These statements, joined with others presently to be cited, warn us against the erroneous impressions likely to be formed of societies described as polygjrnous. We may infer that in most cases where polygyny exists, monogamy] co-exists to a greater extent, and in all other cases to aj considerable extent.
§ 305. The prevalence of polygyny will not perplex us if, setting out with the primitive unregulated state, we ask what naturally happened.
.The superior strength of body and energy of mind, which gained c^tain men predominance as warriors and chiefs, also gave them more power of securing women; either by stealing them from other tribes or by wresting them from men of their own tribe. And in the same way that possession of a stolen wife came to be regarded as a \ 666 THI D0XE8TIC BELiLTIOHS.
mark of saperiority^ so did* possession ^ of several wiTea;, foreign or native. Cremony^ as quoted by Bancroft^ says the Apache " who can support or keep^ or attract by lus power to keep^ the greatest number of women^ is the man who is deemed entitled to the greatest amount of honoor and respect." This is typical. PluraKty of wives has everywhere tended to become a more or less definite classdistinction. We learn from Olavigero that in Mexico " AhuizotPs predecessors had many wives, from. an opinion that their authority and grandetir would be heightened in proportion to the number of persons^ who contributed to their pleasures." Mlis states that in Madagascar, where a plnrality of wives is common among chiefs and rich people, ''the only law to regulate polygamy seems to be, that no man may take twelve wives excepting the sovereign.'^ Describing the East Africans, Burton says — '' The chiefs pride themselves upon the number of their wives, varying from twelve to three hundred." According to Beeoham, in Ashantee '' the number of wives which caboceers and other persons possess, depends partly on their rank and partly on their ability to purchase them." Joining which facts with those furnished to us by the Hebrews, whose judges and kings — Gideon, David, Solomon — ^had their greatness so shown; and with those furnished us by extant Eastern peoples, whose potentates, primary and secondary, are thus distinguished; we may see that the establishment and maintenance of polygyny has been largely due to the honour accorded to it, originally as a mark of strength and \ bravery, and afterwards as a mark of social staius. Tkda ' conclusion is verified by European- history; as witness tlie statement of Tacitus concerning the ancient G-ermans, tbat " almost alone among barbarians they are content with one wife," except a very few of noble birth; and as witness the statement of Montesquieu that the polygyny of tiie Merovingian kings was on attribute of dignity.
From the begfinning, too, except in some regions wh«<a POLTOYNT. 687 the labour of women could not be utilized for purposes of production, an economic incentive has joined iritb other incentiyes. We read that in New Caledonia, '' chiefs have ten, twenty, and thirty wives. The more wives the better plantations^ and the more food.'' A like utilization of wives prompts to a plurality of them throughout Africa. On reading in Gailli6 that Mandingo wives ''go to distant places for wood and water; their husbands make them sow, weed the cultivated fields, and gather in the harvest '/' and on being told by Shooter that among the Kaffirs, '' besides her domestic duties, the woman has to perform all the hard work; she is her husband's ox, as a Kaffir once said to me, — she had been bought, he argued, and must therefore labour;" we cannot fail to see that one motive for desiring many wives, is desiring many slaves.
When we remember that in every society the doings of the powerful and the wealthy famish the standards of right and wrong, so that even the very words ''noble" and " servile," originally expressive of social stattts, have come to be expressive of good and bad in conduct; we may understand how it happens that plurality of wives acquires, in places where it prevails, an ethical sanction. Associated t, with greatness, polygyny is thought praiseworthy; and! associated with poverty, monogamy is thought mean. Hence the reprobation with which, as we have already seen, the one-wife system is regarded in polygynous communities. Even the religious sanction is sometimes joined with the A ethical sanction. Keating tells us that by the Chippewayans '^ polygamy is held to be agreeable in the eyes of the Great Spirit, as he that has most children is held in highest estimation"— a belief reminding us of a kindred one current among the Mormons. And that among the Hebrews plurality of wives was not at variance either with the prevailing moral sentiments or with supposed divine injunctions, is proved by the absence of any direct or implied reprobation of it in their laws, and by the special favour said to be V 688 THX DOMISTIO BILITIOVS* ■hown by Qod to sundry rulers who had many wives and many cononbines.
