THE FORMS OF HUMAN MARRIAGE
(_Concluded_)
As to the history of the forms of human marriage, two inferences
regarding monogamy and polygyny may be made with absolute certainty:
monogamy, always the predominant form of marriage, has been more
prevalent at the lowest stages of civilization than at somewhat higher
stages; whilst, at a still higher stage, polygyny has again, to a great
extent, yielded to monogamy.
As already said, wars, often greatly disturbing the proportion of
the sexes among peoples with a highly developed tribal organization,
exercise a much smaller influence in that respect in societies of a
ruder type. As in such societies all men are nearly equal, and, to
quote Mr. Wallace, “each man scrupulously respects the rights of
his fellow, and any infraction of those rights rarely or never takes
place,”[3192] no great scope is left for polygynous habits.
Plurality of wives has comparatively few attractions for the men of
rude communities, where life is supported chiefly by hunting, and
female labour is of slight value. In societies of a higher kind, the
case is different. True, in such societies a man has to buy his wife,
and women are often costly chattels; but this obstacle to polygyny
is more than counterbalanced by the accumulation of wealth and the
distinction of classes.
Nothing, indeed, is more favourable to polygyny than social
differentiation. “In its highest and regulated form,” Mr. Morgan
justly observes, “it presupposes a considerable advance of society,
together with the development of superior and inferior classes, and of
some kinds of wealth.”[3193] Speaking of the Iroquois, Colden long ago
remarked that, “in any nation where all are on a par as to riches and
power, plurality of wives cannot well be introduced.”[3194] According
to Waitz, the reason why polygyny is very rare among the Hottentots
is, that they do not know of any disparity in rank and wealth.[3195]
The Rock Veddahs have no class distinction, and, though each party
among them has a headman—the most energetic senior of the tribe,—he
exercises scarcely any authority.[3196] Almost the same may be said of
most of the monogamous savage peoples whom we have mentioned. Thus,
among the Pádams, all, except slaves, are equal in rank;[3197] and of
the Kukis it is said that all eat and drink together, and that “one
man is as good as another.”[3198] This is true of the Chittagong Hill
tribes in general, who enjoy a perfect social equality, their nomadic
life precluding any great accumulation of wealth.[3199] Among the
Hill Dyaks, as Mr. Spencer observes, chiefs are unable to enforce
genuine subordination; the headman of each Bodo and Dhimál village has
but nominal authority; and the governor of a Pueblo town is annually
elected.[3200] In Tana, where the authority of a chief does not seem
to extend a gunshot beyond his own dwelling, few chiefs have more than
three wives, and most of them have only one or two.[3201] On the other
hand, throughout Africa, polygyny and great class distinctions occur
simultaneously. We may therefore safely conclude that polygyny became
more prevalent in proportion as differentiation increased with the
progress of civilization.
It is a notable fact that the higher savages and barbarians indulge in
this practice to a greater extent than the very lowest races. These,
with few exceptions, are either strictly monogamous, or but little
addicted to polygyny. The lowest forest tribes in Brazil and the
interior of Borneo are monogamous. Among the Veddahs and Andamanese,
monogamy is as rigidly insisted upon as anywhere in Europe. According
to Captain Lewin, the monogamous Toungtha are “unamenable to the
lures of civilization,” and he thinks it will be found difficult, if
not impossible, to wean them from their savage life.[3202] The Mrús
are despised as wild men by the polygynous Khyoungtha;[3203] and the
Californians, who, according to Mr. Powers, were far less addicted to
polygyny than the Atlantic Indians, are “a humble and a lowly race,
... one of the lowest on earth.”[3204]
Certain peoples who were originally monogamous are known to have
adopted polygyny under the influence of a higher civilization. Thus,
according to Professor Vámbéry, there is not a single indication
that polygyny was an institution of the primitive Turco-Tartars,
and even now it is almost unknown among the nomadic peoples of that
race.[3205] Dr. Mason and Mr. Smeaton state that, among the Karens,
it is occasionally practised only by those who are brought much in
contact with the Burmese.[3206] Among the Hindus, according to Mr.
