the Sahara preserve
only till about their sixteenth year that youthful freshness which
the women of the north still possess in the late spring of their
life;[3066] and, among the Ba-kwileh, women have no trace of beauty
after twenty-five.[3067] Speaking of the Wolofs, Mr. Reade remarks that
the girls are very pretty with their soft and glossy black skin, but,
“when the first jet of youth is passed, the skin turns to a dirty
yellow and creases like old leather; their eyes sink into the skull,
and the breasts hang down like the udder of a cow, or shrivel up like a
bladder that has burst.”[3068] Among the Damaras, Ovambo, and Kafirs,
women, soon after maturity, begin to wither, as we are told, on account
of hard labour;[3069] and the Bushman women, it is said, soon become
sterile from the same cause.[3070] Among the Fulah, it is rare for a
woman older than twenty to become a mother; and in Unyoro Emin Pasha
never saw a woman above twenty-five with babies.[3071]
Early intercourse with the opposite sex is adduced by several writers
as the cause of the short prime of savage women. But I am disposed to
think that physical exertion has a much greater influence. Even from a
physiological point of view hard labour seems to shorten female youth.
Statistics show that, among the poorer women of Berlin, menstruation
ceases at a rather earlier age than among the well-off classes.[3072]
It has been suggested that in hot countries women lose their beauty
much sooner than in colder regions,[3073] whereas men are not affected
in the same way by climate. But, so far as I know, we are still in want
of exact information on this point.
A further cause of polygyny is man’s taste for variety. Merolla da
Sorrento asserts that the Negroes of Angola, who used to exchange their
wives with each other for a certain time, excused themselves, when
reproved, on the ground that “they were not able to eat always of the
same dish.”[3074] And in Egypt, according to Mr. Lane, “fickle passion
is the most evident and common motive both to polygamy and repeated
divorces.”[3075]
Motives due to man’s passions are not, however, the only causes of
polygyny. We must also take into account his desire for offspring,
wealth, and authority.
The barrenness of a wife is a very common reason for the choice of
another partner. Among the Greenlanders, for instance, who considered
it a great disgrace for a man to have no children, particularly no
sons, a husband generally took a second wife, if the first one could
not satisfy his desire for offspring.[3076] Among the Botis of Ladakh,
says Lieutenant Cunningham, “should a wife prove barren, a second can
be chosen, or should she have daughters only, a second can be chosen
similarly.”[3077] In the Mutsa tribe of Indo-China, polygyny is allowed
only if the wife is sterile;[3078] and, among the Patuah or Juanga,
the Eskimo at Prince Regent’s Bay, and several other peoples, already
referred to, a man scarcely ever takes a second wife if the first wife
gives him children.[3079] Among the Tuski, “if a man’s wife bears only
girls, he takes another until he obtains a boy, but no more.”[3080]
In China and Tonquin, and among the Munda Kols of Chota Nagpore, it
sometimes happens that the barren wife herself advises her husband to
take a fresh partner,[3081] as Rachel gave Jacob Bilhah.[3082]
The polygyny of the ancient Hindus seems to have been due chiefly to
the fact that men dreaded the idea of dying childless, and M. Le Play
observes that even now in the East the desire for offspring is one of
the principal causes of polygyny.[3083] Dr. Gray makes the same remark
as to the Chinese,[3084] Herr Andree as to the Jews.[3085] In Egypt,
says Mr. Lane, “a man having a wife who has the misfortune to be
barren, and being too much attached to her to divorce her, is sometimes
induced to take a second wife, merely in the hope of obtaining
offspring.”[3086]
The more wives, the more children; and the more children, the
greater power. Man in a savage and barbarous state is proud of a
large progeny, and he who has most kinsfolk is most honoured and
feared.[3087] Regarding certain Indians of North America, among whom
the dignity of chief was elective, Heriot remarks that “the choice
usually fell upon him who had the most numerous offspring, and who
was therefore considered as the person most deeply interested in the
welfare of the tribe.”[3088] Among the Chippewas, says Mr. Keating,
“the pride and honour of parents depend upon the extent of their
family.”[3089] Speaking of African polygyny, Sir R. F. Burton observes
that the “culture of the marriage tie is necessary among savages and
barbarians, where, unlike Europe, a man’s relations and connections are
