INCEST
Definition.--Incest notion was produced from the folkways.--The
notion that inbreeding is harmful.--Status-wife, work-wife,
love-wife.--The abomination of incest.--The incest taboo is
strongest in the strongest groups.--Incest in ethnography.--
Incest in civilized states.--Where the line is drawn, and why.--
Human self-selection.--Restriction by biological doctrine not
sufficiently warranted.--Summary of the matter now.
+508. Definition of incest.+ Incest is the marital union of a man and a
woman who are akin within the limits of a prohibition current at the
time in the laws or mores of the group. The primitive notion of kinship
did not divide kinship into grades of remoteness as we do. Very often it
was counted by classes or age strata. In the totem system all the women
of his mother's totem were tabooed to a man, although their cousinship
to himself might be very remote. At the same time, he could marry his
father's sister's daughter, or his mother's brother's daughter, unless
his father and his uncle had married women of the same totem. Inasmuch
as a man and his wife must have different totems and the children took
the totem of their mother, a man might marry his own daughter. Generally
this was forbidden by supplementary rules, but in Buka and North
Bougainville it occurs not infrequently.[1658] The varieties of the
consanguinity taboo are very numerous. They are entirely different in
theory under the mother family and the father family. They are now very
different in different states of our Union.[1659] If the taboo on
marriage is not defined in terms of "blood" or assumed kinship,
violation of it is not incest. For instance, in the mediæval church, two
persons who had been sponsors in baptism to the same child might not
marry. Also, if two persons are debarred by affinity, violation is not
incest. In England a man may not marry his deceased wife's sister. If he
does it, his marriage is unlawful, but it is not incest. The definition
of incest must include the notion of a blood connection as blood
connection is understood in that group at the time. Other prohibitions
may be expedient, or may seem required by propriety (e.g. the marriage
of a man with his father's widow), but they do not come under incest.
Restrictions on marriage by kinship, as the people in question construed
kinship, go back to the most primitive society. Some very primitive
people have intricate restrictions, and they maintain them by the
severest social sanctions.
+509. Incest notion produced from the folkways.+ It is evident that
primitive people must have received a suggestion or impression of some
important interest at stake in this matter. They adopted taboos and
established folkways to protect interests. In time these taboos and
folkways won very great force and high religious sanction; also a sense
of abomination was produced which seemed to be a "natural" feeling.
There certainly is no natural feeling. The abomination is conventional
and traditional. The Pharaohs, Ptolemies, and Incas, also the
Zoroastrians, are sufficient to show that there is no reason for the
abomination in any absolute or universal facts. The sanctions by which
savage people sustained the taboo were the strongest possible,--exile
and death. Here we have, therefore, a social limitation of the greatest
force, sanctioned by religion and group consent and growing into an
abomination which has come down to us and which we all feel, but which
is a product of the most primitive folkways; and yet we do not know the
motive for it in the minds of primitive men. In the matter of
cannibalism we saw (Chapter VIII) that with advancing civilization a
taboo has been set up against a food custom which appears to have been
universal amongst primitive men; that is, we have reversed and hold in
abomination what they did. In regard to incest we have accepted and
fully ratified their taboo.
+510. Notion that inbreeding is harmful.+ This taboo and the reasons for
it are a complete enigma unless the primitive people had observed the
evils of close inbreeding. Inbreeding maintains the excellence of a
breed at the expense of its vigor. Outbreeding (unless too far out)
develops vigor at the expense of the characteristic traits. It is very
probable, but not absolutely certain, that inbreeding is harmful. Any
marriage between persons who have the same faults of inheritance causes
the offspring to accumulate faults and to degenerate. Close kinship
creates a probable danger that faults will be accumulated. This is a
logical deduction. Embryology, at present, seems to teach that there is
a combination and extrusion of germ units of such a kind that the
physiological process conforms only in a measure to this logical
deduction, and the historical-statistical verification of the harm of
inbreeding remains very imperfect. It is possible that at first, and
within limits, inbreeding is not harmful, but becomes such if repeated
often. Is it possible that the lowest savages can have perceived this
and built a policy on it? Morgan[1660] thinks that it is possible.
Westermarck[1661] thinks it beyond the mental power of the lowest races.