Dutt, polygyny seems to have grown in the latter part of the Vedic age,
as there are scarcely any allusions to it in the earlier hymns.[3207]
Goguet observes that “fables which can be traced back to the earliest
times give us no instance of any man’s having more than one lawful
wife.”[3208] Although the majority of the heroes in the writings of
Kalidasa are described as polygynists,[3209] the principal divinities
whom the Hindus acknowledge are represented as married to but one
legitimate wife.[3210] The higher position so generally granted to the
_first_ married wife in polygynous families seems to indicate in most
cases a transition from monogamous to polygynous habits, and not _vice
versa_, as has often been suggested.[3211]
Monogamy is the more likely to have prevailed almost exclusively among
our earliest human ancestors, since it does so among the man-like apes.
Mr. Darwin certainly mentions the Gorilla as a polygamist;[3212] but
the majority of statements we have regarding this animal are to the
opposite effect. Relying on the most trustworthy authorities, Professor
Hartmann says, “The Gorilla lives in a society consisting of male and
female and their young of varying ages.”[3213]
We may thus take for granted that civilization up to a certain point is
favourable to polygyny; but it is equally certain that in its higher
forms it leads to monogamy.
One of the chief advantages of civilization is the decrease of
wars. The death-rate of men has consequently become less, and the
considerable disproportion between the sexes which, among many warlike
peoples, makes polygyny almost a law of nature, no longer exists
among the most advanced nations. No superstitious belief keeps the
civilized man apart from his wife during her pregnancy and whilst she
suckles her child; and the suckling time has become much shorter since
the introduction of domesticated animals and the use of milk. To a
cultivated mind youth and beauty are by no means the only attractions
of a woman; and civilization has made female beauty more durable. The
desire for offspring as we have seen, has become less intense. A large
family, instead of being a help in the struggle for existence, is often
considered an insufferable burden. A man’s kinsfolk are not now his
only friends, and his wealth and power do not depend upon the number
of his wives and children. A wife has ceased to be a mere labourer,
and for manual labour we have to a great extent substituted the work
of domesticated animals and the use of implements and machines.[3214]
Polygyny has thus, in many ways, become less desirable for the
civilized man than it was for his barbarian and savage ancestors. And
other causes have co-operated to produce the same result.
When the feelings of women are held in due respect, monogamy will
necessarily be the only recognized form of marriage. In no way does
the progress of mankind show itself more clearly than in the increased
acknowledgment of women’s rights, and the causes which, at lower stages
of development, may make polygyny desired by women themselves, do not
exist in highly civilized societies. The refined feeling of love,
depending chiefly upon mutual sympathy and upon appreciation of mental
qualities, is scarcely compatible with polygynous habits; and the
passion for one has gradually become more absorbing.
Will monogamy be the only recognized form of marriage in the future?
This question has been answered in different ways. According to Mr.
Spencer, “the monogamic form of the sexual relation is manifestly
the ultimate form; and any changes to be anticipated must be in the
direction of completion and extension of it.”[3215] Dr. Le Bon, on the
other hand, thinks that European laws will, in the future, legalize
polygyny;[3216] and M. Letourneau remarks that, although we may now
look upon monogamy as superior to any other form of marriage yet
known, “we need not consider it the Ultima Thule in the evolution of
connubial ceremonies.”[3217] But we may without hesitation assert that,
if mankind advance in the same direction as hitherto; if, consequently,
the causes to which monogamy in the most progressive societies owes
its origin continue to operate with constantly growing force; if,
especially, altruism increases, and the feeling of love becomes more
refined, and more exclusively directed to one,—the laws of monogamy can
never be changed, but must be followed much more strictly than they are
now.
* * * * *
Mr. McLennan suggests that, in early times, polyandry was the rule
and monogamy and polygyny exceptions. According to his view, the
only marriage law in which female kinship could have originated was
polyandry—polyandry of “the ruder sort,” in which the husbands are
not kinsmen. And it is, he says, impossible not to believe that the
Levirate—that is, the practice of marrying a dead brother’s widow—is
derived from polyandry.[3218] The fallacy of the first inference, which
assumes the system of “kinship through females only” to depend upon
uncertainty as to fathers, has already been shown. The second inference
will be found to be equally erroneous.