his only friends; besides which, a multitude of wives ministers to his
pride and influence, state and pleasure.”[3090] Bosman tells us of a
viceroy tributary to the negro king of Fida, who, assisted only by his
sons and grandsons with their slaves, repulsed a powerful enemy who
came against him. This viceroy, with his sons and grandsons, could make
out the number of two thousand descendants, not reckoning daughters or
any that were dead.[3091] Moreover, in a state of nature, next to a
man’s wives, the real servant, the only one to be counted upon, is the
child.[3092]
A husband’s desire for children often leads to polygyny in countries
where the fecundity of women is at a low rate. More than a hundred
years ago, Dr. Hewit observed that women are naturally less prolific
among rude than among polished nations.[3093] This assertion, though
not true universally,[3094] is probably true in the main. “It
is a very rare occurrence for an Indian woman,” says Mr. Catlin,
“to be ‘blessed’ with more than four or five children during her
life; and, generally speaking, they seem contented with two or
three.”[3095] This statement is confirmed by the evidence of several
other authorities;[3096] and it holds good not only for the North
American Indians, but, upon the whole, for a great many uncivilized
peoples.[3097] Some writers ascribe this slight degree of prolificness
to hard labour,[3098] or to unfavourable conditions of life in
general.[3099] That it is partly due to the long period of suckling is
highly probable, not only because a woman less easily becomes pregnant
during the time of lactation, but also on account of the continence
in which she often has to live during that period. The mortality of
children is very great among savages,[3100] and this, co-operating with
other causes to keep the family small, makes polygyny seem to many
peoples absolutely necessary. Speaking of the Equatorial Africans, Mr.
Reade says, “Propagation is a perfect struggle; polygamy becomes a law
of nature; and even with the aid of this institution, so favourable to
reproduction, there are fewer children than wives.”[3101]
A man’s fortune is increased by a multitude of wives not only through
their children, but through their labour. An Eastern Central African,
says Mr. Macdonald, finds no difficulty in supporting even hundreds of
wives. “The more wives he has, the richer he is. It is his wives that
maintain him. They do all his ploughing, milling, cooking, &c. They
may be viewed as superior servants who combine all the capacities of
male servants and female servants in Britain—who do all his work and
ask no wages.”[3102] Manual labour among savages is undertaken chiefly
by women; and, as there are no day-labourers or persons who will work
for hire, it becomes necessary for any one who requires many servants
to have many wives. Mr. Wood remarks that, when an Indian can purchase
four or five wives, their labour in the field is worth even more to
the household than his exertions in hunting.[3103] “The object of
the Kutchin,” says Mr. Kirby, “is to have a greater number of poor
creatures whom he can use as beasts of burden for hauling his wood,
carrying his meat, and performing the drudgery of his camp.”[3104] A
Modok defends his having several wives on the plea that he requires
one to keep house, another to hunt, another to dig roots.[3105] In the
Solomon Islands in New Guinea, at the Gold Coast, and in other places
where the women cultivate the ground, a plurality of wives implies a
rich supply of food;[3106] whilst, among the Tartars, according to
Marco Polo, wives were of use to their husbands as traders.[3107]
A multitude of wives increases a man’s authority, not only because it
increases his fortune and the number of his children, or because it
makes him able to be liberal and keep open doors for foreigners and
guests,[3108] but also because it presupposes a certain superiority
in personal capabilities, wealth, or rank. Statements such as “a
man’s greatness is ever proportionate to the number of his wives,” or
“polygamy is held to be the test of his wealth and consequence,” are
very frequently met with in books of travels. Thus the Apache “who can
support or keep, or attract by his power to keep, the greatest number
of women, is the man who is deemed entitled to the greatest amount of
honour and respect.”[3109]
However desirable polygyny may be from man’s point of view, it is,
as we have seen, altogether prohibited among many peoples, and, in
countries where it is an established institution, it is practised, as a
rule to which there are few exceptions, only by a comparatively small
class. The proportion between the sexes partly accounts for this. But
there are other causes of no less importance.
