Chapter III: Theory of the Original Pairing or Monogamous Family (1)

[BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTE III.--The theory of the pairing family
is not so much the result of a reaction against the theory
of promiscuity as it is a consequence of the perception that
the problems of society can only be solved by appealing to
the laws of human life and organic evolution. Hence Starcke's
highly original _Primitive Family_ (New York, 1889), and
Westermarck's more elaborate and very able treatise on _Human
Marriage_ (London and New York, 1891), showing the influence
in some passages of Starcke's acute reasoning, may fairly be
regarded as epoch-making. Important also are Wake's _Marriage
and Kinship_ (London, 1889) and Letourneau's _L'évolution du
mariage_ (Paris, 1888), which is supplemented by his _Sociology
Based upon Ethnology_ (London, 1893). These writers have carried
farther the suggestions of Darwin, _Descent of Man_ and _Animals
and Plants under Domestication_; and Spencer, _Principles of
Sociology_ (New York, 1879), who had already thrown doubt upon
the communistic theory. A similar general conclusion is reached
in the valuable monograph of Kautsky, "Entstehung der Ehe und
Familie," in _Kosmos_, XII (Stuttgart, 1882), whose original
"hetairism" is but "defective monogamy;" and Peschel's _Races
of Man_ (London, 1889) tends in the same direction. Hildebrand
likewise rejects the communistic theory in his inaugural address
on _Das Problem einer allgemeinen Entwicklungsgeschichte des
Rechts und der Sitte_ (Graz, 1894); and this work should be read
in connection with his _Recht und Sitte auf den verschiedenen
wirthschaftlichen Kulturstufen_ (Jena, 1896). On the other hand,
Kulischer, in "Die geschlechtliche Zuchtwahl bei den Menschen in
der Urzeit," in _ZFE._, VIII, defends original communal marriage
against the views of Darwin. Of special value, likewise, for
this chapter are _Grosse, Die Formen der Familie_ (Freiburg
and Leipzig, 1896); which is favorably examined by Cunow, "Die
ökonomischen Grundlagen der Mutterherrschaft," in _Neue Zeit_,
XVI; Keane, _Ethnology_ (2d ed., Cambridge, 1896); _idem_, _Man:
Past and Present_ (Cambridge, 1899); Frerichs, _Naturgeschichte
des Menschen_ (2d ed., Norden, 1891); Bagehot, _Physics and
Politics_ (London, 1872); as are also the works of Posada,
Crawley, Lang, and Hellwald elsewhere mentioned.

For the family among the lower animals in addition to
Letourneau, Hellwald, and Westermarck, consult Brehm,
_Tierleben_ (Leipzig and Vienna, 1891); his _Bird-Life_
(London, 1874); Herman Müller, _Am Neste_ (Berlin, 1881);
Schäffle, _Bau und Leben des socialen Körpers_ (Tübingen, 1881);
Espinas, _Des sociétés animales_ (2d ed., 1878); Groos, _Die
Spiele der Thiere_ (Jena, 1896), or the English translation
(New York, 1898); and Wagner, "Die Kulturzüchtung des Menschen
gegenüber der Naturzüchtung im Tierreich," in _Kosmos_, 1886,
I. In this connection read also Houzeau, _Études sur les
facultés mentales des animaux_ (Mons, 1872); Vignoli, _Ueber
das Fundamentalgesetz des Intelligenz im Tierreiche_ (Leipzig,
1879); and Salt, _Animals' Rights_ (New York, 1894).

On the problems of sex and kinship mentioned in the text see
Geddes and Thompson, _Evolution of Sex_ (New York, n. d.);
Ellis, _Man and Woman_ (London, 1896); Finck, _Primitive Love_
(New York, 1899), vigorously attacking some of Westermarck's
theories; his _Romantic Love and Personal Beauty_ (London,
1887); Duboc, _Psychologie der Liebe_ (Hannover, 1874);
Mantegazza, _Physiologie der Liebe_ (30th ed., Berlin, 1897);
Klebs, _Verhältniss des männ. und weibl. Geschlechts in der
Natur_ (Jena, 1894); Schroeder, _Das Recht in der geschlechtl.
Ordnung_ (Berlin, 1893); Thomas, "Relations of Sex to Primitive
Social Control," and his "Difference in the Metabolism of
the Sexes," both in _Am. Journal of Sociology_, III (1898);
Sadler, _The Law of Population_ (London, 1830); Starkweather,
_The Law of Sex_ (London, 1883); Hofacker and Notter,
_Uber die Eigenschaften ... welche sich auf die Nachkommen
vererben_ (Tübingen, 1827); Ploss, _Das Weib_ (Leipzig, 1895);
also his _Ueber die das Geschlechtsverhältniss der Kinder
bedingenden Ursachen_ (Berlin, 1859); Schenk, _Einfluss auf
das Geschlechtsverhältniss_ (3d ed., Magdeburg and Vienna,
1898); the brilliant monograph of Düsing, _Die Regulierung
des Geschlechtsverhältnisses_ (Jena, 1884); Huth, _Marriage
of Near Kin_ (2d ed., 1887); Lewkowitsch, "Die Ehen zwischen
Geschwisterkindern and ihre Folgen," in _ZFE._, VIII; and
Mitchell, "Blood-Relationship in Marriage," in _Mem. of London
Anth. Society_, 1865, II, 402 ff.

Several important points are treated in Tylor's _Early
History of Mankind_ (New York, 1878); and in his _Method of
Investigating Institutions_. See also Kovalevsky, _Tableau
des origines et de l'évolution de la famille_ (Stockholm,
1890); Swinderen, _De Polygynia_ (Groningae, 1795); and for a
curiosity, read Premontval, _La monogamie_ (1751). In general,
the literature cited in Bibliographical Note II has been used,
and so need not here be described.]

