What are the original forms of the human family? Did man begin by 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, {247a} 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 Hetarismus, 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
{247b} '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.' {248}
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.' {249} 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. {250a} How frightfully
female infanticide has prevailed in India, everyone 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. {250b} 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, {251} 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. {252}
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 [Greek] of ancient Greece, in
connection with Totemism.