He thinks that, by natural selection, those groups which practiced
inbreeding for any reason died out or were displaced by those who
followed the other policy. He goes on to propose a theory that persons
who grew up, or who now grow up, in intimacy develop an instinctive
antipathy to sex relations with each other.[1662] While it is true that
primitive savages do not observe and reflect, it is also true that, in
their own blundering way, when their interests are sharply at stake,
they do observe, and they change their ways accordingly. Therefore they
appear to us at one time hopelessly brutish; at another time we are
amazed at their ingenuity and their mental activity (myths, legends,
proverbs, maxims). If the loss or pain is great enough, the savage man
is capable of astounding cleverness to escape it. After animal breeding
began men had ample opportunity to observe the effects of close
inbreeding. There is more doubt now about the penalties of inbreeding
than there is about the power of savage men to perceive them and try to
escape them, if they exist.
+511. Status-wife, work-wife, love-wife.+ In the primitive horde it
appears that there was a prescribed wife for each man, or the
classification was such that his choice was restricted to a very small
number. The prescribed wife was a status-wife. She alone could hold the
position of a true "wife." The man might also capture a woman abroad who
would be a worker, or work-wife, and she might win the man, so that she
became a love-wife. There would often be a comparison between the
children of the status-wife and the children of a work-wife or
love-wife, in which the latter would appear the more vigorous. If so,
there would be a school in which the advantages of outbreeding would
appear as a fact, although not explained.
+512. Abomination of incest.+ The taboos in the mores contain
prescriptions as to the allowable consanguinity of spouses. There is a
great horror of violating them. This sentiment is met with amongst
people who have scarcely any other notion of crime, or of right and
wrong. The rules are enforced by death or banishment as penalties of
violation. The notion of harm in inbreeding has spread all over the
earth. It has come down to ourselves. In the form in which it was held
by savage people it was mistaken to such a degree that they might, in
spite of it, practice close inbreeding. Our study of the mores teaches
us that there must have been, antecedent to this state of the mores in
regard to this matter, a long development of interests, folkways, rites,
and superstitions.[1663] It is believed, not without reason, that the
horde life would tend to run into grooves in which the prescribed wife
would be a close relative, in the final case a sister. Experience of
this might produce the rules of prohibition. The captured wife was also
a trophy, and the play of this fact on vanity would always tend to
disintegrate the system of endogamy. There are many reasons why endogamy
seems more primitive than exogamy, and it required force of interest,
superstition, or vanity to carry a society over from the former to the
latter. A calamity might come to reënforce the interest,[1664] but can
hardly be postulated to explain a custom so widespread. All the ultimate
causes of the law of incest, therefore, lie beyond our investigation.
They are open only to conjecture and speculation. The case is very
important, however, to show the operation of the mores on facts
erroneously assumed, and their power to work out their effects, as an
independent societal operation, without regard to error in the material
to which they are applied.
+513. Incest taboo strongest in the strongest groups.+ We shall see, in
the cases to be presented, that incest has a wider definition and a
stricter compulsion in great tribes, and in prosperity or wealth, than
in small groups and poverty. The definiteness of this taboo, and the
strictness with which it is enforced, seem to be correlative with the
energy of the tribal discipline in general and the vigor of the
collective life of the group. Wives can be got abroad, either by capture
or contract, only by those who command respect for their power or who
use power. On the other hand, endogamy is both cause and effect of
weakness and proceeds with decline. Some cases will be given below in
which incestuous marriages occur where the parties are unable to obtain
any other wives. Neglect of the incest taboo is rather a symptom than a
cause of group decline.
+514. Incest in ethnography.+ Martius says of the tribes on the
upper Amazon, in general, that incest in all grades is frequent
amongst them. In the more southern regions the taboo is stricter
and better observed. Amongst the former it is shameful for a man
to marry his sister or his brother's daughter. The usages are the
more strict the larger the tribe is. In small isolated groups it
frequently happens that a man lives with his sister. He heard of
two tribes, the Coërunas and the Uainumus, who observed little
rule on the subject. They were dying out.[1665] "Not seldom an
Indian is father and brother of his son."[1666] Effertz writes
that, amongst the Indians of the Sierra Madre, Mexico, incest
between father and daughter "is of daily occurrence," although
incest between brother and sister is entirely unknown. The former
unions are due to economic interest. The Indian tills small bits
of land scattered in the hills. He cannot exist without a woman
to grind corn for him. When he goes to a distant patch of land he
takes his daughter with him. He has but one blanket and the
nights are cold. If he has no daughter he must take another
woman, but then he must share his crop with her.[1667]
+515.+ The tribes of South Australia are "forbidden to have
intercourse with mothers, sisters, and first or second cousins.