I. THE PROBLEM OF PROMISCUITY

The researches of several recent writers, notably those of Starcke and Westermarck, confirming in part and further developing the earlier conclusions of Darwin and Spencer, have established a probability that marriage or pairing between one man and one woman, though the union be often transitory and the rule frequently violated, is the typical form of sexual union from the infancy of the human race. The problem is not yet fully worked out; but if in the end the theory of original promiscuity must be abandoned, and the pairing or monogamous family accepted as the primitive social unit, it is not because of the spiritual and moral superiority of man, as compared with other animals, but because sexual communism as a primitive and general phase of life appears to be inconsistent with the biological, economic, and psychological laws which have determined the general course of organic evolution. Strongly supported and highly probable as is the pairing or monogamic theory, it must be clearly understood in the outset that it is still only a theory and has not yet reached the stage of demonstration. It will hardly do, however, to set aside the researches of its adherents as being superficial and devoid of real scientific method; for the champions of the opposite doctrine of primitive communism are nothing if not daring, and their sweeping generalizations often rest solely on comparatively few "survivals" of alleged conditions which are absolutely "prehistoric."[266]

[266] Among the great living investigators in this field no
one, perhaps, has sinned more frequently in making hazardous
generalizations than KOHLER, who is particularly harsh
in his criticism of Westermarck, Curr, and other adversaries.
See, for example, his _Zur Urgeschichte der Ehe_, 2 ff., 150 ff.

It may be impossible to prove that there ever was a uniform primitive state. "So long as we are within the sphere of experience," says Starcke, "we cannot begin by assuming that there was at any time only a single human community. Experience begins with a plurality of communities, and the single community of which we are in search must be found on the indeterminate boundary between man and animals."[267] Indeed, it seems certain that if we are ever to understand the character of the earliest forms of human marriage and the human family, we must begin by studying the family and marriage as they exist among other and less advanced members of the animal world.[268] Biology, declares Letourneau, is the starting-point of sociology.[269] In this view Starcke coincides. "We have no reason to regard the social life of man as a recent form. Not only do the same psychical forces which influence gregarious man also influence the gregarious animal; probability also leads us to infer that the primitive communities of mankind are derived from those of animals. Since man in so many respects only goes on to develop the previous achievements of animal experience, it may be supposed that he made use of the social experience of animals as the firm foundation of his higher advancement." Besides, "there are human communities which are far less firmly established than those of animals;" and "it may even be asserted that the social faculty is positive in animals and negative in man," for man is "less subservient to instinct."[270] "If we want to find out the origin of marriage," says Westermarck, "we have to strike into another path, the only one which can lead to the truth, but a path which is open to him alone who regards organic nature as one continued chain, the last and most perfect link of which is man. For we can no more stop within the limits of our own species, when trying to find the root of our psychical and social life, than we can understand the physical condition of the human race without taking into consideration that of the lower animals."[271]

[267] _Primitive Family_, 7, 8.

[268] See LETOURNEAU, _L'évolution du mariage_, chap.
ii, on "Le mariage et la famille chez les animaux;" and his
_Sociology_, 327-30, 380-82.

[269] _L'évolution du mariage_, chap. i.

[270] STARCKE, _op. cit._, 8, 9.

[271] _Human Marriage_, 9. See also _ibid._, chap. iii, on the
"Antiquity of Human Marriage."

Accordingly three principal arguments against the existence at any time of a general state of promiscuity have been advanced:

First is the so-called zoölogical argument, based on a comparison of the sexual habits and institutions of animals with those of the lowest races of men. In the outset it is important to observe that the physical differentiation of the sexes is itself a product of the struggle for existence. This important fact is made the starting-point of the argument by which Hellwald[272] finds the elements of the human mother-group and of mother-right in earlier animal experiences. Among the lowest members of the animal kingdom there is no individual distinction of sex. That first makes its appearance when the "artistically constructed organism, in order to sustain itself in the process of evolution, is called upon to perform a wider series of functions." Thus "when an animal is forced to greater exertion, when it must work in order to exist, when unresistingly it can no longer suffer the stream of events to press upon it, but withstands it and seeks in it to follow its own course, then the separation of the sexes appears, and, indeed, as a division of labor created by nature for the purpose of developing species." With further evolution, male and female characteristics become more pronounced, in response to the special functions which each sex is called upon to perform. The same process continues in the case of man. To see in him anything other than the "highest and foremost representative of the animal world, one must be drunk with metaphysical nectar, and nothing is better fitted than comparative physiology to humble one's pride in this regard." For man's entire physical organization is "homologous to that of the higher species of animals." Accordingly, the lower a group of men stands on the ladder of culture, the less marked is the "bodily differentiation of the sexes." Among various backward peoples there is relatively slight difference in outward appearance between the men and the women.[273] The growth of sexual variation in physical structure keeps pace exactly with progress in civilization. This progress depends mainly on two original forces. Of these "without doubt the mightiest is hunger," the need of nourishment. For everywhere on earth the "first thought and striving" of living beings is the "stilling of hunger." Next to the struggle for food, the sexual and pairing impulse is the most potent factor in the genesis of society. The former influence, it is important to observe, is the more constant and the more imperative. The latter grows and becomes more acute with increase in refinement and the consequent development of the nervous system.[274] It follows that in the origin of social institutions the erotic or pairing impulse, however important, is a less cogent genetic force than the economic necessity of a food supply.

[272] _Die mensch. Familie_, 4 ff.

[273] Among the aborigines of New Britain, according to
POWELL, _Unter den Kannibalen von Neubritannien_, 123;
and among the Lacondou Indians of Central America, according to
CHARNAY, _Les anciennes villes du nouveau monde_, 399.
"Negro women of unmixed blood seldom have voluptuous figures, and
in anatomical structure they resemble the men in a remarkable
way, so that seen from a distance they are scarcely to be
distinguished from them. The same is true for a whole series of
low races."--HELLWALD, _op. cit._, 6.

[274] "Bedenken wir die vielen Mittel, die gerade die
Civilisation hierzu bietet, so dürfte dem befremdenden
Urteile nicht mehr zu widersprechen sein, dass bei wirklichen
Naturvölkern und unter normalen sozialen Verhältnissen der
erotische Antrieb ein beschränkterer sei, als auf höheren
Stufen der Civilisation."--LIPPERT, _Geschichte der
Familie_, 29, 30. Among the highly civilized of our own times
the nervous system is very greatly developed, and therewith the
capacity for sexual pleasure is proportionately increased; see
HELLWALD, _op. cit._, 11 ff., 128, and the literature
there cited.

