being monogamous or polygamous, but, in either case, the master of his
own home and the assured central point of his family relations? Or
were the unions of the sexes originally shifting and precarious, so
that the wisest child was not expected to know his own father, and
family ties were reckoned through the mother alone? Again (setting
aside the question of what was 'primitive' and 'original'), did the
needs and barbarous habits of early men lead to a scarcity of women,
and hence to polyandry (that is, the marriage of one woman to several
men), with the consequent uncertainty about male parentage? Once more,
admitting that these loose and strange relations of the sexes do
prevail, or have prevailed, among savages, is there any reason to
suppose that the stronger races, the Aryan and Semitic stocks, ever
passed through this stage of savage customs? These are the main
questions debated between what we may call the 'historical' and the
'anthropological' students of ancient customs.
When Sir Henry Maine observed, in 1861, that it was difficult to say
what society of men had _not been_, originally, based on the
patriarchal family, he went, of course, outside the domain of history.
What occurred in the very origin of human society is a question
perhaps quite inscrutable. Certainly, history cannot furnish the
answer. Here the anthropologist and physiologist come in with their
methods, and even those, we think, can throw but an uncertain light on
the very 'origin' of institutions, and on strictly primitive man.
For the purposes of this discussion, we shall here re-state the chief
points at issue between the adherents of Sir Henry Maine and of Mr.
M'Lennan, between historical and anthropological inquirers.
1. Did man _originally_ live in the patriarchal family, or did he live
in more or less modified promiscuity, with uncertainty of blood-ties,
and especially of male parentage?
2. Did circumstances and customs at some time compel or induce man
(whatever his _original_ condition) to resort to practices which made
paternity uncertain, and so caused kinship to be reckoned through
women?
3. Granting that some races have been thus reduced to matriarchal
forms of the family--that is, to forms in which the woman is the
permanent recognised centre--is there any reason to suppose that the
stronger peoples, like the Aryans and the Semites, ever passed through
a stage of culture in which female, not male, kinship was chiefly
recognised, probably as a result of polyandry, of many husbands to one
wife?
On this third question, it will be necessary to produce much evidence
of very different sorts: evidence which, at best, can perhaps only
warrant an inference, or presumption, in favour of one or the other
opinion. For the moment, the impartial examination of testimony is
more important and practicable than the establishment of any theory.
(1) Did man _originally_ live in the patriarchal family, the male
being master of his female mate or mates, and of his children? On this
first point Sir Henry Maine, in his new volume,[206] may be said to
come as near proving his case as the nature and matter of the question
will permit. Bachofen, M'Lennan, and Morgan, all started from a
hypothetical state of more or less modified sexual promiscuity.
Bachofen's evidence (which may be referred to later) was based on a
great mass of legends, myths, and travellers' tales, chiefly about
early Aryan practices. He discovered _Hetaerismus_, as he called it, or
promiscuity, among Lydians, Etruscans, Persians, Thracians, Cyrenian
nomads, Egyptians, Scythians, Troglodytes, Nasamones, and so forth.
Mr. M'Lennan's view is, perhaps, less absolutely stated than Sir Henry
Maine supposes. M'Lennan says[207] 'that there has been a stage in the
development of the human races, when there was no such appropriation
of women to particular men; when, in short, marriage, _as it exists
among civilised nations_, was not practised. Marriage, _in this
sense_, was yet undreamt of.' Mr. M'Lennan adds (pp. 130, 131), 'as
among other gregarious animals, the unions of the sexes were probably,
in the earliest times, loose, transitory, and, _in some degree_,
promiscuous.'