This religious law is strictly carried out and adhered to under
penalty of death." The most opprobrious epithet for an opponent
in a quarrel is one which means a person who has sex intercourse
with kin nearer than second cousins.[1668] Some Dyaks are
indifferent to the conduct of their wives, and both sexes
practice sex vice, but they insist on drowning any one who
violates the taboo of incest.[1669] Other Dyaks (the Ot Danom)
have no notion of incest. The former are on the coast, the latter
inland. Hence it seems probable that the notion of incest came to
the Dyaks from outside.[1670] The Khonds practice female
infanticide, from a feeling that marriage in the same tribe is
incest.[1671] Cucis are allowed to marry without regard to
relationship of blood, except mother and son.[1672] The Veddahs
think marriage with an older sister abominable, but marriage with
a younger sister is prescribed as the best. Sometimes a father
marries his daughter; in other subdivisions a first cousin
(daughter of the father's sister or mother's brother) is the
prescribed wife.[1673] Mantegazza reports that father and
daughter, mother and son, are not rarely united amongst the
Anamites and that Cambodian brothers and sisters marry.[1674]
Amongst the Kalongs on Java sons live with mothers, and luck and
prosperity are thought to be connected with such unions. Not long
ago, on Minahasa in the Tonsawang district, the closest blood
relatives united in marriage; also on Timorlaut. The Balinese had
a usage that twins of different sex, in the highest castes, were
united in marriage. They could have no notion of incest at
all.[1675] The Bataks have a tradition that marriage between a
man and his father's sister's daughter was formerly allowed, but
that calamities occurred which forced a change of custom.[1676]
+516.+ The people of Teita, in East Africa, who are very dirty
and low, marry mothers and sisters because they cannot afford to
buy wives. They have been in touch with whites for fifty
years.[1677] The chiefs of the Niam Niam take their daughters to
wife.[1678] The Sakalava, on Madagascar, allow brother and sister
to marry, but before such a marriage the bride is sprinkled with
consecrated water and prayers are recited for her happiness and
fecundity, as if there were fears that the union was not pleasing
to the higher powers, and as if there was especial fear that
there might be no offspring. Such marriages are contracted by
chiefs who cannot find other brides of due rank.[1679]
+517.+ The Ossetes think a marriage with a mother's sister right,
but marriage with a father's sister is severely punished. They
have the strictest father family. Marriage with a father's
relative to the remotest cousinship is forbidden, but
consanguinity through the mother they do not notice at all.[1680]
The Ostiaks also have strict father family, and allow marriage
with any relative on the female side, but with none on the male
side. It is an especially fortunate marriage to take two sisters
together.[1681]
+518.+ Amongst the Tinneh, men sometimes marry their mothers,
sisters, or daughters, but this is not approved by public
opinion.[1682] As the Yakuts had no word for uterine brother and
sister but only for tribal brother and sister, the statements
about the taboo lack precision, but they care nothing for incest,
and it occurs. They laugh at the Russian horror of it. They
formerly had endogamy, and it is stated that brothers and sisters
married. Now they have exogamy between subdivisions of the
nation, but a girl's brothers never let her depart as a virgin,
lest she take away their luck.[1683] A Hudson Bay Eskimo took his
mother to wife, but public opinion forced him to discard
her.[1684] Marriages of brothers and sisters appear to have been
allowed formerly amongst the Mordvin, in central Russia. A case
is mentioned of a girl who was sent from home for a time, and on
her return given to her brother as his wife.[1685]
Langsdorff[1686] reported of the Aleuts on the island of Kodiak,
at the beginning of the nineteenth century, that parents and
children, brothers and sisters, cohabited there.