The lives of the lower animals reveal a great variety of sexual relations. The lowest form, and perhaps the most frequent, is that of unlimited promiscuity.[275] Among the invertebrates the preservation of the young is left almost wholly to chance. The duties of the parents are limited mainly to the functions of reproduction. "In the lowest classes of vertebrata, parental care is likewise almost unheard of." It "rarely happens that both parents jointly take care of their progeny."[276] But the chelonia, or tortoise group, are "known to live in pairs;" and here we reach, among animals, the first trace of the family, properly so called. "The chelonia form, with regard to their domestic habits, a transition to the birds, as they do also from a zoölogical and, particularly, from an embryological point of view." Who that has experienced the keen delight afforded by watching the domestic habits of birds, from the building of the nest to the teaching of the young to make the first wavering trial of its wings, cannot bear witness to the high development of marriage and the family among them? The great work of Brehm supplies abundant evidence of their human-like social life.[277] "Parental affection," summarizes Westermarck, "has reached a very high degree of development, not only on the mother's side, but also on the father's. Male and female help each other to build the nest, the former generally bringing the materials, the latter doing the work. In fulfilling the numberless duties of the breeding season both birds take a share. Incubation rests principally with the mother, but the father, as a rule, helps his companion, taking her place when she wants to leave the nest for a moment, or providing her with food and protecting her from every danger. Finally, when the duties of the breeding season are over, and the result desired is obtained, a period with new duties commences. During the first few days after hatching, most birds rarely leave their young for long, and then only to procure food for themselves and their family. In cases of great danger, both parents bravely defend their offspring. As soon as the first period of helplessness is over, and the young have grown somewhat, they are carefully taught to shift for themselves; and it is only when they are perfectly capable of so doing that they leave the nest and the parents."[278] The bird family is usually monogamic, and the marriage is lasting. Birds are generally faithful to the marriage vow; and this is particularly true of the females.[279] "With the exception of those belonging to the gallinaceous family, when pairing," they do so "once for all till either one or the other dies.[280] And Dr. Brehm is so filled with admiration for their exemplary family life that he enthusiastically declares that 'real genuine marriage can only be found among the birds.'"[281]

[275] _Ibid._, 22.

[276] WESTERMARCK, _op. cit._, 9 ff.

[277] BREHM, _Tierleben: Allgemeine Kunde des
Tierreichs_ (10 vols., Leipzig and Vienna, 1891). Vols. IV-VI are
devoted to birds. See also his _Bird-Life_ (London, 1874).

[278] WESTERMARCK, _op. cit._, 11; _cf._ BREHM,
_op. cit._, IV, 19 ff., _passim_; and HERMAN MÜLLER'S
_Am Neste_, which Brehm has used.

[279] DARWIN, _Animals and Plants under Domestication_,
II, 81, speaks of pigeons as being "true to their wedding-vow."
On polygyny and monogamy among animals see _idem_, _Descent of
Man_, 216 ff. "Many mammals and some few birds are polygamous,
but with animals belonging to the lower classes I have found no
evidence of this habit. The intellectual powers of such animals
are, perhaps, not sufficient to lead them to collect and guard a
harem of females" (216, 217). Birds sometimes lose the pairing
"instinct" under domestication (220). Regarding the "marital
virtue" of birds, see HELLWALD, _op. cit._, 30.

[280] "Abweichend von anderen Tieren leben die meisten Vögel
in geschlossener Ehe auf Lebenszeit und nur wenige von ihnen,
gleich den Säugetieren, in Vielweiberei oder richtiger
Vielehigkeit, da eine Vielweiberei einzig und allein bei den
Straussen stattzufinden scheint. Das Pärchen, welches sich einmal
vereinigte, hält während des ganzen Lebens treuinnig zusammen,
und nur ausnahmsweise geschiet es, dass einer der Gatten die
Gesetze einer geschlossenen Ehe missachtet." But since there
are more males than females, the husband often has to fight
for the retention of his wife, though in exceptional cases she
aids him in repelling the aggressor. The wife is sometimes too
ready to follow the victor, and in some cases the widow is very
easily consoled. "Vögel, deren Männchen getötet wurde, waren
schon eine halbe Stunde später wieder verehelicht; der zweite
Gespons wurde ebenfalls ein Opfer seiner Feinde: und dieselben
Weibchen nahmen ohne Bedenken flugs einen dritten Gatten an.
Die Männchen legen gewöhnlich viel tiefere Trauer um den
Verlust ihrer Gattin an den Tag, wahrscheinlich aber nur weil
es ihnen ungleich schwerer wird als den Weibchen, wieder einen
Ehegenossen zu erwerben."--BREHM, _op. cit._, IV, 20,
21. For very interesting examples of marriage and the family
among birds, see HELLWALD, _op. cit._, 26 ff., 38; and
compare WUNDT, _Menschen und Thierseele_, 448 ff.; and
ESPINAS, _Des sociétés animales_, 417 ff., 439.

[281] BREHM, _Bird-Life_, 324; WESTERMARCK,
_op. cit._, 11, 482, 502.

With the lower mammals the union of the sexes is generally of short duration, often only for a single birth, though in several species the parents remain together even after the arrival of the young. But among the higher members examples of monogamic marriage are not infrequent, such being the case with animals of prey.[282] As a rule, the quadrumana live in pairs. Gorillas, however, are said sometimes to be polygynous. "According to Dr. Savage, they live in bands, and all his informants agree in the assertion that but one adult male is seen in every band."[283] But monogamy is perhaps most common. M. du Chaillu declares that he found "almost always one male with one female, though sometimes the old male wanders companionless."[284] The orang-utan and the chimpanzee, like the gorilla, also live in families.[285] Of a truth, promiscuity is far from universal in the pre-human stage.

[282] HELLWALD, _op. cit._, 25, 26.

[283] _Description of Troglodytes Gorilla_, 9 ff.;
WESTERMARCK, _op. cit._, 13.

[284] DU CHAILLU, _Explorations and Adventures in
Equatorial Africa_, 349; WESTERMARCK, _op. cit._, 14.
But see HELLWALD, _op. cit._, 23.

[285] _Cf._ DARWIN, _Descent of Man_, 108, 217 ff., 590,
591, who is cautious in his statement as to the rule among the
quadrumana. KAUTSKY, "Entstehung der Ehe und Familie,"
_Kosmos_, XII, 198 ff., gives some interesting illustrations of
marriage among animals; and see ESPINAS, _op. cit._, 444
ff.; ATKINSON, _Primal Law_, 219-25.