The Levirate is undoubtedly a wide-spread custom;[3219] and, if it
could be proved to be a survival of polyandry, we should be compelled
to conclude that this form of marriage was at one time very common.
Where women are regarded as property, they are, of course, inherited
like other possessions.[3220] In many cases the brother, or, in
default of a brother, the nearest male relation, is expressly stated
to be _entitled_ to have the widow; and, if he does not marry her, he
has nevertheless, the guardianship over her, and may give her away
or sell her to some other man.[3221] But there are several peoples
who consider the Levirate a duty rather than a right.[3222] Among
the Thlinkets, for example, when a husband dies, his brother or his
sister’s son must marry the widow, and the neglect of this obligation
has occasioned bloody feuds.[3223] The law requiring a man to take care
of a sister-in-law is analogous to other duties devolving on kinsfolk,
such as the vendetta, &c. Mr. McLennan lays stress on the fact that it
is the deceased husband’s _brother_ who inherits his widow. “How came
the right of succession,” he says, “to open, as in the ruder cases,
to the brother in preference to the son of the deceased? We repeat
that the only explanation that can be given of this is, that the law
of succession was derived from polyandry.”[3224] But among many of
the peoples who have the custom of the Levirate, sons either inherit
nothing or are preceded by brothers in succession.[3225] Among the
Santals, for instance, “when the elder brother dies, the next younger
inherits the widow, children, and all the property.”[3226] Among a few
peoples, the widow together with the other property of the dead man
goes either to his brother or to his sister’s son.[3227] But it is
more natural, where succession runs in the female line, that the widow
should be married by the brother than by the nephew, because, as a
rule, she is much older than the nephew, and he, in many cases, is too
young to marry and to maintain her properly.
Even when a son inherits the other property of his father, it is easy
to understand why he does not inherit the widow. To inherit her is,
generally speaking, to marry her. But nowhere is a son allowed to
marry his own mother; hence it is natural, at least where monogamy
prevails, that the right of succession in this case should belong to
the brother. In polygynous families, on the other hand, it often
happens that the eldest son, or all the sons, inherit the father’s
widows, the mother being in each case excepted.[3228] Among the
Bakalai, a tribe in Equatorial Africa, widows are permitted to marry
the son of their deceased husband, and, if there be no son, they may
live with the deceased husband’s brother.[3229] As regards the Negroes
of Benin, Bosman states that, if the mother of the eldest son, the only
heir, be alive, he allows her a proper maintenance, but his father’s
other widows, especially those who have not had children, the son
takes home, if he likes them, and uses as his own; but if the deceased
leaves no children, the brother inherits all his property.[3230] Among
the Mishmis, the heir obtains the wives, with the exception of his
own mother, who goes to the next male relation.[3231] Concerning the
Kafirs of Natal, Mr. Shooter observes that, “when a man dies, those
wives who have not left the kraal remain with the eldest son. If they
wish to marry again, they must go to one of their late husband’s
brothers.”[3232] The rules of succession are thus modified according
to circumstances, and they are not uniform even among the same people.
It frequently happens that the brother succeeds to the chieftainship,
whilst the son inherits the property of the dead man[3233]—no doubt
because the brother, being older and more experienced, is generally
better fitted for command than the son.[3234]
Mr. McLennan calls attention to the fact that, among certain peoples,
the children begotten by the brother are accounted the children of
the brother deceased.[3235] “It is obvious,” he says, “that it
could more easily be feigned that the children belonged to the brother
deceased, if already, at a prior stage, the children of the brotherhood
had been accounted the children of the eldest brother, _i.e._, if we
suppose the obligation to be a relic of polyandry.”[3236] But this
explanation is very far-fetched. As Dr. Starcke justly observes, a
man may, from a juridical point of view, be the father of a child,
though he is not so in fact.[3237] In New Guinea, says M. Bink, “à
la mort du père, c’est l’oncle (frère du père) qui se charge de la
tutelle; si l’enfant devient orphelin, il reconnaît son oncle comme son
père.”[3238] In Samoa, the brother of a deceased husband considered
himself entitled to have his brother’s wife, and to be regarded by
the orphan children as their father.[3239] And, among the Kafirs of
Natal, the children of a deceased man’s widow born in marriage with
his brother, belong to his son.[3240] Quite in accordance with these
facts, the children of a widow may be considered to belong to her
former husband. Indeed, where death without posterity is looked upon as
a horrible calamity, the ownership of the children is a thing of the
utmost importance for the dead man. It is only when the deceased has no
offspring that the Jewish, Hindu, and Malagasy laws prescribe that the
brother shall “raise up seed” to him.
