XXI. THE FORMS OF HUMAN MARRIAGE…

XXI. 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.

XXII. 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.

XXIII. THE DURATION OF HUMAN MARRIAGE

The time during which marriage lasts, varies very considerably among different species. According to Dr. Brehm, most birds pair for life,[3252] while among the mammals, with the exception of man and perhaps the anthropomorphous apes, the same male and female scarcely ever live together longer than a year.[3253] In human marriage every degree of duration is met with—from unions which, though legally recognized as marriages, do not endure long enough to deserve to be so called, to others which are dissolved only by death.

There are a few remarkable instances of peoples among whom separation is said to be entirely unknown. In the Andaman Islands, according to Mr. Man, “no incompatibility of temper or other cause is allowed to dissolve the union.”[3254] The same is said of certain Papuans of New Guinea,[3255] and of several tribes of the Indian Archipelago who have remained in their native state, and continue to follow ancient custom.[3256] The Veddahs of Ceylon have a proverb that “death alone separates husband and wife;” and Mr. Bailey assures us that they faithfully act on this principle.[3257]

As a general rule, however, human marriage is not necessarily contracted for life. The Indians of North America dissolve their unions as readily as they enter into them. The Wyandots had, it is said, marriages upon trial, which were binding for a few days only.[3258] In Greenland, husband and wife sometimes separate after living together for half a year.[3259] Among the Creeks, “marriage is considered only as a temporary convenience, not binding on the parties more than one year,” the consequence being that “a large portion of the old and middle-aged men, by frequently changing, have had many different wives, and their children, scattered around the country, are unknown to them.”[3260] Speaking of the Botocudos, Mr. Keane remarks that their marriages “are all of a purely temporary nature, contracted without formalities of any sort, dissolved on the slightest pretext, or without any pretext, merely through love of change or caprice.”[3261] In Ruk, it frequently happens that newly married husbands repudiate their wives;[3262] and, in the Pelew and Kingsmill Groups, and among the aborigines of Northern Queensland, divorces are of common occurrence.[3263] “Tasmanian lords,” says Dr. Milligan, “had no difficulty, and made no scruple, about a succession of wives.”[3264] Again, in Samoa, “if the marriage had been contracted merely for the sake of the property and festivities of the occasion, the wife was not likely to be more than a few days, or weeks, with her husband.”[3265] In several of the Islands of the Indian Archipelago, “in the regular marriages the parties are always betrothed to each other for a longer or shorter time, sometimes not for more than a month and at others for a period of years.”[3266] Among the Dyaks, there are few middle-aged men who have not had several wives, and instances have been known of young women of seventeen or eighteen who had already lived with three or four husbands.[3267] Among the Yendalines in Indo-China, it is rare for any woman to arrive at middle age without having a family by two or more husbands.[3268] The Maldivians, as we are informed by Mr. Rosset, are so fond of change that many a man marries and divorces the same woman three or four times in the course of his life.[3269] Among the Sinhalese, according to Knox, “both men and women have frequently to marry four or five times before they can settle down contented;”[3270] and Father Bourien says of the Mantras of the interior of the Malay Peninsula, that it is not uncommon to meet individuals who have married even forty or fifty different times.[3271] Among the Munda Kols, Khasias, Tartars,[3272] and most Mohammedan peoples,[3273] divorces are very frequent. According to Dr. van der Berg, an even more fatal influence is exercised on family life in the East by this laxity of the marriage tie than by polygyny.[3274] Burckhardt knew Bedouins forty-five years old who had had more than fifty wives.[3275] A “Sighe” wife in Persia is taken in marriage for a certain legally stipulated period, which may vary from one hour to ninety-nine years.[3276] In Cairo, according to Mr. Lane, there are not many persons who have not divorced one wife, if they have been married for a long time; and many men in Egypt have in the course of two years married as many as twenty, thirty, or more wives; whilst there are women, not far advanced in age, who have been wives to a dozen or more men successively. Mr. Lane has even heard of men who have been in the habit of marrying a new wife almost every month.[3277] In Morocco, Dr. Churcher writes to me, a terrible state of things springs from the ease with which divorce is obtained; a man repudiates his wife on the slightest provocation and marries again. “One of the servants here,” he continues, “is reported to have had nineteen wives already, though he is still only middle-aged.” Indeed, among the Moors of the Sahara, according to Mr. Reade, it is considered “low” for a couple to live too long together, and “the leaders of fashion are those who have been the oftenest divorced.”[3278] Lobo tells us that, in Abyssinia, marriage was usually entered upon for a term of years;[3279] and, among the Somals, separation is exceedingly common.[3280] Many negro peoples marry upon trial or for a fixed time.[3281] Among the Negroes of Bondo, a man may so often send away his wife and take a new one that it is difficult to know who is the father of the children born.[3282] Regarding the ancient Persians, Professor Rawlinson observes that the easiness of divorce among the Magians was in accordance with Eranian notions on the subject of marriage—“notions far less strict than those which have commonly prevailed among civilized nations.”[3283] Among the Greeks, especially the Athenians,[3284] and among the Teutons,[3285] divorce often occurred; and in Rome, at the close of the Republic and the commencement of the Empire, it prevailed to a frightful extent.[3286]