In ethnographical descriptions it is very often stated that a man
takes as many wives as he is able to maintain. Where the amount of
female labour is limited, where life is supported by hunting, where
agriculture is unknown, and no accumulated property worth mentioning
exists, it may be extremely difficult for a man to keep a plurality of
wives. Among the Patagonians, for instance, it is chiefly those who
possess some property who take more than one wife.[3110] Regarding
the Tuski, Mr. Hooper states that “each man has as many wives as
he can afford to keep, the question of food being the greatest
consideration.”[3111] In Oonalashka, according to v. Langsdorf, a
man who had many wives, if his means decreased, sent first one, then
another back to their parents.[3112]
Again, where female labour is of considerable value, the necessity
of paying the purchase-sum for a wife very often makes the poorer
people content with monogamy. Thus among the Zulus, Mr. Eyles writes,
many men have but one wife because cattle have to be paid for women.
Among the Gonds and Korkús, according to Mr. Forsyth, “polygamy
is not forbidden, but, women being costly chattels, it is rarely
practised.”[3113] Among the Bechuanas, says Andersson, there is no
limit, but his means of purchase, to the number of wives a man may
possess.[3114] And the same is observed with reference to a great many
other peoples, especially in Africa, where the woman-trade is at its
height. Polygyny is, moreover, checked to some extent by the man’s
obligation to serve for his wife for a certain number of years, and
even more by his having to settle down with his father-in-law for the
whole of his life.
So far as the woman is allowed to choose, she prefers, other things
being equal, the man who is best able to support her, or the man of the
greatest wealth or highest position. Naturally, therefore, wherever
polygyny prevails, it is the principal men—whether they owe their
position to birth, skill, or acquired wealth—who have the largest
number of wives; or it may be that they alone have more than one wife.
Speaking of the Ainos of Yesso, Commander H. C. St. John says that a
successful or expert hunter or fisher sometimes keeps two wives; and,
if a woman finds her husband an unsuccessful Nimrod, she abandons
him.[3115] Among the Aleuts, “the number of wives was not limited,
except that the best hunters had the greatest number.”[3116] Among the
Kutchin, “polygamy is practised generally in proportion to the rank
and wealth of the man;”[3117] and, among the Brazilian aborigines and
the Araucanians, polygyny occurs only or chiefly among rich men and
chiefs.[3118] Touching the Equatorial Africans, Mr. Reade remarks,
“The bush-man can generally afford but one wife, who must find him
his daily bread.... But the rich man can indulge in the institutions
of polygamy and domestic slavery.”[3119] In Dahomey, as we are told,
“the king has thousands of wives, the nobles hundreds, others tens;
while the soldier is unable to support one.”[3120] In the New Hebrides,
polygyny prevails especially among the chiefs; in Naiabui of New
Guinea, “the head men only have more than two or three wives;” and, in
South Australia, “the old men secure the greatest number.”[3121]
Thus polygyny has come to be associated with greatness, and is
therefore, as Mr. Spencer remarks, thought praiseworthy, while
monogamy, as associated with poverty, is thought mean.[3122] Indeed,
plurality of wives has everywhere tended to become a more or less
definite class distinction, the luxury being permitted, among some
peoples, only to chiefs or nobles.
One of the most important of the influences which determine the form of
marriage is the position of women, or rather the respect in which they
are held by men. For polygyny implies a violation of woman’s feelings.
Several statements tend to show that jealousy and rivalry do not
always disturb the peace in polygynous families. It sometimes happens
that the first wife herself brings her husband a fresh wife or a
concubine, or advises him to take one, when she becomes old herself,
or if she proves barren, or has a suckling child, or for some other
reason.[3123] In Equatorial Africa, according to Mr. Reade, the women
are the stoutest supporters of polygyny:—“If a man marries,” he says,
“and his wife thinks that he can afford another spouse, she pesters
him to marry again, and calls him ‘a stingy fellow’ if he declines to
do so.”[3124] Speaking of the Makalolo women, Livingstone observes,
“On hearing that a man in England could marry but one wife, several
ladies exclaimed that they would not like to live in such a country:
they could not imagine how English ladies could relish our custom, for,
in their way of thinking, every man of respectability should have a
number of wives, as a proof of his wealth. Similar ideas prevail all
down the Zambesi.”[3125] Among the Californian Modok also, according
to the Hon. A. B. Meacham, the women are opposed to any change in the
polygynous habits of the men.[3126] But such statements may easily
be misinterpreted. Often the wives live peacefully together only in
consequence of the strict discipline of the husband.[3127] They put up
