Chapter XL: Marriage (2)

[Footnote 94: _Ibid._ p. 411 _sqq._]

[Footnote 95: Mayer, _Rechte der Israeliten_, ii. 344.]

[Footnote 96: _Koran_, iv. 3.]

[Footnote 97: Cauvet, 'L'organisation de la famille à Athènes,' in _Revue de législation et de jurisprudence_, xxiv. 152. Potter, _Archæologia Græca_, ii. 268. _Cf._ Meier and Schömann, _Der attische Process_, p. 513 _sq._]

[Footnote 98: Isaeus, _Oratio de Pyrrhi hereditate_, 51, p. 43.]

[Footnote 99: Aristotle, _Politica_, ii. 9, p. 1270 a.]

[Footnote 100: Laboulaye, _Recherches sur la condition civile et politique des femmes_, p. 38 _sq._ Ginoulhiac, _Histoire du régime dotal_, p. 66. Meier and Schömann, _op. cit._ p. 513 _sq._]

[Footnote 101: Ginoulhiac, _op. cit._ p. 103.]

[Footnote 102: For _dos necessaria_ in Germany during the Middle Ages, see Mittermaier, _Grundsätze des gemeinen deutschen Privatrechts_, ii. 3.]

[Footnote 103: Eccius, in von Holtzendorff, _Encyclopädie der Rechtswissenschaft_, ii. 414.]

[Footnote 104: _Code Napoléon_, art. 204.]

[Footnote 105: See Maine, _Early History of Institutions_, p. 339.]

[Footnote 106: Sutherland, _Origin and Growth of the Moral Instinct_, i. 243.]

{387} Whilst most of the lower animal species are by instinct either monogamous or polygynous, with man every possible form of marriage occurs. There are marriages of one man with one woman (monogamy), of one man with many women (polygyny), of many men with one woman (polyandry), and, in a few exceptional cases, of many men with many women.[107]

[Footnote 107: Westermarck, _op. cit._ ch. xx.]

Among the causes by which the forms of marriage are influenced the numerical proportion between the sexes plays an important part. Polyandry seems to be due chiefly to a surplus of men, though it prevails only where the circumstances are otherwise in favour of it.[108] It presupposes an abnormally feeble disposition to jealousy, and has probably at all times been exceptional in the human race. There is no solid evidence for the theory set forth by McLennan that it was the rule in early times.[109] On the contrary, this form of marriage seems to require a certain degree of civilisation; we have no trustworthy account of its occurrence among the lowest savages. In polyandrous families the husbands are most frequently brothers, and the eldest brother, at least in many cases, has the superiority. It seems a fair conclusion that in such instances polyandry was originally an expression of fraternal benevolence on the part of the eldest brother, or of urgent demands on the part of the younger ones, who otherwise, on account of the scarcity of women, would have to live unmarried. If additional wives were afterwards acquired, they would naturally be considered the common property of all the brothers; and in this way the group marriage of the Toda type seems to have evolved.[110] Polygyny, also, is to some extent dependent upon the proportion between the sexes. It has been observed in India that polyandry occurs in those parts of the country where the males outnumber the females, polygyny in those {388} where the reverse is the case.[111] Indeed, in countries unaffected by European civilisation polygyny is likely to prevail wherever there is a majority of women. But the proportion between the sexes is only one cause out of many to which polygyny is due.

[Footnote 108: _Ibid._ p. 482.]

[Footnote 109: McLennan, 'The Levirate and Polyandry,' in _Fortnightly Review_, N.S. xxi. 703 _sqq._ _Idem_, _Studies in Ancient History_, p. 112 _sq._]

[Footnote 110: Westermarck, _op. cit._ p. 510 _sqq._ See also Rivers, _Todas_, pp. 515, 519, 521.]

[Footnote 111: Goehlert, 'Die Geschlechtsverschiedenheit der Kinder in den Ehen,' in _Zeitschr. f. Ethnologie_, xiii. 127.]