Among uncivilized races, as a rule, and among many advanced peoples, a man may divorce his wife whenever he likes. The Aleuts used to exchange their wives for food and clothes.[3287] In Tonga, a husband divorces his wife by simply telling her that she may go.[3288] Among the Hovas of Madagascar, until the spread of Christianity, marriage was compared to a knot so lightly tied that it could be undone with the slightest possible touch.[3289] In Yucatan, a man might divorce his wife for the merest trifle, even though he had children by her.[3290] Among the ancient Hebrews,[3291] Greeks,[3292] Romans,[3293] and Germans,[3294] dislike was considered a sufficient reason for divorce, which was regarded as merely a private act.

Nevertheless, among a great many peoples, although a husband may divorce his wife, he does so only under certain exceptional conditions, marriage, as a rule, being concluded for life.[3295] The Greenlanders seldom repudiate wives who have had children.[3296] Among the Californian Wintun, according to Mr. Powers, it is very uncommon for a man to expel his wife. “In a moment of passion he may strike her dead, or ... ignominiously slink away with another, but the idea of divorcing and sending away a wife does not occur to him.”[3297] Among the Naudowessies, divorce is so rare that Carver had no opportunity of learning how it is accomplished.[3298] Speaking of several tribes on the eastern side of the Rocky Mountains, Harmon remarks that separation between husband and wife is seldom permanent, the parties, after a few days’ absence from one another, generally having an inclination to come together again.[3299] The Iroquois, in ancient times, regarded separation as discreditable to both man and woman, hence it was not frequently practised.[3300] If an Uaupé takes a new wife, the elder one is never turned away, but remains the mistress of the house.[3301] Among the Charruas and Patagonians, marriage lasts, as a rule, during the whole of life, if there are children.[3302] And, concerning the Yahgans, Mr. Bridges writes that there have been many instances amongst them of husband and wife living together until separated by death. The same is the case in Lifu, as I am informed by Mr. Radfield. In Tonga, according to Mariner, more than half of the number of married women were parted from their husbands only by death.[3303] Among the Maoris[3304] and the Solomon Islanders,[3305] and in New Guinea,[3306] divorce is exceptional; and, even in Tahiti, the birth of children generally prevented the dissolution of marriage.[3307] In many of the islands of the Indian Archipelago, divorce may, by law or custom, be readily obtained, but Mr. Crawfurd says that it is very rarely sued for.[3308] The Garos, according to Colonel Dalton, “will not hastily make engagements, because, when they do make them, they intend to keep them.”[3309] Among the Karens, Dr. Bunker writes, separations, save by death, are rare. Mr. Ingham informs me that, among the Bakongo, there are plenty of instances of husband and wife living together till death. Archdeacon Hodgson states the same regarding the Eastern Central Africans, Mr. Swann regarding the Waguha, Mr. Eyles regarding the Zulus. Among the Cis-Natalian Kafirs, according to Mr. Cousins, marriage, in the majority of instances, is contracted for life.[3310] In the early days of Hebrew history, says Ewald, it was only in exceptional cases that husbands made an evil use of the right to divorce a wife.[3311] Among the Greeks of the Homeric age, divorce seems to have been almost unknown, though it afterwards became an everyday event in Greece;[3312] and in Rome, in the earliest times, it was probably very little used.[3313]

