li seems to me, misleading connotations. Each implies a claim and a limitation. If the claim is co-extensive with the members of the tribe^ then the only limitation must be one excluding members of other tribes; and it cannot^ I thinks be said that the idea of marriage within a tribe is generated by the negation of the claims of those belong- ing to other tribes. Bat passing over the termin- ology^ let us consider the essential question raised — ^whether what we may call tribal monopoly of its women, regarded as a common possession held against other tribes, preceded indiyidual monopoly within the tribe. Sir John Lubbock considers that absence of indiyidual marital possession went along with absence of individual possession generally: while the notion of private ownership of other thinga did not exist, there did not exist the notion of private owner- ship of women. Just as in the earliest stages the tribal territory was common property, so, too, he thinks, were the women of the tribe common property; and he thinks that private ownership of women was established only by stealing them &om other tribes: women so obtained being recognized as belonging to their captors. But while con- curring in the belief that the development of the conception of property in general, has had much to do with the development of the niarital relation, it is quite possible to dissent from the belief that the conception of property was ever so undeveloped as Sir John Lubbock's conclusion im- plies. It is true that the idea of ownership which a tribe has in the territory it occupies, may be compared to that of many animals, solitary and gregarious, which drive tres- passers away from their lairs or habitats: even the swans on each reach of the Thames resist invading swans from other reaches; and the public dogs in each quarter of Constanti- nople attack dogs from other quarters if they encroach. It is true, also, that generally among savages there is a certain community of property in the game captured; though not an unqualified community. But the reason for S64 THE D0MB6TIC BBIATIONS.
all this is clear. Land is jointly lield by Imnters becanse it cannot be otherwise held -, and joint claims to the food it produces are involved. To infer that there is not in the earliest state a recognition of individaal property in other things^ is^ I think^ going farther than either the probabilities or the facts warrant. The dog shows ns some notion of ownership — will not only iBght for the prey he has caught, or for his kennel^ but will keep guard over his master's clothes or other belongings. We cannot suppose that man in his rudest state had less notion of ownership than this. We must suppose he had more; and our supposition is justi- fied by evidence. Habitually savages individually own their weapons and implements^ their decorations^ their dresses. Even among the degraded Fuegians there is private pro- perty in canoes. Indeed^ the very conception of prospective advantage which leads an intelligent being to take pos- session of^ or to make^ any useful thing, is a conception which leads him to resist the abstraction of that thing. Oenerally, possession of it is not interfered with, because the thing is not worth the risk of a fight; and eren where, after resistance, it is taken by another, still it comes to be held by that other individually. The impulses which lead primitive men thus to monopolize other objects of value, must lead them to monopolize women. There must arise private ownerships of women, ignored only by the stronger* who establish other private ovmerships.
And this conclusion seems to me the one supported by the facts. Everywhere promiscuity, however marked, is qualified by unions having some persistence. If, in the yarious cases before named, as also among the Aleutian Islanders and the Kutchins of North America, the Bada- gas, Kurumbahs and Keriahs of India, the Hottentots and yarious other peoples of Africa, there is no marriage cere- mony; we have in the very statement an implication that there is something haying the nature of marriage. If, as with the North American tribes generally, " nothing more than PROMISCUITY. 666 PROMISCUITY. 666 the personal consent of the parties/' unsanctioned and un- witnessed^ occars; still some kind of union is alleged. If, as among the Bushmen and the Indians of California, there is not even a word signifying this relation between the sexes; still there is evidence that the relation is known. If among such people as the Teehurs of Oude, the general pro- miscuity is such that '' even when two people are regarded as married the tie is but nominal/' still, some ^'are regarded as married." The very lowest races now existing — Fuegians, Australians, Andamanese — show us that, however informally they may originate, sexual relations of a more or less en- during kind exist; and I do not see reasons for concluding that in social groups lower than these, there was no indi- vidual possession of women by men. We must, I think, infer, that even in prehistoric times, promiscuity was checked by the establishment of individual connexions, prompted by men's likings and maintained against other men by force.