Sir Henry Maine opposes to Mr. M'Lennan's theory the statement of
Mr. Darwin: 'From all we know of the passions of all male
quadrupeds, promiscuous intercourse in a state of Nature is highly
improbable.'[208] On this first question, let us grant to Sir Henry
Maine, to Mr. Darwin, and to common-sense that if the very earliest
men were extremely animal in character, their unions while they
lasted were probably monogamous or polygamous. The sexual jealousy
of the male would secure that result, as it does among many other
animals. Let the first point, then, be scored to Sir Henry Maine:
let it be granted that if man was created perfect, he lived in the
monogamous family before the Fall: and that, if he was evolved as an
animal, the unchecked animal instincts would make for monogamy or
patriarchal polygamy in the strictly primitive family.
(2) Did circumstances and customs ever or anywhere compel or induce
man (whatever his original condition) to resort to practices which
made paternity uncertain, and so caused the absence of the patriarchal
family, kinship being reckoned through women? If this question be
answered in the affirmative, and if the sphere of action of the
various causes be made wide enough, it will not matter much to Mr.
M'Lennan's theory whether the strictly primitive family was
patriarchal or not. If there occurred a fall from the primitive
family, and if that fall was extremely general, affecting even the
Aryan race, Mr. M'Lennan's adherents will be amply satisfied. Their
object is to show that the family, even in the Aryan race, was
developed through a stage of loose savage connections. If that can be
shown, they do not care much about primitive man properly so called.
Sir Henry Maine admits, as a matter of fact, that among certain races,
in certain districts, circumstances have overridden the sexual
jealousy which secures the recognition of male parentage. Where women
have been few, and where poverty has been great, jealousy has been
suppressed, even in the Venice of the eighteenth century. Sir H. Maine
says: 'The usage' (that of polyandry--many husbands to a single wife)
'seems to me one which circumstances overpowering morality and decency
might at any time call into existence. It is known to have arisen in
the native Indian army.' The question now is, what are the
circumstances that overpower morality and decency, and so produce
polyandry, with its necessary consequences, when it is a recognised
institution--the absence of the patriarchal family, and the
recognition of kinship through women? Any circumstances which cause
great scarcity of women will conduce to those results. Mr. M'Lennan's
opinion was, that the chief cause of scarcity of women has been the
custom of female infanticide--of killing little girls as _bouches
inutiles_. Sir Henry Maine admits that 'the cause assigned by M'Lennan
is a _vera causa_--it is capable of producing the effects.'[209] Mr.
M'Lennan collected a very large mass of testimony to prove the wide
existence of this cause of paucity of women. Till that evidence is
published, I can only say that it was sufficient, in Mr. M'Lennan's
opinion, to demonstrate the wide prevalence of the factor which is
the mainspring of his whole system.[210] How frightfully female
infanticide has prevailed in India, every one may read in the official
reports of Col. M'Pherson, and other English authorities. Mr. Fison's
_Kamilaroi and Kurnai_ contains some notable, though not to my mind
convincing, arguments on the other side. Sir Henry Maine adduces
another cause of paucity of women: the wanderings of our race, and
expeditions across sea.[211] This cause would not, however, be
important enough to alter forms of kinship, where the invaders (like
the early English in Britain) found a population which they could
conquer and whose women they could appropriate.
Apart from any probable inferences that may be drawn from the presumed
practice of female infanticide, actual ascertained facts prove that
many races do not now live, or that recently they did not live, in the
patriarchal or modern family. They live, or did live, in polyandrous
associations. The Thibetans, the Nairs, the early inhabitants of
Britain (according to Caesar), and many other races,[212] as well as
the inhabitants of the Marquesas Islands, and the Iroquois (according
to Lafitau), practise, or have practised, polyandry.
We now approach the third and really important problem--(3) Is there
any reason to suppose that the stronger peoples, like the Aryans and
the Semites, ever passed through a stage of culture in which female,
not male, kinship was chiefly recognised, probably as a result of
polyandry?
Now the nature of the evidence which affords a presumption that Aryans
have all passed through Australian institutions, such as polyandry, is
of extremely varied character. Much of it may undoubtedly be explained
away. But such strength as the evidence has (which we do not wish to
exaggerate) is derived from its convergence to one point--namely, the
anterior existence of polyandry and the matriarchal family among
Aryans before and after the dawn of real history.