There are several reasons why a man may desire to possess more than one wife.[112] Monogamy requires from him periodical continence, not only for a certain time every month, but among many peoples during the pregnancy of his wife, and as long as she suckles her child. One of the chief causes of polygyny is the attraction which female youth and beauty exercise upon a man; and at the lower stages of civilisation women generally become old much sooner than in more advanced communities. The liking of men for variety is also a potent factor; the Negroes of Angola asserted that they "were not able to eat always of the same dish."[113] We must further take into account men's desire for offspring, wealth, and authority. The barrenness of a wife is a very common reason for the choice of a new partner; the polygyny of the ancient Hindus seems to have been due chiefly to the fact that men dreaded the idea of dying childless, and even now in the East the desire for offspring is one of the principal causes of polygyny.[114] The more wives, the more children; and the more children, the greater power. In early civilisation a man's relations and connections are often his only friends; and where slavery does not prevail, next to a man's wives the real servant, the only to be counted upon, is the child. Moreover, a man's fortune is increased by a multitude of wives not only through their children, but through their work. Manual labour among savages is undertaken largely by women; and when neither slaves nor persons who will work for hire can be procured, {389} it becomes necessary for any man who requires many servants to have many wives.

[Footnote 112: Westermarck, _op. cit._ p. 483 _sqq._]

[Footnote 113: Merolla da Sorrento, 'Voyage to Congo,' in Pinkerton, _Collection of Voyages_, xvi. 299.]

[Footnote 114: Wallin, _Reseanteckningar från Orienten_, iii. 267. Le Bon, _La civilisation des Arabes_, p. 424. Gray, _China_, i. 184.]

Nevertheless, however desirable polygyny may be from the man's point of view, it is altogether prohibited among many peoples, and in countries where it is an established institution it is practised--as a rule to which there are few exceptions--only by a comparatively small class.[115] The proportion between the sexes partly accounts for this, but there are other causes of no less importance.[116] Where the amount of female labour is limited and no accumulated property exists, it may be very difficult for a man to keep a plurality of wives. Again, where female labour is of considerable value, the necessity of paying the purchase-sum for a wife is a hindrance to polygyny which can be overcome only by the wealthier men. There are, moreover, certain factors of a psychical character which are unfavourable to polygyny. When love depends on external attractions only, it is necessarily fickle; but when it implies sympathy arising from mental qualities, there is a tie between husband and wife which lasts long after youth and beauty are gone. As another obstacle to polygyny we have to note the true monogamous sentiment, the absorbing passion for one, which is not unknown even among savage races. Polygyny is finally checked by the respect in which women are held by men. Jealousy is not exclusively a masculine passion, and it is the ambition of every wife to be the mistress of her husband's house. Hence where women have succeeded in obtaining some power over their husbands, or where the altruistic feelings of men have become refined enough to lead them to respect the feelings of those weaker than themselves, monogamy is frequently the result.

[Footnote 115: Westermarck, _op. cit._ p. 435 _sqq._]

[Footnote 116: _Ibid._ p. 493 _sqq._]

It is certain that polygyny has been less prevalent at the lowest stages of civilisation--where wars do not seriously disturb the proportion of the sexes, where life is chiefly supported by hunting and female labour is consequently of slight value, and where there is no accumulation of wealth {390} and no distinction of class--than it is at somewhat higher stages.[117] The more advanced savages and barbarians seem to indulge in this practice to a greater extent than the lower ones, many, or most, of whom are either little addicted to polygyny or strictly monogamous. Various forest tribes in Brazil are monogamous,[118] and so are several of the Californian tribes--"a humble and a lowly race, . . . one of the lowest on earth."[119] Thus the Karok do not allow bigamy even to a chief; and though a man may own as many women for slaves as he can purchase, he brings obloquy on himself if he cohabits with more than one.[120] Among the Veddahs[121] and Andaman Islanders[122] monogamy is as rigidly insisted upon as any where in Europe. The natives of Kar Nicobar "have but one wife, and look upon unchastity as a very deadly sin."[123] Among the Koch and Old Kukis polygyny and concubinage are forbidden;[124] whilst among some other aboriginal tribes in India a man, though not expressly forbidden to have many wives, is blamed if he has more than one.[125] Among the Karens of Burma[126] and certain tribes of Indo-China, the Malay Peninsula, and the Indian Archipelago, polygyny is said either to be prohibited or unknown.[127] The Hill Dyaks marry but one wife, and a chief who once broke through this custom lost all his influence.[128] In Australia there are said to be some truly monogamous tribes;[129] in the Birria tribe, for instance, "the possession of more than one wife is absolutely forbidden, or was so before the coming of the whites."[130] {391} Monogamy is all the more likely to have been the general rule among our earliest human ancestors as it seems to be so among the man-like apes. Darwin certainly mentions the gorilla as a polygamist;[131] but the majority of statements we have regarding this animal are to the opposite effect. Relying on the most trustworthy authorities, Professor Hartmann says, "The gorilla lives in a society consisting of male and female and their young of varying ages."[132]