§ 293. Admitting, however, that in the earliest stages promiscuity was but in a small degree tbus qualified, let us note, first, the resulting ideas of kinship.
Causes direct and indirect, will conspire to produce recog- nition of relationship in the female line only. Necessarily if promiscuity is extensive, and if there is a larger number of children bom to unknown fathers than to known fathers, it must happen that as the connexion between mother and child is obvious in all cases, while that between father and child is inferable only in some cases, there will arise a habit of thinking of maternal kinship rather than of paternal. Hence, even in that minority of cases where paternity is manifest, children will be thought of and spoken of in the same way. Among ourselves common speech habitually in- dicates a boy as Mr. So-and-so's son, though descent from his mother is as fully recognized; and a converse usage, caused by prevailing promiscuity among savages, will 666 TBIfi DOKESTIC BELATIONS.
lead to the speaking of a cliild as the mother's child^ eyen when the &ther is known.
A farther cause for the establishment of this practice exists. Though we conclude that promiscuity is in all oases qualified hj unions having some duration^ jet we see that in Uie lowest stages^ as among the Andamanese^ each of these unions ends when a child is weaned: the result being tliat thereafter^ association of the child with its father ceases, while association with its mother continues. Consequentlj, even when there is acknowledged patemiiy, the child will be mostly thought of in connexion with its mother; and thus will be confirmed the habit otherwise caused.
This habit haying arisen^ the resulting system of kinship in the female line will^ as we have seen^ be strengthened by the practice of exogamy when passing from the external to the internal form. The requirement that a wife shall be taken from a foreign tribe^ readily becomes confounded with the requirement that a wife shall be of foreign blood. If maternal descent only is recognized^ the daughters of foreign women within the tribe will^ as Mr. M^exman argues^ be rendered available as wives under the law of exogamy; and the custom of so regarding ithem will be strengthened by making fulfilment of this law possible, when otherwise fulfilment would bo impossible. A settled system of kinship through females, and interdict against marriage with those having the same family name, or he* longing to the same clan, will result.
Instances collected by Mr. McLennan and Sir John Lab* bock, show that this system ^' prevails throughout Western and Eastern Africa, in Gircassia, Hindostan, Tartary, Siberia, China, and Australia, as well as in North and South America." For interpreting it in the above manner there are some ad- ditional reasons. One is that we are not obliged to make the startling assumption that male parentage was at first entirely unperceived. A second is that we escape an in- consistency. Male parentage is habitually known, though PBOKiscumr. 667 PBOKiscumr. 667 disregarded^ where tlie system of kinsliip in tlie female line now obtains; for not only in the lowest races are there unions persistent enough to make male parentage manifest^ but the yery statement that female kinship is alone counted^ can- not bo made by these.races without implying a conscious- ness of male kinship: nay^ indeed, have not these races^ down to the yery lowest^ always a word for father as well as a word for mother? And a third is that commonly the names of the clans which are forbidden to intermarry, such as Wolf, Bear, Eagle, Whale, etc., are names given to men; implying, as I have before contended (§ 170-3) descent from distinguished male ancestors bearing those names — descent which, notwithstanding the system of female kinship, was remembered where there was pride in the connexion.* § 294. From the effects of unregrdated relations of the sexes on the system of formally -recognized kinship, in pur- suing which I have diverged somewhat from the immediate topic, let us now pass to the effects on the society and its individuals.
In proportion to the prevalence of promiscuity, there must be paucity and feebleness of relationships. Besides having no known male parents, the children of each mother are less connected with one another. They are only half- brothors and half-sisters. Family bonds, therefore, are not * I may add here a oondusive proof that avowed recognition of kinship in the female line only, by no means shows an unconsciousness of male kinship. This proof is furnished by that converse custom which some ancient Aryans had of recognizing relationship through males, and ignoring relationship through females. When Orestes, after killing his mother for murdering his &ther, was absolved on the ground urged by him, that a man is related to his father and not to his mother, undeniable evidence was g^ven that an established doctrine of kinship may disregard a connexion which is obvious to all — ^more obvious than any other. And if it cannot be supposed that an actual unconsciousness of motherhood was associated with this system of exclusive kinship through males among the Greeks; then thero is no adequate warrant for the supposition that actual unconsciousness of fatherhood wa* associated with the system ot exclusive kinship through females among savages.