Among many peoples custom or law has limited the husband’s power to dispose of his wife, permitting divorce only under certain conditions. Thus, among the Kukis, “if a woman has a son by her husband, the marriage is indissoluble,” though, if they do not agree, and have no son, the husband can cast off his wife and take another.[3314] The Red Karens in Indo-China allow divorce if there are no children; “but should there be one child, the parents are not permitted to separate.”[3315] In the tribes of Western Victoria, described by Mr. Dawson, a man can divorce a childless wife for serious misconduct, but in every case the charge against her must first be laid before the chiefs of his own and his wife’s tribes, and their consent to her punishment obtained. If the wife has children, she cannot be divorced.[3316] Among the Santals and the Tipperahs, divorce can be effected only with the consent of the husband’s clansmen, or a jury of village elders.[3317] Several tribes of the Indian Archipelago do not allow a man to repudiate his wife, except in case of adultery;[3318] and certain negro peoples have a similar rule, so far as the chief or first wife is concerned.[3319] Among the Hottentots, according to Kolben, a man may divorce his wife only “upon showing such cause as shall be satisfactory to the men of the kraal where they live.”[3320] Mr. Casalis states that, among the Basutos, “sterility is the only cause of divorce which is not subject to litigation;”[3321] and, according to Toda custom, the separation of married couples does not seem to be lightly tolerated.[3322] Among certain lower races the consent of the wife appears generally to be necessary for separation.[3323]

Civilized nations, more commonly than savages, consider marriage a union which must not be dissolved by the husband except for certain reasons stipulated by law. Among the Aztecs, it was looked upon as a tie binding for life, and divorce was always discouraged both by the magistrates and the community. The husband could repudiate even his concubines only for just cause and with the sanction of the courts, and the chief wife only for malevolence, dirtiness, or sterility.[3324] In Nicaragua, the sole offence for which a wife could be divorced was adultery.[3325] The Chinese code enumerates seven just causes of divorce—barrenness, lasciviousness, inattention to parents-in-law, loquacity, thievishness, ill-temper, and inveterate infirmity,—and a husband, except for one of these reasons, may not put away his wife on pain of receiving eighty blows.[3326] But these pretexts for divorce are very elastic. In one of the old Chinese books we read, “When a woman has any quality that is not good, it is but just and reasonable to turn her out of doors.... Among the ancients a wife was turned away if she allowed the house to be full of smoke, or if she frightened the dog with her disagreeable noise.”[3327] Nevertheless, according to Mr. Medhurst, divorce is rare in China.[3328] In Japan a man might repudiate his wife for the same reasons as in China. But Professor Rein remarks that the Japanese seldom made use of this privilege, especially if there were children, as education and custom required that, in such cases, the wife should be treated with kindness and consideration.[3329] In Arabia, Mohammed regulated the law of divorce. “In the absence of serious reasons,” says Ibrâhîm Halebî, “no Mussulman can justify divorce in the eyes either of religion or the law. If he abandon his wife or put her away from simple caprice, he draws down upon himself the divine anger, for ‘the curse of God,’ said the Prophet, 'rests on him who repudiates his wife capriciously.’”[3330] Practically, however, a Mohammedan may, whenever he pleases, without assigning any reason, say to his wife, “Thou art divorced,” and she must return to her parents or friends.[3331]

According to the ‘Laws of Manu,’ a wife “who drinks spirituous liquor, is of bad conduct, rebellious, diseased, mischievous, or wasteful, may at any time be superseded by another wife. A barren wife may be superseded in the eighth year; one whose children all die, in the tenth; one who bears only daughters, in the eleventh; but one who is quarrelsome, without delay.”[3332] At present, in Southern India, divorce is common among many of the lower castes; but it is not practised at all among the Brahmans and Kshatriyas, or among the higher classes of Śudras.[3333] In Rome under the Christian Emperors, the husband’s right to put away his wife was restricted by imperial constitutions, which pointed out what were considered just causes of divorce.[3334] The dogma of the indissoluble nature of marriage, early vindicated by many Fathers in accordance with the injunction, “What God hath joined together, let not man put asunder,” came into full force only by degrees. The Council of Trent definitely suppressed the last traces of divorce as a legal practice[3335]—a decree which has exercised a powerful influence on the legislation of Roman Catholic nations. In Spain, Portugal, and Italy, a husband can demand a judicial separation, a divorce a mensâ et thoro, but the marriage contract cannot be dissolved; in France divorce was reintroduced by the law of 27th July, 1884. In all Protestant countries divorce is allowed. In every one of them a man may be divorced from a wife who has committed adultery, but the other legal grounds on which a divorce, in most of them, may be obtained, vary in different States. According to the Prussian ‘Landrecht,’ the list includes, among other causes, drunkenness and a disorderly life, insanity lasting longer than a year, and the mutual consent of the husband and wife, if they have no children;[3336] in Norway and Denmark, mutual consent, if the parties have been judicially separated for three years previously;[3337] in Austria, aversion proved to be invincible through several preceding divorces from bed and board.[3338] The French law recognizes as causes of divorce, besides adultery, “excès, sévices, injures graves,” as also “condamnation à une peine afflictive et infamante.”[3339]