For the sake of distinctness we may here number the heads of the
evidence bearing on this question. We have--
1. The evidence of inference from the form of capture in bridal
ceremonies.
2. The evidence from exogamy: the law which forbids marriage between
persons of the same family name.
3. The evidence from totemism--that is, the derivation of the family
name and crest or badge, from some natural object, plant or
animal.[213] Persons bearing the name may not intermarry, nor, as a
rule, may they eat the object from which they derive their family name
and from which they claim to be descended.
4. The evidence from the _gens_ of Rome, or ~genos~ of ancient Greece,
in connection with Totemism.
5. The evidence from myth and legend.
6. The evidence from direct historical statements as to the prevalence
of the matriarchal family, and inheritance through the maternal line.
To take these various testimonies in their order, let us begin with--
(1) The form of capture in bridal ceremonies. That this form survived
in Sparta, Crete, in Hindoo law, in the traditions of Ireland, in the
popular rustic customs of Wales, is not denied.
If we hold, with Mr. M'Lennan, that scarcity of women (produced by
female infanticide or otherwise) is the cause of the habit of
capturing wives, we may see, in survivals of this ceremony of capture
among Aryans, a proof of early scarcity of women, and of probable
polyandry. But an opponent may argue, like Mr. J. A. Farrer in
_Primitive Manners_, that the ceremony of capture is mainly a
concession to maiden modesty among early races. Here one may observe
that the girls of savage tribes are notoriously profligate and
immodest about illicit connections. Only honourable marriage brings a
blush to the cheek of these young persons. This is odd, but, in the
present state of the question, we cannot lean on the evidence of the
ceremony of capture. We cannot demonstrate that it is derived from a
time when paucity of women made capture of brides necessary. Thus
'honours are easy' in this first deal.
(2) The next indication is very curious, and requires much more
prolonged discussion. The custom of _Exogamy_ was first noted and
named by Mr. M'Lennan. Exogamy is the prohibition of marriage within
the supposed blood-kinship, as denoted by the family name. Such
marriage, among many backward races, is reckoned incestuous, and is
punishable by death. Certain peculiarities in connection with the
family name have to be noted later. Now, Sir Henry Maine admits that
exogamy, as thus defined, exists among the Hindoos. 'A Hindoo may not
marry a woman belonging to the same _gotra_, all members of the
_gotra_ being theoretically supposed to have descended from the same
ancestor.' The same rule prevails in China. 'There are in China large
bodies of related clansmen, each generally bearing the same clan-name.
They are exogamous; no man will marry a woman having the same
clan-name with himself.' It is admitted by Sir Henry Maine that this
wide prohibition of marriage was the early Aryan rule, while advancing
civilisation has gradually permitted marriage within limits once
forbidden. The Greek Church now (according to Mr. M'Lennan), and the
Catholic Church in the past, forbade intermarriages 'as far as
relationship could be known.' The Hindoo rule appears to go still
further, and to prohibit marriage as far as the common _gotra_ name
seems merely to indicate relationship.
As to the ancient Romans, Plutarch says: 'Formerly they did not marry
women connected with them by blood, any more than they now marry aunts
or sisters. It was long before they would even intermarry with
cousins.'[214] Plutarch also remarks that, in times past, Romans did
not marry ~syngenidas~, and if we may render this 'women of the same
_gens_,' the exogamous prohibition in Rome was as complete as among
the Hindoos. I do not quite gather from Sir Henry Maine's account of
the Slavonic house communities (pp. 254, 255) whether they dislike
_all_ kindred marriages, or only marriage within the 'greater
blood'--that is, within the kinship on the male side. He says: 'The
South Slavonians bring their wives into the group, in which they are
socially organised, from a considerable distance outside.... Every
marriage which requires an ecclesiastical dispensation is regarded as
disreputable.'
