Chapter II: Theory of the Horde and Mother-Right (3)

Though the "filial and fraternal affections may be instinctive," they are "obviously independent of any theory of kinship, its origin or consequences; they are distinct from the perception of the unity of blood upon which kinship depends; and they may have existed long before kinship became an object of thought." Such a group may have been held together chiefly "by the feeling of kindred;" but the "apparent bond of fellowship ... would be that they and theirs had always been companions in war or the chase--joint-tenants of the same cave or grove."[239] Slowly the idea of blood-relationship arose; and eventually observation led to a recognition of the system of kinship through the mother. Further than this, so long as paternity remained uncertain, primitive men could not go. For the theory in question, therefore, the maternal system of kinship existing in the homogeneous "group-stock" is the social fact of fundamental importance. But primitive man was rude, ignorant, relatively helpless. "Before the invention of the arts, and the formation of provident habits, the struggle for existence must often have become very serious. The instincts of self-preservation, therefore, must have frequently predominated." Society would tend toward one common type in which there was little place for the "unselfish affections." In this "struggle for food and security" the balance of the sexes would be disturbed. "As braves and hunters were required and valued, it would be to the interest of every horde to rear, when possible, its healthy male children." The weaker sex must obey the cruel law requiring the "survival of the fittest." Hence arose the common, perhaps general, practice of female infanticide.[240] The result of this disturbance of the balance of the sexes, caused by female infanticide, was a series of customs or phenomena of great sociological interest, requiring notice in the order in which they are supposed to have arisen.

[239] MCLENNAN, _op. cit._, I, 83, 84.

[240] _Ibid._, 90, 91, 75-77; II, 77-80. After the appearance of
totem groups, infanticide would be checked by the blood-feud:
_ibid._, I, 145.

1. The natural consequence of the diminution in the number of women was to enhance their relative importance. Every woman would now have several wooers. Rivalry was fierce and "unrestrained by any sense of delicacy from a copartnery in sexual enjoyments." Quarrels and divisions within the horde would be of frequent occurrence. "These were the first wars for women, and they went to form the habits which established exogamy." But, if complete social disintegration would be avoided, self-preservation required a compromise. A rearrangement in smaller hordes took place; and so "we arrive at last at groups within which harmony was maintained through indifference and promiscuity;" where women, "like other goods," were held in common; and "children, while attached to mothers," belonged to the horde.[241] We have reached in fact, as the first result of female infanticide, the "totem _gens_" or group of totem kindred, having a common name, taken from some plant, heavenly body, or animal, whose image is sometimes tattooed upon their bodies, and which is sometimes revered as an ancestor, sometimes as an ancestral god.[242]

[241] _Ibid._, 91-93.

[242] On totemism see MCLENNAN, _Patriarchal Theory_,
206, 207, 227-29, 230-36; _Studies_, II, 368 ff., _passim_;
MORGAN, _Ancient Society_, 49 ff., who gives many
facts relating to totem _gentes_ among the American Indians
and elsewhere; WAKE, _Marriage and Kinship_,
Index; FISON AND HOWITT, _Kamilaroi and Kurnai_,
40-49, 165-71, who criticise LUBBOCK, _Origin of
Civilization_, 210, 338 ff., 263; STARCKE, _Primitive
Family_, 20 ff., 29 ff., _passim_; TYLOR, _Primitive
Culture_, I, 42, 213, 215. WESTERMARCK, _Human
Marriage_, chap, ix, denies that tattooing is fundamentally
connected with totemism, and holds that it is a form of
ornamentation to serve as a means of sexual attraction. _Cf._
MUCKE, _Horde und Familie_, 77; PLOSS, _Das
Weib_, I, 94 ff.; 196 ff.; BACHOFEN, _Mutterrecht_,
335; FRASER, _Totemism_; _idem_, _Golden Bough_,
III, 416 ff.; CRAWLEY, _Mystic Rose_, 249, 398,
457, 470; HELLWALD, _Die mensch. Familie_, 190 ff.;
FLETCHER, "A Study from the Omaha Tribe," _Procds.
A. A. A. S._, XLVI, 325-34; _idem_, "Emblematic Use of the
Tree in the Dakotan Group," _ibid._, XLV, 191-209; especially
KOHLER, _Zur Urgeschichte der Ehe_, 27 ff.; and
SPENCER AND GILLEN, _Native Tribes of Central
Australia_, containing the best and fullest account of the
Australian forms of the institution.