Yet it would be easy to overestimate the value of the argument based upon the sexual relations of the lower animals. But it will not do with Kohler and Lippert to set it aside as entirely irrelevant.[286] Upon the precedents afforded by "anthropomorphic" species in particular, as Hellwald justly insists, no "slight weight should be placed;" for these are "not merely the highest organized animals, but they must also be regarded as the nearest animal relatives of man."[287] Indeed, the transition from the family as it exists among the quadrumana to that of the least-developed races of man is not abrupt, although the lowest examples of mankind yet observed are advanced beyond the supposed primitive human stage. The broad characteristics of the one are the characteristics of the other. The "relations of the sexes are, as a rule, of a more or less durable character." There is conjugal affection. The immediate care of the children belongs to the mother. "Among mammals as well as birds," declares Espinas, "maternal love is the corner-stone of the family."[288] The father is the protector and provider, although paternal love is more slowly developed. Like the male among the lower animals, savage or barbarous man may be "rather indifferent to the welfare of his wife and children, ... but the simplest paternal duties are, nevertheless, universally recognized. If he does nothing else, the father builds the habitation, and employs himself in the chase and in war."[289]

[286] KOHLER, _Zur Urgeschichte der Ehe_, 6, 7;
LIPPERT, _Kulturgeschichte_, I, 72, 73.

[287] HELLWALD, _op. cit._, 26, 27.

[288] _Op. cit._, 444; _cf._ HELLWALD, _op. cit._, 40-42.

[289] WESTERMARCK, _op. cit._, 14-19.
HILDEBRAND, _Ueber das Problem einer allgemeinen
Entwicklungsgeschichte_, 23 ff., maintains the existence of
monogamy in what he holds to be the first culture-stage, that of
the chase. A similar result is reached by MUCKE, _Horde
und Familie_, 59 ff., _passim_: KAUTSKY, _op. cit._,
190 ff.; GROSSE, _Die Formen der Familie_, as above
summarized.

But the argument for the pre-human origin of the elements of marriage and the family does not rest merely upon precedents of sexual habits. It is based rather upon the entire experience of animals in the hard struggle for existence. That struggle, as Hellwald suggests, forced upon them primarily the problem of food-supply, the need of a sort of economic co-operation, more lasting in its results than the pairing instinct. It is the entire social, mental, and moral product of animal experience, of living together, so well described among others by Espinas, Schäffle, Groos, and Wundt, which man in some measure inherited as a rich legacy from his humbler predecessor.[290] Accordingly Westermarck believes that marriage was probably "transmitted to man from some ape-like ancestor, and that there never was a time when it did not occur in the human race."[291] With Starcke, and in harmony with the view of Hellwald already quoted, he holds that marriage and the family cannot rest upon the sexual impulse alone. This is too transitory. Among animals it is obvious that "it cannot be the sexual instinct that keeps male and female together for months and years," for the "generative power is restricted to a certain season;" and it seems highly probable that among men a pairing season prevailed in ancient times. Thus the "wild Indians of California, belonging to the lowest races on earth," are said to "have their rutting seasons as regularly as have the deer, the elk, the antelope, or any other animals."[292] According to Powers, the California Kabinapek "are extremely sensual. In the spring when the wild clover is lush and full of blossoms and they are eating it to a satiety after the famine of winter, they become amorous. This season, therefore, is a literal Saint Valentine's Day with them, as with the natural beasts and birds of the forest."[293] The Tasmanians, the Australian Watch-an-dies, and various other peoples appear to show evidences of the same habit.[294] Vignoli reaches a similar conclusion. "The family union in which man originally finds himself is not an essentially human but likewise an animal fact, since that mode of common social life is found with the greater part of animals and always among the higher. It is the necessity of rearing the young which unites the parents and gives them a common life for a shorter or longer period; indeed in some species this marriage of love and care continues throughout their whole existence. Hence the fact of family sociality is not an exclusive product of humanity, but of the universal laws of the whole animal life upon the earth. Let it not be asserted that in man affection between the sexes and toward their offspring ... is more active, more intense, and more lasting; for it manifests itself with equal strength and sometime with equal duration between animals and toward their young. Thus man loves, cohabits, and lives socially in a primitive family community only because he is an animal and moreover an animal higher in the organic series. So the fact of the family is consummated according to the necessity of cosmic laws governing a great part of the reproductive and social activity of the animal kingdom."[295]

[290] For the social systems among animals, even insects, see
SCHÄFFLE, _Bau und Leben des socialen Körpers_, 20
ff.; WUNDT, _Menschen und Tierseele_, 369 ff., 447
ff.; GROOS, _Spiele der Thiere_, 147 ff., 162 ff., 230
ff.; and especially ESPINAS, _op. cit._, 207 ff., 274
ff., 458 ff., 543 ff. Compare HOUZEAU, _Étude sur les
facultés mentales des animaux_; and the other authors on this
subject cited in Bibliographical Note III.

[291] _Op. cit._, 20; _cf._ KEANE, _Ethnology_, 9,
taking the same view.

[292] SCHOOLCRAFT, _Indian Tribes_, IV, 224.

[293] POWERS, _Tribes of California_, 206. Similar
evidence is furnished by Corbusier: "For two years in succession
I observed that in August and September the women solicited the
attentions of the men, and an unusual number of couples were
seen with their heads hidden in a blanket caressing each other.
The majority of the children were born in the spring."--"The
Apache-Yumas and Apache-Mojaves," _Am. Antiquarian_, VIII, 330.

[294] WESTERMARCK, _op. cit._, 20, 24-38, cites the
literature. On the pairing seasons among men and animals, see
also HELLWALD, _op. cit._, 127 ff.; KULISCHER,
in _ZFE._, VIII, 149 ff.; and MUCKE, _op. cit._, 67 ff.
The pairing season appears to be the result of natural selection,
a device of nature to make sure that the young shall be born at a
time most favorable to their sustenance and survival.

[295] VIGNOLI, _Ueber das Fundamentalgesetz des
Intelligenz im Thierreiche_: translated from HELLWALD,
_Die mensch. Familie_, 42.