Marriage may be dissolved not only by the man but by the woman. In Madagascar, says Mr. Sibree, although “the power of divorce is legally in the husband’s hand, a wife can practically divorce herself in several cases.[3340] The like holds true for many of the lower races;[3341] whilst, among others, custom or law seems to permit a wife to separate at least under certain conditions.[3342] Among the Inland Columbians, according to Mr. Bancroft, “either party may dissolve the marriage at will.”[3343] If a Bonak wife gets up and leaves the man, he has no claim ever after on her.[3344] Among the Navajos, when a woman marries, “she becomes free, and may leave her husband for sufficient cause.”[3345] Regarding the Guanas, Azara states, “Le divorce est libre aux deux sexes, comme tout le reste, et les femmes y sont très-portées.”[3346] In the Sandwich Islands, “a man and woman live together as long as they please, and may, at any time, separate, and make choice of other partners.”[3347] In Tahiti, parts of New Guinea, and in the Marianne Group, the marriage tie may, it is said, be dissolved whenever either of the parties desires it.[3348] In some of the smaller islands of the Indian Archipelago, a wife can sue for divorce if her husband ill-treats her, if he is unfaithful, or for other reasons.[3349] Among the Shans, “should the husband take to drinking, or otherwise misconducting himself, the woman has the right to turn him adrift, and to retain all the goods and money of the partnership.”[3350] In Burma, if one of the parties is unwilling to separate, “the other is free to go, provided all property except the clothes in wear is left behind;” and a wife can demand a divorce for ill-treatment, or if her husband cannot properly maintain her.[3351] Among the Irulas of the Neilgherries, the option of remaining in union, or of separating, rests principally with the woman.[3352] According to Kandh custom, a wife can return to her father’s house within six months after the marriage, on the articles which had been paid for her being restored; and, if childless, she can at any time quit her husband. “In no case,” says Sir W. W. Hunter, “can the husband forcibly reclaim her, but a wife separated on any grounds whatsoever from her husband cannot marry again.”[3353] In Eastern Central Africa, divorce may be effected if the husband neglects to sew his wife’s clothes, or if the partners do not please each other.[3354] And, among the Garenganze, according to Mr. Arnot, a wife “may leave her husband at any time, if she cares to do so.”[3355]

Passing to more advanced nations, we find that, among the ancient Mexicans, the wife, as well as the husband, might sue for separation.[3356] In Guatemala, she could leave him on grounds as slight as those on which he could leave her.[3357] In China, on the other hand, a woman cannot obtain legal separation; and the same was the case in Japan till the year 1873.[3358] According to the Talmudic Law, the wife is authorized to demand a divorce if the husband refuses to perform his conjugal duty, if he continues to lead a disorderly life after marriage, if he proves impotent during ten years, if he suffers from an insupportable disease, or if he leaves the country for ever.[3359] According to Mohammedan legislation, divorce may, in certain cases, take place at the instance of the wife, and, if cruelly treated or neglected by her husband, she has the right of demanding a divorce by authority of justice.[3360] The ancient Hindus[3361] and Teutons[3362] allowed a wife to separate from her husband only in certain exceptional cases. According to Gallic laws, a wife could quit her husband without losing her dos, “si leprosus sit vir; si habeat fetidum anhelatum, et si cum ea concumbere non possit.”[3363] Among the Saxons and Danes in England, marriage might be dissolved at the pleasure of either party, the wife, however, being obliged to return the price paid for her, if she deserted the husband without his consent.[3364] At Athens, a woman could demand a divorce if she was ill-treated by her husband, in which case she had merely to announce her wish before the ἄρχων.[3365] Rossbach thinks that, in Rome, a marriage with manus could be dissolved by the husband only, a marriage without manus by the wife’s father also.[3366] But Lord Mackenzie observes that, whatever effect conventio in manum may have had in ancient times, it did not, in the age of Gaius, limit the wife’s freedom to seek divorce.[3367] In those Christian States of Europe where absolute divorce is permitted, the grounds on which it may be sued for are nearly the same for the man and the woman—except in England, where the husband must be accused of one or other of several offences besides adultery. In Italy, Spain, and Portugal, a judicial separation may always be decreed on the ground of the adultery of the wife, but, on the ground of the adultery of the husband, only if it has been committed under certain aggravating circumstances.[3368]

* * * * *

The causes by which duration of human marriage is influenced are, on the whole, the same as those which determine the form of marriage.