It shoold be added that in societies oharacterized by it, this form of marital relation is approved by women as well as men*— certainly in some cases, if not generally. Bancroft cites the &ct that among the Comanches ''as polygamy causes a greater division of labor, the women do not object to it/' And of the Makalolo women, Livingstone says: — " On healing that a man in England ooold many but one wife, several ladies exclaimed that the j wonld not like to live in saoh a ooontry: thej oonld not imagine how English ladies oonld relish our custom; for in their way of thinking, evezy man of respectability shonld have a nnmber of wives as a proof of his wealth. Similar ideas prevafl all down the Zambesi."
Initiated, then, by unrestrained sexual instincts lunong savage men, polygyny has very generally been fostered by the same causes that have established political control and industrial control. It has commonly been an incidental element of governmental power in uncivUiaed and semicivilized societies.
§ 806. In contrast with the types of marital relations dealt with in the two preceding chapters, polygyny shows us some advance. That it is better than promiscuity needs no proof; and that it is better than polyandry we shall find several reasons for concluding.
Under it there arise more definite relationships. Where the unions of the sexes are of the lowest kinds, only the maternal blood is known. On passing from the ruder form of polyandry in which the husbands are unrelated, to that higher form in which the husbands are something more than half-brothers, we reach a stage in which the Other's blood is known, though not with certainty the &ther. But in polygyny, fatherhood and motherhood are both Qiani&fit. In so far, then, as paternal feeling is fostered by more distinct consciousness of paternity, the connexion between parents and children is strengthened: the bond becomes a POLYGYNY. 689 double one. A farther result is that definite lines of descent on the male side^ from generation to generation^ are established. Hence greater family cohesion. Beyond definite union of father and son^ there is definite union of successive fathers and sons in a series. But while increased in a descending direction, family cohesion is little, if at all, increased in a lateral direction. Though some of the children may be brothers and sisters, most of them are only halfbrothers and half-sisters; and their fraternal feeling is possibly less than in the polyandric household. In a group de* scended from several unrelated mothers by the same father, the jealousies fostered by the mothers are likely to be greater than in a group descended from the same mother and indefinitely affiliated on several brothers. In this respect, then, the family remains equally incoherent, or becomes, perhaps, more incoherent. Probably to this cause is due much of the dissension and plotting and bloodshed among the sons of eastern rulers.
Save, however, where there result among sons struggles for power, we may conclude that by definiteness of descent the family is made more coherent, admits of more extensive ramifications, and is thus of higher type.
§ 307. The effects of polygyny on the self-preservation of the society, on the welfare of offspring, and on the lives of adults, have next to be considered.
Barbarous communities surrounded by communities at \ enmity with them, derive advantages from it. Lichtenstein remarks of the Elaffirs that "there are fewer men than women, on account of the numbers of the former that fall in their frequent wars. Thence comes polygamy, and the women being principally employed in all menial occupations.^' Now, without accepting the inference that polygyny arises from the loss of men in war, or that the servile condition of women is due to it, we may recognize the fact which Lichtenstein does not name, that where the death-rat^ Y Y 690 THE DOMESTIC BBLATI0K8.