Mr. McLennan has thus failed in his attempt to prove that polyandry has
formed a general stage in the development of marriage institutions; and
we may almost with certainty infer that it has always been exceptional.
We have already pointed out the groundlessness of Mr. McLennan’s
suggestion that in all, or nearly all, the primitive hordes there was
a want of balance between the sexes, the men being in the majority
on account of female infanticide.[3241] Moreover, though polyandry
is due to an excess of men, it would be a mistake to conclude that
an excess of men always causes polyandry. This practice presupposes
an abnormally feeble disposition to jealousy—a peculiarity of all
peoples among whom polyandry occurs. The Eskimo are described as a
race with extraordinarily weak passions.[3242] Among the Sinhalese,
says Dr. Davy, jealousy is not very troublesome among the men, and
the infidelity of a woman is generally easily forgiven.[3243] The
people of Ladakh are a mild, timid, and indolent race.[3244] The Kulu
husbands “sont très peu jaloux.”[3245] The same is said by Mr. Fraser
with regard to the people of Sirmore. The women are “entirely at the
service of such as will pay for their favours, without feeling the
slightest sense of shame or crime in a practice from which they are not
discouraged by early education, example, or even the dread of their
lords, who only require a part of the profit.”[3246] The Tibetans
are represented as very little addicted to jealousy,[3247] being, as
Mr. Wilson remarks, a race of a peculiarly placid and unpassionate
temperament.[3248] But such a lack of jealousy, as we have seen, is a
rare exception in the human race, and utterly unlikely to have been
universal at any time.
Polyandry seems, indeed, to presuppose a certain amount of
civilization. We have no trustworthy account of its occurrence among
the lowest savage races. Mr. Bridges writes that the Yahgans of Tierra
del Fuego consider it utterly abominable. With regard to the Veddahs,
Mr. Bailey states, “Polyandry is unknown among them. The practice
is alluded to with genuine disgust. I asked a Veddah once what the
consequence would be if one of their women were to live with two
husbands, and the unaffected vehemence with which he raised his axe,
and said, ‘A blow would settle it,’ showed conclusively to my mind the
natural repugnance with which they regard the national custom of their
Kandyan neighbours.”[3249] These neighbours are much superior to the
Veddahs in civilization; and the other peoples practising polyandry
have left the lowest stages of development far behind them. The Eskimo
are a rather advanced race, and so are the polyandrous nations of
the Asiatic continent. Speaking of the people of Sirmore, Mr. Fraser
observes, “It is remarkable that a people so degraded in morals, and
many of whose customs are of so revolting a nature, should in other
respects evince a much higher advancement in civilization than we
discover among other nations, whose manners are more engaging, and
whose moral character ranks infinitely higher. Their persons are better
clad and more decent; their approach more polite and unembarrassed;
and their address is better than that of most of the inhabitants of
the remote Highlands of Scotland; ... and their houses, in point of
construction, comfort and internal cleanliness, are beyond comparison
superior to Scottish Highland dwellings.”[3250] On the arrival of the
Spaniards, the polyandrous inhabitants of Lancerote were distinguished
from the other Canarians, who were strictly monogamous, by marks of
greater civilization.[3251]
We have seen that in polyandrous families the husbands are generally
brothers, and that the eldest brother, at least in many cases, has the
superiority, the younger husbands having almost the position, if the
term may be used, of male concubines. It is a fair conclusion that, in
such instances, polyandry was originally an expression of fraternal
benevolence on the part of the eldest brother, who gave his younger
brothers a share in his wife, if, on account of the scarcity of women,
they would otherwise have had to live unmarried. If additional wives
were afterwards acquired, they would naturally be considered the common
property of all the brothers. In this way the group-marriage of the
Toda type seems to have been evolved.