[Footnote 117: Westermarck, _op. cit._ p. 505 _sqq._]

[Footnote 118: von Martius, _op. cit._ i. 274, 298. Wallace, _Travels on the Amazon_, pp. 509, 515 _sqq._ Waitz, _Anthropologie der Naturvölker_, iii. 472.]

[Footnote 119: Powers, _op. cit._ pp. 5, 56, 406. Wilkes, _U. S. Exploring Expedition_, v. 188.]

[Footnote 120: Powers, _op. cit._ p. 22.]

[Footnote 121: Bailey, in _Trans. Ethn. Soc._ N.S. ii. 291 _sq._ Hartshorne, in _Indian Antiquary_, viii. 320.]

[Footnote 122: Man, in _Jour. Anthr. Inst._ xii. 135.]

[Footnote 123: Distant, _ibid._ iii. 4.]

[Footnote 124: Dalton, _op. cit._ p. 91. Stewart, 'Notes on Northern Cachar,' in _Jour. As. Soc. Bengal_, xxiv. 621.]

[Footnote 125: Dalton, _op. cit._ pp. 28, 54. Jellinghaus, 'Munda-Kolhs in Chota Nagpore,' in _Zeitschr. f. Ethnol._ iii. 370.]

[Footnote 126: Smeaton, _Loyal Karens of Burma_, p. 81.]

[Footnote 127: Westermarck, _op. cit._ p. 436 _sq._]

[Footnote 128: Low, _Sarawak_, p. 300.]

[Footnote 129: Curr, _Australian Race_, i. 402; ii. 371.]

[Footnote 130: _Ibid._ ii. 378.]

[Footnote 131: Darwin, _Descent of Man_, pp. 217, 590 _sq._]

[Footnote 132: Hartmann, _Die menschenähnlichen Affen_, p. 214.]

Whilst civilisation is thus up to a certain point favourable to polygyny, it leads in its higher forms to monogamy. Owing to the decrease of wars, the death-rate of the men becomes less, and the considerable disproportion between the sexes which among many warlike peoples makes polygyny almost a law of nature no longer exists among the most advanced nations. No superstitious belief keeps the civilised man apart from his wife during her pregnancy and while she suckles her child; and the suckling time has become much shorter since the introduction of domesticated animals and the use of milk. To a cultivated mind youth and beauty are by no means the only attractions of a woman; and civilisation has made female beauty more durable. The desire for offspring becomes less intense. A large family, instead of being a help in the struggle for existence, is often considered an insufferable burden. A man's kinsfolk are no longer his only friends, and his wealth and power do not depend upon the number of his wives and children. A wife ceases to be a mere labourer, and manual labour is to a large extent replaced by the work of domesticated animals and the use of implements and machines. Moreover, the sentiment of love becomes more refined, the passion for one more absorbing. The feelings of the weaker sex are frequently held in higher regard. And the better education bestowed on women enables them to live comfortably without the support of a husband.