2. The next institution originating in scarcity of women is polyandry, a form of sexual relations which, by the adherents of the horde-theory, is regarded as the earliest type of the family, properly so called: a family resting upon marriage, that is, upon a courtship "of men and women, protected by public opinion."[243] It is of special interest, because in its progressive phases it is held to be the medium of transition from the maternal to the parental and agnatic systems of kinship; and, therefore, through the aid of contract in the form of wife-purchase, to modern conceptions of the marriage relation. Polyandry is represented as a universal phase of social evolution, constituting the first general modification of promiscuity.[244] Of this there are two principal forms with intermediate stages. In Nair[245] polyandry, the lowest type, we find a condition of sexual relations closely bordering upon the grossest communism. The "wife lives not with her husbands, but with her mother or brothers;" and, under certain "restrictions as to tribe and caste," she is free to choose her husbands or lovers, these not being necessarily related to each other. Here kinship and inheritance are, of course, in the female line. "No Nair knows his father, and every man looks upon his sister's children as his heirs."[246] In a transitional stage the wife has a home of her own, cohabiting with her husbands according to fixed rules. The highest type of polyandry is found in Tibet; and in this case there is a close approach to the essential elements of the modern family. The wife lives in the home of her husbands, who are near relatives, usually brothers. It is the prerogative of the eldest brother to choose the wife. All the children are assumed to belong to him, and, as a matter of fact, the first-born is usually known to be his. Paternity therefore is not entirely uncertain, while the father's blood is always known.[247] The same type of polyandry, somewhat more advanced, appears among the Dravidian Todas of India. Here monogamy and polyandry exist side by side. One man, for example, may have a wife exclusively his own, while his brothers may choose one in common. Usually when one brother has taken a woman to wife, and paid the dower to her parents, the other brothers or very near relatives, all living together, may gain the rights of husbands, "if both he and she consent," by simply providing their respective shares of the dower, which almost invariably consists of from one to four buffaloes.[248] According to Marshall, "no females, whether married or single, possess property; but, under all circumstances of life, are supported by their male relations, being fed from the common stock." When "a father dies, his personal property is divided equally among all his sons. If the deceased, being an elder brother, should have no sons, his next brother inherits all the property. All children of both sexes belong to the father's family; and inheritance runs through the male line only. Thus (1) if a widow should re-marry, her sons by both marriages have claims on their respective father's property. (2) If one or more women are in common to several men, _each_ husband considers _all_ the children as his--though each woman is mother only to her own--and each male child is an heir to the property of all of the fathers." Moreover, there exists a kind of levirate. "In order to avoid the complications that would arise, in the matter of food and the guardianship of property, from the re-marriage of widows, if they entered other families taking their children with them, either a brother or other near relation of her deceased husband takes her to wife." She "remained in the family" is the Toda expression.[249] "Now if we consider that one or more brothers may each become the husband of separate wives by virtue of having each paid a dower, and that younger brothers as they grow to age of maturity, and other brothers as they become widowed, may each either take separate wives or purchase shares in those already in the family, we can at once understand that any degree of complication in perfectly lawful wedded life may be met with, from the sample of the single man living with a single wife to that of the group of relatives married to a group of wives. We begin to see also why tribes following polyandrous habits endeavor to prevent further complications by making widows 'remain in the family.'" It follows that economic motives even here are influential in molding matrimonial institutions. The same motives, the scarcity of subsistence, are likewise the main cause of the very extended female infanticide which widely prevailed previous to 1822, when the Madras government "put a pressure on the Todas, in order to impel them to forsake their murderous practice." It was formerly the habitual custom to smother "all daughters in every family, except one or sometimes two."[250] The Todas are an in-and-in breeding people. "Although there _are_ degrees of kinship, within whose limits the union of the sexes is held in actual abhorrence, yet half brothers and sisters are not included amongst the objectionables."[251]

[243] For MCLENNAN'S best statement as to the nature and
prevalence of polyandry see his interesting letter to Darwin,
_Studies_, II, 50-56, already mentioned.