According to Starcke, "we are in some respects disposed to underestimate the great influence which sexual matters exert on all the concerns of social life, and the attempt is sometimes made to sever it from moral life, as a matter of which we are constrained to admit the practical existence, although, from the ideal point of view, it ought not to be. On the other hand, its influence on primitive communities has been greatly overrated." The sexual instinct, however powerful, is "devoid of the conditions which form the basis of the leading tendencies in which man's struggle for existence must be fought out." Hence primitive marriage does not rest upon the tender sentiment which we call love,[296] but "as hard and dry as private life itself," it has its "origin in the most concrete and prosaic requirements." The "common household," he continues, "in which each had a given work to do, and the common interest of obtaining and rearing children were the foundations upon which marriage was originally built."[297] Therefore, according to this view, marriage appears to be a kind of contractual relation from the beginning.[298] The conclusions of Westermarck on this point are in substantial harmony with those of Starcke: "The prolonged union of the sexes is, in some way or other, connected with parental duties.... The tie which joins male and female is an instinct developed through the powerful influence of natural selection." This instinct as well as parental affection are "thus useful mental dispositions which, in all probability, have been acquired through the survival of the fittest." So he concludes that "it is for the benefit of the young that male and female continue to live together. Marriage is therefore rooted in family, rather than family in marriage."[299] Hence it is that among many peoples "true conjugal life does not begin before a child is born;" and there are other races who "consider that the birth of a child out of wedlock makes it obligatory for the parents to marry."[300]

[296] Compare the interesting chapter of HELLWALD, "Kuss
und Liebe," _op. cit._, 97-120.

[297] _Primitive Family_, 241, 242, 268, and the whole of chap.
vii, of the second division of the work, in which he gives the
results of the researches comprised in the preceding chapters.
_Cf._ DARGUN, _Mutterrecht und Vaterrecht_, 17, 18, who
favors Starcke's view as against HELLWALD, _op. cit._,
457; also LIPPERT, _Geschichte der Familie_, 118, who
takes a similar position.

[298] "The family is therefore distinguished from the family
group and the clan as a group of kinsfolk established by
contract, and only in a subsidiary sense by the tie of blood
between parents and children."--_Op. cit._, 13. With Starcke's
view compare that of Posada, who uses the suggestive word
_symbiose_ (_convivencia_) to express the totality of influences
concerned in the origin of society. He says: "En somme, d'après
tout ce qui vient d'être dit, la société humaine ne peut pas
être considérée comme ayant eu la familie pour origine. A la
force _instinctive_ du sang, au fait nécessaire et primitif de
l'union sexuelle, il faut ajouter et combiner la _symbiose_, qui
tend à devenir territoriale, et résulte du besoin fondamental de
la conservation: elle implique la coopération universelle et la
vie de relation, déterminée par le plaisir, par la sympathie,
par la nécessité de faire face aux exigences d'autres hommes;
elle implique aussi la coopération universelle, non plus de mari
à femme, ni de père à fils, mais d'homme à homme."--_Théories
modernes_, 99, 100, 96, 81 ff., _passim_.

[299] WESTERMARCK, _op. cit._, 20-22.

[300] _Ibid._, 22 ff., 379, 535. On these customs, often taken
as evidences of former promiscuity, compare LIPPERT,
_Geschichte der Familie_, 6, 7; and the examples in _ZVR._, V,
353; XI, 135, 136.

As a result of the first argument, then, marriage appears as a fundamental institution, whose beginnings are anterior to the dawn of human history. But there is need of a new definition, one broad enough to satisfy the demands of science. For most existing definitions are of a "merely juridical or ethical nature, comprehending either what is required to make the union legal, or what, in the eye of an idealist, the union ought to be." Hence Westermarck defines marriage, from a scientific point of view, as a "more or less durable connection between male and female, lasting beyond the mere act of propagation till after the birth of offspring;" and Starcke, in like spirit, declares that marriage in the widest sense is "only a connection between man and woman which is of more than momentary duration, and as long as it endures they seek for subsistence in common."[301]

[301] WESTERMARCK, _op. cit._, 19, 20; STARCKE,
_op. cit._, 13. FRIEDRICHS, "Familienstufen und
Eheformen," _ZVR._, X, 253-56, accepts Starcke's conception
of marriage, but finds his definition inadequate. He offers
the following: "Eine von der Rechtsordnung anerkannte und
privilegirte Vereinigung geschlechtsdifferenter Personen,
entweder zur Führung eines gemeinsamen Hausstandes und
zum Geschlechtsverkehr, oder zum ausschliesslichen
Geschlechtsverkehr." _Cf._ HEUSLER, _Institutionen_,
II, 271-76, on the distinction between _Familie_ and _Sippe_.
"Die Familie des Rechtes," he says, "ist nicht ein Verband von
Blutsverwandten sondern eine Gemeinschaft der Hausgenossen;"
but the _Sippe_ (_gens_) is based on blood-relationship (271).
He combats the view of ROSIN, _Der Begriff der
Schwertmagen_, §5. Hellwald, as already seen, prefers the term
"mother-group" for the so-called primitive family; and does
not find marriage proper until the stage of property and full
"mother-right" is reached; see chap. ii.

The second or physiological argument may be very briefly stated. It rests upon the evidence, referred to by Sir Henry Maine, that promiscuous intercourse between the sexes "tends nowadays to a pathological condition very unfavorable to fecundity; and infecundity, amid perpetually belligerent savages, implies weakness and ultimate destruction."[302] Thus Dr. Carpenter, "who visited the West Indies before the abolition of slavery, well remembers the efforts of the planters to form the negroes into families, as the promiscuity into which they were liable to fall produced infertility, and fertility had become important to the slave-owner through the prohibition of the slave-trade."[303] Again "it is a well-known fact that prostitutes very seldom have children, while, according to Dr. Roubaud, those of them who marry young easily become mothers."[304] Furthermore, as Westermarck urges, "in a community where all the women equally belonged to all the men, the younger and prettier ones would of course be most sought after, and take up a position somewhat akin to that of the prostitutes of modern society."[305] Nor is the objection, that "the practice of polyandry prevails among several peoples without any evil results as regards fecundity being heard of," insuperable. For "polyandry scarcely ever implies continued promiscuous intercourse of many men with one woman;" and where it exists the relations of the woman with her husbands is often so regulated as to make the union practically monogamous.[306] In this connection also should be considered the infertility and other evils resulting from the intermarriage of near kindred.[307] For in a state of promiscuity such unions must have been very frequent; and at one stage of social development, if the theory of Morgan were to be accepted, they must have constituted the general rule.

[302] _Early Law and Custom_, 204, 205; _cf._ also
WESTERMARCK, _op. cit._, 115-17.

[303] _Early Law and Custom_, 204, 205, note.

[304] WESTERMARCK, _op. cit._, 115; MANTEGAZZA,
_Die Hygiene der Liebe_, 405; _cf._ MAINE, _op. cit._,
204.