with polygyny, thanks to long custom; they even approve of it where
it procures them advantages. The consideration of the whole family,
and especially of the first wife, is increased by every new marriage
the husband concludes.[3128] Where the wife is her husband’s slave,
polygyny implies a greater division of labour. This is the reason
why, among the Apaches, the women do not object to it; why, among the
Bagobos of the Philippines, they rejoice at the arrival of a new wife;
why, in the Mohammedan East, they themselves encourage the husband to
marry more wives.[3129] Among the Arabs of Upper Egypt, says Baker,
one of the conditions of accepting a suitor is, that a female slave
is to be provided for the special use of the wife, although the
slaves of the establishment occupy, at the same time, the position of
concubines.[3130] Von Weber tells us of a Kafir woman who, on account
of her heavy labour, passionately urged her husband to take another
wife.[3131] Nevertheless, polygyny is an offence against the feelings
of women, not only among highly civilized peoples, but even among the
rudest savages. For jealousy is not exclusively a masculine passion,
although it is generally more powerful in men than in women.[3132]
The Greenlanders have a saying that “whales, musk-oxen, and reindeer
deserted the country because the women were jealous at the conduct of
their husbands.”[3133] Regarding the Northern Indians, Hearne says,
“The men are in general very jealous of their wives, and I make no
doubt but the same spirit reigns among the women, but they are kept
so much in awe of their husbands, that the liberty of thinking is the
greatest privilege they enjoy.”[3134] Franklin tells us of an Indian
woman who committed suicide by hanging herself, in a fit of jealousy;
and another woman threw herself into the Mississippi with her child,
when her husband took a new wife.[3135] As regards the Dacotahs, Mr.
Prescott says that “polygamy is the cause of a great deal of their
miseries and troubles. The women, most of them, abhor the practice,
but are overruled by the men. Some of the women commit suicide on this
account.”[3136] The natives of Guiana, according to the Rev. W. H.
Brett, live in comfort, as long as the man is content with one wife,
but, when he takes another, “the natural feelings of woman rebel at
such cruel treatment, and jealousy and unhappiness have, in repeated
instances, led to suicide.”[3137] Among the Tamanacs, says v. Humboldt,
“the husband calls the second and third wife the ‘companions’ of
the first; and the first treats these ‘companions’ as rivals and
‘enemies’ (‘ipucjatoje’).”[3138] Among the Charruas, it often happens
that a woman abandons her husband if he has a plurality of wives, as
soon as she is able to find another man who will take her as his only
wife.[3139] And, when a Fuegian has as many as four women, his hut is
every day transformed into a field of battle, and many a young and
pretty wife must even atone with her life for the precedence given her
by the common husband.[3140]
In the islands of the Pacific similar scenes occur. The missionary
Williams’s wife once asked a Fiji woman who was _minus_ her nose, “How
is it that so many of your women are without a nose?” “It is due to
a plurality of wives,” was the answer; “jealousy causes hatred, and
then the stronger tries to cut or bite off the nose of the one she
hates.”[3141] In Tukopia, many a wife who believed another woman to be
preferred by the husband committed suicide.[3142] Among the Australian
aborigines, the old wives are extremely jealous of their younger
rivals, so that “a new woman would always be beaten by the other wife,
and a good deal would depend on the fighting powers of the former
whether she kept her position or not.”[3143] Among the Narrinyeri,
according to the Rev. A. Meyer, the several wives of one man very
seldom agree well with each other; they are continually quarrelling,
each endeavouring to be the favourite.[3144] “The black women,” says
Herr Lumholtz, “are also capable of being jealous.”[3145]
Among the Sea Dyaks, according to Sir Spenser St. John, the wife is
much more jealous of her husband than he is of her.[3146] In China,
many women dislike the idea of getting married, as they fear that,
should their husbands become polygynists, there would remain for them
a life of unhappiness. Hence, some become Buddhist or Taouist nuns,
and others prefer death by suicide to marriage.[3147] Mr. Balfour
asserts that, among the Mohammedans and ruling Hindu races who permit
and practise polygyny, it causes much intriguing and disquiet in
homes.[3148] According to Mr. Tod, it “is the fertile source of evil,
moral as well as physical, in the East.”[3149] The same view is taken
by Pischon and d’Escayrac de Lauture with regard to the polygyny of
the Mohammedans.[3150] In Persia, says Dr. Polak, a married woman
cannot feel a greater pain than if her husband takes a fresh wife, whom
he prefers to her; then she is quite disconsolate.[3151] In Egypt,
quarrels between the various women belonging to the same man are very
frequent, and often the wife will not even allow her female slave or
slaves to appear unveiled in the presence of her husband.[3152] In