[244] _Ibid._, I, 93 ff., 97, 133 ff.; II, 47-56; _Patriarchal
Theory_, 267 ff. In general, on polyandry, see MARSHALL,
_A Phrenologist amongst the Todas_, 190-232; STARCKE,
_op. cit._, 128-40, 77 ff., _passim_; SMITH, _Kinship
and Marriage_, 121 ff., 277-79; FISON AND HOWITT,
_op. cit._, 144 ff.; WAKE, _op. cit._, 134-78, Index;
GIRAUD-TEULON, _Origines du mariage_, 150 ff., 434
ff.; WESTERMARCK, _op. cit._, chaps, xx-xxii, 3,
115-17, 547-49; MAYNE, _Hindu Law and Usage_, 60
ff.; SPENCER, _Principles of Sociology_, I, 672-81,
641 ff.; LUBBOCK, _Origin of Civilization_, 79,
143 ff.; SCHMIDT, _Jus primae noctis_, 35, 36,
319, 320; POST, _Familienrecht_, 54-63; _idem_,
_Afrikanische Jurisprudenz_, I, 40, 303; _idem_, _Die
Geschlechtsgenossenschaft_, 16 ff.; LETOURNEAU,
_L'évolution du mariage_, 40, 49, 90-109; MASON,
_Woman's Share in Primitive Culture_, 221, 222; MAINE,
_Early Law and Custom_, 106, 123, 200; FRIEDRICHS,
"Ursprung des Matriarchats," _ZVR._, VIII, 371 ff.; _idem_,
"Familienstufen und Eheformen," _ibid._, X, 257, 258;
MUCKE, _op. cit._, 181-38; KAUTSKY, "Entstehung
der Ehe und Familie," _Kosmos_, XII, 258, 264, 344-48;
BERNHÖFT, in _ZVR._, IX, 12 ff.; KOHLER, _op.
cit._, 143; GROSSE, _Die Formen der Familie_, 117 ff.;
HELLWALD, _op. cit._, 241-61; SCHNEIDER, _Die
Naturvölker_, II, 459 ff.; ACHELIS, _Entwicklung der
Ehe_, 28 ff.; ELLIS, in _Pop. Sci. Monthly_, Oct., 1891.

[245] MCLENNAN believes this form to be wide-spread. It
is found in Ceylon, among the Kasias and Saporogian Cossacks, and
elsewhere. The higher and lower forms often appear together among
the same people: _Studies_, I, 99 ff. "Beena" marriage of Ceylon
is believed to be a modification of their polyandry.

[246] BUCHANAN, _Journey_, II, 594; MCLENNAN,
_op. cit._, I, 102. _Cf._ on the Nairs, GIRAUD-TEULON,
_op. cit._, 150-64; STARCKE, _op. cit._, 83-87, 133 ff.;
SMITH, _Kinship and Marriage_, 122; LETOURNEAU,
_op. cit._, 99-101.

[247] _Cf._ SPENCER, _Principles of Sociology_, I, 676,
677.

[248] MARSHALL, _op. cit._, 210. According to FRAU
JANSSEN (_Globus_, XLIII, 371), it is the custom for
the "young wife to become the spouse of _all_ the brothers
of her husband; her first child counts as that of the eldest
brother, the second as that of the second, and so forth." _Cf._
HELLWALD, _op. cit._, 246.

[249] MARSHALL, _op. cit._, 206, 207. To be a _barudi_
or widow or a _baruda_ or widower is a term of reproach: _ibid._,
208.

[250] _Ibid._, 111, 196, 213.

[251] _Ibid._, 221. In this regard as in many others the Todas
resemble the Veddahs: SARASIN, _Die Weddas von Ceylon_,
I, 465-67. For a good account of polyandry among the Todas and
other peoples see HELLWALD, _op. cit._, 241 ff., 246 ff.

Accordingly, through polyandry, it is held, the transition to the parental or paternal system of kinship becomes possible, and sooner or later it usually takes place. Among the Todas father-right is fully established. In Tibet the inheritance goes to the brothers in the order of birth; and, failing these, to their eldest son, who, as already seen, is often known to be the eldest brother's child. This rule, it is maintained, may readily lead to agnation. Nevertheless the primitive custom of mother-right was very tenacious. Resisted by the gentile organization and the blood-feud, the transition was slow and painful. It was facilitated by contract and initiation.[252] A woman might be bought with the understanding that the children should belong, not to her own clan, but to that of her husband. Or, when contract alone was not sufficient to overcome the resistance of religion and the blood-feud, the same result might be obtained by purchase, followed by initiation into the sacred rites of the husband's kindred.[253] Moreover, as in Tibet and among the Todas, wife-purchase or its survival is sometimes found in connection with polyandry.[254]

[252] On wife-purchase and initiation, as a means of transition
to the paternal system, see MCLENNAN, _Patriarchal
Theory_, 232-38.