{392} As for the moral valuation of the various forms of marriage, it should be noticed that even among polygynous and polyandrous peoples monogamy is permitted by custom or law, although in some instances it is associated with poverty and considered mean, whereas polygyny, as associated with greatness, is thought praiseworthy.[133] Again, the notion that monogamy is the only proper form of marriage, and that any other form is immoral, is due either to the mere force of habit; or, possibly, to the notion that it is wrong of some men to appropriate a plurality of wives when others in consequence can get none; or to the feeling that polygyny is an offence against the female sex; or to the condemnation of lust. As regards the obligatory monogamy of Christian nations, we have to remember that monogamy was the only recognised form of marriage in the societies on which Christianity was first engrafted, and that it was the only form that could be tolerated by a religion which regarded every gratification of the sexual impulse with suspicion and incontinence as the gravest sin. In its early days the Church showed little respect for women but its horror of sensuality was immense.

[Footnote 133: Spencer, _Principles of Sociology_, i. 657.]

A few words still remain to be said of a form of marriage which has of late been the subject of much discussion in connection with Australian ethnology. Many years ago attention was drawn to the fact that the Kamilaroi tribes in South Australia are divided into four classes, in which brothers and sisters are respectively Ipai and Ip[=a]tha, K[)u]bi and Kub[)i]tha, M[)u]ri and M[=a]tha, Kumbu and B[=u]tha; and that the members of one class are forbidden to marry among themselves, but bound to marry into a certain other class. Thus Ipai may only marry Kub[)i]tha; K[)u]bi, Ip[=a]tha; Kumbu, M[=a]tha; and M[)u]ri, B[=u]tha. In a certain sense, we were told, every Ipai is regarded as married, not by any individual contract, but by organic law, to every Kub[)i]tha; every K[)u]bi to every Ip[=a]tha, and so forth. If, for instance, a K[)u]bi meet a stranger Ip[=a]tha, they address {393} each other as "spouse"; and "a K[)u]bi thus meeting an Ip[=a]tha, though she were of another tribe, would treat her as his wife, and his right to do so would be recognised by her tribe."[134] The institution according to which the men of one division have as wives the women of another division, the Rev. L. Fison called "group marriage." He contends that among the natives of South Australia it has given way in later times, in some measure, to individual marriage. But theoretically, he says, marriage is still communal: "it is based upon the marriage of all the males in one division of a tribe to all the females of the same generation in another division." The chief argument advanced by Mr. Fison in support of his theory is grounded on the terms of relationship in use in the tribes. These terms belong to the "classificatory system" of Mr. Morgan;[135] but he admits that he is not aware of any tribe in which the actual practice is to its full extent what the terms of relationship imply. "Present usage," he says, "is everywhere in advance of the system so implied, and the terms are survivals of an ancient right, not precise indications of custom as it is."[136] The same is granted by Mr. Howitt.[137] Yet I have pointed out, in my criticism of the classificatory system, to what absurd results we must be led if, guided by such terms, we begin to speculate upon early marriage.[138] Moreover, as I have said, "if a K[)u]bi and an Ip[=a]tha address each other as spouse, this does not imply that in former times every K[)u]bi was married to every Ip[=a]tha indiscriminately. On the contrary, the application of such a familiar term might be explained from the fact that the women who may be a man's wives, and those who cannot possibly be so, stand in a widely different relation to him."[139] This suggestion derives support from the following statement made by Dr. Codrington with reference to the Melanesians:--"Speaking {394} generally, it may be said that to a Melanesian man all women, of his own generation at least, are either sisters or wives, to the Melanesian woman all men are either brothers or husbands. . . . It must not be understood that a Melanesian regards all women who are not of his own division as, in fact, his wives, or conceives himself to have rights which he may exercise in regard to those women of them who are unmarried; but the women who may be his wives by marriage and those who cannot possibly be so, stand in a widely different relation to him."[140]

[Footnote 134: Ridley, _Kámilarói_, p. 161 _sq._ (edit. 1866, p. 35 _sqq._). Fison and Howitt, _Kamilaroi and Kurnai_, pp. 36, 51, 53.]