On the whole, wide prohibitions of marriage are archaic: the widest
are savage; the narrowest are modern and civilised. Thus the Hindoo
prohibition is old, barbarous and wide. 'The barbarous Aryan,' says
Sir Henry Maine, 'is generally exogamous. He has a most extensive
table of prohibited degrees.' Thus exogamy seems to be a survival of
barbarism. The question for us is, Can we call exogamy a survival from
a period when (owing to scarcity of women and polyandry) clear ideas
of kinship were impossible? If this can be proved, exogamous Aryans
either passed through polyandrous institutions, or borrowed a savage
custom derived from a period when ideas of kinship were obscure.
If we only knew the origin of the prohibition to marry within the
family name all would be plain sailing. At present several theories of
the origin of exogamy are before the world. Mr. Morgan, the author of
_Ancient Society_, inclines to trace the prohibition to a great early
physiological discovery, acted on by primitive men by virtue of a
_contrat social_. Early man discovered that children of unsound
constitutions were born of nearly-related parents. Mr. Morgan says:
'Primitive men very early discovered the evils of close
interbreeding.' Elsewhere Mr. Morgan writes: 'Intermarriage in the
_gens_ was prohibited, to secure the benefits of marrying out with
unrelated persons.' This arrangement 'was a product of high
intelligence,' and Mr. Morgan calls it a 'reform.'[215]
Let us examine this very curious theory. First: Mr. Morgan supposes
early man to have made a discovery (the evils of the marriage of near
kin) which evades modern physiological science. Modern science has not
determined that the marriages of kinsfolk are pernicious. Is it
credible that savages should discover a fact which puzzles science? It
may be replied that modern care, nursing, and medical art save
children of near marriages from results which were pernicious to the
children of early man. Secondly: Mr. Morgan supposes that barbarous
man (so notoriously reckless of the morrow as he is) not only made
the discovery of the evils of interbreeding, but acted on it with
promptitude and self-denial. Thirdly: Mr. Morgan seems to require, for
the enforcement of the exogamous law, a _contrat social_. The larger
communities meet, and divide themselves into smaller groups, within
which wedlock is forbidden. This 'social pact' is like a return to the
ideas of Rousseau. Fourthly: The hypothesis credits early men with
knowledge and discrimination of near degrees of kin, which they might
well possess if they lived in patriarchal families, but which, _ex
hypothesi_, they could not possess. But it represents that they did
not act on their knowledge. Instead of prohibiting marriage between
parents and children, cousins, nephews and aunts, uncles and nieces,
they prohibited marriage within the limit of the name of the kin. This
is still the Hindoo rule, and, if the Romans really might not at one
time marry within the _gens_, it was the Roman rule. Now observe, this
rule fails to effect the very purpose for which _ex hypothesi_ it was
instituted. Where the family name goes by the male side, marriages
between cousins are permitted, as in India and China. These are the
very marriages which some theorists now denounce as pernicious. But,
if the family name goes by the female side, marriages between
half-brothers and half-sisters are permitted, as in ancient Athens and
among the Hebrews of Abraham's time. Once more, the exogamous
prohibition excludes, in China, America, Africa, Australia, persons
who are in no way akin (according to our ideas) from intermarriage.
Thus Mr. Doolittle writes,[216] 'Males and females of the same surname
will never intermarry in China. Cousins who have not the same
ancestral surname may intermarry. Though the ancestors of persons of
the same surname have not known each other for thousands of years,
they may not intermarry.' The Hindoo _gotra_ rule produces the same
effects.
