If, as we have concluded, prevailing promiscuity was from the first accompanied by unions having some duration— 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 derived 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 generation^ 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-maintenance; 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 inclement 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, whatever 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 numbers 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 cunning 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 occasional effect can be produced; and we may anticipate 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 adyantag^ 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 irregularity was found to co-exist with large population and considei'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: incoherence and indefiniteness characterize both.
From this primitive stage, domestic evolution takes place in several directions by increase of coherence and definiteness. 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 evidence implies that all these marital forms by which promiscuity 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 statements 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, according 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 oxtended 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 households, 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 considered 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 exemplifying 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 wifestealing, 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.
§ 300. When from that form of polyandry, little above promiscuity, in which one wife has several unrelated husbands and each of the husbands has other unrelated wives, we pass to that form in which the unrelated hus« bands have but one wife, thence to the form in which the husbands are related, and finally to the form in which they are brothers only; we trace an advance in family structure. Already I have referred to Mr. M^nnan's indication of the different results..
Where, as among the Nairs, each woman has several unrelated husbands, and each of the husbands has several unrelated wives, not only is the paternal blood of the offspring unknown, but children of each man commonly exist in several households. Besides the fact that the only known kinship is through the woman, there is the fact that each man's domestic interest, not limited to a particular 676 THK Doxmno bmlltiovb.
groap of bhildren, is lost hj dissipatioii. Matenud parenthood alons being concentrated and paternal parenthood diffosed, the family honds are but little stronger than those accompanying general promiscuity. Besides his mother, a man's only known relations are his half-brothers and halfsisters and the children of his half-sisters.
Where the unrelated hosbands are limited to one wife, and where their children, though they cannot be affiliated upon their fathers individually, form a single domestic group, there is some sphere for the paternal feelings. Each husband has an interest in the offspring, some of whom may be, and probably are, his own: occasionally, indeed, being sererally attributed to each by likeness, or by their mother's statement. Though the positirely-known relationships remain the same as in the last case, yet there is some advance in the formation of domestic groups.
And then, as Mr. M'Lennan points out, where the husbands are brothers, the children have a known blood in the male line as well as in the female lino. Each boy or girl in the family is, if not a son or daughter, still a nephew or niece, of each husband. This fixing of the ancestry on both sides evidently strengthens the family bond. Beyond the closer Idnships in each group, there now arise in successive generations, alliances between groups, not on the female sido only, but on the male side. And this ramification of counezions becomes an element of social strength.'^ So that as, in passing from promiscuity to polyandry, we * It IB proper to point oat here that the nanie frmtenud polyondiy does not czactlj repreeent the f»ci§, tnd th«t in realitj there exists no inch inrtitation. A polyandxy ttrietlj fraternal, would implj that the hnibendB had deioended from a monogamic union; for onlj then could thej be farothen in the full •ense of the word. In a polyandrie lociety the ao-oaUed brothers who become husbands of one wife^ are descendants of one mother by fathers who were brothers on the maternal tada, and something less than cousins on the paternal side. The so-called brothers are therefore something more than half-brothers. This qualification, however, does not negative the statement thai the male blood of the children is known.
fOLTAKDBT. 677 pass to more coherent and definite domestic relations^ so do we in passing from the lower forms of polyandry to the higher.
§ 301. What must we say concerning polyandry in respect of its effects on social self-preservation^ on the rearing of offsprings and on the lives of adnlts? Some who hare had good opportunities of judging^ contend that in certain places it is advantageous. It would seem that just as there are habitats in which only inferior forms of animals can exists BO in societies physically conditioned in particular wayss the inferior forms of domestic life survive because they alone are practicable.