+519. Incest in civilized states.+ The ancient kings of Teneriffe, if
they could not find mates of equal rank, married their sisters to
prevent the admixture of plebeian blood.[1687] In the Egyptian mythology
Isis and Osiris were sister and brother as well as wife and husband. The
kings of ancient Egypt married their sisters and daughters. The doctrine
of royal essence was very exaggerated, and was applied with quantitative
exactitude. A princess could not be allowed to transmit any of it away
from the possessor of the throne. There is said to be evidence that
Ramses II married two of his own daughters and that Psammetik I married
his daughter. Artaxerxes married two of his daughters.[1688] The
Ptolemies adopted this practice. The family married in and in for
generations, especially brothers and sisters, although sometimes of the
half-blood. "Indicating the Ptolemies by numbers according to the order
of their succession, II married his niece and afterwards his sister; IV
his sister; VI and VII were brothers and they consecutively married the
same sister; VII also subsequently married his niece; VIII married two
of his own sisters consecutively; XII and XIII were brothers and
consecutively married their sister, the famous Cleopatra." "The line of
descent was untouched by these intermarriages, except in the two cases
of III and VIII." The close intermarriages were sterile. The line was
continued by others.[1689] The Peruvian Incas, but not other Peruvians,
married their sisters.[1690] In the Vedic mythology the first man and
king of the dead, Yama, had his sister, Yami, to wife. In a hymn these
two are represented as discussing the propriety of marriage between
brother and sister. This shows the revolt of later mores against what
once was not tabooed.[1691] The scholars think that Herodotus (III, 31),
by his story of the question whether Cambyses could marry his sister,
shows that such marriages were not allowed amongst the ancient Persians.
They are mentioned as a usage of the magi. In the Avesta they are
prescribed as holy and meritorious. They are enjoined by religion. They
were practiced by the Sassanids,[1692] although in the Dinkart version
of the law they are apologized for and to some extent disavowed.[1693]
After the time of Cambyses such marriages occurred, especially in the
royal family. They now occur amongst the Persians.[1694]
+520.+ In the Chaldean religion the gods and goddesses were fathers,
sons, brothers, sisters, and mothers, as well as husbands and wives, to
each other. The notions of "son of god" and "mother of god" were very
current. Marduk is son of Ea and intercessor for men with him.[1695] In
the laws of Hammurabi, if a man consorts with his mother after the death
of his father, both are to be burned. Incest with a daughter is punished
only by banishment. This light punishment may be only a concession to
public opinion, since the culprits injured no interest but their
own.[1696]
+521.+ In the Old Testament Abraham married his half-sister by the same
father. In 2 Sam. xiii. 13 it is shown that such a marriage was
allowable in David's time, but Ezek. xxii. 11 refers to such a marriage
as an abomination. Nahor's wife was his niece by his brother. Jacob
married two sisters at the same time, both his cousins. Esau married his
cousin. Judah took to wife his son's widow, but disapproval of that is
expressed. Amram, the father of Moses, married his paternal aunt. These
unions were all in contravention of the Levitical law. There are
statements of the law which differ: Levit. xviii and xx; Deut. xxi. 20;
xxvii. 20-23. In Ezek. xxii. 10 and 11 incest is charged as a special
sin of the Jews. In the post-exilic and rabbinical periods the law
varied from the old law. In general it was extended to include under the
taboo more distant relatives.[1697]
Marriages between brothers and sisters were allowed in Phoenicia, but
were contracted probably only when the woman had inherited something in
which her brother had no share.[1698]
+522.+ In Homer Zeus and Hera are brother and sister. Union of mother
and son is regarded as shocking, but not that of brother and
sister.[1699] Arete was niece and wife of Alcinous, and was especially
respected.[1700] In the case of OEdipus the union of mother and son,
by error, was terribly punished.[1701] In the tragedy of _Andromache_
marriages between mother and son, father and daughter, brother and
sister, are mentioned as characteristic of barbarians. Dionysius of
Syracuse, having lost his wife, married Doris and Aristomache on the
same day. With Doris he had three children and with Aristomache four.