[Footnote 135: Fison and Howitt, _op. cit._ p. 60.]

[Footnote 136: _Ibid._ p. 159 _sq._]

[Footnote 137: Howitt, 'Australian Group Relations,' in _Smithsonian Report_, 1883, p. 817.]

[Footnote 138: Westermarck, _op. cit._ ch. v.]

[Footnote 139: _Ibid._ p. 56.]

[Footnote 140: Codrington, _Melanesians_, p. 22 _sq._]

More recently Messrs. Spencer and Gillen have shown that a marriage system essentially similar to that of the South Australian natives prevails in Central Australia; and they, also, regard it as a later modification of genuine group marriage. Nowadays, they say, the system of individual wives prevails--"modified, however, by the practice of customs according to which, at certain times, much wider marital relations are allowed." But to this rule there is one exception:--"In the Urabunna tribe group marriage actually exists at the present day, a group of men of a certain designation having, not merely nominally but in actual reality, and under normal conditions, marital relations with a group of women of another special designation"; here "individual marriage does not exist either in name or in practice."[141] But, after all, it appears that even among the Urabunna every woman is the special _Nupa_ of one man, and that certain other men, her _Piraungaru_ only have a secondary right to her. Thus, if the Nupa man (the real, or at all events the chief, husband) be present, the Piraungaru (accessory husbands) are allowed to have intercourse with her only in case the Nupa man consents.[142] Is this modification of the Urabunna group marriage a later development from a previous system according to which all the men of a certain group had an equal right to all the {395} women of another group? Here we are on dangerous ground; nothing is more difficult than to decide whether certain customs are survivals or not. We find modifications resembling those connected with the group marriage of the Urabunna both in polyandry and in polygyny; the first husband in a polyandrous family is usually the chief husband, and the first wife in a polygynous family is very frequently the chief wife. We must certainly not conclude that these restrictions have been preceded by an earlier custom which gave equal rights to all the husbands or all the wives; on the contrary, it is more likely that the higher position granted to the first husband or to the first wife is due to the fact that monogamy was the usual form of marriage.[143] Similarly the Urabunna custom may very well have developed out of ordinary individual marriage,[144] and the cause of it may perhaps be, as Mr. N. W. Thomas has suggested,[145] the difficulties which an Australian native often experiences in getting a wife.[146] As for other facts which have been adduced as evidence of Australian group marriage in the past, such as the _jus primæ noctis_, &c., I only desire to emphasise the circumstance that extra-matrimonial intercourse is practised by the Australian natives in a variety of cases the real meaning of which seems obscure. In some instances at least, a magic significance appears to be attributed to it;[147] and that it is a survival of group marriage, in the strict sense of the term, is again only a conjecture.

[Footnote 141: Spencer and Gillen, _Northern Tribes of Central Australia_, p. 140. _Iidem_, _Native Tribes of Central Australia_, p. 62 _sq._]

[Footnote 142: _Iidem_, _Native Tribes_, p. 110.]

[Footnote 143: Westermarck, _op. cit._ pp. 443-448, 457, 458, 508.]

[Footnote 144: _Cf._ Crawley, _op. cit._ p. 482; Lang, _Social Origins_, p. 105 _sq._]

[Footnote 145: Thomas, in a paper read before the Anthropological Institute in 1905. _Cf._ _Idem_, _Kinship and Marriage in Australia_, p. 138.]

[Footnote 146: See Westermarck, _op. cit._ p. 132 _sq._; _infra_, p. 460.]