In his recent work^ The Abode of Snow, Mr. Wilson^ discussing the Tibetan polyandry in its adaptation to the barren Himalayan region, says:— ** There is a tendency on the part of population to inorease at a greater ratio than its power of produdiig food; and few more effeotnal means to check that tendency could well be dcTised than the syBtem of Tibetan polyandry, taken in coignnction with the Lama monasteries and nnnneiies. Very likely it was never deliberately devised to do so, and came down from some very rude state of society; bnt, at all events, it mnst have been found exceedingly serviceable in repressing population among, what Koeppen so well calls, the snow-lands of Asia. If population had increased there at the rate it has in England during this century, frightful results must have followed either to the Tibetans or to their immediate neighbours. As it is, almost every one in tha Himilaya has either land and a house of his own, or land and a house in which he has a share, and which provide for his protection and subsistence. ♦ ♦ ♦ I was a little surprised to find that one of the Moravian missionaries defended the polyandry of the Tibetans, not as a thing to be approved of in the abstract or tolerated among Christians, but as good for the heathen of so sterile country. In taking this view, he proceeded on the argument that superabundant population, in an unfertile country, must be a great calamity, and produce ' eternal warfare or eternal want.' Turner took also a similar view.'* Concerning the effects on the welfare of offspring, I do not meet with definite statements. If^ however^ it be true that in so very infertile a habitat^ a form of marriage which tends to oheok increase.is aclfai&tageons} tile implioatioa is that the ohildxvn in eaeli« family are better off, physieally considered, than they wonld be were monogwnic unions the role: being better fed and clothed the mortality among them must be less, and the growth more vigorous. As to the accompanying mental influenoej we can ohly suspect that confliot of authority and absence of specific pater* nity, must entail serious evils.
The lives of adults, if we may accept. the> testimonies of travellers, do not appear to be so injuriously aflfected as might have been anticipated. Mr. Wilson says: — *'Ia s piinutiTe and not vezy settled itate of sooietf, when the head of a funily is often called sway on long meroantile joumeySt or to atten4,»t oonrt» or for purposes of war, it is %. certain adyantage that he should he aUe to leave a relative in his place whose interests are hound np with his own« Mr. Talhoys Wheeler has suggested that polyandry arose among a pastoral people, whose men were away from their ftmiHes for months at a time, and where the duty of pfoteoting their fiumlles would he undertaken by the brothers in torn. The system oertainfy answers such an end, and I never knew of a case when a polyandrie wife was left withont the society of one at least of her hasbaads.'* He also quotes Tomer as saying:— ^ " The infiaence of this eustom on the manners of the people, as far as I eoold trace, has not been un&vourable. ♦ » 4i To the privilege of unbounded liberty the wife here adds the character of mistress of the family and companion <^ her husbands. But, lest so pleasing a picture may delude some of the strong-minded ladies (of America) to get up an agilatidn for the estaUishment of polyandry in the West, I must say it struck me that the having many husbands sometimes appeared to be only having many masters and increased toil and trouble.'* 8o/ too, in the lately- republished narrative of Mr. George Bogle's mission t^ Tibet, in Warren Hastings' time we read: — ** They club together in matrimony as merchants do in tr^e. Nor is thib joint concern often productive of jealousy among the partners. They are little addicted to jealousy. Disputes, indeed, sometimes arise about the children of the marriage; but they are settled either by a comparison of the features of the child with those of its several fEtthers. or left to the determination of its mother/* § 802. If we regard polyandry as one of several marital POLYANDRY. 679.
arrangements independentlj originating in the earliest societies, we shall not interpret its decline in the same way as if we consider it a transitional form once passed through by e^ery race, as Mr. M'Lennan apparently does.
To one of the causes which he assigns for its decline, we may, indeed, assent. He points out that in some cases, as among the Kandyans, a chief has a wife to himself, though inferior people are polyandrous; and we learn from Horace della Penna's account of Thibet, lately republished, that in his time a kindred difference existed there: he says that polyandry '' seldom occurs with noble folk, or those in easy circumstances, who take one wife alone, and sometimes, but rarely, more.'* Hence, with Mr. McLennan, we may infer that since the habits of the higher in all societies spread downwards, imitation tends to make monogamy replace polyandry where circumstances do not hinder. But Mr. McLennan, not regarding this dying out of inferior forms in presence of superior forms as the sole cause, endeavours to show that the superior forms also arise by transformation of the inferior. Taking as typical the polyandry of Ladak, where the eldest brother has a priority, and where, on his death, " his property, authority, and widow devolve upon hie next brother," he affiliates upon this the arrangement among the early Hebrews, under which '* the Levir had no alternative but to take the widow [of his brother]; indeed, she was his wife without cmyform of marriage,** And he hence infers that monogamy and polygyny, as existing among the Hebrews, had been preceded by polyandry: saying that— *' It is imposaibld not to believe that we have here presented to na successive stages of decay of one and the same original institution; impossible not to connect the obligation, in its several phases, with what we have seen prevailing in Ladak; impossible not to regard it as having originally been a right of succession, or the counterpart of such a right, derived firom the practice of polyandry."
It seems to me, however, quite possible to find in the customs of primitive peoples, another explanation which is much more natural. Under early social systems, wives.