[253] Thus, in Guinea, according to Bosman, in ordinary
marriages, even when the wives were purchased, the children
belonged to the mother. "It was customary, however, for a man
to buy and take to wife a slave, a friendless person ... and
consecrate her to his Bossum or god." In this case the "children
would be born of his kindred and worship."--BOSMAN,
_Description of Guinea_, 161; MCLENNAN, _op. cit._, 235,
236.

[254] MASON, _Woman's Share in Primitive Culture_,
222; ROCKHILL, _Land of the Lamas_, 213, 339;
MARSHALL, _op. cit._, 210 ff., 217, 219.

McLennan believes that Tibetan polyandry has been nearly, if not quite, universal, and that it is an "advance upon the Nair type." Many evidences of its alleged actual existence in present and former times are adduced; and where the institution is not found reliance is placed upon the presence of certain customs, such as the Niyoga, or the "appointed daughter," of the Hindus, the Hebrew levirate, and the inheritance by brothers, which are held to be its survivals.[255]

3. The disparity in the number of women would next produce the custom of wife-capture. The normal condition of primitive men is assumed to be that of strife.[256] Women would naturally be sought as the most valuable of the spoils of war. This would lead to polygyny. Since there can be no certainty as to fatherhood where the practice of seizing the women from hostile tribes obtains, wife-capture is the means of maintaining the system of counting kinship through the women only; and the existence of that system, at some time, must be inferred wherever wife-capture or its form in the marriage ceremony is discovered.

[255] An "appointed daughter" is one assigned by contract in
marriage to bear an heir to her father who has no son. In the
Niyoga a son is begotten upon the wife, in the lifetime of the
husband, by a person appointed for that purpose. The levirate
and other like expedients existed also among the Hindus:
_Ordinances of Manu_, IX, 53, 57-69, 97, 143 ff.; BURNELL
AND HOPKINS, 253 ff.; "Gautama," _Sacred Books of the
East_, II, 267 ff.; MAYNE, _Hindu Law and Usage_,
chap. iv; MCLENNAN, _Patriarchal Theory_, 268, 286
ff.; LEIST, _Alt-arisches Jus Gentium_, 122, 123;
JOLLY, _The Hindu Law of Partition_, 144-66; _idem_,
_Rechtliche Stellung der Frauen bei den alten Indern_, 36-38
(levirate). For the Hebrew form of the levirate, see Deuteronomy
25:5-11, where the brother is required to "perform the duty of
an husband's brother to the widow." The book of Ruth contains
many illustrations of primitive family custom. SIR HENRY
MAINE, _Early Law and Custom_, chap. iv, regards the
Niyoga, the levirate, and similar expedients for supplying a
male heir, as fictions, under the influence of the worship of
male ancestors, for maintaining the agnatic family. J. D. Mayne
explains the Niyoga on the theory that the lord and owner of
the wife is the lord of the child, physical paternity not being
essential; and the levirate is an extension of the Niyoga.
MCLENNAN, _op. cit._, 266-339, criticises the theories
of the two last-named writers. See also KOHLER, _Zur
Urgeschichte der Ehe_, 153; HELLWALD, _Die mensch.
Familie_, 262, 274, 470; SCHNEIDER, _Die Naturvölker_,
I, 25; II, 461; ACHELIS, _Entwicklung der Ehe_, 36 ff.;
REDSLOB, _Die Levirats-Ehe bei den Hebräern_, 1 ff.;
STARCKE, _Primitive Family_, 141-58, 159-70 (inheritance
by brothers); SPENCER, _Principles of Sociology_, I,
679-81; LETOURNEAU, _L'évolution du mariage_, chaps.
xii, xv; FISON AND HOWITT, _Kamilaroi and Kurnai_, 146,
147; WAKE, _Marriage and Kinship_, 171-78, 436 ff.;
especially WESTERMARCK, _Human Marriage_, 3, 510-14, who
cites the literature. Various examples are mentioned in _ZVR._,
III, 394-407, 419, 420; VI, 280 (Germany); VIII, 242; X, 81; XI,
237.

[256] MCLENNAN, _Studies_, I, 23, 72, 73, _passim_.