[Footnote 147: See, _e.g._, Spencer and Gillen, _Northern Tribes_, p. 137 _sq._]

I must admit, therefore, that the facts produced by Messrs. Spencer and Gillen, and the severe criticism which they have passed on my sceptical attitude towards Mr. Fison's group marriage theory have not been able to convince me that among the Australian aborigines individual marriage has evolved out of a previous system of marriage between groups of men and women. Nor has Mr. Howitt, {396} in his recent work on the 'Native Tribes of South-East Australia,' in my opinion, sufficiently proved that such an evolution has taken place.[148] He blames certain "ethnologists of the study" for not being willing "to take the opinion of men who have first-hand knowledge of the natives";[149] but I think we do well in distinguishing between statements based on direct observation and the observer's interpretation of the stated facts. Even suppose, however, that group marriage really was once common in Australia, would that prove that it was once common among mankind at large? Mr. Hewitt's supposition that the practice of group marriage "will be ultimately accepted as one of the primitive conditions of mankind"[150] is no doubt shared by a host of anthropologists. The group marriage theory will probably for some time to come remain the residuary legatee of the old theory of promiscuity; the important works which have lately been published on the Australian aborigines have made people inclined to view the early history of mankind through Australian spectacles. But even the most ardent advocate of Australian group marriage should remember that the existence of kangurus in Australia does not prove that there were once kangurus in England.

[Footnote 148: Mr. Thomas has come to the same result in his book on 'Kinship and Marriage in Australia,' which appeared when the present chapter was already in type. A detailed examination of the facts which have been adduced as evidence of Australian group marriage (p. 127 _sqq._) has led him to the conclusion (p. 147) that prevailing customs in Australia, far from proving the present or former existence of group marriage in that continent, do not even render it probable, and that on the terms of relationship no argument of any sort can be founded which assumes them to refer to consanguinity, kinship, or affinity. "It is therefore not rash to say that the case for group marriage, so far as Australia is concerned, falls to the ground." See _infra_, Addit. Notes.]

[Footnote 149: Howitt, 'Native Tribes of South-East Australia,' in _Folk-Lore_, xvii. 185.]

[Footnote 150: _Idem_, _Native Tribes of South-East Australia_, p. 281.]

* * * * *

The time during which marriage lasts varies extremely in the human race.[151] There are unions which, though legally recognised as marriages, do not endure long enough to deserve to be so called in the natural history sense of the term; there are others which are dissolved only by {397} death. As has already been pointed out, it is probable that among primitive men the union of the sexes lasted till after the birth of the offspring, and we have perhaps some reason to believe that the connection lasted for years. On the whole, progress in civilisation has tended to make marriage more durable. It is evident that at the early stage of development at which women first became valuable as labourers, a wife was united with her husband by a new bond more lasting than youth and beauty. The tie was strengthened by the bride-price and the marriage portion. And a higher development of the paternal feeling, better forethought for the children's welfare, in some instances greater consideration for women, and a more refined love passion have gradually made it stronger, until it has become in many cases indissoluble. Yet we must not conclude that divorce will in the future be less frequent and more restricted by law than it is now in European countries. It should be remembered that the laws of divorce in Christian Europe owe their origin to an idealistic religious commandment which, interpreted in its literal sense, gave rise to legal prescriptions far from harmonising with the mental and social life of the mass of the people. The powerful authority of the Roman Church was necessary to enforce the dogma that marriage is indissoluble. The Reformation introduced somewhat greater liberty in this respect, and modern legislation has gone further in the same direction. In those Christian states of Europe where absolute divorce is permitted the grounds on which it may be sued for are nearly the same for the man and the woman, except in England, where the husband must be accused of one or other of several offences besides adultery. In Italy, Spain, and Portugal, a judicial separation may always be decreed on the ground of the adultery of the wife, but, on the ground of the adultery of the husband, only if it has been committed under certain aggravating circumstances.[152] These laws imply that marriage is not yet a contract on the footing of perfect equality between the sexes; but there is {398} a growing opinion that, where it is not, it ought to be so. Again, when both husband and wife desire to separate, it seems to many enlightened minds that the State has no right to prevent them from dissolving the marriage contract, provided the children are properly cared for; and that for the children, also, it is better to have the supervision of one parent only than of two who cannot agree.

[Footnote 151: Westermarck, _op. cit._ ch. xxiii.]

[Footnote 152: Glasson, _Le mariage civil et le divorce_, pp. 291, 298, 304.]