only weak but oaxmot spread far; and this implieB defect of cohesion among members of the society. Thongb they bave some common interests^ with some yague notion of general kinship, there lacks that element of strength arising from the interests within groups distinctly rolated by blood. At the same time^ the establishment of subordination is hindered. Nothing beyond temporary predominance of the stronger is likely to arise in the absence of definite family and definite descent: there can be no settled poli- tical control. For the like reason the growth of ancestor- worship^ and of the religions bonds resulting from it, are impeded. Thus in several ways indefinite sexual relations hinder social self-presenration and social evolution.
Their nnfavourableness to the welfare of offspring scarcely needs pointing out. Where paternity is not recognized^ children must depend almost wholly on maternal care. Among savages, exposed as they are to every kind of priva- tion, the rearing of children is in all cdses difficult; and it is necessarily more difficult where the mother is unaided by the father. So too is it, if in a smaller degree, with the progeny of brief marriages, such as those of the Andam- anese, whose custom it is for man and wife to part when a child bom to them is weaned. Often the child must afterwards die from lacking adequate support and pro- tection, which the mother alone cannot give. No doubt, under such conditions, miscellaneous help is given. Indeed, the Andamanese women are said to aid one another in suck- ling; and probably food and other things are furnished by the men: the child becomes, in a measure, the child of the tribe. But indefinite tribal care can but partially replace definite paternal care. How unfavourable to the maintenance of population are these unregulated relations of the sexes, we have, indeed, direct evidence. A recent reporter, Mr. Francis Day, a surgeon, says that the Andam- anese appear to be gradually dying out. He saw but one woman who had as many as three living children. During PROMiaCCTITT. 669 a year, tlurty-eight deatibs were reported and only fourteen births, among the families living near the Eoropean settle- ments.
Turning from progeny to parents, it is clear that to them also the absence of persistent marital relations is extremely injurious. Maintenance of the race, in so far as it is effected, is effected at an excessive cost to the women; and though the men may not suffer directly, yet they suffer indirectly. After the vigour of maturity is past, there coiAe the privations of an early decline unmitigated by domestic assistance. Mr. Day says of the Andamanese that few appear to live to a greater age than forty; and they are subject to a variety of diseases. Absence of those higher gratifications accompanying developed family life, is also to be noted as a concomitant evil.
Irregular relations of the sexes are thus at variance with the welfare of the society, of the young, and of the adults. We before saw that in all respects the traits of the primitive man — physical, emotional, intellectual — are immense hindrances to social evolution; and here we see that his lack of those sentiments which lead to persistent marriages, constitutes a further hindrance.
§ 295. Out of this lowest state, however, there tend to arise higher states. In two ways do groups thus loose in their sexual relations, evolve into groups having sexual relations of more definite kinds.
If, as we have concluded, prevailing promiscuity was from the first accompanied by unions having some dura- tion— if, as we may infer, the progeny of such unions were more likely to be reared, and more likely to be vigorous, than the rest; then the average result must have been multiplication and predominance of individuals de- rived from such unions. And bearing in mind that among these there would be inherited, natures leaning towards such unions more than other natures leaned, we 870 THB DOnSTIC BELATIOKS.
mast infer diat there wonld^ from generation to genera- tion^ be an increasing tendency to sach anions along certain lines of descent. Where they &yoared race-maintenance^ survival of the fittest would farther the establishment of them. I say advisedly — where they faroured race-mainten- ance; because it is conceivable that in rery barren habitats they might not do this. Sexual relations conducive to the rearing of many children would be of no advantage: the food would not suffice. It may be, too, that in very in- clement habitats more careful nurture would be useless; since where the hardships to be borne in adult life were extreme, the raising of children that could not bear them would not help to preserve the society — ^nay, by wasting food and effort, might prove detrimental. The ability of a child to survive with no care beyond that which its mother can gire, may in some circumstances be^ a test of fitness for the life to be led. But save in such extreme cases, the favourable effects on offspring must tend to establish in a social group, persistent relations of the sexes.