[305] _Op. cit._, 115.

[306] _Ibid._, 115-17. Thus in Tibet but one of the husbands was
usually at home; and among the Todas betrothals are made with the
condition that each of the husbands should live with the wife a
month by turns: _ibid._, 116.

[307] See the elaborate investigation of WESTERMARCK,
_op. cit._, chaps, xiv, xv, especially 334 ff.

According to Westermarck, the strongest objection to ancient promiscuity "is derived from the psychical nature of man and other animals."[308] The third or psychological argument therefore alleges the universal prevalence of sexual jealousy among the races of men.[309] Darwin declares that this passion is found among all male quadrupeds with which he is acquainted; and comes to the conclusion, therefore, that "looking far enough back in the stream of time, and judging from the social habits of man as he now exists, the most probable view is that he aboriginally lived in small communities, each with a single wife, or if powerful with several, whom he jealously guarded against all other men."[310] That jealousy is unknown among "almost all uncivilized peoples" is, indeed, asserted by many adherents of the horde theory.[311] But a mass of evidence relating to savage and barbarous races in all parts of the world shows that such assertions are without foundation. In many tribes the suspected wife is exposed to the vengeful fury of the jealous husband. For example, among the California Indians, according to Powers, "if a married woman is seen even walking in the forest with another man than her husband she is chastised by him;" and "a repetition of the offense is generally punished with speedy death."[312] So "among the Creek 'it was formerly reckoned adultery, if a man took a pitcher of water off a married woman's head and drank of it.'"[313] Women, we are told, are held in little esteem among the Innuit on the coast of Labrador; yet "the men are very jealous," and death is often the penalty for adultery on the part of either spouse.[314] Magalhães, who visited "more than a hundred villages" among "thirty tribes" of Brazilian natives, some of them "already half civilized and others still entirely free from any participation in our institutions, ideas, and pre-conceived notions," records as a result of his observations that "there exists in the Indian family all grades from institutions strict to a degree exceeding anything history tells us about down to the community of women.... Thus I know tribes where there is no marriage, and I know others in which a woman committing adultery is punished by being burned."[315] Moreover, he emphatically warns us that he is speaking here of the "uncatechised" native, not yet demoralized by missionary influence.[316] According to Dobrizhoffer, the Abipones of Paraguay are conspicuous for "conjugal fidelity;" and they are very jealous, taking swift vengeance when infidelity is suspected.[317] Souza, who "lived in Brazil, in what is now the state of Bahia, from 1570 to 1587,"[318] says that "there are always jealousies among" the wives of the polygamous Tupinambás, especially on the part of the first wife, because usually she is "older than the others and less gentle."[319] On the other hand, the Jesuit Anchieta, who was in the same country "from 1553 until his death in 1597," declares that women frequently abandon their consorts to take other men "without any feeling upon the part of the husbands; and I never saw and never heard of any Indian killing any of his wives on account of any feeling about adultery;" but his narrative reveals unmistakable evidence of the existence of sexual jealousies.[320]

[308] _Ibid._, 117-33, 495, 551. With this passage should be read
his extremely interesting chapters on the "Courtship of Man," the
"Means of Attraction," "Liberty of Choice," "Sexual Selection
among Animals," "Sexual Selection of Man; Typical Beauty," and
the "Law of Similarity."

[309] FINCK, _Primitive Love_, 87 ff., criticises
Westermarck's view, presenting a mass of facts to prove the
absence of true jealousy among low races.

[310] _Descent of Man_, 591; _cf._ WESTERMARCK, 117;
and KAUTSKY, 194 ff. On jealousy among animals, see
HELLWALD, _Die mensch. Familie_, 23, 37.

[311] LE BON, _L'homme et les sociétés_, II,
293; WESTERMARCK, _op. cit._, 117; _cf._
GIRAUD-TEULON, _Origines du mariage_, 71.

[312] _Tribes of California_, 412.

[313] ADAIR, _History of the American Indians_, 143;
WESTERMARCK, _op. cit._, 119. _Cf._ KLEMM,
_Kulturgeschichte_, II, 80, who finds evidence in both Americas
of male jealousy among the natives.

[314] "Although the men are very jealous of the favors of their
wives, and incontinence on the part of the latter is certain
to be more or less severely punished, the male offender, if
notoriously persistent in his efforts to obtain forbidden favors,
is usually killed by the injured lover or husband." Separations
are often caused by jealousy.--TURNER, "Ethnology of
the Ungava District," _XI. Rep. Bureau of Eth._, 178, 188, 189.
_Cf._ KRAUSE, _Die Tlinkit Indianer_, 221, who says the
"betrayer of a woman, if he escapes the dagger of the offended
husband, must pay for his offense with presents. If, however, he
is a relative, he takes the position of a subordinate husband
(_Nebenmann_) and must help contribute to the support of the
woman."

[315] JOSÉ VIEIRA DE MAGALHÃES, "Familia e religião
Selvagem," in his "Ensais de Anthropologia, Região e Raças
Selvagens," published in _Revista Trimensal do Instituto
... do Brasil_, XXXVI, 108 ff. The passages quoted here and
elsewhere from Magalhães are given in the translation made
for the author by Professor J. C. Branner. The reports of
MARTIUS, _Ethnographie_, I, 112, 115, 116, 119, 120;
_idem_, _Rechtszustande_, 59, 63, 64, 66-68, seem to confirm that
of Magalhães.

[316] "I refer," he says, "to the uncatechised Indian, for the
catechised one is, as a rule, a degraded being. Whether the
system of catechising is bad, or whether in the efforts directed
especially toward making a religious man, the development of the
eminently social ideas of free labor is forgotten, or whether it
is something else, the fact is this: the catechised Indian is a
degraded man, without original customs, indifferent to everything
and consequently to his wife and almost to his family."

[317] "Of the Weddings and Marriages of the Abipones," in his
_Account of the Abipones_, II, 213. Dobrizhoffer was eight years
among this people during his stay in South America, 1749-67.

[318] I am indebted to Professor J. C. Branner for a translation
of the passages here and elsewhere quoted from Souza and
Anchieta, as also for the dates.

[319] SOUZA, "chap. clii, which treats of the manner
of marriages of the Tupinambas," in his "Tratado descriptivo do
Brazil em 1587," _Revista Inst. Hist._, XIV, 311 ff.