4. Wife-capture leads directly to exogamy, or the rule of not marrying within the group of recognized kindred; that is, at first, among those having the same totem. Exogamy is therefore not regarded as the result of a prejudice against intermarriage of those related by blood. For a time, doubtless, marriage within and without the group was practiced indifferently, as pleasure or opportunity favored. But eventually the possession of a foreign woman was looked upon as the more honorable or respectable; and so at last marriage within the kindred was entirely forbidden. With the rise of wife-capture the original homogeneity of the group gave place to a growing heterogeneity. Soon many alien stocks were represented in the horde. Where polygyny existed, or where several wives were taken in succession, the same family might comprise children representing several totems. These children like their mothers were counted as foreigners. Thus a modified form of exogamy arose. "So far as the system of infanticide allowed, the hordes contained young men and women accounted of different stocks, who might intermarry consistently" with the original rule of exogamy. "Hence grew up a system of betrothals, and of marriage by sale and purchase." But the effect of the system of kinship through males, when it superseded the maternal system, was to "arrest the progress of heterogeneity," and to "restore the original condition of affairs among exogamous races, as regards both the practice of capturing wives and the evolution of the forms of capture."[257]

[257] _Ibid._, I, 127-40, 50-71.

It would be ungrateful not to acknowledge freely the service which McLennan and his adherents have rendered to the social history of mankind. They have brought to light a mass of very important facts which it is highly beneficial for us to know. It cannot be denied that wife-capture, exogamy, and the custom of taking kinship from the mother have very widely prevailed among primitive races. It is not so certain, however, that the right explanation of their origin or of their relation to one another has been given. In the first place, criticism, notably that of Herbert Spencer,[258] has detected fatal weakness and inconsistency in the argument by which Mr. McLennan has sought to establish his theory. It is doubtful, for instance, whether female infanticide has been so important a factor in social evolution.[259] But, granting that it has generally prevailed, it is hard to see how this would greatly disturb the "balance of the sexes." For "tribes in a state of chronic hostility are constantly losing their adult males, and the male mortality so caused is usually considerable. Hence the killing many female infants does not necessitate lack of women: it may merely prevent excess." McLennan's fundamental "assumption is therefore inadmissible."[260] Again it is held that female infanticide, "rendering women scarce, led at once to polyandry within the tribe, and the capturing of women from without." But "where wife-stealing is now practiced it is commonly associated with polygyny;"[261] while conversely, polyandry does not "distinguish wife-stealing tribes," such as the Tasmanians, Australians, Dakotas, and Brazilians. "Contrariwise, though it is not a trait of peoples who rob one another of their women, it is a trait of certain rude peoples who are habitually peaceful;" for instance, the Eskimo, "who do not even know what war is." Furthermore, if wife-capture and exogamy are at once practiced by a cluster of adjacent tribes, the scarcity of women would not be relieved. Inevitably the weaker tribes would "tend toward extinction;" and in the meantime, if a part only of their female infants were killed, they must deliberately "rear the remainder for the benefit" of their enemies.[262] Nor, as Starcke has pointed out, is there anything in a "scarcity of women which could lead a community accustomed to promiscuous intercourse to adopt polyandry; on the contrary, such a scarcity would make it more difficult to set limits" to promiscuity. "Marriage, or the exclusive possession of one woman by one or more men, would become more easy in proportion to the increase in the number of women, since the conflict between the lusts of the men would necessarily become less intense."[263] McLennan believes that exogamy has "been practiced at a certain stage among every race of mankind;" and that endogamy, or the custom of marrying within the kindred, is a "form reached through a long series of social developments."[264] Yet, inconsistently with this, he admits that "the separate endogamous tribes are nearly as numerous, and they are in some respects as rude, as the separate exogamous tribes." He goes even farther, declaring that among a variety of tribes, belonging to "one and the same original stock," endogamy and exogamy are found existing side by side.[265]

[258] _Principles of Sociology_, I, 641 ff. In general for
criticism and summary of McLennan's views see MORGAN,
_Ancient Society_, 509-21; MAINE, _Early Law and
Custom_, 106 ff., 123, 124, 150, 192-228; GIRAUD-TEULON,
_Origines du mariage_, 102 ff., _passim_; SMITH,
_Kinship and Marriage_, 80, 118, 121, 129 ff., 230; FISON
AND HOWITT, _Kamilaroi and Kurnai_, 23 ff., 67, 101 ff.,
130 ff.; LUBBOCK, _Origin of Civilization_, 102,
109, 130, 143 ff., _passim_; SCHURMAN, _The Ethical
Import of Darwinism_, chap, vi; MASON, _Woman's Share
in Primitive Culture_, chap, x; STARCKE, _Primitive
Family_, 94 ff., 128 ff., 141 ff., _passim_; WAKE,
_Marriage and Kinship_, 14 ff., 58 ff., 134 ff., 253 ff.,
297 ff., _passim_; _idem_, "Primitive Family," _Jour. Anth.
Inst._, August, 1879; KAUTSKY, in _Kosmos_, XII, 258
ff.; WESTERMARCK, Index; SPENCER, _Various
Fragments_, 70 ff.; GOMME, "Primitive Human Horde,"
_Jour. Anth. Inst._, XVII, 118-33; who is criticised by
WAKE, "Primitive Human Horde," _ibid._, November, 1887,
276 ff.