of males considerably exceeds that of f emaleei plurality of wives becomes o^jneans of mainti^ning^popqlation. If while decimation of the men is* tabitoall j going on^ no snrviTor has more than one wife — ^if^ consequently^ many women remain without husbands; there will be a deficiency of children: the multiplication will not suffice to make np for the mortality. Food being sufficient^ and other things equal, it will result that of two conflicting peoples^ the one which does not utilize all its women as mothers, will be unable to hold its gfround against the other which does thus utilise them: the monogamous will disappear before the poljgynous. Hence, probably, a chief reason why in rude societies and little-developed societies, where all men being warriors many faU in wars, polygyny prevails so widely. Another way in which, under early conditions, polygyny conduces to social self-preservation, is thb. In a barbarous community formed of some wifeless meD| others who have one wife each, and others who have more than one, it must on the average happen that this last class will be the relatively superior — ^the stronger and more courageous among savages, and among semi-civilized peoples the wealthier also, who are mostly the more capable. Hence, ordinarily, a greater number of offspring will be left by men having natures of the kind needed. The society will be rendered by polygyny not only numerically stronger, bfi^ more of its units will be efficient i^arriors. There is also a resulting structural advance. As compared with lower types of the family, polygyny, by establishment of descent in the male line, conduces to j>plitical stability. It is true that in many polygynous societies succession of rulers is in the female line (the savage system of kinship having survived); and here the advantage is not achieved. This may be a reason why in Africa, where this law of descent is conmioni social consolidation is so incomplete; kingdoms being from time to time formed and afler brief periods dissolved again, as we before saw. But under POTiYGYNY. 691 POTiYGYNY. 691 polygyny, inheritance of power by sons becomes possible; and where it arises, government is better maintained. Not indeed that it is well maintained; for when we read that among the Damaras '^ the eldest son of the chiefs favourite wife succeeds his father;^' and that among the Koossa Kaffirs^ the king^s son who succeeds is " not always the eldest; it is commonly him whose mother was of the richest and oldest family of any of the king's wives;*' we are shown how polygyny introduces an element of uncertainty in the succession of rulers^ which is adverse to stable government. Farther^ this definite descent in the male line aids the development of ftT^fiefltnr»ignrfili ip; and so serves in another way to consolidate society. With subordination to the living there is joined subordination to the dead. Bules^ prohibitions^ commands^ derived from leading men of the past, acquire sacred sanctions; and, as all early civilizations show OS, the resulting cult helps to maintain order and increase the efficiency of the offensive and defensive organization.
On the rearing of offspring, the effects, in regions where ^ '^Vv^r--^^ food is scarce, are probably not better th&n, if as good as, those of polyandry; but in warm and productive regions the death-rate of offspring from innutrition is not likely to be higher, and the establishment of positive paternity conduces to protefitiQja..pf_.tliem. In some cases, indeed, polygyny tends directly to diminish the mortality of children: those oases, namely, in which a man is allowed, or is called upon, to marry the widow of his brother and adopt his family. For what we have seen to be originally a right, becomes, in many cases, an obligation. Even among inferior races, as the Chippewas, who require a man to marry his dead brother's wife, an ostensible reason is that he has to provide for his brother's children. And on reading that polygyny is not common with the Ostyaks because " the country is too poor,'' but that '' brothers marry the widows of brothers," we may infer that the mortality of children is, under such conditions, thereby diminished. Very possibly 692 THS D01CS8TIC BSLATIONS.
the Hebrew reqairement tliat a man should raise np seed to kis dead brother^ may have originally been that he should rear his dead brother's children^ though it was afterwards otherwise interpreted; for the demand was made on the surviving brother hj the widow^ who spat in his face before the elders if he refused. The suspicion that obligation to take care of fatherless nephews and nieces^ became a cause for maintaining this form of polygyny, is confirmed by current facts; as witness the following passage in Lady Duff Gordon's Letters from Egypt: — " I met Hassan, the janissary of the American Consulate, a very respectable good man. He told me he had married another wife since last vear. I ■r ■r asked. What for? It was the widow of his brother, who had always lived in the same house with him» like one family, and who died, leaving two boys. She is neither young nor handsome, but he considered it his duty to provide for her and the children, and not let her marry a stranger.'' Though in most rude societies polygyny may not be unfavourable to the rearing of children, and may occasionally check juvenile mortality in societies where philanthropic feeling is undeveloped, yet its I moral effects on children can scarcely be better than those of still lower marital relations. Where there is but one house* holdj dissensions caused by differences of origin and in--terest, must be injurious to character. And even where, as happens in many places, the mothera have separate house* holds, there cannot be escaped the evils of jealousies between the groups; and there still remain the evils caused by a too-diffused paternal care.
On the lives of adults in undeveloped societies, the effects of polygyny are not in all respects bad. Where the habitat is such that women are unable to support themselves, while the number of men is deficient, it results that, if there is no polygyny, some of them, remaining uncared for, lead miserable lives. The Esquimaux furnish an illustration. Adequate food and clothing being under tbeir conditions POLYGYNY. 693 obtainable only by men^ it happens that widows^ when not % taken by surviving men as additional wives, soon die of starvation. Even where food is not difficult to procure, if there is much mortality of males in war, there must, in the absence of polygyny, be many women without that protection which, under primitive conditions, is indispensable.