Man’s appetite for youth and beauty often induces him to repudiate a wife who has grown old and ugly. According to Cook, it was much more common for a Tahitian to cast off the first wife and take a more youthful partner than to live with both.[3369] Among the Aleuts, when a wife “ceases to possess attractions or value in the eyes of her proprietor, she is sent back to her friends.”[3370] A Malay, in many cases, turns away his wife as soon as she becomes ugly from hard work and maternal cares.[3371] In Switzerland, marriage is much oftener dissolved through divorce when the wife is the husband’s senior, than when the reverse is the case.[3372]

Dr. Béringer-Féraud observes that the Moors in the region of the Senegal “divorcent avec une facilité extrême, non seulement sous le prétexte le plus futile, mais souvent, et même uniquement, pour le plaisir de changer.”[3373] According to v. Oettingen, the statistics of divorce and remarriage in Europe prove that the taste for variety is often the chief cause of the dissolution of marriage.[3374]

As the desire for offspring is a frequent cause of divorce,[3375] so the birth of children is generally the best guarantee for the continuance of the marriage tie. Speaking of some Indian tribes of North America, Schoolcraft says, “The best protection to married females arises from the ties of children, which, by bringing into play the strong natural affections of the heart, appeal at once to that principle in man’s original organization which is the strongest.”[3376]

Where women are regarded almost as beasts of burden, it often happens that a wife who is a bad worker is divorced. The Dyak husbands “coolly dismiss their helpmates when too lazy or too weak to work, and select partners better qualified to undergo the toils of life.”[3377] Among the Sinhalese, according to Mr. Bailey, sickness is perhaps the most common reason why a husband repudiates his wife. The heartless desertion of a sick wife, he says, is “the worst trait in the Kandyan character, and the cool and unconcerned manner in which they themselves allude to it, shows that it is as common as it is cruel.”[3378]

However desirable separation, in many cases, may be for the husband, there are various circumstances which tend to prevent him from recklessly repudiating his wife. In many instances divorce implies for the man a loss of fortune. Though not, as a rule,[3379] obliged to provide the divorced wife with the full means of subsistence, he must, as already mentioned, usually give her what she brought with her into the house, and, among several peoples, a certain proportion—often the half—of the common wealth.[3380] Among the Karens, if a man leaves his wife, the rule is that the house and all the property belong to her, nothing being his but what he takes with him.[3381] Among the Manipuris, according to Colonel Dalton, a wife who is put away without fault on her part, takes all the personal property of the husband, except one drinking cup and the cloth round his loins.[3382] Similar rules prevail among the Galela, and in the Marianne Group.[3383] As to the ancient Teutons, M. Glasson observes, “Les lois barbares voulaient d’ailleurs que, sauf le cas d’adultère, la femme répudiée eût son existence assurée. Le mari devait lui laisser la maison et tout ce qu’elle contenait; il était même obligé de lui abandonner l’équivalent du mundium et de payer une amende au fisc s’il répudiait sa femme sans aucun motif sérieux.”[3384]

The practice of purchasing wives forms a very important obstacle to frequent repudiation.[3385] If the wife proves barren, or is unfaithful, or otherwise affords sufficient cause of divorce, the husband generally receives back what he has paid for her;[3386] but, if he repudiates her without satisfactory grounds, the purchase sum is usually forfeited.[3387] “Cases of divorce are very frequent,” says Mr. Casalis, “where the price of the wife is of small value. Among the Basutos, where it is of considerable amount, the dissolution of marriage is attended with much difficulty.”[3388] And Dr. Finsch ascribes the frequency of divorce in Ponapé to the fact that wife-purchase does not exist there.[3389]

Moreover, when he divorces his wife, a man very often loses his children at the same time. Among several peoples they remain the property of the father.[3390] Among others, they are taken in some cases by the man, in others by the woman.[3391] In Samoa, the young children followed the mother, the more advanced the father;[3392] whilst, among the Sinhalese, boys are taken by the latter, girls by the former.[3393] But among many uncivilized peoples, all the children, if young, follow the mother,[3394] as Colden says, “according to the natural course of all animals.”[3395]