the description, in the Book of Proverbs, of domestic happiness, it is
assumed that the husband has only one wife;[3153] and, in the latter
part of the ‘Rig-Veda,’ there are hymns in which wives curse their
fellow-wives.[3154]
The Abyssinian women are described as very jealous; and in the
polygynous families of the Eastern Africans, Zulus, Basutos, &c.,
quarrels frequently arise.[3155] The Hova word for polygyny is
derived from the root “ràfy,” which means “an adversary.” “So
invariably,” says the Rev. J. Sibree, “has the taking of more wives
than one shown itself to be a fruitful cause of enmity and strife in
a household, that this word, which means ‘the making an adversary,’
is the term always applied to it.... The different wives are always
trying to get an advantage over each other, and to wheedle their
husband out of his property; constant quarrels and jealousy are the
result, and polygamy becomes inevitably the causing of strife, ‘the
making an adversary.’”[3156] Statements of this kind cannot but shake
our confidence in the optimistic assertions of Dr. Le Bon and other
defenders of polygyny.[3157]
In order to prevent quarrels and fights between the wives, the husband
frequently gives each of them a separate house. It is probably in
part for the same reason that, among several peoples, wives are
usually chosen from one family. In general, says Domenech, when
an Indian wishes to have many wives, he chooses before all others,
if he can, sisters, because he thinks he can thus secure more
domestic peace.[3158] This is true of many of the North American
aborigines;[3159] a man who marries the eldest daughter of a family
secures in many cases the right to marry all her sisters as soon as
they are old enough to become his wives.[3160] The same practice is
said to prevail in Madagascar,[3161] and, combined with polyandry,
among certain peoples of India. But it is obvious that the evils of
polygyny are not removed by such arrangements.
Where women have succeeded in obtaining some power over their
husbands, or where the altruistic feelings of men have become refined
enough to lead them to respect the feelings of those weaker than
themselves, monogamy is generally considered the only proper form of
marriage. Among monogamous savage or barbarous races the position of
women is comparatively good; and the one phenomenon must be regarded
as partly the cause, partly the effect of the other. The purely
monogamous Iroquois, to quote Schoolcraft, are “the only tribes in
America, north and south, so far as we have any accounts, who gave
to woman a conservative power in their political deliberations. The
Iroquois matrons had their representative in the public councils;
and they exercised a negative, or what we call a veto power, in the
important question of the declaration of war. They had the right also
to interpose in bringing about a peace.”[3162] Moreover, they had
considerable privileges in the family.[3163] Among the Nicaraguans—a
people almost wholly monogamous,—the husbands are said to have been
so much under the control of their wives that they were obliged to do
the housework, while the women attended to the trading.[3164] Among
the Zapotecs and other nations inhabiting the Isthmus of Tehuantepec,
who do not permit polygyny, “gentleness, affection, and frugality
characterize the marital relations.”[3165] In New Hanover[3166] and
among the Dyaks,[3167] the wife seems to have a kind of authority;
and among the Minahassers, according to Dr. Hickson, “the woman is,
and probably has been for many generations, on a footing of equality
with her husband.”[3168] Mr. Man states that, in the Andaman Islands,
“the consideration and respect with which women are treated might
with advantage be emulated by certain classes in our own land.”[3169]
The Pádam wives are treated by their husbands with a regard that seems
singular in so rude a race. “But I have seen,” says Colonel Dalton,
“other races as rude who in this respect are an example to more
civilized people. It is because with these rude people the inclination
of the persons most interested in the marriage is consulted, and
polygamy is not practised.”[3170] The Munda Kols of Chota Nagpore
call a wife “the mistress of the house,” and she takes up a position
similar to that of a married woman in Europe.[3171] The Santal
women, who enjoy the advantage of reigning alone in the husband’s
wigwam, according to Mr. E. G. Man, hold a much higher _status_ in
the family circle than their less fortunate sisters in most Eastern
countries.[3172] The Kandhs, Bodo, and Dhimáls treat their wives
and daughters with confidence and kindness, and consult them in all
domestic concerns.[3173] Among the monogamous Moors of the Western
Soudan, the women exercise a considerable influence on the men, who
take the greatest pains to pay them homage.[3174] The Touareg wives’
authority is so great that, although Islam permits polygyny, the men
are forced to live in monogamy.[3175] Among the monogamous Tedâ, the
women hold a very high position in the family.[3176] As for European
monogamy, there can be no doubt that it owes its origin chiefly to the
consideration of men for the feelings of women.