[320] JOSÉ D'ANCHIETA, "Informação dos Casamentos dos
Indios do Brazil," _Revista Trimensal de Hist. e Geog._, VIII,
254-62. "At most," he continues, "they beat the one guilty of
adultery if they can, and he bears it patiently, knowing what he
has done, except in case he is some great chief, and the woman
has no father or strong brothers of whom he is afraid." Then the
author relates how a "great chief," Ambirem, cruelly put a wife
to death for adultery; but this act and others of the same sort
he ascribes to the influence of the French, whom the good priest
evidently does not like.

In fact, among primitive peoples, as suggested by the preceding examples, death or other severe punishment is often the penalty for adultery. It is so in Polynesia, although the fault of the man is usually "condoned;"[321] as also in Micronesia, where the husband does not escape so easily.[322] Extraordinary precautions are sometimes taken to prevent marriage with an impure bride. Frequently the husband requires that the "woman he chooses for his wife shall belong to him, not during his life-time only, but after his death." Hence the widespread practice of sacrificing the wife at the death of the husband; and the frequent restraint upon the remarriage of widows is ascribed to the same cause.[323]

[321] AVERY, "Races of the Indo-Pacific Oceans," _Am.
Antiquarian_, VI, 366. The death penalty also appears in New
Zealand: RUSDEN, I, 21.

[322] WAITZ, _Anthropologie_, V, 106, 107. "When the
wife has broken the marriage vow, the husband may put her away,
returning her property; but when the man is guilty of this crime,
or has even made himself suspected of it, his fate is worse;
for then all the women of the neighborhood troop together and
fall upon the offender with his possessions, who is lucky if he
gets off with a whole skin. His landed property, his house, and
everything he has are completely destroyed. If the husband does
not bear himself humbly or friendly enough towards his wife, or
if otherwise she is no longer pleased with him, she abandons him
and goes to her parents, who then undertake the same work of
destruction. Therefore many men are not willing to marry, and
they live with paid women."

[323] For examples of all these customs read
WESTERMARCK, _op. cit._, 124 ff. On the sacrifice of
widows in India and elsewhere, explained usually as an evidence
of _patria potestas_ under influence of ancestor-worship,
consult ZIMMER, _Altindisches Leben_, 328 ff.;
KOHLER, "Indisches Ehe- und Familienrecht," _ZVR._,
III, 376 ff.; LETOURNEAU, _L'évolution du mariage_,
chap. xv; WAKE, _Marriage and Kinship_, 437 ff.;
HELLWALD, _Die mensch. Familie_, 478-80 (India), 381
(China).

As a final result of his minute examination, Westermarck concludes that there is "not a shred of genuine evidence for the notion that promiscuity ever formed a general stage in the social history of mankind." The hypothesis, he declares, is "essentially unscientific." How, then, it may be asked, can the series of phenomena adduced by McLennan and others to support that hypothesis be otherwise explained?

In the first place, it is believed, the direct evidence as to the existence of races living promiscuously in ancient and modern times will not stand the test of criticism.[324] Often the statements of writers and travelers prove on examination to be erroneous. Thus, for instance, Sir Edward Belcher's assertion, that among the Andaman Islanders "the custom is for the man and woman to remain together until the child is weaned, when they separate, and each seeks a new partner,"[325] has been "disproved by Mr. Man, who, after a very careful investigation of this people, says not only that they are strictly monogamous, but that divorce is unknown, and conjugal fidelity till death not the exception but the rule among them."[326] Sometimes the "facts adduced are not really instances of promiscuity." This appears to be true, as already seen, of the alleged Australian group-marriages. So also the "communism" practiced among the Cahyapós, "who seem to be the most numerous tribe of the central plateaux of Brazil," turns out on examination to be something very different from promiscuity, resembling more the "temporary" marriages already mentioned, though combined with polygyny. "The communism of wives among them," says Magalhães,[327] "is as follows: The woman as soon as she reaches the age at which she is permitted to have relations with a man, conceives by the one who pleases her. During the period of gestation and nursing she is maintained by the father of the child, who may have others in similar charge and these others during similar periods live in the same cabin. As soon as the woman begins to work she is free to conceive by the same man or she may procure another, the charge of supporting the earlier offspring passing to the latter."[328] This institution, it is clear, involves considerable social regulation. Indeed we are particularly warned that "by communism of women is not to be understood anything like prostitution.... This distinction is the more important for the proper comprehension of the savage family, since it is certain that in those same tribes where this communism exists, prostitutes are held in great displeasure." The custom "is a mode of family existence that they judge best according to their ideas and means of living." With it Magalhães contrasts the "exclusiveness" of the neighboring Guatos of the river Plate, in "Brazilian Paraguay," who are not monogamous, each man having "one, two, or three wives according to his ability in hunting, fishing, and the gathering of the different fruits which make up the base of their food." The women are exceedingly modest. "If a Guato woman brought us a fish, some game, wild fruit," or in any way sought "something of ours that she wanted, she did it always with her eyes fixed on the ground or turned toward her husband." The related Chambioás of the Amazon valley are even more severe. Among them women are burned for adultery; and in their "widows' men" they have a curious device for the preservation of domestic peace.[329] All these tribes "guard with great caution against, and some even punish with death, the union of the two sexes before the complete puberty of the woman.... Friar Francisco assured me that the virginity of the man was strictly maintained until the epoch of his marriage, and this was not allowed before he was twenty-five years of age, without even this being the ordinary thing: marriage is commonly after thirty." As a principal reason for this usage are assigned the "force and energy of the offspring."[330]

[324] For general criticism of the hypothesis of promiscuity
compare with WESTERMARCK, _op. cit._, chaps. iv-vi,
51-133; WAKE, _op. cit._, 14-53; LETOURNEAU,
_op. cit._, 46 ff.; STARCKE, _op. cit._, 121 ff., 241
ff., _passim_; SPENCER, _Principles of Sociology_, I,
661-71, 641 ff., _passim_; GROSSE, _Die Formen der
Familie_, 41 ff.

[325] WESTERMARCK, _op. cit._, 52, 53; BELCHER,
"Notes on the Andaman Islands," _Trans. Eth. Soc._, N. S., V, 45.

[326] _Journal Anth. Inst._, XII, 135; WESTERMARCK, _op.
cit._, 57.

[327] MAGALHÃES, _op. cit._, 108 ff.