680 TflS DOMESTIC BSLATIONS.
being regai*ded as property, are inherited ia the same way aa other property. When we read that among the " Bel]a« boUahs (Haidahs), the widow of the deceased is transferred to his brother's harem;'' that among the Znlas, '' the widow is transferred to the brother of her deceased husband on his death j'' that among the Damaras, '' when a chief dies^ his suryiving wives are transferred to his brother or to his nearest relation;'^ the suspicion is raised that this taking possession of a brother's wife has nothing to do with polyandry. This suspicion is confirmed on finding that in Congo *' if there be three brothers, and one of them die^ the two survivors share his concubines between them;'* on finding that in Samoa, " the brother of a deceased husband, considered himself erUUled to have his brother's wife;'* on finding that in ancient Vera Paz, " the brother of the deceased at once took her [the widow] as his wife even if he was married, and if he did not, another relation had a right to her/' These facts imply that where wives are classed simply as objects of value (usually purchased) the succession to them by brothers goes along with succession in general. And if there needs further evidence^ I may cite this — ^that in sundry places a father's wives are inherited. Thomson says that among the New Zealanders " father's wives descended to their sons, and dead brothers' wives to their surviving brothers." Of the Mishmis^ Bowlatt states that '^ when a man dies or becomes old^ it is the custom of these people for the wives to be distributed amongst his sons, who take them to wife." Torquemada mentions provinces of Mexico in which the sons inherited those wives of their fathers who had not yet borne sons to the deceased. In his Abeokutay Burton states that among the Egbas ^' the son inherits all the father's wives save his own mother." We learn from Bosman that on the Slave Coast, '^ upon the father's death, the eldest son inherits not only all his g^oods and cattle, but his wives * * * except his own mother." And in Dahomey, the king's eldest son POLTANDBT. 681 " inherits the deceased's wives and makes them liis own^ excepting^ of course^ the woman that bare him.''
We cannot^ then^ admit that the practice of marrying a dead brother's widow implies pre-existence of polyandry; and cannot accept the inference that ont of decaying polyandry higher forms of marriage grew np.
§ 808. Considering the several forms of polyandry as types of domestic relations which have arisen by successive limitations of promiscuity, we must say that in this or that society they have evolved, have survived, or have been extinguished, according as the aggregate of conditions has determined. Probably in some cases the lower polyandry has not been supplanted by the higher, because the two have not BO come into competition that the better results of the higher have made themselves felt. In competition with polygyny and monogamy, polyandry may, in some^cases, have had the advantage for reasons above cited: polygynic and monogamic families dying out because the offspring of them were relatively ill-fed.
On the other hand, influences like those which in some places made the superior forms of polyandry prevail over the inferior, must, in other places, have tended to extinguish polyandry altogether. Save where great restriction of the food-supply over a considerable area, rendered multiplication disadvantageous, polyandric societies, producing fewer members available for offence and defence, naturally gave way before societies having family arrangements more &vourable to increase. This is probably the chief reason why polyandry, once common, has become comparatively infirequent. Other things equal, this inferior family type has yielded to superior family types; both because of its inferior fertility, and because of the smaller family cohesion, and consequently smaller social cohesion^ resulting from it.
CHAPTER Vn.
POLTOYNT.
§ 304. WsRB it not for the ideas of sacrediieaa with that Hebrew history which in diildhood familiarised us with examples of polygyny, we shoold probably feel as maoh surprise and repngnanoe on first reading about it aa we do on first reading about polyandry. Education has, howerer, prepared us for learning without astonishment J that polygyny is common in every part of the world not occupied by the most advanced nations.
It prevails in all climates— in the Arctic regionSi in arid burning tracts, in fertDe oceanic islands, in steaming tropical continents. AU races practise it. We have already noted its occurrence among the lowest tribes of men-— the Faegians, the Australians, the Tasmanians. It is habitaal with the Negritos in New Caledonia^ in Tanna, in Yate, in Eromanga, in Lifu. MalaycPolynesian peoples eidubit it everywhere: in Tahiti, in the Sandwich Islands, Tonga, New Zealand, Madagascar, Sumatra. Throughout Ameriea it is found among the rude tribes of the northern con* tinent, from the Esquimaux to the Mosquitos of the isthmus; and among the equally rude tribes of the soutiieni continent, from the Caribs to the Patagonians; and it pre* vailed in the ancient semi-oivilized American states of Mexico, Peru, and Central America. It is general wifli African peoples — ^with the Hottentots, Damaras^ Kaffirs of POLTGTNY. 683 the south; with the East Africans^. Congo people. Coast Negroes, Inland Negroes, Dahomans, Ashantis of mid-Africa; with the Fulahs and Abyssinianfj of the north. In Asia it is common to the settled Cingalese, the seminomadic Hill-tribes of India, the wandering Yakates. And its prevalenoe in ancient eastern societies needs but naming. Indeed, on counting up all peoples, savage and ciriliased, past and present, it appears that the polygynons ones far Qutnnxnber the rest.