His son by Doris, Dionysius, married Sophrosyne, his daughter by
Aristomache. Dion, the brother of Aristomache, married a daughter of
Aristomache.[1702] Whether these marriages were extraordinary in Sicily
we do not know. They may not represent the current mores as to marriage,
but only the shamelessness possible to a Sicilian tyrant. At Athens the
only limitations were on the ascending and descending relationships,
but it appears that in later times marriages between brother and sister
were disapproved.[1703]
+523.+ The term "incest" was applied at Rome to the case of a man
present at the purification of women, on the feast of the _Bona Dea_,
May 1.[1704] The sense of the word is, then, nearly equal to "profane."
The emperor Claudius married his niece Agrippina and made such marriages
lawful. Gaius[1705] restricted this precedent to its exact form,
marriage of a brother's daughter, not sister's daughter, and further
restricted it, if the brother's daughter was in any forbidden degree of
affinity.
+524.+ In the Ynglinga saga Niord takes his sister to wife, because the
law of Van-land allowed it, although that of the Ases did not.[1706]
Other cases in the _Edda_ go to show that the taboo on such marriages
was not in the ancient mores of Scandinavia.[1707] In the German poems
of the twelfth century it belongs to the description of the heathen
kings that they are fierce and suspicious towards all who woo their
daughters, and that they sometimes intend to marry their own daughters
after the death of their queens.[1708]
+525.+ Those Arabs of Arabia Felix who practiced fraternal polyandry
also formed unions with their mothers.[1709] Robertson Smith thinks that
this means their fathers' wives.[1710] The Arabs were convinced of the
evil of marriage between cousins.[1711]
+526.+ A mediæval traveler reports of the Mongols that they paid no heed
to affinity in marriage. They took two sisters at once or in succession.
The only limitation was that they must not marry mothers, daughters, or
sisters by the same mother.[1712] In Burma and Siam, at least until very
recent times, in the royal families of the different subdivisions
brothers and sisters married.[1713]
+527.+ In Russia, in the seventeenth century, men in the government
service who were often sent out on duty and had no homes, and whose
incomes were small, were reproached by an ecclesiastic with the fact
that they lived in vice with their mothers, sisters, and
daughters.[1714] Marriages between persons related by blood are frequent
in Corsica and are considered the most auspicious marriages.[1715]
+528.+ The Kabyles stone to death those who voluntarily commit incest
and the children born of incestuous unions. The taboo, in their usage,
includes parents and children-in-law, brothers and sisters-in-law, and
foster brothers and sisters.[1716]
+529.+ In 1459 there died at Arras a canon, eighty years old, who had
committed incest with his daughters and with a granddaughter whom he
had had by one of them.[1717]
+530. Where the line is drawn, and why.+ The instances show that the
notion of incest is by no means universal or uniform, or attended by the
same intensity of repugnance. It is not by any means traceable to a
constant cause. Plutarch[1718] discussed the question why marriages
between relatives were forbidden by the traditional mores of his time.
He conjectured various explanations. Fear of physical degeneration is
not one of them. We must infer that such consequences had not then been
noticed or affirmed. We have found cases in which no taboo existed and
cases in which close intermarriages are especially approved. An
operation of syncretism, when different usages and ideas have been
brought together by conquest and state combinations, must be allowed
for. In some cases a great interest was thought to be at stake; in other
cases no importance was attached to the matter. The mores developed
under the notions which got control by accident or superstition. There
was no rational ground for the taboo, and none even blindly connected
with truth of fact, until the opinion gained a footing that close
intermarriage was unfavorable to the number or vigor of the offspring.
Unless that opinion is accepted as correct there is no reason for the
taboo now.[1719] Incest is, for us, a thing so repugnant that we
consider the feeling "natural." We may test the feeling by our feeling
as to the marriage of first cousins. First cousins are very commonly
married in England. Such marriages are under no civil or ecclesiastical
prohibition, and although many persons disapprove of them on grounds of
expediency, and parents might refuse to consent to them, they do not
come under the abomination of incest. In many states of the United
States marriages of first cousins are illegal. In Kansas they are put
under heavy penalties. We hear no preaching against close in-marriage.