Certain ills to which adult females of rude societies are inevitably exposed, are thus mitigated by polygyny — ^mitigated in the only way practicable among unsympathetic barbarians. Of course the evils entailed, especially on women, are great. In Madagascar the name for polygyny — " f ampovafesana '^ — signifies " the means of causing enmity f* and that kindred names are commonly applicable to it, we are shown by their use among the Hebrews: in the Mishna, a man^s several wives are called " tzardt,'' that is, troubles, adversaries, or rivals. Very generally the dissension is mitigated by separation. Marsden says of the Battas in Sumatra that '^the husband finds it necessary to allot to each of them [his wives] their several fire-plaoes and cooking utensils, where they dress their own victuals separately, and prepare his in turns. '^ Speaking of the wives of a Mishmi chief, Wilcox says — " The remainder, to avoid domestic quarrels, have separate houses assigned them at some little distance, or live with their relations.*' Throughout Africa there is usually a like arrangement. But obviously the moral mischiefs are thus only in a small degree diminished. Moreover, though it may not absolutely exclude, still, it greatly represses, the higher emotions fostered by the connexions of the sexes. Prompted by the instincts of men and disregarding the pref(M*ences of women, polygyny can but in exceptional cases, and then in only slight degrees, permit of better relations than exist among animals. Associated as it is with the conception of women as property, to be sold by fathers, bought by husbands, and afterwards treated as slaves, there are negatived those sentiments towards \ them inio whicli sympathy and respect enter as necessary elements. How profoundly the lires of adults are tiins yitiated^ may be inferred from the characterization wldch Monteiro gives of the polygynous peoples of Africa.
" The negro knows not love, affection, or jealonsj. « * « In all the long years I have heen in AMca I have never seen a n^gro manifest the least tenderness for or to a negress. « «e * I faaTe never seen a negro put his arm round a woman's waist* or give or receive any caress whatever that wonld indicate the slightest loving regard or affection on mther side. They have no words or expressions in their language indicative of affection or love."
And this testimony harmonizes with testimonies cited by Sir John Lubbock, to the effect that the Hottentots "are so cold and indifferent to one another that you would think there was no such thing as love between them;'' that among the Koussa Elaffirs, there is "no feeling of love in marriage/' and that in Yariba^ '^a man thinks as little of taking a wife as of cutting an ear of com — affection is altogether out of the question." Not, indeed, that we can regard polygyny as ca%ising this absence of the tender emotion associated among ourselves with the relations of the sexes; for lack of it habitually characterizes men of low types, whether they have only one wife each or have several. We can say merely that the practice of polygyny is unfavourable to development of the emotion.
It need scarcely be added that beyond this resulting inferiority in the adult Ufe, there is an abridgement of the life which remains after the reproductive age is passed. Naturally the women, already little regarded, then become utterly unregarded; and the men, if in a less degree, also suffer from lack of the aid prompted by domestic affection. Hence an early close to a miserable old age.
§ 308. A few words must be added respecting the modifications which polygyny undergoes in progressing societies, and which accompany the spread of monogamy.
Between the two or more wives which the stronger man POLYGYNY. 696 among savages secures to himself^ there are no distinctions save Bnch as are caused hj his caprice; but distinctions afterwards arise. Here he has an older and a younger wife,; like the Australian, and occasionally the Bushman. Here he has wives purchased at intervals, of which he makes one or other a favourite; as does the Damara or the Fijian. Here of the several married by him the earliest only is con- i sidered a legitimate wife; as with the Tahitians of rank or the Ghibchas. And here the chief wife is one who has • been given by the king. Naturally from the beginning the tendency has been to establish differences among them, and for the differentiations to grow in course of time definite. Then there comes also the contrast between wives who are native women, and wives who are \ women taken as spoils of war. Hence, probably, the original way in which results the marking off into wives proper and concubines — a way which is indicated even among the Hebrews; who, in Deuteronomy xxi. 10 — 14, are authorized to appropriate individually the women of conquered enemies — women who, as they may be repudiated at pleasure without formal divorce, stand in the position of concubines rather than wives. Once made, a difference of this kind extended itself by recognizing the ranks from which the women married were derived — wives from the superior class; concubines from the inferior; some exempt from labour, some slaves. And then, from the tendency towards inequality of position among the wives, there at length came in advancing societies the recognized \ arrangement of a chief wife; and eventually, with rulers, a queen, whose children were the legitimate successors.