For all these reasons, and because of the improbability of the
physiological discovery, and of the moral 'reform' which enforced it;
and again, because the law is not of the sort which people acquainted
with near degrees of kinship would make; and once more because the law
fails to effect its presumed purpose, while it does attain ends at
which it does not aim--we cannot accept Mr. Morgan's suggestion as to
the origin of exogamy. Mr. M'Lennan did not live to publish a subtle
theory of the origin of exogamy, which he had elaborated. In _Studies
in Ancient History_ he hazarded a conjecture based on female
infanticide:--
We believe the restrictions on marriage to be connected with
the practice in early times of female infanticide, which
rendering women scarce, led at once to polyandry within the
tribe, and the capturing of women from without.... Hence the
cruel custom which, leaving the primitive human hordes with
very few young women of their own, occasionally with none,
and in any case seriously disturbing the balance of the sexes
within the hordes, forces them to prey upon one another for
wives. Usage, induced by necessity, would in time establish a
prejudice among the tribes observing it, a prejudice strong
as a principle of religion--as every prejudice relating to
marriage is apt to be--against marrying women of their own
stock.
Mr. M'Lennan describes his own hypothesis as 'a suggestion thrown out
at what it was worth.'[217] In his later years, as we have said, he
developed a very subtle and ingenious theory of the origin of exogamy,
still connecting it with scarcity of women, but making use of various
supposed stages and processes in the development of the law. That
speculation remains unpublished. To myself, the suggestion given in
_Studies in Ancient History_ seems inadequate. I find it difficult to
conceive that the frequent habit of stealing women should indispose
men to marry the native women they had at hand. That this
indisposition should grow into a positive law, and the infringement of
the law be regarded as a capital offence, seems more inconceivable. My
own impression is, that exogamy may be connected with some early
superstition or idea of which we have lost the touch, and which we can
no longer explain.[218] Possibly it may be only one form of the Totem
taboo. You may not marry a woman of your totem, as you may not eat an
animal of the species.
Thus far, the consideration of exogamy has thrown no clear light on
the main question--the question whether the customs of civilised races
contain relics of female kinship. On Mr. Lewis Morgan's theory of
exogamy, that Aryan custom is unconnected with female kinship,
polyandry, and scarcity of women. On Mr. M'Lennan's theory, exogamy is
the result of scarcity of women, and implies polyandry and female
kinship. But neither theory has seemed satisfactory. Yet we need not
despair of extracting some evidence from exogamy, and that evidence,
on the whole, is in favour of Mr. M'Lennan's general hypothesis. (1)
The exogamous prohibition must have first come into force _when
kinship was only reckoned on one side of the family_. This is obvious,
whether we suppose it to have arisen in a society which reckoned by
male or by female kinship. In the former case, the law only prohibits
marriage with persons of the father's, in the second case with persons
of the mother's, family name, and these only it recognises as kindred.
(2) Our second point is much more important. The exogamous prohibition
must first have come into force _when kinship was so little understood
that it could best be denoted by the family name_. This would be
self-evident, if we could suppose the prohibition to be intended to
prevent marriages of relations.[219] Had the authors of the
prohibition been acquainted with the nature of near kinships, they
would simply (as we do) have forbidden marriage between persons in
those degrees. The very nature of the prohibition, on the other hand,
shows that kinship was understood in a manner all unlike our modern
system. The limit of kindred was everywhere the family name: a limit
which excludes many real kinsfolk and includes many who are not
kinsfolk at all. In Australia especially, and in America, India, and
Africa, to a slighter extent, that definition of kindred by the family
name actually includes alligators, smoke, paddy melons, rain,
crayfish, sardines, and what you please.[220] Will any one assert,
then, that people among whom the exogamous prohibition arose were
organised on the system of the patriarchal family, which permits the
nature of kinship to be readily understood at a glance? Is it not
plain that the exogamous prohibition (confessedly Aryan) must have
arisen in a stage of culture when ideas of kindred were confused,
included kinship with animals and plants, and were to us almost, if
not quite, unintelligible? It is even possible, as Mr. M'Lennan
says,[221] 'that the prejudice against marrying women of the same
group may have been established _before the facts of blood
relationship had made any deep impression on the human mind_.' How the
exogamous prohibition tends to confirm this view will next be set
forth in our consideration of _Totemism_.