The matter is not discussed. The limitations are set in the current
mores and are accepted without dispute. Evidently the only question is
where the line should be drawn. If it was proposed to forbid the
marriage of first cousins some discussion might be aroused. If it was
decided wise to forbid such marriages, it would take long for such a
sentiment of repugnance to be developed in regard to them as we now feel
in regard to the marriage of sisters, or even of aunts and nieces. In
history the movement must have been in the other direction. The
repugnance arose first and then became a ground for the rules.
+531. Human self-selection by taboo and other-worldliness.+ Laws against
incest and all caste rules which arbitrarily limit the number of persons
whom a given individual may marry may be regarded as blind attempts of
mankind to practice some kind of self-selection. Sex selection inside
the human race is the highest requirement which life now addresses to
man as an intelligent being, and the very highest result which our
sciences could produce would be to give us trustworthy guidance in a
policy of sex selection. It is not possible for some persons to dispose
of the life determination of others, as breeders control the union of
beasts. What is needed is that individuals, in making their own
decisions for their own self-realization, shall understand the whole
range of interests which are involved, and shall do what it is expedient
or necessary to do to satisfy them all. In times past men and women
have thus limited themselves by rules about incest, group and class
marriage, rank or caste, religion, wealth, and other considerations. In
every society there are traits which are approved and others which are
disapproved in each sex. In marrying, people are influenced by these
appreciations and they select for or against them. Thus marriage is
controlled by a complicated selection according to a number of standards
which prevail at the time and place. At present the popular view seems
to be that all standards are false, and that the limitations ought to be
trampled on as representing abandoned ideals. It is thought that the
whole matter ought to be left to the control of an unintelligent
impulse, which is capable of any caprice, but whose authority is
imperative. Perverse as the old restrictions often were, they had in
them a notion of self-selection such as is needed now, if only the
criteria and standards which are correct can be ascertained. The old
restrictions contained a notion of breeding up, a notion which is by no
means false, if we can get a rational idea of what is "up." No marriage
ought now to be contracted without full application of all we know about
heredity and selection. If, in any society, marriages were thus
contracted, the effect would be most favorable on posterity, and on the
power in action and the perpetuity of the group, for the net result
would be that those who are least fit to propagate the race would be the
ones who would be left unmarried or would marry each other. In the
latter case their posterity would soon disappear, and the evil factors
would be eliminated. A father now refuses his daughter to a drunkard, a
criminal, a pauper, a bankrupt, an inefficient man, one who has no
income, etc. Some men refuse their daughters to irreligious men, or to
men who are not of their own sect or subsect. Some allow inherited
wealth, or talent, or high character, etc., to outweigh disadvantages.
In short, we already have selection. It always has existed. The law of
incest was an instinctive effort in the same direction. The problem is
the same now as it always has been,--to refine and correct the standards
and to determine their relative importance.
+532. Restrictions by biological facts as yet too uncertain.+ As yet,
undoubtedly, the great reason why people are reluctant to construct a
policy of marriage and population on biological doctrines is that those
doctrines are too uncertain. The reluctance is well justified. Hasty
action, based on shifting views of fact and law, would simply add new
confusion and trouble to that produced by the customs and legislative
enactments which we have inherited from the past and which were based on
transcendental doctrines. So long as we do not know whether acquired
modifications are inheritable or not, we are not prepared to elaborate a
policy of marriage which can be dogmatically taught or civilly enforced.
This much, however, is certain,--the interests of society are more at
stake in these things than in anything else. All other projects of
reform and amelioration are trivial compared with the interests which
lie in the propagation of the species, if those can be so treated as to
breed out predispositions to evils of body and mind, and to breed in
vigor of mind and body. It even seems sometimes as if the primitive
people were working along better lines of effort in this matter than we
are, when we allow marriage to be controlled by "love" or property; when
our organs of public instruction taboo all which pertains to
reproduction as improper; and when public authority, ready enough to
interfere with personal liberty everywhere else, feels bound to act as
if there was no societal interest at stake in the begetting of the next
generation.
+533.+ It is self-evident that there ought to be no restriction on
marriage except such as is necessary to protect some interest of the
parties, their children, or the society. The necessity must also be real
and not traditional or superstitious. The evils of inbreeding are so
probable as to justify strong prejudice against consanguine marriages.