The form of marriage is, further, influenced by the quality of the
passions which unites the sexes. When love depends entirely on external
attractions, it is necessarily fickle; but when it implies sympathy
arising from mental qualities, there is a tie between husband and wife
which lasts long after youth and beauty are gone.
It remains for us to note the true monogamous instinct, the absorbing
passion for one, as a powerful obstacle to polygyny. “The sociable
interest,” Professor Bain remarks, “is by its nature diffused: even
the maternal feeling admits of plurality of objects; revenge does
not desire to have but one victim; the love of domination needs many
subjects; but the greatest intensity of love limits the regards to
one.”[3177] The beloved person acquires, in the imagination of the
lover, an immeasurable superiority over all others. “The beginnings of
a special affection,” the same psychologist says, “turn upon a small
difference of liking; but such differences are easily exaggerated; the
feeling and the estimate acting and re-acting, till the distinction
becomes altogether transcendent.”[3178] This absorbing passion for one
is not confined to the members of civilized societies. It is found
also among savage peoples, and even among some of the lower animals.
Hermann Müller, Brehm, and other good observers have proved that
it is experienced by birds; and Mr. Darwin found it among certain
domesticated mammals.[3179] The love-bird rarely survives the death
of its companion, even when supplied with a fresh and suitable
mate.[3180] M. Houzeau states, on the authority of Frédéric Cuvier,
“Lorsque l’un des ouistitis (_Harpale jacchus_) du Jardin des Plantes
de Paris vint à mourir l’époux survivant fut inconsolable. Il caressa
longtemps le cadavre de sa compagne; et quand à la fin il fut convaincu
de la triste réalité, il se mit les mains sur les yeux, et resta sans
bouger et sans prendre de nourriture, jusqu’à ce qu’il eût lui-même
succombé.”[3181]
Among the Indians of Western Washington and North-Western Oregon, says
Dr. Gibbs, “a strong sensual attachment undoubtedly often exists,
which leads to marriage, as instances are not rare of young women
destroying themselves on the death of a lover.”[3182] The like is said
of other Indian tribes, in which suicide from unsuccessful love has
sometimes occurred even among men.[3183] Colonel Dalton represents the
Pahária lads and lasses as forming very romantic attachments; “if
separated only for an hour,” he says, “they are miserable.”[3184]
Davis tells us of a negro who, after vain attempts to redeem his
sweetheart from slavery, became a slave himself rather than be
separated from her.[3185] In Tahiti, unsuccessful suitors have been
known to commit suicide;[3186] and even the rude Australian girl sings
in a strain of romantic affliction—
“I never shall see my darling again.”[3187]
As a man, under certain circumstances, desires many wives, so a woman
may have several reasons for desiring a plurality of husbands. But the
jealousy of man does not readily suffer any rivals, and, as he is the
stronger, his will is decisive. Hence, where polyandry occurs, it is
only exceptionally a result of the woman’s wishes.
Various causes have been adduced for this revolting practice.
The difficulty of raising the sum for a wife, and the expense of
maintaining women may perhaps in part account for it.[3188] Regarding
polyandry in Kunawar, the Rev. W. Rebsch says that the cause assigned
is not poverty, but a desire to keep the common patrimony from being
distributed among a number of brothers.[3189] Some writers believe
that polyandry subserves the useful end of preventing the woman from
being exposed to danger and difficulty, when she is left alone in her
remote home during the prolonged absences of her lord.[3190] According
to the Sinhalese, the practice originated in the so-called feudal
times, when the enforced attendance of the people on the king and the
higher chiefs would have led to the ruin of the rice lands, had not
some interested party been left to look after the tillage. But Sir
Emerson Tennent remarks that polyandry is much more ancient than the
system thus indicated: it is shown to have existed at a period long
antecedent to “feudalism.”[3191] To whatever other causes the practice
may be attributed, the chief immediate cause is, no doubt, a numerical
disproportion between the sexes.