The struggle for existence between societies conduces to the same effect. Subject to the foregoing limitation, what- ever increases the power of a tribe, either in numbers or in vigour, gives it an advantage in war; so that other things equal, societies characterized by sexual relations that are the least irregular, wUl be the most likely to conquer. I say other things equal, because co-operating causes interfere. Success in battle does not depend wholly on relative num- bers or relative strengths. There come into play courage, endurance^ swiftness, agility, skill in the use of weapons. Though otherwise inferior, a tribe may conquer by the quickness of its members in tracking enemies, by cun- ning in ambush, etc. Moreover, if among a number of adjacent tribes there are no great differences in degrees of promiscuity, conflicts among them cannot tend to establish higher sexual relations. Hence, only an occa- sional effect can be produced; and we may anticipate PB0MI6CUTTT. 671 PB0MI6CUTTT. 671 that which the facts indicate — a slow and very irreg^ar diminution. In some cases^ too^ profusion of food and favourable climate^ may render less important the adyan- tag^ which the offspring of regular sexual relations have over those of irregular ones. And this may be the reason why in a place like Tahiti^ where life is so easily main« tained and children so easily reared, great sexual irregu- larity was found to co-exist with large population and con- sidei'able social advance.
Aj9, however, under ordinary conditions the rearing of more numerous and stronger offspring must have beer, favoured by more regular sexual relations, there must, on the average, have been a tendency for the societies most characterized by promiscuity to disappear before those less characterized by it.
§ 296. Considering the facts from the evolution point of view, we see that at first the domestic relations are but little more developed than the political relations: inco- herence and indefiniteness characterize both.
From this primitive stage, domestic evolution takes place in several directions by increase of coherence and definite- ness. Connexions of a more or less enduring kind are in some cases formed between one woman and several men. In some cases, and very commonly, enduring connexions are formed between one man and several women. Such relations co-exist in the same tribe, or they characterize different tribes; and along with them there usually co-exist relations between individual men and individual women. The evi- dence implies that all these marital forms by which pro- miscuity is restricted, have equally early origins.
The different types of the family thus initiated, have now to be considered. We will take them in the above order.
OHAPTEB VI.
POLYANDRY.
§ 297. Prohiscuitt may be called indefinite poljandiy joined with indefinite polygyny; and one mode of advance is by a diminution of the indefiniteness.
Concerning the Fuegians, Admiral Pitzroy says: — '* We have some reason to think there were parties who lived in a promiscuoas manner — a few women being with many men '': a condition which may be regarded as promiscuity to a slight degree limited. But not dwelling on this doubtfully-made statement, let us pass to positive state- ments concerning what may be described as definite polyandry joined with definite polygyny. Of the Todas, we are told by Shortt that — *' If there be four or five brothers, and one of them, being old enough, gets married, his wife claims all the other brothers as her hnsbanda, and as they successively attain manhood, she consorts with them; or if the wife has one or more younger sisters, they in turn, on attaining a marriageable age, become the wives of their sister's husband or hna> bands, and thus in a family of several brothers, there may be, accord- ing to circumstances, only one wife for them all, or many; but, one or more, they all live undei' one roof^ and cohabit promiscuously." Akin to this arrangement, though differing in the respect that the husbands are not brothers, is that which exists among the Nairs. From several authorities Mr. McLennan takes the statements that — '* It is the custom for one woman ' to have attached to her two mules, cr four, or perhaps more, and they cohabit according to rules.' With POLYANDRY, 673 this accoont that of Hamilton agrees, excepting that he states that a Nair woman oonld have no more than twelve husbands, and had to select these nnder certain restrictions as to rank and caste. On the other hand, Buchanan states that the women after marriage are free to cohabit with any number of men, under certain restrictions as to tribe and caste. It is consistent with the three accounts, and is directly stated by Hamilton, that a Nair may be one in sevei*al combinations of husbands."