If primitive men set up the taboo on incest without knowing this, they
acted more wisely than they knew. We who have inherited the taboo now
have knowledge which gives a rational and expedient reason for it. The
mores, therefore, still have a field of useful action to strengthen and
reaffirm the taboo. There is also a practical question still
unsettled,--whether the marriage of first cousins should be included in
the taboo.
[1658] Parkinson, _Ethnog. d. Nordwestl. Salomo Ins._, 6.
[1659] Snyder, _Geog. of Marriage_.
[1660] _Anc. Soc._, 424.
[1661] _Marriage_, 317.
[1662] _Ibid._, 319, 334, 352.
[1663] Durkheim in _L'Année Sociologique_, I, 59-65.
[1664] Starcke, _Prim. Fam._, 230.
[1665] _Ethnog. Brasil._, 115.
[1666] _Ibid._, 334 note.
[1667] _Umschau_, VIII, 496.
[1668] JAI, XXIV, 169.
[1669] Perelaer, _Dyaks_, 59.
[1670] Wilken, _Volkenkunde_, 267.
[1671] Hopkins, _Relig. of India_, 531.
[1672] Lewin, _Wild Races of S. E. India_, 276.
[1673] _N. S. Ethnol. Soc., London_, II, 311; Sarasin, _Veddahs_,
466.
[1674] _Gli Amori degli Uomini_, 272.
[1675] _Bijdragen tot T. L. en V.-kunde_, XXXV, 151.
[1676] _Ibid._, XLI, 203.
[1677] JAI, XXI, 361.
[1678] Junker, _Afrika_, III, 291.
[1679] Sibree, _Great Afr. Island_, 252.
[1680] von Haxthausen, _Transkaukasia_, II, 27.
[1681] Pallas, _Voyages_ (French), IV, 69.
[1682] _Smithson. Rep._, 1866, 310.
[1683] Sieroshevski, _Yakuty_ (_russ._), I, 560.
[1684] _Bur. Eth._, XI, 180.
[1685] Abercromby, _Finns_, I, 182.
[1686] _Voyages and Travels_, 358.
[1687] _N. S. Amer. Anthrop._, II, 478.
[1688] Maspero, _Peuples de l'Orient_, I, 50.
[1689] Galton, _Hered. Genius_, 151.
[1690] Prescott, _Peru_, I, 117.
[1691] Hopkins, _Relig. of India_, 131; Zimmer, _Altind. Leben_,
333.
[1692] Darmstetter, _Zend-Avesta_, Introd., xlv.
[1693] Justi, _Persien_, 225.
[1694] Geiger, _Ost-Iran. Kultur_, 245-247.
[1695] Tiele, _Gesch. der Relig. im Alterthum_, I, 174.
[1696] Müller, _Hammurabi_, 129.
[1697] _Jewish Encyc._, s.v. "Incest," VI, 571.
[1698] Pietschmann, _Phoenizier_, 237.
[1699] _Il._, IV, 58; XIV, 296; XI, 223; _Od._, X, 7; cf. VIII,
267; XI, 271; VIII, 306; VII, 65.
[1700] _Od._, XII, 338; XIII, 57.
[1701] Keller, _Homer. Soc._, 205, 232.
[1702] Burckhardt, _Griech. Kulturgesch._, I, 197.
[1703] Becker-Hermann, _Charikles_, III, 288.
[1704] Rossbach, _Röm. Ehe_, 266.
[1705] _Instit._, I, 62.
[1706] Laing, _Sagas of the Norse Kings_, I, 273.
[1707] Weinhold, _D. F._, I, 235.
[1708] Lichtenberger, _Nibelungen_, 334
[1709] Strabo, XVI, 4, 25, or 783.
[1710] _Jo. Philol._, IX, 86.
[1711] Wellhausen, _Ehe bei den Arabern_, 441.
[1712] Rubruck, _Eastern Parts_, 77.
[1713] Yule, _Court of Ava_, 86.
[1714] Kostomarow, _Dom. Life and Customs of Great Russia_
(_russ._), 154.
[1715] Gubernatis, _Usi Nuziali_, 273.
[1716] Hanoteau et Letourneux, _Les Kabyles_, III, 206.
[1717] Lea, _Inquis._, III, 639.
[1718] _Quaest. Rom._, 108.
[1719] Starcke, _Prim. Fam._, 211.