Another factor which has much influence upon the stability of marriage, is the position held by women. When some regard is paid to their feelings, a husband does not, of course, put his wife away for trivial reasons, divorce meaning for her, in many cases, misery and distress. Dr. Churcher informs me from Morocco that “the divorced woman too often goes to swell the ranks of the prostitutes.” And the same is the case in China and among the Arabs of the Sahara.[3396]

When a man and woman unite with one another from love, there is, of course, more security that the marriage contract will be lasting. The Mantras, says Father Bourien, “frequently marry without previously knowing one another, and live together without loving. Is it, then, astonishing that they part without regret, and that divorce is frequent among them?”[3397] The facility of Mohammedan divorce, as Mr. Bosworth Smith remarks, is the necessary consequence of the separation of the sexes. “A man would never embark in the hazardous lottery of Eastern marriage, if he had not the escape of divorce from the woman whom he has never seen, and who may be in every way uncongenial to him.”[3398] A union with a first cousin, among Mohammedans, is generally lasting, because early associations may have led to an attachment at a tender age.[3399] Separation is especially rare when the uniting passion is not merely of a sensual nature, but involves mutual sympathy depending upon mental qualities.

Many of the factors which influence the duration of marriage, so far as it depends upon the will of the husband, operate also in cases where marriage may be dissolved by the wife. But the woman’s subordinate position and her inability to support herself, makes separation more difficult for her than for the man.[3400] Moreover, if the woman claims a divorce, the purchase-sum paid for her has to be returned,[3401] and she may even, in certain cases, forfeit her dowry and whatever property she brought with her at marriage.[3402] If she must lose her children also, she will naturally shrink from the idea of separation.

Since the causes which influence the duration of marriage are, to so great an extent, the same as those which influence the form of marriage, so far as monogamy and polygyny are concerned, we might expect strict monogamy to be associated with stability of marriage, and extensive polygyny with instability. But this is only partly the case. When monogamy is chiefly due to the man’s inability to support many wives, or when he secures no economical advantage by a plurality of wives, he tries in many cases to make up for the inconveniences of monogamy by a frequent change of mate. Mr. Bickmore thinks that the reason why polygyny is not more generally practised by the Mohammedan Malays is to be found in the facility with which divorce is obtained and a new marriage contracted.[3403] And the Arabs of Asia and the Moors of the Western Sahara, according to Burckhardt and Chavanne, indemnify themselves through a succession of wives for their monogamous habits.[3404] Considering, further, that the proportion between the sexes, and the monogamous instinct which man in early times probably shared with others of the higher primates, have affected the forms of human marriage, but scarcely at all its duration, we may infer that the development of the latter, at least at the lower stages of civilization, has been somewhat different from that of the former.

As has already been pointed out, it is extremely probable that, among primitive men, the union of the sexes lasted till after the birth of the offspring. We have also perhaps some reason to believe that the connection lasted for years. Lieutenant de Crespigny met Orang-utan families consisting of male, female, and two young ones, and v. Koppenfels saw similar groups of the Gorilla; but whether the male was the father of both the young ones, it is of course impossible to decide. In any case, there is abundant evidence that marriage has, upon the whole, become more durable in proportion as the human race has risen to higher degrees of cultivation, and that a certain amount of civilization is an essential condition of the formation of life-long unions.

It is evident that, at the early stage of development at which women first became valuable as labourers, a wife was united with her husband by a new bond more lasting than youth and beauty. The tie was strengthened by the bride-price and the marriage portion. And greater consideration for women, a higher development of the paternal feeling, better forethought for the children’s welfare, and a more refined love-passion have gradually made it stronger, until it has become, in many cases, almost indissoluble. A husband in the most advanced societies is no longer permitted to repudiate his wife whenever he likes; a wife cannot, without more ado, divorce herself from her husband. Marriage has become a contract the keeping of which is superintended by the State, and which may be dissolved only under certain stipulated conditions.

Although there can be no doubt that the psychical causes which have strengthened the marriage tie tend to become more potent, we must not conclude that divorce will in future be less frequent and more restricted by the laws than it is now in European countries. It must be remembered that the laws of divorce in Christian Europe owe their origin to an idealistic religious commandment which, interpreted in its literal sense, gave rise to legal prescriptions far from harmonizing with the mental and social life of the mass of the people. The powerful authority of the Roman Church was necessary to enforce the dogma that marriage is indissoluble. The Reformation introduced somewhat greater liberty in this respect, and modern legislation has gone further in the same direction.