where the reverse is the case Indeed countries Zafered by Epean drisin polygong is ikely to prevail wherever there is a me of women B the proportion between the sexes is tely one close out of many to which polygyny is due There are several reasons why a man may desire to possess more than one wife! 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." 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. The more wives, the more children; and the more children, the greater power. 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, In Congo, in Pinkerton, Collection of Wallin, Reseanteckningar från it becomes necessary for any man who requires many servants to have many wives. 2 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.1 The proportion between the sexes partly accounts for this, but there are other causes of no less importance. 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 purchasesum 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. 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 1 Westermarck, op. cit. p. 435 sqq. 2 Ibid. p. 493 SII• peronase, ne orings blogus on timed fine orhabits with Aming the Vedtans and Andaman monogamy is as relay itssted upon as anywhere in Europe. The natives of Kar Noober-have but the wife, and lock upon unchastity as a very deadly 12 Among the Koch and Old Kukis polygyny and combinage are forbidden;" wis ng some other aboriginal tribes in India a man, though not expressly forWidden to have many wives, is blamed if he has more than one! Among the Karens of Burma and certain tribes of Indo-China, the Malav Peninsula, and the Indian Archipelago, polygyny is said either to be prohibited or unknown. The Hi Dvaks marry but cne wife, and a chief who once broke through this custom lost all his influence. In Australia there are said to be some truly monogamous tribes; 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." 14 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; 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 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. 1 Darwin, Descent of Man, pp. 217, 590 sq. 2 Hartmann, Die menschenähnlichen Affen, p. 214. As for the moral valuation of the amous forms ci mamaga, iz inoui de conced that event in ing papanous and poipandrous peoples monogamy is permitted by SIVOM & 18, altough in some instances it is associated with poverty and considered men, whereas pogyny, as wded with greatness, is thought praiseworthy. Again, the notion that monogamy is the only proper form of marriage, and that any other form is innor is due ther 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 hones 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 ChristianHy 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. 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 Ipätha, Kūbi and Kubitha, Muri and Matha, Kumbu and Būtha; 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 Kubitha; Kūbi, Ipätha; Kumbu, Matha; and Muri, Butha. In a certain sense, we were told, every Ipai is regarded as married, not by any individual contract, but by organic law, to every Kubitha; every Kubi to every Ipatha, and so forth. If, for instance, a Kubi meet a stranger Ipätha, they address Spencer, Principles of Sociology, i. 657. 1 |