Plurality of wives would be even more general were it^. not in some cases checked by the conditions. We learn this when told that among the poverty-stricken Bushmen, polygyny^i though perfectly allowable, is rare; when Forsyth states that among theGonds '^polygamy is not forbidden, but, women being costly chattels, it is rarely practised;^' when Tennent tells us of the Yeddahs that ^' the community is too poor to afford polygamy;'' when, concerning the Osiyaks, we read in Latham that '' polygamy is allowed, but it is not common; for a plurality of wives the coimtry is too poor.'' And though the occurrence of polygyny among some of the poorest peoples, as the Australians and the Puegians, shows that poverty does not prevent it, if the women can gather enough food fpr self -maintenance, we may yet understand its exclusion where the mode of life does not permit them to do this. ' This natural restriction of polygyny by poverty, is not the \i j^ i A h.. only natural restriction. There is another, recognition of ^ i which modifies considerably those ideas of polygynous societies ordinarily conveyed by travellers. Their accounts often imply that plurality of wives is, if not the uniform, still, the most general, arrangement in the societies they describe. Yet a little thought makes us hesitate to accept the implication. Turner tells us that in lifu, ^^a chief has f prty wives: compaon men three or four.'' How can that be? we may fitly ask — How come there to be so many women? Scepticism such as is raised by this state- 684 THi ixnfBffnc sujiTioira.
meal, k raised in smaller deg^rees bj many other statements. We read in Park that ''the Mandingoes are polygamists, and each of the 'wives' in rotation is mistress of the household/' Anderson says of the Damaras that "polygamy is practised to a great extent » » » each wife bnilds for herself a hat/* We are told by Lesseps that " obliged to make freqoent jonmeys, a Yakoat has a wife in every place where he stops/' Bancroft quotes concerning the Haidahs, the assertion that "polygamy is universal, re£pilated simply by the &cilities for subsistence/' Acceptance of these statements involves the belief that in each case there is a great numerical preponderance of women over men. But unless we assume that the number of girls bom g^reatly exceeds the number of boys, which we have no warrant for doing, or else that war causes a mortality of males more enormous than seems credible, we must suspect that the polygynous arrangement isjess general than these expressions represent it to be. Examination confirms the suspicion. For habitually we find it said, or implied, that the number of wives varies according to the means a man has of purchasing or maintaining them; whence it is to be inferred that as, in all societies, the majority are comparatively poor, only the minority can afford more wives than one. Such statements as that among the Comanches " every man may have all the wives he can buy;" that the Nu£El people "marry as many wives as they are able to purchase;" that "the number of a Feegeean's wives is limited only by his means of maintaining them;" that " want of means forms the only limit to the number of wives of a Mishmee;" warrant the inference that the less prosperous men, everywhere likely to form the larger part, have either no wives or but a single wife each; and that thus there does not really exist that immense excess of women implied by such statements as those above quoted.
For this inference we find definite justification on in- POLTQYNT. 685 quirin^^ fnrdier. Numerous accounts show us^ directly and indirectlyj that in polygynous societies the polygyny prevails only among the wealthier or the higher in rank. Lichtenstein says ''most of the Eoossas have but one wife; the kings and chiefs of the kraab only^ have four or five/' Baffles states that polygyny is permitted in Java^ but not much practised except by the upper classes. '' The customs of the Sumatrans/' says Marsden, '^ permit their having as many wires by jvjur as they can compass the purchase of, or afford to maintain; but it is extremely rare that an instance occurs of their having more than one, and that only among a few of the chiefs/' Of the Ancient Mexicans, Francis of Bologna writes — *' The people were content with one legitimate wife, except the lords, who had many concubines, some possessing more than 800/^ Herrera alleges of the Honduras people that '^ they generally kept but one wife, but their lords as many as they pleased/' And among the people of Nicaragua, according to Oviedo, *' few have more than one wife, except the principal men, and those who can support more/'