Along with the spread of monogamy in ways to be hereafter described, the decay of polygyny may be regarded as in part produced by this modification which more and more elevated one of the wives, and reduced the rest to a relatively servile condition, passing gradually into a condition less and less authorized. Stages in this transformation were exhibited among the PersiAns^ whose kings^ hesideB concubines, had three or four wives, one of whom waa queen, '^ regarded as wife in a different sense from the others "; and again among the Assyrians, whose kings hA each one wife only, with a certain number of concubines; and again among the Egyptians, whose waU-paintings represent the king with his legitimate wife seated by his side, and his illegitimate wives dancing for their amiisement. It was so, too, with the ancient Peruvian rulers and Ghibcha rulers; as it is still with the rulers of Abyssinia.
Naturally the polygynic arrangement as it decayed, continued longest in connexion with the governing organization, which everywhere and always displays a more archaic condition than other parts of socisJ organization. Becognizing which truth we shall not be surprised by the &ci that polygyny, in its more or less modified forms, survived among monarchs cluring the earlier stages of European dvilization. Ar iiaplied above, it was practised by Merovingian kings: Clothair and his sons furnishing instances. And after being gradually repressed by the Church thronghont other ranks, this plurality of wives or concubines long aorvived in the royal usage of having many mistresses, 'avowed and unavowed: polygyny in this qualified form remaining a tolerated privilege of royalty down to quite late times.
§ 30&. To sum up, we must say, firstly, that in degree of evolution the polygynous type of family is higher than the types we have thus far considered. Its conneiions are equally definite in a lateral direction and more definite in a descending direction. There is greater filial and parental cohesion, caused by conscious unity of Uood on both male and female sides; and the continuity of this cohesion through successive generations, makes possible « more extensive family integration.
Under most conditions polygyny has prevailed against promiscuity and polyandry, because it has subserved social POLYGTNT. 697 needs better. It lias done this by adding to otber canses of social cobesion^ more widely ramifying family connexions. It bas done it by furthering that political stability which results from established succession of rulers in the same family. It has done it by making possible a more developed form of ancestor-worship.
While it has spread widely by supplanting inferior types of the marital relations, it has, in the majority of cases^ held its ground against the superior type; because^ under rude conditions, it conduces in a higher degree to social self-preservation: making possible more rapid replacement of men lost in war, and so increasing the chance of social survival.
But while it has this adaptation to certain low stages of social evolution — ^while in some cases it diminishes juvenile mortality and serves also to diminish the mortality of surplus women; it repeats within the household the barbarism characterizing the life outside the household.
CHAPTER Vin.
MONOGAMY.* § 310. Aleeadt reasons have been given for believing tbat monogamy dates back as far as any other marital relation. Given a state preceding all social arrangements^ and unions of individual men with individual women must liave arisen among other kinds of unions.
Indeed^ certain modes of life necessitating wide dispersion^ such as are pursued by the lowest forest tribes in Brazil and the interior of Bomeo^^modes of life whicli in earlier stages of human evolution must have been commoner than now — ^hinder other relations of the sexes. The Wood-Veddahs illustrate for us the connexion between monogamy and great scattering; and^ ^gein, the Bushmen^ who, having no interdict on polygyny are yet rarely polygynous, show us how separation into very small groups in pursuit of food, tends to produce more or less endaring associations between men and women in pairs. Where the habitat permits larger groups, the unregulated relations of the sexes are qualified by rudimentary monogamic unions * Now that the name polyandry has become cnrrant^ it ia needfol to hm polygyny aa a name for the convene arrangement; and at first it woold Mem that polygyny implies monogyny as its proper oorrelatire. Bat monogyny does not fully express the nmon of one man with one woman, in oontradistinctioo to the unions of one woman with many men and one man with many women; since the feminine unity is alone indicated by it — not the masculine unitj also. Hence mnuogamy, expressing the singleness of the marriage may be fitly retained.
UONOGAUT. 699 as early as by unions of the polyandric and polygynic kinds^ if not earlier. The tendency everywhere shown among the lowest races for men to take possession of women by force^ has this implication; since the monopoly established by each act of violence is over one woman, not over several. Always the state of having two wives must be preceded by the state of having one. And the state of having one must in many cases continue, because of the dif&culty of getting two where the surplus of women is not great.