Here^ then, along with polyandry to some extent defined, there goes polygyny^ also to some extent defined. And with the semi-ciyilized TaUtians, one of the sereral forms of sexual relations was akin to this. Ellis says that " those among the middle or higher ranks who practised polygamy, allowed their wives other husbands.^' From these forms of the family, if the word may be ox- tended to them, in which polyandry and polygyny are united, we pass to those forms which come under the head of polyandry proper. In one of them the husbands are not related; in the other they are akin, and usually brothers.
« « § 298. Ah*eady we have seen that polyandrous house- holds, apparently of the ruder sort, occur in tribes having also polygynous households: the Caribs, the Esquimaux, and the Warans, having been instanced. Another case is furnished by the Aleutian Islanders, who are polygynists, but among whom, according to Bastian, a ''woman may enter into a double marriage, inasmuch as she has a right to take'' an additional husband. The aborigines of tho Canary Islands practised polyandry, probably not fraternal. Humboldt tells us that when the Spaniards arrived at Lancerota, they found " a very singular custom. * * * A woman had several husbands. * * * A husband was con- sidered as such only during a lunar revolution.'' And to these cases of the ruder polyandry which I find among my own data, I may add others given by Mr. M'Lennan: he names the Kasias and the Saporogian Gossaks as exempli- fying it.
Of the faiglier form of polyanchy many mfitanoes occur: Bometimes co-ezisting in the same sociely with the lofwer fomij and sometimee exiBting alone. Tennent tella as that "PolyBiidiy proTailfl thron^^ut the interior of Ceylon, ebheAj amongst the wealthier classes; of whom, one woman has fi^qaentlj three or ibnr hosfaands, and sometimes as many as seven. • • • As a general nle the husbands are members of the same fiunily, and moat frequently brothers.** Of other peoples definitely stated to practise this kind of * polyandry^ Mr. Mljennan ennmerates^ in America tiie Avaroes and the Maypnres^ and in Asia those of Kashmir, Ladak, Kinawer^ Ejstewar, and Sirmor. That it existed in ancient times where it is not known now^ we have abo indications. Strabo relates of the tribes of Arabia Felix that all of the same family married one wife in common. In an ancient Hindn epic^ the Mahabharata, a princess is described as married to five brothers. And, according to Cfldsar, there was fraternal polyandry among the Ancient Britons.
§ 299. What are we to say concerning the origin and development of this type of the domestic relations?
As before contended, facts do not support the belief that it arose from female infanticide and consequent scarcily of women. We saw that it does not prevail where wife- stealing, said also to result from scarcity of women, is habitual; but that in such cases polygyny is the more usual. We also saw that its frequent co-existence with polygyny negatives the belief that it is due to excess of males. True, of the TodaSy we read that owing '' to the great soaroity of women in this tribe, it more frequently happens that a single woman is wife to several husbands.'' But against this may be set such a case as that of Tahiti, where we have no reason to believe that women were scarce, and where the polyandry that was associated with polygyny^ went along with other loose sexual relations— where ''brothers^ or members of the same family, sometimes exchanged their FOLTAHDSr, 675 wiYeSf wbile the wife of every indmdaal was also the wife of his taia or fciend/' Nor can we, I think, ascribe it to poverty; though poverty may, in some cases, be the cause of its continuance and spread. We have direct evidence that it is general in some communities which are relatively well off; and further, that though in some cases distinctive of the poorer classes, it is in other cases the reverse. As above quoted, Tennent tfiUs us that in Ceylon, polyandry prevails ^'^ehiefly among the wealthier classes'^ implying that as, among the poorer classes each num has commonly one wife, if not more, the cause there is neither lack of women* for wives, nor lack of ability Jto maintain wives.
We niiist rather, I think, in pursuance of conclusions already drawn, regard polyandry as one of the types of marital relations emerging from the' primitive unregpilated state; and one which has survived where competing forms, not being favoured by the conditions, have failed to ex« tinguish it.