[259] Such is the view of LUBBOCK, _Origin of
Civilization_, 103, 129, 134, 135; WESTERMARCK, _Human
Marriage_, 466, 472, 473, 547; FISON AND HOWITT, _op.
cit._, 133 ff., 171 ff., 190, 357; WAKE, _Marriage
and Kinship_, 75 ff. "It is not proved that the tribes which
practice child-murder put to death the female infants by
preference."--STARCKE, _op. cit._, 131 ff. Such is
also the opinion of FISON AND HOWITT, _loc. cit._;
LUBBOCK, _op. cit._, 103; DARWIN, _Descent of
Man_, II, 364, 591-93; and GIRAUD-TEULON, _op. cit._,
110-16. See also SMITH, _Kinship and Marriage in Early
Arabia_, 129, 130, 279-85; FRIEDRICHS, "Familienstufen,"
_ZVR._, X, 219-37; PLOSS, _Das Kind_, II, 243-64;
_idem_, _Das Weib_, I, 250, 251; GROSSE, _Die Formen
der Familie_, 36; SCHNEIDER, _Die Naturvölker_, I, 297
ff.; MARTIN, _Hist. de la femme_, 3 ff.; and various
examples in _ZVR._, VII, 355, 374; IX, 14 ff. (Todas); X, 122;
XI, 427 (Kamerun); BROUARDEL, _L'infanticide_ (Paris,
1897); MARSHALL, _A Phrenologist amongst the Todas_,
108 ff., 190 ff.; NELSON, "The Eskimo about Bering
Strait," in _XVIII. Rep. of Bureau of Eth._, Part I, 289;
CHAMBERLAIN, _The Child_, etc., 110 ff.

In his second series of _Studies_, 74, 111, MCLENNAN
defends his view as to the prevalence of female infanticide and
presents a mass of facts relating to it among many peoples.
FARRER, _Early Wedding Customs_, 224, denies that
infanticide is the cause of exogamy.

[260] SPENCER, _op. cit._, I, 646.

[261] _Ibid._, 646, 647. But McLennan meets this difficulty by
insisting that wife-stealing, among polyandrous peoples would
lead to polygyny on the part of the most successful. This would
also explain the inconsistency alleged by SPENCER
(648) that polygyny and polyandry sometimes coexist, as among
Fuegians, Caribo, Eskimo, Warrens, Hottentots, and the ancient
Britons. See MCLENNAN, _Studies_, I, 145, 146; and _cf._
POST, _Familienrecht_, 62.

[262] SPENCER, _op. cit._, I, 649.

[263] _Primitive Family_, 132. Other objections are brought
forward by this able writer. "It has been suggested that the
motive for the murder of female infants is the fear of becoming
the object of the predatory instincts of other tribes; whence
we must conclude that the tribe which keeps its women alive
is tolerably strong; those tribes which lack women cannot,
therefore, obtain them by violence to any great extent. It also
seems to be a strange thing to kill the female infants from a
dread of being exposed to attack, and at the same time to seek
to increase the number of women by carrying them off by violence
from other tribes."--_Ibid._, 132.

[264] SPENCER, _op. cit._, I, 644.

[265] MCLENNAN, _Studies_, I, 78-80, 124, 142-45, 147
ff.; II, 57 ff. _Cf._ his article on "Exogamy and Endogamy,"
_Fortnightly Review_, XXI, 884 ff., where he seems to waver
somewhat in his conclusions on this point.

Such are some of the results gained simply from an examination of the reasoning of McLennan. They have been here enumerated, not only because they afford an excellent illustration of the extreme complexity of social problems, but also because they may warn us against the perils of hasty speculation. It is not merely in matters of detail that the doctrine of the horde and promiscuity has met with resistance. Its very foundations have recently been powerfully assaulted by the adherents of a totally different view of the origin and development of the human family. How the phenomena of marriage and kinship will appear when seen in a new light, we shall next try to discover.