[328] Compare the somewhat analogous "communism" of the Sia:
STEVENSON, "The Sia," _XI. Rep. of Bureau of Eth._,
19-26.

[329] There are in the villages "men destined to be _viri
viduarum_. These individuals have no other duty; they are
supported by the tribe and do not, like the others, engage in the
exercises of long trips which they all make annually, each in
his turn." This indulgence was justified on the ground that "the
peace which the families enjoyed, and which they would not enjoy
without these individuals, or rather without this institution,
compensated largely for the work that fell upon the others in
supporting them."--MAGALHÃES, _loc. cit._

[330] MAGALHÃES, _loc. cit._

Savage tribes are often extremely licentious; but it is significant that the most immoral are not always lowest in the scale of development. Besides, it is well known that "contact with a higher culture, or more properly, the dregs of it, is pernicious to the morality of peoples living in a more or less primitive condition."[331] Nor can promiscuity as a general social stage be assumed from the existence of some tribes whose sexual relations are but slightly restrained, since, as just seen, there are others, not otherwise more advanced, remarkable for the chastity of the wedded as well as the unwedded life.[332]

[331] WESTERMARCK, _op. cit._, 66 ff., where examples
are given. See the quotation from Magalhães above.

[332] _Ibid._, 61 ff.

The indirect evidence of a former stage of unrestricted sexual relations, based on the existence of certain customs assumed to be its survival, particularly female kinship, exogamy, and polyandry, turns out on examination to be even less convincing than that obtained from direct observation. Primitive man is usually influenced by extremely simple motives; and the great fault of speculation has been the assignment of remote and complex causes for phenomena which are often capable of easier explanation. "The most important features of the life of a community," Starcke observes, "are due to forces at once simple and universal."[333]

[333] _Primitive Family_, 9; _ibid._, 30. STARCKE is
conspicuous for the simple causes which he assigns for the
various phenomena connected with marriage and the family. See
examples, _op. cit._, 43, 49, 50, 106.

II. THE PROBLEM OF MOTHER-RIGHT

Such is the case with attempts to account for kinship in the female line. McLennan thinks it "inconceivable" that it can be due to any cause other than uncertainty of fatherhood; and he holds therefore that it must have preceded the paternal system.[334] Careful research, however, has shown that these assumptions are far from axiomatic. In the first place, the acute criticism of Friedrichs is deserving of special attention. Among a number of low races where relationship with the begetter is not recognized he finds that certainty of fatherhood through securing the fidelity of the wife nevertheless exists. The number is small, but a single certain example, he insists, is sufficient to refute McLennan's hypothesis. Such an example is provided by Semper[335] in the case of the people of the Palau Islands; and it is all the more convincing because here it is only the wife who is prohibited from general sexual intercourse, while young girls may give free play to their desires, and in a measure this is not merely suffered, but even enjoined by social custom.[336] Indeed, savages know well how to secure chastity on the part of their women by such "naïve arts" as infibulation, so realistically described by Ploss in his well-known book on woman.[337]

[334] _Studies_, I, 88, 83-146; _Patriarchal Theory_, chap.
xiii. In general, on kinship in the female line, compare
HELLWALD, _Die mensch. Familie_, 124, 150 ff., 239,
456-58; LIPPERT, _Die Geschichte der Familie_, 4 ff., 8
ff.; _Kulturgeschichte_, II, 90 ff., _passim_; DARGUN,
Mutterrecht und Raubehe, 1 ff., 13, 17; _Mutterrecht und
Vaterrecht_, 1 ff., 43 ff.; GIRAUD-TEULON, _Origines_,
131 ff.; POST, _Geschlechtsg._, 88 ff., 94 ff.;
_Familienrecht_, 7 ff.; _Ursprung_, 37 ff.; _Anfänge_, 10
ff.; _Afrikanische Jurisprudenz_, I, 13 ff.; KOHLER,
_Zur Urgeschichte der Ehe_, 53 ff.; KOVALEVSKY,
_Tableau_, 7 ff.; TYLOR, _On a Method_, 252 ff.;
WILKEN, _Das Matriarchat_, 3 ff.; SMITH,
_Kinship and Marriage_, 131 ff., 151 ff.; LUBBOCK,
_Origin of Civilization_, 149 ff.; MORGAN, _Ancient
Society_, 63 ff., 153-83, 344 ff. All the foregoing writers
sustain in the main McLennan's and Bachofen's principal
assumptions. On the other hand, they are rejected or criticised
by SPENCER, _Principles of Sociology_, I, 665 ff.;
WAKE, _Marriage and Kinship_, chaps. viii, ix, x;
BERNHÖFT, in _ZVR._, VIII, 4 ff.; MAINE,
_Early Law and Custom_, chap, vii; FRIEDRICHS, in
_ZVR._, VIII, 370-83; X, 189 ff.; SCHURMAN, _Ethical
Import of Darwinism_, 223; STARCKE, _Primitive
Family_, 1-120; WESTERMARCK, _Human Marriage_, 96-113.
HILDEBRAND, _Ueber das Problem_, 28-31, holds that
the earlier mother-right gave place to the paternal system
under influence of property. See also LETOURNEAU,
_L'évolution_, 424, 377 ff., who believes that the maternal
system is more archaic, but does not imply promiscuity;
MUCKE, _Horde und Familie_, 114 ff., _passim_; and
KAUTSKY, _Entstehung der Ehe_, 256 ff., 338 ff.,
who holds that the systems were independently developed;
GROSSE, _Die Formen der Familie_, 48 ff., 61, who
believes it possible that the two systems may have been worked
out side by side and that they are not necessarily successive
phases of development.

[335] _Palauinseln_ (1873), 320, 119, 181; KOHLER, in
_ZVR._, VI, 327.

[336] FRIEDRICHS, "Ueber den Ursprung des Matriarchats,"
_ZVR._, VIII, 374, 375.

[337] _Das Weib_, I, 172 ff., 179 ff. See also his _Das Kind_, I,
383 ff.; and compare FRIEDRICHS, _op. cit._, 375, 376;
HELLWALD, _op. cit._, 343.

While not denying that uncertainty of fatherhood may have been influential in some cases, Spencer argues that without this assumption it is perfectly natural that the child should be named from the mother with whom it spends its early life; and where exogamy prevails the custom would become a convenient rule for determining who are marriageable women within the group; for 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."[338]

[338] _Principles of Sociology_, I, 665, 666.