Of course the union of one man with one woman as it originally exists, shows us but the beginning of monogamic marriage as understood by us. Where, as in cases already given, the wills of the stronger alone initiate and maintain such unions — ^where, as among the Hudson's Bay Indians, according to Heame (quoted by Sir John Lubbock) — *' a weak man, unless he be a good hunter and well beloved, is seldom permitted to keep a wife that a stronger man thinks worth his notice *' — where, as among the Copper Indians, Richardson ^^ more than once saw a stronger man assert his right to take the wife of a weaker countryman;'' monogamy is very unstable. Its instability thus caused by external actions is made greater by internal actions — ^by the disruptive forces of unrestrained impulses. When, even in a superior race like the Semitic, we find wives repudiated with extreme frequency, so that among some tribes of Bedouins, according to Burckhardt, a man will have as many as fifty in succession; we may infer that by slow stages only have enduring monogamic unions been established.
§ 811. There have been several aids to the establishment of th^m. An important one has been a more developed conception of property, with consequent usages of barter and purchase. The wresting of women from one another by the men of a tribe, always checked to some extent by the accompanying danger, was further checked when wives came to be bought, or earned by labour. If he had given to her 700 THE D01C8STIC BSLATIOHS.
father a price^ or a stipulated lengtH of service, a man would resist witt greater determination the abstraction of his wife, than if he had obtained her without this sacrifice; and from other men of the tribe who had similarly bought their wives, naturally siding with him, would come reprobation of one who disregarded his claim. From the same cause arises a restraint on divorce. If a wife has been bought or long laboured for, and if another wife can be had only at like cost^ a barrier is raised against desires tending to dissolve the marriage.
Then, too, in higher stages, predominance of this higher form of the marital relation is favoured by progressive equalization of the sexes in numbers. In proportion as war becomes less frequent, and in proportion as an increasing part of the male population is occupied in industiy, tlie mortality of males diminishes, and the spread of monogamy is furthered. For polygyny now meets with positive resistance. Where there is an approximate balance of men and women, plurality of wives cannot prevail vridely withont leaving many men wifeless; and from them must come a public opinion adverse to polygyny, tending to restrain and diminish it. That public opinion thus acts even on rulers after a certain stage, is shown us by LoVs remark concerning the rarity of polygyny among the Land Dyaks: '^ chiefs sometimes indulge in it, but they are apt to lose their influence over their followers by so doing."
To these negative causes for the spread of monogamy during social evolution, have to be added positive canses. But before turning to them we must contrast the monogamic type of family vnth the types already treated.
§ 312. Evidently, as tested by the definiteness and strength of the links among its members, the monogamic family is the most evolved. In polyandry the maternal connexion is alone distinct, and the children are but partially related to one another. In polygyny both the maternal and MONOOAXY. 701 MONOOAXY. 701 paternal connexions are distinct^ but while some of the children are fully related, others are related on the paternal side only. In monogamy not only are the maternal and paternal connexions both distinct^ but all the children are related on both sides. The family cluster is thus held together by more numerous ties; and beyond the greater cohesion so caused^ there is an absence of that incohesion caused by the jealousies inevitable in the polygynic family. This greater integration continues to characterize the family as it ramifies through successive generations. Definiteness of descent from the same father, grand-father, great grand-father, etc., it has in common with polygyny; but it has abo definiteness of descent from the same mother, grand-mother, great grand-mother, etc. Hence its diverging branches are joined by additional bonds. Where, as with the Bomans, there is a legally-recognized descent in the male line only, so that out of the cognates constituting the whole body of descendants only the agnates are held to be definitely related, the ramifying family stock is incompletely held together; but where, as among ourselves, descendants of female members of the family are included, it is completely held together.
§ 313. How the interests of the society, of the ofEspring, and of the parents, are severally better subserved by monogamy during those later stages of social evolution characterized by it, needs pointing out only for form's sake.
Though, while habitual war and mortality of males leaves constantly a large surplus of females, polygyny favours maintenance of population; yet, when the surplus of females ceases to be large, monogamy becomes superior in productiveness. For, taking the number of females as measuring the possible number of children to be bom in each generation, it cannot be doubted that more children are likely to be bom if each man has a wife, than if some men have many wives while others have none. So that after pas»- 702 THS DOMISTIC EKLATIONS.